People, Institutions, Relations: Slovakia and Hungary from the 11th to the 18th Century [New ed.] 3631773579, 9783631773574

Table of contents :
Contents
Introduction
Medieval Roads and Written Sources • Peter Ivanic
Informative Value of Urbariums from the 16th and the 17th Century • Martina Škutová
Municipal Statutes – Source of Law and Education in the Royal Free Towns in the Territory of Present-day Slovakia during the Early Modern Period • Tomáš Tandlich
Hungarian Catholic Synods in the 16th and 17th Centuries and Their Meaning • Dávid Jablonský
Canonical Visitations and Chapter Statutes, Sources for Understanding the Local History of the Spiš Chapter in the Early Modern Period • Miroslav Glejtek
Testimony of Single Items Deposited in the Archive of the Gemer Seniorate in the Town of Revúca on Testimony of That Seniorate in 1681–1792 • Ján Jakubej
Matthias Bel and Nyitra County • Katarína Rácová
Conclusion
References

Citation preview

Contents Introduction .......................................................................................................... Peter Ivanič Medieval Roads and Written Sources ...............................................................

7 11

Martina Škutová Informative Value of Urbariums from the 16th and the 17th Century .......... 39 Tomáš Tandlich Municipal Statutes – Source of Law and Education in the Royal Free Towns in the Territory of Present-day Slovakia during the Early Modern Period ....................................................................................................... 57 Dávid Jablonský Hungarian Catholic Synods in the 16th and 17th Centuries and Their Meaning .................................................................................................................. 83 Miroslav Glejtek Canonical Visitations and Chapter Statutes, Sources for Understanding the Local History of the Spiš Chapter in the Early Modern Period ................ 107 Ján Jakubej Testimony of Single Items Deposited in the Archive of the Gemer Seniorate in the Town of Revúca on Testimony of That Seniorate in 1681–1792 .............................................................................................................. 151 Katarína Rácová Matthias Bel and Nyitra County .......................................................................... 189 Conclusion ............................................................................................................. 215 References ............................................................................................................... 221

Introduction A new state appeared on the map of contemporary Central Eastern Europe during the 10th and the 11th century – Hungary. It was unified under the rule of the Árpáds, a princely line of Hungarians, who came to the Carpathian Basin at the end of the 9th century. They stepped into turbulent relations in this area with disputes for power between Great Moravia, a state of local Slavs and the Kingdom of East Franks. The position of Great Moravia was weakened by dynastic conflicts between the ruler Mojmir II and his younger brother Svätopluk II. The power vacuum created by the downfall of Great Moravia was filled by a coalition, which was quickly put together in order to stop Magyar raids. They were ultimately defeated in the Battle of Lech in 955 by Otto, the King of the Germans. The new state and its Central European neighbors (Poland and Bohemia) that entered onto the European scene at the same time around the year 1000 had to face the close presence of the Holy Roman Empire and its permanent power interest. Especially at the beginning of Hungary’s existence, in the 11th and the 12th century, it was necessary to consider any and all political steps very closely, also with regard to the interests of another contemporary great power  – the Byzantine Empire. The internal dynamics of the Kingdom of Hungary expressed by the formation of institutions, power structures and relations reflected the contemporary tendencies of European feudal development with inevitable local particularities. However, in the case of the Árpád domain, they also followed the tradition of institutions already existing in the territory of Great Moravia (the Christian Church, Duchy, system of roads, organization of servants). Since that period, the history of Slovakia became an integral part of Hungarian history. Not only within its medieval development, temporarily interrupted by the bloody crusade of the Mongol invasion (1241–1242), but also during centuries of the Modern Period, during the Renaissance, the Age of Discovery, the Reformation, as well as the Ottoman expansion. The results of the Battle of Mohács (fought on August 29, 1526) opened the way to Central Europe for the Ottoman Turks and also introduced the rule of the Habsburg dynasty on the Hungarian throne. A  new phase of Hungarian and Slovak history began with the Ottoman Empire as their constant neighbor as well as with the struggles between the Habsburg dynasty and its noble and religious opposition. Continuation of the more or less peaceful development

8

Introduction

of Hungarian and Slovak history emerged only after victory over the Ottoman Turks at the Battle of Vienna in 1683, their final expulsion from the territory of Hungary and cessation of rebellions against the House of Habsburg by the signing of the Peace of Szatmár (1711). This book maps the development of Hungarian society and its way of thinking, with a specific focus on the territory of Slovakia from the 11th to the 18th century. The intention of the authors was to present a continuity of history by examining contemporary phenomena, activities of institutions, as well as the relations and opinions of specific people who were part of creating everyday history. Also during the Middle Ages, the foundation for creating a certain geographical and political unit with a wider system of economic relations was based on the existence of a branched network of roads. The territory of Hungary and its northern regions, that is Slovakia, were connected with more distant areas of Europe, as well as with separate regions, localities, villages and also settlements at the local level, by these roads. The first chapter is an introduction to the problem of roads in the Middle Ages and at the same time an overview of the most important existing sources and specialized literature mapping mainly the territory of Slovakia. At the same time, the author also introduces the current state of research and possible directions for the investigation of the medieval network of roads in this area of Central Eastern Europe. The second chapter deals with urbariums, written documents containing lists of properties of the owners, lists of “masters” of villeins, descriptions of their legal and property status and their obligations towards feudals. Urbariums were introduced in Hungary in the second half of the 15th century. The author focuses on examining the source value of urbariums from the 16th and the 17th century. Towns are considered a specific environment of the medieval universe. Towns started to play a more important role in the 13th century in the Kingdom of Hungary and Slovakia, even though the history of some of them can be traced back to even earlier periods. In the centuries that followed, the first category of towns (royal free towns) were segregated, while the other towns remained at the level of feudal towns. By examining the position of royal free towns, particularly tavernical towns, in the Kingdom of Hungary and Slovakia, the author of the third chapter of this monograph decided to introduce the phenomenon of city statutes and legal regulations in the Modern Period, by which specific communities tried to coordinate and regulate different areas of community life according to their possibilities of self-government. The author focuses on the statute of the town of Trnava of 1604 in his analysis. One of the pillars of medieval society was the Church. The Roman Catholic Church tried to maintain its position in the Kingdom of Hungary also after the

Introduction

9

introduction of the Protestant Reformation in Germany and its penetration into the territory of the state, which was in deep crisis after the death of King Louis II in the Battle of Mohács in 1526. The fourth chapter focuses on examining the place and importance of the Roman Catholic Synods in the 16th and 17th century in the Kingdom of Hungary. Canonical visitations and capitular statutes provide a view of regional relations of the Roman Catholic Church in the Kingdom of Hungary and Slovakia, particularly regarding the life of chapters. With the help of the abovementioned types of sources, the author of the fifth chapter allows us to look into the internal history of the Spič Chapter from the 16th to the 18th century. In the early Modern Period, the history of Slovakia and the Kingdom of Hungary was connected with Protestantism and the activities of Protestant churches. An overview of the history of the Gemer Seniorate from the 1680s to the 1790s is discussed in the sixth chapter. The author of the last chapter introduces us to a scientific world of rationalism and the early period of the Age of Enlightenment. She introduces Matthias Bell, one of the most important scholars of contemporary Hungary, and presents insight into his world. However, by presenting the world of this scholar, she also introduces us to a part of the history of Slovakia and the Kingdom of Hungary by presenting information about Nyitra County in the first half of the 18th century. This book provides insight into the depth of Slovak and Hungarian history; it is the result of research activities carried out by professionals from the Department of History at the Constantine the Philosopher University in Nitra. It helps to highlight the contours of the history of Slovakia and the Kingdom of Hungary and to more deeply understand the relations of European history.

Peter Ivanič

Medieval Roads and Written Sources Medieval written sources contain important information about contemporary roads. In the past, roads were an important orientation line in the country they passed through. This is also supported by the fact that roads are often mentioned in medieval documents in connection with the demarcation of separate properties. Some historical roads were given special names in the past, such as the Czech Road (Via Bohemica) or Amber Road.1 The quality of the transport network reflected the development of the respective civilization. Ancient states systematically built major network of roads. This so far unprecedented boom in road construction was achieved within the Roman Empire. There was a massive transport system built during the Imperial era, which led from Gibraltar to Asia Minor and from Hadrian’s Wall in Britain to Northern Africa. The routes of Roman roads with information about postal stations, places for re-harnessing horses, as well as about distances between separate towns are preserved on the map known as Tabula Peutingeriana.2 The network connecting the Roman Empire with northern Europe was covered by a system of communication routes later known as the Amber Road. There was well-developed long-distance trade on this road, which was based on ancient production and trade centers and penetrated deeply inland into the European mainland up to the north of Europe. Merchants brought the latest achievements, such as jewelry, tools, weapons, metal products and luxury textiles, from south to north, and they transported amber, agricultural products, slaves, leather and furs from north to south. One side route of the Amber Road probably passed through the territory of today’s Slovakia from the Devín Gate through Bratislava along the River Dudváh to the village Čachtice and further along the River Váh to the town of Trenčín. From Trenčín it again connected to the main route through Vlara Pass, but one of its side routes continued through the towns of Žilina and Čadca and through the Jablunkov Pass

1 2

Klimek, Tomáš. Krajiny českého středověku. Praha 2014, p. 110–111. For basic information, please see Musil, Jiří F. Po stezkách k dálnicím. Kapitoly z dějin silnic, silničních dopravných prostředků a silniíčního stavitelství. Praha 1987, p. 9–45. Valachovičová, Zuzana. Niekoľko dôvodov k vzniku ciest v Rímskej ríši. In Medea. Studia mediaevalia et antiqua. 12. Bratislava 2008, p. 89–100.

12

Peter Ivanič

to Silesia, where it once again connected to the main route.3 Another important ancient European trade road led in a west-east direction through the Danubian Lowland.4 Medieval communications were directly linked to prehistorical and ancient transport networks. Slovak historiography has dealt only marginally with the research of roads. Several important works dealing with the problem of medieval roads in the territory of today’s Slovakia have been published in the last few decades.5 The last monograph about roads in the territory of the medieval Kingdom of Hungary was published by Magdolna Szilágyi.6 Research of these networks is possible, thanks to a multidisciplinary approach, so their reconstruction must be based on several types of sources: archaeological, written, and cartographic. Important information about routes of the roads can be also provided by toponyms. Most information about the communication

3 4 5

6

Vangel, Jozef – Decký, Martin. História smerovania hlavných ciest územím dnešného Slovenska. In Q-2006 Cestná konferencia. Zborník 8.  medzinárodnej konferencie. Rajecké Teplice, 3.–4. máj 2006. Žilina 2006, p. 42–49. Kolník, Titus. Stredné Podunajsko – priestor križovatiek kultúr a obchodných ciest od konca staršej železnej doby po sťahovanie národov. In Historický zborník, 2007, no. 1, p. 13–30. Podborský, Vladimír et al. Pravěké dějiny Moravy. Brno 1993, p. 374. Ivanič, Peter. Stredoveká cestná sieť na Pohroní a Poiplí. Nitra 2011. Please, see also a list of older literature. In terms of latter works, please see Slamová, Martina  – Belaček, Boris – Beljak, Ján – Pažinová, Noémi – Chudý, František. Dependence of the Medieval Settlements and Historical Roads to the Natural Environment around the Deserted Castle in Zvolen (Slovakia). In Procedia–Social and Behavioral Sciences, vol. 120, 2014, p. 213–223. Chudý, František – Sadibol, Jozef – Slamová, Martina – Beláček, Boris – Pažinová, Noémi – Beljak, Ján. Identification of Historic Roads in the Forest Landscape by Modern Contactless Methods of Large-scale Mapping. In Informatics, Geoinformatics and Remote Sensing: 14th International Multidisciplinary Scientific Geoconference SGEM 2014. Sofia: SGEM, 2014, p. 183–190. Tomeček, Oto. K problematike výskumu reliktov starých vozových ciest na strednom Slovensku. In Dejiny cestnej dopravy na Slovensku I. Žilina 2015, p. 9–27. For Ponitrie region, please see Lukačka, Ján. Západné Tríbečské podhorie do roku 1526. In Historické štúdie 26. Bratislava 1982, p. 149–151. Lukačka, Ján. Cestná sieť v Nitre a v jej najbližšom okolí v 13. a 14. storočí. In Marsina, Richard (ed.). Nitra v slovenských dejinách. Martin 2002, p. 208–211. Maslíková, Ľudmila. Vývoj cestnej siete v regióne dolného Ponitria do začiatku 15. storočia. In Medea. Studia mediaevalia et antiqua XVI. 2012. Bratislava 2013, p. 23–43. Szilágyi, Magdolna. On the Road:  The History and Archaeology of Medieval Communication Networks in East-Central Europe. Budapest 2014.

Medieval Roads and Written Sources

13

network in the territory of today’s Slovakia in the Middle Ages is provided in preserved documents.

Terminology If we want to write about roads, we must define basic terms: road (communication), road (transport, communication) network. For example, in the first volume of the Encyclopedia of Slovakia, we can find roads defined as trackless land communications used for the transport of people and freight7 and road network as a network of land communications that are used for transport of people and freight8. Jan Martínek understands the term road (communication) as a general name for land communication that can be recognized in the terrain or on a map.9 The term historical road (historical route) is also used. It is defined as a transport corridor connecting important localities or settlement regions, which is linked to a certain historical period. The corridor should be easily recognized in the terrain thanks to distinct footprints or landmarks in the country (particularly hollows) that were created by the repeated crossing of individual parts of the corridor. One corridor may contain several dozens of concurrent hollows that can form several units.10 Martínek also recognizes the term “old road”; it means communication used in a part that no longer exists is not used or has lost its importance.11 The Slovak literature dealing with the issue of medieval communications almost completely misses the basic division of roads. Ján Hunka and Matej Ruttkay distinguish roads in terms of their localization to internal communications in settlement areas and external communications between settlements, micro-, mezo- and macro-regional settlements, including international communications.12 In his monograph, the Czech geographer and geologist Radan Květ divides roads into three types: distant, regional and local. Basically, the term regional road is understood as a connector that shortened distances for traversing distance routes. According to his opinion, a network of local roads is linked to

Encyklopédia Slovenska. (Encyclopedia of Slovakia) I. zväzok. (I. volume) A-D. Bratislava 1977, p. 317. 8 Encyklopédia Slovenska. (Encyclopedia of Slovakia) I., p. 314. 9 Martínek, Jan et al. Poznáváme historické cesty. Brno 2014, p. 7. 10 Ibidem, p. 6. 11 Ibidem, p. 7. 12 Hunka, Ján – Ruttkay, Matej. Historické komunikácie na území stredovekého Slovenska. In Archaeologia historica. 23. Brno 1998, p. 296. 7

14

Peter Ivanič

one regional or distance road. As stated by the abovementioned author, the difference between regional and local routes is only very small.13 A more detailed division of roads was developed by the German explorer Dietrich Denecke. He divided roads into several groups and subgroups according to different factors. On the basis of their regional importance, he divided them into distance trade roads, suburban trade roads, roads of local importance and residential roads and according to their relief into mountain, valley, slope, marginal and entrance (pass) roads. From their position in the road network, he distinguished main roads, side roads and cross roads. On the basis of their natural state and the character of their construction, he distinguished natural and artificially constructed, while natural roads included excavated, rail, sand, mud, and grass roads and the artificially constructed included trunk roads, stone roads, slab roads, and bank roads. According to the character of transport, he distinguished roadways, freight transport roads and roads for horses and for walkers. He divided roadways into roads for wagons and carriages and roads for walkers into mountain pavements and routes of linear settlements. From a functional perspective, he distinguished roads of supra-regional importance (pilgrimage, military, trade and  postal roads) and of regional importance (church, agricultural, industrial roads and roads of regional trade). According to legal qualifications, he divided the roads into public (via publica), real military (strata legitima), forbidden (e.g. thievish), customs, accompanying, vicinal, and private.14 The abovementioned divisions made by Dietrich Denecke for the Middle Ages cannot be accepted without reservations. Another German explorer, Wolfgang Haubrichs, divided the names of preserved roads into eight groups: 1. the legal character and the status of roads; 2. the function and utilization of the roads; 3.  the position and characteristic of the roads; 4. Chronology; 5. starting point and destination; 6. an important event or person, such as a founder or owner; 7. metaphoric denominations and 8. metonymic.15 Peter Csendes prepared a categorization of communications on the basis of their names for Lower Austria. It included the following categories: 1. terms involving 13 Květ, Radan. Duše krajiny. Staré stezky v proměnách věků. Praha 2003, p. 36–39. 14 For more details, see Denecke, Dietrich. Metodische Untersuchung zur historischgeographischen Wegeforschung im Raum zwischen Solling und Harz. Göttinger Geographische Abhandlungen 54. Göttingen 1969, p. 11–112, tab. 10. 15 Haubrichs, Wolfgang. Die volkssprachlichen Bezeichnungen für alte Fernwege im Deutschen, vorwiegend nach westmitteldeutschen Quellen dargestellt. In Burgard, Friedhelm  – Haverkamp, Alfred (ed.). Römerstraßen. Auf den Römerstraßen ins Mittelalter. Beiträge zur Verkehrsgeschichte zwischen Maas und Rhein von der Spätantike bis ins 19. Jahrhundert. Mainz 1997, p. 97–181.

Medieval Roads and Written Sources

15

the name of a nation and thus indicating the direction of the communication; 2. terms locating roads in the landscape; 3. a term referring to the roads’ state of being old and 4. a term involving places names, where the farther the settlement, the longer the road section is.16 The latest classification of the roads in the medieval Kingdom of Hungary was published by MagdolnaSzilágyi. She based her classification primarily on preserved written sources. She divides the communications into several main groups, taking into consideration their hierarchy, legal aspect, functional aspect, mode of traveling and transport, topographic relations between roads, physical properties, vegetation and age. According to hierarchy, she divided roads into distance (via magna, via regia, via exercituum), provincial (via salifera), regional (via forensis, via castrensis) and local (semita, trames, via graminosa). From a legal aspect, she divided communications according to their ownership and administrative use into public (via/strata publica, libera via), common (via /strata communis) and private (via privata); royal authority (via regia, királyút) and those having a legal or illegal character (via recta, via iusta; via falsa, via sinistra). According to their function, she distinguished pilgrim, military (via exercituum, via exercitualis; hadút, hadiút), trade, church, agricultural and industrial communications. Trade roads are further divided into salt (via salifera; sóút; sajtosút), wine (borhordóút) and market (via forensis, via ad fórum; vásárút, vásárosút) roads. In the case of clerical roads, she mentioned the Church (via/semita ad ecclesiam) and deadly roads (holtasút, halotthordóút). Agricultural roads are divided into roads for herds (via gregis, via gregum; csordaút, csordauta), transport of hay (szénahordóút) and mill roads (via molendinaria; malomút, malomlóút). Industrial roads are divided into roads used for the transport of stone (kőhordóút) and wood (via lignaria; erdőlőút). According to the mode of traveling and transport, she distinguished roads for walkers (semita, trames; gyalogút), horse riders (száguldóút), wagons (via currus, via currium; szekérút) and sledges (szánút). On the basis of topographic relations between the roads, she distinguished inter-crossing roads, crossroads (via crucis, crux viarinn; via bifurca(ta), bivium), byways (via média, általút, kisáltalút) and relative position (alsóút, középút, felsőút). According to material and surface, she distinguished communications made of earth (strata terrea), clay (via agyagos, agyagosút) and stone (via lapidosa, via saxosa; kövesút). According to morphology, roads are divided into causeways (hochstraß) and incavated (via cavernea; horhó, horhosút, mélyút). On the basis of vegetation, she distinguished

16 Csendes, Peter. Die Straßen Niederösterreichs im Früh- und Hochmittelalter. Dissertationen der Universität Wien 33. Wien 1969, p. 27.

16

Peter Ivanič

between whether vegetation grows along the road (via (h)erbosa, via (h)erbida, via graminosa; füvesút) or it covers the road (nyárút, sásút). When speaking about age of roads, she uses terms such as via antiqua, via vetus or via nova.17 However, in general we can divide medieval roads according to the method of transport into either land or water and according to their importance into either distance (main or regional or local).

Written Sources Most information about roads in the Middle Ages is provided by contemporary written materials, mainly letters and narrative sources. From the perspective of the research on roads, the most valuable part of the documents is the so-called demarcation  – it means a detailed description of the borders of an aggrieved plot, where important geographical points or lines are roads or phenomena connected with these roads (bridge, ford, toll, etc.). We can also learn from these sources the direction of the particular road or its name. Medieval documents are archived in the network of state archives both in Slovakia and Hungary. A significant part of the documents has been published in source editions that are also available on the Internet.18 The most extensive source edition of the medieval Hungarian documents is Codex diplomaticus Hungariae ecclesiasticus, compiled by György Fejér in the first half of the 19th century. This Codex diplomaticus consists of 40 volumes and describes the period from 104 to 1440.19 Although it is a significant work for that time, it quite often contains inaccurate data (personal names, local names), and so this material source must be compared with later source editions. The re-edition of some incorrect documents was published in the work Codex diplomaticus patrius.20 Hazai oklevéltár was published in 1879.21 Also important for the period of the Árpád dynasty ruling are the editions of Codex diplomaticus Arpadianus 17 Szilágyi, On the Road, p. 86–87. 18 http://library.hungaricana.hu/hu/collection/kozepkori_magyar_okmanytarak/ 19 Fejér, György (ed.). Codex diplomaticus Hungariae ecclesiasticus I.–XI. (hereinafter referred to as CDH) Budapest 2004. (PC CD-ROM). Codex diplomaticus was published in 1829–1844. 20 Nagy, Iván (ed.). Codex diplomaticus Patrius (Hazai okmánytár) I.–VIII. (hereinafter referred to as CDP) Budapest 2005. (PC CD-ROM). The work was originally published between the years 1865–1891. 21 Nagy, Imre – Deák, Farkas – Nagy, Gyula (eds.). Hazai okleveltár 1234–1536 [Domáci (uhorský) diplomatár 1234–1536]. Budapest 2003. (PC CD-ROM). It was originally published in 1879.

Medieval Roads and Written Sources

17

continuatus22 and Regesta regum stirpis Arpadianae critico-diplomatica.23 Sources for the period of the rule of the Anjou dynasty are depicted in the seven-volume work Codex diplomaticus Hungariae Andegavensis (Anjoukori okmánytár).24 Anjou regesta is being published at the moment.25 Paper material from the rule 22 Wenzel, Gusztáv (ed.). Codex diplomaticus Arpadianus continuatus I.–XII. (hereinafter referred to as CDAC) Budapest 2003. (PC DVD-ROM). Codex diplomaticus was published in 1860–1874. 23 Szentpétery, Imre  – Borsa, Iván (eds.). Regesta regum stirpis Arpadianae criticodiplomatica. Tomus I. Budapest 1923. Szentpétery, Imre – Borsa, Iván (eds.). Regesta regum stirpis Arpadianae critico-diplomatica. Tomus II. Budapest 1943. Szentpétery, Imre – Borsa, Iván (eds.). Regesta regum stirpis Arpadianae critico-diplomatica. Tomus II. Volumina 2–3. (hereinafter referred to as RR II/2–3) Budapest 1961. Szentpétery, Imre – Borsa, Iván (eds.). Regesta regum stirpis Arpadianae critico-diplomatica. Tomus II. Volumen 4. Budapest 1987. 24 Nagy, Imre (ed.). Codex diplomaticus Hungariae Andegavensis (Anjoukori okmánytár) I.–VII. (hereinafter referred to as CDHA) Budapest 1878–1920. 25 Kristó, Gyula (ed.). Anjou-kori oklevéltár [Anjou regesta]. Documenta Res Hungaricas Tempore Regum Andegavensium. Illustrantia. I. 1301–1305. Budapest-Szeged 1990. Kristó, Gyula (ed.). Anjou-kori oklevéltár. Documenta Res Hungaricas Tempore Regum Andegavensium. Illustrantia. II. 1306–1310. Budapest-Szeged 1992. Kristó, Gyula (ed.). Anjou-kori oklevéltár. Documenta Res Hungaricas Tempore Regum Andegavensium. Illustrantia. III. 1311–1314. Budapest-Szeged 1994. Kristó, Gyula (ed.). Anjou-kori oklevéltár. Documenta Res Hungaricas Tempore Regum Andegavensium. Illustrantia. IV. 1315–1317. Budapest-Szeged 1996. Kristó, Gyula (ed.). Anjou-kori oklevéltár. Documenta Res Hungaricas Tempore Regum Andegavensium. Illustrantia. V.1318–1320. Budapest-Szeged 1998. Kristó, Gyula (ed.). Anjou-kori oklevéltár. Documenta Res Hungaricas Tempore Regum Andegavensium. Illustrantia. VI. 1321–1322. BudapestSzeged 2000. Blazovich, László  – Gécsi, Lajos (ed.). Anjou-kori oklevéltár [Anjou regesta]. Documenta Res Hungaricas Tempore Regum Andegavensium. Illustrantia. VII. 1323. Budapest-Szeged 1991. Blazovich, László (ed.). Anjou-kori oklevéltár [Anjou regesta]. Documenta Res Hungaricas Tempore Regum Andegavensium. Illustrantia. VIII. 1324. Budapest-Szeged 1993. Gécsi, Lajos (ed.). Anjou-kori oklevéltár [Anjou regesta]. Documenta Res Hungaricas Tempore Regum Andegavensium. Illustrantia. IX. 1325. Budapest-Szeged 1997 Blazovich, László – Gécsi, Lajos (eds.). Anjou-kori oklevéltár [Anjou regesta]. Documenta Res Hungaricas Tempore Regum Andegavensium. Illustrantia. X. 1326. Budapest-Szeged 2000. Almási, Tibor (ed.). Anjou-kori oklevéltár [Anjou regesta]. Documenta Res Hungaricas Tempore Regum Andegavensium. Illustrantia. XI. 1327. Budapest-Szeged 1996. Almási, Tibor (ed.). Anjou-kori oklevéltár [Anjou regesta]. Documenta Res Hungaricas Tempore Regum Andegavensium. Illustrantia. XII. 1328. Budapest-Szeged 2001. Almási, Tibor –Kőfalvi, Tamás (eds.). Anjou-kori oklevéltár [Anjou regesta]. Documenta Res Hungaricas Tempore Regum Andegavensium. Illustrantia. XIII. 1329. Budapest-Szeged 2003. Kőfalvi, Tamás (ed.).

18

Peter Ivanič

Anjou-kori oklevéltár [Anjou regesta]. Documenta Res Hungaricas Tempore Regum Andegavensium. Illustrantia. XIV. 1330. Budapest-Szeged 2004. Tóth, Ildikó Éva (ed.). Anjou-kori oklevéltár [Anjou regesta]. Documenta Res Hungaricas Tempore Regum Andegavensium. Illustrantia. XV. 1331. Budapest-Szeged 2004. Kristó, Gyula (ed.). Anjou-kori oklevéltár [Anjou regesta]. Documenta Res Hungaricas Tempore Regum Andegavensium. Illustrantia. XVII. 1333. Budapest-Szeged 2002. Kristó, Gyula – Makk Ferenc (eds.). Anjou-kori oklevéltár [Anjou regesta]. Documenta Res Hungaricas Tempore Regum Andegavensium. Illustrantia. XIX. 1335. Budapest-Szeged 2004. Piti, Ferenc (ed.). Anjou-kori oklevéltár [Anjou regesta]. Documenta Res Hungaricas Tempore Regum Andegavensium. Illustrantia. XX. 1336. Budapest-Szeged 2004. Blazovich, László – Gécsi, Lajos (eds.) [Anjouo regesta]. Anjou-kori oklevéltár. Documenta Res Hungaricas Tempore Regum Andegavensium. Illustrantia. XXI. 1337. Budapest-Szeged 2004. Piti, Ferenc (ed.). Anjou-kori oklevéltár [Anjou regesta]. Documenta Res Hungaricas Tempore Regum Andegavensium. Illustrantia. XXIII. 1338. Budapest-Szeged 2012. Piti, Ferenc (ed.). Anjou-kori oklevéltár [Anjou regesta]. Documenta Res Hungaricas Tempore Regum Andegavensium. Illustrantia. XXIII. 1339. Budapest-Szeged 1999. Piti, Ferenc (ed.). Anjou-kori oklevéltár [Anjou regesta]. Documenta Res Hungaricas Tempore Regum Andegavensium. Illustrantia. XXIV. 1340. Budapest-Szeged 2001. Sebők, Ferenc (ed.). Anjou-kori oklevéltár [Anjou regesta]. Documenta Res Hungaricas Tempore Regum Andegavensium. Illustrantia. XXV. 1341. Budapest-Szeged 2004. Piti, Ferenc (ed.). Anjou-kori oklevéltár [Anjou regesta]. Documenta Res Hungaricas Tempore Regum Andegavensium. Illustrantia. XXVI. 1342. Budapest-Szeged 2007. Piti, Ferenc (ed.). Anjou-kori oklevéltár [Anjou regesta]. Documenta Res Hungaricas Tempore Regum Andegavensium. Illustrantia. XXVII. 1343. Budapest-Szeged 2007. Piti, Ferenc (ed.). Anjou-kori oklevéltár [Anjou regesta]. Documenta Res Hungaricas Tempore Regum Andegavensium. Illustrantia. XXVIII. 1344. Budapest-Szeged 2010. Piti, Ferenc (ed.). Anjou-kori oklevéltár [Anjou regesta]. Documenta Res Hungaricas Tempore Regum Andegavensium. Illustrantia. XXIV. 1345. Budapest-Szeged 2013. Piti, Ferenc (ed.). Anjou-kori oklevéltár [Anjou regesta]. Documenta Res Hungaricas Tempore Regum Andegavensium. Illustrantia. XXX. 1346. Budapest-Szeged 2014. Piti, Ferenc (ed.). Anjou-kori oklevéltár [Anjou regesta]. Documenta Res Hungaricas Tempore Regum Andegavensium. Illustrantia. XXXI. 1347. Budapest-Szeged 2007. Sebők, Ferenc (ed.). Anjou-kori oklevéltár [Anjou regesta]. Documenta Res Hungaricas Tempore Regum Andegavensium. Illustrantia. XXXII. 1348. Budapest-Szeged 2015. Sebők, Ferenc (ed.). Anjou-kori oklevéltár [Anjou regesta]. Documenta Res Hungaricas Tempore Regum Andegavensium. Illustrantia. XXXIII. 1349. Budapest-Szeged 2015. Teiszler, Éva (ed.). Anjou-kori oklevéltár [Anjou regesta]. Documenta Res Hungaricas Tempore Regum Andegavensium. Illustrantia. XXXIV. 1350. Budapest-Szeged 2013. Halász, Éva B. (ed.). Anjou-kori oklevéltár [Anjou regesta]. Documenta Res Hungaricas Tempore Regum Andegavensium. Illustrantia. XXXVIII. 1354. Budapest-Szeged 2013. Rábay, Krisztina (ed.). Anjou-kori oklevéltár [Anjou regesta]. Documenta Res Hungaricas Tempore Regum Andegavensium. Illustrantia. XL. 1356. Budapest-Szeged 2014.

Medieval Roads and Written Sources

19

of Sigismund of Luxemburg is included in the edition Zsigmondkori oklevéltár.26 Twelve volumes have been published so far and they contain documents from 1387 to 1425. For the period of the Hunyadi rule, the work published by Csánki Dezső27 and József Teleki28 is important.

26 Mályusz, Elemér (ed.). Zsigmondkori oklevéltár I.  (1387–1399) [Žigmundovský diplomatár I.  (1387–1399)]. Budapest 1951. Mályusz, Elemér (ed.). Zsigmondkori oklevéltár II/1 (1400–1406) [Žigmundovský diplomatár II/1 (1400–1406)]. Budapest 1956. Mályusz, Elemér (ed.). Zsigmondkori oklevéltár II/2 (1407–1410) [Žigmundovský diplomatár II/2 (1407–1410)]. Budapest 1958. Mályusz, Elemér – Borsa, Iván (eds.). Zsigmondkori oklevéltár III. (1411–1412) [Žigmundovský diplomatár III.(1411–1412)]. Budapest 1993. Mályusz, Elemér – Borsa, Iván (eds.). Zsigmondkori oklevéltár IV. (1413– 1414) [Žigmundovský diplomatár IV. (1413–1414)]. Budapest 1994. Mályusz, Elemér – Borsa, Iván (eds.). Zsigmondkori oklevéltár V. (1415–1416) [Žigmundovský diplomatár V. (1415–1416)]. Budapest 1997. Mályusz, Elemér – Borsa, Iván (eds.). Zsigmondkori oklevéltár IV. (1417–1418) [Žigmundovský diplomatár VI. (1417–1418)]. Budapest 1999. Mályusz, Elemér – Borsa, Iván (eds.). Zsigmondkori oklevéltár VII. (1419–1420) [Žigmundovský diplomatár VII. (1419–1420)]. Budapest 2000. Borsa, Iván – Tóth, Norbert (eds.). Zsigmondkori oklevéltár VIII. (1421) [Žigmundovský diplomatár VIII. (1424)]. Budapest 2003. Borsa, Iván – Tóth, Norbert (eds.). Zsigmondkori oklevéltár IX. (1422) [Žigmundovský diplomatár IX. (1422)]. Budapest 2004. Tóth, Norbert (ed.). Zsigmondkori oklevéltár X. (1423) [Žigmundovský diplomatár X. (1423)]. Budapest 2007. Tóth, Norbert C. – Neumann, Tibor (eds.). Zsigmondkori oklevéltár XI. (1424) [Žigmundovský diplomatár XI. (1424)]. Budapest 2009. Tóth, Norbert C. – Lakatos, Bálint (eds.). Zsigmondkori oklevéltár XII. (1425) [Žigmundovský diplomatár XII. (1425)]. Budapest 2013. 27 Csánki Dezső (ed.). Magyarország történelmi földrajza a Hunyadiak korában I.–V. [Historická geografia Uhorska v  dobe Huňadiovcov I.–V.]. Budapest 2002. (PC CD-ROM). The work was published between 1890–1913. 28 Teleki, József (ed.). Hunyadiak kora Magyarországon. Oklevéltár I. [Doba Huňadiovcov v Uhorsku. Diplomatár I.]. Pest 1852. Teleki, József (ed.). Hunyadiak kora Magyarországon. Oklevéltár II. [Doba Huňadiovcov v Uhorsku. Diplomatár II.]. Pest 1852. Teleki, József (ed.). Hunyadiak kora Magyarországon. Oklevéltár III. [Doba Huňadiovcov v Uhorsku. Diplomatár III.]. Pest 1853. Teleki, József (ed.). Hunyadiak kora Magyarországon. Oklevéltár V. [Doba Huňadiovcov v Uhorsku. Diplomatár V.]. Pest 1856. Teleki, József (ed.). Hunyadiak kora Magyarországon. Oklevéltár VI. [Doba Huňadiovcov v Uhorsku. Diplomatár VI.]. Pest 1863. Teleki, József (ed.). Hunyadiak kora Magyarországon. Oklevéltár X. [Doba Huňadiovcov v Uhorsku. Diplomatár X.]. Pest 1853. Teleki, József (ed.). Hunyadiak kora Magyarországon. Oklevéltár XI. [Doba Huňadiovcov v Uhorsku. Diplomatár XI.]. Pest 1855. Teleki, József (ed.). Hunyadiak kora Magyarországon. Oklevéltár XII. [Doba Huňadiovcov v Uhorsku. Diplomatár XII.]. Pest 1857.

20

Peter Ivanič

Documents that are related to the territory of Slovakia and were compiled between 805 to 1266 were published by Richard Marsina in the two-volume work Codex diplomaticus et epistolaris Slovaciae.29 Vincent Sedlák processed the period between 1301 to 1323 in the form of regesta.30 In addition to allHungarian or all-Slovak editions, documentary material was also published in county or city diplomatic editions or regesta, as well as in diplomatic editions and regesta of family lines.31 Documentary material dealing with the Chapter of Esztergom is important for the territory of the Archdiocese of Esztergom. A large part of this material was published in the edition Monumenta ecclesiae Strigoniensis. The first two volumes were compiled by Nándor Knauz32, the third volume by Lajos C. Dedek,33 and the fourth volume was published by a composite of authors only recently.34 A diplomatic edition for Hont County was compiled by Ferenc Kubinyi.35 All these editions contain material related to the entire territory of the medieval Kingdom of Hungary. Ctibor Matulay processed administrative and judicial written 29 Marsina, Richard (ed.). Codex diplomaticus et epistolaris Slovaciae I. (hereinafter referred to as CDSl I) Bratislava 1971. Marsina, Richard (ed.). Codex diplomaticus et epistolaris Slovaciae II. (hereinafter referred to as CDSl II) Bratislava 1987. 30 Sedlák, Vincent (ed.). Regesta diplomatica nec non epistolaria Slovaciae I. (hereinafter referred to as RDSl I) Bratislava 1980. Sedlák, Vincent (ed.). Regesta diplomatica nec non epistolaria Slovaciae II. (hereinafter referred to as RDSl II) Bratislava 1987. 31 See Sedlák, Vincent. Slovenský regestár. In Slovenská archivistika, vol. 2, 1967, no. 2, p. 27–28. For latter diplomatic editions see Rábik, Vladimír. Diplomatarium sanctoadalbertinum. Stredoveké listiny v Literárnom archíve Spolku sv. Vojtecha (1181) 1214– 1543. Martin 2008. Marek, Miloš (ed.). Fontes rerum Slovacarum IV. Archivum familiae Očkaj. Stredoveké dejiny rodiny Očkajovcov a listiny z jej archívu. Trnava – Kraków 2015. Marek, Miloš (ed.). Fontes Rerum Slovacarum II. Archivum Familiae Motešický / Stredoveké listiny z archívu rodiny Motešickovcov. Trnava 2011. 32 Knauz, Nándor (ed.). Monumenta ecclesiae Strigoniensis I. (ďalej MES I) Strigonii 1874. Knauz, Nándor (ed.). Monumenta ecclesiae Strigoniensis II. Strigonii 1882. The first volume contains 792 documents from 979 to 1273; the second volume contains 927 documents from 1273 to 1321. 33 Dedek, Ludovicus Crescens (ed.). Monumenta ecclesiae Strigoniensis III. Strigonii 1924. This volume contains 975 documents from 1321 to 1349. 34 Dreska, Gabriel  – Érszegi, Geysa  – Hegedűs, Andres  – Neumann, Tiburcius  – Szovák, Cornelius – Tringli, Stephanus (eds.). Monumenta ecclesiae Strigoniensis IV. Strigonii-Budapestini 1999. 35 Kubinyi, Ferenc (ed.). Diplomatarium Hontense (Oklevelek Hontvármegyei magánlevéltárakból) I.  1256–1399 [Listiny zo súkromných archívov Hontianskeho komitátu/Hontianskej stolice I. 1256–1399]. Budapest 1888.

Medieval Roads and Written Sources

21

documents for the town of Banská Bystrica up until 1536, which also contained references to roads and tolls in Banská Bystrica and its surrounding.36 The medieval communications in Slovakia are also discussed in works devoted to the history of the settlement of separate geographical areas and cultural regions.37 A  work by Pavol Maliniak contains valuable information about roads in the Zvolen basin.38 Marek Tibenský compiled a monograph about the castle Červený Kameň,39 and Tomáš Hrubý has dealt with the settlement of the Dolné Považie region (lower part of the River Váh)40. In these publications, the authors mention written evidence about roads near individual settlements or they discuss a road network in separate sections. They discuss only the most important communications in more details. When describing individual counties of the Kingdom of Hungary, the Hungarian historian György Györffy also mentions written documents about roads in his two-volume work about the settlement of the Kingdom of Hungary under the rule of the Árpád dynasty. The road network is also depicted on maps that form attachments to this work.41 Similar work was also done by István Bakács, who compiled written evidence about individual

36 Matulay, Ctibor (ed.). Mesto Banská Bystrica. Katalóg administratívnych a súdnych písomností. (1020) 1255–1536. I. (hereinafter referred to as MBB I) Bratislava 1980. Matulay, Ctibor (ed.). Mesto Banská Bystrica. Katalóg administratívnych a súdnych písomností. (1020) 1255–1536. II. (hereinafter referred to as MBB II) Bratislava 1980. 37 Please, see Chrastina, Peter in more details. Historická geografia na Slovensku: minulosť, súčasnosť a perspektívy. In Historická geografie. 33. Praha 2005, p. 420–432. Ivanič, Stredoveká cestná sieť, p. 11. Tomeček, Oto. Poznámky k vývoju a aktuálnemu stavu historickogeografického výskumu na Slovensku. In Historická Geografie. 34. Praha 2007, p. 21–44. 38 Maliniak, Pavol. Človek a krajina Zvolenskej kotliny v stredoveku. Banská Bystrica 2009, p. 214–220. 39 Tibenský, Martin. Červenokamenské panstvo v stredoveku. Kraków – Trnava 2011. 40 Hrubý, Tomáš. Osídlenie Dolného Považia v stredoveku. Príspevok k dejinám sídelného vývoja Západného Slovenska. Kraków – Trnava 2015. 41 The works important for territory under our consideration: Győrffy, György. Az Árpádkori Magyarország történeti földrajza I. [Historická geografia arpádovského Uhorska I.] (hereinafter referred to as ÁMTF I). Budapest 1963. Győrffy, György. Az Árpád-kori Magyarország történeti földrajza II. [Historická geografia arpádovského Uhorska II]. Budapest 1987. Győrffy, György. Az Árpád-kori Magyarország történeti földrajza III. [Historická geografia arpádovského Uhorska III.] (hereinafter referred to as ÁMTF III). Budapest 1988. Győrffy, György. Az Árpád-kori Magyarország történeti földrajza IV. [Historická geografia arpádovského Uhorska IV.]. Budapest 1998.

22

Peter Ivanič

settlements in Hont County during the entire Middle Ages.42 Vladimir Šmilauer also recorded some written evidence about roads in his work Vodopis starého Slovenska (Hydrography of Old Slovakia).43

Land Roads There are only a few written documents containing references about roads for the period of the Early Middle Ages. Land roads were named as platea, strata, via or via publica in Latin texts depicted in the documents dating back to the Early Middle Ages. The terms via and  platea correspond to the Greek terms hodos and plateia, and the term strata corresponds to the Greek term stróté. The word pôtb was used in Old Slavonic texts.44 Preserved documents from this period mainly mention important distance roads. Unfortunately, there is not any direct written evidence about communication for the territory of today’s Slovakia. The road network can be reconstructed only hypothetically on the basis of the distribution of settlements or burials within the country, which have been discovered by archaeological research or exploration. We have more information about roads from the period of the High Middle Ages and Late Middle Ages. Based on their names, we can determine not only their importance, but also their surface or the type of transport they were used for. Names that are mentioned in the written documents from this period are the following: via, via maxima, via magna, via communis, via publica, via forensis, via civilis, via castrensis, via ampla, via parva, via arenosa, magna strata, semita, etc.45 Sources also contain names of communications according to where they were leading. For example, a name Bathi vtth46, Banautha47.

42 Bakács, István. Hont vármegye Mohács előtt [Hontianska stolica v období pred bitkou pri Moháči]. Budapest 1971. 43 Šmilauer, Vladimír. Vodopis starého Slovenska. Praha – Bratislava 1932. 44 Havlíková, Lubomíra. Geograficko-správní staroslověnská terminologie v právních památkách 9. století a její řecké (byzantské) a latinské paralely. In Synergie, vol. 5, 2009, no. 1, p. 116. 45 Janšák, Štefan. Z minulosti dopravných spojov na Slovensku. In Geografický časopis, vol. 16, 1964, no. 1, p. 16. Slivka, Michal. Rekonštrukcia cestnej siete na Slovensku (Súčasný stav bádania a jeho perspektívy). In Archaeologia Historica 23. Brno 1998, p. 263–269. 46 This name occurs in a document dating back to 1453 and it means a road to the village Bátovce. Bakács, Hont vármegye, p. 59. 47 This name was mentioned in 1324. It was used for a mining road to Banská Štiavnica. Blazovich, Anjoukori oklevéltár VIII, p. 152, no. 296.

Medieval Roads and Written Sources

23

Distance and Regional Roads Very important roads led through the territory of current Slovakia in the Middle Ages, which were led towards Bohemia, Moravia and Poland. The most important distance road leading through the western part of current Slovakia was a communication known as the Czech road. This road is mentioned in the Decree of the King of Hungary Charles Robert of Anjou (1308–1342) of 1336. The Czech road was part of an important communication leading from Constantinople through Belgrade, Buda, Esztergom, Trnava and Brno to Prague.48 Another important distance road from Košice to Warsaw and Bohemia (via nova versus Vratizlaviam et alias partes Bohemie) is mentioned in a document from 1364. This road was built by Louis I of Hungary (1342–1382), and it went from the town Košice through the counties of Szepes, Liptov, Turiec and the town Žilina.49 Bratislava was an important transport hub in south-west Slovakia. Apart from its connection to Vienna, a connection to the town  Moson (Musunio) is also supported by written evidence from 1225.50 Another communication led to Bratislava from Bohemia through the towns of Holíč, Šaštín and Malacky. King Louis I of Hungary issued a privilege for Czech merchants in 1373 that ensured them free and safe passage when they used the road through the settlements Holíč (Wynar), Gajary (Geuar), Kuklov (Kykrillen), Malacky (Malaczka) and Stupava (Stumpa).51 The same king also issued another document with the same content. However, in addition to the abovementioned settlements, Šaštín (Swr) is also mentioned here.52 In Western Slovakia, an important communication role was played by the Považská road, which led from the town of Komárno along the River Váh to the town of Žilina and then on to Poland. In 1208, this road is mentioned as a big road to the town Trenčín (Trincin)53 and in 1406, as magna via, a road from the town of Hlohovec (Galgowch) to Banka (Banya).54 Roads 48 Janšák, Štefan. Česká cesta–najstarší spoj Slovenska s českými krajmi. In Vlastivedný časopis, vol. 10, 1961, no. 2, p. 83–87. Janšák, Štefan. Z minulosti dopravných spojov na Slovensku. In Geografický časopis, vol. 16, 1964, no. 1, p. 13–31. Janšák, Štefan. Cesta českých stráží. In Geografický časopis, vol. 16, 1964, no. 2, p. 326–339. Janšák, Štefan. Prechod českej cesty cez údolie Nitry pri Dvoroch nad Žitavou. In Geografický časopis, vol. 19, 1967, no. 1, p. 130–138. 49 Halaga, Ondrej Rodmil. Košice – Balt: Výroba a obchod v styku východoslovenských miest s Pruskom (1275–1526). Košice 1975, p. 138. 50 CDSl I, p. 224, no. 307. 51 CDH IX/4, p. 488. 52 CDH IX/7, p. 332. 53 CDSl I, p. 116, no. 148. 54 Mályusz, Zsigmondkori oklevéltár II/1, p. 570, no. 4626.

24

Peter Ivanič

along the River Váh stretched along both banks of the river. This is evidenced by several direct written documents about roads and tolls.55 There were passages through Vlara Pass and Lyrský Pass to Moravia in the region of middle Považie. A road passed through Vlara Pass to the north through the settlement Valašské Klobouky to Vsetín and in the south to Uherské Hradište and Brno. It was possible to go to Moravia from the town Nové Mesto nad Váhom through the settlement Moravské Lieskové and from the town Trnava through Biela hora (White Hill) in the White Carpathians and through the towns Senica and Skalica.56 Important communications also passed through the central part of Slovakia. An important road passed through the towns Šahy, Krupina, Zvolen and Banská Bystrica under the Orava Castle to Poland.57 This road is directly evidenced by an agreement concluded in 1529 between the captain of the Orava Castle, Peter Kostska, from the settlement Sedlice and the county administrator of Zvolen county, Ľudovít Pekry, from Petroviny, about the free passage of merchants from Zvolen county, mining cities and members of the Fugger Family under the Orava Castle to Poland. They had to pay only a thirtieth.58 The road led through the western part of the Litovská basin. In 1340, this road was directly mentioned as a road to the town of Zvolen.59 Magna via, which passed through the settlement Liptovská Sielnica (Szelnicze) and on to Poland, was mentioned in the 16th century.60 Toll was collected on this road from the 14th century; however, the first evidence about a toll was from 1469.61 Via publica, which led from Liptov county to Orava county, was also not mentioned until 1355.62 The road to Silesia led under the Budatín Castle and then to the north through the River Kysuca through the Jablunkovsky Pass. This fact is supported by a statement by Ján Podmanický from 1534 that inhabitants of Central Slovakia mining towns could pass around this castle without fear.63 An important road junction in eastern Slovakia was

55 Hrubý, Osídlenie dolného Považia, p. 79–80. 56 Horváth, Pavel. Príspevok k obchodným stykom Slovenska so Sliezskom a Moravou v prvej polovici 16. storočia. In Historické štúdie. 11. Bratislava 1966, p. 167. 57 Ivanič, Stredoveká cestná sieť, p. 45–50. 58 MBB II, p. 275, no. 824. 59 Uličný, Ferdinand. Dejiny osídlenia Liptova do konca 16. storočia (3. časť). In Liptov. 9. Martin 1987, p. 124. 60 Ibidem. 61 Uličný, Ferdinand. Dejiny osídlenia Liptova do konca 16. storočia (2. časť). In Liptov. 8. Martin 1985, p. 151. 62 Uličný, Dejiny osídlenia Liptova (3. časť), p. 124. 63 MBB II, p. 385, no. 1243.

Medieval Roads and Written Sources

25

the town of Košice. It was granted several privileges in the Middle Ages. One of these privileges was a staple right. This town was situated on an important road connecting the Mediterranean Sea with the Baltic sea.64 The abovementioned distance road led from the town of Košice to Polish Wrocław.65 A  connection to Poland was also ensured by a road to the north to the town Prešov, where it divided into two routes. The first route led through the settlements Veľký Šariš, Šarišské Michaľany (Scemmihaly)66, Sabinov, Pečovská Nová Ves (Wyfolu)67, Červenica pri Sabinove68, Lipany, Plaveč and Stará Ľubovňa. The second route passed through the settlements Nižná Šebastová (Sebes)69, Podhorany (Asgut)70, Kobyly (Kabulafolua)71 and on to the important market town of Bardejov (Bardfa)72. This route continued from Bardejov, where customs were collected, to Poland through the so-called Bardejov gate.73 Several important roads interconnected separate regions. There was an important road between Bratislava and the other medieval town of Trnava in the western part of Slovakia. Via versus Tyrnauiam was mentioned in 1317 in the demarcation of the settlement Vajnory (Weynar).74 Its continuation was documented by the demarcation of the town Modra in 1287, where the road strata publica, que ducit versus Tyrnam was mentioned near Šenkvice (Chanuk).75 The road magna via was mentioned in 1347, which led from the town of Modra (Modor) to Trnava (Tirnaviensis).76 One route of the road leading from the town 64 Suchý, Michal. Stredoveké právo núteného skladu. In Historický časopis, vol. 10, 1962, no. 2, p. 205. 65 Halaga, Košice – Balt, p. 138. 66 V roku 1314 je tu doložená ako via publica. RDSl I, p. 517, no. 1215. 67 The road was mentioned in connection with the demarcation of the settlement in 1322 as magna via. RDSl I, p. 347, no. 68 It is mentioned as publica strata, que de Sarus ducit ad Poloniamin 1287. CDP VIII, p. 254, no. 205. It is mentioned as a big road to Plaveč (Plaucha) in 1302. RDSl I, p. 75, no. 113. 69 RDSl II, p. 265, no. 578. 70 It is mentioned as antiquam viam Sclavorum in 1314. RDSl II, p. 208, no. 439. 71 In the demarcation of the settlement Kobyly in 1321 it is mentioned as a big road to Bardejov (Bardfolua). RDSl II, p. 283, no. 621. 72 It is mentioned as a royal road in connection with the town of Bardejov in 1247. CDSl II, p. 194, no. 274. 73 Bardejov gate was the name used for a place in a strait between Demjata and Raslavice. Uličný, Ferdinand. Dejiny osídlenia Šariša. Košice 1990, p. 23–24. 74 RDSl II, p. 113, no. 223. Vajnory is a part of the town of Bratislava. 75 CDAC XII, p. 452, no. 377. 76 CDA V, p. 39, no. 20.

26

Peter Ivanič

of Modra to Trnava probably passed through Kaplna and Cífer.77 The other route between these two towns passed through the territory of the settlement of Vištuk in the direction of Budmerice and Ružindol.78 These communications were connected to the road in Trnava, which led to the town of Nové Mesto nad Váhom along the River Váh and to the town of Žilina. An important connection road led from the Považie region, through the Liptov region to the Szepes region, and it went from the town of Žilina to Strečno, Priekopa and Sučany, where a toll was collected and it was possible to cross the River Váh here across the bridge. From Sučany, the road led to the towns of Liptovský Mikuláš, Dovalovo, Hybe and finally to the Szepes region.79 A road called magna via was mentioned near Štrba in 1298 and it led from the Szepes region (Scepus) to the Liptov region (Lipto), and a road was mentioned near the settlement of Východná in 1329 as a road to the Szepes region. Evidence about a big road in the Liptov region comes from 1278 near the settlement of Liptovská Teplá, which was mentioned near Liptovská Mara in 1425.80 An important road from Nitra was connected to the Považská road in the town of Hlohovec. Anther important regional road was directed from Nitra to the Turiec region through the settlements of Nitrianske Pravno, Rudno, Trnovo, Bystrička and Záturčie to the settlement Vrútky. One of its side roads led to the right bank of the River Turiec near the settlement of Príbovce passing through Košťany to the town of Martin. In the demarcation of the settlement of Trnov (Tornouc). the road was mentioned as magna via in 1256, and in 1290 it was mentioned as via castri between the settlements of Rudno and Bobovník.81 The settlement Moldava nad Bodvou located in southeastern Slovakia was the crossroad of two important roads. The first road led from the south from the River Hornád through Moldava and Jasov to the Szepes region and the second one led from the Gemer region through Turnianska county to the town of Košice. A big road (magna via) was mentioned in 1324, which led from the settlement of Moldava nad Bodvou to the town of Košice.82 The road to the Szepes region through Jasov was directly mentioned in 1284 as an old road (viam antiqua) which led from Jasov (Jazo) to the Szepes region 77 Tibenský, Červenokamenské panstvo, p. 149. 78 Tibenský, Červenokamenské panstvo, p. 149. 79 Klein, Bohuš. Príspevok k historickogeografickej lokalizácii cestnej siete Zvolenského komitátu. In Vlastivedný zborník Považia. 15. Martin 1985, p. 115. 80 Uličný, Dejiny osídlenia Liptova (3. časť), p. 124. 81 Beňko, Ján. Starý Turiec. Martin 1996, p. 185–186. Bobovník is a lapsed medieval village in the cadastral territory of Abramová. 82 ÁMTF I, p. 146.

Medieval Roads and Written Sources

27

(Scepus).83 This road was mentioned in written documents from 1277 in connection with a description of the borders of the forest or the area known as Belá (Bela), where it is mentioned near the River Hnilca as publica via heading in the direction of Jasov, and in connection with another place in the same document, it is mentioned as an old road (vetera via) heading toward Jasov.84 An important road led through the Szepes region from the town of Poprad to the town of Košice, and it probably also passed through the settlements of Spišský Štiavnik, Hrabušice, Spišské Tomášovce, Smižany, Spišská Nová Ves, Odorín, Spišský Hrušov, Bystrany, Spišské Vlachy, Krompachy and Margecany. This road is mentioned in the demarcation of the settlements of Filice,85 Žakovce (Isaac),86 Spišské Tomášovce (Thomae),87 Smižiny (Symigii),88 Milaj89 and  Hincovce (Nadasth).90 A big road going to the town of Kežmarok (Kasmark) and another communication to the town of Levoča (Leuche) were mentioned in 1289.91 Both cities had a staple right in the Middle Ages.92

Local Roads In addition to main roads, historical documents also contain evidence of local roads. For example, there was a local communication through the Tribeč mountains from the village Jelenec (Gimes) to Lefantovce (Elefant) near the town of Nitra in the Middle Ages. This road is documented in the well-known Zobor Decree from 1113.93 Another connecting communication led through Tribeč mountain from the village of Kovarce (Kowarch) to the village of Ladice (Ledech),

83 CDH V/3, p. 247. 84 RR II /2–3, p. 182, no. 2773. 85 Today, Filice is a part of the village Gánovce. There is evidence from 1289 mentioning a road magna via leading to the village of Hrabušice (villa compositi). MBB II, p. 343, no. 251. 86 There is evidence from 1307 mentioning a road via et strata publica leading to the village of Smižany (Symigio). RDSl I, p. 233, no. 506. 87 Evidence about the big road is dates back to 1246. Šmilauer, Vodopis, p. 194. 88 A road via ampla was mentioned in 1314 RDSl I, p. 516, no. 1210. 89 Milaj (Myloy) is a lapsed village in the cadastral territory of Spišský Hrušov. Evidence about the road dates back to 1255. CDSl II, p. 343, no. 493. 90 There is evidence about the road magna via leading to Spišské Vlachy (Olosy). Šmilauer, Vodopis, s. 200. 91 CDP VI, p. 342–343, no. 251. 92 Suchý, Stredoveké právo, p. 203, 205. 93 CDSl II, p. 66, no. 69.

28

Peter Ivanič

which was mentioned in 1424.94 This communication passed through the settlement Lehôtka through a pass under Tribeč.95 There was a road from the village Jelenec to the village Žirany (Zrdynefeu). This road was mentioned in 1295 together with a communication which went directly to Gymes castle (castrum Gymos).96 The connection between the villages of Sasinkovo (Sag), Dýč (Dychy) and  Bojničky (Boynoch) in the south from the town of Hlohovec was locally important.97 There were also communications of minor importance around the city of Banská Bystrica in the Middle Ages. A small road (semita) from the village of Necpaly (Neczpal) to Banská Bystrica along a rock called Vrátnica (Wratnycha) was mentioned in 1287.98 A road from the village of Očová to the village of Ľupča – in viam, qua transiret de Ochowa in Lypche – is mentioned in a document from 1351.99 There is evidence of a path leading under the hill called Hrádok (Haraduk) from 1263.100 A  connection between the villages Môťová and Slatinka was documented as a grassy road (via erbosa)101 in 1419 and in 1563 (via antiqua herbosa).102 In the case of the Poiplie region, there is a document from 1496 about the demarcation of the village Tarčany (Felsewztharchan)103 and it mentions a road between Horné Semerovce (Felsewzemered) and Domadice (Dalmad). The name Dalmadywth, which is mentioned in this document, is probably connected with this communication.104 In the demarcation of the village of Hokovce in 1301, there is evidence of a small road (semita) which went to Hontianske Moravce (Marouth).105 Semita was also mentioned in 1321 in

94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105

Tóth – Neumann, Zsigmondkori oklevéltár XI, p. 539, no. 1348. Lukačka, Západné Tríbečské podhorie, p. 149–150. Fejér, György (ed.). Codex diplomaticus Hungariae ecclesiasticus VI/1. Budae 1830, p. 355–356. CDSl II, p. 371, no. 535. Nowadays, Dýč is a part of the village of Kľačany. Šmilauer, Vodopis, p.  61. Vladimír Šmilauer assumed that the current name of Vrátnica could be Ostredok. Ďurková, Mária. Sídliskové pomery na Vígľašskom panstve do začiatku 16. storočia. In Historický časopis, vol. 41, 1993, no. 1, p. 30. CDH IV/3, p. 143. The name Hrádok probably means Hrádok in the cadastral territory of the village Môťová, which is now a part of the town Zvolen. Mályusz – Borsa, Zsigmondkori oklevéltár VII, p. 246, no. 930. Maliniak, Človek a krajina Zvolenskej kotliny, p. 215. A lapsed village, which was according to I. Bakács, situated between the villages Demandice, Santovka-Malinovec and  Horné Semerovce. Bakács, Hont vármegy, p. 200. Bakács, Hont vármegy, p. 201. RDSl I, p. 54, no. 62.

Medieval Roads and Written Sources

29

connection with the demarcation of the village Kobyly (Kabulafolua), which is located in Eastern Slovakia.106 Written sources also contain information about the construction of new roads that were of local importance. It was mentioned in 1297 that Abrahám Rufus gave a part of his property for the construction of a new road that was to lead from Červeník to Hlohovec.107 There is evidence from 1536 about a new road from Muráň to the town of Ľubietová.108 In October of the same year, we can find out that Matej Bašo allowed the cutting down of a 4-mile-long pass through the forest to the town of Ľubietová.109 Several new roads were constructed in the middle part of the Pohronie region in the 16th century. This fact is supported by several lawsuits. In 1552, a territorial lord, Ján Mičinský, protested against such a road being constructed by the inhabitants of the village of Zolná. This road led through his plots. Twenty years later, inhabitants of the village of Lukové constructed a road through the land of Štefan Šóša.110

Water Roads In addition to land roads, rivers were also an important part of the medieval transport network. Contemporary documents contain direct evidence about using rivers for transport, but also information about ports and ferries (portus, rév) on individual rivers. In particular, the River Danube was used for transport in our territory. It is mentioned in Raffelstetten tariff, dated between 903–906, that the boats were flowing up the River Danube transporting salt and other goods (slaves, horses) to the markets of Moravia.111 Boats up to 10-m long made from hollowed tree trunks  – the so-called monoxylon, dating back to the existence of Great Moravia – were discovered during archaeological excavations carried out in important Great Moravian settlements, such as Mikulčice, Staré Město

106 RDSl II, p. 283, no. 621. 107 Kammerer, Ernő (ed.). A Pécz nemzetség Apponyi ágának az Apponyi grófok családi levéltárában őrizett oklevelei [Listiny rodinného archívu apponyiovskej vetvy rodu Péczovcov]. Budapest 1906, p. 34–36, no. 21. Medieval village Červeník was situated in the cadastral territory of the town Leopoldov. 108 MBB II, p. 473, no. 1587. 109 MBB II, p. 466, no. 1559. 110 Maliniak, Človek a krajina Zvolenskej kotliny, p. 215. 111 Ratkoš, Peter (ed.). Pramene k dejinám Veľkej Moravy. 2. vydanie. Bratislava 1968, p. 199–201.

30

Peter Ivanič

and Uherské Hradište. However, these boats were mainly used for fishing.112 The Jewish merchant Ibráhím Ibn Jákúb, who lived in the 10th century, mentions that the Slavs jointed their boats with moss instead of resin, and the safest time for sailing was spring.113 The transport importance of the River Danube increased in the subsequent centuries. King Andrew III of Hungary granted a special privilege to Bratislava sailors in 1297. According to this privilege, only these sailors were entitled to transport goods from German merchants to Bratislava on the River Danube in both directions.114 Bratislava city also remained an important water transport road even later. In 1418, Flemish shipbuilders constructed two river boats in Passau for King Sigismund of Luxemburg, who requested that these boats be brought to Bratislava. The inhabitants of Bratislava had to provide a crew for these boats that transported them to Buda. There was a port under the Bratislava castle in the local part called Vydrica in the Middle Ages where a toll was collected. Collection of this toll was performed by several institutions and persons. In 1396, King Sigismund of Luxemburg consigned the town Bratislava a port with six large boats. These boats were able to carry upto forty horses and riders. Three of these boats were always docked on one bank and the other three on the other bank of the River Danube. At the same time, the king requested to have a dwelling built for ferrymen operating three boats from the side of the city of Bratislava and to build another dwelling for ferrymen ensuring transport from the other side of the River Danube on plots of the Chapter. In 1430, this ing also ordered the building of probably the first bridge through the main stream of the River Danube to simplify transport of his court through the river.115 There is evidence about a port (portu seu navigio) on the Little Danube River from 1290, which was called Čalov (Chalow) in the Middle Ages, and it was located near Vrakuňa (Werekene), which is part of the town of Bratislava today.116 However, its precise location is still not clear. There was a ferry directly in Vrakuňa, which is mentioned from the second half of the 14th century. In 1410, King Sigismund of Luxemburg ordered the inhabitants of Bratislava to build a bridge here. Another 112 Galuška, Luděk. Slované – doteky předků. O životě na Moravě 6.–10. století. Brno 2004, p. 38. 113 Klimek, Krajiny českého středověku, p. 82. 114 Juck, Ľubomír. Výsady miest a mestečiek na Slovensku I. (1238–1350). Bratislava 1984, p. 80–81, no. 87. 115 In more details Šedivý, Juraj. Stredoveké prístavy (prievozy) a mýta na Dunaji v okolí Bratislavy. In Na sútoku riek. Život v slovensko-rakúskom pohraničí. Bratislava 2014, p. 343–370. 116 Fejér CDH VI/1, p. 51.

Medieval Roads and Written Sources

31

ferry passed through the Little Danube River in Prievoz, which is also mentioned as far back as the second half of the 14th century.117 However, only very few documents have been preserved about river transport in the Middle Ages. But they prove that rivers which are nowadays used only for recreational purposes were used for transport in the past. It is also necessary to take into account the fact that the overall slope and flow of the rivers in the Middle Ages were more intensive. Upper rivers were used more for floating wood or raw material.118 For example, directly in the Founding Charter of the Benedictine Monastery in Hronský Beňadik from 1075 it is mentioned that the Abbey was entitled to collect a toll from wood floated down the River Hron.119 This document does not describe the method of wood floating, but there is a document from 1453 about raftsmen from Lieskovec who transported wood from forests near the town of Zvolen to the town of Esztergom.120 Four years later, the merchant Stanko Vilhelmovič from the town of Kremnica was exempted from payment of tolls on the Rivers Hron and Danube for floated wood from forests around the town of Brezno and other goods transported to the market in Buda.121 The River Hron was used not only for floating wood, but also for transporting iron, which is documented in a protest made in 1524 by Wolfgang Glogniczer from the town of Banská Bystrica against the nobleman Damián Dóci, the owner of Slovenská Ľupča. People of Damián Dóci wanted Wolfgang Glogniczer to pay a toll for the transport of iron both on the road and on the river.122 A  privilege granted by Mary, the Queen of Hungary (1371–1395), from 1385 confirms that inhabitants of the town Bardejov were exempted from the payment of customs for transport on the River Topľa (Thaplyanwyze) to the Leles region.123 There were smaller ports or ferries built in important places on the River Danube, as well as on the Váh, Hron, Ipeľ and other rivers, where ferrymen transported people and goods from one bank to another. There is a document from 1075 mentioning the existence

117 In more details Šedivý, Stredoveké prístavy, p. 343–370. Prievoz is a part of the city of Bratislava in the city borough Ružinov. 118 Klimek, Krajiny českého středověku, p. 80–81. 119 CDSl I, p.57, no. 58. 120 Zrebený, Alexander. Zvolen do roku 1526. In Stredné Slovensko. 5. Banská Bystrica 1986, p. 70. 121 Halaga, Ondrej R. Riečna doprava v karpatskej oblasti za feudalizmu. In Slovenský národopis, vol. 20, 1972, no. 4, p. 558. 122 MBB I, p. 193, no. 592. 123 Iványi, Béla. Bártfa szabad királyi város levéltára 1319–1526 [Archív slobodného kráľovského mesta Bardejov 1319–1526]. Budapest 1910, p. 5–6, no. 26.

32

Peter Ivanič

of 10 dwellings of ferrymen (nautas) located in the village of Kakat pri Dunaji, which King Géza I (1074–1077) donated to the Abbey in Hronský Beňadik.124 A port in the village Horné Saliby (Scele) on the River Dudváh was mentioned in 1291. Toll was collected by the Bishopric of Nitra.125 There was a ferry called Mačací brod (Machkazormw, Zouorad) on the River Hron near the land called Hrádze near today´s town of Tlmače. It was still active in the 20th century.126 In the demarcation document related to the village Chľaba (Helumba) of 1262, there was evidence of a port (portus Ipulyuze).127 An old port or a ferry on the River Litava is documented in a document from 1299 and it was situated near the village of Plášťovce (Palasth).128 There was a port on the River Ida located near the village of Janíky (Ianuk) in 1323 in the eastern part of Slovakia.129 An old port on the River Bodva was mentioned near the village Budulov (Bodolou) in 1317.130

Tolls An important role connected with communication was played by toll stations (lat. tributum, teloneum). These stations were used for the collection of toll fees that were a part of a royal regal right. Part of the yield was used directly for the maintenance of roads, bridges, ferries and other transport systems. Evidence of this toll is preserved in several written documents. Some of these documents sometimes contain information about roads, where tolls were collected.131 Royal castles were responsible for the collection of tolls for the king and the administration of toll stations. It is not possible to determine exactly when people started collecting tolls. There were several types of toll fees in the medieval Kingdom of Hungary. There is a note in the first collection of laws by King Coloman (1095– 1116) that King Stephen I (997–1038) of Hungary ordered a market toll to be paid not only by merchants, but also by people selling their own products in the market.132 Toll fees included both a “dry” toll paid for roads and a bridge

124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131

CDSl I, p. 55, no. 58. Kakat was situated in the territory of today’s city of Štúrovo. CDH VII/2, p. 152. CDSl I, p. 266, no. 380. RDSl I, p. 88, no. 147. MES I, p. 472, no. 616. ÁMTF III, p. 228. RDSl II, p. 436, no. 1005 RDSl II, p. 104, no. 200. Nowadays, Budulov is a part of the city Moldava nad Bodvou. Juck, Ľubomír. Obchod v mestách na Slovensku v 14. storočí. In Historický časopis, vol. 35, 1997, no. 2, p. 257. 132 Márkus, Dezső (ed.) Corpus Iuris Hungarici I. (1000–1526). Budapest 1899, p. 104.

Medieval Roads and Written Sources

33

(“water”) toll paid for bridges, ferries and rivers. The dry toll was collected from pedestrians, riders as well as wagons and it was called a tributum de via, pedagium and tributum terrestre in old documents. The wet toll collected on the bridges is mentioned as tributum pontis, tributum de ponte, teloneum pontis and reddtus pontis. If the wet toll was collected on a ferry with a raft, it was called a tributum portis, tributum de portu, tributum in portu, tributum transitus, tributum aque, tributum nauli and tributum caranis. Fees called tributum in navigio, ascendens tributum and redditus aque were collected on the boats. The right to collect tolls and customs was originally only a royal regal right, which was gradually weakened by donations of income for the activity of individual toll stations and the issuance of privileges for towns. The collection of tolls was ensured by a county administrator on the order of King Stephen I (997–1038). Two-thirds of the collected tolls were handed over to the king and the remaining part was given to the county administrator.133 A road toll was also mentioned in the decree of King Coloman for the first time. Article 25 therein contains information that a tenth of the toll was to be given to the respective diocesan bishopric and one-third of the remaining part to the respective county administrators.134 This principle is also confirmed in the Golden Bull of 1222 by King Andrew II of Hungary (1205–1235).135 According to this document, no Jew or Ismaelite could be a toll collector.136 Toll collectors, as royal officials, were under the jurisdiction of the county administrators. They did not have to pay a tax and had the right to carry arms. In addition to the abovementioned tolls, it was also necessary to a pay customs duty – a so-called eightieth, or thirtieth. The eightieth was a custom collected at the borders of the country under the rule of the Árpád dynasty from the 12th century and its collection was stopped under rule of King Charles Robert of Anjou.137 The thirtieth was collected inland from the 12th or from the beginning of the 13th century.138 The number of toll and custom stations gradually increased, which led to problems, because there were still more complaints about the unauthorized collection of tolls. Finally, King Andrew III (1290–1301) ordered a stop to the collection of tolls in unusual places and in toll stations established in the

Szilágyi, On the Road, p. 103–105. Márkus, Corpus Iuris Hungarici I, p. 106. Ibidem, p. 142. Ibidem, p. 140. Domanovszky, Sándor. A harmincadvám eredete [Pôvod tridsiatku]. Budapest 1916, p. 12–19. 138 Ibidem, p. 22. 133 134 135 136 137

34

Peter Ivanič

past by Ladislaus IV (1272–1290).139 Collectors of false tolls were threatened with the repossession of their property. This measure also had to be applied in the case of nobility.140 However, in 1291, King Andrew III exempted the church and the nobility from the payment of tolls with a decree.141 Inhabitants of royal towns in a certain area specifically defined in privileged documents were also exempted from such payments. As it was a regular occurrence that toll collectors claimed tolls several times, in 1351, King Louis I the Great ordered the collection of a toll from one passenger only from one direction.142 The deployment of toll stations showed a route of important communications. The reallocation of toll stations that is mentioned in documents can indicate a change in the frequency of use of individual roads. In 1336, King Charles Robert of Anjou and the King of Bohemia John I  Luxembourg (1310–1346) issued a document about assuring security on the roads from the Kingdom of Hungary to Bohemia. This document also contained information about toll fees and toll stations on the well-known Czech road. It is mentioned in the document that on the first crossing of the borders to the Kingdom of Hungary in Holíč, the merchants had to pay one eightieth from the transported goods. One lót (an old unit of mass, approx. 17.5 kg) or three vážka were paid for each freight wagon called rudas in Šaštín or in Senica. A half toll or half lót had to be paid for each wagon called aynczas. Passengers only had to pay a bridge toll in Jablonica near the castle Korlátov Kameň in the following way: one Vienna denár for each horse or bull drawing a wagon, one Vienna denár and not more for four small animals, such as goats, sheep and pigs, or two bigger animals. The same toll for freight wagons as in Šaštín and Senica had to be paid also in Buková or in Bíňovce. Moreover, from the town of Trnava to Budín a toll had to be collected in the same way as described above in the toll stations: Vlčkovce, Šintava and also in the villages of the Archbishopric of Esztergom Nyárhid and  Dvory nad Žitavou. Only a toll from wagons was also collected beyond the River Danube in Esztergom and then in the village of Scaba and in the village of Svätý Jakub for the Buda Castle and in the Buda gate.143 These tolls had existed even before 1336. For example, the 139 Endlicher, Stephanus Ladislaus (ed.). Rerum hungaricum monumenta Arpadiana. Sant Gallen 1849, p. 615–621. 140 Ibidem, p. 629–630. 141 Ibidem, p. 615–621. 142 Dőry, Franciscus. Decreta Regni Hungariae:  Gesetze und Verordnungen Ungarns 1301–1457. Budapest 1976, p. 133. 143 Pramene k dejinám Slovenska a Slovákov IV. Pod vládou anjouovských kráľov. Bratislava 2002, p. 108–109, no. 28. Korlátor Kameň is Korlátka Castle near the village of CerováLieskové. Nyárhid is a lapsed village in the cadastral territory of the town of Nové

Medieval Roads and Written Sources

35

village of Nyárhid (Narhyd), which does not exist anymore, was mentioned in a document dating back to 1183 for the first time, according to which King Béla III (1173–1196) granted Nitra Chapter one third of the toll fees from the local bridge.144 Another important toll station on the Czech road was in lower Požitavie in the village of Dvory nad Žitavou (villa Wduord). Evidence of the collection of a toll is mentioned in a document from 1229. It is mentioned here that Andrew II, the King of Hungary, exempted villeins from the Benedictine Monastery from payment of half of the local toll.145 In 1256, King Béla IV granted a toll (tributum de Vduord) to Sebret.146 This toll together with the property of the Monastery in Hronský Beňadik was later acquired by the Esztergom Archbishopric. The Monastery unsuccessfully protested against it.147 In 1364, King Louis I the Great guaranteed the merchants from the town of Košice, the Szepes region and others that during their way to Wrocław in Poland, they would pay a toll only in Liptov (Lipto), Turiec (Turuch) and in the town of Žilina (Zylna). The merchants were to pay four Groshen when leaving and four Groshen at the entrance for each big, loaded wagon called masa.148 There is evidence of the collection of a toll in the town of Michalovce (Nogmyhal) from 1312. A toll collector magister named Gregor was collecting one ferton for a big wagon, one vážka for a barrel of wine, one Vienna denar for one horse or for one cattle designated for market, half vážka for one roll of canvas, four Vienna denar for an empty wagon and four units of salt for a wagon loaded with salt.149 In 1323, Abrahám Rufus was granted a donation – the village Bernolákovo (Cheklyz) from King Charles Robert of Anjou together with a toll, where two denars were usually collected. However, the king kept in his possession a major toll collected on the bridge.150 A dense network of toll stations was gradually formed in the medieval Kingdom of Hungary. Due to the gradual opacity of the toll system, a king sometimes ordered a review of toll stations. The compilation of such a list of toll stations in

144 145 146 147 148 149 150

Zámky. Svätý Jakub is a lapsed village near Starý Budín (Old Buda) in Hungary. Lót means 15.3 g of silver and vážka means 5.3 g of silver. CDSl I, p. 89–90, no. 94. For proprietary questions related to the village Nyárhíd in the Middle Ages, see Maslíková, Vývoj cestnej siete, p. 38. CDSl I, p. 250, no. 347. CDSl II, p. 388, no. 557. Juck, Ľubomír. Majetky hronskobeňadického opátstva do roku 1235. In Historické štúdie, vol. 18, 1973, p. 135–136. Halaga, Košice – Balt, p. 138. RDSl I, p. 438, no. 1023. RDSl II, p. 410, no. 942.

36

Peter Ivanič

Nyitra county was ordered by King Sigismund of Luxembourg (1387–1437) in 1424. This document also contains information about which tolls were collected on which specific roads. For example, it is mentioned here that there was an old toll station in Párove (Parwcha)151 where a toll was collected on the road from the village of Komjatice (Kompyati) to the town of Nitra (Nytriam) and from the village of Cetín (Cheten) to the village of Dražovce (Darasy).152 They collected a toll in the village of Veľké Zálužie (Wylak) only from passengers going in the direction to Šintava (Sempthe).153 The village of Zbehy (Izbeg) is located to the north-west of Nitra, where a bridge toll was collected from passengers traveling from Nitra (Nytria) through the village of Lukáčovce (Lakach) in the direction to Hlohovec (Galgoch) and also from passengers traveling from Nitra to the villages of Ečejovce (Ethey) and Alekšince (Elekchy). This document also contains information that merchants coming to the market in Hlohovec from the villages of Preseľany and Hrušovany did not have to pay a toll. Merchants coming from the village of Čermany (Chermen) and traveling towards the villages of Báb (Baab) and Šintava (Sempthe) were exempted from paying the toll.154 In the Požitavie region, a toll was collected in the village of Maňa (Manya) on the road from Nitra (Nytria) through Agač (Agoch) to the town of Esztergom (Strigonyo). In Vajka, there were roads coming from the village of Šintava (Sempthe) to Hronský Beňadik (Sancti Benedicti) and from the village of Komjatice (Kompyati) to the village of Vráble (Werebel).155 In 1424, toll fees were collected by the Forgács Family on the road in the village of Klasov (Kaloz), which went from the village of Žirany (Syre) through the villages of Kolíňany (Kolon), Pohranice (Pogran) and Klasov (Kaloz) to the village of Komjatice (Kompyati).156 There is evidence of the collection of a bridge toll across the River Váh in the town of Hlohovec (Galgoch). It is mentioned in this document that in the case of a flood and the destruction of the bridge by the river, passengers had to pay only for transport to the other bank of the river.157 Toll stations in the villages of Mýtna Nová Ves, Kovarce and Topoľčany were mentioned in the central Ponitrie region in 1424. In the village of Mýtna Nová Ves (Wyfalw), a toll was collected on the road from 151 152 153 154 155

Nowadays, it is a part of the city Nitra. Tóth – Neumann, Zsigmondkori oklevéltár XI, p. 537–538, no. 1348. Tóth – Neumann, Zsigmondkori oklevéltár XI, p. 538, no. 1348. Ibidem. Ečejovce is a lapsed medieval village. Ibidem, p. 537, no. 1348. Nowadays, Vajka is a part of the village of Lúčnica nad Žitavou. 156 Ibidem. 157 Ibidem, p. 538, no. 1348.

Medieval Roads and Written Sources

37

the village of Čermany (Chermen) to the town of Topoľčany (Thapolchan) and also on the road from the village of Alekšince (Elekch) or Lukáčovce (Lakach) to the town of Topoľčany. In the village of Kovarce (Kovarch), a fee was paid by passengers coming from the town of Nitra (Nytrian) to the town of Prievidza (Preuge) and from the village of  Nitrianska Streda (Zerdahel) to the village of Ludanice (Ledech). There was an old toll station in the town of Topoľčany where a toll in the direction to the towns of Bánovce nad Bebravou (Baan)  – Bojná (Bayna) and Prievidza (Preuge) – Nitrianska Streda (Zeredahel) was collected.158 Sometimes new roads bypassing the toll stations were constructed. These roads were called via falsa or via sinistra in the written documents compared to legal roads which were mentioned as via recta or via iusta.159 In 1424, there was evidence of such a road in the Požitavie region which was bypassing a toll station near the village of Maňa.160 In 1437, the Palatine of Hungary Vavrinec from Hedervár issued a document that contained information about such roads in the region of Turiec. A toll station in Martin (Szenth Marton) was bypassed by a false road between the towns of Martin and Sklabiňa. An ancient toll station in the village of Sučany (Szucsan) was bypassed by a road between the villages of Sučany and Turčianska Štiavnička. Toll stations in  Dolná Štubňa, Rudno and Kláštor pod Znievom (Varallya) were also bypassed by false roads.161 Land or water roads had and still have an indisputable impact on the development and prosperity of territories and regions. Communication networks significantly participated in the formation of settlement structure. They played an important role in the life of each settlement. Roads act as the memory of a country and researching them helps us to obtain information about that particular country’s structure and the development of its settlement, as well as about how it has changed over time. We can also not forget the fact that travel communications have also helped to spread new cultural thoughts and technical achievements, and so it is important to pay adequate attention to researching them. Medieval documents contain many references to roads and tolls. Data from preserved documents provide the most information about the transport network in the territory of present day Slovakia during this period. They provide us with information about the approximate route of the roads and their names provide us with information about their importance. These documents

158 159 160 161

Ibidem, p. 539, no. 1348. Szilágyi, On the Road, p. 106. Tóth – Neumann, Zsigmondkori oklevéltár XI, p. 477, no. 1170. Beňko, Starý Turiec, p. 187.

38

Peter Ivanič

also contain information about their surface as well as what kind of transport they were used for.   The chapter was created at the Institute for Research of Constantine and Methodius’ Cultural Heritage, Faculty of Arts, Constantine the Philosopher University in Nitra as part of the project VEGA No. 1/0040/18:  “Medieval Historical Roads in the Southwestern Slovakia within the Context of Central European Transport Network and Their Heritage for the Present”.

Martina Škutová

Informative Value of Urbariums from the 16th and the 17th Century From among various kinds of sources issued in the Hungarian Kingdom, urbariums focus on rustic milieu in the most narrative way. Urbariums belong to the category of “pragmatic literacy” and as such have a great informative value in those fields of historical research in which most other sources do not offer such useful information; and it is not only economic history, as this study will show. At first, society needed to undergo a certain development to get to a point where it was capable of recording. After World War II, urbariums enjoyed their most popular period of research. They were used as a declaration of the oppression of the “working class” by their landlords. Supported by the state ideology, in all the countries of what we today call Central Europe (or East-Central Europe), urbariums were chosen for editions that came out in big numbers. This, however, was not the first period when urbariums were edited. The first Hungarian edition of an urbarium dates back to 1853. Gusztáv Wenzel edited A somló-vásárhelyi urbarium 1514-ről (Urbarium of Somló-Vásárhely from 1514)1 that year. The main reason for this edition was the fact that the urbarium had been written in Hungarian since the beginning of the 16th century when usage of written Hungarian was very rare. This makes the somló-vásárhelyi urbarium a unique record of late Medieval Hungarian language and a very valuable source for linguistic research. The main purpose of the publication indeed (with the greatest probability) was to call attention to the language, as it was not followed by other similar publications until after World War II. We cannot omit the fact that Gusztáv Wenzel published an enormous number of documents,2 from among which there 1 2

Wenzel, Gusztáv. A somló-vásárhelyi urbarium 1514-ből [The urbarium of Somlóvásárhely from 1514]. Pest 1853. At first, Wenzel´s great editions of sources in numerous volumes must be mentioned: Wenzel, Gusztáv. Codex Diplomaticus Arpadianus continuatus I–XII. Budapest 1860–1874. Wenzel, Gusztáv. Magyar diplomacziai emlékek az Anjou-korból I-III [Hungarian Diplomatic Documents from Angevin Era I–III]. Budapest 1874–1876. Then his other editions: Wenzel, Gusztáv. Szerémi György, II. Lajos és János királyok házi káplánja emlékirata: Magyarország romlásáról, 1484–1543 [George of Sriem, kings´ Louis II. and John Chaplain Memoirs: Hungary Detetiorating]. Pest 1857. Wenzel,

40

Martina Škutová

is nearly no type of source he would leave out. Definitely Urbariums were not the most numerous among his editions. Even though at the end of the 19th century a socialistic movement had already found its way to Hungary and Ignác Acsády published his – for a long time unchallenged – A magyar jobbágyság története (History of Hungarian Peasantry),3 urbariums were still not used and edited in greater amounts. After the Trianon Treaty in 1920, Hungarian historiography began to focus more on other matters than on rural population and so the first more complex edition of Hungarian urbariums came in during a wholly different political situation, after 1944 and mainly after 1949. In 1944, Zsigmond Jakó edited A  Gyalui vártartomány urbáriumai (Gyalu castle province urbariums)4 in Kolozsvár (Cluj-Napoca), which was at the time part of Hungary, within a framework of Monumenta Transsilvanica. One year later, the same researcher published Adatok a dézsma fejedelemségkori adminisztrációjához (Data on Administration of the Tithe During the Era of Principality)5. Zsigmond Jakó´s edition shows an already increased interest in the urbarium as a source per se,6 and not only from a linguistic point of view, even though some of the urbariums in his work were written in Hungarian. Jakó introduces the urbarium as a source with informative value for economic history, as well as with regards to the history of a settlement and ethnology.7 His interest was also the history of administration. A map of the Gyalu castle province is also a part of the edition. The year 1959 was significant in both Hungarian and Slovak historiographies. In addition to the first Hungarian edition of representatively selected urbariums that appeared during this year:  Urbáriumok XVI.–XVII.  század (Urbariums of the 16th–17th centuries),8 Slovak historians edited two similar volumes named Urbáre feudálnych panstiev na Slovensku in two volumes (Urbariums of Feudal

3 4 5 6 7 8

Gusztáv. Vegyes levelek VIII–XI (1559–1573) [Miscellaneous Documents VIII–XI (1559–1573)]. Budapest 1868–1870. Acsády, Ignác. A magyar jobbágyság története [History of Hungarian Peasantry]. Budapest 1906. Jakó, Zsigmond. A Gyalui vártartomány urbáriumai [Gyalu castle province urbariums]. Kolozsvár 1944. Jakó, Zsigmond. Adatok a dézsma fejedelemségkori adminisztrációjához [Data on the administration of the tithe During the Era of Principality]. Kolozvár 1945. Jakó, A Gyalui vártartomány urbáriumai, pp. V–VII (előszó). Jakó, A Gyalui vártartomány urbáriumai, p. V (előszó). Maksay, Ferenc et al (eds.). Urbáriumok XVI. –XVII. század [Urbariums of 16th – 17th Centuries]. Budapest 1959.

Informative Value of Urbariums from the 16th and the 17th Century

41

Manors in Slovakia), volume I for the 16th century and volume II for the 17th century.9 Both editions were prepared by high profile experts in this field, Ferenc Maksay leading the team of Felhő Ibolya, Nóra T. Polonyi and Nóra W. Beretzky on the Hungarian side and Richard Marsina and Michal Kušík (with the help of Otomar Gergelyi, Peter Ratkoš, Albert Stránsky, Jozef Novák, František Sedlák and Jozef Watzka) in Slovakia. Editors of both editions attempted to choose urbariums covering as much territory as it was possible to make the selections as representative as they could. The Croatian territory was covered by the 1976 edition of Josip Adamček and Ivan Kampuš Popisi i obračuni poreza u Hrvatskoj u XV i XVI stoljeću (Descriptions and Tax Accounts in Croatia in the Fifteenth and Sixteenth Century).10 Editions of urbariums of this era were prepared very professionally, yet they could not escape how the coeval ideology influenced their, from all the other points of views, very qualitative forewords. That is why the stress on the informative value of the urbariums in the opening studies is put on the economic history, also emphasizing the position of peasants within this context. The rest of the text is very professional; the transcriptions of the sources contain numerous footnotes. All the editions contain precise registers and small dictionaries. The period of editing the urbariums in editions having a representative character did not continue after the aforementioned books appeared. After the fall of socialist political regimes, urbariums did not cease to be published, but their publication was not very frequent in the countries of what had once fallen within the territory of the Hungarian Kingdom.11 Nowadays, urbariums are published usually in smaller studies, in journals, regional almanacs or books dedicated to singular documents in relatively small numbers in Hungary,12 Marsina, Richard  – Kušík, Michal. Urbáre feudálnych panstiev na Slovensku I, II [Urbariums of Feudal Manors in Slovakia]. Bratislava 1959. 10 Adamček, Josip – Kampuš, Ivan. Popisi i obračuni poreza u Hrvatskoj u XV i XVI stoljeću [Descriptions and Tax Accounts in Croatia in the Fifteenth and Sixteenth Century]. Zagreb 1976. 11 In fact, however, in Ukraine editing of urbariums from that part of the country which was a part of the Hungarian Kingdom is not very frequent and is connected morewith the rest of the country and mainly in connection with Cossaks. Urbariums from present day Romania and Austria were also edited only by Hungarians. 12 Lichtneckert, András. Veszprém vármegye községeinek urbáriumai, úrbéri és telepítési szerződései,1690–1836 [Veszprém County Towns´ Manors Urbariums, Feudal and Installation contracts]. Veszprém 2009, Meszáros, Kálmán. Egy felső-magyarországi köznemesi uradalom a XVII. század közepén: Ibrányi Ferenc urbáriuma, 1656 [A UpperHungarian Nobles´s Manor from the Middle of 17th Century: Urbarium of Ferenc Ibrányi, 1656]. Nyíregyháza 2010. Kredics, László – Solymosi, László. A veszprémi püspökség 9

42

Martina Škutová

Slovakia,13 Croatia14 and Slovenia.15 Increased interest in regional history 1524. évi urbáriuma [Urbarium of Veszprém Bishopric from 1524]. Budapest 1993. Bariska, István. Az első magyarországi urbárium. [The First Hungarian Urbarium] In Vasi Honismereti és helytörténeti közlemények, 1998, no. 2, pp. 33–40. 13 Kohútová, Mária. Príspevok k starším dejinám západného Slovenska. (Urbár holíčskeho panstva z konca 17. storočia.) [Contribution to the Oldest History of Western Slovakia (Urbarium of Holíč Manor from the End of 17th century)] In Historický časopis, vol. 40, 1995, no. 5, pp. 595–608. Žbirková, Miroslava. Urbár tematínskeho panstva z roku 1636. Časť 2 [Urbarium of Tematín Manor from 1636. Part 2] In Balneologický spravodajca, vol. 37, 1999–2000, pp. 137–147, Mačuha, Maroš. Najstarší urbariálny súpis panstiev Sklabiňa a Blatnica z roku 1556 [The Oldest Urbarial Register of Sklabiňa and Blatnica Manors from 1556] In Studia Historica Tyrnaviensia, vol. 4, 2004, pp. 99–105. Rábik, Vladimír. Urbáre Makovického panstva z roku 1507 [Urbariums of Makovica Manor from 1507]. In Slovenská archivistika, vol. 41, 2006, no. 2, pp. 22–40. Velička, Vladimír. Urbár Bytčianskeho panstva z roku 1612 [Urbarium of Bytča Manor from 1612] In Terra Kisuciensis, vol. 3, 2010, pp. 91–109, Benková, Eva. Urbár hradného panstva Červený Kameň z 22. októbra 1559. (Register príjmov a počtu sedliakov, tak želiarov a prináležitostí prislúchajúcich k hradu Červený Kameň spísaný 22. októbra roku Pána 1559) [Urbarium of the Červený Kameň Castle Manor from 22th October 1559 (The Register of Incomes and Number of Peasants and Belongings of the Červený Kameň castle conscripted on October 22nd of the Year of Our Lord 1559)]. In Historia Nova, vol. 2, 2011, no. 2, pp. 194–213. Maslíková, Ľudmila. Urbár panstva hradu Orava z roku 1602 Orava Castle Manor Urbarium fom 1602]. In Historia Nova, vol. 2, 2011, no. 2, pp. 214–265. Velička, Drahomír. Urbár Budatínskeho panstva z roku 1572 [Urbarium of Budatín Manor from 1572]. In Slovenská archivistika, vol. 47, 2012, no. 2, pp. 3–17. Meszárošová, Klára. Urbár panstva Branč z roku 1671 [Branč Manor Urbarium from 1671] In Kohútová, Mária (ed.). Ideové prvky národného príbehu v dlhom 19. storočí. Bratislava 2014, pp. 203–210. 14 Lopašić, Radoslav. Urbaria lingua croatica conscripta  =  Hrvatski urbari:  svezak 1. Zagreb 18942, Ogranak 2016, Leideck, Markus. Urbari gospoštija Paz, Belaj i Kožljak [Urbariums of Nobles Paz, Belaj and Kožljak] In Vjesnik Istarskog arhiva, vol. 19, 2012, pp. 127–168, Juričič-Čargo, Daniela. Urbar lupoglavske gospoštije iz 1523. godine. [Urbarium of Lupoglav Manor from 1523] In Zbornik Općine Lupogav, vol. 3, 2001, pp. 27–75, Šnajdar, Ivan. Urbari gospoštije Klana [Urbariums of the Noble Klan] In Zbornik Društva za povjesnicu Klana, vol. 3, 1997, pp. 179–191, Klen, Danilo. Urbar i urbarski popisi Lupoglava (1560–1571) [Urbarium and Urbarial Registers of Lupoglav (1560–1571)] In Vjesnik Historijskog arhiva, vol. 18, 1973, pp. 5–69, Margetić, Lujo. Grobnički urbari [Grobnik Urbariums]. Rijeka 1995. 15 Zadravec, Dejan. Urbarialni zapisi o lovstvu na območju med Savo in Sotlo v prvi polovici 17. stoletja [Urbarial Records on Hunting in the Area Between the Sava and Sotla in the First Half of the 17th Century]. In Ekonomska i ekohistorija, vol. 5, 2009, pp.  101–114, Hernja Masten, Marija. Urbarji gospoščineHrastovec:  1555– 1848 [Urbariums of Hrastovec Dominion:  1555–1848]. Ptuj 1993. Kos, Dušan.

Informative Value of Urbariums from the 16th and the 17th Century

43

connected with the infiltration of micro-history and other more recent methods of historical research is now one of the main reasons for publishing these editions. In addition, the National Archives of Hungary digitalized all the urbariums preserved by the institution, and the database is available for free on the website www.hungaricana.hu. In the description of this database, another very frequent reason for the usage of the urbariums is listed: this type of document represents a unique source of information for genealogical research and for this reason it is one of the most popular collections of the National Archives of Hungary.16 The word urbor or urbar in Upper German (a family of High German dialects spoken primarily in the southern German-speaking area Sprachraum) meant yield, output or extraction. Er-bár meant remunerative.17 The word was originally used in mining (a mining tax was called urbura also in the Hungarian Kingdom);18 however, the meaning was later transferred to any kind of property income. In its Latinized form, the term spread from Austria through the Czech territory (where the first urbariums appeared in the 12th and the 13th century) to the Hungarian Kingdom, where it started to appear as early as the 15th century onward.19 Before (and along with) the urbariums, there were primal sources sharing some similar characteristics with urbariums. The most common attributes can be found, for instance, in regesta decimarum, which were connected with taxes for the church. As a result, some of the Hungarian regesta decimarum are also preserved in the Vatican’s Secret Archives.20 Mainly during the Early Modern Period, their form was very similar to that of urbariums. In addition to this, there were also conscriptiones portarum or registra lucri camerae that contained lists of the ports of individual owners from among the nobility. They were conscripted in order to have reliable conscriptions for collection of lucrum camerae, a tax paid from the portas21 that was introduced to replace the

16 17 18 19 20 21

Urbarji za Belo krajino in Žumberk: (15.–18. stoletje) [Urbariums of Bela Krajina in Žumberk: (15th–18th Centuries]. Ljubljana 1991. The online database comprises urbariums preserved in National Archives of Hungary, but not all of the urbariums from the Kingdom of Hungary. The database is available at https://archives.hungaricana.hu/en/urbarium/ Marsina – Kušík, Urbáre feudálnych panstiev, pp. 7–8. Weisz, Boglárka. Az urbura [Urbura] In Bányászattörténeti közlemények, vol. 20, 2015, pp. 3–23. Marsina – Kušík, Urbáre feudálnych panstiev, p. 8. Sedlák, Vincent (ed.). Monumenta Vaticana Slovaciae. Tomus I. Rationes collectorum pontificiorum in annis 1332–1337. Trnavae-Romae 2008. Porta – a word with multiple meanings: either simply a gate or an entrance, or, in this context, more likely a rural or small-town site, with the buildings on it together

44

Martina Škutová

yield from the yearly exchange of the coins in 1336 and ceased to be paid in 1595.22 The portal tax depended on the size of the properties23 and usually was conscripted in these conscriptiones or registra. In addition to the aforementioned types of sources, some of the donational documents also contain descriptions of properties similar to those in urbariums.24 According to the author of this study, an urbarium is a register of properties of one or more particular owner/s and also usually comprises a list of at least the “heads of the families” operating on the properties and the taxes that these families separately or the villages together were supposed to give to their landlord. Not all the urbariums share the same formal characteristics, but all of them were created intentionally to offer an overview on the condition of particular property units, whether it was a manor25 or the property of a certain landlord26 or town27 or the whole county’s. As a form of a source, an urbarium was not defined by Hungarian laws until 1767.28 They were not conscripted to have an official validity, at least most of

22 23 24 25 26 27 28

having certain economical potential – possibly with a common entrance (“gate”). Kiss, Gábor. Régi szavak szótára [Dictionary of old words], Budapest 2012, p. 330. A particular nobleman usually owned multiple portas, commonly tens of them (In Registrum Lucri Camerae of Gemer county from 1431 it was 3–92. MNL OL DL 35 802), but there were no limits. According to Mariana Kosmačová, 1 porta during the 16th century represented 20 houses and possibly even more families. Kosmačová, Mariana. Majetkové pomery v Demjate, Fričkovciach a Janovciach v 16. a 17. storočí [Property relations in Demjata, Fričkovce and Janovce] In Chovanec, Marek (ed.). Zborník zo 7. študentskej konferencie. Prešov 2012, p. 411. This number seems to be rather loose. Thallóczy, Lajos. A  kamara haszna (lucrum camerae) története [A history of the Hungarian chamber tax]. Budapest 1879, előszó I; Engel, Pál. The Realm of Saint Stephen. London; New York 2005, pp. 224–225. Decretum 26. März 1335 VI In Döry, Franciscus – Bónis, Georgius – Bácskai, Vera (eds.). Decreta regni Hungariae Gesetze und Verordnungen Ungarns 1301–1457. Budapest 1976, pp. 87–88. Marsina – Kušík, Urbáre feudálnych panstiev, pp. 12–13. For instance, Urbarium of the Makovica manor. Rábik, Urbáre Makovického panstva, pp. 22–40. For instance, Urbarium of George Domby´s property. Conscriptio Possessionis domini quondam Domby in comitatum Zempliniensis in possessione Koponyal. MNL OL E 156 a, Fasc. 006, No. 009, 7 pp. For instance, urbarium of Košice´s properties from 1551. Perlustratio et connumeratio colonorum Cassoviae. MNL OL E 156 a, Fasc. 004, No. 048, 18 pp. However, there is no account of Maria Theresa´s decree from January 23, 1767 in the Millenium edition of Corpus Juris Hungarici (it goes straight from the decree of 1764– 1765 to a decree from 1790. Csiky, Kálmán – Kolosvári, Sándor – Nagy, Gyula et al.

Informative Value of Urbariums from the 16th and the 17th Century

45

them were not. In some instances, urbariums possess a seal29  – in such cases we can assume that there was a presumption that the owner of the property wanted the urbarium to have official validity so that he could use it either in court against someone, who was initiating trial procedures against him30 or in case he wanted to sell or in any way change ownership of a property (or in the case that he had just became its owner). As there are always signatures of the officers who conscripted the urbariums next to the seal, both signature and seal can be interpreted as affirmation of the veracity of the document, which could serve solely for the owner of the property (he was usually not present during the process of conscription of the document). In many instances, the cover pages have not been preserved to the present day. As there was no regulation for urbariums in royal decrees, their form varied from one document to another. The general tendency was that the documents created earlier were of a more modest character and later ones contained more details. This trend however cannot be confirmed as a general rule. Documents otherwise bearing all the characteristics of an urbarium – created to convey information on the income of the property, include even particular names of the representatives of singular portas and also contain (in most cases material) duties of peasants – are not explicitly named urbarium in its own content, but conscriptio,31 aestimatio,32

29

30 31 32

(eds.). Corpus Juris Hungarici. Magyar Törvenytár. 1740–1835. évi Törvényczikkek, Budapest 1901, pp.  135–138.). Urbarial agreements, which are part of urbariums from 1767 (and following years), preserved its content. According to Robert William Benjamin Gray, Maria Theresa wanted to replace unwritten customary law, so that she could unify the tax burden and in fact protect the peasants. Gray, Robert William Benjamin. Land Reform and the Hungarian Peasantry c. 1700–1848 (Thesis submitted for a PhD in History at University College London 2009) pp. 7, 36. Regestum Super Numero ac Nominibus omnium colonorum proventuumque et emulumentorum ordimariorum Bonororum et pertimentiam tocius Episcopatus Agriensis Pro Anno domini 1551 in mense Septembris factum. MNL OL, E 156 a, Fasc. 001, No. 001, p. 95, Conscriptio Possessionis domini quondam Domby in comitatum Zempliniensis in possessione Koponyal. MNL OL E 156 a, Fasc. 006, No. 009, p. 1. According to Richard Marsina and Michal Kušík, in cases where they were submitted at a court trial, they needed to be supported by other documents owing more validity. Marsina – Kušík, Urbáre feudálnych panstiev, p. 11. Conscriptio Bonorum ad Episcopatum Agriensen Spectantium from 1681. MNL OL E 156a, Fasc. 001, No. 005. Æstimatio Bonorum Fiscalium ad Arcem et Dominiam Regecz Spectamin from 1686. MNL OL E 156 a, Fasc. 039, No. 025.

46

Martina Škutová

connumeratio,33 perlustratio,34 revisio,35 etc. For the needs of this study, such instances are considered as urbariums, which transforms the meaning of the word to name a whole category of these documents. Development of urbariums led to their representative of the most developed form – Theresian urbarium. As mentioned above, Hungarian queen Maria Theresa issued a decree on January 23, 1767, that constituted a unified norm dividing the soil in the country in accordance with its fertility. The taxes and all of the duties were defined in the law depending on the quality of soil, and very detailed urbariums of the prescribed character had to be prepared.36 Before that, the conditions defined in urbariums were usually the result of a previous oral agreement between the landlord and his fiefs – peasants. Such “contracts” were always agreed upon when establishing a new settlement, and they could differ depending on many factors and change over time and as a result of changing conditions.37 Formally, the tax was a ninth (ninth part, actually one tenth) of all the property income for the landlord, lucrum camerae,38 because the tithe was paid to the church.39 Naturally, it needed to differ depending on the size and quality of the soil as well as in accordance with the tradition of breeding certain species of animals or growing certain crops. The law did not define it for all the Kingdom in a specific form, because it was not possible due to the variety of the huge country.40 Thus, urbariums had to reflect the real conditions of the 33 Connumeratio iobbagiorum et universorum Colonorum eorundemque proventum ad Arcem Aras from 1668. MNL OL E 156a, Fasc. 001, No. 021. 34 Perlustratio et connumeratio colonorum Cassoviae from 1551. MNL OL E 156 a, Fasc. 004, No. 048, 18 pp. 35 Revisio castri Makowycza. In Rábik, Urbáre Makovického panstva, pp. 22–40. 36 Rebro, Karol. Urbárska regulácia Márie Terézie a poddanské úpravy Jozefa II.  na Slovensku [Urbarial Regulation of Maria Theresa and Peasant Adjustment of Joseph II]. Bratislava 1959, p. 75. 37 Which not always meant to increase. Sokolovský, Leon. Správa stredovekej dediny na Slovensku [Administration of Medieval Village in Slovakia]. Bratislava 2002, pp. 44–57. 38 Ludovici I. Regis decretum unicum, anno 1351. In Nagy, Gyula – Kolosvári, Sándor – Óvári, Kelemen (eds.). Corpus Juris Hungarici. Magyar Törvénytár. 1000–1526. évi Törvényczikkek. Budapest 1899, editum, Articuli V et VI., pp. 170–173. 39 Ever since rule of Stephen I. Decreta S. Stephani Regis (1000–1038) [Liber Secundus], XX In Bak, János M. – Bónis, György – Sweeney, James Ross (eds.). Decreta Regni Mediaevalis Hungariae The Laws of the Medieval Kingdom of Hungary 1000–1301, Series I, Volume I. Idyllwild 1999, p. 11. 40 Decrees usually ordered peasants to transmit a ninth of all the goods they produced in a particular year: “Praeterea, ab omnibus jobagionibus nostris in quibuslibet villis nostris, majoribus, regalibus, aratoribus, et vineas habentibus, et minoribus, quorunque

Informative Value of Urbariums from the 16th and the 17th Century

47

Hungarian rural population, making it virtually possible to reconstruct the extent of peasant properties. In comparison with regesta decimae, which unlike nona (ninth) was paid usually in currency, the real value of the money should be possible to reconstruct. Urbariums may also provide information about events that worsened the living conditions of the population, such as natural catastrophes. These are usually mentioned in connection with the remittance of paying taxes in order to recover, or describing, why households were left unoccupied.41 Natural catastrophes were not the only reason why there was nothing remaining to pay taxes from. Urbariums also show the real results of wars in decreased numbers of tax payers after military expeditions,42 or after the long lasting danger of an enemy attack in often shifting border regions. After the Georgius “Zekel” (better known as Dóža/Dózsa) Peasant revolt in 1514, peasants were forbidden from moving,43 with the exception of those groups of the population that did not take part in the revolt. Since all this started as part of a crusade called for by Pope Leo nomine vocitatis, ac reginalibus, constitutes (exceptis civitatibus muratis) nonam partem omnium frugum suarum, et vinorum, exigi faciemus: et domina regina exigi faciet…” Vladislai II. decr. a. 1492 (I.), Articuli 47–50. In Nagy – Kolosvári – Óvári, Corpus Juris Hungarici. Magyar Törvénytár. 1000–1526. évi Törvényczikkek, pp. 510–512. 41 “Also Vadász. Haec Possessio constat 47 sessionibus, sed totus Pagus igne absumptus est…” Æstimatio Bonorum Fiscalium ad Arcem et Dominiam Regecz Spectamin from 1686. MNL OL E 156 a, Fasc. 039, No. 025, p. 3. 42 In case of village Tölgyes “Deserta prope interfectis per turcos Septem personis, tribus tantum bobus relictis.” Kysjeder “Prorsus desolati per Turcos, et  alioqui(n) pagus pauperrimus, pene vastus.” Conscriptio of Kamengrad/Köwar (title page is missing) from 1566. MNL OL E 156 a, Fasc. 001, No. 045, pp. 2022. 43 “2. ET QUAMIS omnes istae nationes (demptis Philisteis, Comanis, Ruthenis et Bulgaris regalibus) hac libertatis praerogavita hactenus gavisi fuerint, ut dum et quandocunque voluissent de loco residentiae ipsom ad alia loca, quea maluissent: iusto terragio deposito debitisque eorum persolutis liberam sese moraturos conferendi habuissent facultatem; huiusmondi tamen ipsorum libertatem superiore has aestate propter seditionem et tumultuariam eorum adversus universam nobilitatem sub nomine Cruciatae ductu cuiusdam sceleratissimi latronis Georgii Zekel appellati insurectionem, ex eoque notam perpetuae infidelitatis eorum incursionem penitus amiserunt dominisque ipsorum terrestribus mera et perpetua iam rusticitate subiecti sunt.” Tripartitum opus iuris consuetudinarii inclyti regni Hungariæ per magistrum Stephanum de Webewcz personalis præsentie regiæ maiestatis locum tenetem accuratissime editum. In Bak, János – Banyó, Péter – Rady, Martyn (eds.). Decreta Regni Hungariæ Tomus V:  Tripartitum opus iuris consuetudinarii inclyti reni Hunariæ per Stephanum de Werbrwcz editum, Idyllwild; Budapest 2005, p. 405.

48

Martina Škutová

X and organized by the Archbishop Thomas Bakocz (his unsuccessful rival), only the non-Catholic peasants were exempted from the consequences.44 In a certain, however limited, matter, urbariums offer the possibility to spot migrations within the Kingdom.45 However, the informative value of urbariums is limited by the purpose of their creation. As they were primarily written to inform the owner of the property about income, urbariums do not always include residences that were temporarily freed from payments. It was in the interest of the landowner to have his property used and cultivated to earn a certain profit from the soil. To get new settlers, landowners offered them conditions that were supposed to attract them. These conditions usually included a period of time, from 5 to 20  years, during which the colonists were not obliged to pay any taxes. Also the inhabitants who were permanently freed from paying taxes are omitted in urbariums (such as the nobility,46 clergy,47 or citizens of royal towns). There is a discussion within historiography as to whether all the groups of inhabitants were traceable. Shepherds living high in the mountains in wide territories covered with forests or remote areas in general might have lived a way of life very close to nomadism, which could have made them hard to observe by local authorities. Border regions in the South, neighboring with the Ottoman territory, were very problematic for another reason. Because the border was a question of an on-going situation, which, for most of the time, had still not clearly been agreed upon between the two states, and even if it had been, there were usually efforts to charge the bordering territory held by either side. Hungarian authorities at least tried to impose the taxes on these territories “only” to a smaller extent (at least officially).48 44 “.... Nam alii sunt Hungarim alii Saxones et Germani, alii vero Bohemi et Sclavi Christianae fidei professores. Praeterea quidam sunt Volachi et Rutheni, quidam autem Rasciani sive Serviani et Bulgari greacorum sequentes errotes. Sunt insuper Philistaei et Comani in terris regalibus residentes et habitantes christianam pariter religionem profitentes. Ruthenorum vero et Bulgarorum alii nostrae fidei alii autem Graecorum errori sunt adherentes.” Decreta Regni Hungariæ Tomus V, p. 405. 45 “Nicolas (from village called Carullia) refugii in Transilvaniam” Conscriptio of Kamengrad/Köwar (title page is missing) from 1566. MNL OL E 156 a, Fasc. 001, No. 045, p. 40. 46 However, there are also some exceptions: Urbarium Oppidi Sabariensis from 1656 provides complete lists of the inhabitants of particular streets. Next to the names of nobles, there is a remark: Nobilis. MNL OL E 156a, Fasc. 055, No. 065. 47 This may be implied only on Catholic clergy. 48 According to a decree from 1548, peasants “...qui sub ditione Regiæ Majestatis existentes, Turcis quoque tributa, et servitia præstans, duobus terminis prædictis, non plus, quam

Informative Value of Urbariums from the 16th and the 17th Century

49

Urbariums describe the social stratification of singular settlements of a village or market town by citing how big the singular households and soil they rented were.49 Lists usually divide the inhabitants into three categories:  coloni, inclini and often subinclini. A  special category is liberi/libertini  – not peasants, but free people.50 Coloni could in addition be divided according to the amount of possessions that they had: integrae sessionis coloni, mediae sessionis coloni or with even smaller amounts of property. Inclini, those peasants who did not have any possessions, were further divided into a group that paid half (or simply less) of the taxes and those who did not pay any (subinclini).51 In some urbariums, as was mentioned above, people who did not pay taxes were not mentioned at all. If the village was settled based on the type of law that comprised a function of reeve,52 his property was usually bigger and sometimes he also possessed the right to operate a mill or a pub.53 Mills and pubs in general are usually mentioned in urbariums as well. In some cases, urbariums introduce the ethnicity of the population. This, together with the language choice, makes them a unique source for researching

49

50 51 52

53

centum denarii Hungarici exigantur, propter ipsorum pauperum graves opressiones.” Ferdinandi I. Imper. et Regis Decretum Undecimum, Posonii, Anno Domini 1548. editum. Articulus 24. In Corpus Juris Hungarici seu Decretum Generale Inclytire Regni Hungariæ partiumque eidem annexarum. Tomus Primus. Budæ 1822, p. 406. The Ottoman Empire also knew documents similar to urbariums. These tax registers were called defter. Pálffy, Géza. Magyarország története. A három részre szakadt ország 1526–1606 [History of Hungary. A country divided into three parts]. Budapest 2008, p. 22, Markusová, Helena. Život na uhorsko-osmanskom pohraničí v rokoch 1596– 1687 na príklade Gemerskej stolice [Life on the Hungarian-Ottoman borderland between 1596–1687] In Acta Historica Neosolensia, vol. 16, 2013, p. 228. “Scultetus Iwasko habet terras duorum Colonorum... Coloni singuli habent portiones terre non maiores, quam ubi seminare possunt cubuli triginta.... Tenentur etiam omnes labores ad Arcem Saaros, habent unam Sylvam interdictam.” Information apply to Satkowecz in Saris county. Vrbarium Bonorum et Petinentiarum Arcis Saarosz pro Mag. Domino Francisco Derffy de Zerda from 1593. MNL OL E 156a, Fasc. 041, No. 023, pp. 15–16. For instance, in the village of Lyttka or Berencze. Conscriptio of Kamengrad/Köwar (title page is missing) from 1566. MNL OL E 156 a, Fasc. 001, No. 045, pp. 44, 63. Marsina – Kušík, Urbáre feudálnych panstiev, p. 26. Within the framework of German law, later transposed also by other laws, a reeve was called a scultetus. Rábik, Vladimír. The Ruthenian and Wallachian Population of Eastern Slovakia in the Middle Ages, In Historický časopis, vol. 55, p. 36. For instance in village of Geralika. Consrciptio, MNL OL E 156 a, Fasc. 035, No. 077, p. 4. For instance in the village of Hrabowecz in Makovica manor. Revisio castri Makowycza. In Rábik, Urbáre Makovického panstva, p. 33.

50

Martina Škutová

ethnicity and the ethnic awareness or even self-awareness. It is interesting in this context that even in the territories, where evidently an ethnically mixed population was residing, urbariums do not mention it and do not name the nationalities of the inhabitants.54 Urbariums however do mention what seems to be an ethnicity in the case of various legal forms the population possessed. This is most evident in case of Vlachs.55 In their case, it is interesting that sometimes the population does not seem to be speaking the Romanian language. Outside the territory of Transylvania, names listed under the category of Vlachs are usually of Eastern Slavic origin, even though sometimes it is difficult to discern as given names are often connected with the Christian Byzantine rite, which was typical for both Romanians and Eastern Slavs.56 In some other cases, the word Ruthenians is used and the list of taxes is based on Vlach law.57 In general, ethnicity, or its meaning transferred to a legal position, is usually mentioned in cases where it has an influence on matters connected with administration (both official and church58) or tax collection, which is not connected only with Vlachs

54 Varied nationalities are traceable through the character of names. For instance, inhabitants of Oppidum Sanctis Crucis (Žiar nad Hronom) were definitely of both Hungarian and Slavic nationality (there are names such as Zylinsky, Antalowiscz, Jankowicz on one side and Nemes, Zabo, Magiar on the other). Regestum factum de numero colonorum, sessionum, provenenum Oppidi S. Crucis from 1571. MNL OL E 156a, Fasc. 053, No. 004, pp. 49–53. 55 For instance, they are mentioned in Regestum factum de numero colonorum, sessionum, provenenum Oppidi S.  Crucis from 1571  “Valachy debent ad festum Penthecosten a singular capra vel ove” MNL OL E 156a, Fasc. 053, No. 004, p. 68. 56 These are names like: “…Wazil Popownichy… Kiscziak Oleksza… Fedur Dmitrowat… Uazil Szenkowiat…” and many others. Urbarium of Makovica Manor from 1618 In Marsina – Kušík, Urbáre feudálnych panstiev, pp. 58–60, MNL OL E 156a, Fasc. 020, No. 028. 57 Interesting case is documented in Urbarium of Makovica Manor, where under Possessiones Ruthenorum in village of Bwkocz there are “Populose cum sculteto VI, quorum tres Sclavi et tres wolachi”. List of duties from another Urbarium of Makovica Manor, Census Ruthenorum, is based on Vlach law. Rábik, Urbáre Makovického panstva, pp. 22–40. 58 Urbariums often state an Orthodox priest or parochia. “Parochia Rascianorum,” “Ecclesia Rascianorum” in Conscriptio Civitatis Agriensis facta 1690. MNL OL E 156a, Fasc. 001, No. 008, “za pap hatodik jobbagisagon” in Meduedza (Medvedzie) in Urbarium of Makovica Manor from 1618 In Marsina – Kušík, Urbáre feudálnych panstiev, p. 60, MNL OL E 156a, Fasc. 020, No. 028, Bathko in Grebo (Gribov) In Urbarium of Makovica Manor from 1507 In Rábik, Urbáre Makovického panstva, p. 37.

Informative Value of Urbariums from the 16th and the 17th Century

51

and Ruthenians, but with Serbs and Kumans as well.59 Lists of the names of peasants (or residents in general) seem to have potential for use in the research of the migrations of particular people, as some of the urbariums name ex-owners of deserted possessions.60 Theoretically, it would be enough to trace owners of the deserted possessions in other urbariums. However, the author of this study has not been lucky enough yet to find such a trace. Lists of the names represent an interesting source for genealogical research. In cases where there are no parish registers preserved, many of the urbariums offering lists of the inhabitants may be used to trace a family name. However, as there are no family relations stated in urbariums and more residents of one village usually share the same family name, reliable identification of particular ancestors is rather problematic. At first, Urbariums were written in Latin with the occasional usage of some German, Hungarian, Slavic or Romanian words that writers of the document were probably unable to translate into Latin. During the 16th century, national languages started penetrating into literature and administrative documents in more significant numbers than before. Most of the non-Latin urbariums were written in Hungarian,61 then German,62 and since the 17th century, a language similar to the one spoken by the Slovak population63 appears as well,64 and since the 18th century the language of the Eastern Slavic population.65 These were

59 Names of the Serbs are marked as “Ras” as opposite to mark “Civic” or “Nobilis” next to other names. Conscriptio Civitatis Agriensis facta 1690. MNL OL E 156a, Fasc. 001, No. 008. 60 “Desertae. Domus Stephani Tokayssky, mediae sessionis, Petri Barany integrae sessionis.” 20. Kelechen. Urbár hradného panstva Trebišov. In Marsina – Kušík, Urbáre feudálnych panstiev, p. 20, MNL OL E 156-a, Fasc. 059, No. 014. 61 The earliest since 1514. Wenzel, A somló-vásárhelyi urbarium. 62 Already in 1451, an urbarium considered by many researchers as the first urbarium in the Hungarian Kingdom, was written in German. Bariska, Az első magyarországi urbárium, p. 36. 63 The language could in most cases be called Slovakized Czech. Petro, Peter. A history of Slovak literature. Montreal & Kingston; London; Buffalo 1995, pp. 11–12. 64 In 1663, an urbarium of Likava castle manor was conscripted in Slovak. Urbar Anno Domini 1663 Zamku Likawy. MNL OL E 156a, Fasc. 086, No. 019a. Marsina and Kušík published Urbarium of Bojnice castle manor from 1614 In Marsina – Kušík, Urbáre feudálnych panstiev, pp. 40–57. It is preserved in the Slovak National Archive in Bratislava. 65 This language came into use with Theresian Urbariums in 1767.

52

Conclusion

sometimes mixed with Latin used in the titles and sometimes in the conclusions.66 Croatia enjoyed a very special position not only in relation to the Hungarian Kingdom, but in a certain way with the usage of Latin in its written documents in general. The first urbarium written in Croatian appeared in 1486.67 The language in which the documents were written was not always based on grammar rules, mainly in the case of Hungarian, “Slovak” and other Slavonic languages, as these rules had not yet been created and sometimes shared certain similarities with local dialects. This fact makes urbariums a source for linguistic research as well as the research of the mentality, ethnic identity, ethnic self-awareness and cultural connections, not only in the case of “Slovak” usage, which, thanks to the obvious Czech influence, is very fascinating.

Conclusion Urbariums may be misleading in some of the cases. They might not mention peasants temporarily exempted from taxes and very rarely mention noblemen (except for owners), Catholic clergy and royal towns’ citizens. The tax in many cases conscripted from them might not be equal to 10  % of their production (as it should be as a part equal to decima/tenth, which belonged to the church). Still, as urbariums were created for the purpose of informing the owner about the actual situation and possible income from particular possessions, they are one of the most reliable historical sources. And usage of urbariums in (not only historical) research is quite vast: from economical history, the history of settlement and administration, through linguistics, ethnology, climatology, cultural anthropology and genealogy.

66 Vrbarium seu Nova Connumeratio Colonorum vel Jobbagionum ad Arcem Munkacs from 1690. The rest of the urbarium (except for prolonged title) is written in Hungarian. MNL OL E 156a, Fasc. 019, No. 005, p. 2. 67 Vulić, Sanja. Jezik Modruškoga urbara [Language of Modruški urbarium]. In Čakavska rič, vol. 38, 2010, pp. 135–154.

53

Conclusion

 

Picture No. 1: Urbarium of the Mukachevo (Ukraine) domain from 1690. Prolonged title of the Title of the Urbarium is in Latin, the text is in Hungarian. National Archives of Hungary (MNL OL E 156a, Fasc. 019, No. 005.)

54

Conclusion

 

Picture No. 2 and 3: Title page of the urbarium of Košice (Slovakia) from 1557, and a short list of duties after the name list of the subjects. National Archives of Hungary (MNL OL E 156 a, Fasc. 004, No. 048.)

55

Conclusion

 

Picture No. 2 and 3: (Continued)

56

Conclusion

 

Picture No. 4: Urbarium of Szombathely (Hungary) from 1656 listing both the taxes and the work duty. National Archives of Hungary (MNL OL E 156a, Fasc. 055, No. 065.)

Tomáš Tandlich

Municipal Statutes – Source of Law and Education in the Royal Free Towns in the Territory of Present-day Slovakia during the Early Modern Period A statute is a general rule of law issued by a town with a magisterial right to regulate the rules of life in an urban community. Its text could not be in conflict with valid common law and had to take into account the rights and freedoms of others. The towns issued their own statutes or they took over statutes from other city rights. A regulation applied only to a specific place. Territorial corporations, which were in Hungary’s noble counties and royal free towns, used these regulations as their internal rules. Royal free towns had their own jurisdiction, and specific legal principles were also reflected in the creation of statutes. Royal free towns obtained a statutory right (ius statuendi) from a royal privilege. Older Hungarian feudal law recognized two forms  – law and custom. Privileges and statutes presented acts, and common law was used in judicial practice (implementation of common law in specific cases), in court decisions and collections of statements and documents. A statute as a legal norm was established together with autonomous selfgovernment in towns in the 13th century. The oldest statutes as forms of rights of towns are from Bratislava, Krupina and Banská Štiavnica. Counties, settlements and guilds issued their own statutes as interest corporations from the beginning of the 16th century1. Sándor Kolosvári and Kelemen Óvári dealt with statutes at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries. They collected and published town statutes, for example from Debrecín, Szatmár, Trnava, Nagybánya and other towns in the former Kingdom of Hungary together with county statutes in a severalvolume edition of sources2. I have chosen the statute of the town of Trnava from 1604, which is a practical example of a town document from the period being researched. Legal historians Štefan Luby, Adriana Švecová, Tomáš Gábriš and

1 2

Malý, Karel – Sivák, Florián. Dějiny státu a práva v Československu do r. 1918. 1.díl. Praha 1988, p. 93–94. Kolosvári, Sándor – Óvári, Kelemen. Monumenta Hungariae historico-juridica. Corpus statutorum. Tomus III. Statuta et articuli municipiorum Hungariae Trans-tibiscanorum. Budapest 1892, p. 552.

58

Tomáš Tandlich

Andrea Kluknavská have also dealt with statutes in their works. Legal historian Štefánia Mertanová focused on tavernical law in her research. Historians Eva Vrabcová, Magdaléna Botťánková and Jozef Šimončič focused on the history of the town of Trnava in the 16th and 17th centuries in their research. Administration of a town was formally organized by legal custom and town statutes. Internal administration was governed by statutory law (iuris statuendi) in the field of order and security, fire protection and health care, market order, urban settlement, fortification of the town and town defense3. Understanding the complexity of town law during the Middle Ages and the Modern Period in former Hungary and in the territory of present day Slovakia is based on the explanation of the relationship between custom oral and written law and privileges, decrees and statutes such as written law documents. Štefan Verbőczy, as an author of the national law in Hungary, understood the term ius as a law based on customs, while if a written law was missing, such a custom became law. Its parts are leges and mores (consuetudo). Statutum was identical with the term decretum, which had national and general validity. Statutes issued by royal free towns and which are a subject of this work differ from the previous ones, because they were binding only for one specific town. They were based on statutory law (ius statutarium), which was based on the activities of counties/regions and royal free towns as territorial corporations. The terms decreta and constitutiones are legal regulations with force of law approved by a king and a council4.

City Law Local statutes and local common law should be used in the enforcement of a law first at the city level if a person has not appealed to a royal decree or to another source of law with relation to royal majesty. Local common law and statutes were written in the book of laws of a respective town, but their real obligatory force is not certain. The formation of customs and statutes was only a reflection of the development of law of a specific town during a respective historical period. Decisions had to be made according to the common law of a particular urban community independent of a written law. Despite changes in the process of resolving disputes, which refers 3 4

Švecová, Adriana –Gábriš, Tomáš. Dejiny štátu, správy a súdnictva na Slovensku. Plzeň 2009, p. 78. Kluknavská, Andrea – Gábriš, Tomáš. Mestské právo ako dynamický prvok vývoja práva v Uhorsku. In Malý, Karel – Šouša, Jiří, jr. (ed.). Městské právo ve střední Evropě. Sborník příspěvků z mezinárodní konference „Práva městská Království českého” z 19.– 21. září 2011, Praha. Praha 2013, p. 264–265.

Municipal Statutes

59

to procedural law, the value content of the law remained the same. So, it was not needed to use the specific rule of a written law, because it was perceived in a complex way5. Urban law was written in the book of laws of the respective town. This book sometimes also contained a transcript of the basic royal privilege granted to the respective city. This book contained mainly city statutes and local common law. Sometimes it also contained decrees, which means acts of the national law, but only to a lesser extent, because they did not interfere with the legal position and internal jurisdiction of a town council to such a great extent. Privileges, common law and the town’s own statutes were important for municipal law6. The legal position of royal free towns in the territory of present day Slovakia, as part of the former Kingdom of Hungary, was legalized by a royal privilege. This is a document issued by a king in a ceremonial form with a permanently valid legal norm. Royal free towns disposed collective noble law. They could acquire ownership of properties in the form of a donation, so they were subject to noble jurisdiction. They had lesser regal rights, such as the right of fishing, hunting, milling and tapping and patronate rights, as well as the magisterial feudal right to all land in their territory. A town owned land, forests and meadows located in its land area, while burgenses had these real estates only in hereditary possessions. The city magistrate could allocate regal rights to inhabitants of the town. A town could claim property of burgenses as a res caduca. In the case of common plea and heritage questions, burgenses were subject to a town court, while nobles were governed by the town law only in cases of ownership of the property within the territory of a specific town. Towns could use a coat of arms and a seal. In the case of burgenses, reliable testimonies and other legal acts were recorded and discussed before a town council7. It was a law system by which a specific town should be governed. For example, it was a law system of the town Székesfehérvár, which was obtained by the town Trnava in 1238. Other towns that gained the position of a royal free town or a privileged town are the following: Starý Tekov (1240), Zvolen (1243), Krupina (1244), Svätý Kríž nad Hronom (1246), Nitra (1248), Nové Mesto nad Váhom (1253), Komárno (1256) a Bratislava (1291), Kremnica (1328), Banská Bystrica (1255) and Banská Štiavnica (around 1237). Liptovský Trnovec (1429) and Banská Belá (1453) became the last towns in the Middle Ages. In his seventh decree in the third article, King Vladislaus II of Hungary mentioned eight free towns, namely, 5 6 7

Ibidem, p. 266. Ibidem, p. 259. Luby, Štefan. Dejiny súkromného práva na Slovensku. Bratislava 2002, p.  211. Kluknavská – Gábriš, Mestské právo, p. 220–221.

60

Tomáš Tandlich

Buda, Pest, Košice, Bratislava, Trnava, Bardejov, Prešov and Sopron among the royal free towns. Other towns are Old Buda, Esztergom, Székesfehérvár, Levoča, Skalica and Szeged, as well as the towns of Cumans, Visegrád, Kremnica, Banská Bystrica, Zvolen and other mining towns8. The source of town law were the books of the town where judicial decisions of the town council, statutes, receipts and expenditures of the town treasury, testaments, transfers of property and results of elections of the town council were recorded. Important books of the town are from Žilina, Krupina and Bratislava9. These books were based on two legal sources – Saxon (Magdeburg) and South German (Nuremberg or Swabian). Individual towns in former Hungary used these sources to formulate their legal systems. In 1405, King Sigismund of Luxemburg promoted the towns collectively to an estate similar to a noble one with the act Decretum Minus, which was issued at a Congress of Hungarian Towns. The 21 articles of this Decree regulated several areas of the private and public right of royal free towns and liege towns. It was a codification of a particular statutory law of urban settlements of all types10. As of 1405, towns were invited to the Diet, where they had a right to impose their requirements through their representatives. The Diet ordered that the towns had to have fortification walls mainly because of a possible military threat. The Decree issued in 143511 also regulated the question of the towns’ fortification. This Decree also introduced a right to appeal to a “parent” town by law, by which a respective settlement was regulated, against the decision of a town council. The second form of appeal was an appeal to a master of treasury and then to a chief justice. The Decree also introduced the Buda measure as a uniform unit of measure for importing cloth into Hungary. This Decree granted towns an imperial statute by which they gained an equal position as feudalists, while the direct superior of the towns was the king. The export of gold and silver was forbidden. Ecclesiastical and secular judicial systems were separated. Merchants were permitted to unload goods in Buda freely compared to the older staple right. The import of foreign salt to Hungary was forbidden. This Decree also defined the duty of donations to the king and his representatives. The payment of a thirtieth was implemented; the payment of a ninth and tenth was regulated, as well as the payment of royal taxes, etc.12.

8 9 10 11 12

Ibidem, p. 80. Kluknavská – Gábriš, Mestské právo, p. 214–215. Malý – Sivák, Dějiny státu a práva, p. 96. Luby, Dejiny súkromného práva, p. 81. Kluknavská – Gábriš, Mestské právo, p. 218. Ibidem, p. 216–217.

Municipal Statutes

61

The development of town law in our territory consisted of domestic common law of mainly market settlements for the domestic population and of Saxon/ Magdeburg and Swabian/Nuremberg law brought to Hungary by German immigrants. Statutory law became one of the pillars of a town’s self-government. In addition to statutes as internal regulations, the contemporary town law also included decrees, which means acts, as well as privileges and common law. Basic town legal systems established and legally valid in the parent royal free towns in the territory of today’s Slovakia were the following:  legal system for Buda, Bratislava, Banská Štiavnica, Kremnica, Gelnica; legal system for the towns in the Szepes region, for Székesfehérvár, Trnava, Krupina and Žilina. Town communities or associations were established here. They operated either in a more free coordination of common action in some issues of common interest, or they were integrated for closer cooperation. During the 15th century, the mining towns unified under the leadership of Banská Štiavnica, later of Kremnica, and established the Union of Seven Mining Towns consisting of Banská Štiavnica, Kremnica, Banská Bystrica, Nová Baňa, Ľubietová, Pukanec and Banská Belá as of 1466. Matthias Corvinus granted this Union common privileges in 1470. By the organization of common meetings and the issuance of common statutes that were binding for all member towns, a special common law of this Union of Central Slovak Mining Towns was created. The union also became a body of appeal. Most of these towns were originally governed by the law of Banská Štiavnica. The second union of towns was Pentapolitana created in 1485; this was a union of the towns Košice, Prešov, Levoča, Bardejov and Sabinov. In 1442, the town of Košice called for the issuance of common legal regulations and organized common meetings. The third union was formed by mining towns in eastern Slovakia using the common law of the town Gelnica in 148713. The towns also used a collection of Roman private law Summa legum civilium Raymundi consisting of three books, which were issued in the Middle Ages. It was used by notaries public of the town, so it was a legal literature from today’s point of view. It contained knowledge about the sources of law, legal theory, about property and hereditary law, as well as about law of obligation and criminal law. Thanks to book printing, several of its counterparts were distributed to royal free towns such as Prešov, Bratislava, Trnava and Bardejov14. In relation to the national law, the town law is more independent than guild law. It was applied on the borders and in the territory of a town, where the town law was applied as superior. The

13 Ibidem, p. 226–227. 14 Ibidem, p. 268–269.

62

Tomáš Tandlich

national law consisted of not only noble law, but also the liege law and basic provisions of the town law. It represented dominant law (lex generalis), but it was not superior in all questions in relation to the town law (lex specialis). It means that the national law was a collection of legal regulations valid in the entire country in the form of acts. Similar to the town law, the guild law, the mining law and the vineyard law are also particular laws specializing in private laws and on issues connected to a particular activity. The Mining Order issued by Maximilian II in 1573 was a direct interference into the town law. This Order was valid in all of Hungary, and it interfered into the personal freedom of miners in the mining companies and into competencies of mining towns in relation to the control of mining business in their territories. This act was put into practice in 158015.

Town Self-government Inhabitants of towns elected a vogt (mayor) and a town council consisting of 12 sworn assessors once per year. A vogt could be revoked only with the king’s consent. These municipal bodies were responsible for safety and order in the town, its representation, collection of taxes, issuance of documents  – which means the administrative agenda – and they also carry out judicial competences. The authority of a city-wide assembly of burgenses was transferred to an elected community or wider town council (electa communitas, centumviri) consisting of 12, 24, 60 up to 100 members led by a tribune of the people. This town council elected a vogt and a small town council. Membership in the town council was confirmed every year and it was a lifetime function. This body also issued its own statutes. A tribune of the people (Vormund, tribunus plebis) participated in town council meetings without the right to vote. The patriciate in the town also gradually started to control the election of this body through a vogt and senators16. The vogt (iudex, Richter) as the main administrative and judicial representative of the town was also understood as a delegate of the king. The vogt chaired the meetings of the town council and he was responsible for the operation of the town. He was elected for one year, although the same vogt could have applied for re-election several times. He shared the executive power with a small town council, which usually consisted of 6 to 12 members. Its members were senators or sworn accessories (senatores, Jurati). They were elected for one year. Their office could be extended for two to three years, or they could have become lifetime members of the council. Competences of a vogt and council were gradually extended and 15 Ibidem, p. 257–258. 16 Švecová – Gábriš, Dejiny štátu, správy a súdnictva, p. 78–79.

Municipal Statutes

63

were defined by town statutes, which were used as internal rules. The council (Magistratus, Rat) issued and published statutes; administered the property of the town and orphans’ property; executed patronal right over the town church, took care of issues related to the police, health and education matters; accepted new burgenses; elected representatives sent to the Diet; supervised guilds and looked after religious duties and morality in the town. The town office was led by a notary public, who was not a proper member of the town council, but his education in law was very important for the operation of the town (notarius). The notary public represented the town in legal disputes until the 18th century; he was responsible for protocols of the town, books of accounts, minutes of the council meetings and registers. He compiled official and private documents; he was responsible for housing an army and he protected the seal of the town. At first, the mayor was responsible for the economy and administration of the town. Later on, in the Early Modern Period he replaced the vogt in leading the town council in some towns. The town captain took care of safety and security in the town. He was also the commander of the town guard taking care of safety and security in separate districts of the town17. A term royal free town was enacted by Act No. 1/1608, where only those towns of this fourth estate of Hungary were acknowledged as royal free towns, which were listed in Act No. 3/1514, namely, Buda, Pest, Košice, Bratislava, Bardejov, Trnava, Sopron and Prešov. Other newly established towns were referred to in a forthcoming statutory article about their position. Many towns were promoted only after the expulsion of the Ottomans, and so Act No. 1/1687 banned the admission of new towns among the royal free towns with exception, because their number had significantly increased and their estate could have been compared to other estates in Hungary18. In the Early Modern Period, the state started to interfere in town self-government more intensively through the Hungarian Royal Chamber, Hungarian Governor Council and royal commissioners, which could be seen in the election of town councils at the turn of the 17th and 18th centuries. Towns were considered to be royal property. However, the towns became allies of the king against the nobility in the Diet, because their number had increased during the 16th and 17th centuries due to the fact that the territory of today’s Slovakia became the core of the unoccupied part of Hungary. The nobility tried to stop expansion of the number of royal free towns, and so the Diet approved Act No. 6/1608 on the expansion of the number of these towns only with the consent of the Diet. At the beginning

17 Ibidem, p. 80–81. 18 Luby, Dejiny súkromného práva, p. 210. Kluknavská – Gábriš, Mestské právo p. 219.

64

Tomáš Tandlich

of the 19th century, the number of tavernical towns increased to 24 and chief justice towns to 14. Modra, Skalica, and Krupina became tavernical towns and Svätý Jur, Pezinok, Kežmarok and Brezno became chief justice towns19.

Tripartitum – The Base of Hungarian Law in the Early Modern Period Tripartitum (Opus Tripartitum iuris consuetudinarii inclyti Regni Hungariae partiumque ad nexarum) defined only Levoča, Székesfehérvár and Esztergom20 as chief justice towns. This work consists of an introduction and three parts. The aim of its author – Štefan Verbőcy – was to collect the Hungarian common law, which was decided by King Vladislaus II Jagiellon in 1498 and 1500. The king approved the wording of this text in 1514, but he did not attach his seal to this document, and so the collection of law did not become an act. Its text was printed in 1517 and subsequently became legally binding. It is primarily influenced by Roman law, while the canonical law was only of minor influence. Its third part contains a particular town law. The impact on town law was reflected particularly in the case of tavernical towns, because one part is directly devoted to them. Legal procedures from this Collection were also applied in towns of chief justice and other non-tavernical towns. Therefore, Tripartitum was used in the municipal judicial system. The base for the Opus Tripartitum text was noble law and civil proceedings; criminal and public law systems were minor. It was applied in judicial practice when deciding judicial disputes. It was used by legislative power in the form of references to its text in Acts No. 24/1583 and 18/1635 and as a decretum generale in Act No. 6/1723. Legal science and literature accepted this Collection as a part of Corpus Iuris Hungarici as decretum generale of the common law from 162821.

Master of Treasury and Tavernical Court A master of treasury (magister tavarnicorum regalium) was one of the country officers who also gradually became a judge responsible for appellate court decisions from the 13th century when this office was established. During the 14th century, he became the supreme judge for selected towns and lost his economic power in favor of the royal master of the treasury. The tavernical court was a 19 Ibidem, p. 80–81. 20 Švecová – Gábriš, Dejiny štátu, správy a súdnictva, p. 108. 21 Malý – Sivák, Dějiny státu a práva, p. 162–164.

Municipal Statutes

65

senate type of court, with associate judges who were not only burgenses, but also noblemen. It was a special court from the courts of the Royal Hungarian Curia. In the first half of the 15th century, the position of the towns that applied town law on this court strengthened. The Decree by King Sigismund of Luxemburg in 1405 declared that this court was an appellate court for a second hearing for part of the royal free towns. If a town had been established during the rule of Sigismund, it could choose whether it would appeal to the master of the treasury or to the town council of the “parent” town. Disputes were adjudicated according to town common law and the respective town council of which passed the dispute to the court as the first-instance body. This court dealt with private lawsuits in the amount of 60 to 300 ducates as a final resolution, and also with testamentary disputes, criminal matters, city servitude, matters of guilds, defamations and minor violent offenses. The court of appeal in the royal free towns included three types of courts: a court of “parent” town, tavernical court and a court of chief justice22. This system was stabilized during the 14th and at the beginning of the 15th century. The seat of this court was in Buda and after 1526, in Bratislava. This court met once per year on precisely defined days. The towns Bratislava, Trnava, Košice, Prešov and Bardejov were called tavernical towns, because they delegated their representatives as associate judges to the tavernical court. In 1723, the number of these towns increased to 1723. The position of a master of the treasury did not work for a certain time after 1526, but its activity was gradually renewed. Towns were divided into original and newly established tavernical towns. Other royal free towns appealed to the king through a chief justice. Matthias Corvinus exempted Székesfehérvár, Esztergom and Levoča from the authority of a master of the treasury and moved them under the authority of a chief justice. Later on, the town of Sabinov was also moved. All issues, except for the mining ones, from the Central-Slovak (Lower Hungarian) mining cities of Kremnica, Banská Štiavnica, Banská Bystrica, Pukanec, Ľubietová, Nová Baňa, Zvolen, Brezno and Banská Belá were resolved by a chief justice as the second appellate instance through a court of personal royal presence. They were dominated by Kremnica in 1405. This group also included the Eastern-Slovak (Upper Hungarian) mining towns of Smolník, Rožňava, Jasov, Telkibánya and Rudabánya, with Gelnica being their leader as of 1487. This town became the seat of the supreme mining

22 Švecová – Gábriš, Dejiny štátu, správy a súdnictva, p. 106. 23 Ibidem, p. 107.

66

Tomáš Tandlich

court and their common law was governed by their own statutes and a unified judicial practice. These towns were called towns of chief justice24. The particular Hungarian town tavernical law was created as a result of the legacy of privileged towns, the aim of which was to unify the existing legal systems of individual royal free towns. It was compiled by a master of the treasury, Ján Thuz de Lak, between 1465 and 1479 as a collection Articuli iuris tavernicalis consisting of 14 articles. Its articles were amended in 1499 and they were confirmed by the king in 1602. Another collection of laws used by towns was a collection published in 1486 under the name Vetusta Iura civitatum sive Iura civilia. It contained 175 articles with four parts about hereditary, criminal, procedural law and jus in re. Until this time, the towns had only used town books of law, such as books of the towns Krupina, Bratislava, Žilina, Košice, Banská Štiavnica, etc. These books of law were created using a combination of original Saxon, Bavarian and Swabian law and local legal customs. Statutes of the tavernical court specified a method of proceedings in the case of material law, and towns created legal regulations and procedural statutes, which unified their particular town legal systems25. Tavernical towns aimed to stabilize town law in the third-instance appeal proceedings with an act. In 1499, King Vladislaus II issued a collection of procedural rules which amended the collection of laws issued in 1479 regarding the competence of the court of the personal presence of the King, so the court of chief justice in the appellate proceeding in case of hereditary and creditor’s disputes for a property with value higher than 300 ducates. This meant strengthening the autonomy of the tavernical towns at the national level in the judicial field excluding the influence of noble law within the jurisdiction of the civil councils26. In the 16th and 17th centuries, a tavernical court served as a unifying factor in the decision-making activity of separate civil councils of tavernical towns in economic, political and legal fields. It resolved not only disputes of burgenses of tavernical and other towns, but also disputes of clerical representatives, monasteries and chapters having property in the town. Conflicts for property between burgenses and nobles or between nobles themselves accumulated, because their number in the towns had increased as a result of their escaping from Ottoman danger. Legal norms contained in the 24 Malý – Sivák, Dějiny státu a práva, p. 154. Švecová – Gábriš, Dejiny štátu, správy a súdnictva, p. 106–107. Luby, Dejiny súkromného práva, p. 81, 211. 25 Malý – Sivák, Dějiny státu a práva, p. 161. Luby, Dejiny súkromného práva, p. 80. 26 Mertanová, Štefánia. Ius tavernicale. Štúdie o procese formovania práva taverníckych miest v etapách vývoja taverníckeho súdu v Uhorsku (15.–17. storočie). Bratislava 1985, p. 60–61.

Municipal Statutes

67

collection of tavernical law were modified with amendments to the statutes according to the needs of a judicial practice, particularly in procedural law. There was an effort to exclude the influence of noble law and interference by other state noble officers into the competences of the master of the treasury. The amended Code of Tavernical Law was compiled from 1541 to 1559, and in 1602, Emperor Rudolph II confirmed the Code of Tavernical Law with his privilege27. Procedural law contained in the Code from 1602 focused on seven tavernical towns – Košice, Bratislava, Trnava, Sopron, Bardejov, Prešov and Skalica. During 1602, a master of the treasury repeatedly informed the Emperor that it was necessary to amend this Code by confirming the whole Code of Tavernical Law and its statutes due to unauthorized interference of the chief justice into the judicial system of tavernical towns. In August 1602, the ruler issued a confirmation instrument on the basis of a request by tavernical towns’ representatives28. The ruler also issued ordering mandates, the aim of which was to ban the interference of state noble judges and other representatives of former Hungary into the affairs of the towns and the master of the treasury. Privilege with the Code of Procedural Tavernical Law from 1602 consisted of 41 articles in total. Articles No. 1 to 14 contained a code of procedural law from 1479 in addition to a provision on decision-taking in testamentary affairs by town councils of tavernical towns and in the appellate proceedings held before a tavernical court. Articles 15 to 28 contained provisions on the Collection of Law Quaeritur consisting of 18 articles that regulated the activity of the tavernical court during the rule of Sigismund of Luxembourg. Articles 29 to 38 contained transcripts of statutes of the tavernical court from 1587, 1595 and 1599. Articles 39 to 41 dealt with new provisions and defined in more details issuance of mandates by a master of the treasury for the re-treatment of disputes, prohibition for other judges of the country to interfere in the affairs of towns, as well a procedure of appeal to the third instance. These provisions were also contained in the II Decree of King Sigismund from 1405 and a Collection of Tavernical Law from 149929. Constant violation of the rights of the tavernical town councils by the nobility caused representatives of tavernical towns to try and obtain a prohibition of interference by noble judges into the competences of towns and the master of the treasury through the King. Under his competence, the master of the treasury issued mandates which were the only binding mandates for the towns. In 1613, during

27 Ibidem, p. 136–137. 28 Ibidem, p. 127. 29 Ibidem, p. 109–110.

68

Tomáš Tandlich

the Diet, Matthias II proposed an act that the town councils of tavernical towns should be governed only by tavernical law, but this proposal met with resistance from the nobility. In the case of disputes related to immovable property, nobles who became burgenses bypassed the town councils and addressed other state noble officers instead of the master of the treasury. In 1616, representatives of the cities of Bratislava, Trnava and Sopron submitted to the ruler their proposal for the new codification of that part of tavernical law which prohibited interference into the decision-making competence of the town councils of this group of cities regarding the re-treatment of disputes between burgenses and nobles requiring any appeals be made only to tavernical courts and against potential interference of county courts into the competences of the town councils. The Diet approved these requests from the towns despite huge resistance from country judges and their prothonotaries. Breaking the law of tavernical towns and failure to observe tavernical law by a representative of a master of the treasury led to the towns’ attempt in their complaint submitted to the master of the treasury Tomáš Erdődy in 1616 to have him removed for failing to obey the amendment to the tavernical law from 1602 by leaving the proceedings held in the court, because of an effort to merge the tavernical and general national law systems. The proposal of towns to amend tavernical law focused on emphasizing the gradual stabilization of the court’s competence from purely hereditary and debt disputes by burgenses in the appellate procedures of the second instance before the tavernical court up to a partial expansion of its jurisdiction to testamentary disputes with the possibility for the further expansion of this judicial body’s jurisdiction. In 1628, the towns attempted to make the Code of Tavernical Law from 1602 a part of Hungarian legislation30. Also important was its publication in 1609 in Bardejov, in 1668 in Vienna, in 1694 and 1696 in Trnava and in 1729 and 1730 in Bratislava31. Acts No. 4/1608, 60/1608, 23/1613, 87/1647 and 78/1647 dealt with a new method for town council elections: they strengthened the position of the nobility in towns and expanded the powers of county courts (sedes iudiciaria) in favor of people who were not aristocrats, which also meant in favor of burgenses in the case of a criminal act committed within the territory of a county, where they did not own any property. This was a violation of the rights of towns and tavernical law, because noble judicial bodies were interfering outside their jurisdiction. Tavernical towns, towns of chief justice and mining towns defended themselves together against Acts No. 67 and 78/1647 during the meeting of the Hungarian

30 Ibidem, p. 114–116. 31 Ibidem, p. 113.

Municipal Statutes

69

Diet in 1647. Tavernical towns also organized joint meetings during 1647 in Trnava. After coordination with other towns, a similar meeting was organized in February 1648 in Prešov, where the town councils of Pentapolitana met. The aim of the towns was to ensure the issuance of a revoking mandate against these acts by King Ferdinand III, which the representatives of the towns of Košice, Bratislava and Skalica ultimately achieved at the end of January 1649 with the help of the master of the treasury. The legal relations of the towns and nobility were once again regulated by the status that existed before 1647. However, the nobility still put pressure on towns, and so in 1663, the towns organized common meetings to protect their rights against the interference of noble law and courts into their jurisdiction32. In 1539, King Ferdinand I confirmed to tavernical towns their old privileges, according to which hereditary disputes and debts with a value above 60 ducates were decided only by tavernical courts in appellate proceedings and not by other judges, such as a state noble judge, chief justice or palatine. At that time, the towns of Bratislava, Trnava and Sopron cooperated together, and because of war with John Zápolya, the king accepted that only these towns could participate in meetings of the tavernical court without the participation of other towns, for example the town of Košice. In 1536 and 1539, the councils of these towns asked the king, also on behalf of other tavernical towns, to confirm their privileges that the disputes in appellate proceeding would be decided only by the master of the treasury and not by other state noble judges. The king ordered the royal chancellor, the judge royal, the chief justice, the prothonotary and other associate judges of the Royal Curia to allow the towns of Bratislava, Trnava and Sopron to keep their privileges and rights of first instance and second instance jurisdiction for hereditary and debt disputes above 60 ducates and not to distort the competencies of town councils and the master of the treasury by interfering in the disputes solved by them33. This court did not meet regularly after the year 1528 due to the Ottoman threat34. One of the most important meetings of the court was held in 1558 in Bratislava during the meeting of the Diet, attended by representatives of tavernical towns in order to reform the decision-making process of the tavernical court. This meeting established a protocol, where besides the decisions by the court, newly created statutes by the court also had to be recorded as of 1559, which were the results of its law-making activity in the

32 Ibidem, p. 116–117. 33 Ibidem, p. 72–73. 34 Ibidem, p. 10.

70

Tomáš Tandlich

field of procedural measures in separate types of disputes. Documents from the tavernical court from the previous period were lost and only transcripts of a Collection of the Tavernical Law and statutes of the tavernical court in separate towns have been preserved35. This court was also governed by statutes, while according to Article 3 from 1595, the regular meeting of the tavernical court with the participation of representatives of all towns under its jurisdiction should start on the day that the council estates convene. This rule was valid until 1702. Since then, meetings of the court were held according to need. Due to war with the Ottomans, some towns could not participate in the meetings of the tavernical court, for example the towns of Košice, Prešov, Sopron and Bardejov in 1567 and the towns of Košice, Prešov and Bardejov in 160836. However, this date could not be maintained due to the bad economic and military situation of these towns, and so the statute issued in 1633 determined to summon a meeting of the court only in the case of five retreated disputes by the city councils of the tavernical towns37. Violation of the jurisdiction of town councils of tavernical towns and the competences of the master of the treasury, as the only legitimate judicial body for towns in the appellate proceedings of the second instance, also continued at the turn of the 17th and 18th centuries. It was reflected in the increased compilation of statutes dealing with procedures in separate disputes resolved during meetings of this court. It was an effort to ensure the operation of the court through the normative formation of statutes of the tavernical court. These statutes can be incorporated into the Code of Procedural law from 1602. Later on, statutes were implemented into protocols from separate meetings of the court. Statutes from 1609 dealt with the procedure in decision-making regarding appeals to the tavernical court only at one meeting of the court. Statutes from 1611 determined the re-treatment of disputes in the case of an appeal from the court of second instance to the court of third instance, which meant from a tavernical court to a court of the chief justice due to the frequent violation of the institute’s subordination. Only a procedural mandate issued by a master of the treasury was binding. Statutes from 1616 determined the procedure for administering the binding oath of a deputy of the master of the treasury and legitimacy of mandates issued by the master of the treasury. Statutes from 1626 determined the administration of the oath of a deputy of the master of the treasury only during the

35 Ibidem, p. 76. 36 Ibidem, p. 77. 37 Ibidem, p. 80–81.

Municipal Statutes

71

meeting of the court, as well as the procedure for changing the date for a judicial body meeting. Statutes from 1628 regulated mandates of the master of the treasury in order to protect his competencies against interference from other national officers. Statutes were issued because of frequent violations of tavernical law provisions from 1602 approved by the King38. Statutes of the tavernical court from 1639 determined the delegation of less representatives from the towns of Košice, Bardejov and Prešov due to bad military situation in the country. Each city council had to keep its own protocol regarding meetings of the tavernical court. Statues from 1703 dealt with the ownership of property under litigation, which was canceled for the disputing party, which had submitted an appeal opposing the decision of the court. Statutes from 1723 again laid down the binding character of mandates issued by a master of the treasury for tavernical towns. To simplify the legal practice, a resolution by the tavernical court from 1695 ordered that all statutes of the tavernical court be recorded, which had to be performed after opening the tavernical archive, where a book of the court and all other files were archived. It was carried out by a notary public of the tavernical court from 1703 to 170739.

A statute of the Town of Trnava from 1604 – Confirmation of Articles of the Trade Guild from 1547 Guilds were organized associations of craftsmen and journeymen and their workshops from one type of a craft or trade. It was the first degree of self-government in towns. Their role was to support their own members, to protect their dominant position in their respective industry and to check products and provided services. Town councils granted these associations guild orders (articles) in the form of statutes. A head of the guild was a guild master elected by members of the guild. Members of the guild had to follow Christian obligations. Guilds as estate organizations took care of the economic and social level of their members and they tried to maintain their positions on the market. They did not act as political bodies in opposition to town patriciate as guilds did in the towns of Western Europe40. Trnava was divided into four urban districts in the 16th century41. The most frequent part of the town was today’s´ Trojičné square, which was used as a 38 39 40 41

Ibidem, p. 118–119. Ibidem, p. 120–121. Švecová – Gábriš, Dejiny štátu, správy a súdnictva, p. 86. Botťánková, Mária. K topografii mesta Trnavy v 16. storočí. In Šimončič, Jozef (Ed.). Trnava okres a mesto: Trnavský zborník 3. Štúdie. Bratislava: Obzor, 1980, p. 61.

72

Tomáš Tandlich

market place, and all important events took part here. The town Trnava had two squares. The older square near the parish church of St. Nicholas gradually was used as a market place during the 14th and 15th centuries. The business center of the town was moved 42 to today’s Trojičné square in its western part and it was called Forum or Theatrum in the 16th century. Town bodies tried to concentrate all trade with goods, which was a significant source of income for the town, into one place – a market place. Domestic merchants could sell their goods or purchase them early in the morning hours, but foreigners could trade in the market only from noon. The commodities of a merchant who violated this statutory regulation of the town were confiscated by market guards and donated to the town hospital. Goods brought by a foreign merchant should be sold only in small quantities at the beginning, and it could be offered to domestic burgenses only after three days. Otherwise it was confiscated. Street and door-to-door sale outside the market place was strictly forbidden. This applied mainly to fish. A town controller with the help of one burgess had to check the accuracy of gauges and scales throughout the market. The collection of fees for their use was executed by the town controller together with a town mason, who was also responsible for controlling the receipts and expenditures of the town from this activity. The Trnava town consul issued instructions connected with this activity. Trnava had a privilege in salt trade43. Town statutes defined the performance of this activity in the town market. A consul together with a notary public and treasurer administered and checked economic issues of the town, such as the administration of town buildings, for example mill and brewery, supervision of villeins, supervision of scales and gauges, tapping of wine and beer and deposit of keys from the town treasury. The consul also checked the receipts and expenditures of the town, such as the ninth and tithe collected from villein villages owned by the town, etc. For performance of its work, the consul was entitled to ten ballots of wine from a town wine cellar and one ducat for each transaction related to lands in the Land Register of the town44. Merchants and chandlers from the city of Trnava established their guild organization on May 6, 1547, when the vogt and Trnava town council issued their guild articles in the form of a town statute in Latin. Its text forms the statement of another statute that is a documentary confirmation of a previous

42 Ibidem, p. 65. 43 Vrabcová, Eva. Štatúty mesta Trnavy ako historický prameň. In Šimončič, Jozef (Ed.). Trnava okres a mesto: Trnavský zborník 3. Štúdie. Bratislava: Obzor, 1980, p. 206. 44 Ibidem, p. 199.

Municipal Statutes

73

document from February 6, 160445. The original, confirmed guild articles have not been preserved. The name of the trade guild (gilda) in Trnava was Collegium mercatorum and it associated most of the local merchants and chandlers, but not all the richest merchants were members in it46. In 1604, the members of the guild Bartolomej Artwein, Vavrinec Chereődy, Martin Chipswtheö, Valentín Brian and Jakub Chiryan submitted the articles of the guild to the town council for their confirmation. The book of accounts of the guild was placed together with other documents in the guild coffer, which was opened every year during the election meeting of this guild47. The town statute itself regulated and improved the operation of a guild of merchants and chandlers in Trnava, who formed one of the most influential groups of burgenses of this town in the second half of the 16th and at the beginning of the 17th century. Trnava had an important position in Hungarian trade at that time, particularly thanks to its position on the western borders of the Kingdom. The fee for admission in the guild was set on 2 ducats and 2 talents of wax. Members who were named as institores had to pay a regular contribution to the guild’s treasury in the amount of four ducates per year regardless of their property. In the case of a violation of the guild’s order, a guild master, who was elected by members of the guild, was entitled to punish a guilty person with expulsion from the guild. Foreign merchants had to have permission issued by the guild master to sell their goods. Participation in guild meetings was obligatory. A merchant who did not arrive at the meeting within one hour after it had begun might still have come on time if a candle made of Vienna wax was still burning; otherwise he had to pay four talents of wax. Twelve ducates were paid as a sanction if any member of a guild solved his dispute not by addressing a guild master, but by directly addressing a Vogt. A dispute between members of the guild was punished by a fine amounting to five ducates, as well as by an additional punishment according to the decision of the guild master.

45 Štátny archív v Trnave (State Archives in Trnava, hereinafter referred to as ŠA TT), fond (hereafter f.) Magistrát mesta Trnavy, no. 488. Šimončič, Jozef. Pramene k dejinám obchodu v Štátnom okresnom archíve v Trnave. In Dejiny obchodu na Slovensku. Zborník z konferencie v Nitre v r. 1987. Bratislava 1987, p. 221. 46 Békesi, Emil. A  nagyszombati kalmár czéh szabályai 1547, és 1604 ből és régi jegyzőkönyve 1556–1651 ből [The Rules of the Trade Guild in Trnava from 1547 and 1604 and Its Accounting Book from 1556 to 1651]. In Történelmi Tár [Historická zbierka]. Budapest 1883, p. 175. 47 ŠA TT, f. Cechy mesta Trnavy [The Artifical Corporations of Trnava] – Cech kupcov [The Trade Guild], Účtovná kniha [The Accounting Book] z rokov 1652–1718.

74

Tomáš Tandlich

If a merchant did not provide his colleague help in the case of a wagon crash, he was obliged to pay the guild a fine amounting to ten Hungarian ducates. A guild master had the right to order members of the guild to help their sick colleague if necessary. Financial help could be provided to a guild member who was experiencing financial difficulty. Two members were obliged to accompany their deceased colleague during his funeral. A master who lured a journeyman away from another merchant was obliged to pay two ducates as a punishment. Selling in stands was forbidden during Church feasts, church services and on Sundays. Each member of the guild was entitled to operate only one stand for the sale of goods during the market and a fair. Absence of a journeyman or a master at a funeral was punished by a fine amounting to two pounds of wax. A procession with a cross on Corpus Christi holiday was performed with the obligatory participation of members of the guild of merchants and chandlers together with other guilds in the town of Trnava. The articles were fourteen in total, of which articles 11, 12, 13 and 14 were modified and amended by the town council in its statute from 1604, when compared with a document issued in 1547. From a diplomatic perspective, this is a document issued by a vogt and the town council of Trnava. It is a town statute and its narrative part contains the text of a confirmed document from 1547 that was also issued as a town statute by the contemporary town council led by the vogt and merchant Peter Zamboky. Daniel Hamerla, who was trading with cloth and canvas, was the vogt in 1604. The introductory part of the Protocol contained intitulation with names of the vogt and members of the town council as publishers of the document. Its Latin wording is as follows: NOS DANIEL HAMERLA JUDEX, Michael Salomon Capitaneus, Martinus Cheredi, Georgius Hrachoviczki, Matthias Duczentaller, Georgius Maii, Michael Mersan, Stephanus Dominicus, Stephanus Marothi, Andreas Hohenper, Franciscus Zalai, Bartholomeus Artwain et Matthias Spegel, Jurati Cives ac Senatores Regiae Liberae Civitatis Tyrnaviensis… Invocation; salutation and inscript are missing in the text. Promulgation of the document consists of the following text:  Memoriae commendamus tenore praesentium significantes quibus expedit universis…. It is part of the core of the document. Arenga is also missing. Data about applicants are stipulated only in the narrative part of the document, which also contains the fact that in 1604 the document from the year 1547 was submitted as an original with the seal of the town attached. It was written on parchment paper in Latin. The narrative part contains the whole text of the confirmed document, which is as follows: Quod Nobiles et Prudentes viri Bartholomeus Artwain, Laurentius Chereödy, Martinus Chiposwtheö, Valentinus Brian, Jacobus Chiryan, in suis proprys ac

Municipal Statutes

75

reliquorum fratrum suorum contubernii Institorum Nominibus et Personis Nostram venientes in Praesentiam exhibuerunt Nobis et praesentaverunt Literas Privilegiales super Fundationem Cehae et Confraternitas eorum consuetudines Jura et Articulos in se continentes in Pargameno sub Sigillo hujus Civitatis nostrae Authentico in Zona Sericta impedenti in Anno Domini Millesimo Quingentesimo Quadragesimo Septimo feria sexta proxima post Festum Inventionis Sanctae Crucis, patenter confectas et emanantas, sodalitati eorundem Institorum a praedecessoribus nostris commune bonum promovere cupiendo concessas. Quia vero eadem Litera non debito modo uti par erat ab Antecessoribus eorum conservata fuerunt, ideoque humiditate poenitus attritae et deturpatae essent, suplicaverunt Nobis ut easdem per alias Literas nostras similiter Patentes renovare ac insupre quatuor novos eisdem per necessarios Articulos videlicet Articulum Undecimum, Duodecimum, Decimum Tertium et decimum quartum prioribus addere dignaremur: Quarum quidem Literarum tenor est talis. Nos Petrus Zamboky, Judex, Joannes Zyro, Capitaneus, Wolffgangus Maar, Caspar Mykon, Bartholomeus Wadas, Martinus Zabo, Lucas Szentmarthony, Georgius Kossuth, Adam Pek, Emericus Kalmar, Joannes Zeöcz, Georgius Damacus et Matthias Paysgiartho jurati Consules Civitatis Tyrnaviensi. Memoriae commendamus tenore praesentium significantes quibus expedit universis et singulis. Quod cum Nos juxta more met consuetudinem Civitatis nostrae pro habentis Tractatibus commune bonum nostrum concernentibus in Praetorium hujus Civitatis congregati fuissimus venientes in conspectum nostrum circumspecti viri Emericus Kalmar, Blasius Kalmar, Petrus Kys et Volfgangus Bizer Institores in medio nostri commorantes suis ac omnium et singulorum Institorum Personis et Nominibus, debita cum Modesta Nobis exponere et detegere curavent. Quod cum ipsi in Omnibus Liberis Civitatibus pluribus Libertatibus et consuetudinis ab antiquo super Confraternitatem ipsorum extendentem usigavisi fuissent, imo et fruerentur de praesenti et quia ipsi super ejus modi Libertatibus et Consuetudinibus nullas certas et confectas haberent Literas, quibus Articuli Libertatum ipsorum essent conscripti Supplicatum Nobis extitit, ut ipsorum Articulos Nobis fideliter declaratos Authoritate Nostra Ordinaria imposterum semper observandum eisdem privilegialiter extradare et concedere dignaremur. Quia vero Unitate et Concordia ipsorum Incolarum Civitatis Numerus ampliari et augeri videtur, rectores etiam eorundem majori pacis amoenitate frui et quae hujus confraternitatis sunt, pro veteri laudabilique consuetudine exercere possint, cumque veterum industria non sine sagacissima providentiae ordinatione statuisset et advenisset ut eaquae temporaliter geruntur, propter labilem hominis et fluram memoriam, debita literarum diuturnittem fulcerirentur, considerantes etiam, quod libertates et consuetudines ipsorum Institorum forent recenti

76

Tomáš Tandlich

adhuc hominum notitiam manifestae et clarae, quarum quidem libertatum et consuetudinum tenor Articulis infrascriptis contentam talis est. Primus articulus, ut nemo quiequam vendere, nec exponere debeat, insi prius in Confraternitatem seu Cheham ipsorum dederit florenum duos et duo talenti cerae. Secundus, quod omnis, qui aliquid vendere vult, tenetur singulis angarys Cheham seu Confraternitatem dare denarios quatuor hungaricales, nullo habito respectu divitis vel pauperis. Tertius arcticulus, Quod quilibet Literas suas conservatorum seu Parentelas, Magistro Confraternitatis monstret, atque praesentet:  alias enim in Confraternitatem ipsorum minimem accipiendus erit, si aliquis vero ordini eorum resistere vellet, et Confraternitatem invertere et Mercaturam suam contra edictum eorum exponerem, quo aliquid vendereposset, in derogamen Libertatum et Consuetudinem eorum Magister Confraternitatis cum aliis fratribus tenetur illum omni re privar. Quartus articulus, Quod nullus extraneorum Institorum quequam vendere, nec in Foris Hebdomadalibus, alysque diebus debet, si vero aliquis deprehensus fuerit, talis omnibus rebus suis per Magistrum Confraternitatis privandus erit. Quintus articulus, Quod omnis Institor, qui in Confraternitatem, seu Cheham acceptus fuerit, imprimis prandium dare teneatur. Sextus articulus, Quod cum ipse Magister Chehae convocat reliquos Fratres, tenetur nuncium suum proprium mittere ad convocandum, qui ipsis indicet horam convenientem, et quicunque ex eis domi esset, et convocationi non satisfaceret, aut non obtemperaret, venireque nollet donec una Candela cerea Vienensi empta cremaretur, talis absque gratia pro quatuor talento cerae puniendus erit. Septimus articulus, Quod causae inter eosdem alique suscitate extentem se se ad florenos Duodecim, coram supremo fratrum levarum et uniri possint, absque molestatione Domini Judici. Quae autem pars utigantium facto per Magistrum Confraternitatis Judicio non contentaretur neque unioni pareret, talis contumax florenis quinque in ladulum communem, seu Articulos eorum observare nollet, nec curaret, talis similiter quinque florenis puniendus erit. Octavus eorum articulus, quandocunque Fratres in Cheha existentes questus gratia cum curribus eorum onustis, (quod saepius accidere solet) in via aliquid periculi in fractione currus, aliorumve casuum experirentur, et unus alteri auxiliari nollet, desereretque, et quod majus est, propter temporis formidinem in una comitiva caeterorum fratrum incedere nollet, et non curaret, talis bono et evidenti testimonio convictus in florenis decem hungaricales mulctandus erit.

Municipal Statutes

77

Nono eorum articulus, Quod agrorante aliquo ex eis frater principalis requisitus, tenetur duos ex confraternitatem pro excubys nocturnis circa aegrotum dare egentiori vero etiam de Ladula communi ad tempus persolutionis necessitate tunc exigenti pecuniam mutuare. Si vero talem mori contingat honestae sepulturae conimendare corpus duobus fratribus in cheha existentem, laborem ducendi subcuntibus in locum sepulturum deducerem. Decimus eorum articulus est, quod quicunque famulum seu famulam familiamve alterius quavis via ad se alliceret, talis evidenti testimonio convictus florenis duobus puniendus erit. Undecimus articulus ut festivis diebus nulli institorum testudines seu officinae mercaturae tabulas aperire liceat. Duodecimus eorum articulus, quod nulli institorum in duabus testudinibus seu officinis merces venum exponere liceat. Decimus tertius eorum articulus, quod si ad funebres exequias Confraternitas Institorum invitaretur, et quicunque per magistrum Chehae certificatus, ac per ipsius famulum domi repertus, processioni ejusmodi interese nollet, aut quavis causa se absentaret, is per Magistrum Chehae duabus libris cerae mulctari debet. Decimus quartus et ultimus articulus, ut quilibet Institorum, secundum morem aliarum Ceharum, in Festo Corporis Christi, cum Cruce Confraternitatis Institorum intersit personaliter, si quis autem subtraheret se, is similiter duabus libris mulctetur. Si autem secundo absentaret se, a processione, mulctetur juxta facultatem suam et demeritum toties quoties absens esset, quemadduum et alia Chehae in earum consuetudine habent. Nos igitur cognita postulatione, perlectisque et diligenter consideratis articulis Nobis per praescriptos Institores modo praemisso propositos, cupientes etiam Civitatem hanc nostram boni ordinis regimine inter praedictos Opifices erecto, decorare, habito inter nos et totam comunitatem hujus Civitatis diligenti supertinde Tractatu, et ruminatione praescriptam Confraternitatem Institorum ac articulos praeinsertos, per eosdem perpetuo observando, Authorita nostra ordinaria instituimus ereximus et confirmavimus, imo instituimus erigimus, confirmavimus, ac pro eisdem Institoribus et eorum Cheha perpetuo valituros decernimus et stabilimus. In cujus rei memoriam firmittemque perpetuam praesentes Literas nostras pendenti et authentico Sigillo nostro roboratas memoratis Institoribus et Confraternitatis duximus concedendas. Datum Tyrnaviae. Feria Sexta proxima post Festum Inventionis Sanctae Crucis. anno Domini Millesimo Quingentesimo Quadragesimo Septimo. The disposition explains that the town council of the town of Trnava decided to confirm and improve articles of the trade guild in the form of

78

Tomáš Tandlich

a town statute without amendments. Only articles 11, 12, 13 and 14 of the statute are amended and supplemented. Its text is as follows: Nos igitur admissa postulatione praescriptorum concivium nostrorum juxta et legitima, praescriptas Literas eorundem, non abrasas, non cancellatas, neque in aliqua earum parte suspectus, aut viciatas, praesentibus Literis nostris patentibus transcribi faciendo, renovandas, et quatuor posteriores Articulos videlicet Undecimum, Duodecimum, Decimum Tertium, et Decimum quartum prioribus eorum Articulis addendum et adyciendum esse decrevimus, prout renovamus, addimus et adycimus praesentium per vigorem. Sanction part is missing in the text. In corroboration, the vogt and town council of the town of Trnava confirmed the validity of their statute for the local guild of merchants by attaching the seal of the town. Its text is as follows:  In quorum omnium et singulorum praemissorum fidem, firmitatemque perpetuam praesentes Literas nostras, Sigillo hujus Reipublica Nostrae authentico impedenti munitas, eisdem, Concivibus nostris, toti videlicet Contubernio Institorum hujus Civitatis dandas esse duximus et concedendas. Eschatocol as a final part of the document represents the main date part. There is no subscription or apprecation in the document. The text is as follows: Datum Tyrnaviae Sabbatho proximo post Festum Purificationis Beatissimae Virginis Mariae. Anno partus eiusdem Millesimo Sexcentesimo Quarto. In the Early Modern Period, statutes as legal norms are examples of the difficult situation of royal free towns in the territory of present day Slovakia, which tried to pressure the aristocracy in former Hungary through application of the unified use of the tavernical law. The Town law, which became a part of the legal system in our country as of the 13th century, had undergone a dynamic and demanding development. Knowledge of it will help to better understand not only the legal environment of town settlements, but also the life of burgenses in these towns and their role in the economic and social structure of the society of former Hungary during the Early Modern Period.

79

Municipal Statutes

 

Picture No. 1: The title page of the copy of Privilege from year 1547 for the Trade Guild in Trnava issued by local city council in year 1604 and verified again by the municipal notary Ján Soos in year 1731. The document is stored in the Magyar Nemzeti Levéltár  – Országos Levéltár (The National Archives of Hungary), C 25–Helytartótanácsi Levéltár (The Archives of Royal Governing Council of Hungary)–Acta mechanica (The Craftsmen Fraternities Files)  – Nagyszombat város (The City of Trnava)  – N°. 1, 5, 8.–2. alszám (The File Numbers), Nagyszombati kereskedő céh (The Trade Guild of Trnava).

80

Tomáš Tandlich

 

Picture No. 2: The second page of displayed document.

81

Municipal Statutes

 

Picture No. 3: The last page of displayed document.

Dávid Jablonský

Hungarian Catholic Synods in the 16th and 17th Centuries and Their Meaning From the perspective of the Catholic Church, synods represented a profiling legislative mechanism, which determined the direction and attitude of the Church itself in the case of problematic questions and during hard times. In this connection, historical sources speak about Church assemblies, where selected Church representatives discussed important religious topics and regulations adopted in connection with them.1 The term synod has its origin in the Classical Greek word σύνοδος (synodos), which referred to an assembly or meeting. The Latin form of this word was synodus, but the expanded Latin variant was also the word concilium.2 In the Middle Ages and Modern Period, three typological variants of synods were established in which a territorial aspect was taken into account. They were divided into national, provincial and diocesan synods. These three types served for the regulation of Church development and the life of clergymen and 1

2

Among the most famous editions of sources that are dedicated to the Hungarian Catholic synods is the two-volume work by Carolus Péterffy, which is called Sacra Concilia Ecclesiae Romano-Catholicae in Regno Hungariae. The first volume focused on medieval synods. The second volume focused on synods which were convened between the 16th and the first-third of the 18th centuries. For more details, see Péterffy, Carolus. Sacra Concilia Ecclesiae romano-catholicae in Regno Hungariae. Vol. I.–II. Posonii 1741, 1742, Vol. I. 338 p., Vol. II. 488 p. Another known, although probably less utilized, edition of sources is the work called Synopsis critico-historica decretorum synodalium pro ecclesia hungaro-catholica editorum, compiled by Michael Szvorényi. The work includes synods held between the 12th and 18th century. For more details, see Szvorényi, Michael. Synopsis critico-historica decretorum synodalium pro ecclesia hungaro-catholica editorum. Vesprimii 1807, 319  p. Péterffy’s volumes are fruitful mainly because of the scope of the mentioned synodal sources. Szvorényi’s work is rewarding for the list of synods, which are missing in Péterffy’s volumes. Adriányi, Gábor. A római katolikus egyház zsinatai [Synods of the Roman Catholic Church]. In Balogh, Margit – Varga, Szabolcs – Vértesi, Lázár (eds.). Katolikus zsinatok és nagygyűlések Magyarországon a 16. –20. században [Catholic Synods and Conferences in Hungary in 16th–20th Century]. Budapest; Pécs 2014, p. 13–14. Špaňár, Július – Hrabovský, Jozef. Latinsko-slovenský a slovensko-latinský slovník [Latin-Slovak And Slovak-Latin Dictionary]. Bratislava 1998, p. 119, 592.

84

Dávid Jablonský

worshipers.3 From a hierarchic point of view, the national synod was on the top. It represented the ecclesiastical interests of the whole country, and so its orders had a country-wide character. Its key person was a primate and it was particularly attended by bishops, abbots, provosts, representatives of chapters and religious orders. Adopted regulations could not regulate the principles of the whole Church and they had to be approved by the Holy See. National synods were in decline during the 19th century. As many European monarchs were trying to strengthen the powers of their bishops at the expense of the Pope’s authority, the Holy See had to weaken the status of these synods significantly. The Holy See could not allow the synods to become a main tool for the formation of state churches that would be more easily controlled by monarchs.4 A provincial synod was in second place. It represented the interests of a selected church province. In this case, the key person was a metropolitan bishop from the respective province. He was followed by bishops, abbots, provosts and their representatives, if they had appropriate jurisdiction in the province. Apart from them, the synods could also be attended by representatives of chapters, religious orders and theologians. Lower Church representatives or their guests could also participate in the synods.5 Diocesan synods were convened by a bishop. In comparison with national and provincial synods, diocesan synods were the most widespread during the 16th and 17th centuries. Their task was to adapt regulations set in advance or to adopt decrees of typologically superior synods taking into account surrounding circumstances and customs.6 Absence at the abovementioned types of synods was punished. Participants were usually divided into those with voting rights, those with advisory rights and those who did not have either voting or advisory rights. 7 With regard to the research of synods in the 16th and 17th centuries in Hungary, there is a question regarding the conditions under which these synods

3 4

5 6 7

Solymosi, László. A veszprémi egyház 1515. évi zsinati határozatai [Decrees of the Synod of the Church of Veszprém in 1515]. Budapest 1997, p. 9–10. Tamási, Zsolt. Az 1848-as nemzeti zsinat előkészítése. A felsőpapság és a radikális alsópapság értelmezése  – az erdélyi egyházmegye tükrében [Preparation of the National Synod in 1848. The Interpretation of the Higher Clergy and the Radical Lower Clergy – in the Light of the Transylvanian diocese]. In Egyháztörténeti szemle [Church Overwiev], vol. 15, no. 2, 2014, p. 29–30. Adriányi, A római katolikus, p. 17. Erdő, Péter. Az egyházmegyei zsinat intézménye a történelemben [The Institution of the Diocesan Synod in History]. In Vigilia, vol. 53, no. 11, 1988, pp. 807–811. Adriányi, A római katolikus, p. 17.

Hungarian Catholic Synods in the 16th and 17th Centuries

85

were convened. During the Early Modern Period, Hungary was subject to many religious, political, economic and social changes. If we take into account, for example, the religious aspect, all negatives the Catholic Church had suffered in the 15th century having such a major impact that the authority of the Catholic Church seemed to be shaken and its influence of power gradually declined at the beginning of the next century. This fact finally brought the Catholic Church to the question of a deeper reform of its structures and life of ecclesiastical and secular representatives. A main trigger was the spread of the Reformation, which gradually reached the territory of Hungary during the first half of the 16th century. The response of the Catholic Church in the form of a counter-Reformation and later re-Catholicization efforts caused many complications and a distortion of relationships within confessions and in the whole society. The Hungarian clerical elite did not simplify the resolution of this situation. Similarly, as it was in the Holy See or in other monarchies, also in the Church there were signs of simony, nepotism, the holding of several church functions at the same time or physical absence in dioceses.8 And what is more, we cannot forget about the presence of the Ottomans and the struggle connected with the Hungarian throne, which occurred after the Battle of Mohács (fought on August 29, 1526). This battle meant not only death of many soldiers and aristocrats, but also a loss of the King. Louis II Jagiellon (1516–1526) drowned during his escape from the battlefield.9 This unfavorable situation was strengthened by the rivalry between Ferdinand Habsburg and John Zápolya for the Hungarian throne.10 However, from the perspective of the Catholic Church, the biggest tragedy of the Battle of Mohács was the loss of two archbishops and five bishops. Due to this battle, the leader of the Hungarian army and Kalocsa archbishop Pál Tomori, as well Esztergom archbishop László Szalkai, died. Moreover, Pécs bishop Fülöp Móré, Győr bishop Balázs Paksi, Csanád bishop Ferenc Csáholi, Varadine bishop Ferenc Perényi and Bosnia bishop György Palinay also died in this battle.11 8

Daniel, David P.  – Mrva, Ivan. Reformácia, rekatolizácia a  politické konflikty [Reformation, Recatholization and Political Conflicts]. In Mannová, Elena (ed.). Krátke dejiny Slovenska [Short History of Slovakia]. Bratislava 2003, p. 126–127. 9 Mrva, Ivan. Doba panovania Jagelovcov [Period of the Reign of the Jagiellonians]. In Mannová, Elena (ed.). Krátke dejiny Slovenska [Short History of Slovakia]. Bratislava 2003, p. 108–109. 10 Mrva, Ivan. Vládca s biľagom zradcu [Monarch with the Sign of a Traitor]. In Segeš, Vladimír et  al. Kniha kráľov:  Panovníci v  dejinách Slovenska a  Slovákov [Book of Kings: Monarchs in the History of Slovakia and Slovaks]. Bratislava 2006, p. 195–200. 11 1526. augusztus 29. Bánffyak és Széchyek a Mohácsi csatában. Részletek Brodarics István krónikájából [August 29, 1526. Bánffys and Séchys at the Battle of Mohács.

86

Dávid Jablonský

Hungary in the 16th and 17th centuries was characterized mainly by events that resulted from the rivalry between the Catholic and Protestant Churches, of the Habsburgs and their opponents and the Ottomans with the inhabitants of Hungary. These events collided and blended into one another many times and so established new relations. Church representatives who were meant to correct the direction of the Catholic Church and were aware of pressure from reformers had to prepare a plan on how to deal with the loss of many clergymen and worshipers and also the mistrust and worsening moral and educational level of priests. The aim of this plan was to bring effective results in order to rectify problems within the ranks of the Church and adapt the Church to the new situation. Synods seemed to be one of the most effective reform mechanisms. It is indisputable that the Council of Trent (1545–1563) and the successful adaptation of its decrees in individual bishoprics had a significant impact on Hungarian synods, as well as on the entire Catholic Church, in terms of modern Catholicism.12 Tireless Catholics who believed in concrete improvement were supported by a vision of a comprehensive internal reform and the coming of real solutions to problems that acutely tortured worshipers and clerics. It is evident that notable steps from the perspective of reformation efforts could have been achieved only in the event that the reform and application of synodal regulations were attributed importance not only at the national or provincial level, but mainly at the diocesan level. This also applies to Hungary. As for the number and types of topics being discussed at the Hungarian Catholic synods during the 16th and 17th centuries or in connection with which valid regulations were adopted, the sources mention many of them. A  group of so many topics could be principally divided into several areas. The first area contains topics that were related to faith itself. This area includes regulations that were related to faith in general, religious science, education and the study of priests and worshipers according to the principles of the Catholic faith, different dogmas, religious opinions, doctrines and works which were in compliance with the Catholic doctrine or which Church clerics tried to refute or to adjust their principles according to their concept. Due to changes in the Modern Period, the Catholic Church was forced to discuss many topics related to faith Details from the Chronicle of István Brodarics]. In Benczik, Gyula et al. Források a Muravidék történetéhez. Szöveggyűjtemény, 1. kötet, 871–1849 [Sources to the History of Prekmurje. Text Collection, Volume 1., 871–1849]. Szombathely; Zalaegerszeg 2008, p. 89. 12 Tusor, Péter. A  barokk pápaság (1600–1700) [The Baroque Papacy (1600–1700]. Budapest 2004, p. 15–20.

Hungarian Catholic Synods in the 16th and 17th Centuries

87

which were dogmatically accepted as a matter of course in the Middle Ages and hardly anyone contested them. It is possible to learn from synodal regulations that referred to faith what changes occurred in the field of the Catholic faith as compared to the Middle Ages and exactly what doctrines, views, works, principles or pillars the Catholics based it on in this new period. The second area includes such topics that point to the spiritual growth of worshipers or clergymen and their active participation in religious life. It relates to the issue of sacraments, ceremonies, worships and feasts. People were allowed to strengthen their faith by receiving the sacraments and participation in ceremonies and worships. Regulations connected with sacraments were frequent. Many decrees regulated their provision in a general point of view. However, several decrees regulated the sacraments individually referring to Baptism, Eucharist, Penance, Confirmation, Matrimony, Holy Orders or Anointing of the Sick. In terms of ceremonies, many decrees dealt with, for example, the topic of funerals. Worships were mostly affected by the attempt to apply the Roman Rite, which affected not only their form, but also the form of liturgical books and many feasts. During the 16th and 17th centuriesy, the type and number of Church feasts were regulated and their list was often attached to the synodal regulations. The third area included topics that were focused on regulations of the life and discipline of clergymen. Effort focused on the improvement of the behavior, morality and lifestyle of clerics was transposed to more regulations. It is understandable, because priests were supposed to be models for worshipers and a sort of a link between them and God. From synodal regulations published in the 16th and 17th centuries we can see an attempt to profile a model of an exemplary priest who had to defend the interests of the Catholic Church and its worshipers. It is possible to mention several examples for illustration. Such an individual should have to avoid love affairs and marriage, alcohol, dancing, amusement, gluttony, usury and the hunting of animals and birds. He had to serve masses sober and perform all religious acts in compliance with regulations. He could not own or read heretical writings – only if he was granted permission to do so. He was supposed to take care of worshipers, the church and the operation of the parish. He could wear only prescribed garments and his hair, beard or tonsure had to be in compliance with regulations. This and similar regulations were quite often and they served to improve the behavior, appearance and activities of the clergymen. There were several breaks in the operation of Hungarian archbishoprics during the 16th and 17th centuries. It resulted in changes in the selection of localities for the convocation of synods. An obvious cause was the Ottoman presence. The city of Esztergom was conquered in 1543. As it was the seat of the archbishop and

88

Dávid Jablonský

the chapter, it was necessary to find a new place that would correspond to the status of the seat of an archbishop, and at the same time would be relatively well protected from the reach of the Ottomans. The city of Trnava seemed to be a suitable choice.13 This fact is evidenced by several diocesan, provincial and national synods that were convened here in the following decades. The Eger archbishop had the same destiny in 1596. The city of Eger was conquered just like the city of Esztergom. As a result, the cities of Košice and Jasov became new centers.14 The archbishopric in Kalocsa was in a much worse situation after the Battle of Mohács. Its diocesan structures disintegrated for almost two-hundred years and the archbishops of Kalocsa were forced to search for new seats and functions mainly in the cities Győr and Nitra. Church structures of the archbishopric were gradually recovered only during the 18th century.15 It is possible to come across different types of synodal sources in research of the synods. The most relevant are synodal regulations, decrees, resolutions, statutes and propositions. In an optimal case, based on their content, it is possible to reconstruct the topics being discussed by clergymen in the synods and what regulations they adopted in connection with these topics. In addition, various invitations, lists and signatures of participants, correspondence, synodal minutes and notes about the course of the synods are also very helpful. From a chronological point of view, the first Hungarian Catholic synod in the 16th century is the synod of Veszprém in 1515, the decrees of which are well known and were published in printed form several times. The names of the decrees are as follows: I. About Baptism, II. The second Sacrament (The Sacrament of Confirmation), III. The third Sacrament (The Sacrament of Penance), IV. The fourth Sacrament (The Blessed Sacrament–Eucharist), V. The fifth Sacrament (Anointing of the Sick), VI. The sixth Sacrament (The Sacrament of Holy Orders),

13 Mrva, Ivan. Zápas o uhorskú korunu [Struggle for the Hungarian Crown]. In Mannová, Elena (ed.). Krátke dejiny Slovenska [Short History of Slovakia]. Bratislava 2003, p. 124. 14 Mihalik, Béla Vilmos. Mérföldkövek az egri egyházmegye megújulásában. Az 1635. évi jászói és az 1734.évi egri zsinatok [Milestones in the Eger Diocese Renewal. The Synod of Jasov in 1635 and the Synod of Eger in 1734]. In Balogh, Margit – Varga, Szabolcs – Vértesi, Lázár (eds.). Katolikus zsinatok és nagygyűlések Magyarországon a 16.–20. században [Catholic Synods and Conferences in Hungary in the 16th–20th Century]. Budapest; Pécs 2014, p. 163. 15 Tóth, Tamás. Az 1763-as kalocsai zsinat [The Synod of Kalocsa in 1763]. In Balogh, Margit – Varga, Szabolcs – Vértesi, Lázár (eds.). Katolikus zsinatok és nagygyűlések Magyarországon a 16.–20. században [Catholic Synods and Conferences in Hungary in the 16th–20th Century]. Budapest; Pécs 2014, p. 183–184.

Hungarian Catholic Synods in the 16th and 17th Centuries

89

VII. The seventh Sacrament (The Matrimony Sacrament), VIII. About an obstacle to Matrimony, IX. About protection of Sacraments, X. About celebration of the Divine Office, XI. About simony, XII. About funerals, XIII. About tithes, unpaid fines and non-respected prohibitions, XIV. About punishment of excommunication, XV. About garments of clerics, XVI. About clerics having mistresses and visitations, XVII. Because clerics do not engage in secular affairs, XVIII. About the ones who are promoted, XIX. About usurped rights, XX. About taxes, XXI. About a punishment not set canonically, XXII. Against absence, XXIII. About the office of archdeacons, XXIV. About potations, XXV. About usury, XXVI. About the use of churches, XXVII. Do not let children be unbaptized, XXVIII. Absent at a synod, XXIX. About testaments, XXX. About obstacles in church jurisdiction, XXXI. About the persons who make a profit, XXXII. About feasts.16 The synod of Veszprém was an example of the plentiful presentation of topics from the area of sacraments, ceremonies, worships and feasts. However, attention was also paid to topics focusing on the attenuation of Church corruption and the improvement of clerics discipline. As an example, it is possible to highlight a passage about a simony: “Simony must be terminated and removed from the persistent sins of the priests.”17 Or a part regulating the presence of women in households of the priests to avoid undesirable love affairs or possible scandals: “It is hereby ordered that no one with personally appointed dignity, canonist or rector of the Church or a priest or cleric determinated in sacral spiritual states or relations, or other person appointed anywhere, will not try to keep a woman present in his household, only if, by accident, it was a woman who was not suspected of modesty or is in proximity of blood with such person.”18 Also persons who failed to attend synods were treated very strictly: “Any and all abbots, provosts, priors, monks and seculars, vicars, vice-vicars and rectors of church parishes not present in this Holy synod, warned and searched for, regularly for the first, the second and the third time and in advance warned under death, shall personally appear in front of the most honorable bishop of Veszprém and General Vicar or in front of someone with the same authority within fifteen days from this day including in order to submit a reason of their absence. Other testimonies of all or individual absent persons exceeding fifteen days, similarly a threat or more difficult intervention should be punished by excommunication according to these words.”19

16 17 18 19

Solymosi, A veszprémi egyház, p. 52–107. Solymosi, A veszprémi egyház, p. 73. Solymosi, A veszprémi egyház, p. 80. Solymosi, A veszprémi egyház, p. 91.

90

Dávid Jablonský

Even at the beginning of the 16th century, it is possible to note that several Catholic representatives were very clearly aware of missteps persisting within the intentions of their church. Therefore, strict regulations did not have to be the results of the Council of Trent. The text part of decrees of the synod of Veszprém is clear proof of the condemnation of negatives arising from Church corruption and the immoral life of clerics and worshipers. However, the problem lies in the fact that it was at the diocesan level and it might happen that not sufficient space was devoted to reforms at the country-wide level. Moreover, in the first half of the 16th century, the synods were relatively rare when compared to the situation after the impulse given by the Council of Trent. Adoption of synodal decrees was also not given adequate attention in practice. The decline in the influence of church punishments and excommunications, as compared to the Middle Ages, also weakened the authority of the church. Much more attention was given to the Hungarian Catholic Reform, thanks to the archbishop of Esztergom Nicolaus Olahus (1553–1568) at the beginning of the second half of the 16th century. This statement is supported by, for example, the number and type of synods convened during the time he was in office. It is also supported by the content of the decrees. However, we do not have decrees or wider information preserved about each synod. It is quite a frequent phenomenon in the research of synods that only little evidence can be found regarding the organization of a synod. This fact can be illustrated by Ferenc Úljaki’s invitation from Archbishop Nicolaus Olahus to the synod of Trnava to be held in August 1554: “(...) In the Father Christ, we, the most honorable Mr. Ferenc Újlaki, the Bishop of Eger and Adviser of the Royal Majesty (...) turned into the teaching of the Holy Catholic Church, with mercy through God, order to celebrate the synod of Trnava in August (...) in Trnava, on this 1st day of May anno domini 1554.”20 A much better situation is with the synod in Kláštor pod Znievom held in 1558, where the decrees divided into six areas have also been preserved. They are the following: I. About priesthood, II. About Baptism, III. About the blessed Sacrament (Eucharist), IV. About Confession, V. About Matrimony, VI. About garments of

20 “(...) Re(verendissi)mo in Chr(is)to p(at)ri domino Francisco ab Uiilak Episcopo Agrien(si), et Consiliar(io) Regiae Maiestatis (...) in doctrina Sanctae Ecclesiae Catholicae versatorum, statuimus Synodum, Dei adiuvante gratia Tyrnaviae, Calendis Augusti celebrare (...) Datum Tyrnaviae prima Maii Anno Domini Millesimo Quinge(ntesimo) Quinquage(simo) quarto.” Esztergomi Prímási Levéltár [Esztergom Primatial Archives] (hereafter EPA), Archivum Ecclesiasticum Vetus (hereafter AEV), no. 97/1.

Hungarian Catholic Synods in the 16th and 17th Centuries

91

priests and presbyters.21 During this period, the habit of communion under both kinds (species) was considerably wide-spread. However, it did not correspond with the teaching of the Catholic church and so the Order connected with Eucharist responded to this situation as follows: „Undoubtedly, the Eucharist for the members of the people with the approval of the Catholic church and the care of Old Fathers serve only under the specie of Bread, as well as worship the existence of True God and Man in one Essence.”22 Similarly, corporate confession, spread among Protestants, was also condemned: “Apply and glorify only aural Confession in your parish and not the heretic public or corporate one.”23 The synod held in Kláštor pod Znievom was followed by synods in Trnava. Namely, it was a diocesan synod in 1560, a provincial synod in 1561 and finally three diocesan synods in 1562, 1564 and 1566.24 The number and comprehensiveness of decrees show that probably the most important was the synod in 1560: I. About faith in general, II. About the Sacraments in general, III. About the Sacrament of Baptism, IV. About the Sacrament of Confirmation or the Sacrament of Chrism, V. About the blessed Sacrament (Eucharist), VI. About the Sacrament of Penance, VII. About the Sacrament of Holy Orders, VIII. About the Sacrament of Matrimony, IX. About the Sacrament of Anointing of the Sick, X. About the first and the second justification, XI. About justification of faith, XII. About the activities of bravery and their merit and courage, XIII. About church, XIV. About traditions and their honesty, XV. About church ceremonies, XVI. About mass sacrifice, XVII. About fasting, XVIII. About the worshiping of Saints, XIX. About portraits of Christ and Saints, XX. About the prayer for dead persons and purifying fire, XXI. About the sanctification of churches and the altar, XXII. About heretic books, XXIII. About the life and dignity of clerics, XXIV. About public services of church 21 For a Printed Edition See Breznyik, János. A Selmecbányai Ágost. Hitv. Evang. Egyház és lyceum története. Első füzet. A XVI.-ik századbeli események [History of the Evangelical Church of the Augsburg Confession and Seminary in Banská Štiavnica. First Workbook. Events of the 16th Century]. Banská Štiavnica 1883, p. 129–134. Decrees are in a slightly different form available also in the Esztergom Primatial Archives. EPA, AEV, no. 116/2. 22 “In una tantum Specie panis scilicet, laicis eucharistia, secundum Ecclesiae Catholicae, et veterum patrum observationes, distribuatur, ac ut Deus verus et homo, in una hypostasi existens, adoretur.” EPA, AEV, no. 116/2. 23 Breznyik, A Selmecbányai Ágost., p. 133. 24 Invitations to the clergy by Nicolaus Olahus have been preserved in relation to the synods from years 1561, 1562, and 1564 and they were always dated on the 1 January. EPA, AEV, no. 97/5; 97/13; 97/10. The invitation from 1562 was accompanied by an invitation from the lecturer and canonist Michael Graecus of 22 April, 1562. EPA, AEV, no. 97/14.

92

Dávid Jablonský

servants, XXV. About teachers of elementary schools, XXVI. About the celebration of sacred feasts, XXVII. About funerals, XXVIII. About the tithe, XXIX. About the punishment and intention of excommunication, XXX. Who are promoted to sacred states, XXXI. About non-respected punishments in privileges, XXXII. About the owners of Church rights, subjects, benefits and church gains, XXXIII. About the perpetrators of Esztergom church jurisdiction, XXXIV. About hidden offices and owners of benefices of the Archbishopric of our Esztergom Church, and also abbots, provosts, secular as well as their monastic villeins, XXXV. About monks and clergymen, XXXVI. About testaments, XXXVII. About fallen Popes and Bishops, XXXVIII. About worshiping of festal days.25 It is possible to pause here and briefly look at the issue of sacraments and the question as to which of the sacraments the synod declared as unrepeatable and according to what principle. Similarly, what meaning was presented by the Sacrament of Baptism and Confirmation:  “(...) There are seven Sacraments: Baptism, Confirmation, Eucharist, Penance, Holy Orders, Matrimony and Anointing of the Sick. According to a decision by the Church and also by the Council of Florence celebrated under Eugene IV., the highest Roman Pontiff, three of these sacraments, undoubtedly Baptism, Confirmation and Holy Orders, cannot be repeated (...) Baptism is the first and the most important sacrament, the very deepest base of everything in the future, and a kind of a gate, which opens the unique path to Christ. So it is according to John: If anyone is not reborn of water and the Holy spirit, he cannot enter the Kingdom of God (...) We are reborn to life by baptism and through baptism in service to our Holy Lord Christ we state: in this sacrament we truly confirm and firmly approve that we are able to fight more bravely with our enemy the Tempter who constantly surrounds us like a roaring lion searching for whom to eat. Therefore, in this sacrament of Confirmation the Holy Spirit gives us power in this difficult and aborning dangerous fight (...).”26 By all appearances, a provincial synod in 1561 was held in an identical spirit. This fact is pointed out by a passage from Carolus Péterffy related to the decrees:  “If regulations of this Synod of Trnava are present, still hold the boxes firmly closed. It remains unchanged; improved type of regulations is again based on 1560 (...).”27 Olahus also established a synodal court in this synod, which was meant to discover whether the participants were married and how they served the Eucharist. Marriages and providing the sacrament of the Eucharist

25 Péterffy, Sacra Concilia Ecclesiae, Vol. II., p. 50–128. 26 Péterffy, Sacra Concilia Ecclesiae, Vol. II., p. 51–52, 54. 27 Péterffy, Sacra Concilia Ecclesiae, Vol. II., p. 134.

Hungarian Catholic Synods in the 16th and 17th Centuries

93

under both kinds were serious problems for the Catholic Church at that time. In his correspondence from May 25, 1563, addressed to the representatives of the Council of Trent, Olahus stated that despite the fact that he terminated the activity of married priests, he did not have enough people to replace them due to an absence of clergymen. Also young priests married immediately. The situation was even worse because worshipers were able to expel priests from their lands, if they did not receive the Eucharist under both kinds.28 Although the Holy See did not express its opinion connected with marriages clearly, there was a considerable shift in the question of receiving under both kinds. Pius IV (1559–1565) in his brief of April 16, 1564, stated: “(...) in the sacrosanct receiving under one, as well as both kinds, the body of Christ is sacred and integral, and even the Roman church is not mistaken and is not mistaken in the subject, where within this extent reserved for celebrating priests, remaining clerics and laymen, in so many ways the Host is divided (...).”29 There was an effort to announce the decrees of the Council of Trent in 1564. The bishops had a plan to convene a synod on December 1 in the town of Bratislava. But the planned activity was defeated by Maximilian Habsburg (1564–1576). With this intervention, the ruler demonstrated his antipathy towards the policy of Pope Pius IV.30 The first official declaration of decrees adopted by the Council of Trent in Hungary was only during the diocesan synod in Szombathely in 1579.31 Just for illustration, it is possible to point out to the following regulations: „I. There are no suspicious women in houses of priests in compliance with the regulation of Article fourteen of the last meeting of the sacrosanct Council of Trent (...) X. No child will 28 Fazekas, Oláh Miklós reformtörekvései az esztergomi egyházmegyében 1553–1568 között [Reform Process of Nicolaus Olahus in the Esztergom Diocese Between 1553– 1568]. In Balogh, Margit – Varga, Szabolcs – Vértesi, Lázár (eds.). Katolikus zsinatok és nagygyűlések Magyarországon a 16.–20. században [Catholic Synods and Conferences in Hungary in the 16th-20th Century]. Budapest; Pécs 2014, p. 41–42. 29 „(...) in Sanctissimo Eucharistia sacramento, tam sub una q[uam] sub utraq[uem] specie sacrum et integrum Christi corpus esse, nec Romanam Eccl[es]iam errasse, aut errare, qua exceptis duntaxat sacerdotibus celebrantibus, caeteros tam clericos quam laicos, sub specie tantum panis communicat (...).” The passage is quoted in the copy of Papal Breve of Pius IV, which is stored in the Esztergom Primatial Archives. EPA, AEV, no. 1759. 30 Fazekas, Oláh Miklós reformtörekvései, p. 42–43. 31 Koltai, András. A győri egyházmegye 1579. évi szombathelyi zsinata [The Synod of Szombathely in 1579 in the Diocese of Győr]. In Balogh, Margit – Varga, Szabolcs – Vértesi, Lázár (eds.). Katolikus zsinatok és nagygyűlések Magyarországon a 16.-20. században [Catholic Synods and Conferences in Hungary in the 16th-20th Century]. Budapest; Pécs 2014, p. 45.

94

Dávid Jablonský

die unbaptized, or adult without confession or receiving due to neglect (...) XVIII. Missal and other books are integral and preserved. XIX. Cemeteries are well fortified. XX. Chalice and paten are unbroken, not made of wood or glass. XXI. No cleric is controversial or addicted to alcohol, he does not drink in the pubs. XXII. No one participates in hunting or the catching of birds (...) XXVII. All priests wear clerical robes and not wearing of tonsure is punished (...) XXIX. Dancing of clerics are generally forbidden (...) XXXI. It is forbidden to move about in the church (...) XXXVI. No vicar should try to read heretical books without permission of the most honorable or to keep them at home.”32 Wider space was devoted to discipline and the exemplary life of the clergymen. As the issue of books was declared to be heretic and the need to have permission for their ownership or reading was frequent, it is useful to mention at least one example of this act. A passage from a document sent by the Holy See to the archbishop of Esztergom János Kutasi on November 5, 1599, is an example of this issue: “(...) General Inquisitors, exceptionally commissioned by the Holy See, facing the heretic perversion, send their greeting through the Eternal Lord in the Father Christ most honorable János Kutasi, the Archbishop of Esztergom. Under the protection, in the General Congregation of St. Rome and in the almighty inquisition the publicly supported holiest man, Pope Clement (VIII), through God´s providence of the Pope, and also us, near the last day of 28 October, will be acquired for your venerable Father’s thanks, for the salvation of souls of credential themselves, and to the granted privilege of his Esztergom Church and to its Father, any heretic or other prohibited books, that are moreover condemned in the Roman Index, reprimanded and damned in terms of heresies and mistakes contained therein (...)”33 A synod in Szombathely was a case where an attempt to adapt decrees of the Council of Trent was achieved only at the diocesan level. After the death of Nicolaus Olahus, the archbishopric of Esztergom was constantly waiting for

32 Szvorényi, Synopsis critico-historica, p. 227–230. 33 „(...) aduersus haereticam prauitatem Generales Inquisitores a Sancta sede Ap[osto] lica Special[ite]r deputati R[everendo] admodum in Christo P[at]ri Domino Ioanni Kuttassii Archiep[iscop]o Strigonien[sis] salutem in Domino Sempiternam. Cum in G[e]n[er]ali Congregatione S[an]c[t]ae Romanae et Universalis Inquisitionis habita coram s[anctissi]mo D[omi]no N[ost]ro D[omi]no Clemente divina providentia Papae viis ac Nobis die xxviii. mensis Octobris proxime praeteriti pro paret R[everendo] Pat[r] is tuae supplicatum fuerit ut ad Salutem animarum sibi comissar[i]s et ad commodum d[i]c[t]a eius Eccl[esi]ae Strigonien[sis] eidem Pat[r]i tuae quoscunq[ue] haereticor[um] seu al[io]s prohibivs libros etiam in Indice Romano damnatvs ad effectum h[a]ereses et errores in eis contentos redarguendi et confutandi (...).” EPA, AEV, no. 129.

Hungarian Catholic Synods in the 16th and 17th Centuries

95

a person that would defend the interests of the archbishopric and the whole country and would act as actively as Olahus in the question of reformation. During the 17th century, Hungarian Catholicism was enriched by several such persons. One of them was an archbishop, Ferenc Forgách (1607–1615). Due to his endeavors, a provincial synod was convened in Trnava in 1611, which approved decrees contained in five heads: I. About the ones that are related to the most honorable Bishops. II. About honesty and efforts of clerics. III. About vigilance and conscientiousness in the preaching and serving of sacraments. IV. About church properties. V.  About visitations determined by Archdeacons.34 Again, all problem spheres were recorded here. Emphasis was given to the exemplary life of clergymen, the correct way of providing sacraments and temperance of sermons, as well as to Church visitations. And more precisely that visitations were one of the most efficient methods for monitoring the adopted regulations in practice35:  “(...) Clerics will avoid dancing, are prohibited from hunting, alcoholism, ghosts and other types of trivialities. Rebels will be subject to episcopal investigation (...) Oil of catechumens, chrism and holy anointing oil must be kept clean and shiny and every year around Easter new oil will be received from the Bishop (...) Often encourage worshipers to the sacrament of penance. Of course, priests also take care that all worshipers confess and entrust themselves to the priest at Easter time. In places with a monastery, the priest shall remind people that all must confess in their own parishes around Easter (...) Beware of incantations, magic, forebodings, fortune-telling, handwriting, superstitious treatment of weaknesses and wounds by words and occult signs at a certain time and place before a sermon. If you see someone who has participated in offenses of this type, a priest will inform the Bishop timely manner (...) An Archdeacon is obliged to be not only honorable, but also good in his knowledge and in compliance with all aspects required by the reform in Article 12 of the 24th meeting of the Council of Trent. But he is also obliged to take care of his parishes for the same reason as expressed by our returning God. For this reason, according to provisions of the Council of Trent, he is the first one who maintains visitations: similarly as Arch-abbot and also other provosts whose obligation is to seek visitations (...)”36 Archbishop Péter Pázmány (1616–1637) continued with the efforts of Archbishops Olahus and Forgách. There was a diocesan synod in 1629, one national synod and one diocesan synod in 1630, one provincial synod in 1632 34 Péterffy, Sacra Concilia Ecclesiae, Vol. II., p. 203–216. 35 Beke, Margit (ed.). Pázmány Péter egyházlátogatási jegyzőkönyvei (1616–1637) [Protocols of Péter Pázmány’s Church Visitations (1616–1637)]. Budapest 1994, p. 22–23. 36 Péterffy, Sacra Concilia Ecclesiae, Vol. II., p. 210–213, 215.

96

Dávid Jablonský

and finally one national synod in 1633 in Trnava during his term in this position.37 Pázmány drew from the decrees of Trent, but he was also inspired by reform steps made by Forgách. The ever-current and relevant topic of visitations was discussed at these synods. Pázmány was aware of their function and he attributed to them the same importance as his predecessor. Moreover, he was also dealing with the question of sacraments and reform regulations associated with the function of the Church and discipline of clergymen. There was a rule at the parish and diocese level that worshipers could not participate in church ceremonies or receive sacraments in neighboring parishes or dioceses without the respective permission. Due to the lack of priests there was Decree No. X adopted at the diocesan synod in 1630, which responded to the potential absence of clerics: “In places without a priest, due to lack of clerics, the sacrament of penance and other sacraments will be provided by a priest from the nearest parish according to need.”38 Testaments of priests were highly respected. An example of this is regulation No. XII, adopted at the national synod in 1633: “Own books and sacred furniture of priests who die without a testament, will remain in the parish church where they died. In the case of priests who wrote their last will, it is necessary to follow the compliment for the consolation of souls of these priests.”39 One of the key aspects of the efforts of Péter Pázmány was the application of the Roman Rite and the achievement of its respect in individual dioceses. The Roman Rite referred to a traditional way of liturgical rite widespread in Rome. It included particularities in the fields of worships, sacraments, liturgical books and feasts. However, a diocesan synod in Zagreb in 1634 responded negatively to this act. In Zagreb, they refused to give up their liturgy, which had been cultivated for many years. Pázmány´s reaction to this response was very fast and he strongly opposed the Synod in Zagreb.40 The situation culminated in such a way that conclusions from the synod in 1635 were canceled by Pope Urban VIII with

37 Péterffy, Sacra Concilia Ecclesiae, Vol. II., p. 233–247, 297–312, 313–318, 319–321, 322– 333. Except for the provincial synod in 1632, they are also mentioned in the work of Szvorényi. See Szvorényi, Synopsis critico-historica, p. 233–247, 58–67, 247–249, 67–71. 38 Péterffy, Sacra Concilia Ecclesiae, Vol. II., p. 315. 39 Péterffy, Sacra Concilia Ecclesiae, Vol. II., p. 330. 40 Varga, Szabolcs. A  zágrábi egyházmegyei zsinatok a 16–17. században [Diocesan Synods of Zagreb in the 16th–17th Century]. In Balogh, Margit – Varga, Szabolcs – Vértesi, Lázár (eds.). Katolikus zsinatok és nagygyűlések Magyarországon a 16.–20. században [Catholic Synods and Conferences in Hungary in the 16th–20th Century]. Budapest; Pécs 2014, p. 143.

Hungarian Catholic Synods in the 16th and 17th Centuries

97

his Papal Bull.41 There was an unusual relationship between the Zagreb Diocese and the archbishopric of Esztergom. Despite the fact that the Zagreb Diocese was under the administration of the archbishopric, different geo-political and liturgical particularities gradually caused it to shift onto a different path during the Early Modern Period. It is also unusual that its representatives were in close contact with representatives of the remaining Hungarian dioceses for several centuries and their reformation activities and theological knowledge were on a comparable level with the remaining clerics.42 Shortly after the synods convened by Péter Pázmány in Trnava, Imre Lósy convened a diocesan synod in Jasov in 1635. Lósy was in the position of the bishop of Eger here and this synod represented the interests of this diocese. They approved the following decrees: I. About re-obtained Breviary and Roman Missal. II. About dwellings. III. About audience to benefice and profession of a cleric before start of the issued possession. IV. About life, moral, dignity and efforts of clerics. V. About the provision of sacraments and vigilance in their observance. VI. About church properties and also those that needed to be reformed effectively. VII. About celebrated feasts. VIII. About visitations.43 Here, the participants alerted their attention, for example, in the case of the issue of the seats of bishops. An answer to the question why emphasis was given to the requirement that bishops must have their seat in their dioceses is evident. It is understandable that if a selected lower or higher cleric does not stay in his parish or diocese, either due to negligence or the simultaneous holding of several offices, it was the worshipers who suffered the most. Decree No. II also paid significant attention to this issue, which can be seen in the following passage:  “Bishops of God´s Church are most strictly commanded to have their seats in their parishes, because it is a proper demonstration of their vigilance and also allows them to care of all necessities. It is also the case that the same Bishops serve their seats in the most careful way (...)”44 After the death of Péter Pázmány, Imre Lósy became the new archbishop of Esztergom in 1637 (1637–1642). He made strident efforts at episcopal reform also as an archbishop and he convened a provincial synod in Trnava in 1638. The following decrees were adopted in this synod:  I. With regard to faith and what is connected with it. II. About the office of God. III. About the glorification and worshiping of relics and holy pictures IV. About indulgence. V. About diocesan 41 A copy of the Papal Bull of September 28, 1635 is available in the Esztergom Primatial Archives. EPA, AEV, no. 166. 42 Varga, A zágrábi egyházmegyei, p. 131–132. 43 Péterffy, Sacra Concilia Ecclesiae, Vol. II., p. 339–342. 44 Péterffy, Sacra Concilia Ecclesiae, Vol. II., p. 339.

98

Dávid Jablonský

synods held each year. VI. About visitations. VII. About the examine of those who are taking care of souls in the parishes. VIII. About seminars. IX. About the acquisition of seats and benefices. X.  About a court of bishops. XI. With regard to provisions and decrees of provincial and diocesan synods celebrated in recent years.45 The question of worshiping and portraying Saints was a frequent topic and it was also discussed during this synod: “(...) Feasts and pious and worshiped cult of Saints should be celebrated in such a way that work and also served or otherwise executed sacred provisions are abstained at that time; they must be avoided or interrupted (...) The Catholic Church has continued to follow sacred pictures of the Christ, undefiled Mother of God and other saints, regardless of the fact that enemies are strongly attacking the Catholic Church in this hard time, due to the great spiritual enjoyment of worshipers from these pictures. Meanwhile, you can clearly remind worshipers of the thought of their renewal according to a model, and also acknowledge them in God´s benefices and ask them to maintain the spiritual piety of strongly crucified efforts and of their power to encourage. If some of the worshipers have become absorbed by their use and they have displayed minor politeness, the Holy Council of Trent orders to rectify and reform them. Do not destroy less suitable statues or drawn pictures derisively before you remove all of them with respect.”46 Another important personality of Hungarian Catholicism of the 17th century was the archbishop of Esztergom György Lippay (1642–1666). Lippay achieved the convocation of a national synod in 1648 in Trnava. From this synod, 28 propositions were preserved. They were still strongly influenced by the Council of Trent. For example, an emphasis was put on the Roman Rite, visitations, the handling of church property and offices, church archives, synodal judges and publishing of the Papal Bulls: “I. The synod from 1630 issues a regulation and the body of the Apostolic See confirms it that all churches shall act in the Divine Office in the way of Roman Rite and act (…) IV. The Archdeacons shall follow the regulation of the Council of Trent and perform visitations every year, and our synod adds the punishment of the loss of benefices to the punishment from 1638. VI. The synod from 1638 adds that benefices promoted in this way, provided by secular patrons or provided by us, as well as appointment to the office, will be issued in writing, otherwise they will be considered as undignified. VIII. It was established from the General Archive that the documents and privileges of abbots shall be kept in the chapters. A list of all fields related to churches, but not dealing with donations

45 Péterffy, Sacra Concilia Ecclesiae, Vol. II., p. 358–373. 46 Péterffy, Sacra Concilia Ecclesiae, Vol. II., p. 362–363.

Hungarian Catholic Synods in the 16th and 17th Centuries

99

due to secular mistakes, will be kept by a scribe. XXIV. The Holy Council of Trent undertakes to appoint judges at the provincial synods, who are entrusted possible revocations, and so the most honorable Bishops appoint three or four such judges. XXV. It is also ordered to publish some Papal Bulls and also regulations from the Apostolic See, which have been submitted and will be performed in this way at the most suitable opportunity of the Holy synod. XXVI. This holy ecumenical Council of Trent orders to find out at the provincial synods, whether some Church properties have not been relocated against sacred rules and according to preliminary judgment of the Church, or whether Church properties were not stolen during their absence.”47 In 1658, Lippay also deserved convocation of one diocesan synod. 13 brief propositions in the form of questions are preserved from this synod thanks, to Carolus Péterffy. They talk very clearly about problems and deficiencies still present in Hungary. This state can be emphasized by the following propositions: “I. What in short needs to be done against the most difficult scandal of priests having lovers and in what sequence, so it will be successful against such great depravity? II. What is the direction of Archdeacons that they do not perform visitations and examine the assets census of settlements according to vision, but advise, transform and educate both people and priests? IV. How can priests be restrained so they will not leave the parishes of the Kingdom because of assets? V. How is it possible to help and what is necessary to do about the lack of priests? IX. Variety of benefices,

47 “I. Igitur constitutum habetur in Synodo anni 1630, sedisq[ue] Apostolicae authoritate stabilitum, vt in omnibus Ecclesiis officium divinum ritusq[ue] et Caeremoniae Romano more fiant (…) IV. Eiusdem Concilii Tridentini praecepto Archidiaconi peragere Visitationes tenentur quotannis, Synodus nostra anni 1638 poenam addit ammissionem Beneficiorum. VI. Vt ad Beneficia promoti a  Saecularibus Patronis praesentent[ur] vel se praesentent, et Investituram in scriptis accipiant, addit Synodus anni 1638, alioquin pro indig[n]is habeantur. VIII. Conclusum etiam fuerat de Archiuo Generali, ut literae et Priuilegia Abbatum in Capitulis conservent[ur]. Et ut apud Cancellarium habeatur Catalogus omnium Pagorum, ad Ecclesias pertinentium, ne Saecularibus per inaduertentiam eas donari contingat. XXIV. Praecipit Sancta Synodus Tridentina, in Provincialibus Synodis nominari Judices, quibus causae Appellationum delegentur, nominandi itaq[ue] tres quatuorue tales ex R[everendi]ssimis D[omi]nis Episcopis. XXV. Mandauit etiam Sua Sanctitas bullas quasdam suas ac determinationes Apostolicae Sedis publicari quas hac opportunissima occasione Sacrae Synodo propono et repraesento. XXVI. Praedicta sacra Synodus Oecumenica Tridentina praecipit in Synodis Provincialibus inuestigari, an aliqui elocationes bonorum Ecclesiasticorum, contra Sacros Canones et in praeiudicium Ecclesiarum fecerint, uel etiam quod absit Bona Ecclesiastica omnino alienassent.” EPA, AEV, no. 231.

100

Dávid Jablonský

requiring of residences is strictly prohibited by law. How to avoid a generation of mistakes in this matter? XII. If some church assets are deposited how to approach them? Whether it is better to get rid of them or separate them until they are bought back? XIII. Whether there are some serious cases due to which a provincial synod should be celebrated between these fathers in difficult times. When and where to go to celebrate it?”48 This knowledge can be supplemented with shortcomings and bad habits remaining in church ceremonies, which were pointed out by the Holy Congregation of Ceremonies on September 27, 1659, in its resolution: “(...) In connection with the Church´s rites that were infiltrated, intentionally misused, or were spread through the rites of the bishops, as well as to everything connected with them, the Sacred Congregation of Ceremonies enormously orders them to be replaced or even canceled. Similarly to lower presbyters who use priests’ habit, by excellent care we necessarily assess that mistakes in all sacred rites, where you misinterpreted and pretend privileges, where you often studied the decrees of the Sacred Congregation with only little interest or you alone covered your negligence, all these will be removed and particularly equally canceled. Therefore, you also keep everything together and only monitor, distinguish the articles which you will easily recognize (...) The sacred garment is not taken away from altar unless the Divine Office is served. Do not refer to granting or refusal of grace without consent of the Holy See (...) Preachers who understand propagation of acquired God´s word as a burden, may not participate in the granted blessing. However, bishops to whom such a private right belongs, fully waives such right (...)”49

48 Péterffy, Sacra Concilia Ecclesiae, Vol. II., p. 388–389. 49 “(...) Sacrorum Rituum Congregatio tollendis ac eliminandis circa Ecclesiasticos ritus, qui irrepserunt, abusibus, sedulo intenta, post Episcoporum caeremoniale evulgatum, quo quicquid ad ipsos in sacris caeremoniis pertinet, abunde praescripsit, idem quoad inferiores Praelatos, qui Pontificalium usu fruuntur, praestandum curare necessarium existimavit, ut excessus aboleantur, uniformiterque inducatur Sacrorum ritus in omnibus, et praesertim tempore, quo privilegia ipsi perperam interpretantes, obtendentesque parum obsequi student Decretis pluries ab eadem S. Congreg. hac in re evulgatis, aut ipsa ignorare praetexunt. Quamobrem omnia simul ut unico conspiciantur obtutu cogere, perque capita digerere constituit, quo facilius observentur (...) Sacras vestes ex altari non sumant, nisi pontificaliter Divini vacaturi. Indulgentias impertiri vel publicare non audeant absque expresso Sanctae Sedis indulto (...) Concionatoribus, qui eorum subditis Verbum DEI praedicandi onus acceperint, Benedictionem elargiri non praesumant. Sed Episcopis quibus jus hujusmodi privative competit, omnino dimittant (...).” EPA, AEV, no. 234/A/1.

Hungarian Catholic Synods in the 16th and 17th Centuries

101

Here we are speaking about the second half of the 17th century, and on the basis of sources we are witnessing constantly persisting negatives in Hungarian Catholicism. It is surprising due to the fact that in this period almost all key synods convened by Nicolaus Olahus, Ferenc Forgách, Péter Pázmány, Imre Lósy and György Lippay in Hungary had already been organized. They were influenced or even directly rooted in the reform resolution of the Council of Trent. If, in connection to this time period, the impression prevails that Hungarian clerics did not behave and perform church obligations in compliance with valid regulations, it may show us that synodal regulations were slowly and with much difficulty applied in Church practice. Many clerics and worshipers did not fully welcome or have a positive attitude towards changes and so neglecting church obligations was quite frequent. According to the available decrees, it might seem that from the perspective of Hungarian synods there was a decay of the Catholic reform in the second half of the 17th century and only the Diocese in Zagreb prospered in the field of reforms. Synods of the Diocese in Zagreb in 1669, 1673, 1677, 1687 and 1690 attributed the importance to a broad range of topics in the field of faith and religious science, worships, sacraments, visitations, care of priests and parishes, dignity of clerics, feasts and fasts, rewards and different forms of church corruption and Franciscans.50 The first four synods were convened during the functional period of the bishop of Zagreb Martin Borković (1667–1687). The last synod was during the functional period of the bishop of Zagreb Alexander Mikulić (1688–1694). And it is precisely the synod of 1690 that can be declared the optimum presentation of the reform of Trent and the declaration of Catholic Unity from a point of view of local affairs.51 The heading of the synod can be explained, for example, by the following passages from the decrees: “(...) Furthermore, crosses that are built on unsuitable places, or near herds shall be removed upon order of the Archdeacons and persons performing the visitations: Pictures of the Blessed Virgin Mary will not be desecrated by both new and old borrowed hair and women´s robes, with reference to exempted ecclesiastical principles, and so according to this order, under the punishment of confiscation of everything, it is not possible to use cloths from received women´s dresses for such robes (of course, they can be available for other ecclesial use) (...) If sacraments that form a base and a pillar of God´s Church perform a decent rite, they give people more piety and execute their benefit even more fruitfully. Therefore, uniformity in their provision must be kept, and all

50 Péterffy, Sacra Concilia Ecclesiae, Vol. II., p. 394–408. 51 Varga, A zágrábi egyházmegyei, p. 146–148.

102

Dávid Jablonský

Esztergom Rites are to be maintained (unless Zagreb Rites are defined) (...) It is thus stated: no cleric can try to maintain a female housemaid in his house (except for blood-relatives and relatives within the fourth degree) above the age of twelve or younger than forty or younger than thirty-five (...) Usury, profit, indecent manners, wandering about markets are unknown to clergy: garment should be up to ankles, in black or dark color without red ornaments; also the upper garment should be respected to be distinguished from secular, in addition to this old diocesan habit and adopted synodal regulations (...)”52 In our attempt to evaluate the importance of the Hungarian Catholic synods in the 16th and 17th centuries it is possible to point out that synods represented an important mechanism of Church reform. The Catholic Church, which lost its position, influence of power and mainly worshipers during the 16th century, was forced to respond to the conditions and situation in the Early Modern Period and to start with a deeper internal reform, which would result in changing the life of clergymen and their attitude toward worshipers The Church was not able to maintain worshipers only by force and under the threat of punishment, and since even the symbolism of punishment had started losing its power and people converting to other confessions were supported by secular patrons, where they found their background. Even persistent Catholics very slowly and with much difficulty adopted changes resulting from synodal regulations. Thanks to synodal regulations, the church was gradually able to reform its structures, approach and direction so much that it was able to cope with the conditions of the Modern Period.

52 Péterffy, Sacra Concilia Ecclesiae, Vol. II., p. 405–407.

103

Hungarian Catholic Synods in the 16th and 17th Centuries

 

Picture No. 1: The title page of the second part of Carolus Péterffy’s edition of synodal sources.

104

Dávid Jablonský

 

Picture No. 2: A document sent by the Holy See to the archbishop of Esztergom János Kutasi (alongside other church authorities) authorizing the possession and reading of heretical books (November 5, 1599). EPA, AEV, no. 129.

105

Hungarian Catholic Synods in the 16th and 17th Centuries

 

Picture No. 3: Archbishop of Esztergom Ferenc Forgách (1607–1615)

106

Dávid Jablonský

 

Picture No. 4: Archbishop of Esztergom Péter Pázmány (1616–1637)

Miroslav Glejtek

Canonical Visitations and Chapter Statutes, Sources for Understanding the Local History of the Spiš Chapter in the Early Modern Period Introduction There is no doubt that chapters of canons belonged among the most important institutions within the organizational structure of the Christian and later Roman Catholic Church in the West during the early Middle Ages. As with other customs, the development in the West-European Church provinces served as a model for Hungary from the 11th century despite the fact that it was executed with many specific modifications resulting from the particular development of the medieval and early-modern Kingdom of Hungary. The issue of chapters has been devoted quite extensive attention in scientific literature due to their importance and status in the past. This also applies to historical literature related to the Hungarian environment. The individual history of most chapters in our territory is sometimes only partially compiled, and it was most often done by historians who were members of these chapters. This applies to the Collegiate Chapter of St. Martin in Bratislava,1 the Collegiate Chapter of St. Martin in Spiš2 as well as to the only bishop (cathedral) chapter in our territory – in Nitra sacred to St. Emmeram.3 We can also include the Chapter of St. Andrew in Košice, which was established after the constitution of the bishopric in Košice in 1804.4 If we focus on the Spiš territory, we can state that church history of provostship, the chapter and other church institutions has been paid quite extensive attention in previous years, mainly to the Middle Ages.5 Modern history of church 1 2 3 4 5

Rimely, Carolus. Capitulum insignis ecclesiae collegiatae Posoniensis ad s. Martinum ep. Olim ss. Salvatorem. Posonii 1880. Hradszky, Josephus. Initia progressus ac praesentis status Capituli ad sanctum Martinum e. c. de monte Scepusio olim Collegiati sub iuristictio nearchi episcopi Strigoniensis nunc vero Cathedralis sub proprio episcopo Scepusiensi constituti. Szepesváralja 1901. Vagner, Jószef. Adalékok a Nyitrai Székes-Káptalan Történetéhez. Nyitra 1896. Zubko, Peter. Dejiny Košického arcibiskupstva I. Dejiny Košickej kapituly (1804–2001). Prešov 2003. See latter works Homza, Martin – Kucharská, Veronika – Kuzmová, Stanislava – Rácová, Naďa (eds.). Analecta Cartusiana 254: Central European Charterhouses in the Family of the Carthusian Order. Levoča; Salzburg 2008. Homza, Martin – Sroka, Stanisłav

108

Miroslav Glejtek

institutions was not in such attention what is understandable due to volume of source material and scope of topics. I would like to introduce the problem of two types of sources in this chapter, which play a key role for better understanding the Modern Period of the Spiš Chapter, as well as for the overall knowledge of the religious situation in the Spiš region from the 16th to the 18th century. The first source is canonical visitations that were carried out in the chapter from the 16th to the 18th century and the second source is preserved statutes of this institution from 1629, which were compiled prior to the transformation of the provosthip into the bishopric in 1776. Right at the beginning, I  would like to point out that due to the available space, it is only a basic overview of the context in which these sources originated, with the ambition of introducing them at least on a basic level. Some of these sources have already been used in older synthetic works about the history of the chapter and provostship, as well as in the case of more recent processing of partial topics resulting directly from canonical visitations of the chapter, whether related to its structure and internal life within the chapter,6 conducting liturgical acts in the chapter cathedral,7 the way of acquiring new

6 7

(eds.). Historia Scepusii I.: Dejiny Spiša I. Bratislava; Kraków 2009. Homza, Martin – Sroka, Stanisłav (eds.). Štúdie z dejín stredovekého Spiša. Krakov 1998. Hromják, Ľuboslav (ed.) Studia theologica Scepusiensia III: Z dejín Spišského prepoštstva. Zborník z medzinárodnej konferencie pri príležitosti 800. výročia prvej známej písomnej zmienky o Spišskom prepoštstve. Spišské Podhradie 2010. Labanc, Peter. Organizačná štruktúra Spišskej kapituly a jej členovia do konca 13. storočia. In Rábik, Vladimír (ed.). Litteris ac moribus imbutus: Studia historica Tyrnaviensia XVI. Kraków; Trnava 2014, p. 101–123. Labanc, Peter. K majetkovým pomerom Spišského prepoštstva v Zemplínskej župe (Olaszliszka). In Rábik, Vladimír (ed.). Studia Historica Tyrnaviensia XIII.: Historiae vestigia sequentes. Trnava; Kraków 2011, p. 111–125. Labanc, Peter. Spišskí prepošti do roku 1405. Trnava; Kraków 2011. Labanc, Peter – Glejtek, Miroslav. Spišské prepoštstvo na prelome stredoveku a novoveku I. Príspevok k náboženským dejinám Spiša. Kraków; Trnava 2015. Slivka, Michal. Pohľady do stredovekých dejín Slovenska. Martin 2013. Slivka, Michal. Kristianizačný proces na Spiši. In Z minulosti Spiša IX–X, 2001/2002, p. 23–40. Glejtek, Miroslav. Príspevok k výskumu organizačnej štruktúry Spišskej kapituly do konca 18. storočia. In Konštantínove listy, vol. 5, 2012, p. 29–55. Glejtek, Miroslav. Spišská kapitula v 16.–18. storočí vo svetle kanonických vizitácií a kapitulských štatútov (I. časť – Svätí patróni, relikvie a sakrálne objekty). In Liturgia. Časopis pre liturgickú obnovu, vol. 23, 2013, no. 2, p. 164–189. Glejtek, Miroslav. Spišská kapitula v 16.–18. storočí vo svetle kanonických vizitácií a kapitulských štatútov (II. časť – Sväté omše, liturgia hodín a kapitulná farnosť). In Liturgia. Časopis pre liturgickú obnovu, vol. 23, 2013, no. 3, p. 256–278.

Canonical Visitations and Chapter Statutes

109

members,8 occupation of the position of Spiš provosts9 or confessional structure of the whole provostship,10 use of information from these sources was, is and will be a task for many other analytical and synthetic works dealing with the history of the Spiš Chapter, church history, as well as the history of Spiš.

Historical Context of the History of the Spiš Chapter from the 16th to the 18th Century Research of the internal history and structure of any type of institution, not only a church one, must be carried out with respect to the entire historical frame of the monitored period. The destiny of the Spiš Chapter, as well as most other corporations, was inseparably connected with the turbulent destiny of the entire Kingdom of Hungary. After a period of relative bloom for the chapter in the second half of the 15th century, entry into the Modern Period meant a significant transition to new changed conditions. There was a radical change in the political situation in all of Central Europe in the first half of the 16th century. Hungary became a part of one large and very complex state formation  – The Habsburg Empire – for many centuries. In this period, the territory of Slovakia became an integral part of the political, economic and cultural processes happening in Europe.11 In principle, it is possible to see three basic phenomena in the development of Hungary, which also determined the situation in the Spiš region and so in the chapter itself. First of all, the Ottoman threat had become a part of everyday life for inhabitants of the whole country for almost two centuries after the Battle of Mohacs (1526). Occupation of a large territory of the Kingdom also caused a paralysis of church administration and a significant

8

Glejtek, Miroslav. Menovania členov Spišskej kapituly do vzniku Spišského biskupstva v roku 1776. In Konštantínove listy, vol. 5, 2012, p. 122–139. 9 Olejník, Vladimír. Spišskí prepošti od Bitky pri Moháči po vznik Spišského biskupstva. In Hromják, Ľuboslav (ed.) Studia theologica Scepusiensia III:  Z  dejín Spišského prepoštstva. Zborník z medzinárodnej konferencie pri príležitosti 800. výročia prvej známej písomnej zmienky o Spišskom prepoštstve. Spišské Podhradie, 2010, p. 129–157. 10 Bizoňová, Monika. Kanonické vizitácie a ich využitie pri skúmaní konfesionálnej štruktúry obyvateľstva. In Bolom-Kotari, Martina – Němečková, Věra (eds.). Pontes ad fontes. Cirkevní dějiny ve světle pomocných věd historických a příbuzných oborů. Hradec Králové 2011, p. 188–199. 11 Čičaj, Viliam. K  niektorým aspektom utvárania školských knižníc v  novoveku. In Šovčíková, Darina (ed.). Dejiny školských knižníc na Slovensku. Banská Bystrica 2003, p. 15.

110

Miroslav Glejtek

decline of the church itself.12 One of the direct consequences for the chapter was also the fact that bishops whose dioceses were located in occupied territories were acting in the position of Spiš Provosts. A civil war spread throughout the whole country causing total disruption, which was characterized by the plundering and robberies of not only secular, but also church assets. It was supported by the spreading of the Reformation, which caused the direct requisition of parish, monastic, but also canonical benefices by protestant pastors. Moreover, several other disasters regularly became intertwined in all these events, mainly plague epidemics and subsequent famines that made the suffering of Spiš inhabitants even worse. The Counter Reformation and re-Catholicization partially helped the chapter to regain its lost assets and position in society, although the chapter had to share them with ascending monastic communities, such as Jesuits, Piarists and Pauline Fathers. The definitive transformation of the chapter meant formation of the bishopric of Spiš (1776) and a change from collegial chapter to cathedral (bishopric). The last medieval and at the same time the first Provost of the Spiš Chapter in the Modern Period was John Horvath from Lomnica (1511–1544). The person of this provost is the best example of how the destiny of one person is blended together with the destiny of a whole country. Thanks to the patronal right of the magnate family of Zápolya13, J. Horvath became the Provost of Spiš in 1505 after his appointment by Tesin Duchess Hedviga, the widow of the deceased Stephen Zápolya.14 After bitter disputes with the archbishop of Esztergom, Thomas Bakóc 12 Čičaj, Viliam. Nové vierovyznanie. In Dvořák, Pavel (ed.). Pramene k dejinám Slovenska a Slovákov VII: Turci v Uhorsku I. Bratislava 2006, p. 97. 13 A patronal right above the Spiš Chapter was obtained by the Zápolya Family in 1465 from King Matthias I. The King donated the Chapter together with the Spiš Castle and other territories to Imre Zápolya and his brother Stephen for their generous help in the fight against the Hussites. Vencko, Ján. Z dejín okolia Spišského hradu. Spišské Podhradie 1941, p. 43. For deeper context of position and activities of the Zápolya Family in Spiš, see Kucharská, Veronika. Rod Zápoľských a slovenské mestá koncom stredoveku. In Lukačka, Ján  – Štefánik, Martin et  al. Stredoveké mesto ako miesto stretnutí a komunikácie. Bratislava 2010, p. 239. 14 Wagner, Carolus. Analecta Scepusii sacrii et profani. Pars III. Viennae 1778, p. 73. Olejník, Spišskí prepošti, p. 130. Hedviga Zápolya belongs to the most important persons at the end of the 15th and the beginning of the 16th Centuries, who were closely connected to the church institutions and their supporters. She was a supporter and a parton of Carthusians from the Charterhouse Lapis Refugii, which is quite intersting. Kucharská, Veronika. Mecenát Hedvigy Zápoľskej. In Slivka, Michal (ed.). Studia archaeologica Slovaca mediaevalia V: Človek – sacrum – prostredie. Levoča 2006,

Canonical Visitations and Chapter Statutes

111

(1497–1521), who was particularly restrained by the very young age of a novice for a provost position, as well as his insufficient education, the Duchess Hedviga sent him to study in Rome. Meanwhile, Ladislaus from Csobád was appointed as Provost of Spiš. With this act, the provostship had two provosts. Ladislaus managed to persuade Pope Julius II (1503–1513) to grant him the provostship. However, when Ladislaus died in 1510, succession was transferred to J. Horvath. The Duchess Hedviga and her sons John and George re-confirmed his position as provost in 1511.15 During this period, Esztergom archbishops again tried to restrict the sub-standard wide rights of the Provosts of Spiš above the church administration of the Spiš Provostship. In 1513, Archbishop Bakóc took advantage of his stay in Rome and asked Pope Leo X to cancel a significant part of the privileges of Spiš Provosts and their subordination to the Esztergom See, something that he ultimately achieved.16 The reaction of J. Horvath to this situation was very energetic. He prepared an exhaustive appeal against this decision, and by using proper arguments he was able to achieve the issuance of another Bull in 1515 by the same pope, by which the pope re-established the privileges.17 The fatal Battle of Mohács in 1526 strongly influenced the history of the Kingdom of Hungary and also the history of the Spiš Chapter. King Louis II died in this battle together with the leading Hungarian magnates and many bishops.18 In this obscure situation, two main candidates fought for the crown. It

15 16

17 18

p. 243–252. Kucharská, Veronika. Ducissa. Život kňažnej Hedvigy v časoch Jagelovcov. Bratislava 2014, p. 160–170. Wagner, Carolus. Analecta Scepusii sacri et profani. Pars I. Viennae 1773, p. 363. Špirko, Jozef. Začiatky Spišského biskupstva (Snahy v minulosti o jeho utvorenie). In Pašteka, Július (ed.). Dejiny a umenie očami historika. Bratislava 2001, p. 144. The Pope Bull by which Pope Leo X cancelled all rights and immunities of Spiš Provosts that were granted by the Pope Pius II is published by: Wagner, Analecta I, p. 366–368. The Bull is published by: Wagner, Analecta I, p. 369–372. Seven prelates of the sixteen who participated in the battle, died. Also among them was the leader of the royal troops – the archbishop of Kalocsa Paul Tomori and Hungarian Primate and the archbishop of Esztergom  – Ladislaus Salkai. Hromják, Ľuboslav. Katolícka reforma, rekatolizácia a protireformácia na území Jágerského biskupstva. In Verba theologica 17. Konfesionalizácia cirkevného života Jágerskej diecézy, vol. 8, 2009, no. 2, p. 15. Regarding this issue, see Vybíral, Zdeněk. Bitva u Moháče. Krvavá porážka uherského a českého krále Ludvíka Jagellonského v boji s Osmany 29. srpna 1526. Praha 2008. For detailed information about Hungarian prelates of this period, see Fügedi, Erik. Hungarian Bishops in the Fifteenth Century (Some Statistic Observations). In Bak, János, M. (ed.). Kings, Bishops, Nobles and Burghers in Medieval Hungary. London 1986, p. 375–391.

112

Miroslav Glejtek

was Ferdinand I of Habsburg on one hand and a pretender of Hungarian middle and lower nobility – John Zápolya. In the well-known historical context, when de facto there were two kings crowned in the Kingdom of Hungary, events that happened in the background of this civil war also had a direct impact on the situation of the Spiš region.19 Ferdinand I, whose natural ally in the Spiš region were mainly German inhabitants, managed to occupy most Spiš domains originally belonging to the family Zápolya. In 1528, after a two-week siege, he was able to take the strategically important Spiš Castle. In 1531, Ferdinand I donated the castle, together with some other assets, to his supporter and governor Alex Thurzo.20 J. Zápolya, who was in Polish exile at that time, was supported by the most prominent and powerful party member and confidant Hieronym Laski. On September 30, 1528, John Zápolya appointed him hereditary Spiš County administrator. Even though there was a significantly larger number of Ferdinand’s followers in Spiš at that time, H. Laski organized several devastating invasions of this territory. Their intensity increased mainly after 1529. In 1532, he occupied the Spiš Chapter with 300 riders and forced it to swear its obedience to John Zápolya.21 Even one of his soldiers took one of the canonists – Alexander Kirschner  – hostage and asked the chapter to pay 46 ducates for him.22 One year later, on the way to Kamenica Castle, the chapter was attacked by Polish Cossacks.23 There was also a massive economic disruption of assets of the provostship and chapter at that time. The Provost of the Chapter, J. Horvath, was also responsible for this situation. He started to behave like a sovereign lord in the Spiš Chapter during this time and he defrauded several church properties and benefices. In 1536, he asked the Union of XXIV priests of the royal towns to pay 200 florens to repair the provosts castle, but he did not use the money for this purpose. After several excesses in 1543, Ferdinand I took the title of provost away from Horvath. Although he succeeded in re-obtaining this position, one

19 For wider political connections, see Kohútová, Mária. Slovensko a Slováci v novoveku. Trnava 2008, p. 16–19. 20 Vencko, Z dejín okolia, p. 43–44. 21 Oravský, Jozef. Inventár archívu Spišského prepoštstva (1229–1798). Levoča 1958, p. IV. Mrva, Ivan. Územie Spiša a boj o uhorskú korunu medzi Ferdinandom Habsburským a  Jánom Zápoľským. In Gładkiewicz, Ryszard  – Homza, Martin. (eds.). Terra Scepusiensis. Stav bádania o dejinách Spiša. Stan badań nad dziejami Spiszu. Levoča; Wrocław 2003, p. 540. Suchý, Michal. Dejiny Levoče I. Košice 1974, p. 144. 22 Olejník, Spišskí prepošti, p. 133. Hradszky, Initia progressus, p. 286. Wagner, Carolus. Analecta Scepusii sacri et profani. Pars II. Viennae 1774, p. 15. 23 Oravský, Inventár archívu, p. IV.

Canonical Visitations and Chapter Statutes

113

year later, on December 16, 1544, he resigned definitively. When he was leaving, he plundered the cathedral and took away almost all its furnishings and equipment.24 Visitations mainly mention the stealing of reliquaries made of noble metals.25 In addition to the civil war, which affected all of Hungary, the church situation in Spiš was mainly affected by the spreading of the Reformation. It is generally known that the process of the Reformation was facilitated by the Battle of Mohács, where most of the Hungarian prelates died. It significantly paralyzed the church administration. The decline of church and religious feeling had a great impact on the spreading of the Reformation thoughts, which was quite often manifested in the moral field, as well as on the spreading of humanistic thoughts.26 The spread of the Reformation in the Spiš region was mainly supported by German inhabitants, who accepted the new religion willingly. Affinity with the Reformation was connected with language, as well as the national and cultural affinity of the German element centered in Spiš town. The fast spread of Reformation thoughts was caused by active business relations mediated by merchants who brought to Spiš many texts with the thesis of this new religion.27 Reformation ideas also had a quick and lively response among the parish clergy. Almost three years after the presentation by Martin Luther in 1520, the priest Thomas Preissner from Ľubica read his Ninety-Five Theses in public. Even Provost J. Horvath was persuaded to convert to Protestantism. Although he

24 J. Horváth stole all household equipment; he ordered to remove and take away all windows, doors, shingles and floor slats. Hradszky, Initia progressus, p. 57. For more information about the Provost Horváth and the Reformation, see Hradszky, József. A XXIV királyi plébános testvérűlete és a reformáczió a Szepességen. Miskolc 1895, p. 128–133. 25 Olejník, Spišskí prepošti, p. 133–134. 26 Bodnárová, Miroslava. Reformácia vo východosloveských kráľovských mestách v prvej polovici 16. storočia. In Šimončič, Jozef (ed.). Trnavská univerzita 1635–1777. Trnava 1996, p. 334–335. 27 Trajdos, Tadeusz. Reformacja i kontrreformacja na Spiszu. In Gładkiewicz, Ryszard – Homza, Martin. (eds.). Terra Scepusiensis. Stav bádania o dejinách Spiša. Stan badań nad dziejami Spiszu. Levoča; Wrocław 2003, p.  467. For more information about the reasons of the outbreak of the Reformation and theological differences between Catholicism and Protestantism, see for example Žigová, Terézia. Teologické rozdiely medzi katolicizmom a protestantizmom. In Verba theologica 15. Potridentská teologická starostlivosť o veriacich, vol. 7, 2008, no. 2, p. 5–6. For Details, See Hajduk Andrej. Dejiny ECAV na Slovensku v rokoch 1517–1610. In Evanjelici v dejinách slovenskej kultúry III. Liptovský Mikuláš 2002, p. 14–25.

114

Miroslav Glejtek

was originally perceived as a protector of the Catholic Church, he converted to Protestantism and got married after his resignation.28 Stanislav Várallyi (1545–1548) was appointed Spiš provost in 1545. Varállyi was originally a follower and diplomat of J. Zápolya. After Zápolya’s death, he joined Ferdinand I  and he was appointed the bishop of Pécs.29 After the conquest of the Pécs, he was appointed the Provost of Spiš. In an effort to stop the decline of Catholicism and the spread of the Reformation in his own provostship, he convened a synod in 1545.30 The appointment of S. Várallyi to his position started a rule of Provosts in Spiš, who at the same time were bishops of the Hungarian dioceses occupied by the Ottomans. Despite all previous attempts for autonomy, in the next phase Spiš Provosts gradually became subordinate to the jurisdiction of the Esztergom archbishop in a peaceful way, starting with the Provost Blasius Pétervaradín (1548–1560). This is an interesting phenomenon that was noticed by J. Špirko. According to his opinion, the subordination of provosts was connected with the fact that these provosts were, at the same time, diocesan bishops of occupied dioceses. Due to this reason, these provostsbishops had only minimal interest in fighting for the autonomy of the provostship, which they considered to be only a minor “emergency” solution in their carrier of bishops.31 Structure and positions of the Spiš Chapter was invaded by other material disasters in the second half of the 16th century. The chapter was plundered by George Bebek during the rule of the Provost Blasius. The chapter was also plundered by George Thurzo after the death of the provost. Constant violence and plundering of the chapter and provostship lands led to a situation where 28 Olejník, Spišskí prepošti, p. 134. Hain, Gáspár. Lőcse krónikája. Levoča 1910, p. 92–93. Likewise, another two Hungarian highly-ranking prelates, Provost Francis Bachy and the administrator of the Diocese in Nitra Francis Thurzo joined Protestantism. Hajduk, Dejiny ECAV, p. 17. 29 Wagner, Analecta II, p. 254. Wagner, Analecta III, p. 84. Olejník, Spišskí prepošti, p. 135. 30 As concisely expressed in the Convening Letter of Várallyi: „Quia nos de consensu, et voluntate venerabilium dominorum canonicorum dictae ecclesiae nostrae Scepusiensis, fratrum nostrorum, de reformandis moribus perversorum, corrigendisque excessibus sub ditorum ecclesiae nostrae, sanctorum patrum vestigia sequendo, synodalem convocationem universo clero nostro facere, et celebrare de crevimus...”. Wagner, Analecta I, p. 377–378. For more information about this synod, please see: Péterffy, Carolus. Sacra concilia Ecclesiae Romano-catholicae in Regno Hungariae. Vol. I. Posonii 1741, p. 298–304. 31 Špirko, Jozef. Dejiny a umenie očami historika. Pašteka, Július (ed.). Bratislava 2001, p. 145–146.

Canonical Visitations and Chapter Statutes

115

members of the chapter were almost without any resources. This forced the canonists to repeatedly ask protestant priests for charitable gifts, while many of these priests occupied the chapter’s benefices.32 There were further struggles with secular power during the reign of George Bornemisa (1561–1584), which finally culminated in an attempt by the lords of the Spiš Castle from the Thurzo family to appoint their pretender to the position of Spiš Provost. They finally surrendered these ambitions only after strong intervention by the king and the archbishop of Esztergom. The chapter’s bad situation of being without resources and protection had to be partially resolved by the intervention of the king, who donated to the chapter assets of the Carthusian Order from Lechnica. The chapter had to move to Lechnica in the event of danger.33 Similarly, the king also donated to the chapter assets belonging to the monastery Skala útočišťa. The chapter had to assure the livelihood of priests and teachers working for the Cathedral of St. Martin with these resources.34 The owner of Spiš Castle Alexej Thurzo again plundered the chapter and ordered all property of the provost to be taken away after the death of the Provost Bornemisa in 1584.35 The situation in the chapter was partially stabilized during the reign of the Provost Ján Pethe (1587–1605). This powerful provost, holder of many ecclesiastical benefices36 and also a Hungarian governor, succeeded in restoring

32 Oravský, Inventár archívu, p. V. Almost all Spiš cities started to incline towards the Protestantism after 1545. Almost all priests in Spiš towns converted to a new faith in 1569. Horna, Richard. Stručný nástin dějin Spiše. Bratislava 1935, p. 15. For a summary of property possession in Spiš during the Middle Ages and Modern Period see: Trochta, Jozef. Zoznam fár Slovenska, podľa účtovných registrov pápežských kolektorov o desiatkoch zaplatených pápežskej kúrii v Avignone užívateľmi cmakirkevných benefícií v Uhorsku v rokoch 1332–1337: Príspevok k historickej cirkevnej topografii Slovenska. XIII. Spišská Stolica. Rukopis. Bratislava 1968–1969. 33 However, a condition of the donation was the fact that the chapter had to settle a monastic order with these assets. Wagner, Analecta I, p. 435–436. 34 Wagner, Analecta I, p. 436–437. 35 Wagner, Analecta I, p. 91. Olejník, Spišskí prepošti, p. 139. The 16th Century was due to social changes caused by the Reformation movement difficult for church institutions even in neighbour countries as well. For example in Moravia the sometimes got near to decline. See Bolom-Kotari, Martina. Pečeti moravských premonstrátů v letech 1436– 1784. Sfragistika představených a konventů v kontextu jejich diplomatického materiálu. Disertační práce. Brno 2013, p. 33. 36 Later on, he was the bishop of Sirmium, later on a bishop of Varadine, the archbishop of Kalocsa and the bishop of Rab. At the same time, he also held the position of Spiš and Jasov Provost. Oravský, Inventár archívu, p. V.

116

Miroslav Glejtek

the decimated chapter at least partially. He reconstructed the provost palace, equipped it with furniture, and to improve protection of the chapter, he ordered a wall to be built.37 The Provost Pethe also significantly helped to begin the re-Catholization process in Spiš.38 In 1604, he was asked to bring the mandate of King Rudolph II into force, by which Evangelic clergymen in the territory of Spiš Castle to be replaced by Catholic clergymen and all confiscated property had to be returned back to the Catholics.39 There was a serious incident on October 8, 1604, when he came to Levoča with the aim of confiscating churches, monasteries, parish and church buildings occupied by evangelists.40 He failed and he was expelled from the town of Levoča.41 Finally, after the victory by the Bocskai troops, he had to flee from Spiš. The Spiš Chapter was plundered by the Captain of the Bocskai troops – Blasius Lipai – in 1604. Similarly, the Hungarian military units – the Hajduks – attacked the chapter and plundered it one year later.42 The real situation of the Catholic Church in Spiš in this period is also supported by the fact that there were only ten priests in the chapter at the beginning of the 17th century, while most of them were canonists.43

37 Puškárová, Blanka – Puškár, Imrich. Spišská Kapitula. Pamiatková rezervácia. Bratislava 1981, p. 72. 38 In the first third of the 17th century, the process of the Catholic Church’s reorganization and subsequent re-Catholization became still more notable particularly in the Catholic part of the country, and in the north and west territories of the Capathian Basin. In this term an agreement between the aristocracy and Habsburg Emperor Rudolph II achieved at the Bratislava Diet diet in 1608 meant a partial compromise. According to this agreement each religion could elect its own representatives. Bitskey, István. Katolícka vzdelanosť na území Slovenska v 17. storočí. In Čičaj, Viliam (ed.). Rozpravy k slovenským dejinám. Zborník príspevkov k nedožitému 75. výročiu narodenia Pavla Horvátha. Bratislava 2001, p. 17. 39 Suchý, Dejiny Levoče, p. 167. 40 Wagner, Analecta Scepusii III, p. 98. 41 Suchý, Dejiny Levoče, p. 174. 42 Oravský, Inventár archívu, p. VI. Supporters of the Bocskai revolt came to Spiš after the successful Battle at Álmosd-Diószeg. After the unsuccessful siege of the Spiš Castle and plundering of the surrounding areas, they moved to Košice. Stephen Bocskai finally established his site in Košice in November 1604. Suchý, Michal. Vzťah Poľska k povstaniu Štefana Bočkaja. In Historické štúdie 26. Bratislava 1973, p. 210. 43 During this period, Spiš canonists visited the surrounding parishes, such as Harhová, Domaňovce, Jamník, Markušovce, Žehra and many others on Sundays and during Feasts, where they provided the Catholic worshippers with needed pastor activities. Špirko, Dejiny a umenie, p. 158.

Canonical Visitations and Chapter Statutes

117

Ladislaus Hosutóti (1606–1648) was a Spiš Provost for 42  years. Several important events in the history of the Spiš Chapter happened during his term in the office of provost. With regard to our context of interest, it is necessary to mention the historical visitation of the chapter initiated by the archbishop of Esztergom P. Pázmaň (1616–1637), which took place in 1629. An important role in the history of not only the chapter, but the whole Spiš region is played by the definitive arrival of Jesuits to the chapter in 1646, which was achieved by this provost.44 Despite the gradual stabilization of the situation, the first half of the 17th century meant a constant danger for the chapter. Repeated plundering during the War of Independence of Hungarian estates decimated assets of the chapter and caused its members continual injustice. Another wave of violence came to Spiš after invasions by the Bockai troops led by the troops of Gabriel Betlen. The provost together with canonists had to leave the chapter three times. During the escape of members of the chapter in 1619 to Spiš Castle, to Stará Ľubovňa, Poland and subsequently to Trnava, the county was forced to appoint a curator, Baltazar Peróczy, for its administration in order to avoid the complete destruction of its assets.45 The most valuable elements of the chapter archive and jewels were transported to Kežmarok in 1639, where they were lost due to general confusion. These problems were also accompanied by several plague epidemics, fire and subsequent famines that caused the inhabitants of Spiš further suffering.46

44 The Society of Jesus belonged among those congregations that acted most energetically at the head of the church restoration. Despite the active support of the high-ranking Hungarian prelates, this congregation was promoted only very slowly in the first phases after its establishment. The first important supporter of a new monastic society in Hungary was, in particular, Archbishop N. Oláh. Despite his support, Jesuits stayed in their first college in Trnava only from 1561 to 1567. Similarly, the first arrival of Jesuits in Spiš, in the town of Levoča in 1604 was also unsuccessful. Members of this order returned back only after several decades later. Kvasnicová, Magdaléna. Kláštory a rehoľné domy na Slovensku medzi Tridentským koncilom a reformami Jozefa II. (16.–18. storočie). In Slivka, Michal (ed.). Studia archaeologica Slovaca mediaevalia V: Človek – sacrum – prostredie. Levoča 2006, p. 154–155. Wagner, Analecta III, p. 100. Olejník, Spišskí prepošti, p. 140. Špirko, Dejiny a umenie, p. 114–115. 45 Wagner, Analecta III, p. 102. Hradszky, Initia progressus, p. 291. 46 The greatest plague epidemics and famines can include the ones that occurred in 1545, 1554, 1600, 1602, 1622, 1645, 1663, 1679, while the most destructive ones were in 1710–1711. In the case of the last of these famines, almost 1,600 inhabitants died just near the small town Spišské Podhradie alone. Hradszky, Josef. Krátky obsah dejín farského r. kath. kostola v Spišskom Podhradí pri príležitosti novovystaveného oltára bl. Panny Márie. Spišské Podhradie 1891, p. 53.

118

Miroslav Glejtek

As has already been mentioned, the arrival of Jesuits to Spiš presents an important phase in the cultural history of Spiš.47 Despite a certain lack of interest by the Provost Hoszutóti, he finally invited the Jesuits to the Spiš Chapter after pressure from Archbishop George Lipai. Their big supporter and sympathizer was his successor –Provost Matthias Tarnóci (1648–1655).48 He donated to the Jesuits a building belonging to the former chapter parish on the foundation of which they built their famous school.49 The Spiš Chapter residence of Jesuits was officially established on October 2, 1649. The number of monks staying in the residence continually grew and three years later there were 10 monks.50 In 1653, the Provost gave the well-known chapel of the Zápolya family to the administration of Jesuits and he also granted them all benefices.51 Jesuits became one of the most important elements of the re-Catholization of Spiš.52 They fought against 47 For more details, see: Chalupecký, Ivan. Dejiny levočských jezuitov. In Habilitačná práca z cirkevných dejín. Spišské Podhradie 1993, p. 62–70. 48 As written by the Jesuits themselves: “So they sent a new Provost, the most honorable Matthias Tarnóci from Lelovce ... a man with hardly any opponent among the Hungarian clergy in purity of life, caution, dedication and love towards the Society (of Jesus)”. Olejník, Vladimír. Synopsa dejín spoločnosti Ježišovej na Spišskej kapitule od jej príchodu na Spiš. II. časť (1648–1655). In Novotná, Mária (ed.). Acta Musaei Scepusiensis 2008: Pohľady do minulosti VIII. Levoča 2009, p. 247. 49 The Jesuit secondary school was established in Spišská kapitula in 1604 and as from its beginning it was characterized by a high number of students, as well as high professionalism of both teachers and teaching methods. Chalupecký, Ivan. Vzdelanosť a kultúra spišských miest a mestečiek v 15.–18. storočí. In Historický časopis, vol. 35, 1987, no. 3, p. 430. 50 Olejník, Synopsa II, s. 241. For historical context, see: Olejník, Vladimír. Synopsa dejín spišskej rezidencie Spoločnosti Ježišovej od jej príchodu na Spiš. In Novotná, Mária (ed.). Acta Musaei Scepusiensis 2007. Levoča 2008, p. 113–150. 51 Spiš Archive in Levoča (hereafter referred to as SA Le), fond (hereafter f.) Rímskokatolícky biskupský úrad v Spišskej Kapitule (hereafter RBSK), Kanonické vizitácie (hereafter KV), bez signatúry. Hereafter: Barkóciho vizitácia, pagina (hereafter pag.) 5. 52 The Spiš Chapter was an exposed residence of Jesuits in the protestant environment. Monks performed not only school activities, but also pastoral and charity work in the whole territory of Spiš. They worked as preachers, confessors and catechists. Such important personalities like John Klobušiský and Francis Nedecký worked in this monastic society during the first period. They both became Spiš canons. For example, Benedictus Szőllősi wrote his introduction to the first Slovak printed Hymnal Cantus Catolici here, which he also compiled. Jesuits also provided spiritual exercises in the Chapter residence. Krapka, Emil – Mikula, Vojtech. Dejiny Spoločnosti Ježišovej na Slovensku. Cambridge 1990, p. 155–157. In addition to Jesuits, another society

Canonical Visitations and Chapter Statutes

119

the spread of the Reformation, mainly with educational and pedagogical activities. Their sophisticated system of teaching methods resulted in the high prestige of their schools that were often also attended by children of Protestants.53 During the second half of the 17th century, intensive re-Catholization of Spiš continued, and its greatest proponents were the Spiš Provosts together with monks. George Baršoň (1663–1675) had a special place among them. He managed to take away the church, parish and school in Kežmarok from Protestants, as well as the church in Levoča. This act caused the termination of activity by the protestant Union of XXIV priests.54 Andrew Sebesténi was the provost during the Thököly Rebellion. This competent diplomat prevented the plundering of Spiš, and he was also a mediator in negotiations with the imperial court.55 With the Provost Ladislaus Matiašovský (1689–1696) a new period of reign by elected bishops, the so called bishops electus (episcopus electus) started in the Spiš Provostship. These bishops were not duly bishops of the dioceses occupied by the Ottomans, but only holders of the title granted by the ruler.56 The Provost John

53

54 55 56

which played an important role in re-Catholization activities was the Piarists who were brought to Podolínec by Stanislaus Lubomírsky, and also the society of Pauline Fathers (probably from 1673). Špirko, Dejiny a umenie, p. 311. The Provost M. Tarnóci housed some sons of aristocrats directly in his residence. Many of them were from protestant families. For example, the son of the Captain of Upper Hungary – Francis Vešeléni Ladislaus was also housed in his residence. Bizoňová, Monika. Dejiny a pôsobenie Spoločnosti Ježišovej na Spiši v období rekatolizácie. In Sipko, Jozef – Chovanec, Marek – Harčariková, Gabriela (eds.). 5. študentská vedecká konferencia: Zborník príspevkov. Prešov 2010, p. 350, 361. The biggest problem for students was their accommodation. Many of them had to travel to school from Spišské Podhradie and surrounding villages. 12. 7. The secondary school was moved to the city of Levoča in 1671. Krapka – Mikula, Dejiny Spoločnosti Ježišovej, p. 155–157. For more information about the activity of Jesuits in Slovakia, see the above-mentioned work. For more information about Jesuit schools, see Csontos, Ladislav (ed.). Jezuitské školstvo včera a dnes. Zborník z medzinárodnej vedeckej konferencie 12. októbra 2006 v Trnave. Bratislava 2006. Zellinger, Alajos. Egyházi írók csarnoka. Trnava 1893, p. 29. Olejník, Spišskí prepošti, p. 146. Wagner, Analecta III, p. 122. Appointment of titular bishops was spread in Hungary during the period of Reformation and the Ottoman wars. Kings started to appoint titular bishops, who however were not ordained and had no church jurisdiction. It was a special type of bishop, who often had a title from a bishopric that belonged to the Kingdom of Hungary in the past. Tomko, Jozef. Zriadenie Spišskej, Banskobystrickej a Rožňavskej diecézy a kráľovské patronátne právo v Uhorsku. Spišská Kapitula – Spišské Podhradie 1995, p. 32–33.

120

Miroslav Glejtek

Žigraj (1696–1718) continued with the re-Catholization activities at the turn of the 17th and the 18th centuries.57 In 1702, he succeeded in reclaiming assets held by renegades and houses occupied by protestant preachers from the Captain of Ľubovniansky Castle and mayor of the Province of Thirteen Spiš Towns in the Polish reserve – Teodor Lubomírsky – and he also expelled some of them. Mayors of the towns in this province could only be Catholics. He was captured by rebels during the Rákocsi Uprising.58 After returning to the chapter, he managed to visit the territory of the whole provostship. The reign of J. Žigraj was affected by the hardest conflict with the archbishop of Esztergom from the time of J. Horváth. The Provost Žigraj acted like a sovereign lord within the Spiš Provost, and he refused to work “only” as a vicar of the archbishopric of Esztergom. However, finally he gave in to Archbishop Christian August. The result of this situation was an abridgment of the position of the provostship and its degradation to the level of an ordinary archdeaconry.59 The period after the end of the War of Independence of Hungarian Estates can be characterized as a period of restoration for all of Hungary, Spiš and the chapter itself. Other provosts continued with their re-Catholization activity. For example, Ján Pelc (1725–1740) succeeded in enforcing Protestant worshipers to attend sermons in a Catholic church every Sunday. In addition, he performed a visitation of parishes in the Spiš Provostship in 1731.60 Important reconstruction

57 According to the visitation of Žigraj there were still about 58 % of non-Catholic and only 36 % of Catholic inhabitants in the parishes of Spiš Provostship in 1700. The ratio of Catholics and non-Catholics changed only slowly. Approximately the same numbers – which means 42–43 % of Catholics and non-Catholics was discovered during the visitation of Pelc in 1731. See: Hradszky, Josephus. Additamenta ad Initia progressus ac praesens status Capituli ad sanctum Martinum e. c. de monte Scepusioolim collegiati sub Iurisdictione archiepiscopi Strigoniensis nunc vero Cathedralis sub proprio episcopo Scepusiensi constituti. Szepesvárlja 1903–1904, p. 114–276. ŠA SA Le, f. RBSK, Kanonická vizitácia z roku 1731. Bizoňová, Dejiny a pôsobenie, p. 350–351. 58 The uprising of Francis II. Rákoci meant the last intensive attempt by Evangelists to reverse the process of Rere-Catholisation and restore religious freedom. Snaková, Martina. Význam rehole sv. Františka na rekatolizáciu územia Šariša v 17. storočí a  v  prvých desaťročiach 18. storočia. In Verba theologica 17. Konfesionalizácia cirkevného života Jágerskej diecézy, vol. 8, 2009, no. 2, p. 37. 59 Špirko, Začiatky Spišského biskupstva, p. 47–48. 60 Špirko, Spišskí prepošti, p. 152–153. Wagner, Analecta III, p. 139. However, the 1830’s also finally meant the end of hard counter-reform activities in our territory. The subsequent course of re-Catholization was more or less carried out in the spirit of renewal, education and missionary activities of monks. Lesňák, Tomáš. Ľudový misionár páter

Canonical Visitations and Chapter Statutes

121

works on the chapter were done in the period that followed. The Provost Francis Barkóci (1740–1744), who later become an important church official, succeeded with the reconstruction of the provost’s palace, landscaped a park and built a clock tower.61 His successor Alexander Mariáši (1745–1755) reconstructed the facade of the provosts’ building and constructed other parts of the complex at the chapter. Moreover, he was also known as a supporter of poor students.62 The last of the Spiš provosts was Charles Zbiško (1755–1774), also known as a supporter of the poor and students. This provost was also known for his great reverence to St. John of Nepomuk. This reverence is evidenced, for example, by a chapel devoted to this Saint and an alter the provost had built in the chapter church. Charles Zbiško was the last provost of the Spiš Provostship. No new provost was appointed after his death.63 The reorganization of the archdiocese of Esztergom performed by the Empress Maria Theresa significantly affected the history of provostship and the chapter itself. It is possible to see several attempts to promote the Spiš Provostship to bishopric throughout its history. The oldest attempt was in 1348 when Louis I the Great addressed this request to Pope Clement VI.64 Although we can also see other attempts to reorganize dioceses, and mainly to divide the archdiocese of Esztergom by Hungarian kings, paradoxically, the greatest opponents of these changes were the archbishops themselves, who refused to restrict their own power. A change in this attitude occurred after the Council of Trent. A Catholic movement seeking both the internal and external reform of church was in particular supported by the archbishops of Esztergom. A  leading position was played by Archbishop Peter Pázmaň.65 This, in many respects, exceptional and

61 62 63 64

65

Serafín Bošnák. In Novotná, Mária (ed.). Acta Musaei Scepusiensis 2008: Pohľady do minulosti VIII. Levoča 2009, p. 76. Olejník, Spišskí prepošti, p. 153–154, Hradszky, Initia progressus, p. 59. Olejník, Spišskí prepošti, p.  154–155. Hradszky, Initia progressus, p.  59; Wagner, Analecta III, p. 142. Wagner, Analecta III, p. 143. For attempts related to errigation of the bishopric in Spiš in the 14th century, see: Brezováková, Blanka. K pokusu o erigovanie biskupstva na Spiši v polovici 14. storočia. In Historický časopis, vol. 57, 2009, no. 3, p. 415–442. An extensive analysis of historical attempts for the separation of the Archdiocese of Esztergom was also published by:  Borovi, József. Pons Strigoniensis studia V.  Rozdelenie Ostrihomskej arcidiecézy. Esztergom; Piliscsaba 2006, p. 10–31. It is also mentioned in the report by P. Pázmaň on August 30, 1628 about the condition of the Archdiocese of Esztergom, which the archbishop had prepared for a Sacred Congregation of the Council before his visit ad limina. In this report, he also asked

122

Miroslav Glejtek

gifted church officer realized the importance of a contact between a bishop and his clergy and worshiping inhabitants of a diocese in the spirit of the decrees of the Council of Trent.66 Despite his failure to achieve his very concrete plans for the reorganization of the diocese, these plans were followed by the Empress Maria Theresa about one century later. The large archdiocese of Esztergom was divided into several smaller areas by her energetic intervention. The empress issued a court decree about this division on January 15, 1776.67 To maintain bishop mensa, the empress allocated not only assets of the provostship, but also assets of the former Cistercian Abbey in Spišský Štiavnik. The establishment of the Spiš Diocese was approved by Pope Pius VI in his Bull Romanus Pontifex on March 13, 1776. The first bishop of the Spiš Diocese was Vác provost Charles Salbek.68 He started in this function on November 11, 1776, on the Feast of St. Martin, the patron of the Diocese.69 These events significantly affected the history of the chapter. Its chief representative  – the provost  – lost his important status and also most of his assets. After conversion of the collegial chapter to the cathedral chapter, a title of the representative of the chapter was changed from a provost to a grand provost. The first grand provost of the chapter was episcopus electus Scutariensis Ján Feja (1776–1784), a long-time canonist of the Spiš Chapter.70 At the same time, it also meant a change in the whole structure of the chapter and modification of further titles and benefices of members of the chapter.71 These

66

67 68 69 70 71

the Holy See to promote the Spiš and Bratislava Provostships to bishoprics: „Praeter has praeposituras sunt duealia Posoniensis et Scepusiensis filiales ecclesiae Strigoninsis, singula habentes canonicatus octoquorum collatio est pene archiepiscopum”. Hromják, Ľuboslav. Snahy o  povýšenie Spišského prepoštstva na biskupstvo. In Hromják, Ľuboslav (ed.). Studia Theologica Scepusiensia X. Z dejin Spišského prepoštstva. Zborník z medzinárodnej konferencie pri príležitosti 800. výročia prvej známej písomnej zmienky o Spišskom prepoštstve. Spišské Podhradie 2010, p. 7288. Tomko, Zriadenie Spišskej, p. 58. It is the most extensive work dealing with the patronal right of Hungarian Kings and establishment of dioceses in our territory in the 18th century. A opposing work to the monograph by J. Tomko was published by: Borovi, Pons Strigoniensis. Zubko, Peter. Dejiny Spišského biskupstva (1776–). In Gładkiewicz, Ryszard – Homza, Martin. (eds.). Terra Scepusiensis. Stav bádania o  dejinách Spiša. Stan badań nad dziejami Spiszu. Levoča; Wrocław 2003, p. 599. Charles Salbek was ordained as a titular bishop in 1750. He worked in Vác for 17 years as an auxiliary bishop and at the same time he was also a general vicar of the diocese. Tomko, Zriadenie Spišskej, p. 98. Špirko, Dejiny a umenie, p. 150. Hradszky, Initia progressus, p. 493. Glejtek, Príspevok k výskumu, p. 29–55.

Canonical Visitations and Chapter Statutes

123

events concluded the long-time struggle for the establishment of a bishopric in Spiš, which was initiated during the reign of the kings of Anjou dynasty in the 14th century. However, the formation of the bishopric also meant a decline in the importance, power and autonomy of the provost and the chapter itself, which became only an advisory body to the bishop.

Canonical Visitations and Hungarian Particular Canon Law One of the most typical and, at the same time, the most significant sources for understanding Modern church history are canonical visitations. They were performed on the basis of an order issued by a church’s representative, and they recorded a specific clerical and legal act that was confirmed in the applicable legal regulations. From this perspective, canonical visitations can be considered as trustworthy official documents.72 A definition of this source from the pen of one of the most important Slovak church historians Vojtech Bucko is the following: “Canonical visitation is a precious historical and cultural document of its time and place. It reflects the whole public and private life of that time and place. Canonical visitation is a personal examination of a church discipline or religious life performed by a competent church representative or his deputy in order to discover the condition of a church establishment, what needs to be remedied or removed, and whether it is necessary to punish some negligent members or administrators”.73 Although we can rarely see canonical visitations in the Middle Ages, a more significant increase in these visitations occurred mainly from the 16th century after the Council of Trent.74 It was exactly the task of the Council of Trent to solve 72 Ostertagová, Alexandra. Kanonické vizitácie ako historický prameň. In Hišem, Cyril – Fedorčák, Peter (eds.). Kanonické vizitácie po Tridentskom koncile: Zborník príspevkov z medzinárodnej konferencie Košice 9. novebra 2006. Košice 2007, p. 5. 73 Bucko, Vojtech. Reformné hnutie v arcibiskupstve ostrihomskom do r. 1564 (Pramenný príspevok k slovenským cirkevným dejinám). Bratislava 1939, p. 101. In the quoted work the author reconstructs the condition of the Catholic Church in Hungary in the 16th century after the formation of the Reformation mainly on the basis of the abovementioned canonical visitations ordered by the archbishop of Esztergom N. Oláh. 74 The canonical visitation of the Archdiocese of Esztergom from 1397 is very special and highly valuable due to its extent. Thanks to its extent and structure, as well as other supplements, it became an important source to learn about the situation in parishes within an extensive territory of the archdiocese at the turn of the 14th century. See: Púčik, Marek. The Supposed Register of the Archdiocese of Esztergom´s Parishes from 1397: The Parishes of the Archidiaconates of Nitra and Tekov. In Rábik, Vladimír (ed.). Studia Historica Tyrnaviensia XVII. Trnava 2015, p. 125–147. Kollányi, Ferenc. Visitatio Capituli E.M. Strigoniensis Anno 1397. In Történelmi Tár, 1901, vol.

124

Miroslav Glejtek

the overall bad situation of relations within the Church caused mainly by the Reformation, and of Hungarian relations caused by political instability. Within this context, attention was also paid to principles of how to perform visitations, which became one of the main means of the church to discover the real situation in separate church administrative units within (arch)dioceses. The regular performance of visitations represented one mechanism for rectification of potential deficiencies (which were very common in this period). Basic standards related to a canonical visitation are precisely defined in decrees of the 24th meeting of the Council of Trent.75 Approved decrees presented basic standards that should have been applied in the life of separate individual churches. Their complementation within Hungary was performed gradually, mainly through church synods.76 Approved articles and decrees were introduced to the leading representatives of a diocese or a province (provosts, abbots, archdeacons, deacons, etc.) directly at the synod, and then they were also presented to other clergy. Of course, a significant task was also played by a psychological moment. Participants of the synod were not only listeners who had to put respective regulations into practice, but they directly participated in their approval and made comments on them, which certainly contributed to their higher effort to put these regulations into practice in their subordinated “units”. The situation in Hungary after the Council of Trent was also complicated in connection with the long period when the post of archbishop of Esztergom was vacant. This situation partially changed in 1553, when Nicolaus Olahus became the archbishop. Thanks to Reformation attempts of this important official, there were visitations by his archdiocese in 1560–1564. In principle, these visitations preceded resolutions by the Council of Trent. However, visitation activity was stopped after his death. In addition to the

4. p. 71–106, 239–334. Marek, Miloš. Formovanie farskej siete na území Nitrianskej župy v stredoveku. In Rábik, Vladimír a kol. Vývoj cirkevnej správy na Slovensku. Kraków 2010, p. 132–215. 75 Hrdina, Ignác A.  (ed. et transl.). Dokumenty Tridentského koncilu. Latinský text a preklad do češtiny. Praha 2015, 24. zasad., Hl. 3, p. 218–220. Lopatková, Zuzana. Kanonické vizitácie v slovenských dejinách. In Marsina, Richard – Dobrotková, Marta (eds.). Studia Historica Tyrnaviensia VII. Trnava 2008, p. 99. 76 A summary work about different types of synods in Hungary, as well as basic decrees approved by the synods, see:  Szvorényi, Michael (ed.). Synopsis critico  – historica decretorum synodalium pro ecclesia Hungaro-Catholica. Vesprem 1807. Balogh, Margit – Varga, Szabolcs – Vértesi, Lázár (eds.). Katolikus zsinatok és nagygyűlések Magyarországon a 16.–20 században. Budapest 2014; Erdő, Péter. Az egyházmegyei zsinat intézménye a történelemben. In Vigilia, vol. 53, 1988, no. 11, p. 807–811.

Canonical Visitations and Chapter Statutes

125

vacancy of the post of archbishop, this complicated situation was also worsened by a small number of priests and the formation of anti-Habsburg uprisings.77 Three synods held in 1611, 1629 and 1638 in Trnava were important impulses for carrying out visitations.78 It is not surprising that they were convened by important personalities of re-Catholization and restoration of the Catholic Church in the Kingdom of Hungary in the first half of the 17th century – the archbishop Francis Forgáč (1607–1615), Peter Pazmáň (1616–1637) and Emericus Lósi (1637–1642). Due to the importance of documents approved by these representatives of the Hungarian Church, I would like to pay attention to these synods in connection with resolutions related to the course of canonical visitations. These documents are interesting sources through which it is possible to examine how resolutions by the Council of Trent were implemented in the context of the Hungarian Church. From our point of view, the provincial synod of Francis Forgáč held in 1611 represents the most extensive source.79 The problem of the course and content of canonical visitations is discussed in the fifth chapter, About the Performance of Visitations by Archdeacons.80 First of all, with reference to regulations of the Council, the decree specifies that an archdeacon must only be an honest and erudite man. Under further regulations of this Council, this man had to perform visitation each year together with archabbots and provosts, who also had this obligation.81 The way a visitation should be carried out together with questions which a visitator should ask during his visit are briefly discussed in the text. The questions were divided into several 77 Lopatková, Kanonické vizitácie, p. 100. 78 For more details about these synods, see also: Cherrier, Miklós. A Magyar egyház története. Pesten 1856, p. 565–568. Pauer, János. Az Egyházi rend érdeme Magyarország történetében, Árpádok időszakától korunkig. Székesfehérvár 1847, p.  294–300. Szvorényi, Synopsis critico. K synodám v širšom stredoeurópskom priestore najnovšie Kruppa, Nathalie  – Zygner, Leszek (eds.). Studien zur Germania Sacra. Band 29. Partikularsynoden im späten Mittelalter. Göttingen 2006. For terminology and typology, see mainly the introduction, p. 11–27. Bylina, Stanisław. Statuty synodalne jako instrument chrystianizacji wsi w późnym średniowieczu. In Krafl, Pavel (ed.) Sacri canones servandi sunt: Ius canonicum et status ecclesiae saeculis XIII–XV: Kolektivní monografie. Praha 2008, p. 271–284. 79 Documents of the synod are published by: Péterffy, Carolus. Sacra concilia Ecclesiae Romano-catholicae in Regno Hungariae. Vol. II. Posonii 1742, p. 190–218. 80 Caput V. Devisitatione ab archidiaconis instituenda. Péterffy, Sacra concilia II, p. 215. Compare resolutions of the Council of Trent: Hrdina, Dokumenty, 24. zasad., Hl. 3, p. 218–220. 81 Péterffy, Sacra concilia II, p. 215.

126

Miroslav Glejtek

areas. First of all, a visitator examined questions related to the cult of God. The second area was devoted to the priest and finally the visitator asked questions related to worshipers of the parish or other ecclesiastical institution where the visitation was performed.82 The first questions discuss issues related to the church. The visitator was interested in whether the church was clean and whether the Eucharist was properly preserved. He was also interested in liturgical articles (purificatorium, corporals, chalices, patens, etc.). Questions also focused on the preservation of relics, holy water and sacred oils. The visitator had to find out if there were registers in the church and whether those baptized, including their foster parents, confirmees and married couples were properly recorded in these registers. The visitator had to find out whether the Christian dogma was maintained, whether a priest had sermons during feasts and whether he made some mistakes during a service of worship and corrected them. The solving of possible sins had to be done in the spirit of lignity (in spiritu lenitatis). The visitator was also interested in whether a church maintained inventory of its equipment and furnishings and whether its copy was handed over to a sacristan and chiefs of justice (iudici), particularly in the event that a priest had changed his place of work, so it would be possible to identify objects in the possession of the church. Another area of question focused on the priest himself. First of all, the visitator asked whether the priest knew Breviary and if he was in the habit of reciting it. Then, if the priest owned some forbidden books, whether he maintained the prescribed Esztergom Rite in his liturgy and providing of sacraments, whether he maintained the prescribed form of sacraments, particularly the Sacrament of Baptism and the Sacrament of Penance. Questions related to matters of property, whether the priests rented parish property or put them into deposit, or whether he gave them to relatives, because it is forbidden, according to decrees of the Council of Trent.83 In addition to this, the visitator was also interested in whether the priest provided the sacraments willingly and promptly upon request and whether he addressed a bishop for advice in the case of problematic (more demanding) matters, or whether he acted alone. The third group of questions focused on worshipers of the parish. The visitator wanted to know whether people attended the church and whether they celebrated Easter according to Church regulations. The priest was to warn

82 Péterffy, Sacra concilia II, p. 215. 83 Compare resolutions of the Council of Trent: Hrdina, Dokumenty, 22. zasad., Hl. 11, p. 178–179.

Canonical Visitations and Chapter Statutes

127

a parishioner in case of his first aberrance, and if there was no improvement and the parishioner committed the aberrance for a second time, he had to be punished. The visitator was also interested in how the Christian doctrine was introduced to children, whether it was in anger, and whether they had a teacher to help them. The archdeacon was to deliver encouraging words to the people (ex hortationes) to encourage them to be more pious, not to neglect the sacraments and to recommend that they make pious messages to their church. Then the visitator called for the vogt and sworn accessories together with a sacristan, but without the priest. The visitator examined whether they were Catholics, where they were provided sacraments and where they attend the Sacrifice of the Mass. He also asked them whether the parish or the priest had property (income), who administered it and where it was stored. After the visitation had been performed, the archdeacon was obliged to submit the visitation protocol to a bishop, so he could carefully examine it. According to a regulation by the Council of Trent, he had to warn the members of a “problem” parish and explain their mistakes.84 This document is followed by decrees of the synod of the Esztergom archdiocese convened by Archbishop Peter Pázmaň in 1629.85 The previous articles are supplemented with other practical measures related to the performance of canonical visitations in the fourth article in the part devoted to the visitation of parishes (churches).86 It is discussed here that due to the extensiveness of the territory of the Archdiocese of Esztergom, it was necessary to have many archdeacons for the performance of visitations together with the Esztergom Chapter and Bratislava and Spiš Provosts, who also performed visitations of parishes they were in charge of.87 According to a regulation by the provincial synod of 1611, they were obliged to submit Visitation Protocols to the archbishop up until Easter. If a respective cleric failed to fulfill this obligation, he had to be summoned in front of the ecclesiastical seat (ad sedem spiritualem) and punished according to the seriousness of his aberrance. Then the respective cleric was obliged to perform the neglected visitation and hand over a protocol. If he failed, a general vicar threatened him with the loss of benefices and his office. If this did not help, then the cleric was stripped of his benefices and office.

84 85 86 87

Péterffy, Sacra concilia II, p. 216. Caput IV. Devisitatione ecclesiarum. Péterffy, Sacra concilia II, p. 257–258. Péterffy, Sacra concilia II, p. 257–258 Péterffy, Sacra concilia II, p. 257.

128

Miroslav Glejtek

Exempted parishes were visited only by a general vicar.88 If the general vicar could not perform such a visitation, a suitable cleric was authorized to do so and he provided the exempted priest the respective document and instructions he had to follow. Independently of a visitator, the general vicar could perform an unexpected visit to the parish, so he could personally ascertain the real situation in the parish, and it was not possible to stop him. The task of a visitator was to point out mistakes and offenses in order to ensure good in the human soul.89 Archdeacons had to be sure that the Esztergom Rite and decrees of the diocese synod were available for all priests. Upon order of the archbishop, they should be given to priests free of charge from the Chapter of Esztergom. During the visitation, the archdeacon had to go through separate points of the synod statutes with the priest and examine real questions according to them. He was particularly adamant that a teacher lectured the boys on Confession of Faith and led them to the Christian dogma and not to sing heretic songs. The visitator also investigated whether people enjoyed themselves during the service of sacraments and whether sons came to school with different heretic opinions. He was also interested in the fact whether a priest visited sick people and whether general confessions and recollections were executed in compliance with the regulations of the archbishop. The visitator also investigated whether the priest was able to handle his work in the parish, and whether he had sufficient material support. This could cause problems, mainly in the case of a large parish. In this case, the archdeacon was obliged to report this situation to an ordinary who had to find a solution according to the regulations of the Council of Trent. Finally, we would like to mention one more authentic document from the Hungarian region, namely, the statutes of the provincial synod convened by the archbishop of Esztergom Emericus Lósi in Trnava in 1638.90 The first part of this document contains a list of all who were appointed to perform visitations. They were of different origin and from different orders. They included provosts, abbots, parish priests, priests, simple beneficial owners, rectors of chapels and altars, with good manners, habits and life. For their “wise piety and ardour” they could examine and judge separate cases for a bishop.91 The third paragraph is interesting in terms of our research. It is stated in this paragraph that cathedral 88 Regarding questions of exempted parishes, see: Šotník, Stanislav. Zakladacia listina fary v Ponikách z roku 1310. In Slovenská archivistika, vol. 34, 1999, no. 1, p. 36–54. There is also other literature related to this topic. 89 Péterffy, Sacra concilia II, p. 257. 90 Péterffy, Sacra concilia II, p. 345–375. 91 Péterffy, Sacra concilia II, p. 365.

Canonical Visitations and Chapter Statutes

129

and collegial chapters in his diocese could be visited only by a bishop. In the event that he was not able to perform a visitation for legitimate reasons, he could appoint his vicar to do so.92 Abbeys and provostships that were not under the administration of any of the orders (prioratus observantia) could be visited upon recommendation. However, monasteries and benefices administered by orders could be visited by a respective Order (monastic) Ordinary. Similarly, sanctuaries (sanctimoniales) that were administered by orders with enclosure could be visited only by the respective Order Ordinary according to the regulations of the Council of Trent. During visitation, the visitator examined whether there were some excommunicated members, blasphemers or those who publicly lent money for interest in the respective order. These and also other criminals should be rebuked and corrected. The ones who were in prison, who were weak and insane should be provided pastoral care not only for the good of their body, but particularly for the good and salvation of their soul. Visitation should be performed by a bishop (or his deputy) in the cathedral and collegial chapters, parishes, dwellings of canonists and priests, monasteries, prayer halls, chapels and in various sacred places. The role of a visitator was to correct any mistakes in these places. Visitations covered all areas that were subject to canon law. In the area of liturgy, it covered the inspection of liturgical articles, sacraments, jars, relics, decorations of altars, sacred garments, etc. The visitator had to find out whether there were required liturgical books in the church and whether baptisms and marriages were recorded in the register. It was required to examine questions related to property and incomes thoroughly, and any incorrect manipulation of them had to be thoroughly examined. The final part of the document contains explanations of visitations and appointments by respective visitator for the performance of this activity on behalf of the bishop. Archdeacons were aware of the fact that according to regulations of the provincial synod from 1633, they had to visit a district (districtus) under their administration every year under the penalty of loss of benefices.93

Canonical Visitations of the Spiš Chapter The abovementioned regulations of Hungarian synods show us not only the basic skeleton according to which separate points of visitations were compiled, but also how a visitation should be performed. Therefore, it is a kind of general 92 Péterffy, Sacra concilia II, p. 365. 93 Péterffy, Sacra concilia II, p. 366.

130

Miroslav Glejtek

scheme that was used both by visitators as a basic standard they had to follow and by the clergy as a standard about how a visitation should be performed and what were their obligations towards a visitator. It is understandable that these visitations specifically reflect the visitation of basic units of the dioceses and parishes, and mainly the work of their representatives – the priests.94 In the case of chapters, we are then speaking about “higher level” visitations and the execution of which reflected the importance of this institution in the Modern Period. Even though, in the case of visitations of the Spiš Chapter, we can also see that most points contained in the principles correspond to the visitation of units with lower church-administrative importance. In both cases (visitations from 1629 and 1796), they are totally specific extensive canonical visitations that can only, very slightly. be compared with the parish ones. The difference is mainly in the extent and detailed questions which in these two cases exceeded the more brief visitations to the parishes. The two visitations from 1700 and 1752 were similar to them. The greatest differences can be seen mainly in the points of visitations related to the activity of a plausible place, which are numerously and very extensively examined and so they do not with the same as parishes. Before we present the most important visitations of the Spiš Chapter in the Modern Period, it is necessary to say that these visitations were not the first ones in the territory of Spiš. The relatively early establishment of a stabilized church administration also enabled the performance of the first medieval visitations. They were already mentioned in the agreement between the Spiš Provost and the Union of XXIV priests of the royal towns of 1278, where they agreed on visitations being performed at these town fraternity parishes by the provost once per year. Priests were obliged to welcome the provost and provide him accommodation for one day and night.95 There are no materials preserved about visitations from the 13th and 14th centuries. We have evidence of a visitation to the Church of St. Jacob in Levoča performed by the Provost John on February 26, 1516.96 J. Špirko mentioned that as part of the Reformation activities and in his effort to know the real situation in his archdiocese, the archbishop of Esztergom Nicolaus Oláh carried out a visitation of Spiš as part of the extensive visitation of

94 For an overview of parish visitations located in the Spiš Provostship, see Labanc – Glejtek, Spišské prepoštstvo, p. 68–71. 95 Kamenická, Mária. Kanonické vizitácie na Spiši ako historický prameň. Diplomová práca. Bratislava 1972, p. 24; Hradszky, A XXIV királyi, p. 41. 96 Kamenická, Kanonické vizitácie, p. 24–25.

Canonical Visitations and Chapter Statutes

131

the archdiocese, but we do not have any detailed information.97 We will discuss other visitations of the chapter in the Modern Period in more details.

Canonical Visitation of Archbishop Peter Pázmaň in 1629 In the previous part we introduced documents summarizing the basic rules for the performance of visitations of parishes, as well as other church institutions within a diocese (archdiocese) in the Modern Period. This broader excursion was carried out in order to emphasize the interconnection of legal regulations of councils and synods with their practical application in church administration. In particular, the articles from the synods held in 1611 and 1629 directly address one of the basic historical sources of the Spiš Chapter in the Early Modern Period, namely, a canonical visitation performed in 1629 upon the order of the archbishop of Esztergom Peter Pázmaň. With regard to the fact that it is a basic as well as the oldest source for understanding and learning about the modern as well as medieval history of these institutions, we would like to present this visitation in a wider context. The situation that preceded this visitation was quite demanding and it corresponded to the difficult situation the Spiš region had been facing since the 16th century. Performance of canonical visitations of the Spiš Provostship was ordered by Peter Pázmaň in 1626 for the Spiš Provost Ladislaus Hoszutóti. He announced the intention to perform the visitation of key Spiš corporations – Spiš County, the County of the ten lance-bearers and the Union of XXIV priests of royal towns. He asked to help the visitor and to prepare parishes for such visitations.98 But the situation resulting from the overall mood and the process of the Reformation in Spiš was not developed in a way that favored the procedures of a visitation. This visitation was opposed mainly by priests, who were primarily Protestants at that time. The provost personally attended a meeting of the County Congregation on March 16, 1626, where he introduced a plan to perform a visitation. The Congregation unambiguously rejected the performance of this visitation and named several reasons. Nobles argued stating the fact that it would not be allowed by any other county and that they could not remember any visitation having been performed for 70 years. 97 See Špirko, Dejiny a umenie, p. 106–107. 98 In Hungary, in addition to church representatives who performed visitations, they were also attended by representatives from the respective county, and from half of the 18th century, also by members of families of territorial lords with a patronal right over the parishes being visited. Čechová, Františka a kol. Zbožný región – cirkevná škola (z dejín Nitrianskej diecézy). Trnava 2009, p. 12.

132

Miroslav Glejtek

According to the Vienna Treaty, each church had the right to its own superintendent. In the case of Spiš County, the protestant pastor from Levoča was considered to be such a superintendent. Therefore, according to a proposal by the Congregation, he should perform the visitation. The last argument was that there was no regulation ordering a visitation issued at the last meeting of the Hungarian Diet, and so the visitation was refused by the County Congregation. 99 The political situation in Spiš County worsened even further when Hajducs of Gabriel Betlén plundered the Spiš Chapter and the provost had to run to the town of Levoča and then to Poland.100 Due to the fact that the only really catholic church institution in Spiš was the Collegial Chapter of St. Martin, visitation was performed at this institution in 1629. Two originals of this visitation have been discovered so far. As informed by V. Olejík, one is located in the Hungarian Regional Archive and the second was discovered in outbuildings of the bishopric office in the Spiš Chapter.101 One uncertified transcript is located in the State Archive in Levoča. Therefore, for the needs of our research, we can use the original document from the visitation stored in the Archive of the Spiš bishopric, copies of the transcript located in the State Archive in Levoča102 and the edition of visitation which was published by the historian J. Hradský in the year 1904.103 The analyzed canonical visitation is a comprehensive document of exceptional importance for researching the church history of such a church institution like the Spiš Chapter. It is a unique source due to its content and extent, which can help us to understand the operation of the chapter in the Modern Period. A visitation is divided into separate formal parts. In the introductory part of the visitation, there are transcribed deeds that relate to the regulation ordering the performance of the visitation. In the beginning, the archbishop justifies that 99

100 101

102 103

Olejník, Vladimír. Kanonická vizitácia Petra Pázmáňa v Spišskej kapitule. In Hišem, Cyril – Fedorčák, Peter (eds.). Kanonické vizitácie po Tridentskom koncile: Zborník príspevkov z medzinárodnej konferencie Košice 9. novebra 2006. Košice 2007, p. 115– 116. Kamenická, Mária. Kanonické vizitácie na Spiši ako historický prameň. Diplomová práca. Bratislava 1972, p. 27–30. Olejník, Kanonická vizitácia, p. 116. Dimensions of the document are 33 x 25 cm and it is written on 22 parchment foils. A seal with the coat of arms of the archbishop of Esztergom Peter Pázmaň is attached to it. This and other information related to analysis of the visitation was published by Olejník, Kanonická vizitácia, p. 111–121. See: SA Le, f. Súkromný archív Spišskej kapituly (Private Archive of the Spiš Chapter) (hereafter SaSk), Krabica (Box) (hereafter Kr.) 28, no. 1. Hradszky, Additamenta, p. 1–63.

Canonical Visitations and Chapter Statutes

133

he cannot perform the visitation himself and he appoints Emericus Lósi, the elected bishop of Varadin, Canonist and Lecturer of the Esztergom Chapter and his general vicar in spiritualibus to be his visitator.104 Then there is a deed from January 6, 1629, which represents the letter of credence of Emericus Lósi to perform the canonical visitation. In this deed, the visitator is urged to perform the visitation in the name of and with the authority of Archbishop Peter Pázmaň and to perform the visit, inform, restore, correct and strengthen (confirm) the revised statutes according to the respective canons.105 The charter is followed by the introduction to the visitation itself, dated in the same day. It says that on 6th January 1629 at nine o’clock was celebrated the holy mass with the presence of the visitator. After the meeting of all canons and after the arrival of the provost, the visitator wrote all tasks. The tasks were read and published and everyone was requested to answer clear true.106 It continued with the names and number of the Chapter Canons who took part in the visitation. Very interesting were information about former custod George Nemčik, who left the clerical state during the visitation. Another example was Laurentius Mogliensi, who died.107 This document also contains a list of issues regarding the condition of the Spiš Chapter, provost, canonists and other servants of the chapter, as well as about property, dwellings, profits, gaining, incomes, rights, freedoms and privileges that had to be duly recorded mainly according to the published and announced chapters.108 After the introduction, there are 35 questions from the visitation (puncta interrogatoria) which the visitator had to ask members of the chapter and to which they had to answer.109 After these questions there is a note stating that the provost and canonists had discussed the matters they were asked about very diligently. And if it suited the visitator, they liked to consult these matters another one or two days. The visitator met their request and left them another two days for preparation.110 It can be stated from the scope and structure of questions that the entire visitation was prepared very thoroughly. It is possible to see that the questions were 104 Hradszky, Additamenta, p. 2. 105 Hradszky, Additamenta, p. 3. 106 Hradszky, Additamenta, Pázmaňova vizitácia, p.  5. Translation of this part was published by: Olejník, Kanonická vizitácia, p. 111–112. 107 Hradszky, Additamenta, Pázmaňova vizitácia, p. 5. 108 Hradszky, Additamenta, Pázmaňova vizitácia, p. 6. 109 Hradszky, Additamenta, Pázmaňova vizitácia, p. 6–10. 110 Hradszky, Additamenta, Pázmaňova vizitácia, p. 11. Olejník, Kanonická vizitácia, p. 112.

134

Miroslav Glejtek

in compliance with the provisions of the Council of Trent and Trnava synod, which had preceded the visitation. Due to the fact that it was not a classical visitation of the parish, but a visitation of a larger church institution the members of which were almost exclusively clerics, all matters concerning laic believers were supplanted. By contrast, attention was paid to other key themes, such as the historical origin of the chapter, its activity and structure. Members of the chapter worked really hard to answer the questions of the visitation thoroughly. The comprehensiveness of some answers allows us to create quite a picture of its internal structure with overlaps into the Middle Ages. Answers to separate questions were divided into several main topics that are graphically marked as separate subchapters in the visitation itself. The answers were compiled by clerics, canonists and the provost, who knew the history of the Spiš Chapter very well, and when answering the questions they also used archive sources. Particularly in connection with the history of the chapter they referred to several medieval deeds from the kings of Hungary and church representatives. All of the medieval deeds were published in three cases of visitations, which answered the visitation questions in a very truthful and faithful way. For example, in connection with the freedoms and rights of the chapter, the visitation contains a note from the notarial public about a privilege and transumpt from a deed by King Charles Robert of Anjou in 1323 about jurisdiction of the provost and the chapter. The deed of the Cardinal and archbishop of Esztergom Dionýz in 1464 connected with the confirmation of the Spiš Provost and his investiture was published in full wording.111 Relations between the provost and the chapter were supported by attached documents from 1448 issued by Cardinal Dionýz. Answers were divided into several groups with sub-titles. The first group consists of answers related to issues of the Church of St. Martin and liturgy (About the establishment and title of the church, About chapels and altars in the church, About the Divine Office, so canonical hours and Holy Masses, About construction of the church and decoration of the sacristy, About holy relics and church indulgences, About celebration of the sacraments and preaching).112 The second group of questions includes the ones which are connected with the chapter, its freedoms, assets, rights, etc. (About freedoms of the chapter, followed by the abovementioned note by the notary public, About properties, dwellings, profit and gaining of the chapter, About canonical benefices, as they are introduced by descriptions, Two defalcated benefices counted in the past, moreover with the

111 Transcript of the deed is archived in: SA Le, f. SaSk, Kr. 25. 112 Hradszky, Additamenta, Pázmaňová vizitácia, p. 11–52.

Canonical Visitations and Chapter Statutes

135

buildings bearing this signature, About aliened assets and profits of the chapter, About schools and statutes of the chapter, followed by the abovementioned deed of Cardinal Dionýz containing 11 articles from the agreement between the provost and the chapter, and the last point, About benefices and jurisdiction aliened to the chapter).113 The third group of questions is devoted to members of the chapter, their rights, obligations and personal structure of the chapter as such (About the spiritual authority of the provost, About the office of the vicar, About the office of the lecturer, About the office of the cantor, About the office of the custodian, About the chapel of God´s Body and its rector, About the number of canonists, the Deed by Cardinal Dionýz connected with the confirmation of the Spiš Provost and his inventory, About further servants of the chapter except for canonists).114 Answers to given questions are followed by extensive strict notes addressed to the provost regarding his obligations in connection with the office he held.115 The final and rather extensive part of the visitation is the attached Statutes and Customs of the Spiš Chapter. They will be discussed at the end of this document due to their special character.

Canonical Visitation of the Provost John Žigraj in 1700 The second known, but lost, canonical visitation that was also directly connected to the Spiš Chapter is the visitation of the Provost John Žigraj in 1700.116 In relation to the visitation of Peter Pázmaň it is a different document in terms of its content, scope and form. First of all, it is not a visitation of only one church institution. This visitation includes the entire provostship with all its administrative units (fraternities, parishes). Not the chapter itself, but its collegial church is only one of the parts of the Spiš Provostship that were visited. Also for this reason, it is just a very brief document dealing only with some aspects of the chapter’s operation. It is possible to assume that the brief character of the chapter’s visitation was also caused by the fact that the visitation performed seventy years ago is an exhaustive and extensive document covering all relevant issues of the chapter’s existence, which together with the attached statutes of the chapter include all substantive aspects. Our analysis focuses mainly on those parts of the visitation we are interested in, which deal with the chapter. 113 114 115 116

Hradszky, Additamenta, Pázmaňová vizitácia, p. 12–59. Hradszky, Additamenta, Pázmaňová vizitácia, p. 14–39. Hradszky, Additamenta, Pázmaňova vizitácia, p. 59–63. We have information about this visitation only from the edition published by: Hradszky, Additamenta, Žigrajova vizitácia, p. 115–145.

136

Miroslav Glejtek

From a formal perspective, the visitation can be divided into several basic parts. There is a list of Spiš Provosts excerpted from documents of the Spiš Chapter from the Provost Benedict (1234) up to the current Provost John Žigraj in the introductory part of the visitation.117 The list of provosts is followed by the second part named Powers of the Spiš Provost.118 This part includes a complete transcript of the deed issued by Pope Pius II in 1459, which was addressed to the Provost Ján John Stock. The deed confirms the rights of the Spiš Provosts over the Spiš Church in connection with the performance of “quasi”-bishopric powers.119 The visitator considered it appropriate to define the powers of the provost over the territory he is liable for at the beginning of visitation clearly and concisely also in connection with the performed visitation itself, and he considered using a privilege issued by the Pope himself as the most appropriate. Then there is the visitation of the Collegial Church of St. Martin on Spiš Hill separated by a special subtitle. In the introductory part, immediately below the title, there is a brief introduction of the church’s history, which means basic knowledge about its establishment, the most important provosts and performed reconstructions.120 It also contains information about the consecration of the church after its reconstruction, as well as all more important representatives who participated in this consecration. The last part is devoted to a presentation by canonists of the chapter and the setting of benefices. The presentation was performed by the provost after approval by the archbishop of Esztergom. The name of another part is About equipment and furnishings of the church.121 It is one of the most extensive parts and it lists all possessions of the church (chapter) in details. Greater attention is devoted particularly to the town of Gönc the chapter and the provost were entitled to, but it was aliened several times for different reasons. The part About alienation of assets also deals with the property.122 It includes descriptions of several cases, when property belonging to the chapter was confiscated illegitimately.

117 Nomina dominorum praepositorum sancti Martini de Monte Scepusiensi quorum notitia haberi potuit ex archivo eiusdem Capituli. Hradszky, Additamenta, Žigrajova vizitácia, p. 116. 118 Iurisdictio Praepositi Scepusiensis. Hradszky, Additamenta, Žigrajova vizitácia, p. 118–120. 119 Hradszky, Additamenta, Žigrajova vizitácia, p. 118–119. 120 Hradszky, Additamenta, Žigrajova vizitácia, p. 121–123. 121 Hradszky, Additamenta, Žigrajova vizitácia, p. 123–129. 122 Hradszky, Additamenta, Žigrajova vizitácia, p. 129–131.

Canonical Visitations and Chapter Statutes

137

The following parts of the visitation deal with the liturgical questions related to the collegial church (About operation of the chapels, About votive worships of the Collegial Spiš Church, About altars, establishment of altars and founders, About church indulgences, About holy relics and About worships).123 These parts of the visitation are followed by three lists of chapter members. The first list contains the canonists who were present in the chapter when the Provost J. Žigraj was appointed to his office. The second list specifies changes in the chapter between the years 1696 and 1702 and the third list contains names of the canonists who died between the years 1696 and 1703 together with their age at the time of death.124 The other two letters are followed by a list of branch parishes of the collegial church with the number of Catholics (or Lutherans) who lived there.125 Then the document contains only information about visitations of the parishes located in the territory of the whole provostship. It is interesting that the individual questions of the visitation (13 questions) to be answered are listed only here. It is due to the fact that the collegial church had exceptional status, obligations, property holding, etc., within the provostship, and so separate points of the visitation were specific. The final part of the visitation contains the overall numbers of worshipers (Catholics, Greek-Catholics, non-Catholics) within the entire provostship.126 This visitation significantly enriches our knowledge, particularly in the area of equipment and furnishings and performance of liturgical celebrations (mainly matters related to votive worships), as well as property relations of the chapter at the turn of the 17th and 18th centuries.

Canonical Visitation of Archbishop Mikuláš Nicholas Čáki in 1752 Canonical visitation of the Spiš chapter, which was ordered by the Esztergom archbishop M.N. Čáki in 1752, just one year after his taking office, has not been published yet. It was discovered in one of the private protocols of the chapter.127 123 124 125 126 127

Hradszky, Additamenta, Žigrajova vizitácia, p. 131–141. Hradszky, Additamenta, Žigrajova vizitácia, p. 142–144. Hradszky, Additamenta, Žigrajova vizitácia, p. 145. Hradszky, Additamenta, Žigrajova vizitácia, p. 268–273. Prothocollum domesticum v. capituli Scepusiensi inquores gestae et diversis temporibus consistorialiter conclusae et determinatae sub prolectoratu reverndissimi Joannis Matheides ab anno 1749 inchoative per eregium Mathiam Nebling iurat. ord. notrarium in sertae comprehendur. a. 1749–1888. Protocol is archived in: SA Le, f. SaSk, Oddelenie

138

Miroslav Glejtek

It contains a transcript of all basic information related to the visitation. The first part contains a transcript of a deed from Archbishop MN. Čáki by which he ordered the visitation. It is a decree where the archbishop explained reasons why he decided to order the visitation of this Church institution. These are classical reasons talking about the obligation of the supreme superior in the territory of the archdiocese (so archbishop) to take care of the proper administration of all parts of the archdiocese and to know the true state of affairs. It also obligatorily refers to resolutions by the Council of Trent. This decree was issued on September 1, 1752, and the visitation was ordered to be performed on September 6. It should have been opened by the archbishop of Esztergom in person, who finally performed it alone, which was not usual. Due to this reason, there was no King’s decree issued for this visitation, and the high clergy did not ask the Szepes Spiš County to send the obligatory representatives.128 Then there are individual questions of visitation summarized into 21 points.129 The first two questions of the visitation refer to documents that are also connected with the ongoing visitation. The visitator was interested whether there was an original statute of the chapter and also whether they had records about the last canonical visitation performed by Archbishop Emericus Esterházi (1725–1745). More space is devoted to the questions of liturgy. In one of them, the visitator asked whether jewels and worship articles of the chapter and parish are allocated separately. An obligatory question is related to the order which governs both sung and recited worships. Two points dealt with votive worships, how they were celebrated, according to which order and how the finances from these worships were administered. Further questions dealt with the order and fees for ringing and the eternal flame before the altar, and how the oil to this eternal flame is ensured. Questions concerning internal life of the chapter formed a bigger group. At one point of visitation, the visitator was interested whether testaments of canonists were performed, since it was necessary to submit respective confirmations (testimonies). Another point included questions connected with convening the chapter and the presentation of points to be discussed. Only one point was

(Department) (hereafter Odd.) knihy (Books), Capsa (hereafter Cap.) 28, Fascikel (Fascicle) (hereafter Fasc.) 4, pag. 9–19. Originally sealed puncta interrogatoria are stored in: ŠA SA Le, f. SaSk, Kr. 248, Fasc. 3. 128 Kamenická, Kanonické vizitácie, p. 49. 129 Čákiho vizitácia, pag. 11–13.

Canonical Visitations and Chapter Statutes

139

dealing with both joint and private farming of the chapter. The visitator was also interested in whether there were any property disputes between the chapter and the provost, whether officials of the chapter have more obligations than other canonists and whether the chapter has the right to present a priest of the chapter´s parish. The last group consists of questions related to the activity of the reliable office. During the first two days, the visitator asked who was responsible for the archive, how the documents were handled and who administered the register of documents. A reliable office was also connected with use of the authentic seal, handling it and fees for sealing. An important part of this activity was also sending members of the chapters to be present at legal acts (ex missiones). One question is related to the obligations of the notary public of the chapter office. The seal is followed by the signatures of the archbishop and John Peter Seachy, the abbot, the canonist of Bratislava and the apostolic archbishopric prothonotary, who was responsible for the agenda. It is the same as in the case of the published points of the visitation.130 Puncta interrogatoria is followed by answers from the canonists on separate points of the visitation. We can see significant differences when compared with previous visitations from 1629 and 1700. The biggest difference is in the fact that answers are much shorter. The canonists answered the questions with only one or at most just a few sentences. In comparison with previous visitations, here we find a situation that in most points the visitator asks for documents to be submitted to the related questions. These are, for example, statutes, previous visitations, confirmation about the performance of testaments, respective documentary lists and books. In the case of the visitation of N. Čáki, it is often a summary of basic knowledge we have from previous visitations. Even though on many points this knowledge supplements or modifies our information, and of even greater importance is that it captures the activity of the chapter more than fifty years after the previous visitation. Since the original of this visitation has not been discovered yet, it is not possible to make deeper analysis of the archive document from the preserved transcript. It is also not possible to exclude that the original of the visitation also includes other documents or programs which perhaps may not have been considered important during the transcript, and so a compiler did not include them with this transcript.

130 Čákiho vizitácia, pag. 11.

140

Miroslav Glejtek

Canonical Visitation of Archbishop Francis Barkóci in 1763 A special place among the visitations of the Spiš Chapter belongs to the visitation of the Esztergom archbishop Francis Barkóci in 1763.131 Only one unverified transcript of this visitation has been discovered so far. In this case, the answers are puncta interrogatia. A literal wording of questions is not given with the answers. This visitation has not been mentioned in the literature so far, and so it can be considered a new one. Not even basic works about the canonical visitations of the Spiš Chapter compiled by M. Kyseľová (Kamenická) mention this visitation.132 The author considered the visitation of N.  Čáki to be the last one before the establishment of the bishopric. The several decades absence of further visitations was explained by the fact that the visitation of N. Čáki was so detailed that it was not necessary to perform it once again.133 However, according to research performed recently, this statement is not adequate. The abovementioned visitation of Čáki is not very extensive, but on the contrary, it is the shortest in the entire monitored period, at least with regards to visitations of the chapter. A  transcript of the visitation consisting of 42 A4 format pages represents one of the most extensive documents of this nature. Answers to separate questions are probably organized according to the older scheme puncta interrogata and thus divided into eight paragraphs marked with Roman numerals. Answers are included within these paragraphs and they are marked with Arabic numerals. Only the first paragraph is named About the church; in other cases the names of the chapters are not found. However, in the visitation attachment we can also see the names of other chapters, except for the third one. In the first chapter About the church there is detailed information about the chapter’s church. At the beginning, the oldest history and funding of the church are presented, followed by information on church equipment with necessary liturgical objects and other equipment, all altars and chapels are also mentioned with their historical development, security and their current condition. The second chapter called About the dignitaries and canonists deals with liturgical celebrations in the chapter church. There is a detailed description of

131 The visitation was recorded in a book script named Responsa ad puncta visitationis collegiatae ecclesiae Scepusiensis praevie per suam celsitudinem huic capitulo transmissa. Placed in: SA Le, f. RBSK, KV, without signature. 132 Kyseľová, Mária. Kanonické vizitácie na Spiši. In Slovenská archivistika, vol. 13, 1983, no. 2, p. 110–128. Kamenická, Mária. Kanonické vizitácie na Spiši ako historický prameň. Diplomová práca. Bratislava 1972. 133 Kyseľová, Kanonické vizitácie, p. 120.

Canonical Visitations and Chapter Statutes

141

worships, canonical hours and other services. The mentioned information refers to members of the chapter and chaplains responsible for serving the liturgies. The information on the condition of the liturgical books and the schedule of the most important votive masses was added to this chapter. The third chapter deals with the current condition of the chapter staff, a provost, canons and chaplains, as well as with some obligations of the chapter dignitaries. The complex part of this chapter is presented by a chart of obligatory payments made by Spiš priests to a provost. The fourth chapter About other clergymen and laymen serving at the church refers to other servants of the chapter (chaplains, an organist, etc.) and their financial circumstances. In the fifth chapter About temporary rights and the revenues of the chapter all the property related to canonical prebends, their structure and profits are drawn up. The sixth chapter About summoning the chapter describes the types of summoning and meetings of the chapter consistory. The seventh chapter About life and morals of the chapter members contains brief descriptions of relationships between canons and their coexistence. The last chapter of the visitation About the activity and obligations veraciously delegated deals with the activity of a veracious place and a notary public. A separate 7-page attachment is inserted into the book in which the visitation is recorded. There are amendments to several articles of the visitation. The majority of them are presented in the list of submitted original documents, especially deeds, elenches, internal protocols but also completion of questions apparently according to the wish of the visitator. Based on a brief enumeration it might be said that Barkóci’s visitation presents a complex and immensely important source which supplements the information on the running of the chapter between the great visitations of P. Pazmáň and. J. Révai after the establishment of a bishopric in a very interesting way. In some articles this visitation cites or relies on the information from older visitations. It often brings new information especially regarding liturgical issues, economy and economic administration. It may be assumed, regarding the extent and informative value, that this visitation will be used and published as a complete edition in the future.

Chapter Statutes of the Spiš Chapter from 1629 An important part of particular law, either civil or canon, is the right to issue their own statutes. Stephen Luby defines them as follows: “general legal norms, adopted by territorial or interest corporations, forming a source of a particular law to adjust their internal affairs that arose under the corporate law (iusstatuendi) of the respective corporation. In case of a secular corporation, it might receive

142

Miroslav Glejtek

them from royal privilege only. They had to be corporations that were competent subjects of statutory law”. The oldest secular corporations with this right included the towns which also received a statutory law as part of their privileges, as well as counties, which received this right ius statuendi after the disintegration of castle organizations and later guilds as well.134 Statutes are present not only in secular organizations, but more often in church organizations. Among them we often find this element of a particular canon law mostly in the case of cathedral and collegial chapters. Statutes, as sources of chapter legislation, present one of the most important sources of knowledge of chapter life.135 The right of the chapter to have and follow their own statutes has a long church tradition. Their form and how they were passed were modified in the Middle Ages and the Modern Period many times.136 In the Modern Period, these directives for the operation of the chapter resulted from generally known church directives, especially from the Council of Trent and common customary law. It this case, it was the Roman Catholic common customary law and (state) Hungarian common customary law.137 At this time, Roman, more precisely Catholic, law had not yet been drawn up in one book, while Hungarian law regarding chapters had already been defined by Church synods. This law was drawn up separately.138 The right of chapters to have their own acts or statutes was in general supported by many legal articles, regulations and decisions of various high Church institutions, as from the Pope’s See up to resolutions of

134 Luby, Štefan. Dejiny Spoločnosti Ježišovej na Slovensku. Bratislava 1946, p. 85. 135 Radzimiński, Andrzej. Życie i  obyczajowość średniowiecznego duchowieństwa. Warszawa 2002, p. 66. There is a brief analysis of the content of statutes of four chapters. 136 Considerably smaller amount of these sources is preserved from the Middle Ages compared to the later period. Budský, Dominik. published an interesting analysis of statutes of the Metropolitan Chapter in Prague from the second half of the 14th century. Právní život v Metropolitní kapitule pražské v letech 1378–1390. In Krafl, Pavel (ed.) Sacri canones servandi sunt: Ius canonicum et status ecclesiae saeculis XIII– XV: Kolektivní monografie. Praha 2008, p. 571–579. 137 According to Verböci Tripartitum only separate legal units were allowed to issue statutes. The others only with the approval of their superior and only in exceptional cases. The issue of statutes is quite frequent in practice, for instance at towns dependent on a feudal lord without any restrictions coming from their suzerain. Lengyelová, Tünde. Právne postavenie zemepanských miest v 16.–17. storočí. In Čičaj, Viliam (ed.). Rozpravy k slovenským dejinám. Zborník príspevkov k nedožitému 75. výročiu narodenia Pavla Horvátha. Bratislava 2001, p. 169. 138 Zubko, Peter. Dejiny Košického arcibiskupstva I, p. 41.

Canonical Visitations and Chapter Statutes

143

local bishops.139 Statutes were supposed to support the smooth administration and running of the chapter.140 One of the resolutions says, “based on pontifical law, chapters ornamenting the mystical church body are allowed to issue statutes and customs that are permitted by their administrator”.141 Under the resolutions of the Roman Council of 1725, the chapters were ordered to return to their previous statutes and constitutions. If they did not have any, under the threat of church punishment and based on the bishop’s inspection and after potential correction, they shall approve new ones within six months from the issue of the resolution (if necessary also with relevant old ones).142 In this period, in the case of any changes and innovations of the chapter’s older statutes, a bishop’s approval was needed.143 Bishops were supposed to correct anything that contradicted the decrees of the Council of Trent and the Pope’s constitutions. Moreover, they were supposed to address the Holy See for a consultation and wait for legal aid. If some of the traditional customs of the chapter were unreasonable or they contradicted a breviary, a missal-bishopric ceremonial, pontificate, Roma Rite or acts, they had to be corrected or voided.144 Statutes are one of the most significant documents for the research of the internal structure of church institutions. Their importance for understanding the estates, in our case the chapter, consists in the fact that they reflect the current conditions of this institution at the time of their establishment, including the issues (questions, problems) that seemed to be the most topical and urgent at that particular time period. This topicality might also be declared on the basis of a comparison with other, in our case, fundamental norms of particular canon law, namely, decrees, articles and resolutions of provincial and diocesan synods. If we compare issues that were discussed at church councils, we find out that similar issues are discussed by statutes and church institutions, even nowadays. Despite what has been said, it is necessary to look at these sources impartially because as it has already been said, the important effort of a local (Hungarian) church was to implement as part of their church norms mainly principles and resolutions rooted in the reform regulations of the Council of Trent. Therefore, we often find articles which are more or less similar in 139 Many precedents are published by Bouix, Dominique. Tractacus de Capitulis. Paris 1852, p. 370–394. 140 Bouix, Tractacus, p. 372. 141 Bouix, Tractacus, p. 374. 142 Bouix, Tractacus, p. 375. 143 Bouix, Tractacus, p. 372. 144 Bouix, Tractacus, p. 375.

144

Miroslav Glejtek

different dioceses and which stereotypically include resolutions reflecting the needs and efforts of the Post-Trent Catholic Church towards reform. In the case of the Spiš Chapter, we know two such sources from the 17th and 18th centuries (Scheme 1). If we have a look at the issues of the oldest statutes of the Spiš Chapter, question 34 of the visitation of P. Pazmáň refers to them.145 Canonists showed some regulations drawn up with the seal of the bishop of Varadín and the Provost of their church George Bornemisa that were not attached based on a visitator’s decision. It seems appropriate to transcribe some document from the Cardinal of Esztergom Dionýz containing an agreement with the provost and the chapter. The visitator together with the provost and the chapter drew up new statutes.146 An important fact is that according to the visitator’s findings, the chapter did not have any current statutes and was governed only by the customary common law (based on the memory of the chapter members) and a regulation, which, however, was at that time missing and so it could not be used for our analysis. It is very probable that these customs were fused into new statutes. Based on the canonists’ response, we have also learned that new statutes were drawn up by the visitator together with the provost and the chapter. It is an important piece of information which also shows us the mechanism of how the chapter received new statutes. With the help of other members of the chapter, the visitator flexibly compiled a new standard directly on the spot, which had to be followed by the Provost and the canonists. The last article of these statutes About the publishing and establishing of statutes in a chapter consistory147 says that canonists promise and swear to follow these statutes and customs and that it is very necessary to publish them and avoid their cessation. Therefore, it was ordered that canonists read all parts of these statutes with a majestic and clear voice and ensure their check by the provost anytime during the year. If he was not present due to reasonable causes, he should be substituted by the first member of the chapter. A  canonist-lecturer was responsible for the aforementioned pre-reading.148 In the conclusion of the full document, there is a clause by which the archbishop

145 Hradszky, Additamenta, Pázmaňová vizitácia, p. 10. 146 Hradszky, Additamenta, Pázmaňové štatúty, p. 52. 147 De publicatione et relectione statutorum in consistoriu capituly, et consessu canonicorum certis cuius vis anni partibus. Hradszky, Additamenta, Pázmaňové štatúty, p. 112–113. 148 Hradszky, Additamenta, Pázmaňové štatúty, p. 112.

Canonical Visitations and Chapter Statutes

145

of Esztergom P. Pázmaň approves, accepts and consolidates the canonical visitation together with the statutes and constitutions attached in the text of the document.149 The statutes themselves literally called Statutes and Customs of the Prominent Collegial Church of Spiš150 consist of 45 chapters divided by subtitles in a way characteristic of the previous text of a canonic visitation. In their concentrated form these statutes present the fundamental issues that are suitable for the research of the chapter´s history. These individual spheres of statutes may be classified into several basic fields. The first group of rules refers to how new members of the chapter were enrolled (About confession of faith performed at holding a benefice, About those enrolled in the chapter, About inauguration of new canonists, How to take the oath of the faith confession, How to take the oath of newly enrolled canonists, How to take the oath of mister provost and the ceremony for his inauguration. Preserved in the aforementioned document of Cardinal Dionýz  – How to take the oath of mister provost holding a post in the chapter if not appointed and did not swear his oath to the hands of the most Enlightened Archbishop of Esztergom, Revenues of candidates of canonry, How new ones are enrolled for canonists and about About the duties of new canonists).151 The second complex group of rules amends the performance of liturgical services and punishments for those who are absent for many reasons (About ceremonies of Lauds and canonical hours in a chorus with stated worships and time of singing, About reciting the Divine Office outside the chorus and punishment for those who neglected to recite, About serving the masses, About feasts and days intended for celebration by a mister provost and canonists, About those in the chorus who desire the sacramental, rules and order, A punishment for those who are not present in the chorus during Divine office and in their common consistory during the meetings, About common singing and preaching of the Word of God by canonists).152 The third group of regulations regarding the life of canonists in the chapter (About Residing, About respect and the outside behavior of canonists, About forbidden games, dances, hunts that should be avoided, About social issues of the chapter negotiated in a consistory and how every and all bring requests and 149 Hradszky, Additamenta, Pázmaňové štatúty, p. 113. 150 Statuta et consvetudines insignis collegiatae ecclesiae Scepusiensis. Hradszky, Additamenta, Pázmaňové štatúty, p. 63. 151 Hradszky, Additamenta, Pázmaňové štatúty, p. 63–81. 152 Hradszky, Additamenta, Pázmaňové štatúty, p. 73–98.

146

Miroslav Glejtek

obligation to vote, About hidden matters of the chapter, About those who were not afraid to commit serious and cruel injustice inside or outside the chapter, Against those who made up secret societies and conspiracies, About the life of canonists and their sublime household (servants)).153 The fourth and the most extensive group of regulations regulates the economic and property matters of the chapter, with an emphasis on the position of the chapter’s dean (About the use of canonical incomes and about taking care of canonical houses, About the alienation and assignment of ecclesiastical property and also about the strict prohibition of its exchange, The prescribed method of how canonists should proceed their debts, how to proceed if they are distant and also how the other should proceed against them, About the selection of houses of canonists, About testaments of dead canonists and about property and objects of those who died without a testament, About the procedure against those who sold royal donations, vineyards, houses and other property of the church and about requesting a king´s consent, About the setting of prebends for canonists and tithes, About a dean and his election, Obligations of a dean, About the administrative powers and obligations of a dean, About the cost summary of a dean´s administration after his return (to the office), Gains of a dean, About the administrative powers related to assets, a part of which is held by a Provost and mainly in Liszka).154 The following group of regulations includes the issues about other servants of the chapter such as the priest, the bell-ringer and the organist (About the priest and his burdens, About the school teacher, About the bell-ringer and the obligatory time of ringing, About the organist).155 The activity of a veracious place is amended by three articles (About the duties of canonists when implementing judgments, About an authentic seal, its protection and sealing of authentic documents, About the notary public and his share of the document fees).156 The second point of statutes deals with heresy and forbidden books; about heresy and reading books forbidden by the church.157 The last point of the statutes deals with the disclosing and regular pre-reading as we have previously

153 154 155 156 157

Hradszky, Additamenta, Pázmaňové štatúty, p. 72–92. Hradszky, Additamenta, Pázmaňové štatúty, p. 82–110. Hradszky, Additamenta, Pázmaňové štatúty, p. 99–112. Hradszky, Additamenta, Pázmaňové štatúty, p. 102–104. Hradszky, Additamenta, Pázmaňové štatúty, p. 64.

Canonical Visitations and Chapter Statutes

147

mentioned. Below this point there is only the confirmation and approval of statutes by Archbishop Pazmáň. Pazmáň’s statutes represented the only internal regulation of this kind in the Spiš Chapter for a long time. It is understandable that after the establishment of the Diocese of Spiš and after the transformation of the collegial chapter into the cathedral, the bishops of Spiš were interested in codifying basic rules under which the chapter should operate as the most prominent, the most important and an “exhibition-like” institution. New statutes were not approved by the first bishop of Spiš Charles Salbek (1776–1785), but his successor John Révai (1787– 1806). Just as in the case of the great visitation of the chapter performed in 1629, once again this time the statutes of the chapter are attached after the great visitation. Compared to the first statutes, these are relatively reduced and shortened. There are many reasons for that. The amount of questions is discussed in the previous statutes and the statutes themselves refer to them. Regarding the large amount of customs and rules drawn up during the visitation, the bishop probably did not feel the need to repeat them, especially when the text of statutes was directly connected with the text of the visitation and they compile one unit. From a conception point of view, it is not a very precise standard when compared to Pázmaň’s statutes. These statutes were originally submitted to the chapter by the bishop earlier in 1794. But the chapter refused to accept them and made an appeal to the Roman Curia. However, the statutes, which were not amended, were finally promulgated in 1796 in their original submitted form and the chapter had to conform to them.158 However, these statutes do not belong to a new, significantly different chapter in the history of the Spiš Chapter and newly established diocese. Therefore, we have decided not to speak about them in more details. The structure of the Chapter statutes of the Spiš Chapter until the end of the 18th century (Scheme 1).

158 Nemešová, Anna. Nitrianska sídelná kapitula vo svetle štatútu z roku 1602. Dizertačná práca. Ružomberok 2009, p. 11.

148

Miroslav Glejtek

 

Conclusion Previous lines were devoted to selected sources that can be used for the reconstruction of the history of one of the most important church institutions in Spiš in the Early Modern Period – the Spiš Chapter. Due to the condition and preservation of sources, Spiš and its church institutions represent a region where it is possible to reconstruct the past and the historical phenomena and processes in quite a flexible and detailed way. Within this chapter, we focused our attention mainly on canonical visitations and chapter statutes as one of the main sources for learning more about the internal history of the Spiš Chapter and the history of the church. We tried to include them into the context of the total development of the history of the church in Spiš (Spiš Provostship) and the chapter itself. These sources were compiled for the practical needs of the Catholic Church in a turbulent and very demanding period. The Spiš Chapter, as an important church institution in Spiš, witnessed many dramatic situations connected with the Reformation, change of relations and the gradual re-Catholization of the Spiš. This phase was symbolically finished with the transformation of the Spiš Provostship into the bishopric. In this chapter, we have tried to present sources which originated in this period, putting an emphasis on their potential and informative value. Together with other written sources, they provide a great space for the compilation of many studies and monographs that enable us to understand not only the confessional development in Spiš, but also how the Catholic Church achieved gradual re-Catholization and re-obtained its positions in individual parishes, deanaries and other church institutions. Much information was and certainly will be used in the formulation of works dealing with a specific region, mainly monographs about municipalities. However, there are

149

Canonical Visitations and Chapter Statutes

still many other topics which, when researched using not only the content of canonical visitations and statutes, but a large amount of other sources as well, will ultimately provide us with many interesting pieces of knowledge.   The chapter was created at the Department of History, Faculty of Arts, Constantine the Philosopher University in Nitra as part of the project VEGA No. 1/0006/18: “Imago Episcopi – the Bishop´s Power and its Presentation in the Middle Ages”.

 

Picture No. 1: The front page of the authentic Canonic Visitation of the Spiš Chapter realised in 1629 by Esztergom archbishop Peter Pázmaň.

150

Miroslav Glejtek

 

Picture No. 2: The front page of a simply copy of the Canonic Visitation of the Spiš Chapter realised in 1763 by Esztergom archbishop Francis Barkóci.

Ján Jakubej

Testimony of Single Items Deposited in the Archive of the Gemer Seniorate in the Town of Revúca on Testimony of That Seniorate in 1681–1792 Introduction Although the counter-Reformation in the second half of the 17th century in the territory of the Kingdom of Hungary culminated (in 1662 only 10 % of citizens of present Slovakia were members of the Evangelical Church of the Augsburg Confession as well as reformed confessions, while in 1610 it was 90  %), the Sopron Council brought certain compromises foreshadowing a silver lining in the relation of state power to protestant confessions.

Characteristics of Sources of Research The Archive of the Gemer Seniorate of the Evangelical Church of the Augsburg Confession is located in the building of the so-called old parish in the town of Revúca. The manuscripts occupy 36 shelves in total. They are organized in three different ways:  (1) single items without a file, (2)  single items organized in a file and (3) bound manuscript sources. Documents that serve as a resource in my chapter mainly belong to the second type mentioned. They include the following fascicles: Correspondence 1770–1800, Materials for Convention 1903– 1916 (documents from the 18th century were deposited by mistake), The Oldest Manuscripts of the Evangelical Church, Call-up Decrees 1796–1848 and Reports of the Seniorate Conventions 1825–1841 (texts from the 18th century were apparently deposited by mistake as well). Two carton folders where the sources are deposited have two openings and are tied up with two black ribbons. There is mostly correspondence by worshipers from separate Gemer congregations with a senior in order to either regulate relationships with a local clergyman or to inform him that a given community had decided to build a temple. Several preserved contracts with craftsmen who participated in the building are related to the second type of the mentioned topics. It is not possible to overlook the number of donation lists and – although there are only a few – debentures, as well. Unlike the following 19th century, there are far less

152

Ján Jakubej

statements from widows and orphans. And paradoxically: documents from the 18th century are preserved in relatively good condition, something that cannot be said about the earlier ones. These are the single items, documents ranging from one to four pages in mainly A4 format. They are recorded in paper probably with black ink. The materials I dealt with are hand-written in Czech, sometimes with elements of the Gemer dialect, or in Latin. In spite of the fact that they could significantly enrich this chapter, due to my weakened sight I am unfortunately unable to read them.

Outline of the Development of the Evangelical Church in the Kingdom of Hungary in the 18th Century Evangelical classes demonstrated (1681) that they had lost 888 churches in 27 Hungarian counties (from 1667).1 The religious issue was discussed in Articles 25 and 26 of the Sopron Articles (issued by Leopold I on December 30, 1681).2 Under Section 1 of Article 25, religious freedom was guaranteed while observing 1

2

Despite undoubtedly a very unpleasant situation in the 1670s, the conditions of protestant churches in the Kingdom of Hungary never brought the situation to a boil: officially there was no announcement on banning such a religion (either the Augsburg or Calvinian one), nobody persecuted the worshipers for reading religious literature nor for singing religious songs or praying in private, religious books did not get burnt (except destroying libraries of “rioters”– the protestant clergy). Measures of the Catholic Church and state power were always aimed at particular individuals. Moreover, contact with exiles persisted, and many people went to study at German universities and some of the clergy came back to their estate even after short period of time, although their return was considered an offense according to valid law. This clarification was specified by Kowalská, Eva. Obnova náboženského života evanjelikov a. v. v Uhorsku po roku 1681–problémy a formy ich riešenia. In Historický zborník, 2006, vol. 54, no. 4, p. 655. In this study the author focused mainly on the restoration of the Evangelical estates in Pressburg (present Bratislava) and Modra in detail. The full text of the Sopron Articles may be found in Acta comitialia hungarica Soproniensia (contains articles, passed on 14.6. - 31.12.1681)/Series exhibitum supplementorum actorum comitialium hungaricorum Sopronensium nuper editorum./Articuli dominorum prselatorum, baronum, magnatum, et nobilium, coeterorumque statum et ordinum regni Hungariae &c. in generali eorum conventu, anno MDCLXXXI. Sopronii celebrato, conclusi, et ad ipsa sacra caesarea maiestate ratificati & confirmati./Gravamina evangelicorum anno Domini MDCLXXXI.  in generali regni diaeta Soproniensi sacrae caesarae regieque maiestati humilime exhiberi decreta quidem, verim ob certas rationes postmodum compendiata./Imago pacis. Ad Cornelii Taciti Annalem I. cap. X. Archív Gemerského seniorátu evanjelickej cirkvi augsburského vyznania (Archive of Gemer Seniorate of the Evangelical Church of the

Testimony of Single Items Deposited in the Archive of the Gemer Seniorate 153

the territorial lords’ rights. A  ruler made decisions on the occupation of city churches. Section 2 enabled the banished clergy to return3 and canceled waivers. Section 3 stipulated that nobody may be disturbed while performing religious rights. Section 4 ordered that nobody may force Protestants to perform ceremonies they do not agree with. Under Section 4 not sanctified churches had to be returned to the Evangelists. Sections 1 to 11 determined where the articular temples may be built. Sections 3 to 11 refer to nine counties located in the area of present-day Slovakia (Bratislava county, Liptó County, Nyitra County, Árva County, Szepes County, Bars county, Trencsén County, Turóc County and Zólyom County), where two sanctuaries might have been built in each of them, so 18 in total, and in another seven (Abaúj County, Gömör és Kishont County, Komárom County, Nógrád County, Sáros County, Torna County and Zemplén County) existing temples were allowed to be kept. Section 12 determined that the ones who administered parishes, churches, schools and pensions in Hont should be considered as their owners. The members of the city council had to be henceforth elected freely. Protestants announced the freedom of three religions  – the Evangelical Augsburg, the Evangelical Reformed and the

3

Augsburg Confession (hereafter e. c. a. v.) in Revúca, 216/sine number/63/54/sine number, signature II. F 23/62/133/M IV. 123. Reasons for the exile of clergy, who signed waivers were stated by Kowalská, Eva. Z vlasti do exilu – skúsenosti evanjelických farárov 17. storočia z prenasledovania a exilu. In Slovenský národopis, 2004, vol. 52, no. 3, p. 249–250: “The Lutherans derived their attitude towards the state and the suzerain from the Bible (with references to the St. Paul) and based on works of Martin Luther they accepted each suzerain as ordained by God. As a result, there was no contradiction of suzerain and there was also the adoption of the regulation on going into exile, especially if it was forced by the state power. An argument, that waivers were a de facto confession of complicity to conspire against a ruler, was revitalized pointing out the fact that the exiles were forced to sign them due to actual circumstances. At the same time, they were not so powerful that the aggrieved person was expected to undergo bloody martyrdom. On the contrary, resisting the authority might have been used as evidence that the accused intended to emphasize their own fame and their strengths and abilities to override God’s will. Moreover, the clergy were not to be blamed when they left their congregations under compulsion because even their members were not willing to face secular suzerain. The next significant argument was that despite the signatures in waivers, the seals proving their legitimacy were not imprinted by signators, but by authority representatives who manipulated the entire process.”

154

Ján Jakubej

Catholic at the synod in Košice (1683).4 Not even the Protestants showed very good behavior:  according to the report by the Archbishop of Esztergom Juraj Selepčéni- Pohronec addressed to the Holy See (1684), during the Thököly Uprising, 19 Catholic clergymen died and another 80 were exposed to torture (as it is stated in the visitation of Zólyom County “regretfully” several priests were questioned in 1696).5 The ruler soon (in December 1686) appointed a committee led by the Upper Hungarian main captain Štefan Čáky (orig. István Csáky). It should have provided the implementation of the Sopron Articles into practice, although with the restriction that in the towns it was allowed to build only a wooden temple, moreover only behind the fortifications and if they refused to do so the religious freedom was subsequently withheld. The Council in Pressburg (held its session on October 1687) confirmed the validity of the Sopron Articles with Article 21.6 The ruler also published the explanation of the Sopron Articles (Explanatio Leopoldina, on April 25, 1691), regarding the areas which had fallen under Ottoman authority ten years ago, where he enabled the Evangelists to perform ceremonies only at articular places. Their duty was to celebrate Catholic feasts, and members of guilds were supposed to participate in processions.7 In some places the events went even further – e.g. in Bardejov (1702) after multiple banishment of a clergyman, the magistrate demolished a wooden temple located in a suburb and in the town Prešov (until 1704) they were not allowed to perform actively and they were not granted a place for building their sanctuary. And exactly this year (1704) proved to be very important: the court promised freedom of religion. František II Rákoci (En. Francis II Rákóczi) called a meeting in Gyöngyös, and a mining businessman Gottfried Hellenbach, appointed by a prince to the position of chamber count, called a synod of Evangelical clergy from the former Brezno superintendency (it existed from 1610 to 1672) to Hontiansky

4 5 6 7

Kónya, Peter. Dejiny ECAV na Slovensku v rokoch 1610–1791. In Uhorskai, Pavol (ed.). Evanjelici v dejinách slovenskej kultúry Zväzok 3. Liptovský Mikuláš 2002, p. 44–45. Praha 2002, p. 44–45. Kohútová, Mária. Náboženská situácia v období stavovských povstaní 17. storočia. In Rydlo, Jozef M. Fidei et patriae. Bratislava 2008, p. 89351. Vizitation = inspection of a parish, church estate by a superior institution. Kónya, Peter focused on the aforementioned meeting of estates. Lutherská konfesionalizácia. In Kónya, Peter et al. Konfesionalizácia na Slovensku v 16. 18th century. Prešov 2010, p. 62–63. It was discussed by Bartl, Július. Stavovské povstania uhorskej šľachty proti viedenskému absolutizmu ako konfesionálny problém. In Verbum historiae, vol. 1, no. 1, 2008, no. 2009], p. 91–92.

Testimony of Single Items Deposited in the Archive of the Gemer Seniorate 155

Cerovec. Although many difficulties were successfully solved, the appointed superintendent Štefan Pilárik refused to allow laymen to interfere in Church issues. Subsequently (also in 1704), Andrej Bodó, a clergyman from Štítnik, became the third superintendent. The first Kuruc council in Sečany (1705) integrated the Evangelical Augsburg Confession among three equal religions and came to the conclusion that temples (occupied as of 1647) would be returned under the agreement. Shortly after this (in 1706), Daniel Krman became the fourth superintendent.8 At the council in Onód (1707), several complaints from the Reformed and Catholics on the Augsburg site were discussed. At the time of the synod in Ružomberok (1707) only 150 of the former 2,000 congregations 8

Krman belonged to the resolute opponents of pietism, and so during the synod in Ružomberok he asked the priest Mituch about his opinion on Baptism. He was aware that the Pietists divert from the teachings of means of grace stated in the Book of Concord. They did not accept baptism as a resurrection, but only as a part of the journey to salvation performed by the act of the Holy Spirit in man. They rejected the notion that believers would receive the real blood and body of Christ at the Lord’s Supper. At the presence of the superintendent Zabler followed a discussion and all four of the most prominent pietists – Burius, Mituch, Major and Platty eventually took an oath to the Symbolic Books. See Kišš, Igor. Pôsobenie pietizmu v dejinách evanjelickej cirkvi na Slovensku. In Cirkevné listy, 1999, vol. 112, no. 12, p. 182. And another, however, fundamental idea of Pietism – good acts are not necessary to achieve salvation – was not acknowledged. Orthodox Lutheran theologists accepted the principle that a man, after the act of baptism, should continue with improving himself and growing spiritually. Despite the fact that each of us is at the same time sinful and justified. What remains as the most important – although the author reproached the movement with “spiritual pride” – according to Pietists, each Christian should try to keep a living faith. See Kišš, Igor. K problematike pietizmu. In Cirkevné listy, 2000, vol. 113, no. 10, p. 153–154. 10, p. 153–154 Pohľad na pietizmus v evanjelickej cirkvi v zemi reformácie a na Slovensku. In Cirkevné listy, 2005, vol. 129, no. 4, p. 11. He added that Pietism significantly contributed to spreading the reading of the Bible among the lower classes. After all, his most prominent representative was no one else than the “Great Ornament of Hungary” – Matej Bel. The Synod in Ružomberok also rejected catechism of Ján Simonides, although the orthodox university did not find anything inappropriate. Halle (established in 1694), Jena, Leipzig, Rostock and Strasbourg. The Pietists preferred “subjective” experience to “objective” teachings and the truth of evangelion; therefore, Krman was worried about the possible split of the Evangelical Church of Augsburg Confession. Claimed by Daniel, Dávid P. Ortodoxia a evanjelická identita v Uhorsku v 16. – 17. storočí. In Nezameniteľné je dedičstvo otcov... Prešov 2009, p. 105–106. Bakošová, Zora. Postavenie nemecky a maďarsky hovoriacich evanjelikov na území Slovenska. In Evanjelický posol spod Tatier, 2010, vol. 100, no. 19, p. 13 added that “the participation of laymen in the Church administration and enhancement of public rights belonged to the fundamental principles of reformation.”

156

Ján Jakubej

still existed. It implemented various clarifications and several novelties regarding the celebration of worships. It imposed celebrations for 23 feasts. It decided to establish a court tribunal – consistory – and to elaborate an agenda for sacral order (that year written down by Daniel Krman, but published only in 1734).9 This synod was chaired by the superintendent Jakub Zabler (for Church estates) and a general Štefan Petróci (for secular estates). It standardized the territorial organization of the Church with four superintendents a) Andrej Bodó took charge of Church administration in counties such as Boršod, Gemer (by the way with seven mining cities or towns  – Dobšiná, Jelšava, Nižná Slaná, Ratková, Revúca, Plešivec and Štítnik – and Rožňava that belonged to the Esztergom archbishop), Heveš, Malohont, Szolnok and Turňa. b) Bratislava, Komárno, Liptov, Nitra, Orava, Trenčín and Trnava counties belonged under the administration of Daniel Krman. c) Mining towns (Banská Belá, Banská Bystrica, Banská Štiavnica, Brezno, Kremnica, Krupina, Ľubietová, Nová Baňa, Pukanec and Zvolen) and counties of Hont, Novohrad, Pešť, Pilis, Tekov, Turiec, Zsolt and Zvolen. d) Jakub Zabler was in charge of six eastern Slovak towns (Bardejov, Kežmarok, Košice, Levoča, Prešov a Sabinov) and the counties Abov, Bereg  – Ugoča, Bihár, Satmár, Spiš, Šariš, Uh and Zemplín.10 The synod in Prešov (1709) decided on establishing a central evangelical archive and a library on the premises of a local college, but it never happened.11 The Treaty of Szatmár (May 1, 1711) in Article 3 contained only a formula for “obeying the laws of the country concerning religion and religious practice.”12 Although, after Rákoci’s defeat, four elected superintendents remained in their office, falling under the jurisdiction of the Catholic Archbishop. The resolutions of the Ružomberok synod were declared null and void because it took place without a ruler’s approval. The Committee in Pešť (from 1714 to 1718) took another 140 churches from the

BCH. Revolučná ružomberská synoda. In Evanjelický posol spod Tatier, 2002, vol. 92, no. 22, p. 7. 10 Detailed overview of superindents was provided by Bodnárová, Miroslava. Evanjelická cirkev v čase povstania Františka II Evanjelická cirkev v čase povstania Františka II. In Historia ecclesiastica, 2013, vol. 4, no. 1, p. 97–98 events in 1704 were discussed on p. 93 and 95–96. 11 Kónya, Peter. Evanjelická cirkev v povstaní Františka II. Rákóciho. In Annales historici Presovienses, 2008, vol. 8, no. 1, p. 78 a 86. 12 Kónya, Peter. Protihabsburské povstania v dejinách evanjelickej a. v. cirkvi na Slovensku. In „Nezameniteľné je dedičstvo otcov...” Prešov 2009, p. 167. 9

Testimony of Single Items Deposited in the Archive of the Gemer Seniorate 157

Evangelists. The Council entrusted religious issues exclusively in the hands of a ruler in Article 30 (from 1715). In order to solve possible discrepancies, the Pešť committee was established (soon after Royal vicegerent council was established, there were agents representing interests of non-Catholic confessions working in these commissions). Under this article, Protestants were obliged to take a so-called decretal oath as a sign of loyalty towards the state – oath on the Virgin Mary and the Saints.13 They formed two committees with an equal representation of agents in Vienna and Bratislava. What is more, the government banned the celebration of the 200th anniversary of the Reformation (1717). Charles III expressed his dissatisfaction with excesses on both sides (1722) raising the Protestants’ hopes, but the situation became more complicated due to enforcement of the Pragmatic Sanction.14 Under Resolution Carolina (of March 21, 1731)15 the Evangelists were allowed to perform their ceremonies only in articular places, in non-articular places only in private, and all of them were obliged to celebrate Catholic feasts and were considered to be under the jurisdiction of Archdeacons. Three years later it was supplemented by a document saying that no foreign Evangelist may become a citizen without a ruler’s approval.16 Maria Theresa allowed (1743) the Catholic bishops to supervise the Evangelists  – the Evangelists were forbidden to build new churches (1745); 13 I am deeply thankful to an Evangelical priest Pavol Černaj who provided me with an explanation that a man is a saint only when he acts according to what the Lord called upon him to do and therefore he follows God’s will. 14 For more information about activities of the Protestants in Habsburg court in the period 1715–1777, see Kowalská, Eva. Uhorskí protestanti a viedenský dvor: Formovanie cirkevnej politiky Habsburského štátu pred rokom 1781. In Historický časopis, vol. 50, no. 3, especially p. 407–412. Here I learned that the Protestants finally got their representative Štefan Nogll at a considerably later time (1737) in a way that the Augsburg church was obliged to pay him 150 ducats and the Calvinian church 100 ducats a year. Confiscation of churches and abolishing of filial churches in non-articular municipalities in Gemer – as a former frontier area – should not have been applied. However, the situation developed completely differently. Filial church = a branch of a larger Church community, a subsidiary church. 15 Among other things, it was stated: “Regarding religion, all the solecims committed so far are forgiven but then all offenders, no matter if a Catholic harms or hurts non-Catholic or vice versa, shall be punished by the punishment brought in by a royal prosecutor.” If anyone feels harmed concerning their religion they may address a king requesting a remedy only in private not on behalf of their confession. Quoted by Kónya, Peter et al. Pramene k dejinám Slovenska a Slovákov VIII. – nový pohľad na svet. Bratislava 2007, p. 206. 16 For more details see in Riecky, Martin Dejiny Malohontského seniorátu evanjelickej cirkvi augsburského vyznania na Slovensku. Liptovský Mikuláš 2015, p. 56–63.

158

Ján Jakubej

their clergy was obliged to celebrate Catholic feasts under threat of being fined 12 ducats (1747); and they were not allowed to supervise their congregations under the threat of losing their office (1748). Shortly after (1749), she ordered the imprisonment of Catholics, who intended to leave the Church and if they did it repeatedly they were banished from the country. Noblemen could not call up Evangelical priests as teachers of higher education teachers (1748 and again 1754); Evangelical priests could move to a neighboring county only with a passport (1749); they lost their permission to visit filial churches (1752); Evangelical rectors could not enroll Catholic children in school (1754); and an Evangelist could not become a citizen. Moreover (from 1756) Evangelists were supposed to pay a stole fee for Catholic priests; follow regulation (1762) called “Lord’s supper” the refusal of bread; when purchasing property, a Catholic had preference over an Evangelist (1764); and mixed marriages were finally banned (1768). Evangelists were not allowed to be buried in Catholic cemeteries or only after paying a high fee; singing near houses – so-called “cantations” – was forbidden for them (both 1769). Their children were ordered to attend Catholic schools and contribute to renovations of buildings of the Catholic Church (both 1774). Finally (1776), the Emperor ordered that superintendents shall have the right to supervise schools.17 Protesters addressed neighboring countries, especially Prussia with complaints.18 Allegedly with the purpose of “the proper administration of the area of (present-day) Slovakia – Upper Hungary” and with approval from Pope Pius VI, Maria Theresa detached (March 15, 1776) three new bishoprics from the Archdiocese of Esztergom with domiciles in Banská Bystrica, Rožnava and Spišská kapitula and so she was leaning towards the intention supported by Peter Pazmáň (orig.Péter Pázmány).19 17 Capandová, Petra dealt with the intimats of Maria Theresa in detail. Historickoprávny vývoj ECAV na Slovensku a vzťah k štátnej moci od vydania rezolúcii Karola III. do vzniku Československej republiky roku 1918. n Acta Facultatis Iuridicae Universitatis Comenianae 27. Bratislava 2009, p. 61–63. The author dated first two intimats in 1773, which were the restriction of Evangelical schools to lower ones and the regulation to leave the room of the sick if he is visited by a priest, but it seems strange to me due to the fact that Maria Theresa came to power in 1740; therefore, I do not mention them in the text. 18 See more in Bodnárová, Miroslava. Protireformácia vo východoslovenských kráľovských mestách v 18. storočí. In Obdobie protireformácie v dejinách slovenskej kultúry z hľadiska stredoeurópskeho kontextu. Bratislava 1998, p. 60. I personally assume – whereas the Emperor was defeated by Prussia in the battles of “Habsburg heritage” twice – she might consider the addressing of this country by the Hungarian Protestants as treason. 19 Written by Judák, Viliam. Vývin cirkevnej organizácie v 12.-19. storočí na území Slovenska. In Katolícka cirkev a Slováci. Bratislava 1998, p.  27. Peter Kónya

Testimony of Single Items Deposited in the Archive of the Gemer Seniorate 159

The Patent of Toleration by Joseph II (1781) allowed Protestants to build a church, a parish and a school anywhere, if at least one hundred families lived there and they committed themselves to provide the clergyman with all necessary financial matters.20 They were allowed to become citizens, craftsmen and gain academic degrees. He freed them from the so-called decretal oath. When electing people to offices, religious adherence should not be taken into consideration. Catholic priests were not allowed to supervise Evangelical congregations and mixed marriages were permitted.21 The document was implemented into practice gradually and its awareness spread three years later. Moreover, the monarch tried  – according to the model of German statesmen – to intervene into the inner life of the Church and to unite worships with education at schools. He established mixed CatholicEvangelical educational institutions for this purpose. However, they practically did not last longer than their founder: in Bratislava county, including approximately half of the area of present-day Slovakia, only 24 of the original 78 schools existed (1795) (and by 1807 their number had been reduced to 8).22 perceived the period of the reign of Charles III and Maria Theresa as an era of “silent counter-Reformation”. 20 As it is generally known, these so-called toleration temples could not have a tower or an entrance from the main street. Mentioned by Kachnič, Ján. The Patent of Toleration – issued by Joseph II 226 years ago. Tolerančný patent. In Cestou svetla, 2007, vol. 18, no. 11, p. 8. 21 The Patent was described in detail by Kušnírová, Katarína in her quite emotionally formulated article. 210 rokov Tolerančného patentu. In Evanjelický posol spod Tatier, 1991, vol. 81, no. 43, p. 340. 22 An unusual view on the Patent of Tolerance as a source of tension in Evangelical congregations – also because of the fact that a lot of clergymen did not accept either the articles of the Treaty of Szatmár nor the aforementioned Krman’s agenda – was provided by Kowalská, Eva. Štát a evanjelická cirkev a. v. v dobe panovania Jozefa II. In Tvorba T, 1999, vol. 9 (18), no. 1, p. 6–9. Bratislava priest Michal Istitoris – Mošovský played a prominent role when solving the dispute concerning a consistent liturgy. He was willing to reach a compromise and theological move “between moderate rationalism and the orthodox movement.” It was him who influenced Michal Torkoš, superindent of the Cisdanubian territory. Therefore, he asked Mošovský for a statement and he received a response that a proposed representation of liturgy is on the one hand a modern and “addresses a believer’s heart,” but on the other hand it greatly intervenes into formulas used in the Kingdom of Hungary (e.g. queries to witnesses at the act of baptism become questioning) and many other conventional acts (blessing a women in labor, general confession before an altar, oath of the engaged during the wedding) is not mentioned at all. If the ruler had allowed summoning the entire Hungarian synod, Seiler’s proposal would have become the base of its discussion. Mošovský probably knew the agenda

160

Ján Jakubej

Jozef II (En. Joseph II) amended the Patent of Toleration with 13 more regulations. Firstly (1783), he allowed the Evangelical clergy to visit filial churches, baptize and bury at places where only private worships had been permitted before. He forbade to label them as “vicarious” (also 1783) and allowed them to teach philosophy, law and medicine whereas Catholics were given permission to study at the Evangelical schools (also 1783). No one was allowed to force waivers regarding the upbringing of children from mixed marriages – if a father was an Evangelist, children older than 12 years fell to the father; if a father was a Catholic and he died before the children turned 18 and the mother was an Evangelist, who got married before they were 18, they were assigned a tutor (1785). A change of confession should not have been called an “apostasy” but “conversion” (also in 1785). He allowed the Evangelists to summon one clergyman even if they did not have 500 adult believers (minimum for establishing a congregation), and if it was a large congregation, two clergymen were permitted if necessary. At the same time, he forbade the physical punishment for misdemeanors and ordered a county suzerain to admonish the clergy and punish other believers. The marriage law for Evangelists was exempt from the power of the Catholic clergy and entrusted to secular courts, therefore divorces were allowed. Evangelical-engaged couples were not obliged to perform banns in a Catholic Church (also in 1786). Children could have been members of a congregation, and they were allowed to use bells (also 1786). The ruler eventually allowed the Evangelists to build towers (1787) and preaching by those clergymen who were assessed by superintendents (also 1787).23 of Tešín pastor and a member of Vienna consistory, Traugott Barthlem and despite this he decided to help with elaborating a unique liturgy. The base should have been German liturgy with implementation of Slovak and Hungarian ones as amendments. The German clergyman acting in Bratislava Ján Ribini agreed to Mošovský’s procedure and forwarded his concept of the agenda after its approval by district convent to the Emperor (March 31, 1784). But Joseph II informed the superintendent (September 1, 1784) that he insisted on the preparation of a consistent liturgy. He authorized the priest from Modra Mikuláš Ján to prepare it. The superintendent and general inspector of the Cisdanubian territory, Štefan Silvay was inclined towards Seiler’s liturgy that was rejected by secular patrons. The entire Hungarian synod that was to be held in Banská Bystrica or Zvolen finally did not take place. The superindendent began to worry about losing his influence on Church activities and cooperation not only between Hungarian, Czech and Moravian congregations, but also between each other was impaired. Discussed by Kowalská. Eva. Zásahy jozefinizmu do cirkevnej a školskej autonómie uhorských evanjelikov. In Historické štúdie 39. Bratislava 1998, p. 154–161. 23 Discussed by Capandová, Petra. Historickoprávny vývoj ECAV..., p. 65.

Testimony of Single Items Deposited in the Archive of the Gemer Seniorate 161

Article 26/1791, confirming the rights and freedom of the Evangelists is important for the fact that it was issued by the Holy Roman Emperor Leopold II without any violence or pressure and it was approved by the Hungarian Diet in Buda. It was a fundamental document sometimes called the Magna Carta or Palladium for both Protestant confessions. Subsequently both confessions made use of their right to convene synods. The Augsburg one was held in Pest24 and the reformed in Buda. Since then (until the issue of a new Constitution in 1893) the Evangelical Church of the Augsburg Confession was, in the Kingdom of Hungary, organized as follows: (1) Church congregation: a priest (cleric), local convent-local inspector (secular), (2)  seniorate:  senior (cleric), seniorate convent-seniorate inspector (secular), (3)  superintendency:  superintendent (cleric), county convent-district inspector (secular), (4) secular church general inspector, general convent.25

Activities in the Gemer Seniorate in the 18th Century. Seniorate Demarcation: Gemer26 in the 18th century consists of the municipalities stated below, which were confession ally demarcated as 24 Acta commisionis Pestiensis contains the full text of all regulations approved by the synod in Pešť held in 1791/1792. Archív Gemerského seniorátu e. c. a. v. in Revúca, 1659p., sign. C1/XIII. 25 For more details seeViršinská, Miriam. Evanjelická cirkev a. v. v Uhorsku a Slováci v druhej polovici 19. storočia. Martin 2011, p. 21–33, p. 25–26. 26 Gemer – similar as various other regions is quite complicated to demarcate. After the fall of the monarchy its part became the part of Hungary whereas the Slovak part is at present divided among three districts: Revúca, Rimavská Sobota and Rožňava and two regions: Banská Bystrica and Košice. Sometimes it is divided into Upper (center in Revúca) and Lower (center in Rožňava). E.g. Herich, Ondrej. Piesne stredného Gemera. Rožňava 1998, p. 10–12 (number from 17) specified – as the name itself implies – middle Gemer includes the following municipalities: Brusník, Filier, Hrlica, Chyžné, Jelšava, Jelšavská Teplica, Kameňany, Kopráš, Lubeník, Miglés, Mníšany, Mokrá Lúka, Muráň, Muránska Dlhá Lúka, Muránska Lehota, Muránska Zdychava, Nandraž, Ploské, Prihradzany, Rákoš, Ratková, Ratkovská Lehota, Ratkovská Suchá, Ratkovské Bystré, Repištia, Revúca, Revúčka, Rybník, Sása, Sirk, Šivetice and Turčok. I personally prefer to consider Gemer as a territory consisting of four valleys: Blžská valley, Muránska valley, Slanská valley and Štítická valley (present Malohont I demarcate by Gortvanská valley, Palócka valley, Rimavská valley, Suchá valley and Valická valley). Herein I refer to the works of Stanislav, Ján. Slovenský juh v stredoveku I. Bratislava 1999, especially p. 354–362 or Šmilauer, Vladimír. Vodopis starého Slovenska. Praha/Bratislava 1932, especially p. 164–190, From the latest works this demarcation is indicated in the list of informants in Michálek, Ján et al. Gemer – Malohont – národopisná monografia. Martin 2011, p. 488–491. However, these monographs described both regions Gemer and Molohont, but as far as they were

162

Ján Jakubej

united in 1803 and my study finishes by the year 1800, I try to record only Gemer municipalities. The ones located in Muránska valley were specified by Gallo, Ján. Muráň. Brno 2001, p. 35. The situation in the Church sphere, particularly concerning the Evangelical Church of the Augsburg Confession, I put a special emphasis on in the submitted text: the map 5.3.5. demarcating individual congregations within the Slovak territory, published in Kusendová, Dagmar et al. Historický atlas evanjelickej cirkvi a. v. na Slovensku. Liptovský Mikuláš 2011, p. 135 seems, unfortunately, very incomprehensive and does not provide necessary information, so a researcher needs help with the website www.evav.sk (visited on June 6, 2016 at 19:42. Gemer municipalities may be found in two seniorates: (a) Gemer:  Betliar, Čierna Lehota, Dlhá Ves with filial churches Ardovo and  Kečovo, Dobšiná with diaspora Mlynky, Gemerská Poloma, Gemerské Teplice with a filial church Gemerský Milhosť, Chyžné with filial churches Lubeník, Magnezitovce and Revúcka Lehota, Jelšava, Kameňany, Koceľovce with filial churches Brdárka, Hanková, Markuška and Slavoška, Kunova Teplica with filial churches Plešivec, Mokrá Lúka, Muránska Dlhá Lúka with a filial church Muráň, Nandraž with a filial church Rákoš, nižná Slaná with filial churches Henckovce and Kobeliarovo, Ochtiná with a filial church Rochovce, Ratková with filial churches Ploské, Sása and Španie Pole, Ratkovské Bystré with filial churches Hrlica and Krokava, Rejdová, Revúca, Roštár with filial churches Petrovo, Rozložná with a filial church Gočaltovo, Rožňava with filial churches Čučma, Jovice, Kružná and Rudná, Rožňavské Bystré with a filial church Rakovnica, Sirk with a filial church Turčok, Slavošovce, Šivetice with filial churches Mikolčany, Nováčany and Prihradzany, Štítnik with a filial church Honce, Vlachovo with a filial church Gočovo and Vyšná Slaná and (b) Rimava: Gemer with a filial church Levkuška and Gemerská Panica and filial churches Bohúňovo, Bretka, Čoltovo, Meliata and Gemerská Hôrka. The most complex information on congregations and their filial churches in the 18th century was provided in Visitatio Ambrosiana Anni 1742. Archív Gemerského seniorátu e. c. a. v. in Revúca, sign. K 28. According to it the Seniorate included Ardovo, Brzotín, Budíkovany (with filial churches Hostišovce and Slizské), Dobšiná, Drienčany (Hrušov, Lipovec, Ostrany, Papča and Potok), Gemer (with a filial church Levkuška), Gemerská Panica, Gočaltovo, Hnúšťa (with a filial church Rovné), Kameňany (with a filial church Nandraž), Kobeliarovo (with a filial church Brdárka), Koceľovce, Kunova Teplica, Kyjatice (with filial churches Babinec, Lukovištia and Striežovce), Nižná Slaná, Ochtiná (eith a filial church Rochovce), Padarovce (Dražice and Teplý Vrch), Petrovo, Ratková (with filial churches Ploské and Ratkovské Suché), Rejdová, Roštár (with a filial church Hanková and Markuška), Rozložná, Rožňavské Bystré, Rybník (Brusník, Sása and Španie Pole), Slavoška, Slavošovce (with a filial church Čierna Lehota), Štítnik (with filial churches Bystré, Honce and Rakovnica), Vlachovo (with a filial church Gočovo) and Vyšná Slaná. Its information was elaborated on in a scientific study Ekerková, Martina. Gemerský seniorát–stav v rokoch 1741/1742. In Historický zborník, 2004, no. 14, no. 2, p. 42–59 (congregations with subsidiary churches were stated on p. 45–46). That time the congregation – according to documents deposited there – was visited several times: 1706/1707 (document may be found in Protocollon Pechelianum conscrip.  1606. Protocolon Pechelianum and Sigismundo Petzelio, seniore fraternitatis et pastore Dobsensi, ita nuncupatum, sign. B 2, described the era 1604–1707), 1713/1714, 1720, 1740/41 (were

Testimony of Single Items Deposited in the Archive of the Gemer Seniorate 163

follows:27 mostly Roman Catholic municipalities were Abovce,28 Barca, Blhovce, Brusno, Čoma (present-day Čamovce), Čučma, Detiar (present-day Gemerské Dechtáre), Držkovce, Dubovec, Dulovo, Figa, Gemer,29 Gemerček, Gemerská preserved in a stencil transcript Protocollon Antoniano – Ambrosianum, sine sign, discussed the era 713–1742), 1721 (Visitatio Okolicsanyana, sign. K 19), 1730 (Vistatio Ilessiana, sign XIV.), 1742 (already mentioned Visitatio Ambrosiana, sign. K 28) and 1785 (Protociollon Coronianum, sign. K 8, contained data about the period 1785–1805). Records from convents held in this period contained Protocollon Szentkerestianum (sign. B IV/3, covers the years 1669–1709), Protocollon Sextio – Schmalianum (stencil transcript exists, sine sign., covers the period 1709–1746), and Protocollon Schmaliano – Coronianum (sign. VII./C6, covers the period 1746–1784). 27 Based on the demarcation by Ladislav Bartholomaeides – “Matej Bel of Gemer” whose life and work is discussed in the history of Ochtín congregation and who had a specific opinion of this region, when he published his most significant work Gőmőriensis notitia historico – geographica statistica, Gemer (in 1808) consisted of 312 dwellings, 3 of them towns, 262 municipalities or settlements and 37 secluded dwellings. The religious situation appears to him as follows: (1) towns- (a) the Augsburg and Catholic confession coexisted in Dobšiná, Jelšava, Revúca, Rožňava, Štítnik and Tisovec, (b) the Augsburg and the Reformated in Plešivec, (c) the Roman Catholics and Calvinian in Putnok, (d) in Rimavská Sobota the believers of the Augsburg and the Reformed confessions as well as Roman Catholics, (e) Gemer and Ratková was considered to be purely Augsburg, (f) Rimavská Seč was purely Calvinian and (g) Krásnohorské Podhradie was exclusively Roman Catholic. (2) municipalities and settlements – excusively – Augsburg 78, Calvianian 67, Roman Catholic 47 and Greek Catholic 3 (Šumiac, Telgárt and Vemár are nowadays considered to be a part of Horehronie), Roman Catholic-Augsburg 29, Augsburg-Calvinian, 10- Calvinian-Roman Catholic 7 and Calvian-Augsburg-Roman Catholic 2 (Ardovo and Číž). He did not particularly focus on secluded dwellings. I assume that almost a decade hadpassed since the end of the 18th century with no major changes happening to the settlement structure of Gemer. For more information see Žudel, Juraj. The importance of Bartholomeides’s work Gőmőriensis notitia historico – geographica statistica for the settlement study. In Obzor Gemera – Malohontu, 1994, vol. 25, no. 1, especially p. 18 a 20. His life was plagued with personal tragedies – among other things his five-year old daughter Lýdia Eleonóra Bartholomaeides (10.3.1792– 22.10.1797) passed away and he himself wrote an epitaph for her. He admired her wisdom and smartness and he expressed himself with words of hope: “the time when she revives and sprouts her gifts like a rose will come.” Cited from Bartholomaeides, Ladislaus. Memorabilia provinciae Csetnek. Memorabilia provinciae Csetnek. Neosolii (Banská Bystrica) 1799, p. 294 Author’s private archive, sign. 6x. 28 According to my knowledge, the underlined settlement and the settlement highlighted in italics are nowadays a part of Malohont. 29 There are various municipalities located outside the Gemer region, whose names might imply their integration into it (a) in Abov Kováčová (former Gemerská Kováčová) and

164

Ján Jakubej

Ves, Gemerské Michalovce, Gestice (present-day Hostice), Hodejka (present-day Hodejovec), Hrkáč, Husiná, Jablonica (present-day Gemerský Jablonec), Krásnohorská Dlhá Lúka, Krásnohorské Podhradie, Licince, Linhartovce (present-day Lenartovce), Mehy (present-day Včelince), Muráň, Muránska Huta, Muránska Lehota, Muránska Zdychava, Nadabula, Nová Bašta, Nováčany30 (at present-day – Gemerský Sad together with Mikolčany), Pača, Petrovce, Poproč, Rakytník, Ratkovská Lehota, Rejdová, Revúčka,  Šankovce (at present-day  – Gemerská Ves together with Hrkáč), Šíd,  Šireg (present-day Šurany), Tachty, Uhorná, Velkaňa (present-day Vlkyňa), and  Veľký Balog present-day Veľký Blh), the Evangelical of the Augsburg Confession Ardovo, Babinec, Brádno, Brdárka, Brusník, Budikovany, Čierna Lehota, Dražice, Drienčany, Filier (at present a part of Ratkovské Bystré), Hosúsovo (present-day Dlhá Ves), Gemerská Panica, Gočaltovo, Gočovo, Hanková, Honce, Hostišovce, Hrlica, Hrušovo, Jelšavská Teplica, Kameňany,  Kobeliarovo, Koceľovce,31 Kopráš, Kunova Teplica, Levkuška, Lipovec, Lubeník, Lukovištia, Malé Slavošovce, Markuška, Melecheď (present-day Teplý Vrch), Miglés (present-day Gemerský Milhosť and together with Jelšavská Teplics constitute Gemerské Teplice), Mníšany (at present–Magnezitovce together with  Kopráš),32 Nandraž, Nižná Slaná, Ochtiná, (b) in Malohont Gemerček, Gemerské Dechtáre, Gemerské Michalovce and Gemerský Jablonec – these municipalities were part of Gemer until 1803. I helped myself using a map in the front page and the first inner sleeve of the publication Jiroušek, Ladislav. Perly regiónu Gemer–Malohont. Prešov 2008. Although it is inaccurate, because it exceeded Abov and moreover it does not separate Gemer from Malohont, it was helpful to me for the precise recording of rivers. Finally, the most complex territory demarcation of Gemer before the split of Malohont was provided by Alberty, Július. Matej Bel a Gemer. Dolné Srnie 2015, maps on p. 30, 36, 41, 47, 55, 60 and 64. The author covered the historical demarcation of Gemer per districts, and according to his opinion it consisted of six districts: muránsky, putnocký, ratkovský, rožňavský, širkovský and štítnický. He used the term “Gemer Horehronie” where, based on his assumption, Heľpa, Pohorelá, Polomka, Šumiac, Švermovo, Vernár and Závadka should belong. 30 In the monography of the municipality written by Bačo, Pavol. Nováčany. Nováčany 2008, although the author devoted a relatively vast space to Church life – p. 74–85 – he remains silent concerning the era 1335–1808... 31 Koceľ Evangelical Church – together with other Evangelical churches in Chyžné and Štítnik – was even mentioned in a publication Bellan, Stanislav – Vojček, Alexander. 55 najkrajších gotických pamiatok Slovenska. Bratislava 2009, p. 54–55 (Koceľovce), 53–54 (Chyžné) and 132–135 (Štítnik). 32 The Evangelical church and a bell-tower (which was built later at “the beginning of the 19th century”) was discussed by Repák, Rudolf. Predstavujeme Vám obce mikroregiónu Revúca – Magnezitovce. In Revúcke listy, 1996, vol. 5, no. 10, p. 5.

Testimony of Single Items Deposited in the Archive of the Gemer Seniorate 165

Ostrany, Padarovce, Papča (at present a part of Drienčan), Petermanovce (present-day Petrovo), Ploské, Polom, Potok, Rakovnica, Ratková,33 Ratkovská Suchá, Ratkovské Bystré, Repištia (at present a part of Ratková), Rochovce, Rožňavské Bystré, Roštár, Rozložná, Rybník,34 Sása, Sirk, Slizské, Slavoška, Striežovce (at present together with Ostrany falls under Hrušovo), Španôpole (present-day Španie Pole), Turčok, Veľké Slavošovce, Umrlá Lehota (present-day Revúcka Lehota), Vlachovo a Vyšná Slaná, the Evangelistic of the Reformed Confession Bátka, Behynce (at present a part of Tornale), Belín, Bohúňovo, Číž, Dorná (present-day Drňa), Gortvianska Vieska (present-day Gortva), Hanava (present-day Chanava), Harmac (present-day Chrámec), Hubovo, Hucín, Chvalová, Ivanovce (present-day Ivanice), Jeny (present-day Janice), Jestice, Jovice, Kesovce, Králik, Kyjatice, Lenka, Majom (present-day Mojín), Martinovce (present-day Martinová), Napraď (present-day Neporadza), Nižné Kálešovo (present-day Nižná Kaloša), Otročok, Pašková, Pavlova Ves (present-day Rimavské Pavlovce, present-day Pavlovce), Polina, Radnovce, Rečka (present-day Riečka), Rudná, Runice (or Rmnice, present-day Rumince), Skerešovo, Slavec, Stránske pri Tornale (present-day Stránska), Sútor, Šimonovce, Štrkovec, Tiba (at present-day a part of Bohúňov), Tomášovce, Vieska nad Blhom, Veľké Rašovo (present-day Rašice), Vidová, Višňové, Vyšná Kaloša (at present–Kaloša together with Nižná Kaloša), Vyšné Valice (together with Gemerské Michalovce and Nižné Valice united to Valíce), Zádor, Žiar, Žíp and Žirkovce (present-day Širkovce), and syncretic: Betliar (Catholic and Evangelical Augsburg), Bohúňovo (Evangelical Augsburg and Evangelical Reformed), Bretka (Evangelical Augsburg and Catholic), Brzotín (Catholic and  Evangelical Reformed), Cakov (Catholic and Evangelical Reformed), Čoltovo (Catholic and Evangelical Reformed), Dobšiná (Catholic and Evangelical Augsburg), Feledince (or Veledín, present-day Jesenské), Gemerská Hôrka (Evangelical Augsburg and Evangelical Reformed), Henckovce (Catholic and Evangelical Augsburg), Hodejovo (present-day Hodejov, Catholic and  Evangelical Augsburg), Chyžné (Catholic and Evangelical Augsburg), 33 The local church was considered “Hussite” by various members of the Štúr movement (followers of Ľudovít Štúr) testified by Nosák, Bohuš. Spomienky potiské. In Z cestopisných denníkov štúrovcov. Martin 2010, p. 81 who stated: “... there the church from Hussite times emerges.” Nowadays, we already have the knowledge that Hussites were never active in Gemer, with the exception of Hussites calling themselves bratríci = (former Hussite warriors forming armed forces in some areas of Slovakia in the 15th century). 34 Nowadays, this congregation practically does not exist; on the other hand, as a separate diaspora in the area of Gemer, Mlynky came into existence (but later in 1909).

166

Ján Jakubej

Janošovce (present-day Rimavské Janovce, Catholic and Evangelical Reformed), Jelšava (Catholic and Evangelical Augsburg), Kečovo (Catholic and Evangelical Augsburg), Kráľ (Catholic and  Evangelical Augsburg), Kružná (sometimes Kerešovce, Catholic and  Evangelical Reformed), Meliata (sometimes Melesta, Catholic and  Evangelical Augsburg), Mokrá Lúka (Catholic and  Evangelical Augsburg), Muránska Dlhá Lúka (Catholic and Evangelical Augsburg), Plešivec (Catholic and  Evangelical Reformed), Prihradzany (Catholic and  Evangelical Augsburg), Rákoš (Catholic and  Evangelical Augsburg), Revúca (Catholic and Evangelical Augsburg), Rožňava35 (Catholic, Evangelical Augsburg as well as Evangelical Reformed), Siač (or Sečovce, present-day Rimavská Seč, Catholic and Evangelical Reformed), Šivetice (Catholic and Evangelical Augsburg), Štítnik (Catholic and  Evangelical Augsburg), Tornaľa (before Šafárikovo, Evangelical Augsburg and Evangelical Reformed), Uzovská Panica (Catholic and Evangelical Reformed) and Veľká Poloma (Catholic and Evangelical Augsburg).36 Using an authorization issued by Count Tököly, the administrator of Muráň manor Martin Letenej called back banished Evangelical clergy (1682) and subsequently (March 9, 1683) the seniorate was resumed with 29 clergymen and two conseniors – Ondrej Bubeník from Ochtiná and Andrej Sentkerest from Jelšava. It only lasted for two years (until 1685) and then again (until 1691) it did not exist for six years. Meanwhile, the clergy addressed the county with a complaint that in Driečany and Muráň there were no private worships allowed. They again started to rebound (1695) and shortly after (April 23, 1699) the clergy adopted a list of feasts at the meeting in Štítnik and strongly insisted on their being obeyed. The situation became less serious due to the visitation by congregations (October 19, 1700–February 17, 1701). The priests were coming back from the very beginning of The Rákoci Uprising (1703) and the count also confirmed (1704) the validity of privileged charters issued by Juraj Turzo (orig. György Thurzó) for the Gemer seniorate. Meetings could not be held (from November 5, 1705 to January 29, 1711) firstly due to worsening conditions and later (from 1709) due 35 It is interesting that Tajták, Ladislav et al. Tajták, Ladislav et al. Košice 1978 on p. 227– 233 devoted space for disputes with the Esztergom Archbishop (and from 1776 the Archbishop of Rožňava) but he remained silent concerning the Evangelical confession in the town in the 18th century. 36 There was a church in a majority of these municipalities, a chapel or other sacral object of confession that people associated with as it was testified by Harminc, Ivan et al. Súpis pamiatok na Slovensku 1 A–J. Bratislava 1967, 531p., Harminc, Ivan et al. Súpis pamiatok na Slovensku 2. K–P. Bratislava 1968, 582p., Harminc, Ivan et al. Súpis pamiatok na Slovensku 3. R–Ž. Bratislava 1969, 563p.

Testimony of Single Items Deposited in the Archive of the Gemer Seniorate 167

to the break out of plague epidemics. Religious disputes were resolved at the Hungarian Diet (1705), where Pavol Orság was delegated for Gemer county and the Catholics, Peter Janko for the Calvinians and Juraj Sentmikloš for the Augsburg confession. Subsequently (January 29, 1711), the local clergy agreed on the need for new supervision that was later performed (after May 3, 1706– 1707). During the count’s stay in Rožňava, a local clergyman Michal Áč served him and he was paid 100 ducats from the court treasury (27 August, 1707). When the oldest superintendent Jakub Zabler passed away (and during 1699– 1704 the only one), delegates from the Gemer Seniorate Ján Fabrici and Matej Sentiváni participated in the election (September 12, 1709) of his successor in Sabinov (it was Samuel Antoni from Štítnik). Meanwhile, some resolutions of The Treaty of Szatmár were breached, the delegates from Gemer repeatedly protested at the Hungarian Diet (1712, 1719 and 1728). Meanwhile, (1713 and 1720–1721) two more visitations were performed. Under the regulations of the Governor’s council (1726), the Protestants were obliged to sanctify Catholic feasts, which was rejected by the Reformed of Gemer.37 The crisis was even deepened by the death of the superintendent Antoni (August 18, 1738), when the clergy thought that the Gemer Seniorate should be transferred under the administration of the superintendent of Levoča, the Christian Pfannschmidt, but, in the end, they decided to elect their own.38 Juraj Ambrózy, the superintendent of Potisk, and the inspector Tomáš Sirmay were in the midst of discussions with the Superintendency of six free royal towns, which they planned to cancel, for three years. After all (May 1, 1743) the clergy signed a key agreement – the Alliance of Dobšiná, named according to the place where it was a signature located in Gemer. Based on its statutory text, a senior had to be elected alternatively: once 37 Relationships between the Evangelists and a county were gradually becoming more complicated: the owner of a manor house in Jasenské, Alexander Véčei suggested (1730) “not taking the Evangelists into consideration” during the election of county clerks, the Esztergom Bishop Forgáč encouraged the district administrator of Gemer to prefer Catholics over other regions to the offices, if he could not find enough suitable candidates, and Anton Belani, a priest from Jelšava, sued the sub-district administrator because of his “support of the Evangelists.” He wishes to write down and forward all the religious issues directly to him because allegedly he would be able to solve them immediately. Finally (in 1736), the Protestants were “completely ignored” during the county elections. Mentioned by ILA, Bálint. Gemerská župa I. Dejiny župy do roku 1773, 3. časť. Dolné Srnie 2010, p. 273–274. Consenior = Evangelical rank, a senior’s representative. 38 See more details in: Mikulík, Jozef. Dejiny Gemerského ev. a. v. seniorátu 1520–1740. Dolné Srnie 2012, p. 75–77, 84–88 a 97–101.

168

Ján Jakubej

from the German congregations of the six free royal cities and once from German or Slovak churches of other seniorates, respectively from the Hungarian and Slovak congregations of six free royal cities or thirteen towns of Spiš and then again in the same order. In this way the Superintendency of Potisk was established with eight seniorates: (1) six free royal cities, (2) six mining towns of Spiš (Gelnica, Jasov, Krompachy, Nižný Medzev, Smolník and Švedlár), (3) thirteen towns of Spiš (Ľubica, Matejovce, Poprad, Ruskinovce (not existing at present), Spišská Belá, Spišská Nová Ves, Spišská Sobota, Spišské Podhradie, Spišské Vlachy, Stráže pod Tatrami, Tvarožná, Veľká and Vrbov + Hniezdne, Podolínec and Stará Ľubovňa), (4) Bordoš seniorate, (5) Gemer seniorate, (6) Malohontie seniorate, (7) Sub-Tatra seniorate and (8) Šariš-Zemplín seniorate.39 The remaining issue is that the archives in Ochtiná, Ratková and Štítnik have not been processed yet and the archive in Revúca suffered irreparable damage as a result of fire on April 24, 1785.40 Literature mentions it as “partially organized,”41 but I admit to be lucky enough to state that it was completely organized. Ardovo: Worshipers from Ardov and Čierna Lehota thanked a clergyman for a New Year’s wish 42 and at the same time they refused the requirements

39 Signed by 103 clergymen and also secular patrons and below its text there are 143 seal imprints. Those seniorates that had the right to elect a senior always nominated three candidates. At the election each congregation had one vote, only German churches with two members of clergy had two votes and a priest of congregation and a local noblemen – patron had one vote as well. It is necessary to add that the inspector’s office – represented by a patron – was established not long ago (1735) and according to the rules of Alliance of Dobšiná they elected eight superintendents in total. It was abolished later in 1863. See more in Frák, Gustáv. Potiská superintendencia evanjelickej a. v. cirkvi, jej vznik a pôsobenie, Dobšinská koalícia a jej význam v živote superintendencie. In Cirkevné listy, 1995, vol. 108, no. 10, p. 158–159. The fact that the national situation in the aforementioned six Eastern Slovakian cities cannot be considered as ideal is manifested in a study by Damankoš, Marián. German Evangelists of the Seniorate of six free royal cities in the period of 781–1918. In Historia ecclesiastica, 2010, vol. 1, no. 1–2, especially p. 115–116. 40 Dubovský, Dušan. Letokruhy mesta Revúca. Revúca 2001, p.  29–30 stated following: “On April 24, 1785 the fire destroyed up to 192 houses with their adjacent constructions. Almost all citizens found themselves without a place to stay.” 41 Written by Šišmiš, Milan. Pramene genealogického výskumu v archívoch evanjelickej cirkvi - genealogické pramene v evanjelických archívoch. In Príručka ku genealogickému výskumu na Slovensku a v slovacikálnom zahraničí 1. Martin 2004, p. 204. 42 The document is dated to 1773, I assume that it was created during the first days in January.

Testimony of Single Items Deposited in the Archive of the Gemer Seniorate 169

of a businessman with iron Jakub Žirka who required an increase in the volume of supplied hay and rye, a share from offertory for a cabbage field and debts called reštancia.43 They approved only the legitimacy of six ducats44 for operating the hammer mill.45 The temple was built five years later (1788) as well as a unique pulpit built in the altar.46 The citizens of Ardov and Hosúsov agreed with a clergyman from the mother church in Gemerská Panica (October 1, 1789) that they would perform masses every third Sunday and on Sunday after the Feast of the Ascension and Trinity. They accurately defined their obligations towards him. The reasoning behind the voluntary amount of fee for visiting the sick sounds interesting:  “it depends on each man’s decision.”47 Betliar: The local congregation greatly suffered from the invitation of the Jesuits to Rožňava (still 1660). Subsequently (1622 or 1664), Mikuláš Andráši banished the clergyman Matej Fabrici and occupied the Evangelical parish and school. It was Fabrici who during the Tőkőly Uprising regained his office (1683) and the Jesuits were obliged to give him back his private library. Another known priest, Tobiáš Hrebenda (in office 1705–1709) was in a dispute with Pavol Andráši (1706) and his activity was ended with his banishment. The congregation of Betliar became the filial church of Nižná Slaná (until 1766) and subsequently of Veľká Poloma (until 1805). Interestingly, no regulations of the Patent of Toleration were respected in Betliar, Malá Poloma

43 reštancia= debts, rests, remainders (In my opinion in this case it refers to work not performed yet). If it is not stated otherwise, I clarify the unknown terms based on a dictionary attached to a work Holuby, Jozef Ľudovít. Dejiny Dolno – trenčianskeho kontubernia. Zväzok VI., diel I. 1517–1889. 4 časť. Dolné Srnie 2014, p. 479–522. Contubernium = a church community or an association of Protestant clergy in the Kingdom of Hungary. 44 Hungarian ducats = a coin with a value of 100 or 120 denariuses. 45 hammer mill  =  a workshop for the processing of metals. List veriacich z  Ardova a Čiernej Lehoty seniorovi, asi január 1773. (Letter of Worshipers from Ardov and Čierna Lehota to the Senior, approx. January 1773) Archív Gemerského seniorátu e. c. a. v. in Revúca, fascicle (hereafter fasc.) Korešpondencia 1770–1800, signature of folio C 161, fasc. sine sign. 46 KZ recalls this record. Instead of a picture there is a pulpit in the altar. In Nový čas, 2013, vol. 23, no. 122, 28.5.2013, p. 10. 47 Dohoda duchovného z Gemerskej Panice s veriacimi v Ardove a Hosúsove (Agreement of a clergy from Gemerská Panica with worshipers in Ardov and Hosúsov), 1.10.1789. Archív Gemerského seniorátu e.c.a.v. in Revúca, fasc. Korešpondencia 1770–1800, signature of folio C 213, fasc. sine sign.

170

Ján Jakubej

and Veľká Poloma, and so delegates such as Matej Miklóšik, Ján Antal and Ján Spišák requested justice directly from the Holy Roman Emperor Joseph II, to which he promised them a remedy (February 28, 1785). At that time, a church was under construction (started in 1784), its walls were increased and roof finished 10 years later (1794).48 Brádno: Worshipers – apparently after a long-term dispute – conciliated their clergyman and what remains suggestive is that he was paid only half of the agreed sum for that year.49 Brdárka:  The local Evangelists made complaints to a senior (February 24, 1774) that a clergyman of Vlachy drinks excessively despite being many times unsuccessfully admonished.50 Dobšiná:  At the end of the 18th century (particularly in 1792)  there was a Catholic Church built in a town.51 Chyžné: A Roman Catholic Church was established in the municipality, thanks to Juraj František Horvatovič (1673), but due to citizens’ disapproval an abbot of the Church of St. Egidius in Šimeď and a secretary of count Štefan II Koháry, Mikuláš Mitický decided (1693) to build it in Jelšava. During the uprising of Francis II Rákoci the citizens of Chyžné summoned the clergyman Matej Fabrici and the teacher Peter Matheides (they were active here in between 1703 and 1711). An interesting situation was the one regarding the religious activity in the municipality during the reign of Emperor Maria Theresa  – the Evangelists were not allowed to ring at funerals and the ceremony was performed either by a priest from Ochtiná or Slavošovce, but a stole fee was paid to a clergyman in Jelšava. For a short period of time (1775) Ondrej Vrbovský, a follower of Andrej Bernolák, was active there. After the Patent of Tolerance was issued worshippers (1783) remade the barn into a chapel rented from Ondrej Minek; an apartment for the priest was made in the former county barracks; there was place allocated for a teacher in a house rented from Ondrej Michalides and a school was established in a dwelling 48 See more in Šomšák, Ľudovít Ján et al. Betliar – monografia. Betliar 2014, p. 198–201. 49 Dohoda brádnianskych veriacich s ich duchovným (Agreement of Worshipers from Brádno with their clergy), 29.7.1788. Archív Gemerského seniorátu e.c.a.v. in Revúca, fasc. Korešpondencia 1770–1800, signature of folio C 291, fasc. sine sign. 50 List brdárskych veriacich seniorovi (A letter by worshipers from Brádno to the Senior), 24.2.1774. Archív Gemerského seniorátu e.c.a.v. in  Revúca, fasc. Korešpondencia 1770–1800, signature of folio C 135, fasc. sine sign. 51 This information is provided by Hunsdorfer, Emmerich – Rozložník, Ondrej. Banské mesto Dobšiná. Košice 2013, p. 22.

Testimony of Single Items Deposited in the Archive of the Gemer Seniorate 171

rented from Ondrej Šram. A  place for the construction of a sanctuary was measured out between a creek in Chyžnany and a small creek (March 17, 1785). One and half months later (May 1, 1785) a foundation stone was laid and in a relatively short period of time the construction was finished and sanctified. Ján Valaský was summoned as the first priest.52 Kameňany: The clergyman of Kameňany Juraj Šesták agreed with (October 4, 1795)  “members of Church” on selling his dwelling in town because he was summoned to perform in Sarvaš.53 Kunova Teplica: A record (from December 1, 1795) was preserved stating that there was a demarcation of lands for a priest and a teacher. A penalty in the amount of 3 ducats was charged for swearing, which was spreading daringly. Shortly after (1796) believers agreed on the following convent that a church is in an alarming condition (it was demolished later in 1802).54 Lubeník: As a filial church it fell under the congregation of Chyžňany (from 1636, before it was a subsidiary church of Jelšava). The residents of Lubeník tried to help the clergyman Vavrinec Bahil,55 who was, after his three-year activity (1682–1685), banished by the castellan of Muráň Castle, and so he 52 Gallo, Ján. Chyžné. Prešov 1997, p. 42–44. 53 Dohoda Juraja Sextyho s  kameňanským zborom (Agreement of Juraj Sexty with the congregation of Kameňany), 4.10.1795. Archív Gemerského seniorátu e.c.a.v. in Revúca, písomnosti rodu Sexty, signature of folio C 264, mylne vložené in fasc. Materiály pre konvent 1903–1916, signature of fascicle L 378. 54 See Drenko, Jozef. Kunova Teplica – monografia. Kunova Teplica 2006, p. 117. 55 One of his relatives was also Juraj Bahil (his son, 1689 Čerenčany – 1760 Rimavská Píla), among other things the author of the poem against smoking Žartovno - vážny žalospev o fajk (written in 1735, issued in 1835) and Matej Bahil (his grandson, 1706 Šivetice – 1761 Prochowice, former the Kingdom of Poland). Juraj studied in Prešov influenced by his professor Ján Rezík, the author of the well-known Gymnazológia and by the professor Ján Nohaides, whom he met in Kežmarok. During his activity in Čerenčany he was invited to Štítnik by the clergyman Samuel Antoni (April 16, 1734). His biography was provided in In comitatu Gömöriensi 1704–1738 per superintendentem M. Stephanium Pilarik 1704–1710, sign. TIS 2A1, p. 28, available at http://medit.lutheran.hu/sites/medit2.lutheran.hu/files/medit/1704_1738_G_I_ Gomor_megyei_superintendensek.pdf (visited on 16 August, 2016 at 21:27). Matej was was active in the field of literature – he wrote memoirs Presmutné vyobrazenie protestantských cirkví v Uhorsku (Tristeissima ecclesiorum Hungariae protstiantium facies) 1747 translated into Slovak by the clergyman Ján Alexander Fábry in Zvolenská Slatina. Rezník, Jaroslav also mentioned them in his popular scientific work Túry do literatúry. Po literárnych stopách Slovenska. Bratislava 2001, p. 297 a 289. Mosný, Svetozár. drew his attention to Matej in his brief autobiographic sketch story. Matej

172

Ján Jakubej

was hiding himself in the surrounding woods not to be arrested. Similarly, the school in Chyžnany fell under the Roman Catholic Church (its data are provided from the school year 1770/1771). At that time it was attended by 31 children from Chyžné and Lubeník (although there were supposed to be at least 75), whereas 6 of them were of Roman Catholic and 25 of Evangelic confessions. The schooling lasted from November to March. After the Patent of Tolerance was issued, the priest of Lubeník Matej Belán made an agreement with several worshipers in the mother church and its other filial churches that they would construct their own church together in Chyžné under the condition that half of the costs would be paid by the congregation in Chyžany, one-third by the congregation in Mníšany and one-third by the congregations of Kopráš and Lubeník. The clergyman was supposed to serve masses three Sundays in a month and the fourth one in Mníšany. Belan’s successor Martin Mihóčik, subsequently (December 29, 1783) signed a call-up decree inviting Pavol Valaský to Chyžné.56 Mikolčany: Samuel Ursíny, a rector in a school in Mikolčany, mapped the genealogy of his grandfather’s kin, Matej Kevický a priest in Rákoš, Čerenčany and Pokoradz. He got married (earlier in 1746) to Judita Resius and had children named Ján, Samuel, Matej, Zuzana and Klára. The author of that document was an ancestor of the last one.57

Bahil - a priest, an author and a translator. In Evanjelický posol spod Tatier, 1996, vol. 86, no. 9, p. 66, where I learn that Matej’s father Ján (Juraj’s brother) and grandfather Vavrinec – it is mentioned in a text – were also Evangelical clergymen. He was educated in his birthplace, later in Mokrá Lúka, Hrochov, Ochtiná, Kežmarok and Banská Bystrica after that he left for Wittenberg to study theology (1727–1730). Shortly after his return he got married to an orphan Mária, née Krupinská and they had two daughters and a son. His place of work was the municipality of Čerňany (1731–1734) and later (1731–1734) Prešov. He was arrested for translating books against the Jesuits and allegedly provoking Prussia against the Habsburg monarchy. Just like the superintendent Krman, he assumed that he would never be released from prison. He managed to escape but a rope injured his hands and he was later treated by a rabbi. He got to Kraków and was elected as a senior (1751) by the exiles. Later I find him in Breh, Amsfeld (probably 1757), Amsdorf (1757–1759) and finally (1759–1761) in the above mentioned Prochwice where his life came to an end. His wife and both daughters followed him into exile. Information about his activity was added by Žilák, Ondrej. Matej Bahil. In Evanjelický posol spod Tatier, 1992, vol. 82, no. 5, p. 36–37. 56 For more details see Frák, Gustáv. Lubeník. Lubeník 1997, p. 37–39. 57 Genealógia Michala Ursinyho, 10.5.1798. Archív Gemerského seniorátu e.c.a.v. in Revúca, fasc. Vokátory 1796–1848, signature of fascicle L 334, folio sine sign. In

Testimony of Single Items Deposited in the Archive of the Gemer Seniorate 173

Mokrá Lúka:  The Catholic worshipers from Mokrá Lúka and its filial church Umrlá Lehota made an agreement (October 18, 1786) with the Evangelists, where they acknowledged to be a minority and that the Augsburg party had taken care of their bells up to that time, which had been an expense for them. It was agreed that the bells would still be kept in its care and that no confession should be forbidden to ring it, but the confession using the bell most frequently would pay a higher sum of money to a mutual money-box under the responsibility of two guardians representing each party.58 Nižná Slaná: Count Imrich Tőkőly ordered (March 19, 1683) the return of all the pensions to a local clergyman. Baron Štefan Andráši ordered (1706) the congregation of Henckovce not to fall under the Roman Catholic parish in Polomka, but under the Evangelical mother church of Nižná Slaná. Although the representatives of the Gemer seniorate were not delighted with such an intervention in Church relations, they approved it.59 Believers made complaints to a senior (June 23, 1777) that the filial church of Rejdová was this file there are call-up decrees written in Slovak from the 18th century addressed to a priest from Roštár, Markuška and Hankovce (from June 20, 1724), Panice (April 18, 1749) and Nyireďházy (from January 24, 1781) and a teacher from Rozložná (April 28, 1783), Málinec, Ožďany and Rybník (from July 21, 1785), signed by the reeve Michal Cibula, Martin Bešeňove and Ondrej Čany) as well as a register of church properties in Rybník (from June 20, 1770) – regarding the meadow “Under the bridge,” lands “In a sheep farm, On the shore near the Well,” “In Špania land areas” – “By the bridge below an count Kohary” and “Below the meadows of mister Visey” and meadows “Under the patulous” and “Behind the mill” in bounds of “Šasky” – Jakubovianka and meadows “On Benedičky and In front of the settlement.” Unfortunately, I was not able to examine the file precisely due to its poor condition caused probably by leaking and because I was worried about its further possible damage. 58 Dohoda medzi katolíckou a augsburskou konfesiou v Mokrej Lúke a Umrlej Lehote (Agreement between the Catholic and Augsburg Confession in Mokrá Lúka and Umrlá Lehota), 18.10.1786. Archív Gemerského seniorátu e.c.a.v. in Revúca, fasc. Korešpondencia 1770–1800, signature of folio C 214, fascicle sine sign. For sure there were more similar agreements in the territory of present-day Slovakia – I know about at least one more in Spiš. Mentioned by Dvořáková, Magdaléna. Odkaz L. Grussa – zmluva medzi katolíckou a evanjelickou cirkevnou obcou z roku 1787. In Gelničan, 2014, vol. 23, no. 7–8, p. 14–15 (unfortunately, the article was not at my disposal). 59 The history of the congregation in Nižná Slaná, until the beginning of the 19th century, is hardly knowable because the documents were destroyed by a great fire (it was set up on April 1, 1815 intentionally by the widow Černajová, because her son was enlisted. Stated by Junger, Štefan – Kanaba, Martin – Vandrášik, Dušan. Nižná Slaná. Historická monografia obce. Martin 2012, p. 85 a 87.

174

Ján Jakubej

refusing to contribute to the operation of the school despite their obligation to do so under the mutual agreement.60 Petermanovce:  The residents of the mentioned municipality addressed their mother church in Roštár (October 14, 1793) with a request for help with the construction of their own church because they were worried about the possible disappearance of the Evangelical confession.61 Ochtiná: The ossuary did not have a roof (1693) and the clergyman Vavrinec Bahil offended believer Tomáš Remeník. The roof of the church was repaired, but the school remained in poor condition (1700) and the conflict between Ján Sabo and the aforementioned Bahíl persisted due to the allegedly removed limestone. The dispute was successfully settled later (1706) whereas the worshipers reproached the priest for being quick-tempered. Keeping “pagan” customs and drinking alcohol remained a problem (1713). Another interesting event happened at that time:  a local resident Matej Ladislaides conceived an illegitimate baby with Sofia. Although she requested to make him marry her because before she “met” him she was allegedly a virgin (in a protocol she stated: “let him break all my ribs, I would not care only if he married me”) he strictly refused to admit having had sexual intercourse with her. The case was subsequently under the responsibility of the local clergyman.62 The parish became rundown due to Bahil’s old age. They were lucky to be provided with a new font and an organ. The Seniorate “deputation” praised a teacher 60 List veriacich z Nižnej Slanej seniorovi (A Letter from worshipers from Nižná Slaná to the Senior), June 23, 1777. Archív Gemerského seniorátu e.c.a.v. in Revúca, fasc. Korešpondencia 1770–1800, fascicle sine sign. and folio sine sign too. 61 List petermanovského zboru matkocirkvi v  Roštári (A Letter of Congregation of Petarmanovce to the church in Roštár), 14.10.1793. Archív Gemerského seniorátu e.c.a.v. in Revúca, fasc. Korešpondencia 1770–1800, fascicle sine sign. and folio sine sign too. 62 Matej took an oath trying to clear his name (I introduce the original version of the oath because I believe it rare to use Slovacical epenthesis in a written text in latin): “Me, N.N. swear to God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit that regarding this matter I am blamed for (that I ravished this woman Sofia and that I have met her three times against God’s sixth commandment and am the cause of her foetus) I do not feel guilty. If I hide the truth and did not admit it and swear unjustly, let God the Father punish me physically and put me to shame, make me unhealthy, unfortunate at home as well as on my travels, to make my body tremble, to let things fall from me, suffer on my death bed till I admit and confess my sin. So you’ve helped me and I swear to God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit, Blessed Trinity. Amen.” Quoted from Protocollon Antoniano - Ambrosianum, sine sign. (stencil transcript), p. 36. Available at: http://library.hungaricana.hu/en/view/Tiszai_01-1_ Gomor_1713_1741/?pg=25&layout=s (visited 15.8.2016, 21: 59).

Testimony of Single Items Deposited in the Archive of the Gemer Seniorate 175

from the filial church of Rochov Tomáš Bakuliny and stated (1741) that girls listened to the mass more conscientiously than boys and remembered more, but they are forbidden under the threat of penalty and eventually physical punishment to wander outdoors at night.63 Ladislav Bartholomaeides – “Matej Bel of Gemer”64 – was active in the municipality (1783–1825).65 Ratková: A long-term dispute concerning Church land was recalled (1764). Under the protocol written in 1610, some Melič testified that “a meadow adjacent to 63 For more details on the visitations of Ochtiná and its filial churches between 1693 and 1741, see Dudášová, Darina. Z prachu zabudnutia - dejiny evanjelického a. v. cirkevného zboru v Ochtinej. Ochtiná 2014, p. 72–76. 64 “The Great ornament of Hungary” had his coworkers in Gemer and Bartholomaeides rightfully belongs among the enlightenment scholars. Mészároš, Július. Pramene a literatúra k vývoju národnostného zloženia obyvateľstva Uhorska v 18. a 19. storočí. In Zložité hľadanie pravdy v slovenských dejinách. Bratislava 2004, p. 420 stated: “Except the mentioned geographical and encyclopedic – dictionary topographic publications including the entire Kingdom of Hungary, following the model of Bel’s Notitia or directly his incentive during the 18th and also at the beginning the the 19th century, the majority of works of a geographical or demographic nature focused on its individual regions.” From the issued ones, especially the topographic works by Anton Sirmai, a native from Prešov, the most significant work which deserves attention was issued in 1803 named Notitia topographica politica inclytu comitatus Zempliniensis (GeographicalPolitical Description of a Great County of Zemplín). The detailed description of Gemer county was elaborated and issued in 1806–1808 by Ladislav Bartholomaeides, a native of Klenovec. From the not issued publications a document focusing on the County of Šariš, elaborated by a native of Chmeľany Karol Fejerváry (Notitia comitatus Sarossiensis) in 1776 is deposited in the Hungarian National Museum. A significant representative of topographic research was also a native of Ivanovce, Juraj Ďurikovič. Based on Bel’s models or transcripts, where he added new information, he prepared for printing a geographical work about the County of Orava which was finally not issued. Ďurikovič deserved for transcription of all not issued Bel’s transcripts about Slovak counties. 65 Ladislav Bohuslav Bartholomaeides’s (16.11.1754–18.4.1825) parents were Daniel and Alžbeta, née Kibíni. His godparents were Daniel Kubíni, a second sub-district administrator of the County of Malohont and Samuel Institoris, a clergyman from Rimavská Píla with their wives. Although his family came from Turiec, three generations of his ancestors were active as clergymen in Klenovec from 1686 – (except his father Daniel, his grandfather Ján and a great-grandfather Jonáš) – later Ladislav’s son Ján Ladislav (1787–1862) became a clergyman as well as his four sons – Ladislav’s grandsons – two sons-in-law and two of his granddaughter’s husbands. Ladislav had five siblings. At the age of five he had to undergo surgery for kidney stones that left him prone to diseases for the rest of his life. He obtained an education in his birthplace and later he studied in Dobšiná (1768–1772), at the Evangelical Lyceum in Kežmarok (1772–1775) and was greatly influenced by Jozef Bencúr from Jasenová. Subsequently he was forced to

176

Ján Jakubej

interrupt his studies due to financial issues and he left for Kraskov, where his family already had moved. He was active as a local teacher for his cousin Anton Kubíni in Hnúšťa (1779) and as a director’s deputy and a cantor in Rimavská Baňa (also 1779), a teacher in a Hungarian school in Ožďany (also in 1779 – he was favored by the nobleman and school inspector Gabriel Korponai with his wife who supported him financially) and a local teacher of the Seniorate of Maholont and the significant Enlightenment scholar Ján Feješ (also 1779). After receiving the inheritance of his childless uncle from Boca (1780) he gained knowledge at the University in Wittenberg (1781–1752) for three months. He managed there “A library of the Kingdom of Hungary.” After his return (1783) he was active for a while as a teacher in the Feješ’s family in Čečejovce, for a short period of time as a rector and a cantor in Ratková and later (still in 1783) he accepted the position of a clergyman in Ochtiná (congregations of Kyjatice and Pondelok were also interested in him), where he settled permanently. He was appointed dean of the Evangelical schools in the Štítnická valley (1795). For a short period of time (1822–1823) he was active as senior in the church of Ochtiná. One of his most significant works is Suma evanjelického náboženstva (The Summa of the Evangelical Confession- I. edition 1786, II. 1796 and III. 1798), The discussion of the Emperor Joseph II with Matthias Corvinius I called (1790, where he defended the reforms of the Enlightenment emperor), Regretful destiny borne by many innocent preachers from the Kingdom of Hungary and from 1672 to 1776 both in their homeland and especially in Spanish galleys bore and experienced written in details (1792), Pamätihodnosti Štítnickej doliny (Memorabilia provinciae Csetnek recensuit L.B; En. Memoirs of Štítnická dolina) (1799) and a translation of Jozef Flavius’s work O vojne židovskej (Bellum Iudaicum; En: About the Jewish war,1805) and Historicko – geograficko – štatistické poznámky o slávnej stolici Gemerskej (Inclyti superioris Ungariae comitatus Gömöriensis notitia historico-geographicostatistica; En. Historical-Geographical-Statistical notes about the great Gemer County, 1808). A comprehensive bibliography and Bartholomaeides’s biography was provided by Mikitová, Táňa. Kalendárium života a diela Ladislava Bartholomeidesa a výberová personálna bibliografia. In Obzor Gemera  – Malohontu, ročník 1994, vol. 25, no.  1, especially p. 38–40. Knowledge of his childhood and youth was enriched by Sokolovský, Leon. Ladislav Bartholomeides a Malohont. In Obzor Gemera – Malohontu, 1994, vol. 25, no. 1, especially p. 25–26. For a historian it is necessary to add that Bartholomaeides suggested – said in a fashionable way – using a method of synthesis, proceed from individual to general and from concrete to abstract. He wrote about the method of “continuity” to which research from the known to the unknown refers. Written by Šimo, Igor. Filozofické a osvietenské prvky v diele Ladislava Bartholomeidesa. In Obzor Gemera – Malohontu, 1994, vol. 25, no. 1, p. 11. He interestingly described God’s Plan: according to his belief, every 6 years 20 girls are born to 21 boys and when 10 people die, 13 are born. Clarified by Tóth, Ivan. Ladislav Bartholomeides – funkcionár v cirkvi. In Obzor Gemera – Malohontu, 1994, vol. 25, no. 1, especially p. 8 a 9. Bartholomaeides not only wrote his works in Latin and German and textbooks in Czech but he also introduced several samples from the Malohont and Gemer dialect indicating their forms at that time. For more details see Žigo, Pavol. Jazykové poznatky Ladislava Bartholomeidesa. In Obzor Gemera – Malohontu, 1994, vol. 25, no. 1, especially p. 21–23.

Testimony of Single Items Deposited in the Archive of the Gemer Seniorate 177

the church” is ministered by Blažej Petro from Hrlica, who is in a legal dispute with some Cangár and the situation became complicated by the fact that Anrej Vajda paid for the cultivation of half “33 or 35 ducats.” Ján Mikloš also made a claim on it based on the fact that, allegedly on this place, in a meadow “reaching the hammer mill” his father farmed and paid the congregation 50 ducats, but František Henrik “took his testifying document and threw it into the fire.” A senior eventually ordered all those named to pay 8 pounds of wax.66 The dispute smoldered beneath the surface – a superintendent (1636) approved that the meadow could be legally cultivated by Mária and Blažej Beňo. Although another agreement was made (1667) stating that for cultivating this piece of land the šteliar (an owner of the local hammer mill) Andrej Weiss was obliged to pay “8 ducats to God’s temple in Bystré67 and a cent of iron added,”68 was constantly breached because almost 80 years later (1746) a senior came to the conclusion “to make the meadow fall under the responsibility of worshipers from Hrlica.” And finally, (in the year mentioned by myself) the senior Andrej Šmal69 confirmed the decision made 18 years ago.70

66 67 68 69

70

Čaplovič, Ján. Etnografia Slovákov v Uhorsku. Bratislava 1997, p. 106 gave him the following compliment: “He wrote an exemplary geography of the Gemer County and many other Slovak books.” funt = weight unit (approx. 0,5 kg) or volume unit (approx. 0,5l). = refers to Ratkovské Bystré. a cent of iron = approx. 50 kg of iron (note JJ); šteliar = an owner of the hammer mill. Andrej Šmal (1706 Necpaly–1766 Ratková) – born to father Juraj and mother Anna, née Herschl. He studied theology in Wittenberg and after his return (1729) he worked as a tutor at Václav Platy’s. He was summoned to be the clergyman in Nižná Slaná (1731) and 20 years later in Ratková (4.2.1751). Other congregations showed an interest in him e.g. Kameňany, Prešov, Štítnik, Tisovec or Vlachy. He held many positions: an orator (1731 elected at the Dobšiná covent), a notary public (1745 from the Slavošovce convent) and consenior (1748 from the Padaroivce covent) and eventually (1756 from the Ratková convent) a senior. He published Kratučké rozobratie piatich artikulov, ktoré obyčajne v cirkvách evanjelických deťom najprv predkladané bývajú (1764) (Brief Elaboration of five Articles regularly submitted to Children in Evangelical Churches in the first Place), texts in Latin Krátka rozprava o živote ev. superintendentov v Uhorsku (Brief Discourse on Life of the Evangelical Superindentents in the Kingdom of Hungary), Príspevky k osvetleniu evanjelicko – uhorskej cirkevnej histórie (Contributions to Clarification of the Evangelical- Hungarian Church History) and Zoznam literátov Turčianskej stolice. (A List of Literary Men in the County of Turčany. His biography was provided by Ďurinda, Miroslav – Mikitová, Marta. Ratková v historických a archívnych retrospektívach. Martin 2015, p. 42–43. List seniora Andreja Šmala ratkovskému zboru (Letter of the senior Andrej Šmala to the Congregation in Ratkovce), 1764. Archív Gemerského seniorátu e.c.a.v. in Revúca,

178

Ján Jakubej

Rejdová: This congregation was strongly affected by fires in the 18th century – firstly a fire destroyed the chapel (1700) and later (1726) a wooden church built in the place of the chapel in 1702. Therefore, the residents of Rejdová built the brick church of Michael, the Archangel. They made several complaints regarding payments to the mother church in Vyšná Slaná for instance during the reconstruction of the parish (1726), reparation of the roof of a local temple (1764) or when building a fence around the parish garden (1768). The situation got more serious when the clergyman Martin Lauček got married to a noblewoman from Slanec Zuzana Šebők and requested a financial contribution to rebuild the parish (1774). He did not take into consideration the fact that Rejdová was still suffering from a destructive fire that happened six years earlier. Shortly after the issuance of the Patent of Tolerance (particularly in 1782), the worshipers tried to become independent. At first they were not successful with the seniorate “suzerain” (1783), but Emperor Joseph II met their needs and the separate congregation of Rejdová came into existence (February 12, 1784). Jakub Benedicti was summoned to be the first clergyman.71 It was precisely he (February 24, 1790), who before a seniorate deputation admitted 72 that worshipers lent him 100 ducats and provided him 20 kilograms of rye. He bound himself with an oath to pay everything back in good faith.73 Revúca: The city council of Revúca and a reeve confirmed that (January 26, 1782) the craftsman Libor Holáško from Jelšava had repaired a bell and hung it again in the tower of the church of St. Lawrence.74 The Evangelic worshipers

71 72 73

74

fasc. Memoranda of seniorate convents 1825–1841 (the document is deposited by mistake as well as several others), signature of fascicle L 373, folio sine sign. A development of a congregation in Rejdová in the 18th century was discussed in detail by Kolesár, Ján. Rejdová – monografia obce. Košice 2013, p. 58–60. I find it obvious that he refused to admit his debt and residents could not reach a compromise with him so they asked a seniorate for help. Dohoda rejdovských veriacich s duchovným (Agreement of the Worshipers from Rejdová with a Clergyman), 24.2.1790. Archív Gemerského seniorátu e.c.a.v. in Revúca, fasc. Korešpondencia 1770–1800, fascicle sine sign. and folio sine sign. too. The mentioned clergyman was in a dispute with worshipers five years earlier – September 20, 1785 where he bound himself with an oath to live a good life and perform his duties conscientiously. Based on the text it is clear that he uttered the slander, pried into “sacral” affairs and required services or fees not stated in a call-up decree. He wished for its expiration – he concluded it in one year – to leave the municipality, but this document prevented him to do so. Potvrdenie revúckej mestskej rady jelšavskému majstrovi zvonárovi Liborovi Holáškovi (Confirmation of the Town Council of Revúca to the Craftsman – Bell-founder from

Testimony of Single Items Deposited in the Archive of the Gemer Seniorate 179

started to prepare for the building of their own temple, but they were worried about gaining the approval of a county inspection that was about to visit the town. They were also not sure, whether a sufficient number of residents would be of the Evangelical confession. However, I think that they took an important first step – they asked the wealthiest sympathizing citizens of Revúca for help. And they celebrated their success – a businessmen with iron Štefan Bartho and Martin Šturman donated an amount of 100 and even 1000 ducats.75 The notary public Daniel Ratkay 76 informed the city council in Revúca (on January 27, 1783) that he had gained the approval of the nobleman Ján Chazár to support the local Evangelical congregation. This nobleman advised him to first forward a message77 to Emperor Joseph II and agree on the lands where a temple could be built.78 Subsequently (June 2, 1783), the Evangelists asked a superintendent to delegate a priest who would perform the worships during the following holiday of Pentecost.79 The church in Ochtiná donated 100 ducats to the church

75

76

77 78

79

Jelšava), 26.1.1782. Archív Gemerského seniorátu e.c.a.v. in Revúca, fascikel Najstaršie spisy evanjelickej cirkvi, signature of fasc. RL 2–4, folio sine sign. Oznámenie evanjelických veriacich revúckej mestskej rade (Notice of Evangelic Worshipers to the Town Council of Revúca), 1782. Archív Gemerského seniorátu e.c.a.v. in Revúca, fasc. Najstaršie spisy evanjelickej cirkvi, záložka Príprava stavby kostola, signature of fascicle RL 2–4, folio sine sign. Rátkay, a notary public played an important role at the beginning of the Evangelical congregation as it is manifested in preserved documents: in addition to his claimed credit mentioned in the text he advised (June 13, 1783)  to address the prefect Jekelfalussy again who had not allowed the Evangelists in Revúca to build a church before. Apparently, he was not successful again in convincing them to build a church without the approval of the county regarding its size (July 22, 1783) and informed (September 8, 1783) on gaining the approval to meet with a countess Kohary. Finally he decided not to address her anymore (September 13, 1783) because she did not provide them with anything relevant in their favor. He called attention to the fact (March 15, 1784) that the heir of Ondrej Barth had a share on the lands of the Šramka family and it was necessary to settle this matter as soon as possible. Finally (March 15, 1784), he reported that the town of Jelšava signed a declaration and Church lands had the same obligations as the lands of commoners. In the original “a deputation.” List notára Daniela Rátkaya revúckej mestskej rade (Letter of theNotary Public Daniel Rátkay to the Town Council of Revúca), 1783. Archív Gemerského seniorátu e.c.a.v. in Revúca, fasc. Najstaršie spisy evanjelickej cirkvi, signature of fascicle RL 2–4, folio sine sign. List revúckych veriacich superintendentovi (Letter of Worshipers from Revúce to the Superintendant), 2.6.1783. Archív Gemerského seniorátu e.c.a.v. in Revúca, fasc.

180

Ján Jakubej

in Revúca.80 The worshipers agreed (July 10, 1783), that “after the arrival of a priest” they would sing “Te Deum laudamus”81 and asked a senior to let them summon a rector as well.82 Subsequently (August 27, 1783), they agreed to invite the cantor 83 and an organ player Adama Zinklai as well.84 The craftsman Adámek Simonides committed himself (March 11, 1784)  to supply “50 000 bricks of good quality” for building an Evangelical temple and if they were not of good quality for each damaged one he would supply two without requiring payment.85 The contract of Ján Lipták, who was responsible for the roof covering is even more interesting. It says that he will pay for possible damages, “I will live an honest and good life and “obedience towards the older of a great church I intend to keep.”86 The town sold the congregation land for 80 ducats, suitable for building a parish and a school, despite the fact that it had been used for growing hemp before.87 The local Evangelists apparently sought models in both nearer and more remote surroundings – the already-mentioned notary

80 81 82

83 84

85 86 87

Najstaršie spisy evanjelickej cirkvi, záložka Príprava stavby kostola, signature of fascicle RL 2–4, folio sine sign. The Descent of the Holy Spirit (also called White Sunday or Pentecost) = is celebrated 50 days after Easter. List ochtinského zboru revúckemu, 1783 (Letter from the Confregation of Ochtice to the Congregation of Revúca). Archív Gemerského seniorátu e.c.a.v. in Revúca, fasc. Najstaršie spisy evanjelickej cirkvi, signature of fascicle RL 2–4, folio sine sign. Hymnus Te Deum laudamus = Lord, We Praise Thee. List revúckych veriacich seniorovi (Letter from the Worshipers of Revúca to the Senior), March 10, 1783. Archív Gemerského seniorátu e.c.a.v. in Revúca, fasc. Najstaršie spisy evanjelickej cirkvi, záložka Príprava stavby kostola, signature of fascicle RL 2–4, folio sine sign. In the original “cantora.” List veriacich revúckej mestskej rade (Letter from the Worshipers of Revúca to the Town Council), August 27, 1783. Archív Gemerského seniorátu e.c.a.v. in Revúca, fasc. Najstaršie spisy evanjelickej cirkvi, záložka Príprava stavby kostola, signature of fascicle RL 2–4, folio sine sign. Contract of Mr. Adámek Simonides, March 11, 1784. Archív Gemerského seniorátu e.c.a.v. in Revúca, fascicle Najstaršie spisy evanjelickej cirkvi, signature of fascicle RL 2–4, folio sine sign. Contract of Mr. Ján Lipták, 1784. Archív Gemerského seniorátu e.c.a.v. in Revúca, fasc. Najstaršie spisy evanjelickej cirkvi, signature of fascicle RL 2–4, folio sine sign. Kúpno – predajná zmluva medzi mestom a zborom (Purchase Contract concluded between the Town and the Congregation), 1784. Archív Gemerského seniorátu e.c.a.v. in Revúca, fasc. Najstaršie spisy evanjelickej cirkvi, signature of fascicle RL 2–4, folio sine sign.

Testimony of Single Items Deposited in the Archive of the Gemer Seniorate 181

public Daniel Ratkay informed them (December 4, 1784) 88 on how funeral ceremonies are performed in Jelšava, where he was delegated and also a transcript of the decree by Joseph II on the upbringing of Calvinist and Evangelical families was preserved (October 4, 1784).89 Ján Bartho and another 17 citizens deposited (March 1785)  a sum of 600 ducats under the condition that it would never be paid in cash and its interest would be used to increase the status of the teacher in Revúca.90 Seven worshipers committed themselves (May 15, 1785) to help with building a church, a parish and a school and if “they break their word, leave to some other place or refuse to carry on,” each of them will pay a penalty of 3 ducats.91 Another seven worshipers

88

89

90

91

On June 15, 1784, 22 residents sold their hemp fields for the same purpose for 160 ducats in total (I found 3 more purchase and sale contracts with the same date/ twice for 70 and once the price is unknown due to an illegible word); On June 21, 1784, 21 believers exchanged their hemp fields for barns and on November 8, 1784, 19 church members rented another piece of land to the church belonging to the Šramko Family. Juraj Šramko Jr. donated (August 19, 1784) to the church one vast meadow and later (April 2, 1786) he sold a garden and another piece of land suitable for cultivating for 40 and 140 ducats. In addition to these, he donated other pieces of lands (proved by deeds of July 5th, when their value was 80 ducats, of June 15th – 160 ducats and twice 70 ducats (300 in total), on June 21st he donated barns, on August 28th he sold another meadow for 500 ducats and finally he deposited one more meadow to the church on November 8, 1784. Pavol Šramko’s surving relatives Juraj an Ján continued with these generous donations, and they donated agricultural land for 400 ducats (earlier on July 16, 1783) and for 140 ducats (April 2, 1786). At the same time, the two above-mentioned gentlemen denied (in a letter dated July 16, 1783) that there would be anyone with a right to use their family property. The same day they borrowed from Štefan Bartho 400 ducats. They again bound themselves to pay it back a half year later (February 27, 1784). List notára Daniela Rátkaya revúckemu zboru (Letter from the Notary Public Daniel Rátkay to the Congregation of Revúca), December 4, 1784. Archív Gemerského seniorátu e.c.a.v. in Revúca, fasc. Najstaršie spisy evanjelickej cirkvi, signature of fascicle RL 2–4, folio sine sign. Odpis výnosu Jozefa II. o výchove v evanjelických a kalvínskych rodinách (Transcript of the Decree by Emperor Joseph II about Education in Evangelic and Calvinist Families), 4.10.1784. Archív Gemerského seniorátu e.c.a.v. in Revúca, fasc. Najstaršie spisy evanjelickej cirkvi, signature of fascicle RL 2–4, folio sine sign. Potvrdenie o  zložení základiny vo výške 600 zlatých na zlepšenie platu učiteľa (Confirmation of Deposition of the Sum of 600 ducats to Increase Teacher´s Salary), March 1785. Archív Gemerského seniorátu e.c.a.v. in Revúca, fasc. Najstaršie spisy evanjelickej cirkvi, signature of fascicle RL 2–4, folio sine sign. Kontrakt o pomocných prácach na stavbe kostola, fary a školy (Contract on Ancillary Works Performed during Construction of a Church, Parish and School), May 15, 1785.

182

Ján Jakubej

undertook (May 23, 1785) to supply planks,92 and the glass-maker Ján Handzo from Muránska Huta provided them with panes for window glazing.93 Juraj Požičaný94 sold (May 15, 1786) to the congregation one-third of his hemp field for 20 ducats because it “lied near the temple” and it had been obtained from his “predecessor” Ján Benko. The craftsman Ján Kilian undertook (February 6, 1787)  to build a tower 95 for the Evangelical temple and “any fault which may occur will be repaired with my own equipment.”96 The kindlers led by Martin Huban agreed (February 18, 1787) that all the lime burnt in their own three furnaces situated in “small Javorina” would be supplied to the congregation in Revúca and if not, they may be fined a penalty.97 The craftsman Samuel Reigszinger stated (October 3, 1787)  that a pulpit,98 a font and also an organ in the temple were already finished.99 The wife of the above-mentioned craftsman Kilian, Zuzana, admitted

92 93 94 95 96

97

98 99

Archív Gemerského seniorátu e.c.a.v. in Revúca, fasc. Najstaršie spisy evanjelickej cirkvi, signature of fascicle RL 2–4, folio sine sign. Kontrakt o dodaní lát (Contract on Supply of Planks), 23.5.1785. Archív Gemerského seniorátu e.c.a.v. in Revúca, fasc. Najstaršie spisy evanjelickej cirkvi, signature of fascicle RL 2–4, folio sine sign. Kontrakt majstra Jána Handza s revúckym zborom (Contract of Ján Handza with the Congregation of Revúca), 1785. Archív Gemerského seniorátu e.c.a.v. in Revúca, fasc. Najstaršie spisy evanjelickej cirkvi, signature of fascicle RL 2–4, folio sine sign. In the original as “Pozsicsany”. In the original “turňa” (high narrow building, a fortification). Kontrakt majstra Jána Kiliana s revúckym zborom (Contract of Ján Kilian with the Congregation of Revúca), 6 February, 1787. Archív Gemerského seniorátu e.c.a.v. in Revúca, fasc. Najstaršie spisy evanjelickej cirkvi, signature of fascicle RL 2–4, folio sine sign. Neznámy autor v článku Niečo zo stavby evanjelického ev. a. v. kostola v Revúcej. In Šafárikov kraj, 1938, vol. 7, no. 30, 30.7.1938, p. 2 he mistakenly stated the year of construction as 1778 and that it “was built by an ordinary carpenter, Šajba, folk artist.” Kontrakt paličov vápna s  revúckym zborom (Contract of the Kindler with the Congregation of Revúca), February 18, 1787. Archív Gemerského seniorátu e.c.a.v. in Revúca, fasc. Najstaršie spisy evanjelickej cirkvi, signature of fascicle RL 2–4, folio sine sign. In the original as “kancel” (a slang word for a pulpit). Vyhlásenie majstra Samuela Reigszingera o dokončení rezbárskych prác (Declaration of Samuel Reigszinger about the Completion of Carving Works), October 3, 1787. Archív Gemerského seniorátu e.c.a.v. in Revúcej, fasc. Najstaršie spisy evanjelickej cirkvi, signature of fascicle RL 2–4, folio sine sign.

Testimony of Single Items Deposited in the Archive of the Gemer Seniorate 183

that (October 17, 1787) the Evangelical church had paid 10 ducats for the work he performed.100 The building of the Evangelical church in Revúca was finished by summoning a bell founder Samuela Bienstock (June 10, 1788).101 Shortly after that he made a complaint (June 19, 1788) that he would not be able to finish the work within two weeks as he had previously promised due to financial difficulties – material would be supplied to him only for cash payment. Therefore, he asked the church for a loan of 70 ducats.102 The beginnings of the Evangelical congregation in Revúca were not easy – the heirs of Ján and Jozef Šramko reclaimed the donated 1000 ducats either in cash if needed or at least their interests in the amount of “4 ducats for each 100 ducats”103 and the congregation owed another 810 ducats to the town as declared in the deeds from May 26, 1788.104 For 440 ducats, the craftsman Imrich Čurko undertook to gild a choir loft, seats and a grate on the altar; “lajsne (metal ribs)105 on the chorus grates would be coated with an actual red scumble”106; the choir loft would be painted “with a pure and permanent paint made of poppy oil”; “thick columns under the choir loft will be painted with actual alabaster”; and their cuttings would be gilded again.107

100 Vyhlásenie Zuzany Kilianovej o  prevzatí desiatich zlatých za práce jej manžela (Declaration of Zuzana Kilianová about receiving of ten Ducats for Works performed by her Husband), October 17, 1787. Archív Gemerského seniorátu e.c.a.v. in Revúca, fasc. Najstaršie spisy evanjelickej cirkvi, signature of fascicle RL 2–4, folio sine sign. 101 Kontrakt majstra zvonára Samuela Bienstocka (Contract of the Bell-founder Samuel Bienstock), June 10, 1788. Archív Gemerského seniorátu e.c.a.v. in Revúca, fasc. Najstaršie spisy evanjelickej cirkvi, signature of fascicle RL 2–4, folio sine sign. 102 Žiadosť majstra Bienstocka o pôžičku (Request by Samuel Bienstock for Rent), June 19, 1788. Archív Gemerského seniorátu e.c.a.v. in  Revúca, fasc. Najstaršie spisy evanjelickej cirkvi, signature of fascicle RL 2–4, folio sine sign. 103 It is the amount of 40 ducats per year. 104 List mestskej rady zboru (Letters from the Town Council to the Congregation), May 26, 1788. Archív Gemerského seniorátu e.c.a.v. in Revúca, fasc. Najstaršie spisy evanjelickej cirkvi, signature of fascicle RL 2–4, folio sine sign. 105 lajsne = herein as metal ribs. 106 lazúr = nowadays lazúra, is a transparent protective scumble, preserving the structure or wood appearance. 107 Kontrakt majstra Imricha Čurka (Contract of the Craftsman Imrich Čurko), 1795. Archív Gemerského seniorátu e.c.a.v. in Revúca, collection of folios Rôzne 1790–1854, fascicle sine sign, folio sine sign too. The same craftsman guaranteed (earlier on March 30, 1794) that he would paint a pulpit, a font and an organ for 830 ducats.

184

Ján Jakubej

As the last heiress of the family, Mária Hazaj bequeathed (January 28, 1799) to the Evangelical church all her lands, namely the “Hazaj homestead” which amounted to 70 ducats and a piece of land her husband bought from the Family Benkos on “the road” leading to the Evangelical temple.”108 Rozložná: “The son of a fellmonger” owed some money to a local clergyman and his wife and complained to the senior that they both “are threatening him with excommunication and urge him with sharp words” if he does not pay his debts. However, the worshipers refuted these statements in their letter (dated July 13, 1771).109 Rožňava: After the occupation of the city by a Kuruc colonel Peter Madáčom (January 25, 1682)  leading to the banishment of the Jesuits, they returned back soon after and were active there for 14  years (1689–1703). Delegates of Francis II Rákoci, František Orságh (for the Catholic party), Pavol Janko (for the Reformed) and Juraj Sentmikloši (a representative of the Evangelists of the Augsburg Confession), decided that (1705) the large temple fell under the Reformed, the small one under the Augusburg confession and a church on the square to the Jesuits, which resulted in dissatisfaction. After the defeat of the rebellion (1711) all three sanctuaries fell under the Catholics. An 108 Testament Márie Hazajovej (Testament of Maria Hazajová), 28 January, 1799. Archív Gemerského seniorátu e.c.a.v. in  Revúca, collection of folios Rôzne 1790–1854, jednotlivina bez signatúry. The same day Ján Požičany donated to the church onethird of the lands owned by the Benko family and one-fourth of the agricultural land owned by the Hazaj family, but he made them to pay 12 ducats for it. In the past decade, the congregation had become the owner of a part of the mansion of Šramko (March 6, 1791) when Andrej waived the right to it on behalf of his sons Juraj and Pavol, because he was incapable of paying the 400 ducats he had borrowed earlier in 1783. The agricultural land of the Evangelical church was extended by Andrej Bolfík, Juraj Bolfík and Juraj Štefančok who donated (November 29, 1793) the land “under the Rock, from the road to our cabbage fields.” Two years later (February 7, 1797) Martin Homola donated to the Evangelical church his piece of land “Behind the brook” on behalf of his two sons “still little brothers” Juraj and Pavol. Similarly, Matej Šošovička, who wrote his own will due to a serious illness, ordered (March 4, 1797) all his belongings to be sold after his death – a half of the house, a garden, a croft, “a half of lands and a loom” to pay debts in the amount of 80 ducats and 15 kreutzers and to donate the rest to the church. Several debit notes were preserved in Czech also in a file. Účty a poistenky 1807–1852, signature of fascicle L 345, folio sine sign. 109 List veriacich z Rozložnej seniorovi (A Letter from a Worshiper from Rozložná to the Senior), July 13, 1771. Archív Gemerského seniorátu e.c.a.v. in Revúca, fasc. Korešpondencia 1770–1800, fascicle sine sign, folio sine sign too.

Testimony of Single Items Deposited in the Archive of the Gemer Seniorate 185

unprecedented situation occurred (1750) – the statue of St. Ján Nepomucký was thrown into the River Slaná, but the county was incapable of finding the perpetrator.110 After the issue of Patent of Toleration, the worshipers in Rožňava were given official authorization (September 14, 1783) allowing their worships to take place inside the town walls. A new temple was finished shortly after (1st Advent Sunday in 1786). Six months later (June 14, 1787) Hungarian and Slovak Church representatives agreed that the worships in Slovak could be celebrated on Catholic feasts, but this agreement was abolished by the following convent (November 22, 1787) and they decided that a Slovak sermon would be held on the first Sunday after the feast of St. Michael and that during important feasts a clergyman would perform the Lord’s supper in the morning and a sermon in the afternoon in Slovak language.111 Sirk:  After the Patent of Tolerance was issued, a congregation in Sirk became the mother church and Rákoš with Turčok subsidiary filial churches. Shortly after (1785) they started to build a temple finishing it one year later (1786). It was sanctified on the 20th Sunday after the Holy Trinity.112 Supporters were: Katarín Cékušm, Kristína Svoboda, Martin Šturman and Matej Petrus, the mayor of Revúca.113 Štítnik: A  local resident Andrej Cibula admitted (1765) his debt towards citizen Peter Zatroch incurred earlier in 1760, which had to be paid by 1763. He agreed that if he was not able to pay it, his wife Anna Cibulova would be responsible for its settlement.114 Veľká Poloma: A local Evangelical temple was luckily finished six years after the issue of the Patent of Tolerance (1787).115 Veľké Slavošovce:  A local church made an agreement with worshipers from Čierna Lehota, but they breached its fourth article regarding their common 110 Polony, Mikuláš. Z dávnych vekov Gemera a paberky k dejinám Rožňavy (5). In Šafárikov kraj, 1934, vol. 3, no. 13, 24.3.1934, p. 2. 111 Polony, Mikuláš. Z  dávnych vekov Gemera a  paberky k  dejinám Rožňavy 6. In Šafárikov kraj, 1934, vol. 3, no. 14, 31.3.1934, p. 1. 112 It falls either at the end of October or at the beginning of November. 113 Herich, Odnrej. Z histórie obce Sirk. Praha 2005, p. 16–17. 114 Dlžobný úpis Andreja a Anny Cibulovej voči Petrovi Zatrochovi (Bill of Credit of Andrej and Anna Cibulá towards Peter Zatroch), 1765. Archív Gemerského seniorátu e.c.a.v. in Revúca, fasc. Zápisnice seniorátnych konventov 1825–1841 (this document was archived here by mistake, similarly as some other ones), signature of fascicle L 373, folio sine sign. 115 This sanctuary was probably sanctified on the twentieth Sunday after the Holy Trinity because on this day there was a commemoration of the 150th anniversary of the

186

Ján Jakubej

“maintaining a priest and a teacher”; therefore, they filed a lawsuit against them at the seniorate (July 22, 1772).116 However, this act did not finish the disputes – the residents of Čierna Lehota objected (that after 1773),117 they really could not help the congregation in Slavošovce with building a new school, because after the recent flood their school had collapsed so they had to build it in a different place. Moreover, worshipers from Veľké Slavošovce did not help them, when they needed to build a new temple so they had to borrow 600 ducats, which they were still paying off. However, it seems to me that they tried to settle the disputes  – they offered the worshipers from Čierna Lehota a payment of one-third of their debts when building the new parish.118 The congregation in Čierna Lehota asked a senior (April 16, 1776) to advise them on negotiating with a “suzerain” to get an approval to “freely confess the Word of God.” They also settled disputes with Veľké Slavošovce so that a clergyman from that place would perform services in the mother church in Lehota one Sunday a month, Easter Monday as the one church holiday and prayers would be performed every Tuesday and Thursday.119

Conclusion The synod in Pešť (1792) represents an important turning point in the history of the Evangelical Church of the Augsburg Confession. For the first time, Hungarization tendencies were deepened culminating with regulations in the following time period, which enforced this language in records, registry offices and church schools (1840).

116 117 118 119

consecration of the temple, the anniversary of the first dedication of the renowned Evangelical temple in Veľká Poloma as Lincsényi, L. 150. informed. In Šafárikov kraj, 1937, vol. 6, no. 45, 6.11.1937, p. 2. List veriacich z Veľkých Slavošoviec seniorovi (A Letter of Worshipers from Veľké Slavošovce to the Senior), July 22, 1772. Archív Gemerského seniorátu e.c.a.v. in Revúca, fasc. Korešpondencia 1770–1800, folio sine sign, fascicle sine sign too. This date was stated by a local historian Gustáv Frák (1913–2006). List veriacich Čiernej Lehoty seniorovi (A Letter of Worshipers from Čierna Lehota to the Senior), after 1773. Archív Gemerského seniorátu e.c.a.v. in Revúca, fasc. Korešpondencia 1770–1800, signature of folio C 163, fascicle sine sign. List veriacich Čiernej Lehoty seniorovi (A Letter of Worshipers from Čierna Lehota to the Senior), April 16, 1776. Archív Gemerského seniorátu e.c.a.v. in Revúca, fasc. Korešpondencia 1770–1800, fascicle sine sign, folio sine sign too.

Testimony of Single Items Deposited in the Archive of the Gemer Seniorate 187

Although I successfully managed to organize and provisionally record all the manuscripts in the congregational and seniorate collection as well as to catalog all the fragments discovered, partially preserved works or prints from the 16th century in the Archive of the Gemer Seniorate of the Evangelical Church of the Augsburg Confession in Revúca, the Seniorate Library itself is unfortunately covered in the catalog only partially. At the moment, the catalog contains only five thousand of, I  suppose, at least fifteen thousand documents deposited in here. Because of this I may not say if I was lucky enough to find all the necessary documents regarding the history of the Gemer Seniorate in the 18th century. I am more inclined to answer in the negative. As I  mention in the text, several archives of the Evangelical Church of the Augsburg Confession located in Gemer are not processed. It is rather an unpleasant situation when I realize the fact that Ochtiná, Ratková and Štítnik are towns with a rich history. Furthermore, the archive in Revúca serves as a fragment mainly due to the aforementioned fire in 1785. Moreover, my worsened sight does not allow me to read some information in manuscripts, but I refuse to give up. Taking into consideration all the aforementioned, I find the submitted chapter only as a preliminary exploring element that will definitely deserve more attention.

Katarína Rácová

Matthias Bel and Nyitra County Matthias Bel- (*March 1684, Očová- † August 29, 1749, Pressburg/Bratislava) was a polymath, encyclopaedist, a teacher, an Evangelical preacher, a pioneer of the Upper Hungarian/ Slovak enlightenment, one of the most prominent European scholars of the 18th century, the founder of modern geography in the Kingdom of Hungary and a model for the French encyclopaedist D. Diderot. In his work Notitia Hungariae Novae historico-geographica (in Sk:  Historické a zemepisné vedomosti o  Novom Uhorsku; En:  Historical and Geographical Knowledge on the new Kingdom of Hungary, hereinafter referred to as Vedomosti (En:  Knowledge), he provided a unique view on the status, importance, reaction and in particular facts about the counties in Hungary within the Habsburg Monarchy. These phenomena present for scholars from the field of humanitarian studies an informative database that might be used as a “probe” into historical, socio-cultural and natural specifications of a given county in the time of Bel. There is not a conventional Slovak translation of the work Notitia Hungariae novae historico-geographica. In the past, many similar translations were used such as Slovakized word Notície, non-Slovakized Latin term Notitia, then Znalosť (Understanding) and Vedomosť (Knowledge)... I’m more inclined to the translation Historické a zemepisné vedomosti o novom Uhorsku (En:  Historical and Geographical Knowledge on the new Kingdom of Hungary) as it is stated by Škoviera.1 Translations of all counties have not been issued yet in Slovakia, although this idea has been on the table since the 1980s.2 Currently, complete Slovak translations of only five counties have been published so far, such as Turóc County, Ung County, Zemplén County, Árva County and Trencsén County.3 1 2 3

Škoviera, Daniel. Vektory edície. In Škoviera, Daniel – Juríková, Erika (eds.). Sondy do Belových Vedomostí o súvekom Uhorsku. Sambucus Supplementum II. Trnava 2010, p. 25–26. Juríková, Erika. Belove Vedomosti vo svetle súčasných poznatkov. In Škoviera, Daniel – Juríková, Erika (eds.). Sondy do Belových..., p. 17. Bel, Matej. Turčianska stolica. Prel. Július Sopko. Úvod a poznámky R.  Marsina. Martin 1989, 97 p. Bel, Matej. Užská stolica. Prel. Martin Slaninka. Bratislava 2000, 221 p. Bel, Matej. Zemplínska stolica. Prel. Martin Slaninka. Bratislava 2000, 91 p. Bel. Matej. Oravská stolica. Prel. Jozef Minárik. Liptovský Mikuláš 2001, 169 p. Bel, Matej.

190

Katarína Rácová

Besides these literary translations, partial translations of other counties have been published either separately or as a part of various collective volumes, studies, etc. The subject of my research is Vedomosti Nitrianskej stolice (Knowledge of Nyitra County). It is generally known that Bel did not work alone, but had a wide range of coworkers. In the 1720s, Bel compiled a questionnaire based on a model of a native of Ružomberok living in Germany – Krištof Parschitius with questions focused on the history and geography of Hungarian counties. Some of these questionnaires remained as part of Bel’s estate. During that time, Bel was active at the Evangelical lyceum in Bratislava and questionnaires were assigned as a vacation task for students in the higher grades. Materials collected in this way, as well as precisely excerpted archival and literary resources, became a database which he used when elaborating his work.4 He had already named persons he wished to work with on the compilation of Vedomosti (En. Knowledge) in Prodrom. Based on research, we can say that the range of his coworkers was much larger and many of them remained anonymous. The description of Nyitra County may be found in the fourth volume of Vedomosti issued in 1742 at the expense of Paul Strauba in Vienna and printed by Johann Peter van Ghelen in Amsterdam.5 It remains unknown when Bel wrote his Vedomosti Nitrianskej stolice (Knowledge of Nyitra County), but based on the description of Holíč where he

4 5

Trenčianska stolica. Prel. Imrich Nagy. Spoluzostavovateľ Martin Turóci. Čadca 2013, 448 p. Bel, Matej. Liptovská stolica. Prel. Jozef Kordoš. Spoluzostavovateľ Martin Turóci. Čadca 2014, 390 p. Juríková, Belove Vedomosti vo svetle, p. 13. Comitatus Nitriensis. In Bel, Matthias: Notitia Hungariae novae Historico-Geographica divisa in partes quatuor, quarum prima, Hungariam Cis-Danubianam, altera TransDanubianam, tertia Cis-Tibiscanam; quarta Trans-Tibiscanam:  universim XLVIII comitibus designatam, expromit regionis situs, terminos, montes, campos, fluvios, locus, thermas, coeli, solique ingenium, naturae munera et prodigia, incolas variarum gentilium, atque harum mores, provinciarum magistratus illustres familias, urbes, arces, oppida et vicos propemodum omnes, singulorum praeterea, ortus et incrementa, belli pacisque conversiones, et praesentem habitum fide optima, adcuratione summa, explicat, opus, hucusque desideratum, et in commune utile, sacratissimis auspiciis Caroli VI. caesaris, et regis indulgentissimi elaboravit Matthias Bel. Accendunt Samuelis Mikovini mappae singulorum comitatuum, methodo astronomico-geometrica concinnatae. Tomus Quartus. Viennae Austriae:  Impensis Paulli Straubii Bibliopolae. Typis Johannis Petri van Ghelen, typographi caesarei. Anno MDCCXLII, p. 291–522. In addition to the mentioned Nyitra County, the fourth volume contains a description of Nográd County, Bars County, Hont County and Malohont County.

Matthias Bel and Nyitra County

191

mentions one meritorious resident, who passed away in 1729, but was alive at the time of writing this work, it is obvious that he worked on the description of Nyitra County in 1729 and earlier.6 At the beginning of 1730s, he submitted his handwriting of the description to the Royal Vicegerent Council in Bratislava, who subsequently, at the end of 1732, submitted it for approval to Nyitra County. When assessing the handwriting, there were several postponements and therefore in May the Vicegenrent Council forwarded an urgent request to Nyitra County with an explanation that the first volume of the work is to be already printed and a description of Nyitra County is in the second volume. An assessment conducted by a county vice-administrator and a county notary public Andrej Szerény was approved at the end of September and, together with the handwriting, forwarded to Matthias Bel. Commentaries of a different nature were written down in 14 letters mostly concerning the corrections of the topographic data. Minor corrections were done by Bel also after 1739 mentioning plague epidemics in Nitra and Hlohovec. The final version of the description of Nyitra County, as I have mentioned before, eventually became part of the fourth volume of Vedomosti (En. Knowledge).7 The description structure of the individual counties is admirably coherent.8 Regarding this scheme, the description of Nyitra County is divided into a general part (pars generalis) and a special part (pars specialis). The description may be found on pages 291–522. The general part takes 22 pages and the special part  210 pages. The general part is further divided into a nature part (membrum physicum) and a political part (membrum politicum). The nature part called, O polohe, prírode a danostiach Nitrianskej stolice (De situ, natura et opportunitatibus comitatus Nitriensis (About the Location, Nature and Givenness of the Nyitra County), is focused on various aspects. In 12 paragraphs, the author deals with the etymology of the name of the city, defines the county borders and reflects on the type of country it is. He finds it advantageous that in the county there are both plains and hills. He names important mountain ranges, forests and lowlands. He deals with county hydrography, main rivers and their tributaries, He reflects on their usage for the transport of goods. He discusses timber production and its river transport. Regarding thermal springs, he mentions spas in Piešťany and Bojnice. He admires wines in this 6 7 8

Zemene, Marián. Belov opis Nitrianskej stolice. In Tibenský, Ján et al. Matej Bel. Doba, život, dielo. Bratislava 1987, p. 328. Ibidem, p. 328–329. K štruktúre Vedomostí pozri Rácová, Katarína. Trenčín pohľadom Mateja Bela. Nitra 2012, p. 16–22.

192

Katarína Rácová

area, mentioning the great Zobor wine in Nitra and comparing the red wine in Čachtice to wines in Budín and Jáger. In a paragraph mentioned as gardening, which according to Bel includes also fruit and vegetable farming, he mentions the growing of saffron, which is nowadays not so popular in this area. One paragraph deals with cattle breeding, and in the last paragraph he focuses on the mineral wealth of the county. The political part is named O obyvateľoch, úradoch, panstvách a rodinách Nitrianskej stolice (De incolis, magistratibus, dominiis et familiis comitatus Nitriensis; En.:  About the Residents, Offices, Manors and Families of the Nyitra County). In the introductory paragraph, Bel discusses the national structure of the population. He put an emphasis on Slovak cheerfulness and tolerance and points out the similarity between the local language and Moravian and Czech languages. He emphasizes the gallantry of the Hungarian nobility that resisted during the Turkish wars and estate uprisings. He locates Germans in the area of today’s Nitrianske Pravno (former Nemecké Pravno) and he assumes their Quadi and Saxon origin. He finds them hardworking and useful for the state economy. The main occupations of the population in the county include farming, pasturage, viticulture and crafts. He carefully focuses on sheep breeding and sheep cheese production, whey and žinčica (a drink made of sheep milk) in Valaská Belá. He considers the following towns to be centers of crafts: Sobotište with its local shoemakers and potters; Skalica and its numerous craftsmanship, especially broadcloth; Prievidza and its boot makers; Nitrianske Pravno and its local embroiderers (specializing in the sewing of smocks); and finally Myjava and its tanners and shoemakers. He follows this with the county administration. He points out the traditional connection of a county office with the Bishop of Nitra. He names county offices and mentions calling for county meetings of nobility mostly in Hlohovec. In conclusion, he describes a county armorial bearing. In the last paragraph of the political part Bel names the most prominent count, baron and aristocratic families. In this connection, he also lists nine manor houses in: Bojnice, Čachtice, Branč, Korlát, Holíč, Dobrovody, Topoľčany, Hlohovec and Nitra. A special part is based on the administrative division of the county into processuses (districts), and its first section (membrum) deals with the Processus of Nitra.9 It is followed by the district processuses of Bojnice, Obdokovce, Nové Mesto and Skalica. In general, each part is divided into sections (sectio) and 9

There are several opinions on the administrative division of the County of Nyitra. I lean more towards Žudel’s division into processuses. Compare: Žudel, Juraj. Stolice na Slovensku. Bratislava 1984, p. 83. Žudel, Juraj. Administratívne delenie Slovenska

Matthias Bel and Nyitra County

193

those into articles (articules). Within separate processus districts, Bel focuses on prominent castles of the district in the first section, while the second section deals with towns and the third one focuses on municipalities. One of the largest processuses is the first Processus of Nitra (Processus Nitriensis). Bel divided its description into three parts – sections. The first section named O hradoch Nitrianskeho slúžnovského okresu (About the Castles of the Processus of Nitra), he describes the history of the following castles: Nitra, Nové Zámky, Jelenec and Šintava. Regarding the first two towns, he discusses not only their castles but their history as well. Descriptions of the individual castles are further divided into paragraphs. They focus on the history of castles, their residents and their location. From the contemporary view and descriptions of the interiors and exteriors of these castles, manor houses and buildings that are nowadays just ruins may be found interesting. There is not a coherent description of the individual castles. The second section focuses on talking about towns such as Šurany, Šaľa, Mojmírovce, Šintava, Močenok, Komjatice, Veľké Zálužie and Jelenec. The description of the individual towns begins with an etymology of their names, following a description of the town location, analysis of town privileges and town history, where Bel names individual rulers in chronological order (in connection with a particular town). Maybe we would expect a more detailed analysis of the regional history, but the author mostly focused on the history of towns within the context of Hungarian history. The description continues with the naming of the most significant parts of the town, buildings, institutions, churches, squares and streets. He draws his attention to the demographic division, administration of a particular town, occupations of its residents, markets and crafts. The last section deals with the municipalities within the Processus district of Nitra. The author of Vedomosti (En. Knowledge) names 99 of them, but it is necessary to mention that their description is quite brief. Speaking of individual municipalities, he generally deals with their location with regard to a larger town, he mentions the name of a village owner, a church or facts he considers worth mentioning; it means mainly jobs typical for a municipality such as (knives production, tannery, etc.). If someone prominent was born in a municipality and Bel had this knowledge he certainly mentioned it. In the case of some municipalities, he mentions their alternative name in Slovak, Hungarian or German language depending on the particular region.

v prvej polovici 18. storočia podľa Belovho diela Notitia Hungariae novae historicogeographica. In Slovenská archivistika, vol. 19, 1984, no. 1, p. 43–54.

194

Katarína Rácová

The second part focuses on the Processus of Bojnice. It is also divided into sections. The first section deals with the history of the following castles: Bojnice and Sivý Kameň. Regarding Bojnice, he mentions the town as well. In the second section, he refers to four cities:  Prievidza, Nitrianske Pravno, Žabokreky and Skačany. He counted 91 municipalities in this Processus. Bel begins his third part with an introduction to the Processus of Obdokovce. He divides it into two sections. The first one is devoted to towns and castles. As part of the castle of Obdokovce, he mentions Topolčany, Bojná and Radošina. In the second section, he names 101 municipalities. The fourth section focuses on the Processus of Nové Mesto. The first section deals with the description of the town of Nové Mesto nad Váhom, the history of the town of Čachtice followed by the towns of Vrbové, Piešťany, Chtelnica, Červený Kameň castle, the town of Leopoldov, the castle and the city of Hlohovec, the castle Tematín, the municipality of Mestečko, Kostoľany, Stará Turá and Brezová. In the second section, he names 82 municipalities in this Processus. The fifth and final part refers to the Processus of Skalica. The entire first section deals with the free royal city of Skalica. He mentions other castles and towns in the second section in particular Holíč, Gbely, Šaštín, Radošovce, Senica, Sobotište, Branč castle, Korlátka castle, the town Prievaly and the castle Ostrý Kameň. In comparison with other processuses, municipalities in the third section were divided, according to their jurisdiction, into dominions. The conclusion mentions “Tabula itineraria” where the author shows directions and the shortest way leading to the surrounding counties. It presents the concluding part of Vedomosti Nitrianskej stolice (Knowledge of the Nitra County). For his elaboration on the mentioned paragraphs, Bel drew from various sources. Citations of various works as well as quotations of deeds represents approximately 30 % of the entire text. Such a vast extent of citations demonstrates Bel’s effort to provide an objective and complex view of the historical events. On one hand, the quotations serve as an illustration of Bel’s interpretation of a particular historical event, while on the other hand they present the base for a historical explanation. In addition to different works of other historians, Bel also refers to his own work, i.e. other parts of Vedomosti (En. Knowledge). It is interesting that he quoted not using quotation marks but changing the font type.10 There are some places where Bel completely agreed with cited authors and did not comment on them. Sometimes he took a stance, where he expressed his

10 Compare: Rácová, Trenčín pohľadom, p. 155–156.

Matthias Bel and Nyitra County

195

debts or partial disagreement with a quoted opinion or regret over the deficiency of a quoted part, while elsewhere he elaborated on a cited opinion and made new deductions or he proved his own hypothesis. Considering the unsolved issues, he tried to provide a vast array of opinions while keeping himself from his own premature conclusions. He often finishes his paragraphs with the following formulations “I leave the rest to a reader to consider” etc.11 The extent of Matthias Bel’s sources is illustrated in the publication Vedomosti (En. Knowledge), where I found a wide selection of works from Czech, Polish, Austrian, German, Croatian and other historians. Regarding the national historical works, Bel used almost all known sources compiled by older or latter historians, and especially his contemporaries.12 He frequently focused on the works of the following authors: Bohuslav Balbín, Bombardi, Barón, Bonfini, Crommer, Ferrari, Ortel, Parschitius, Révai, Roger, Spenner, Szentiványi, Timon, Ján from Turiec, Wagner, Závodský as well as many records and chronicles. In the introductory chapters dealing with natural conditions in the county, Bel first quotes Mikuláš Istvánffy (1538–1615). He refers to his work Historiarum de rebus Ungaricis libri XXXIV (34 kníh histórie Uhorska; En. 34 Books dealing with History of the Kingdom of Hungary). In particular, he cited the XXXI book and a passage about the spa in Piešťany, which he locates near the Váh River and states what diseases were cured there. In the eighth paragraph describing country characteristics – plain and mountainous areas, their strengths and advantages or vice versa and their disadvantages resulting from the nature of the county – Bel refers to his own work De re rustica Hungariae (O uhorskom poľnohospodárstve; En. About Hungarian agriculture) regarding the growing of the specific spice saffron. For those who would be more interested in growing saffron, he advised them to see the works of other ancient authors such as XXI book of Pliny the Elder Historia Naturalis (Prírodoveda; En.Natural History), IX book of Luciu Junius Moderatus Columella De re rustica (O poľnohospodárstve; En. (About Agriculture) and a work by the Swiss natural historian and polymath from the 16th century, Conrad Gesner. In a special part in the paragraph dealing with county offices and clerks, he cites Peter Révai (1568–1622), a Hungarian dignitary and his work De sacra corona regni Hungariae ortu, virtuti, victoria, fortuna.......brevis commentarius (Krátky komentár o svätej korune uhorského kráľovstva; En:  Brief Commentary

11 Ibidem, p. 156. 12 Ibidem, p. 156.

196

Katarína Rácová

on The Holy Crown of Hungary). Bel was well acquainted with this work, because together with his son, he prepared a critical edition of Komentár (Commentary). The mentioned author published another work as well – Bel does not cite this work directly, but refers to Gaspar Jongelinus (1605–1669), a Cistercian abbey and a historian, who attached a catalog of Hungarian dignitaries of the highest rank to the second-mentioned work allegedly based on contemporary documents. This Catalog- Catalogus palatinorum Regni Hungariae ex vetustissimis litteris ac diplomatibus eiusdem Regni digestus, and especially the last two centuriae, Bel finds very positive, which was supported by the increasing amount of published letters and deeds. The fact that Peter Révai himself participated in various diplomatic political and military actions, especially during the reign of Rudolf II and Mathias II, should not be overlooked. Bel considers him to be a historian who contributed to historical writings with a unique critical perspective.13 In the fifth paragraph, Bel says that district administrators in Nyitra County were local bishops. In this particular paragraph, Bel names some of them in connection with the county administrator of Nitra and Čanádsky Dvor Lampert, where Bel refers to the work Učení Trnavčania (En:  The Scholar Residents of Trnava City). Lampert got the position of county administrator from King Charles I of Hungary for his efforts in the fight against Matthew III Csák. When capturing historical events, he frequently referred to the aforementioned Učení Trnavčania (Eruditi Tyrnavienses; En:  The Scholar Residents of Trnava City) who are allegedly the authors of Ortus et progressus almae archiepiscopalis Societatis Iesu Universitatis Tyrnaviensis..., (Establishment and Development of the Archbishop Jesuitical Trnava University from its Beginnings to 1660) that was published in 1725 in Trnava. The author of the mentioned work is the Hungarian Jesuit Imrich Tolkvay.14 Tolvay published this series three years later, but Bel did not cite this issue. At that time the Jesuits never used to introduce the name of the author on the title page. In spite of this fact, Tolvay is considered to be the author of these monographs.15 A special part of Vedomostí (En. Knowledge) begins with the first section dealing with the Processus of Nitra. This first part as I  mentioned previously is divided into sections. The first section O hradoch Nitrianskeho slúžnovského 13 Sopko, Július. Dielo Petra Revu a  jeho význam pre slovenskú historiografiu. In Historický časopis, vol. 28, 1980, no. 3, p. 400–417. 14 Por.: http://aleph.vkol.cz/pub/svk01/00073/71/000737162.htm [30.09.2016]. 15 Juríková, Erika. Trnava v 17. storočí (1632–1679). In Škoviera, Daniel at al. (eds). Sondy do Belových Vedomostí o súvekom Uhorsku. Sambucus Supplementum II. Trnava 2010. p. 162–180.

Matthias Bel and Nyitra County

197

okresu (De arcibus processus Nitriensis; En:  About Castles of the Processuses of Nitra) refers to the history of the city and castle of Nitra in 12 paragraphs. Bel begins his descriptions at the beginning of the 9th century referring to a work by Melchior Inchofer (1584–1648). The mentioned author was a Jesuit and a Hungarian scholar. Bel refers to his work Annales Ecclesiastici Regni Hungariae. Bel supposed there was a bishop in Nitra in the 830s. According to Bel, Inchofer took this information from Wolfgang Lazius.16 Bel mentions both of these authors in his text, but they are not included in his notes or list of sources. Moreover, he refers to a letter from Pope Eugen II, where a bishop of Nitra Alcuvina, Albina, Adelvina alebo Alevina is mentioned in 825.17 Nowadays, we know that they are so-called Pilgrim forgeries, but baroque, enlightenment and also romantic historians considered them to be authentic documents.18 Pilgrim forgeries were created by Bishop Pilgrim of Passau (971–991). Their aim was to point out the dependency of bishoprics of Great Moravia as well as the bishopric of Nitra and to help restore this dependency on the Bishopric of Passau, so the Bishopric would be promoted to an archdiocese as the successor to the fallen Lorsch Province, at the expense of the Archbishopric of Salzburg.19 With the sentence that in 824 Nitra did not accept enough faith in Jesus Christ, Bel indicates that he has knowledge about the Christianization of the territory of present Slovakia. Defeat of the Avars at the end of the 8th century represented the opening of a vast area to Christian activity. As Lopatková says, the continuous and constant Christianization of our area started at the turn of the 8th and 9th century and was ordered by the southern German church province based in Salzburg. At the time Emperor Charles the Great demarcated the boundaries between the Patriarchate of Aquileia and Southern German Church Province on the River Drava, our territory certainly belonged to the sphere of Christianization of the Southern German Church province.20

16 Wolfgang Lazius (1514–1565) an Austrian doctor and historian. Bel refers to his work Commentariorum rei publicae Romanae. 17 „Radfredo Fauianensis, Methodio Speculunensis Ecclesiae, atque Abino Nitranensis...” Melchior, Inchofer. Annales Ecclesiastici Regni Hungariae. Romae MDCXLIV, vol. I, p. 36, D. 18 Compare: “Pápež Eugen II. píše biskupom: favianskemu Rathfredovi, spekulojulijskému či ouguturskému Metodovi, nitrianskemu Alchuvinovi...” Ratkoš, Peter. Pramene k dejinám Veľkej Moravy. Bratislava 1964, p. 347–350. 19 Ibidem, p. 347. 20 Lopatková, Zuzana. Cirkevné dejiny stredovekého Slovenska. Trnava 2013, p. 8–9.

198

Katarína Rácová

Another author cited by Bel is Bohuslav Balbín and his work Epitome historica rerum Bohemicarum (Výťah z českých dejín; En:Varieties from the History of the Czech Kingdom).21 Except for some variations in the writing of names and verbs, Bel quoted him verbatim.22 Based on Balbín’s work, Bel claimed that during the reign of Louis the German, the Bishop of Passau Urolf (Urdfus alebo Yrolfus) sent Mojmír’s request to two previously ordained bishops. His arguments are further supported with a citation from Aventinus and particularly his work Annalium Boiorum Libri septem (Sedem kníh letopisov Bavorov; En: Annals of Bavaria).23 According to Aventinus, it is Adelvin or Alevin of Nitra and Methodius, who is called juliomontan by Aventinus. Aventinus supposes that both towns were bishop residences. In the conclusion, Bel states that the Principality of Nitra was subsequently affiliated with Moravia and it is necessary to consider the Principality of Nitra as the oldest one in this region and time period. The second paragraph begins with an explanation of how the Principality of Nitra became a part of Great Moravia, where the history of the Principality of Nitra was consequently closely interconnected with the Church history of Moravians. He describes the dispute, allegedly initiated by the Archbishop of Salzburg Liupram or Liutprand. The dispute was over the boundaries of demarcation of the individual dioceses. Bel probably referred to the situation that occurred when Nitra fell under the influence of Passau leading to the disapproval of Salzburg Bishops. I find a short reference to Pribina (Brynno), whom the author calls the Prince of Moravians (regulus Moravorum). Bel probably derived this information from the aforementioned Aventinus, who called Pribina “Brinno” (Brynno by Bel) in his work Annales Boiorum (Annals of Bavaria), despite knowing the term “Privina” from the Conversion.24 This specific fact might indicate the existence of another medieval source used by Aventinus.25 21 Bohuslav Balbín (1621–1688), a Czech literary man and historian, a Jesuit. 22 Compare:  Balbin, Bohuslav. Epitome historica rerum Bohemicarum. Pragae:  Typis Universitatis Carolo-Ferdinandeae, in Collegio Societatis Jesu, ad sanctum Clementem, per Joannem Nicolaum Hampel Factorem, MDCLXXVII, zv. I, hl. III, p. 12. 23 Ján Turmair Aventinus (1477–1535), a Bavorian humanist. 24 Compare: „Rex Boiorum cum copiis contra Bulgares proficiscitur, hostes Pannonia, Boiaria expellit, Rathobodum ducem Orientali limiti dat custodem, Brynnonem, qui et Privina quoque Moravorum regulum, qui trans Danubium in Aquilonari ripa habitabat cum filio Hezilone...” Aventinus, Johannes. Annalium Boiorum libri septem. Excusum Ingolstade per Alexandrum et Samuelem Vveissenhornios fratres Germanos. MDLIIII, p. 387. 25 Kuzmík, Jozef. Slovník starovekých a stredovekých autorov prameňov a knižných skriptorov so slovenskými vzťahmi. Martin 1983, p. 99.

Matthias Bel and Nyitra County

199

We are acquainted with the fact that in 828 the Archbishop of Salzburg Adalram sanctified the first Christian church in our territory for Pribina. The undated reference comes from the manuscript O obrátení Bavorov a Korutáncov na kresťanskú vieru (En. About the Conversion of the Bavarians and the Carantanians). According to Zuzana Lopatková, the sanctification of the church dates back to 828, because in this year Adalram probably went on quest to Pannonian Basin. She believes that there is one more supportive argument for this year. In the first half of 829, there was a more accurate demarcation of dioceses within the church province in Salzburg. The territory north of the Danube including Nitra belonged to the area of interest of the Bishopric of Passau.26 Bel did not further discuss this issue, and he continued with the arrival of St. Cyril and Methodius in our territory. Bel called them fratres divini (God’s brothers). He did not focus on such facts as who asked Pope Nicholas I, what he was asked for or if the request was approved; he did not even mention Emperor Michael III and further circumstances of the arrival of the Solun brothers. He assessed their mission in Great Moravia positively. According to him Cyril and Methodius had such a huge success that the efforts and endeavors of the Bishops from Passau and Salzburg paled in comparison. Referring to the works of Baronius,27 Lazius, Kromer,28 Gewold,29 Hund and Hansitz,30 Bel claims that the Moravian Bishoprics were administered by the Archbishop of Velehrad. Moreover, Bel adds that the Diocese of Nitra was raised by state and church law. Richard Marsina, in his study, states that the legends of the alleged bishopric in the 4th century during the reign of the German (Quadi) Queen Frigitil, as well as the information on Alcuin the Bishop of Nitra, who was allegedly based in Nitra during the time of the Pope Eugene II, (824–827) are disputable. The first bishop of Nitra, documented by proven documents, was Wiching.31 According to Marsina, there was a church congregation (church community) and a more prominent church in Nitra at that time, which became a cathedral church for the

26 Lopatková, Cirkevné dejiny, p. 9. 27 Caesar Baronius (1538–1607), taliansky kardinál a cirkevný historik. Bel refers to his work Annales ecclesiastica. 28 Martin Cromer (1512–1589), a Polish bishop, a cartographer and a historian. Bel refers to his work De origine et rebvs gestis Polonorvm libri XXX. 29 Christophorus Gewoldus (1556–1621), a German historian. 30 Marcus Hansitz (1683–1766), a historian and a Jesuit. Bel refers to his work Germania Sacra. 31 Marsina, Richard. Nitrianske biskupstvo a jeho biskupi od 9. do polovice 13. storočia. In Historický časopis, vol. 41, 1993, no. 5–6, p. 530.

200

Katarína Rácová

newly established bishopric after Wiching was appointed the Bishop. According to Marsina, it may further be stated that this church was the residence of an archpriest earlier, before 880. An archpriest was a priest who was at the head of a lower church organizational structure delegated by the Salzburg or Passau Bishop from 873 and with approval of the apostolic delegate and the missionary Archbishop Methodius.32 Bel added that neither Bavarian bishops nor other German ones could peacefully tolerate the fortune and fame of new bishops, and so many of them made a complaint directly to the Pope. Bel mentions a letter by Hath Mohučský that is nowadays considered to be a counterfeit by many researchers.33 The archbishop of Mainz (891–913) informed the Pope in a letter regarding the complaints of Bavarian Bishops about the Moravians, who boasted about having their own Archbishop, and he asks the Pope to tame their arrogance. At the same time, he mentioned a complaint by Salzburg Archbishop Theotmar, where his suffragan bishops and Bavarian clergy and folks made a complaint to Pope John IX that in the country of the Moravians, belonging to the Passau Bishopric, three bishops had been appointed with the Pope’s approval, but without their knowledge.34 Bel does not find these complaints to the Pope reasonable, but he believes that these complaints against very pious Bishops would not lead to success, they even made the rights of the Bishops stronger. When defending the Solun brothers, Bel refers to the Bishop Wiching, whom Pope John VIII ordered to be subordinated to the Moravian Archbishop Methodius.35 Bel referred to the bull “Industriae tuae” and its most significant introduction where the Pope accepts Svatopluk, his lords and folks under the patronage of Saint Peter the Holy See, and he recommends Methodius to Svatopluk and informs Svatopluk that he ordained Wiching the Bishop of Nitra, which is definitely a proof that Nitra was the second most important church and political center at that time.36 Bel takes a neutral stance regarding Wiching, as the head of the Bishopric he acted unimpeachable sine querela praefuit). In the fourth paragraph, Bel reflects on the possibility of a renewal of the Diocese of Nitra by Stephen I. He says that there are those who deny it happened, 32 Ibidem, p. 530. 33 Compare: Marsina, Richard et al. Pramene k dejinám Slovenska a Slovákov II. Bratislava 1999, p. 70–72. 34 Ibidem, p. 65–69. 35 Marsina, Richard. Codex diplomaticus et epistolaris Slovaciae. Tomus 1. Inde ab anno DCCCV usque ad annum MCCXXXV. Bratislava 1971, p. 24, no. 30. 36 Marsina, Pramene k dejinám, p. 52–54.

Matthias Bel and Nyitra County

201

thanks to Saint Stephan. I am not interested in this matter why would I. However, I would not deny it. In his reflections, he further refers to a quotation of Hungarian laws associated with Géza II (1130–1162). He mentions Eduard as the first Bishop of the reestablished Bishopric of Nitra.37 He goes on with his reflections stating that despite the fact that St. Stephan reestablished the Bishopric and, granted it many revenues, but as far as he was fair, he tried to do the same with other bishoprics, so final renewal of the Bishopric was completed by Géza II. Bishop Eduard was mentioned 20 years later in authentic documents. The first bishop known by his name in the reestablished Bishopric of Nitra was Bishop Gervasius. He is mentioned in an undated record that judged the dispute over a property somewhere near the River Váh between the Pannonhalma Archabbey and the district administrator Moses, whose intention was to obtain this property.38 According to Richard Marsina, the entire extent of Gervasius’s pontificate is not known but based on submitted documents when he became the Bishop of Nitra before 1115.39 Referring to the aforementioned, the renewal of the Bishopric most probably happened during the reign of Coloman (1095–1116). Subsequently, Bel returns to Stephan I, who, as he assumes, established a monastery for the Order of Saint Benedict led by Abbot Philip on Zobor. Regarding this fact, Bel refers to the Scholar citizens of Trnava City. Here he offers readers the following reflection I dare you would not think that in the neighboring hills he had the monastery built not bearing the old monastery in his mind. Bel does not have any doubts as to Stephan not being aware of the fact that Nitra used to be the domicile of the Bishopric though he is surrounded by scholarly and wise men. Here Bel refers to the establishment of a temple sanctified to St. Emmeram. Stephen I actually presented the Benedictines with tithes from all the monastic properties in the country. As Oslanský states, most information on the existence and the activity of the monastery may be found in written sources from the 11th to the 15th centuries. He believes that the Christianization tendencies in our territory had started earlier. The chronicler Kosmas (the end of the 12th century) recorded in the Chronicle of the Czechs that Svatopluk secluded himself on Zobor Hill where hermits, with his support, built a monastery a long time ago. Earlier the oldest Hungarian legend was created Život svätých pustovníkov Svorada vyznávača a  Benedikta mučeníka, spísaná blahoslaveným Maurom, biskupom päťkostolským (The Maurus Legend). The Legend mentions the first 37 According to Marsina, the bishop of Nitra Eduard is mentioned in six documents from 1183 to 1198. Compare: Marsina, Nitrianske biskupstvo, p. 537. 38 Ibidem, p. 536. 39 Ibidem, p. 537.

202

Katarína Rácová

well-known abbot Philip. A man called Svorad, who had supposedly come from Poland, got monastic clothing from Abbot Philip from a monastery called Zobor (monasterium Zobor nominatum).40 Most probably he derived this information from the aforementioned narrative sources. It might be said that Bel looks for reasons that would serve as proof that Stephen really became the renewer of the Bishopric in Nitra. It has been proved that around 1000, Hungarian Church organizations were formed but there was no Bishopric reestablished in Nitra. Marsina does not exclude the notion that, at the end of the 10th century, there was a Collegiate Chapter established, to which Stephen I granted revenues and properties. He believes that at the time of the marriage solemnization with Gizela, Stephen was probably a duke of an appanage based in Nitra.41 In this context, it was understandable to establish a cult to the Regensburg saint – St. Emmeram based on the fact that Gizela came from this city. Other evidence offered by Bel that the Diocese of Nitra was reestablished by Stephen I  is a citation of works by Bonfini42 and Inchofer.43 The citation is meant to serve as factual proof that during the uprising that broke out during the reign of King Andrew I  (1046–1060), Bystrík (Besztertus or Besztertius)  – the Archbishop of Nitra was killed. It results in Bel being convinced that the Bishopric had already existed at that time. In the end of the paragraph, he is more careful with his statements and readers might get the feeling that he himself has doubts about the renewal of the Bishopric in Nitra. The conclusion is formed as follows: first foundations of the Bishopric in Nitra were laid by St. Stephen and its renewal was finished by Gejza II. It is necessary to keep in mind that Matthias Bel did not work on Vedomosti (Knowledge) alone, so he should not be blamed for all the discrepancies. It was not possible to verify all the facts. Moreover, his work gives us the opportunity to understand the conditions of historiography in the 18thcentury. My objective is to analyze his view on the history of the city of Nitra and not to confront it as a source with the findings of modern science.

40 Oslanský, František. Zoborský benediktínsky kláštor a jeho zánik. In Marsina, Richard (ed.). Nitra v slovenských dejinách. Martin 2002, p. 212–219. 41 Marsina, Nitrianske biskupstvo, p. 534. 42 Marcus Antonius Bonfini Asculanus (1427–1503), a royal historiographer and a scholar. Bel refers to his work Rerum Ungaricarum decades quatuor. 43 Melchior Inchofer (1584–1648), a Jesuit and a historian. Bel refers to his work Annales ecclesiastici Regni Hungariae.

Matthias Bel and Nyitra County

203

In the fifth paragraph, Bel names the bishops of Nitra. It is not justified to expect from this Katalóg nitrianskych biskupov (Catalog of the Bishops of Nitra), as he named it, a scientific and informatively overloaded text. He does not list all the bishops; some of them are mentioned with their functions, some are only mentioned in connection with the period, when they were bishops of Nitra. Bel names 54 bishops. As I mentioned before, he started with a Bishop Eduard, who is followed by Bishop John I dating back to 1205. Actually, it is Bishop John II (1204–1210). The next one is Vincent I, and he claims that he is mentioned in a document dating back to 1222 by Andrew I.44 The successor of John II in the position of Nitra Bishop was Bishop Jacob mentioned in documents dating back to 1213–1239.45 This Bishop was also mentioned by Bel, but only after Vincent and in this connection Bel mentioned that with the approval of Ondrej Jeruzalemský46 he established the Abbey on the rocks nowadays called Skalka.47 The first authentically documented Bishop after the Mongol Invasion is Bishop Adam also mentioned by Bel. He is presented in authentic documents from 1242–1252.48 Bel assumes that in 1242 he was killed by the Mongolians, who were devastating the Kingdom of Hungary. His statements are supported with a citation of Rogerius,49 who mentions the killed bishops, as well as the Bishop of the Bishopric in Nitra, who lived a praiseworthy life. Bel himself is aware that the name Adam was not said by Rogerius but it must be him. Bel is not right concerning his statement, because Rogerius meant Bishop Jacob, who was killed by the Mongolians probably in April 1241.50 Adam’s successor was Nicholas II who was at the Bishop’s seat for a short period of time in 1252–1255.51 Bel names him as Nicholas I and 44 Stránsky refers to Wurum’s argumentation as doubts about Vincent being a bishop of Nitra. Compare: Stránsky, Albert. Dejiny biskupstva Nitrianskeho od najstarších dôb až do konca stredoveku. Trnava 1933, p. 133. Wurum, Jozef. Episcopatus Nitriensis eiusque praesulum memoria. Posonii: typis Heredum Belnay 1835, p. 164. 45 Marsina, Nitrianske biskupstvo, p. 539. 46 Ondrej II. (1205–1235), uhorský kráľ. 47 Marsina, Richard. Benediktínske opátstvo Skalka (Skala). In Skalka pri Trenčíne. Miesto legend a pútí. Zborník z vlastivedného seminára 23.5.1996. Trenčín 1997, p. 94–101. 48 Marsina, Nitrianske biskupstvo, p. 540. 49 Rogerius Spalatensis (?–1266), an Italian scholar who came to the Kingdom of Hungary accompanied by the Pope’s delegate J. Pecorani. During the Mongolian invasion, he was held in captivity. He is the author of a rhymed prose in Latin Carmen miserabile super destructione regni Hungariae temporibus Belae IV. per Tartaros facta. Compare: Kuzmík, slovník starovekých, p. 284. 50 Marsina, Nitrianske biskupstvo, p. 540. 51 Marsina, Nitrianske biskupstvo, p. 540.

204

Katarína Rácová

according to him he is mentioned in a document from Béla IV from 1256 that was addressed to Andrej Forgáč. As Bel supposes, during the reign of Béla IV, the Bishop Vincent II should have been active. During the reign of Ladislaus the Cuman, it was the Bishop Peter I, who was alive earlier in 1280. Dating back to 1296, Bel mentions Bishop Paschasius. Although we would expect it in this part, Bel did not mention a document from 1288 at all, by which King Ladislaus IV) donated a castle with the town Nitra to the Bishop.52 As from the beginning of the 14th century up until his time, Bel names the following bishops:  Ján II, Benedikt, Ján III, Meško, Vít I, Štefan I, Ladislav I, Dominik I, Vít II, Michal I, Peter II, Hinco, Juraj I, Dionýz, Mikuláš II, Tomáš I., Gregor II, Gregor III, Anton, Mikuláš III, Štefan II, Žigmund Turzo, Štefan III Podmanický, Valentín Török, Alexej Turzo, František I Turzo, Pavol Bornemisza, Zachariáš Mošóci, Štefan IV Fejerkövy, Štefan V Jerzeviczi, František II Forgáč, Demeter Neporadzký, Valentín Lépeš, Ján IV Telegdy, Ján V Püsky, Juraj IV Selepčéni, Leopold Kolonič, Tomáš II Pálfi, Ján VI Gubašóci, Peter III Korompaj, Jakub II Haško, Blažej Jáklin, Ladislav II Maťašovský, Ladislav Adam II and Ján VII. As Bel assumes, Ernest Harrach became a bishop in 1737. When listing bishops, Bel was very concise. Beginning with the 14th century, he focuses on John III in more details. (Bel names him as Ján II). He comprehensively cites the codex of Hungarian law that mentions the devastation of the town of Nitra by Matúš Čák Trenčiansky (En. Matthew III Csák).53 According to Bel, John’s attitude in this matter showed his loyalty to King Charles I leading to his punishment for sacrilege by Matthew III Csák, when he robbed the cathedral of Nitra and the tomb of St. Zorard made of pure silver (...fidem suam probavit Caroli I...; ...universam eius ditionem sacrilegium animadverterat...; ...Nitriensem ecclesiam, sepulchrum divi Zoerardi, ex puro argento optime factum spoliavit...). As Brezáková states there is a document from the summer of 1311 that mentions the attacks on churches in Esztergom, Vacov, Veszprém and Nitra. She states that

52 Fojtík, Juraj. Nitra v  období feudalizmu (1526–1848). In Fojtík, Juraj et  al. Nitra. Bratislava 1997, p. 41. 53 „Nitriensem Ecclesiam, sepulchrum Divi Zoerardi, ex puro argento optime factum, spoliavit, et depeculatus est: Civitatem ipsam Episcopi, igne, ferroque, primo assultu vastavit. Hinc digrediens Sintavia, et Tyrnavia capta, reversus Nittriam, turres, et moenia, tegi a conflagratione ausa, ad solum usque decussit, diruit: Joanni Episcopo indignatus, propter servatam Carolo fidem, et execrationem; censuramque Ecclesiasticam, qua digne in eum, ob patratum in Ecclesiam, et Civitatem suam, adeoque universam ejus ditionem sacrilegium, animadverterat.” Corpus Juris Hungarici. Tyrnaviae: Typis Academicis Societatis Jesu MDCCLI, zv. I, Caroli I. Regis Decretum, p. 159.

Matthias Bel and Nyitra County

205

the document does not refer to the devastation of the city. In March 1318, John III issued the second excommunication document, which in details describes the unrighteousness done by Matthew III Csák in Nitra. With regard to the above-mentioned facts, Brezáková believes that these particular attacks must have happened sometime between 1311 and 1318.54 As I mentioned before, Bel records this event based on the citation of the codex of Hungarian law and his intention was not, as it is his common practice, to place this event into a particular time period. Regarding Bishop Vít, who was the bishop of Nitra during the first half of the 14th century, in connection with his activity performed in favor of Louis I, he refers to the works of Bonfini55 and Ján from Turca.56 In this particular paragraph, while naming the bishops, Bel refers to various sources. Again, it is necessary to mention Bonfini, Istvánffy57 and Szentiványi.58 In a more comprehensive way, Bel focuses on Bishop Anton, whom he finds a famous man thanks to his deeds and messages he performed and, who became a Bishop after being a provost in Bratislava (vir rebus gestis et legationibus, quas obiit clarus, ex paeposito Posoniensi Nitriensium episcopus). More than as a diplomat in the service of Matthias Corvinus, Bel mentions him in connection with Vladislaus II of Hungary. He mentions in details the journey of Anton from Šenkovce to Rome to see Pope Alexander VI and to Naples to see King Ferdinand I  of the Two Sicilies with the aim of voiding the marriage of King Vladislaus with the infertile Beatrix. Beatrix asked Neapol for help and shortly after she received a message requesting an explanation of this particular situation. During this time period, Anton was not only a provost in Bratislava, but the Bishop of Nitra as well.59 54 Brezováková, Blanka. Nitra a Matúš Čák. In Marsina, Nitra v slovenských, p. 220–225. 55 Antonius Bonfini (1427–1503), an Italian humanist. Bel refers to his work Rerum Ungaricum decades quatuor (Štyri dekády uhorských dejín, En:  Four Decades of Hungarian History), written on behalf of Matthias Corvinus. 56 Johannes de Thurocz 1435–1488/1490), a Hungarian chronicler. Bel cites his work Chronica Hungarorum (Uhorská kronika; En: Chronicle of the Hungarians). 57 Istvánffy, Nicolaus. De rebus Ungaricis libri XXXIV. Coloniae: Sumptibus Antonii Hierati 1622. 58 Martin Szentiványi (1633–1705), a Hungarian polymath, a professor at the University of Trnava. Bel refers to his work regarding the various names of bishops Dissertatio paralipomenonica rerum memorabilium Hungariae. 59 Hlavačková, Miriam. Diplomat v službách uhorských Krnov. Pôsobenie nitrianskeho biskupa Antona zo Šankoviec na sklonku stredoveku. In Historický časopis, vol. 58, 2010, no. 1, p. 14–35.

206

Katarína Rácová

Bel more carefully focused on the post-Mohács period in Nitra. He briefly mentioned Stephen Podmanitzky, even though he passed away in 1530, where Bel referred to Szentiványi, but he added that there are those who deny (Szentiványi... dicit anno MDXXX fato functum, aliqui perhibent.). Podmanitzky was a Bishop and an Administrator for Nyitra County between 1512 and 1530.60 Bel speaks about a 10-year sede vacante in the Bishop’s seat. He added that the lord of that holy dominion was Valentín Török61 (potiebaturque sacra ista ditione Valentinus Török). According to Bel, when Ferdinand I strengthened his power in the Kingdom of Hungary by war and peace, he firstly expelled Valentin from his position and subsequently he gave the entire castle with its lordship to his minion Alexej Thurzó (Ferdinandus I.  postea ubi dominationem suam et bello et pace in Hungaria constabilivisset, arcem cum ditione universa excusso prius ex eius possessione Valentino, Alexio Thurzoni pignori oposuit...). This particular event happened in 1534, so it is not possible to speak about a 10-year sede vacante. The manor house became the property of the Thurzó Family in 1534, and the Bishop’s stool was occupied by Ferdinand Thurzó. Bel stated that Ferdinand died in 1579, after he left the Bishopric (anno MDLXXIX pridem episcopatu vivere desiit), but he does not mention the fact that he got married and became an Evangelist. He claims that it is hardly possible to conceal that his castle, the Bishopric of Nitra and the entire manor house were in debt (silendum haud est, habuisse in pignore arcem et episcopatus Nitriensis ditionem omnem...). In the conclusion, he stated that you can easily suspect that the one mentioned above only harmed the Bishopric (cuius nunc meminimus, quam fuerit episcopatui damnosum, ex facili possis opinari). The last widely mentioned bishop by Bel was František II Forgáč (orig. Ferenc II Forgach). Bel characterizes him as a church dignitary with excellent traits (magnarum virtutum praesul). He mentions that later he became the Archbishop of Esztergom and a cardinal, who mainly quoted the passages from Vedomosti Novohradskej stolice (En. The Knowledge of Nográd County). The sixth paragraph is devoted to the history of the cathedral. Bel claims that the cathedral temple was established by Gizela, the wife of St. Stephen, and it is sanctified to St. Emmeram. A bishop’s palace was built in the west part of the cathedral. Regarding this fact, Bel speaks about the devastating fights with the Turks and civil wars that left the building damaged, so Bishop Ladislaus had it rebuilt. He repeatedly refers to the plundering of Matthew III Csák, but he states

60 Baďurík, Jozef. Nitriansky biskup Štefan Podmanický a jeho miesto v pomoháčskych dejinách. In Marsina, Nitra v slovenských, p. 232–236. 61 Valentín Török (1504?–1550), a follower of John Zápolya later of Ferdinand I.

Matthias Bel and Nyitra County

207

that he had already focused on these matters above. In the following passages, he speaks about Svorad and calls him a man of rare modesty and virgin manners. He claims that Benedikt had a Dalmatian origin but he was wrong because Benedikt probably came from Nitra or its adjacent surroundings.62 He adds that Benedikt was killed and thrown into the River Váh by robbers. They were looking for him in vain for the whole year until the river washed his remains up to the bank.63 I suppose that Bel found this information in The Maurus Legend. The seventh paragraph deals with canons and their domiciles. Bel states that the Bishop of Nitra had a congregation of 12 canons. The canons were given high revenues from church properties and a very comfortable living. Their domiciles were located in the south part of the hill where the castle is located. In connection with this fact, Bel cites Učení Trnavčania (Eruditi Tyrnavienses, En. The scholar Residents of Trnava City), who situated the seat of the canons in the same place as Bel. In the introduction of the eighth paragraph, Bel says that we have been dealing with the Bishopric so far, and now it will be beneficial to speak about the destiny and power of the castle. Bel himself claims that the castle is older than the kings of the Kingdom of Hungary. According to Bel, the castle’s strengths are its lucrative location on the hill and its massive defensive walls. His statements are supported with a citation from František Wagner (En. Franz Wagner),64 and in particular his work Historia Leopoldi Magni Caesaris Augusti. He describes Nitra as a very picturesque city located on a slightly rising hill. The castle together with its temple and Collegium of the Canons occupies its peak. ThNitra River, named after the city, flows around the caste hill like an island. Regarding the defensive walls, Bel assumes that during the Great Moravia period it was sufficient to fortify the castle fortified with a simple defensive wall. Further fortifications were gradually added to the castle as it was necessary to protect the castle during the fights with the Turks, who brought chaos to the history of Hungary. Bel devotes the following paragraphs (§IX, §X, §XI) to the history of the castle in the background of Hungarian history. It begins with the period of the reign of St. Stephen and finishes with events from the beginning of the 18th century. He believes that the first reference to the castle happened during the reign of St. Stephen, which is somehow contradictory to the aforementioned lines where 62 Marsina, Richard. Legendy stredovekého Slovenska. Budmerice 1997, p. 35. 63 Ibidem, p. 41–43. 64 František Wagner (1675–1748), a historian, a philologist, a teacher and a member of the Society of Jesus.

208

Katarína Rácová

Bel refers to castle fortifications during the Great Moravia period. Supposedly Štefan imprisoned Vazul to suppress his juvenile foolishness of a dissolute age and make him suitable for ruling. Undoubtedly it happened with the best intentions of a very pious king, but with a different result than he expected. Further I cite the chronicler Ján z Turca (En. Johannes de Thurocz).65 Bel believes that after the death of Stephen´s son Imrich, Stephen thought of Vazul as a possible successor. Ján z Turca (En. Johannes de Thurocz) says that Queen Gizela sent a messenger called Šebeš, a Buda’s son, to the prison where Vazul was being detained. Šebeš overtook the king’s messenger, poked Vazul’s eyes out while his ear holes filled with lead, and then escaped to Bohemia.66 Based on this event, Matthias Bel assumes that the castle was a suitable place for guarding prisoners who had royal blood. In connection with Gizela, he mentions that the church formerly established by her and sanctified for St. Emmeram was awfully blotted by this act. In regard to the fact that Bel mostly worked with chronicles and sources glorifying the Hungarian rulers and this work was compiled with the blessing of the Holy Roman Emperor Charles VI, his understanding of history reflects this particular period. The author continues in his description with the history of the 11th century, especially the period of the reign of Gejza and Solomon. Bel relatively comprehensively cites Bonfini regarding the exact event when Emperor Henry IV, in a dispute over the Hungarian throne, joined Solomon’s party, the son of the Hungarian king Andrew I  against Prince Gejza with his seat in Nitra. When they reached the Vah River and set up camp, Emperor Henry IV consulted with the commanders of cavalry as to which town was the easiest target for their conquest. First they decided to conquer Nitra because of its location near the camp. Solomon received two troops with a proper cavalry to conquer Nitra. Together with these troops they left Šintava forming an array and they invaded Nitra. Burgenses, relying on their courage, bravely out-lasted the enemy. In the tenth paragraph, Bel refers to the 15th century because I find nothing related to the Nitra Castle, nothing recorded till the period of Matthias Corvinus. Bel again refers to Bonfini. As he states in the subtitle of the paragraph, for Polish Kazimír (En. Casimir) Nitra Castle became both a refuge and a trap. Bel actually records the period of fights for the Hungarian royal throne. Earlier before he 65 Ján z Turca (En. Johannes de Thurocz), (1435–1488), a Hungarian chronicler, especially known as an author of Uhorskej kroniky (Chronica Hungarorum; En. Chronicle of the Hungarians). 66 Sopko, Július. Kroniky stredovekého Slovenska. Budmerice 1995, p. 34–35.

Matthias Bel and Nyitra County

209

stated that almost the entire Kingdom of Hungary had banded against Matthias. He indicated the conspiracy revealed at its beginning hatched by the Archbishop of Esztergom Ján Vitéz zo Sredny (En. John Vitéz), but as he himself stated that it is not the area of our interest to seek the causes of this matter. By mutual support of those who escaped from the King, Kazimír (En. Casimir), son of the Polish King called Kazimír (En. Casimir) was elected King. Kazimír came to Nitra. Because he announced himself to be the real King of the Kingdom of Hungary the city unexpectedly accepted him. He set up a camp in front of the defensive walls. As Bel states Kazimír (En. Casimir) gradually lost his support of the Hungarians and when Matthias noticed that the Hungarians were renewing their loyalty, his courage grew, he rushed to Nitra and surrounded Kazimír (En. Casimir) in the city….. When Kazimír (En. Casimir) realized that there was not a single piece of hope for his reign nor the kingdom itself, he agreed with Matthias (En. Matthew) through their messengers to being granted safe passage with the promise not to invade the Kingdom of Hungary with deadly weapons. In the conclusion of the paragraph based on a quotation from Cromer, Bel records the departure of the Polish from Hungarian territory. That history was further away from our period. Using these words, the author begins the eleventh paragraph where he mostly records the event regarding the Anti-Habsburg Uprisings. The description starts with talking about the PostMohács period. Bel comes to the conclusion that Nitra was occupied by Zápoľský (E. Zápolya) because Ján entrusted Valentín Török to use the bishopric who is a man secular and experienced in the military. Later when peace was made and Nitra had been returned to Ferdinand, he donated it together with the entire manor of the Bishopric to Alexej Turzo. Bel mentions these events in more details in the paragraph devoted to the bishops of Nitra. When formulating these facts, he refers to a work by Mikuláš Istvánffy Historiarum de Rebus Ungaricis Libri XXXIV. Part of the eleventh paragraph is a fragmentary discourse on the history of Nitra when Bočkaj (En. Stephen Bocskai) brought chaos to the situation in the Kingdom of Hungary. In that period the Bishop’s stool was occupied by František Forgáč (Ferenc Forgách) a man of exceptional loyalty to the Emperor. Bel describes the surrounding of the city by the military troops of František Rédei.67 Bel himself considered his followers not to be used to weapons and military, but rather robberies. As he assumes Forgáč (Forgách) asked Kolonič (En. Kolonits), the commander of Komárno, for help. Forgáč (Forgách) was incapable of defeating the castle and was forced to flee to Győr and later to Vienna.

67 František Rédei (died in 1621), a military and a provincial dignitary.

210

Katarína Rácová

Quoting František Kazy:  the same was the destiny of the castle during the Bethlen war Bel starts the passage about the devastation of Nitra by Bethlen’s troops.68 Ján Telgdy (János Telegdy) the Bishop of that city was defending himself with a few Hungarians and Germans on behalf of the Emperor and resisted a persistent siege for a long time. In the end, incapable of resisting the ferocity, he retreated unwillingly, transferred the castle to Bethlen and fled to Vienna... When Bethlen devasted the castle and took the yield, he went back to Trnava. According to Bel, the year 1663 was a very difficult time period for Nitra, as it was when the Ottomans conquered Nové Zámky. He quite comprehensively records the events based on quotations from Wegner’s work. In the very conclusion of the eleventh paragraph, he deals with the uprising of František II Rákoci II, (En. Francis II Rákóczi) in particular with his defeat at the Battle of Trenčín (1708), which was according to him “a recent uprising”. The twelfth and final paragraph of the section about the castle and the city of Nitra Matthias Bel dedicates to other ornaments of the city (reliqua loci decora). He meant the Zobor hill with the monastery of St. Benedict, the city itself, some of its streets (Párovská street), collegium, Piarist grammar school and their dormitory for nobles. My aim was to analyze Bel’s reflections on the history of the castle and the city of Nitra. Based on the analysis of the sources he used, I suppose that these particular passages were construed from excerpts. From my view, the more interesting passages seem to be the ones from the general part, in particular the passages from the natural part that describe the contemporary natural situation and its usage from an economic point of view and, last but not least, the situation in the country itself. Right here Bel probably followed the completed questionnaires received from his students and informants, who came from or lived in the given place. Matthias Bel’s knowledge is not only a source for understanding the history of individual regions, but it also serves as a source for other scientific fields. It is unquestionably of significant importance for the study of the population of Slovakia, the ethnicity of our country, and social-economical elements in the first third of the 18th century. The part Vedomosti (En. The Knowledge) is of an ethnographic nature, and Bel focuses here on the occupations of the population, their confessions, everyday customs, etc.

68 František Kazy (1695–1760), a Jesuit historian and a professor. The author of various historical and religious works, e.g. Historia regni Hungariae (1737).

Matthias Bel and Nyitra County

211

This part Vedomosti (Knowledge) is not merely just a source of information. His illustrations, typographic ornaments and maps are, according to many historians, considered rich material of a cultural-historical nature.69 It is indisputable that the importance of the Vedomosti (Knowledge) goes beyond the limits of historical research. For scientists this work is an infinite source of knowledge useful for other scientific fields as well.   The chapter was created at the Department of History, Faculty of Arts, Constantine the Philosopher University in Nitra as part of the project VEGA No. 1/0040/18: “Medieval Historical Roads in the Southwestern Slovakia within the Context of Central European Transport Network and Their Heritage for the Present”.

69 Juríková, Belove Vedomosti vo svetle, p. 16.

212

Katarína Rácová

Picture No. 1: The introductory page of the „Knowledge” of the Nyitra County.

Matthias Bel and Nyitra County

213

Picture No. 2: The title page of the fourth volume of Bel’s „Knowledge” – Notitia Hungariae Novae historico-geographica.

Conclusion By researching the activities of institutions and monitoring of relations and various phenomena of medieval and early modern society, the authors of this monograph have outlined and promoted the lines of the continuing story of Hungarian and Slovak history. The Kingdom of Hungary, established during the 10th–11th century, became a powerful economic unit, gradually finding its name in the community of the countries of contemporary Christian Europe. Unification of the Kingdom of Hungary with more distant countries was enabled by roads. They not only simplified access by enemies and other invaders from further or nearer distances, but also brought in individuals or groups of invited settlers full of hope searching for employment and a new life within the territory of the state, as well as delegates, travelers and other foreigners just passing through the Kingdom of Hungary. The roads enabled communication on the highest levels, the carrying out of diplomatic meetings connected with ceremonies and celebrations and also made various ways of communication, often happening in ritual or symbolic forms, easier. The importance of roads is indisputable regarding trade relations. From the 11th century, the government interest of the Hungarian rulers and the Republic of Venice crossed when trying to control the Dalmatian coast, especially its cities involved in distant trade. (At the beginning of the 15th century, a trade war against Venice was led by the German and Hungarian King Sigismund of Luxemburg, (also interested in the Slovak territory) but in the end the success was celebrated by the Venetians, who were more skillful in trade and business). Exploring the roads through historical documents has a permanent importance, especially when looking for the answers to more and more questions regarding the history of the country, its structure and the development of its colonization, spreading of cultural influences and technical achievements. The product of reality, especially of rural life in the Kingdom of Hungary and Slovakia from the second half of the 15th century, were urbariums. (In Western Europe there were various records especially in Church communities from the 11th century, lists, reports of an economic nature; in the countries of middle Europe, the first urbariums appeared in the 12th–13th century). In this particular period, there were donation lists (with property data, servants) or property records spread throughout the Kingdom of Hungary. They occurred much more

216

Conclusion

frequently in the 16th and 17th century. Urbariums created in that period were more and more detailed (data on the location of a manor-house, characteristics of the residences, municipalities, soil quality, domestic animals, crops cultivated, number of children of commoners, etc.). According to an earlier interpretation, urbariums were mainly perceived as sources documenting the variety of obligations of commoners towards their landowners. Another interpretation understands them as the result of the interest of an owner/owners in their current property status. Although the formal structure of all urbariums was not unified, they were created on purpose, in favor of a landowner. (Therefore, in legal literature they were classified as private urbariums compared to the formal urbariums of Maria Theresa issued on the basis of a patent from January 23, 1723.) Recently, urbariums are analyzed not only from the point of view of economic history, but also from the perspective of the history of a settlement or administration. At the same time, urbariums are used as sources by linguists, ethnologists, researchers of cultural and historical anthropology, and the history of climate and genealogy. Another environment in the Middle Ages and Early Modern Period was represented by the microcosm of free royal towns. Their beginnings are related to the establishment of privileged towns in the Kingdom of Hungary and in Slovakia in the 13th century, when they were supposed to serve as support for a ruler experiencing political struggles with the nobility. The middle and petty nobility were also trying to gain positions. A sign of change was that counties, organizational and administrative units in the Kingdom, were starting to gradually change into noble counties influenced by local middle or petty nobility. In 1351, King Louis I of Hungary issued a decree specifying the status of towns in Hungary and Slovakia. The first and the highest category included a fortified urban manor-house. When fighting against the nobility, King Sigismund of Luxemburg tried to gain the support of the towns by using the Decree of 1405 to establish “royal urban status”. The change in the division of powers in the country led him to an agreement with the nobility. However, he then began solving financial issues of his foreign policy at the expense of the towns. The result of this procedure was that many royal towns changed their owner and became towns of territorial lords. The towns constituting “royal town status” gradually became marked as free royal towns. There were three types of the aforementioned towns: tavernical, towns of a chief justice and free royal mining towns. Although the number of free royal towns from the beginning of the 16th century (8 tavernical, 3 towns of chief justice) was gradually increased (at the beginning of the 19th century, there were 24 tavernical and 14 towns of chief justice in the Kingdom of Hungary) their development was not smooth. They

Conclusion

217

were surrounded by a not so generous nobility constantly trying to achieve dominance. To withstand the pressure of this environment and keep their status, they tried to unite their power and procedure with the help of tavernical law. Its principles and regulations in the second half of the 15th century were written down in 14 articles and later amended and approved by the ruler in 1602. Regarding the fight between tavernical cities and the nobility, it was a complex and never-ending story where the ruler’s decision was many times influenced by contemporary interests as well as by the actual possibilities of his own policy. Life in free royal towns was controlled by statutes coming from city privileges, which is proven in a document from Trnava from 1604, which was mentioned by the author of the third chapter. Development of city law, that became a part of the legal system in the Kingdom of Hungary and Slovakia from the 13th century, had great importance in building the status of the cities. In the 16th century, Hungarian society found itself in a critical situation due to many reasons. When defining the causes, at first it is necessary to mention the impact of the disastrous defeat of the Hungarian troops at the Battle of Mohács on August 29, 1526, when, together with the King and the highest commander, many prominent secular and church dignitaries lost their lives. Even though the victorious troops of Suleiman the Magnificent plundered the country on their way to Buda, which they then temporarily occupied, he ultimately left the Hungarian territory. However, in the wake of his departure the country was divided by the struggle of two aspirants for the throne and later by crowned rulers. The Catholic Church began noticing the problems, especially since the absence of a solution to the crisis situation affected its activities among worshipers and the growth of Reformation followers in the Hungarian territory. A  program of reformation, similar as in other countries, where new forms of a Christian faith had spread, became the regulations of the Council of Trent. Catholic synods in the Kingdom of Hungary in the 16th and 17th centuries were a means of implementing the plan of this Council under the specific conditions of a constant Ottoman threat. The Ottoman threat during the early Modern Period did not present a burden for the activity of the Catholic Church and Church life in Spiš, in a historical region of present-day Slovakia and the contemporary Kingdom of Hungary. The undisputed center of the mentioned activity was the Spiš Chapter. Earlier during the Middle Ages, it was one of the prominent Church institutions. In the early Modern Period, in the 17th and 18th century, based on the incentive of the Archbishops of Esztergom, there were more canonic visitations in order to register the overall actual condition of the particular institution. Such an approach was separately demonstrated in two visitations:  in the visitation of Pazmáň

218

Conclusion

(1629) and Barkóci (1763), both of which were relatively complex. Two other visitations – by Žigraj (orig. Sigrai) (1700) and Čaky (1752) were less comprehensive. The interesting facts of the first known visitation by Peter Pazmáň are the attached statutes defining and amending the Chapter’s activity. They are the oldest deposited normative documents of this kind in the Chapter and therefore they serve as a source of the internal history of the institution in modern history up until its transformation into a Cathedral Chapter. This happened after the promotion of the Spiš Priory to a Bishopric in 1776. Canonic visitations and Chapter statutes belong to the most significant sources of knowledge not only of the history of the Spiš Chapter, but Church history itself. The beginning of the counter-Reformation, confessional disputes, reprisals, hassles, religious wars and attempts at peaceful solutions, political decisions disguised in religious dressing or without it, in the name of power  – were only some of the phenomena accompanying this historical time in Europe in the 16th and 17th century. The Kingdom of Hungary was not spared in the effects of this development nor did the territory of Slovakia escape these dramatic situations. Religious contrasts characterized the relation between the Catholic state power of the Habsburg and the Protestants in the Kingdom of Hungary during this period. A certain solution was offered by the statutes adopted in Sopron in 1681. This event influenced the detailed interpretation of the history of the Gemer Seniorate as observed later from 1792. The history of this particular formation is a review of the past whose ordinary days were affected by effort of the adherents of various confessions to achieve a coexistence in the conditions of a culminating preference or non-preference of a state power. The research of the works of Matthias Bel is a kind of summary of the history recounted in previous chapters and also a passage into the 18th century. In his part Vedomosti (Knowledge) (Notitia Hungariae Novae historico-geographica), this native of Očová approaches the past of Slovakia and the Kingdom of Hungary through the research of some counties. At the same time, he describes the natural conditions and their economic use throughout history. This particular work is also interesting due to the fact that, when compiling this work, Bel used the works of his students and informants visiting individual parts of Slovakia and filling in questionnaires. These records are the object of interest of many researchers from various scientific fields. As sources they may serve as a base for the research of the population in Slovakia, its ethnicity, confessions of its inhabitants as well as for ethnographic research. Their cultural value is also considerable. The chapter Vedomosti (Knowledge), about Nyitra County, further broadens the entire interpretation of Bel’s work. The native of Očová, passing through centuries while at the same time providing information about his own

Conclusion

219

time period, can be seen as a kind of a finisher of a story connecting the Middle Ages with the Modern Period. He provides us with the opportunity to understand the mysteries of a scholar’s motivation during this relatively enlightened period. The Kingdom of Hungary traveled a long journey of historical development from the demarcating of political, economic and cultural coordinates through the development of road and transport communications in the Middle Ages up to the rationalism of the Century of Enlightenment during the time of Matthias Bel. And many times, the territory of Slovakia was a key site in this story, which has been laid out and told in these seven chapters.

References Medieval Roads and Written Sources Bakács, István. Hont vármegye Mohács előtt. Budapest 1971. Beňko, Ján. Osídlenie severného Slovenska. Košice 1985. Beňko, Ján. Starý Turiec. Martin 1996. Chudý, František – Sadibol, Jozef – Slamová, Martina – Beláček, Boris – Pažinová, Noémi – Beljak, Ján. Identification of Historic Roads in the Forest Landscape by Modern Contactless Methods of Large-scale Mapping. In Informatics, Geoinformatics and Remote Sensing: 14th International Multidisciplinary Scientific Geoconference SGEM 2014. Sofia: SGEM, 2014, p. 183–190. Csendes, Peter. Die Straßen Niederösterreichs im Früh–und Hochmittelalter. Dissertationen der Universität Wien 33. Wien 1969. Denecke, Dietrich. Methodische Untersuchung zur historisch-geographischen Wegeforschung im Raum zwischen Solling und Harz. Göttinger Geographische Abhandlungen 54. Göttingen 1969. Ďurková, Mária. Sídliskové pomery na Vígľašskom panstve do začiatku 16. storočia. In Historický časopis, vol. 41, 1993, no. 1, p. 23–35. Encyklopédia Slovenska. (Encyclopedia of Slovakia) I. zväzok. (I. volume) A-D. Bratislava 1977. Fejér, György (ed.). Codex diplomaticus Hungariae ecclesiasticus I.–XI. Budapest 2004. (PC CD-ROM). Galuška, Luděk. Slované – doteky předků. O životě na Moravě 6 –10. století. Brno 2004. Győrffy, György. Az Árpád-kori Magyarország történeti földrajza I. Budapest 1963. Győrffy, György. Az Árpád-kori Magyarország történeti földrajza II. Budapest 1987. Győrffy, György. Az Árpád-kori Magyarország történeti földrajza III. Budapest 1988. Győrffy, György. Az Árpád-kori Magyarország történeti földrajza IV. Budapest 1998. Halaga, Ondrej Rodmill. Riečna doprava v karpatskej oblasti za feudalizmu. In Slovenský národopis, vol. 20, 1972, no. 4, p. 557–571. Halaga, Ondrej Rodmil. Košice – Balt: Výroba a obchod v styku východoslovenských miest s Pruskom (1275 – 1526). Košice 1975.

222

References

Havlíková, Lubomíra. Geograficko-správní staroslověnská terminologie v právních památkách 9. století a její řecké (byzantské) a latinské paralely. In Synergie, vol. 5, 2009, no. 1, p. 109–119. Haubrichs, Wolfgang. Die volkssprachlichen Bezeichnungen für alte Fernwege im Deutschen, vorwiegend nach westmitteldeutschen Quellen dargestellt. In Burgard, Friedhelm – Haverkamp, Alfred (ed.). Römerstraßen. Auf den Römerstraßen ins Mittelalter. Beiträge zur Verkehrsgeschichte zwischen Maas und Rhein von der Spätantike bis ins 19. Jahrhundert. Mainz 1997, p. 97–181. Horváth, Pavel. Príspevok k obchodným stykom Slovenska so Sliezskom a Moravou v prvej polovici 16. storočia. In Historické štúdie. 11. Bratislava 1966, p. 167–193. Hrubý, Tomáš. Osídlenie Dolného Považia v stredoveku. Príspevok k dejinám sídelného vývoja Západného Slovenska. Kraków – Trnava 2015. Hunka, Ján – Ruttkay, Matej. Historické komunikácie na území stredovekého Slovenska. In Archaeologia historica. 23. Brno 1998, p. 295–302. Ivanič, Peter. Stredoveká cestná sieť na Pohroní a Poiplí. Nitra 2011. Iványi, Béla. Bártfa szabad királyi város levéltára. 1319 – 1526. Budapest 1910. Janšák, Štefan. Česká cesta–najstarší spoj Slovenska s českými krajmi. In Vlastivedný časopis, vol.10, 1961, no. 2, p. 83–87. Janšák, Štefan. Cesta českých stráží. In Geografický časopis, vol. 16, 1964, no. 2, p. 326–339. Janšák, Štefan. Z minulosti dopravných spojov na Slovensku. In Geografický časopis, vol. 16, 1964, no. 1, p. 13–31. Janšák, Štefan. Prechod českej cesty cez údolie Nitry pri Dvoroch nad Žitavou. In Geografický časopis, vol. 19, 1967, no. 1, p. 130–138. Juck, Ľubomír. Obchod v mestách na Slovensku v 14. storočí. In Historický časopis, vol. 35, 1997, no. 2, p. 256–278. Juck, Ľubomír. Výsady miest a mestečiek na Slovensku I. (1238 – 1350). Bratislava 1984. Kammerer, Ernő (ed.). A Pécz nemzetség Apponyi ágának az Apponyi grófok családi levéltárában őrizett oklevelei. Budapest 1906. Klein, Bohuš. Príspevok k historickogeografickej lokalizácii cestnej siete Zvolenského komitátu. In Vlastivedný zborník Považia, vol. 15. Martin 1985, p. 87–132. Klimek, Tomáš. Krajiny českého středověku. Praha 2014. Knauz, Nándor (ed.). Monumenta ecclesiae Strigoniensis I. Strigonii 1874.

References

223

Kolník, Titus. Stredné Podunajsko – priestor križovatiek kultúr a obchodných ciest od konca staršej železnej doby po sťahovanie národov. In Historický zborník, 2007, no. 1, p. 13–30. Květ, Radan. Duše krajiny. Staré stezky v proměnách věků. Praha 2003. Lukačka, Ján. Západné Tríbečské podhorie do roku 1526. In Historické štúdie. 26. Bratislava 1982, p. 149–151. Lukačka, Ján. Cestná sieť v Nitre a v jej najbližšom okolí v 13. a 14. storočí. In Marsina, Richard (ed.). Nitra v slovenských dejinách. Martin 2002, p. 208–211. Maliniak, Pavol. Človek a krajina Zvolenskej kotliny v stredoveku. Banská Bystrica 2009. Marsina, Richard (ed.). Codex diplomaticus et epistolaris Slovaciae I. Bratislava 1971. Marsina, Richard (ed.). Codex diplomaticus et epistolaris Slovaciae II. Bratislava 1987. Marsina, Richard (ed.). Nitra v slovenských dejinách. Martin 2002, p. 208–211. Martínek, Jan et al. Poznáváme historické cesty. Brno 2014. Maslíková, Ľudmila. Vývoj cestnej siete v regióne dolného Ponitria do začiatku 15. storočia. In Medea. Studia mediaevalia et antiqua XVI. 2012. Bratislava 2013, p. 23–43. Matulay, Ctibor (ed.). Mesto Banská Bystrica. Katalóg administratívnych a súdnych písomností. (1020) 1255 – 1536. I. Bratislava 1980. Matulay, Ctibor (ed.). Mesto Banská Bystrica. Katalóg administratívnych a súdnych písomností. (1020) 1255 – 1536. II. Bratislava 1980. Márkus, Dezső (ed.) Corpus Iuris Hungarici I. (1000 – 1526). Budapest 1899. Musil, Jiří F. Po stezkách k dálnicím. Kapitoly z dějin silnic, silničních dopravných prostředků a silniíčního stavitelství. Praha 1987. Nagy, Iván (ed.). Codex diplomaticus Patrius (Hazai okmánytár) I. – VIII. Budapest 2005. (PC CD-ROM). Podborský, Vladimír et al. Pravěké dějiny Moravy. Brno 1993. Pramene k dejinám Slovenska a Slovákov IV. Pod vládou anjouovských kráľov. Bratislava 2002. Ratkoš, Peter (ed.). Pramene k dejinám Veľkej Moravy. 2. vydanie. Bratislava 1968. Sedlák, Vincent (ed.). Regesta diplomatica nec non epistolaria Slovaciae I. Bratislava 1980.

224

References

Sedlák, Vincent (ed.). Regesta diplomatica nec non epistolaria Slovaciae II. Bratislava 1987. Slamová, Martina - Belaček, Boris - Beljak, Ján - Pažinová, Noémi - Chudý, František. Dependence of the Medieval Settlements and Historical Roads on the Natural Environment around the Deserted Castle in Zvolen (Slovakia). In Procedia–Social and Behavioral Sciences, vol. 120, 2014, p. 213–223. Suchý, Michal. Stredoveké právo núteného skladu. In Historický časopis, vol. 10, 1962, no. 2, p. 198–215. Szentpétery, Imre – Borsa, Iván (eds.). Regesta regum stirpis Arpadianae criticodiplomatica. Tomus II. Volumina 2 – 3. Budapest 1961. Szilágyi, Magdolna. On the Road: The History and Archaeology of Medieval Communication Networks in East-Central Europe. Budapest 2014. Šedivý, Juraj. Stredoveké prístavy (prievozy) a mýta na Dunaji v okolí Bratislavy. In Munková, Mária – Pavlíková, Lenka (eds.). Na sútoku riek. Život v slovensko-rakúskom pohraničí. Bratislava 2014, p. 343–370. Šmilauer, Vladimír. Vodopis starého Slovenska. Praha – Bratislava 1932. Tibenský, Martin. Červenokamenské panstvo v stredoveku. Kraków – Trnava 2011. Tomeček, Oto. K problematike výskumu reliktov starých vozových ciest na strednom Slovensku. In Šimko, Peter (ed.). Dejiny cestnej dopravy na Slovensku I. Žilina 2015, p. 9–27. Tóth, Norbert C. – Neumann, Tibor (eds.). Zsigmondkori oklevéltár XI. (1424). Budapest 2009. Uličný, Ferdinand. Dejiny osídlenia Liptova do konca 16. storočia (2. časť). In Liptov, vol. 8, Martin 1985, p. 133–208. Uličný, Ferdinand. Dejiny osídlenia Liptova do konca 16. storočia (3. časť). In Liptov, vol. 9, Martin 1987, p. 61–150. Uličný, Ferdinand. Dejiny osídlenia Šariša. Košice 1990. Valachovičová, Zuzana. Niekoľko dôvodov k vzniku ciest v Rímskej ríši. In Medea. Studia mediaevalia et antiqua. 12. Bratislava 2008, p. 89–100. Vangel, Jozef – Decký, Martin. História smerovania hlavných ciest územím dnešného Slovenska. In Vangel, Jozef – Decký, Martin (eds.). Q-2006 Cestná konferencia. Zborník 8. medzinárodnej konferencie. Rajecké Teplice, 3.–4. máj 2006. Žilina 2006, p. 42–49. Wenzel, Gusztáv (ed.). Codex diplomaticus Arpadianus continuatus I.–XII. Budapest 2003. (PC DVD-ROM). Zrebený, Alexander. Zvolen do roku 1526. In Stredné Slovensko. 5. Banská Bystrica 1986, p. 59–80.

References

225

Informative Value of Urbariums from the 16th and the 17th Century MNL OL DL – Magyar Nemzeti Levéltár [National Archives of Hungary], Országos Levéltár [Hungarian National Archives], Diplomatikai Levéltár [Archive of Medieval Charters] MNL OL E 156 – Magyar Nemzeti Levéltár [National Archives of Hungary], Országos Levéltár [Hungarian National Archives], E szekció (Magyar kincstári levéltárak) [Section E (Archives of Hungarian State Economy)]. Acsády, Ignác. A magyar jobbágyság története [History of Hungarian Peasantry]. Budapest 1906. Adamček, Josip – Kampuš, Ivan. Popisi i obračuni poreza u Hrvatskoj u XV i XVI stoljeću [Descriptions and Tax Accounts in Croatia in the Fifteenth and Sixteenth Century]. Zagreb 1976. Æstimatio Bonorum Fiscalium ad Arcem et Dominiam Regecz Spectamin from 1686. MNL OL E 156 a, Fasc. 039, No. 025. Bak, János – Banyó, Péter – Rady, Martyn (eds.). Decreta Regni Hungariæ Tomus V: Tripartitum opus iuris consuetudinarii inclyti reni Hunariæ per Stephanum de Werbrwcz editum. Idyllwild; Budapest 2005. Bak, János M. – Bónis, György – Sweeney, James Ross (eds.). Decreta Regni Mediaevalis Hungariae The Laws of the Medieval Kingdom of Hungary 1000– 1301, Series I, Volume I. Idyllwild 1999. Bariska, István. Az első magyarországi urbárium. [The First Hungarian Urbarium] In Vasi Honismereti és helytörténeti közlemények, vol. 24, 1998, no. 2, pp. 33–40. Benková, Eva. Urbár hradného panstva Červený Kameň z 22. októbra 1559. (Register príjmov a počtu sedliakov, tak želiarov a prináležitostí prislúchajúcich k hradu Červený Kameň spísaný 22. októbra roku Pána 1559) [Urbarium of the Červený Kameň Castle Manor from 22th October 1559 (The Register of Incomes and Number of Peasants and Belongings of the Červený Kameň castle conscripted on the 22th October of the Year of Our Lord 1559)]. In Historia Nova, vol. 2, 2011, no. 2, p. 194–213. Connumeratio iobbagiorum et universorum Colonorum eorundemque proventum ad Arcem Aras from 1668. MNL OL E 156a, Fasc. 001, No. 021. Consrciptio, MNL OL E 156 a, Fasc. 035, No. 077. Conscriptio Bonorum ad Episcopatum Agriensen Spectantium from 1681. MNL OL E 156a, Fasc. 001, No. 005. Conscriptio Civitatis Agriensis facta 1690. MNL OL E 156a, Fasc. 001, No. 008.

226

References

Conscriptio of Kamengrad/Köwar (title page is missing) from 1566. MNL OL E 156 a, Fasc. 001, No. 045. Conscriptio Possessionis domini quondam Domby in comitatum Zempliniensis in possessione Koponyal. MNL OL E 156 a, Fasc. 006, No. 009. Döry, Franciscus – Bónis, Georgius – Bácskai, Vera (eds.). Decreta regni Hungariae Gesetze und Verordnungen Ungarns 1301–1457. Budapest 1976. Engel, Pál. The Realm of Saint Stephen. London; New York 2005. Hernja Masten, Marija. Urbarji gospoščine Hrastovec: 1555–1848 [Urbariums of Hrastovec Dominion: 1555–1848]. Ptuj 1993. Jakó, Zsigmond. A Gyalui vártartomány urbáriumai [Gyalu castle province urbariums]. Kolozsvár 1944. Jakó, Zsigmond. Adatok a dézsma fejedelemségkori adminisztrációjához [Data on administration of the tithe During the Era of Principality]. Kolozvár 1945. Juričič-Čargo, Daniela. Urbar lupoglavske gospoštije iz 1523. godine [Urbarium of Lupoglav Manor from 1523]. In Zbornik Općine Lupogav, vol. 3, 2001, pp. 27–75. Kiss, Gábor. Régi szavak szótára [Dictionairy of old words], Budapest 2012. Klen, Danilo. Urbar i urbarski popisi Lupoglava (1560–1571) [Urbarium and Urbarial Registers of Lupoglav (1560-1571)]. In Vjesnik Historijskog arhiva, vol. 18, 1973, pp. 5–69. Kohútová, Mária. Príspevok k starším dejinám západného Slovenska. (Urbár holíčskeho panstva z konca 17. storočia.) [Contribution to the Oldest History of Western Slovakia (Urbarium of Holíč Manor from the End of the 17th century)]. In Historický časopis, vol. 40, 1995, no. 5, pp. 595–608. Kos, Dušan. Urbarji za Belo krajino in Žumberk: (15.-18. stoletje) [Urbariums of Bela Krajina in Žumberk: (15th–18th Centuries]. Ljubljana 1991. Kosmačová, Mariana. Majetkové pomery v Demjate, Fričkovciach a Janovciach v 16. a 17. storočí [Property relations in Demjata, Fričkovce and Janovce] In Chovanec, Marek (ed.). Zborník zo 7. študentskej konferencie. Prešov 2012, pp. 405–422. Kredics, László – Solymosi, László. A veszprémi püspökség 1524. évi urbáriuma [Urbarium of Veszprém Bishopric from 1524]. Budapest 1993. Leideck, Markus. Urbari gospoštija Paz, Belaj i Kožljak [Urbariums of Nobles Paz, Belaj and Kožljak]. In Vjesnik Istarskog arhiva, vol. 19, 2012, pp. 127–168. Lichtneckert, András. Veszprém vármegye községeinek urbáriumai, úrbéri és telepítési szerződései, 1690–1836 [Veszprém County Towns´ Manors Urbariums, Feudal and Installation contracts]. Veszprém 2009.

References

227

Lopašić, Radoslav. Urbaria lingua croatica conscripta = Hrvatski urbari: svezak 1. Zagreb 18942. Ogranak 2016. Mačuha, Maroš. Najstarší urbariálny súpis panstiev Sklabiňa a Blatnica z roku 1556 [The Oldest Urbarial Register of Sklabiňa and Blatnica Manors from 1556]. In Studia Historica Tyrnaviensia, vol. 4, 2004, pp. 99–105. Maksay, Ferenc et al (eds.). Urbáriumok XVI.-XVII. század [Urbariums of 16th–17th Centuries]. Budapest 1959. Margetić, Lujo. Grobnički urbari [Grobnik Urbariums]. Rijeka 1995. Markusová, Helena. Život na uhorsko-osmanskom pohraničí v rokoch 1596 – 1687 na príklade Gemerskej stolice [Life on the Hungarian-Ottoman borderland between 1596 – 1687] In Acta Historica Neosolensia, vol. 16, 2013, pp. 224–274. Marsina, Richard – Kušík, Michal. Urbáre feudálnych panstiev na Slovensku I, II [Urbariums of Feudal Manors in Slovakia]. Bratislava 1959. Maslíková, Ľudmila. Urbár panstva hradu Orava z roku 1602 [Orava Castle Manor Urbarium fom 1602]. In Historia Nova, vol. 2, 2011, no. 2, pp. 214–265. Meszáros, Kálmán. Egy felső-magyarországi köznemesi uradalom a XVII. század közepén: Ibrányi Ferenc urbáriuma, 1656 [An Upper-Hungarian Nobles´ Manor from the Middle of 17th Century: Urbarium of Ferenc Ibrányi, 1656]. Nyíregyháza 2010. Meszárošová, Klára. Urbár panstva Branč z roku 1671 [Branč Manor Urbarium from 1671]. In Kohútová, Mária (ed.). Ideové prvky národného príbehu v dlhom 19 storočí. Bratislava 2014, pp. 203–210. Nagy, Gyula – Kolosvári, Sándor – Óvári, Kelemen (eds.). Corpus Juris Hungarici. Magyar Törvénytár. 1000 – 1526. évi Törvényczikkek. Budapest 1899, pp. 510–512. Pálffy, Géza. Magyarország története. A három részre szakadt ország 1526–1606 [History of Hungary. A country divided into three parts]. Budapest 2008. Perlustratio et connumeratio colonorum Cassoviae. MNL OL E 156 a, Fasc. 004, No. 048. Petro, Peter. A history of Slovak literature. Montreal & Kingston; London; Buffalo 1995, pp. 11–12. Rábik, Vladimír. The Ruthenian and Wallachian Population of Eastern Slovakia in the Middle Ages. In Historický časopis, vol. 55, pp. 33–60. Rábik, Vladimír. Urbáre Makovického panstva z roku 1507 [Urbariums of Makovica Manor from 1507]. In Slovenská archivistika, vol. 41, 2006, no. 2, pp. 22–40.

228

References

Rebro, Karol. Urbárska regulácia Márie Terézie a poddanské úpravy Jozefa II. na Slovensku [Urbarial Regulation of Maria Theresa and the Peasant Adjustment of Joseph II]. Bratislava 1959, p. 667. Regestum factum de numero colonorum, sessionum, provenenum Oppidi S. Crucis from 1571. MNL OL E 156a, Fasc. 053, No. 004. Regestum Super Numero ac Nominibus omnium colonorum proventuumque et emulumentorum ordimariorum Bonororum et pertimentiam tocius Episcopatus Agriensis Pro Anno domini 1551 in mense Septembris factum. MNL OL, E 156 a, Fasc. 001, No. 001. Sedlák, Vincent (ed.). Monumenta Vaticana Slovaciae. Tomus I. Rationes collectorum pontificiorum in annis 1332–1337. Trnavae; Romae 2008. Sokolovský, Leon. Správa stredovekej dediny na Slovensku [Administration of a Medieval Village in Slovakia]. Bratislava 2002. Šnajdar, Ivan. Urbari gospoštije Klana [Urbariums of the Noble Klan]. In Zbornik Društva za povjesnicu Klana, vol. 3, 1997, pp. 179–191. Thallóczy, Lajos. A kamara haszna (lucrum camerae) története [A history of Hungarian chamber tax]. Budapest 1879. Urbar Anno Domini 1663 Zamku Likawy. MNL OL E 156a, Fasc. 086, No. 019a. Urbarium Oppidi Sabariensis from 1656 states complete lists of the inhabitants of particular streets. Next to the names of nobles, there is a remark: Nobilis. MNL OL E 156a, Fasc. 055, No. 065. Velička, Drahomír. Urbár Budatínskeho panstva z roku 1572 [Urbarium of Budatín Manor from 1572]. In Slovenská archivistika, vol. 47, 2012, no. 2, pp. 3–17. Velička, Vladimír. Urbár Bytčianskeho panstva z roku 1612 [Urbarium of Bytča Manor from 1612]. In Terra Kisuciensis, vol. 3, 2010, pp. 91–109. Vrbarium seu Nova Connumeratio Colonorum vel Jobbagionum ad Arcem Munkacs from 1690. The rest of the urbarium (except for prolonged title) is written in Hungarian. MNL OL E 156a, Fasc. 019, No. 005. Vulić, Sanja. Jezik Modruškoga urbara [Language of the Modruški urbarium]. In Čakavska rič, vol. 38, 2010, pp. 135–154. Weisz, Boglárka. Az urbura [Urbura]. In Bányászattörténeti közlemények, vol. 20, 2015, pp. 3–23. Wenzel, Gusztáv. A somló-vásárhelyi urbarium 1514-ből [The urbarium of Somlóvásárhely from 1514]. Pest 1853. Wenzel, Gusztáv. Szerémi György, II. Lajos és János királyok házi káplánja emlékirata: Magyarország romlásáról, 1484–1543 [George of Sriem, kings´ Louis II. and John Chaplain Memoirs: Hungary Detetiorating]. Pest 1857.

References

229

Wenzel, Gusztáv. Codex Diplomaticus Arpadianus continuatus I–XII. Budapest 1860–1874. Wenzel, Gusztáv. Vegyes levelek VIII-XI (1559–1573) [Miscellaneous Documents VIII-XI (1559–1573)]. Budapest 1868–1870. Wenzel, Gusztáv. Magyar diplomacziai emlékek az Anjou-korból I-III [Hungarian Diplomatic Documents from Angevin Era I–III]. Budapest 1874–1876. Zadravec, Dejan. Urbarialni zapisi o lovstvu na območju med Savo in Sotlo v prvi polovici 17. stoletja [Urbarial Records on Hunting in the Area Between the Sava and Sotla in the First Half of the 17th Century]. In Ekonomska i ekohistorija, vol. 5, 2009, pp. 101–114. Žbirková, Miroslava. Urbár tematínskeho panstva z roku 1636. Časť 2 [Urbarium of Tematín Manor from 1636. Part 2]. In Balneologický spravodajca, vol. 37, 1999–2000, pp. 137–147.

Municipal Statutes – Source of Law and Education in the Royal Free Towns in the Territory of Presentday Slovakia during the Early Modern Period Békesi, Emil. A nagyszombati kalmár czéh szabálayi 1547, és 1604 ből és régi jegyzőkönyve 1556 – 1651-ből [The Rules of the Trade Guild in Trnava in 1547 and 1604 and Its Accounting Book from 1556 to 1651]. In Történelmi Tár [Historická zbierka]. Budapest: A Magyar Történelmi Társulat, 1883, p. 170–176. Botťánková, Mária. K topografii mesta Trnavy v 16. storočí. In Šimončič, Jozef (Ed.). Trnava okres a mesto: Trnavský zborník 3. Štúdie. Bratislava: Obzor, 1980, p. 61–85. Kluknavská, Andrea – Gábriš, Tomáš. Mestské právo ako dynamický prvok vývoja práva v Uhorsku. In Malý, Karel – Šouša, Jiří, jr. Městské právo ve střední Evropě. Sborník příspěvků z mezinárodní konference „Práva městská Království českého” z 19.-21.září 2011, Praha. Praha: Univerzita Karlova v Prahe, Nakladatelství Karolinum, 2013, p. 208–278. ISBN 978-80-246-2113-5 Kolosvári, Sándor – Óvári, Kelemen. Monumenta Hungariae historico-juridica. CORPUS STATUTORUM. Tomus III. Statuta et articuli municipiorum Hungariae Trans-tibiscanorum. Budapest: Editio Academiae Scientiarum Hungariae, 1892, 801 p. Luby, Štefan. Dejiny súkromného práva na Slovensku. Bratislava: IURA EDITION, 2002, 626 p. ISBN 80-89047-48-3 Malý, Karel - Sivák, Florián. Dejiny státu a práva v Československu do roku 1918. 1.díl. Praha: Panorama, 1988, 547 p.

230

References

Mertanová, Štefánia: Ius tavernicale. Štúdie o procese formovania práva taverníckych miest v etapách vývoja taverníckeho súdu v Uhorsku (15.-17. stor.). Bratislava: VEDA, 1985, 254 p. Šimončič, Jozef. Pramene k dejinám obchodu v Štátnom okresnom archíve v Trnave. In Dejiny obchodu na Slovensku. Zborník z konferencie v Nitre v r. 1987. Bratislava: ERPO, 1987, pp. 218 – 225. Štátny archív v Trnave [The State Archives in Trnava], fond Cechy mesta Trnavy–Cech kupcov [The Artifical Corporations – The Trade Guild]. Štátny archív v Trnave [The State Archives in Trnava], fond Magistrát mesta Trnavy [The Municipal Council of Trnava]. Švecová, Adriana – Gábriš, Tomáš. Dejiny štátu, správy a súdnictva na Slovensku. Plzeň: Vydavatelství a nakladatelství Aleš Čeněk, 2009, 267 p. ISBN 978-80-7380-161-8. Vrabcová, Eva. Štatúty mesta Trnavy ako historický prameň. In Šimončič, Jozef (Ed.). Trnava okres a mesto: Trnavský zborník 3. Štúdie. Bratislava: Obzor, 1980, p. 191–216.

Hungarian Catholic Synods in the 16th and 17th Centuries and Their Meaning Adriányi, Gábor. A római katolikus egyház zsinatai [Synods of the Roman Catholic Church]. In Balogh, Margit – Varga, Szabolcs – Vértesi, Lázár (eds.). Katolikus zsinatok és nagygyűlések Magyarországon a 16.–20. században [Catholic Synods and Conferences in Hungary in the 16th-20th Century]. Budapest, Pécs 2014, p. 13–25. Archive: Esztergomi Prímási Levéltár [Esztergom Primatial Archives] (EPA) Fond: Archivum Ecclesiasticum Vetus (AEV) Sources: no. 97/1; no. 97/5; no. 97/10; no. 97/13; no. 97/14; no. 116/2; no. 129; no. 166; no. 231; no. 234/A/1; no. 1759. Beke, Margit (ed.). Pázmány Péter egyházlátogatási jegyzőkönyvei (1616–1637) [Protocols of Péter Pázmány’s Church Visitations (1616–1637)]. Budapest 1994, 477 p. Benczik, Gyula et al. Források a Muravidék történetéhez. Szöveggyűjtemény, 1. kötet, 871––1849 [Sources to the History of Prekmurje. Text Collection, Volume 1., 871–1849]. Szombathely, Zalaegerszeg 2008, 408 p. Breznyik, János. A Selmecbányai Ágost. Hitv. Evang. Egyház és lyceum története. Első füzet. A XVI.-ik századbeli események [History of the Evangelical Church of the Augsburg Confession and Seminary in Banská Štiavnica. First Workbook. Events of the 16th Century]. Banská Štiavnica 1883, 368 p.

References

231

Daniel, David P. – Mrva, Ivan. Reformácia, rekatolizácia a politické konflikty [Reformation, Recatholization and Political Conflicts]. In Mannová, Elena (ed.). Krátke dejiny Slovenska [Short History of Slovakia]. Bratislava 2003, p. 126–155. Erdő, Péter. Az egyházmegyei zsinat intézménye a történelemben [The Institution of the Diocesan Synod in History]. In Vigilia, vol. 53, no. 11, 1988, p. 807–811. Fazekas, István. Oláh Miklós reformtörekvései az esztergomi egyházmegyében 1553–1568 között [Reform Process of Nicolaus Olahus in the Esztergom Diocese Between 1553–1568]. In Balogh, Margit – Varga, Szabolcs – Vértesi, Lázár (eds.). Katolikus zsinatok és nagygyűlések Magyarországon a 16.–20. században [Catholic Synods and Conferences in Hungary in the 16th–20th Century]. Budapest, Pécs 2014, p. 27–44. Koltai, András. A győri egyházmegye 1579. évi szombathelyi zsinata [The Synod of Szombathely in 1579 in the Diocese of Győr]. In Balogh, Margit – Varga, Szabolcs – Vértesi, Lázár (eds.). Katolikus zsinatok és nagygyűlések Magyarországon a 16.–20. században [Catholic Synods and Conferences in Hungary in the 16th–20th Century]. Budapest, Pécs 2014, p. 45–67. Mihalik, Béla Vilmos. Mérföldkövek az egri egyházmegye megújulásában. Az 1635. évi jászói és az 1734. évi egri zsinatok [Milestones in the Eger Diocese Renewal. The Synod of Jasov in 1635 and the Synod of Eger in 1734]. In Balogh, Margit – Varga, Szabolcs – Vértesi, Lázár (eds.). Katolikus zsinatok és nagygyűlések Magyarországon a 16.–20. században [Catholic Synods and Conferences in Hungary in the 16th–20th Century]. Budapest, Pécs 2014, p. 149–165. Mrva, Ivan. Doba panovania Jagelovcov [Period of the Reigns of Jagiellonians]. In Mannová, Elena (ed.). Krátke dejiny Slovenska [Short History of Slovakia]. Bratislava 2003, p. 100–109. Mrva, Ivan. Zápas o uhorskú korunu [Struggle for the Hungarian Crown]. In Mannová, Elena (ed.). Krátke dejiny Slovenska [Short History of Slovakia]. Bratislava 2003, p. 112–126. Mrva, Ivan. Vládca s biľagom zradcu [Monarch with the Sign of a Traitor]. In Segeš, Vladimír et al. (ed.). Kniha kráľov: Panovníci v dejinách Slovenska a Slovákov [Book of Kings: Monarchs in the History of Slovakia and Slovaks]. Bratislava 2006, p. 195–200. Péterffy, Carolus. Sacra Concilia Ecclesiae romano-catholicae in Regno Hungariae. Vol. I. –II. Posonii 1741, 1742, Vol. I. 338 p., Vol. II. 488 p. Solymosi, László. A veszprémi egyház 1515. évi zsinati határozatai [Decrees of the Synod of the Church of Veszprém in 1515]. Budapest 1997, 211 p.

232

References

Szvorényi, Michael. Synopsis critico-historica decretorum synodalium pro ecclesia hungaro-catholica editorum. Vesprimii 1807, 319 p. Špaňár, Július – Hrabovský, Jozef. Latinsko-slovenský a slovensko-latinský slovník [Latin-Slovak And Slovak-Latin Dictionary]. Bratislava 1998, 592 p. Tamási, Zsolt. Az 1848-as nemzeti zsinat előkészítése. A felsőpapság és a radikális alsópapság értelmezése – az erdélyi egyházmegye tükrében [Preparation of the National Synod in 1848. The Interpretation of the Higher Clergy and the Radical Lower Clergy – in the Light of the Transylvanian diocese]. In Egyháztörténeti szemle [Church Overwiev], vol. 15, no. 2, 2014, p. 25–44. Tóth, Tamás. Az 1763-as kalocsai zsinat [The Synod of Kalocsa in 1763]. In Balogh, Margit – Varga, Szabolcs – Vértesi, Lázár (eds.). Katolikus zsinatok és nagygyűlések Magyarországon a 16.-20. században [Catholic Synods and Conferences in Hungary in the 16th-20th Century]. Budapest, Pécs 2014, p. 183–200. Tusor, Péter. A barokk pápaság (1600–1700) [The Baroque Papacy (1600–1700]. Budapest 2004, 386 p. Varga, Szabolcs. A zágrábi egyházmegyei zsinatok a 16–17. században [Diocesan Synods of Zagreb in the 16th-17th Century]. In Balogh, Margit – Varga, Szabolcs – Vértesi, Lázár (eds.). Katolikus zsinatok és nagygyűlések Magyarországon a 16.-20. században [Catholic Synods and Conferences in Hungary in the 16th-20th Century]. Budapest, Pécs 2014, p. 131–148. ISBN 978-963-89536-6-7

Canonical Visitations and Chapter Statutes, Sources for Understanding the Local History of the Spiš Chapter in the Early Modern Period Balogh, Margit – Varga, Szabolcs – Vértesi, Lázár (eds.). Katolikus zsinatok és nagygyűlések Magyarországon a 16.–20. században. Budapest 2014. Bitskey, István. Katolícka vzdelanosť na území Slovenska v 17. storočí. In Čičaj, Viliam (ed.). Rozpravy k slovenským dejinám. Zborník príspevkov k nedožitému 75. výročiu narodenia Pavla Horvátha. Bratislava 2001, p. 17–36. Bizoňová, Monika. Kanonické vizitácie a ich využitie pri skúmaní konfesionálnej štruktúry obyvateľstva. In Bolom-Kotari, Martina – Němečková, Věra (eds.). Pontes ad fontes. Cirkevní dějiny ve světle pomocných věd historických a příbuzných oborů. Hradec Králové 2011, p. 188–199. Bizoňová, Monika. Dejiny a pôsobenie Spoločnosti Ježišovej na Spiši v období rekatolizácie. In Sipko, Jozef – Chovanec, Marek – Harčariková, Gabriela

References

233

(eds.). 5. študentská vedecká konferencia: Zborník príspevkov. Prešov 2010, p. 350–370. Bodnárová, Miroslava. Reformácia vo východosloveských kráľovských mestách v prvej polovici 16. storočia. In. Šimončič, Jozef (ed.). Trnavská univerzita 1635 – 1777. Trnava 1996, p. 25–37. Bolom-Kotari, Martina. Pečeti moravských premonstrátů v letech 1436–1784. Sfragistika představených a konventů v kontextu jejich diplomatického materiálu. Disertační práce. Brno 2013. Borovi, József. Pons Strigoniensis studia V. Rozdelenie Ostrihomskej arcidiecézy. Esztergom; Piliscsaba 2006. Bouix, Dominique. Tractacus de Capitulis. Pariis 1852. Brezováková, Blanka. K pokusu o erigovanie biskupstva na Spiši v polovici 14. storočia. In Historický časopis, vol. 57, 2009, no. 3, p. 415–442. Bucko, Vojtech. Reformné hnutie v arcibiskupstve ostrihomskom do r. 1564 (Pramenný príspevok k slovenským cirkevným dejinám). Bratislava 1939. Budský, Dominik. Právní život v Metropolitní kapitule pražské v letech 1378 – 1390. In Krafl, Pavel (ed.) Sacri canones servandi sunt: Ius canonicum et status ecclesiae saeculis XIII – XV: Kolektivní monografie. Praha 2008, p. 571–579. Bylina, Stanisław. Statuty synodalne jako instrument chrystianizacji wsi w późnym średniowieczu. In Krafl, Pavel (ed.) Sacri canones servandi sunt: Ius canonicum et status ecclesiae saeculis XIII–XV: Kolektivní monografie. Praha 2008, p. 271–284. Csontos, Ladislav (ed.). Jezuitské školstvo včera a dnes. Zborník z medzinárodnej vedeckej konferencie 12. októbra 2006 v Trnave. Bratislava 2006. Čechová, Františka a kol. Zbožný región – cirkevná škola (z dejín Nitrianskej diecézy). Trnava 2009, p. 12. Čičaj, Viliam. Nové vierovyznanie. In Dvořák, Pavel (ed.). Pramene k dejinám Slovenska a Slovákov VII: Turci v Uhorsku I. Bratislava 2006, p. 97. Čičaj, Viliam. K niektorým aspektom utvárania školských knižníc v novoveku. In Šovčíková, Darina (ed.). Dejiny školských knižníc na Slovensku. Banská Bystrica 2003, p. 15–22. Erdő, Péter. Az egyházmegyei zsinat intézménye a történelemben. In Vigilia, vol. 53, 1988, no. 11, p. 807–811. Fügedi, Erik. Hungarian Bishops in the Fifteenth Century (Some Statistic Observations). In Bak, János, M. (ed.). Kings, Bishops, Nobles and Burghers in Medieval Hungary. London 1986, p. 375–391. Glejtek, Miroslav. Spišská kapitula v 16. – 18. storočí vo svetle kanonických vizitácií a kapitulských štatútov (II. časť – Sväté omše, liturgia hodín a

234

References

kapitulná farnosť). In Liturgia. Časopis pre liturgickú obnovu, vol. 23, 2013, no. 3, p. 256–278. Glejtek, Miroslav. Spišská kapitula v 16. – 18. storočí vo svetle kanonických vizitácií a kapitulských štatútov (I. časť – Svätí patróni, relikvie a sakrálne objekty). In Liturgia. Časopis pre liturgickú obnovu, vol. 23, 2013, no. 2, p. 164–189. Glejtek, Miroslav. Menovania členov Spišskej kapituly do vzniku Spišského biskupstva v roku 1776. In Konštantínove listy, vol. 5, 2012, p. 122–139. Glejtek, Miroslav. Príspevok k výskumu organizačnej štruktúry Spišskej kapituly do konca 18. storočia. In Konštantínove listy, vol. 5, 2012, p. 29–55. Hain, Gáspár. Lőcse krónikája. Levoča 1910. Hajduk Andrej. Dejiny ECAV na Slovensku v rokoch 1517–1610. In Evanjelici v dejinách slovenskej kultúry III. Liptovský Mikuláš 2002, p. 14–25. Homza, Martin – Kucharská, Veronika – Kuzmová, Stanislava – Rácová, Naďa (eds.). Analecta Cartusiana 254: Central European Charterhouses in the Family of the Carthusian Order. Levoča; Salzburg 2008. Homza, Martin – Sroka, Stanisłav (eds.). Historia Scepusii I.: Dejiny Spiša I. Bratislava; Kraków 2009. Homza, Martin – Sroka, Stanisłav (eds.). Štúdie z dejín stredovekého Spiša. Krakov 1998. Horna, Richard. Stručný nástin dějin Spiše. Bratislava 1935. Hradszky, Josephus. Additamenta ad Initia progressus ac praesentis status Capituli ad sanctum Martinum e. c. de monte Scepusio olim Collegiati sub Iurisdictione archiepiscopi Strigoniensis nunc vero Cathedralis sub proprio episcopo Scepusiensi constituti. Szepesváralja 1903–1904. Hradszky, Josephus. Initia progressus ac praesentis status Capituli ad sanctumMartinum e. c. de monte Scepusio olim Collegiati sub iuristictione archiepiscopi Strigoniensis nunc vero Cathedralis sub proprio episcopo Scepusiensi constituti. Szepesváralja 19011901. Hradszky, József. A XXIV királyi plébános testvérűlete (XXIV Regalium Plebanorum Fraternitas) és a reformáczió a Szepességen. Miskolc 1895. Hradszky, Josef. Krátky obsah dejín farského r. kath. kostola v Spišskom Podhradí pri príležitosti novovystaveného oltára bl. Panny Márie. Spišské Podhradie 1891. Hrdina, Ignác A. (ed. ettransl.). Dokumenty Tridentského koncilu. Latinský text a preklad do češtiny. Praha 2015. Hromják, Ľuboslav. Snahy o povýšenie Spišského prepoštstva na biskupstvo. In Hromják, Ľuboslav (ed.). Studia Theologica Scepusiensia X. Z dejin Spišského

References

235

prepoštstva. Zborník z medzinárodnej konferencie pri príležitosti 800. výročia prvej známej písomnej zmienky o Spišskom prepoštstve. Spišské Podhradie 2010, p. 71–94. Hromják, Ľuboslav (ed.) Studia theologica Scepusiensia X.: Z dejín Spišského prepoštstva. Zborník z medzinárodnej konferencie pri príležitosti 800. výročia prvej známej písomnej zmienky o Spišskom prepoštstve. Spišské Podhradie 2010. Hromják, Ľuboslav. Katolícka reforma, rekatolizácia a protireformácia na území Jágerského biskupstva. In Verba theologica 17. Konfesionalizácia cirkevného života Jágerskej diecézy, vol. 8, 2009, no. 2, p. 12–22. Chalupecký, Ivan. Dejiny levočských jezuitov. In Habilitačná práca z cirkevných dejín. Spišské Podhradie 1993, p. 62–70. Chalupecký, Ivan. Vzdelanosť a kultúra spišských miest a mestečiek v 15. – 18. storočí. In Historický časopis, vol. 35, 1987, no. 3, p. 427–435. Cherrier, Miklós. A Magyar egyház története. Pesten 1856. Kamenická, Mária. Kanonické vizitácie na Spiši ako historický prameň. Diplomová práca. Bratislava 1972. Kohútová, Mária. Slovensko a Slováci v novoveku. Trnava 2008. Kollányi, Ferenc. Visitatio Capituli E.M. Strigoniensis Anno 1397. In Történelmi Tár, 1901, no. 4. p. 71–106, 239–334. Krapka, Emil – Mikula, Vojtech. Dejiny Spoločnosti Ježišovej na Slovensku. Cambridge 1990. Kruppa, Nathalie – Zygner, Leszek (eds.). Studien zur Germania Sacra. Band 29. Partikularsynoden im späten Mittelalter. Göttingen 2006. Kucharská, Veronika. Ducissa. Život kňažnej Hedvigy v časoch Jagelovcov. Bratislava 2014. Kucharská, Veronika. Rod Zápoľských a slovenské mestá koncom stredoveku. In Lukačka, Ján – Štefánik, Martin a kol. Stredoveké mesto ako miesto stretnutí a komunikácie. Bratislava 2010, p. 239–248. Kucharská, Veronika. Mecenát Hedvigy Zápoľskej. In Slivka, Michal (ed.). Studia archaeologica Slovaca mediaevalia V: Človek – sacrum – prostredie. Levoča 2006, p. 243–252. Kyseľová, Mária. Kanonické vizitácie na Spiši. In Slovenská archivistika, vol. 13, 1983, no. 2, p. 110–128. Kvasnicová, Magdaléna. Kláštory a rehoľné domy na Slovensku medzi Tridentským koncilom a reformami Jozefa II. (16.–18. storočie). In Slivka, Michal (ed.). Studia archaeologica Slovaca mediaevalia V: Človek – sacrum – prostredie. Levoča 2006, p. 301–323.

236

References

Labanc, Peter. Organizačná štruktúra Spišskej kapituly a jej členovia do konca 13. storočia. In Rábik, Vladimír (ed.). Litteri sac moribus imbutus: Studia historica Tyrnaviensia XVI. Kraków; Trnava 2014, p. 101–123. Labanc, Peter. K majetkovým pomerom Spišského prepoštstva v Zemplínskej župe (Olaszliszka). In Rábik, Vladimír (ed.). Studia Historica Tyrnaviensia XIII.: Historia evestigia sequentes. Trnava; Kraków 2011, p. 111–125. Labanc, Peter. Spišskí prepošti do roku 1405. Trnava; Kraków 2011. Labanc, Peter – Glejtek, Miroslav. Spišské prepoštstvo na prelome stredoveku a novoveku I. Príspevok k náboženským dejinám Spiša. Kraków; Trnava 2015. Lengyelová, Tünde. Právne postavenie zemepanských miest v 16.– 17. storočí. In Čičaj, Viliam (ed.). Rozpravy k slovenským dejinám. Zborník príspevkov k nedožitému 75. výročiu narodenia Pavla Horvátha. Bratislava 2001, p. 167–185. Lesňák, Tomáš. Ľudový misionár páter Serafín Bošnák. In Novotná, Mária (ed.). Acta Musaei Scepusiensis 2008: Pohľady do minulosti VIII. Levoča 2009, p. 75–94. Lopatková, Zuzana. Kanonické vizitácie v slovenských dejinách. In Marsina, Richard – Dobrotková, Marta (eds.) Studia Historica Tyrnaviensia VII. Trnava 2008, p. 96–106. Luby, Štefan. Dejiny Spoločnosti Ježišovej na Slovensku. Bratislava 1946. Marek, Miloš. Formovanie farskej siete na území Nitrianskej župy v stredoveku. In Rábik, Vladimír a kol. Vývoj cirkevnej správy na Slovensku. Kraków 2010, p. 132–215. Mrva, Ivan. Územie Spiša a boj o uhorskú korunu medzi Ferdinandom Habsburským a Jánom Zápoľským. In Gładkiewicz, Ryszard – Homza, Martin. (eds.). Terra Scepusiensis. Stav bádania o dejinách Spiša. Stan badań nad dziejami Spiszu. Levoča; Wrocław 2003, p. 535–543. Nemešová, Anna. Nitrianska sídelná kapitula vo svetle štatútu z roku 1602. Dizertačná práca. Ružomberok 2009. Olejník, Vladimír. Spišskí prepošti od Bitky pri Moháči po vznik Spišského biskupstva. In Hromják, Ľuboslav (ed.) Studia theologica Scepusiensia III: Z dejín Spišského prepoštstva. ZBORNÍK z medzinárodnej konferencie pri príležitosti 800. výročia prvej známej písomnej zmienky o Spišskom prepoštstve. Spišské Podhradie 2010, p. 129–157. Olejník, Vladimír. Synopsa dejín spoločnosti Ježišovej na Spišskej kapitule od jej príchodu na Spiš. II. časť (1648–1655). In Novotná, Mária (ed.). Acta Musaei Scepusiensis 2008: Pohľady do minulosti VIII. Levoča 2009, p. 239–286. Olejník, Vladimír. Synopsa dejín spišskej rezidencie Spoločnosti Ježišovej od jej príchodu na Spiš. In Novotná, Mária (ed.). Acta Musaei Scepusiensis 2007. Levoča 2008, p. 113–150.

References

237

Olejník, Vladimír. Kanonická vizitácia Petra Pázmáňa v Spišskej kapitule. In Hišem, Cyril – Fedorčák, Peter (eds.). Kanonické vizitácie po Tridentskom koncile: Zborník príspevkov z medzinárodnej konferencie Košice 9. novebra 2006. Košice 2007, p. 111–121. Oravský, Jozef. Inventár archívu Spišského prepoštstva (1229–1798). Levoča 1958. Ostertagová, Alexandra. Kanonické vizitácie ako historický prameň. In Hišem, Cyril – Fedorčák, Peter (eds.). Kanonické vizitácie po Tridentskom koncile: Zborník príspevkov z medzinárodnej konferencie Košice 9. novebra 2006. Košice 2007, p. 5–10. Pauer, János. Az Egyházi rend érdeme Magyarország történetében, Árpádok időszakától korunkig. Székesfejérvár 1847. Péterffy, Carolus. Sacra concilia Ecclesiae Romano-catholicae in Regno Hungariae. Vol. I – II. Posonii 1741; 1742. Puškárová, Blanka – Puškár, Imrich. Spišská Kapitula. Pamiatková rezervácia. Bratislava 1981. Púčik, Marek. The Supposed Register of the Archdiocese of Esztergom´s Parishes from 1397: The Parishes of the Archdeaconates of Nitra and Tekov. In Rábik, Vladimír (ed.). Studia Historica Tyrnaviensia XVII. Trnava 2015, p. 125–147. Radzimiński, Andrzej. Życie i obyczajowość średniowiecznego duchowieństwa. Warszawa 2002. Rimely, Carolus. Capitulum insignis ecclesiae collegiatae Posoniensis ad s. Martinum ep. olim s. Salvatorem. Posonii 1880. Slivka, Michal. Pohľady do stredovekých dejín Slovenska. Martin 2013. Slivka, Michal. Kristianizačný proces na Spiši. In Z minulosti Spiša IX–X, 2001/2002, p. 23–40. Snaková, Martina. Význam rehole sv. Františka na rekatolizáciu územia Šariša v 17. storočí a v prvých desaťročiach 18. storočia. In Verba theologica 17. Konfesionalizácia cirkevného života Jágerskej diecézy, vol. 8, 2009, no. 2, p. 28–38. Suchý, Michal. Dejiny Levoče I. Košice 1974. Suchý, Michal. Vzťah Poľska k povstaniu Štefana Bočkaja. In Historické štúdie, vol. 26. Bratislava 1973, p. 209–234. Szvorényi, Michael (ed.). Synopsis critico – historica decretorum synodalium pro ecclesia Hungaro-Catholica. Vesprem 1807. Šotník, Stanislav. Zakladacia listina fary v Ponikách z roku 1310. In Slovenská archivistika, vol. 34, 1999, no. 1, p. 36–54. Špirko, Jozef. Dejiny a umenie očami historika. Pašteka, Július (ed.). Bratislava 2001.

238

References

Špirko, Jozef. Začiatky Spišského biskupstva. Snahy v minulosti o jeho utvorenie. In Mons Sancti Martini. Sborník z príležitosti sedemdesiatky J. E. Msgr. Jána Vojtaššáka, biskupa spišského. Spišská kapitula 1947, p. 21–53. Tomko, Jozef. Zriadenie Spišskej, Banskobystrickej a Rožňavskej diecézy a kráľovské patronátne právo v Uhorsku. Spišská Kapitula – Spišské Podhradie 1995. Trajdos, Tadeusz. Reformacja i kontrreformacja na Spiszu. In Gładkiewicz, Ryszard – Homza, Martin. (eds.). Terra Scepusiensis. Stav bádania o dejinách Spiša. Stan badań nad dziejami Spiszu. Levoča; Wrocław 2003, p. 467–486. Trochta, Jozef. Zoznam fár Slovenska, podľa účtovných registrov pápežských kolektorov o desiatkoch zaplatených pápežskej kúrii v Avignone užívateľmi cmakirkevných benefícií v Uhorsku v rokoch 1332–1337: Príspevok k historickej cirkevnej topografii Slovenska. XIII. Spišská Stolica. Rukopis; Bratislava 1968–1969. Vagner, József. Adalékok a Nyitrai Székes-Káptalan Történetéhez. Nyitra 1896. Vencko, Ján. Z dejín okolia Spišského hradu. Spišské Podhradie 1941. Vybíral, Zdeněk. Bitva u Moháče. Krvavá porážka uherského a českého krále Ludvíka Jagellonského v boji s Osmany 29. srpna 1526. Praha 2008. Wagner, Carolus. Analecta Scepusii sacri et profani. Pars I. – III. Viennae 1773, 1774, 1778. Zellinger, Alajos. Egyházi írók csarnoka. Trnava 1893. Zubko, Peter. Dejiny Košického arcibiskupstva I. Dejiny Košickej kapituly (1804 – 2001). Prešov 2003. Zubko, Peter. Dejiny Spišského biskupstva (1776-). In Gładkiewicz, Ryszard – Homza, Martin. (eds.). Terra Scepusiensis. Stav bádania o dejinách Spiša. Stan badań nad dziejami Spiszu. Levoča; Wrocław 2003, p. 599–608. Žigová, Terézia. Teologické rozdiely medzi katolicizmom a protestantizmom. In Verba theologica 15.Potridentská teologická starostlivosť o veriacich, vol. 7, 2008, no. 2, p. 5–12.

Testimony of Single Items Deposited in the Archive of the Gemer Seniorate in the Town of Revúca on Testimony of That Seniorate in 1681–1792 Acta comitialia hungarica Soproniensia. /Series exhibitum supplementorum actorum comitialium hungaricorum Sopronensium nuper editorum./Articuli dominorum prselatorum, baronum, magnatum, et nobilium, coeterorumque statum et ordinum regni Hungariae &c. in generali eorum conventu, anno MDCLXXXI. Sopronii celebrato, conclusi, et ad ipsa sacra caesarea

References

239

maiestate ratificati & confirmati./Gravamina evangelicorum anno Domini MDCLXXXI. in generali regni diaeta Soproniensi sacrae caesarae regieque maiestati humilime exhiberi decreta quidem, verim ob certas rationes postmodum compendiata./Imago pacis. Ad Cornelii Taciti Annalem I. cap. X. Archív Gemerského seniorátu evanjelickej cirkvi augsburského vyznania (hereafter e. c. a. v.) in Revúca, 216/sine number/63/54/sine number, signature II. F 23/62/133/M IV. 123. Acta commisionis Pestiensis. Archív Gemerského seniorátu e. c. a. v. in Revúca, 1659 p., sign. C1/XIII. Alberty, Július. Matej Bel a Gemer. Dolné Srnie 2015, 82p. Anonym. Niečo zo stavby evanjelického ev. a. v. kostola v Revúcej. In Šafárikov kraj, 1938, vol. 7, no. 30, 30.7.1938, p. 2. Bačo, Pavol. Nováčany. Nováčany 2008, 220p. Bakošová, Zora. Postavenie nemecky a maďarsky hovoriacich evanjelikov na území Slovenska. In Evanjelický posol spod Tatier, 2010, vol. 100, no. 19, p. 13. Bartholomaeides, Ladislaus. Memorabilia provinciae Csetnek. Cum tabellis aeri incisis. Neosolii (Banská Bystrica) 1799, p. 294 Súkromný archív autora, sign. 6x. Bartl, Július. Stavovské povstania uhorskej šľachty proti viedenskému absolutizmu ako konfesionálny problém. In Verbum historiae, 2008 [vyd. 2009], vol. 1, no. 1, p. 89–97. BCH. Revolučná ružomberská synoda. In Evanjelický posol spod Tatier, 2002, vol. 92, no. 22, p. 7. Bellan, Stanislav - Vojček, Alexander. 55 najkrajších gotických pamiatok Slovenska. Bratislava 2009, 152 p. Bodnárová, Miroslava. Evanjelická cirkev v čase povstania Františka II. Rákociho a v nasledujúcom období s osobitným zreteľom na slobodné kráľovské mestá severovýchodného Uhorska. In Historia ecclesiastica, 2013, vol. 4, no. 1, p. 92–108. Capandová, Petra. Historickoprávny vývoj ECAV na Slovensku a vzťah k štátnej moci od vydania rezolúcii Karola III. do vzniku Československej republiky roku 1918. n Acta Facultatis Iuridicae Universitatis Comenianae 27. Bratislava 2009, p. 53–82. Čaplovič, Ján. Etnografia Slovákov v Uhorsku. Bratislava 1997, 301p. Collection of folios Rôzne 1790–1854. Archív Gemerského seniorátu e. c. a. v. in Revúca, fascicle sine sign. Damankoš, Marián. Nemeckí evanjelici Seniorátu šiestich slobodných kráľovských miest v období 1781 – 1918. In Historia ecclesiastica, 2010, vol. 1, no. 1–2, p. 97–153.

240

References

Daniel, Dávid P. Ortodoxia a evanjelická identita v Uhorsku v 16. – 17. storočí. In Nezameniteľné je dedičstvo otcov... Prešov 2009, p. 104–107. Drenko, Jozef. Kunova Teplica–monografia. Kunova Teplica 2006, 181p. Dubovský, Dušan. Letokruhy mesta Revúca. Revúca 2001, 158p. Dudášová, Darina. Z prachu zabudnutia–dejiny evanjelického a. v. cirkevného zboru v Ochtinej. Ochtiná 2014, 232p. Ďurinda, Miroslav – Mikitová, Marta. Ratková v historických a archívnych retrospektívach. Martin 2015, 160p. Fascicle Korešpondencia 1770–1800. Archív Gemerského seniorátu e. c. a. v. in Revúca, sine sign. Fascicle Materiály pre konvent 1903–1916. Archív Gemerského seniorátu e. c. a. v. in Revúca, signature of fascicle L 378. Fascicle Najstaršie spisy evanjelickej cirkvi. Archív Gemerského seniorátu e. c. a. v. in Revúca, signature of fasc. RL 2–4. Fascicle Vokátory 1796–1848. Archív Gemerského seniorátu e. c. a. v. in Revúca, signature of fascicle L 334. Fascicle Zápisnice seniorátnych konventov 1825–1841. Archív Gemerského seniorátu e. c. a. v. in Revúca, signature of fascicle L 373.Frák, Gustáv. Potiská superintendencia evanjelickej a. v. cirkvi, jej vznik a pôsobenie, Dobšinská koalícia a jej význam v živote superintendencie. In Cirkevné listy, 1995, vol. 108, no. 10, p. 157–160. Frák, Gustáv. Lubeník. Lubeník 1997, 184p. Gallo, Ján. Chyžné. Prešov 1997, 120p. Gallo, Ján. Muráň. Prešov 2001, 240p. Herich, Ondrej. Piesne stredného Gemera. Rožňava 1998, 433p. Herich, Ondrej. Z histórie obce Sirk. Sirk 2005, 112p. Holuby, Jozef Ľudovít. Dejiny Dolno–trenčianskeho kontubernia. Zväzok VI., diel I. 1517–1889. 4 časť. Dolné Srnie 2014, 524p. Hunsdorfer, Emmerich–Rozložník, Ondrej. Banské mesto Dobšiná. Košice 2013, 159 p. Hvožďara, Miroslav. Pohľad na pietizmus v evanjelickej cirkvi v zemi reformácie a na Slovensku. In Cirkevné listy, 2005, vol. 129, no. 4, p. 8–12. Ila, Bálint. Gemerská župa I. Dejiny župy do roku 1773, 3. časť. Dolné Srnie 2010, 363p. Jiroušek, Ladislav. Perly regiónu Gemer–Malohont. Prešov 2008, 223p. Judák, Viliam. Vývin cirkevnej organizácie v 12.-19. storočí na území Slovenska. In Katolícka cirkev a Slováci. Bratislava 1998, p. 21–30.

References

241

Junger, Štefan - Kanaba, Martin - Vandrášik, Dušan. Nižná Slaná. Historická monografia obce. Martin 2012, 151p. Kachnič, Ján. The Patent of Toleration–issued by Joseph II 226 years ago. Tolerančný patent. In Cestou svetla, 2007, vol. 18, no. 11, p. 8. Kišš, Igor. Pôsobenie pietizmu v dejinách evanjelickej cirkvi na Slovensku. In Cirkevné listy, 1999, vol. 112, no. 12, p. 181–185. Kišš, Igor. K problematike pietizmu. In Cirkevné listy, 2000, vol. 113, no. 10, p. 153–154. Kohútová, Mária. Náboženská situácia v období stavovských povstaní 17. storočia. In RYDLO, Jozef M. Fidei et patriae. Bratislava; Trnava 2008, p. 343–352. Kolesár, Ján. Rejdová–monografia obce. Košice 2013, 338p. Kónya, Peter. Dejiny ECAV na Slovensku v rokoch 1610–1791. In Uhorskai, Pavol (ed.). Evanjelici v dejinách slovenskej kultúry Zväzok 3. Liptovský Mikuláš 2002, p. 26–62. Kónya, Peter. Evanjelická cirkev v povstaní Františka II. Rákociho. In Annales historici Presovienses, 2008, vol. 8, no. 1, p. 72–89. Kónya, Peter. Protihabsburské povstania v dejinách evanjelickej a. v. cirkvi na Slovensku. In „Nezameniteľné je dedičstvo otcov...” Prešov 2009, p. 152–170. Kónya, Peter. Lutherská konfesionalizácia. In Kónya, Peter et al. Konfesionalizácia na Slovensku v 16. 18th century. Prešov 2010, p. 17–77. Kónya, Peter et al. Pramene k dejinám Slovenska a Slovákov VIII.–nový pohľad na svet. Bratislava 2007, 456 p. Kowalská, Eva. Zásahy jozefinizmu do cirkevnej a školskej autonómie uhorských evanjelikov. In Historické štúdie 39. Bratislava 1998, p. 151–167. Kowalská, Eva. Štát a evanjelická cirkev a. v. v dobe panovania Jozefa II. In Tvorba T, 1999, vol. 9 (18), no. 1, p. 6–9. Kowalská, Eva. Uhorskí protestanti a viedenský dvor: Formovanie cirkevnej politiky Habsburského štátu pred rokom 1781. In Historický časopis, 2002, vol. 50, no. 3, p. 407–421. Kowalská, Eva. Z vlasti do exilu – skúsenosti evanjelických farárov 17. storočia z prenasledovania a exilu. In Slovenský národopis, 2004, vol. 52, no. 3, p. 249–269. Kowalská, Eva. Restoration of the religious life of evangelists a.c. in the Kingdom of Hungary after 1681- problems and how they were solved. In Historický časopis, 2006, vol. 54, no. 4, p. 653–664. Kusendová, Dagmar et al. Historický atlas evanjelickej cirkvi a. v. na Slovensku. Liptovský Mikuláš 2011, 175p.

242

References

Kušnírová, Katarína. 210 rokov Tolerančného patentu. In Evanjelický posol spod Tatier, 1991, vol. 81, no. 43, p. 340. KZ. Namiesto obrazu majú v oltári kazateľnicu. In Nový čas, 2013, vol. 23, no. 122, 28.5.2013, p. 10. Lincsényi, L. 150. výročie prvej posviacky obnoveného ev. tolerančného chrámu vo Veľkej Polome. In Šafárikov kraj, 1937, vol. 6, no. 45, 6.11.1937, p. 2. Mészároš, Július. Zložité hľadanie pravdy v slovenských dejinách. Bratislava 2004, 487p. Michálek, Ján et al. Gemer–Malohont–národopisná monografia. Martin 2011, 513p. Mikitová, Táňa. Kalendárium života a diela Ladislava Bartholomeidesa a výberová personálna bibliografia. In Obzor Gemera – Malohontu, ročník 1994, vol. 25, no. 1, p. 38–42. Mikulík, Jozef. Dejiny Gemerského ev. a. v. seniorátu 1520–1740. Dolné Srnie 2012, 111p.Mosný, Svetozár. Matej Bahil–kňaz, spisovateľ, prekladateľ. In Evanjelický posol spod Tatier, 1996, vol. 86, no. 9, p. 66. Nosák, Bohuš. Spomienky potiské. In Z cestopisných denníkov štúrovcov. Martin 2010, 250p. Polony, Mikuláš. Z dávnych vekov Gemera a paberky k dejinám Rožňavy (5). In Šafárikov kraj, 1934, vol. 3, no. 13, 24.3.1934, p. 1–2. Polony, Mikuláš. Z dávnych vekov Gemera a paberky k dejinám Rožňavy (6). In Šafárikov kraj, 1934, vol. 3, no. 14, 31.3.1934, p. 1–2. Protocollon Antoniano – Ambrosianum. Archív Gemerského seniorátu e. c. a. v. in Revúca, sine sign. (cyklostylový prepis). Repák, Rudolf. Predstavujeme Vám obce mikroregiónu Revúca–Magnezitovce. In Revúcke listy, 1996, vol. 5, no. 10, p. 5. Rezník, Jaroslav. Túry do literatúry. Po literárnych stopách Slovenska. Bratislava 2001, 480p. Riecky, Martin. Dejiny Malohontského seniorátu evanjelickej cirkvi augsburského vyznania na Slovensku. Liptovský Mikuláš 2015, 174p. Sekerková, Martina. Gemerský seniorát–stav v rokoch 1741/1742. In Historický zborník, 2004, vol. 14, no. 2, p. 42–59. Sokolovský, Leon. Ladislav Bartholomeides a Malohont. In Obzor Gemera – Malohontu, 1994, vol. 25, no. 1, p. 25–28. Stanislav, Ján. Slovenský juh v stredoveku I. Bratislava 1999, 485 p. Šimo, Igor. Filozoficko–osvietenské prvky v diele Ladislava Bartholomeidesa. In Obzor Gemera – Malohontu, 1994, vol. 25, no. 1, p. 10–12.

References

243

Šišmiš, Milan. Pramene genealogického výskumu v archívoch evanjelickej cirkvi–genealogické pramene v evanjelických archívoch. In Príručka ku genealogickému výskumu na Slovensku a v slovacikálnom zahraničí 1. Martin 2004, 245 p. Šmilauer, Vladimír. Vodopis starého Slovenska. Praha/Bratislava 1932, 564 p. Šomšák, Ľudovít Ján et al. Betliar–monografia. Betliar 2014, 385 p. Tajták, Ladislav et al. Dejiny Rožňavy 1. Košice 1978, 506 p. Tóth, Ivan. Ladislav Bartholomeides – funkcionár v cirkvi. In Obzor Gemera – Malohontu, 1994, vol. 25, no. 1, p. 8–10. Viršinská, Miriam. Evanjelická cirkev a. v. v Uhorsku a Slováci v druhej polovici 19. storočia. Martin 2011, 238p. Žigo, Pavol. Jazykovedné poznatky Ladislava Bartholomeidesa. In Obzor Gemera – Malohontu, 1994, vol. 25, no. 1, p. 20–23. Žudel, Juraj. The importance of Bartholomeides’s work Gőmőriensis notitia historico – geographica statistica for the settlement study. In Obzor Gemera – Malohontu, 1994, vol. 25, no. 1, p. 18–20.

Matthias Bel and Nyitra County Aventinus, Ján. Annalium Boiorum libri septem. Ingolstade MDLIIII, 514 p. Baďurík, Jozef. Nitriansky biskup Štefan Podmanický a jeho miesto v pomoháčskych dejinách. In MARSINA, Nitra v slovenských dejinách. Martin 2002, p. 232–236. Balbin, Bohuslav. Epitome historica rerum Bohemicarum. Pragae MDCLXXVII, 632 p. Bel, Matej. Turčianska stolica. Prel. Július Sopko. Úvod a poznámky R. Marsina. Martin 1989, 97 p.Bel, Matej. Užská stolica. Prel. Martin Slaninka. Bratislava 2000, 221 p. Bel, Matej. Zemplínska stolica. Prel. Martin Slaninka. Bratislava 2000, 91 p. Bel, Matej. Oravská stolica. Prel. Jozef Minárik. Liptovský Mikuláš 2001, 169 p. Bel, Matej. Trenčianska stolica. Prel. Imrich Nagy. Spoluzostavovateľ Martin Turóci. Čadca 2013, 448 p. Bel, Matej. Liptovská stolica. Prel. Jozef Kordoš. Spoluzostavovateľ Martin Turóci. Čadca 2014, 390 p. Bel, Matej: Notitia Hungariae novae Historico-Geographica divisa in partes quatuor, quarum prima, Hungariam Cis-Danubianam, altera TransDanubianam, tertia Cis-Tibiscanam; quarta Trans-Tibiscanam: universim XLVIII comitibus designatam, expromit regionis situs, terminos, montes,

244

References

campos, fluvios, locus, thermas, coeli, solique ingenium, naturae munera et prodigia, incolas variarum gentilium, atque harum mores, provinciarum magistratus illustres familias, urbes, arces, oppida et vicos propemodum omnes, singulorum praeterea, ortus et incrementa, belli pacisque conversiones, et praesentem habitum fide optima, adcuratione summa, explicat, opus, hucusque desideratum, et in commune utile, sacratissimis auspiciis Caroli VI. caesaris, et regis indulgentissimi elaboravit Matthias Bel. Accendunt Samuelis Mikovini mappae singulorum comitatuum, methodo astronomico-geometrica concinnatae. Tomus Quartus. Viennae Austriae: Impensis Paulli Straubii Bibliopolae. Typis Johannis Petri van Ghelen, typographi caesarei. Anno MDCCXLII, 768 p. Corpus Juris Hungarici. Tyrnaviae: Typis Academicis Societatis Jesu MDCCLI, zv. I, Caroli I. Regis Decretum, 643 p. Brezováková, Blanka. Nitra a Matúš Čák. In Marsina, Richard (ed.). Nitra v slovenských dejinách. Martin 2002, p. 220–225. Fojtík, Juraj et al. Nitra. Bratislava 1997, 299 p. Hlavačková, Miriam. Diplomat v službách uhorských Krnov. Pôsobenie nitrianskeho biskupa Antona zo Šankoviec na sklonku stredoveku. In Historický časopis, vol. 58, 2010, no. 1, p. 14–35. Inchofer, Melchior. Annales Ecclesiastici Regni Hungariae. Romae MDCXLIV, 641 p. Istvánffy, Nicolaus. De rebus Ungaricis libri XXXIV. Coloniae: Sumptibus Antonii Hierati 1622, 852 p. Kuzmík, Jozef. Slovník starovekých a stredovekých autorov prameňov a knižných skriptorov so slovenskými vzťahmi. Martin 1983, 603 p. Lopatková, Zuzana. Cirkevné dejiny stredovekého Slovenska. Trnava 2013, 77 p. Marsina, Richard. Codex diplomaticus et epistolaris Slovaciae. Tomus 1. Inde ab anno DCCCV usque ad annum MCCXXXV. Bratislava 1971, 472 p. Marsina, Richard. Nitrianske biskupstvo a jeho biskupi od 9. do polovice 13. storočia. In Historický časopis, vol. 41, 1993, no. 5–6, p. 529–542. Marsina, Richard. Legendy stredovekého Slovenska. Budmerice 1997, 408 p. Marsina, Richard et al. Pramene k dejinám Slovenska a Slovákov II. Bratislava 1999, 311 p. Oslanský, František. Zoborský benediktínsky kláštor a jeho zánik. In Marsina, Richard (ed.). Nitra v slovenských dejinách. Martin 2002, s. 212–219. Rácová, Katarína. Trenčín pohľadom Mateja Bela. Nitra 2012, 168 p. Ratkoš, Peter. Pramene k dejinám Veľkej Moravy. Bratislava 1964, 529 p.

References

245

Sopko, Július. Dielo Petra Revu a jeho význam pre slovenskú historiografiu. In Historický časopis, vol. 28, 1980, no. 3, p. 400–417. Sopko, Július. Kroniky stredovekého Slovenska. Budmerice 1995, 384 s. Stránsky, Albert. Dejiny biskupstva Nitrianskeho od najstarších dôb až do konca stredoveku. Trnava 1933, 272 s. Škoviera, Daniel – Juríková, Erika (eds.). Sondy do Belových Vedomostí o súvekom Uhorsku. Sambucus Supplementum II. Trnava 2010, 256 s. Tibenský, Ján et al. Matej Bel. Doba, život, dielo. Bratislava 1987, 411 s. Wurum, Jozef. Episcopatus Nitriensis eiusque praesulum memoria. Posonii: typis Heredum Belnay 1835, 467 p. Zudel, Juraj. Administratívne delenie Slovenska v prvej polovici 18. storočia podľa Belovho diela Notitia Hungariae novae historico-geographica. In Slovenská archivistika, 19, 1984, č. 1, s. 43–54. Zudel, Juraj. Stolice na Slovensku. Bratislava 1984, s. 204. http://aleph.vkol.cz/ pub/svk01/00073/71/000737162.htm [30.09.2016].