John of Moravia Between the Czech Lands and the Patriarchate of Aquileia (ca. 1345-1394) 9004335617, 9789004335615

Citation preview

John of Moravia between the Czech Lands and the Patriarchate of Aquileia (ca. 1345–1394)

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

volume 56

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

John of Moravia between the Czech Lands and the Patriarchate of Aquileia (ca. 1345–1394) By

Ondřej Schmidt Translated by

Graeme and Suzanne Dibble

LEIDEN | BOSTON

First published in Czech by Vyšehrad Publishers Ltd as Jan z Moravy. Zapomenutý Lucemburk na aquilejském stolci (Prague, 2016). The publication of this book has been supported by the Scholarship of the Jan Hus Educational Foundation (2016/2017) and by the Publication Grant of the Faculty of Arts of Masaryk University, Brno (ROZV/25/FF/ UPVH/2017). Cover illustration: The seal of John of Moravia as patriarch of Aquileia. Magyar Nemzeti Levéltár Budapest, OL DL 42398. The Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data is available online at http://catalog.loc.gov LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2019029293

Typeface for the Latin, Greek, and Cyrillic scripts: “Brill”. See and download: brill.com/brill-typeface. issn 1872-8103 isbn 978-90-04-33561-5 (hardback) isbn 978-90-04-40789-3 (e-book) Copyright 2019 by Ondřej Schmidt. Published by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands. Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill, Brill Hes & De Graaf, Brill Nijhoff, Brill Rodopi, Brill Sense, Hotei Publishing, mentis Verlag, Verlag Ferdinand Schöningh and Wilhelm Fink Verlag. Koninklijke Brill NV reserves the right to protect the publication against unauthorized use and to authorize dissemination by means of offprints, legitimate photocopies, microform editions, reprints, translations, and secondary information sources, such as abstracting and indexing services including databases. Requests for commercial re-use, use of parts of the publication, and/or translations must be addressed to Koninklijke Brill NV. This book is printed on acid-free paper and produced in a sustainable manner.

Contents Preface vii Abbreviations xi List of Illustrations xiii Maps xvi Genealogical Tree xviii 1 Introductory Remarks 1 1 The Background: the Luxembourg Dynasty in the Empire, the Czech Lands and Italy 1 2 From John Sobieslaw to John of Moravia 8 3 A Few Words about Sources 13 2 Illegitimate Children in the Late Middle Ages 22 1 The Status of Bastard Children in Late Medieval Society 22 2 The Royal Bastards of the Bohemian Luxembourgs and Their Careers 27 3 Bastard 34 1 Youth and Early Ecclesiastical Career 34 2 The Vyšehrad Provostry 42 4 Bishop 52 1 The Litomyšl Episcopate 52 2 The Occupancy of the Olomouc Bishopric 62 5 Patriarch 67 1 The Patriarchate of Aquileia in the Middle Ages 67 2 Appointment and Preparations for New Office 79 3 Arrival in the Patriarchate and the New Government of Udine 97 4 The Assassination of Federico di Savorgnano 110 5 The Controversy over the Bishopric of Concordia 119 6 Francesco Novello da Carrara and the Anti-Visconti League 128 7 New Conflicts and New Truces 135 8 The Death of Augustine of Litomyšl and the Escalation of Tension 149 9 A Fragile Peace 159 10 “… fuit interfectus dominus patriarcha …” 167

vi

Contents

6 Historical Memory 174 1 Damnatio memoriae versus patriarcha sanctae memoriae 174 2 John of Moravia in the Written Tradition 191 7 Final Reflections 204 Excursus 1: John of Moravia and John Sobieslaw 213 Excursus 2: Capitula contra patriarcham Johannem de Moravia 229 1 Edition 239 Excursus 3: The Itinerary and Residences of John of Moravia 250 Illustrations 264 Bibliography 286 Archival Sources 286 Editions of Sources, Inventories & Catalogues 289 Renaissance, Baroque & Enlightenment Historiography 297 Newspapers 298 Secondary Literature 299 Online Resource 334 Index 335

Preface The fourteenth century has been called a “calamitous century.”1 Indeed, it was a time of armed conflicts, plague epidemics, the cooling of the climate, a monetary crisis and a dramatic demographic decline, which has brought some historians to the concept of a crisis of the Late Middle Ages.2 However, that same period also saw the greatest flowering of Gothic architecture and was linked with the names of Dante, Petrarch and Boccaccio, and thus with the first stirrings of the later Renaissance. All this forms the background to the story of this book’s protagonist: John of Moravia, a bastard of the House of Luxembourg, bishop of Litomyšl and ultimately patriarch of Aquileia. The biography is one of the traditional disciplines within historiography. However, the past few decades have seen a significant change in the way it is conceived. Modern biography places much greater demands on the historian than was the case a hundred years ago. It is no longer enough—as positivist historiography had it—just to assemble a corpus of as many sources as possible related to the life of the person in question, clean it up by removing forgeries and other unreliable testimonies, and then use it as the basis for an “objective” depiction of the subject’s life. Today’s medieval historian has to take on board many new approaches and methods, which include issues connected with rituals, representation and historical memory.3 I have attempted to fulfil these requirements at least in part; I leave it to the reader to judge to what extent I have succeeded in doing so. The primary aim, however, was to write a critical biography of John of Moravia as an overlooked member of the house of Luxembourg which would comprehensively chart his life and ecclesiastical career in the wider context of his illegitimate origin, the Luxembourg dynasty, and Czech and Italian history. The greatest number of pages is taken up by John’s activities in the patriarchate of Aquileia in the years 1387/1388–1394, which may appear disproportionate. This is quite intentional, for a number of reasons: partly because this is a theme which has not been dealt with outside the Italian literature, but even more so because of the quantity of surviving archival sources, which make it possible to depict John’s life 1  Barbara Tuchman, A Distant Mirror: The Calamitous 14th Century (New York: Knopf, 1978). 2  See John Watts, The Making of Polities: Europe, 1300–1500 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009), 13–23. 3  For a recent look at biography and its “challenges,” see Volker Depkat, “The Challenges of Biography: European-American Reflections,” Bulletin of the German Historical Institute 55 (2014), 39–48.

viii

Preface

in some detail, in contrast to the earlier period, for which only fragmentary accounts are available. Despite the reservations once voiced by Pierre Bourdieu,4 it was not possible to dispense entirely with the traditional chronological approach—especially when one considers that no-one has yet written a detailed biography of John of Moravia. However, this does not mean that the finished product should be merely a (more or less skilfully) commentated itinerary. That is why I have always tried to set the events within the context of the time and place.5 For that reason it was necessary to incorporate two lengthy excursuses into the text concerning the specific status of bastards in medieval society and the historical development of the late medieval patriarchate of Aquileia as well as to briefly outline the position of the Luxembourg dynasty within the Empire (and especially in the Czech lands) in the fourteenth century. In this regard, there is one important observation to be made: my aim was to write John’s biography, that is to reconstruct—on the basis of sources and secondary literature—his life and career in the context of the development of the ecclesiastical institutions, regions and lands within which he operated, not to produce a history of them. In other words, this is a book about John of Moravia, not a monograph on the Czech lands or the patriarchate of Aquileia. Such a task would have required a much greater commitment and a rather different approach. Thus, the reader may not find in this book all the information he might justifiably expect. A good deal of attention has been devoted to John’s “second life,” i.e. the traces he left in historical memory. It is not about determining what John was really like, but about revealing how he was perceived by his contemporaries and later generations, and whether and how this image changed. This turns out to be just as important as the “objective reality,” provided that such a thing exists. This method has become quite popular in recent years, which is hardly surprising. After all, it allows us to examine not only the life of a historical figure but also an event or even a charter over a long period of time. Such an approach yields some interesting findings in John’s case as well, showing him in a new light and thereby representing an important corrective to the traditional one-sided condemnations of this controversial figure, shrouded in myth. I do not conceal the fact that a great source of inspiration for me in this regard was

4  Pierre Bourdieu, “The biographical illusion,” in Identity: A Reader, ed. Paul du Gay, Jessica Evans and Peter Redman (Los Angeles: Sage, 2000), 297–303. 5  This was emphasized by Jacques Le Goff, “The Whys and Ways of Writing a Biography: The Case of Saint Louis,” Exemplaria 1 (1989), 210–211.

Preface

ix

Martin Wihoda’s book about a Moravian margrave from the turn of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries.6 Although it was not possible fully to realize the original, over-ambitious conception due to time constrictions and other reasons, I hope that this book will still provide some new insights and a rather different view, not only of John of Moravia himself, but also of the relations within the last generation of the Luxembourg dynasty and of the contacts between the Czech lands and the patriarchate of Aquileia at that time on a more general level. However, there is still considerable scope for further research. In addition, I must admit that the John of Moravia who is presented here is not the only possible version, but rather “my” John of Moravia, to paraphrase the words of Jacques Le Goff.7 As this indicates, the view is a necessarily subjective one which cannot lay claim to exclusivity. This book is a revised version of a master’s thesis which I defended in February 2015 at the Department of History of the Faculty of Arts of the Masaryk University in Brno and published in Czech under the title John of Moravia: A Forgotten Luxembourg on the Throne of Aquileia.8 The content was quite a long time in the making and could only be completed thanks to the fact that I had the privilege of spending a year at the Università di Pisa, where I was able to devote myself exclusively to writing, uninterrupted by other duties. At this point I would like to extend my thanks to all those who gave me their advice and help—in particular to my teacher Dr. Petr Elbel, whose remark at a seminar on church administration inspired me to look at John of Moravia (at that time still John Sobieslaw). I am grateful to him for his helpfulness and support, for his thorough proofreading, and also for helping me to understand the true (?) significance of John’s “enigmatic” margravial titulature. My thanks also go to the archives and libraries staff in Udine, Cividale del Friuli, Venice, Gemona del Friuli, Florence, Padua, Pisa, Belluno, Lucca, Ljubljana, Budapest, Prague and Brno for their willing help and assistance, and in some cases for being so kind as to send reproductions of sources. I would also like to thank the two readers of the Czech edition of the book, Prof. Zdeňka Hledíková and Prof. Ivan Hlaváček, for their valuable feedback and comments. I am grateful to both translators, Graeme and Suzanne Dibble, 6  Martin Wihoda, Vladislaus Henry: The Formation of Moravian Identity, East Central and Eastern Europe in the Middle Ages, 450–1450 33 (Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2015), esp. 227–253. 7  Jacques Le Goff, Saint François d’Assise (Paris: Gallimard, 1999); Czech trans.: Svatý František z Assisi (Prague: Vyšehrad, 2004), 11. 8  Ondřej Schmidt, Jan z Moravy. Zapomenutý Lucemburk na aquilejském stolci (Prague: Vyšehrad, 2016). In relation to the Czech edition, some revisions and additions have been made to the text.

x

Preface

for their due care of my book as well as to Laurence McKellar for his proofreading of the English translation and to Dr. Zuzana Lukšová for her willingness to read through and correct the Latin text of the edition. I would also like to mention my classmates as well as colleagues and friends from the Brno branch office of the Regesta Imperii at the Department of Auxiliary Historical Sciences & Archive Studies with whom I had numerous conversations about John of Moravia (among other things). I am grateful to Brill as well as to the editors of the series for the willingness to publish the book. Finally, I would like to thank all of those who helped me in my endeavour in various ways and who are not mentioned by name here. The biggest thanks, though, go to my parents for their all-round support and kind understanding.

Abbreviations ACU Archivio Capitolare di Udine AfÖG Archiv für österreichische Geschichte AICP Acta judiciaria consistorii Pragensis AIM Antiquitates Italicae Medii Aevi APH Archiv Pražského hradu AMK Archiv Metropolitní kapituly u sv. Víta ARS Arhiv Republike Slovenije Ljubljana ASFi Archivio di Stato di Firenze ASMn Archivio di Stato di Mantova AG Archivio Gonzaga ASP Acta summorum pontificum res gestas Bohemicas aevi praehussitici et hussitici illustrantia ASU Archivio di Stato di Udine NA Notarile antico ASVat Archivio Segreto Vaticano ASVen Archivio di Stato di Venezia AT Archeografo triestino AUC Acta Universitatis Carolinae Phil. et Hist. Philosophica et Historica BCB Biblioteca Civica di Belluno BCC Biblioteca Civica di Cividale del Friuli ACC Archivio dell’antica Comunità di Cividale BCG Biblioteca Civica “Valentino Baldissera” di Gemona del Friuli ACG Archivio del Comune di Gemona BCU Biblioteca Civica “Vincenzo Joppi” di Udine FJ Fondo Joppi FP Fondo principale BMC Biblioteca del Museo Correr di Venezia BNM Biblioteca Nazionale “Marciana” di Venezia CDI Codice Diplomatico Istriano CDM Codex diplomaticus et epistolaris Moraviae CIM Codex juris municipalis regni Bohemiae ČČH Český časopis historický ČMM Časopis Matice moravské DBI Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani FRA Fontes rerum Austriacarum DA Diplomataria et acta

xii

Abbreviations

FRB Fontes rerum Bohemicarum FSI Fonti per la storia d’Italia Ep Epistolari HHStA Haus-, Hof- und Staatsarchiv Wien KLA Kärntner Landesarchiv Klagenfurt MAN Museo Archeologico Nazionale di Cividale del Friuli AC Archivio Capitolare BC Biblioteca Capitolare MEA De Rubeis, Monumenta Ecclesiae Aquilejensis Commentario Historico-Chronologico-Critico Illustrata MGH Monumenta Germaniae Historica Const Constitutiones et acta publica imperatorum et regum SRG Scriptores rerum Germanicarum in usum scholarum separatim editi SS Scriptores MHB Mediaevalia Historica Bohemica MNL Magyar Nemzeti Levéltár Budapest OL DL Országos Levéltár, Diplomatikai Levéltár MSF Memorie storiche forogiuliesi MVB Monumenta Vaticana res gestas Bohemicas illustrantia TP Tomus prodromus MZA Moravský zemský archiv Brno NA Národní archiv Praha AKV Archiv kolegiátní kapituly vyšehradské NAV Nuovo Archivio Veneto Nuovo Liruti Nuovo Liruti. Dizionario biografico dei Friulani QFIAB Quellen und Forschungen aus italienischen Archiven und Bibliotheken RBM Regesta diplomatica nec non epistolaria Bohemiae et Moraviae RBMV Regesta Bohemiae et Moraviae aetatis Venceslai IV. RI Regesta Imperii RIS Rerum Italicarum Scriptores n.s. nova series SPFFBU Sborník prací Filozofické fakulty brněnské univerzity UB Budweis Urkundenbuch der Stadt Budweis in Böhmen UB Goldenkron Urkundenbuch des ehemaligen Cistercienserstiftes Goldenkron in Böhmen UPenn University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Kislak Center for Special Collections, Rare Books and Manuscripts

Illustrations Maps 1

2

1

The Czech lands in the second half of the fourteenth century. Based on Lenka Bobková, Tomáš Velička et al., Jan Zhořelecký. Třetí syn Karla IV., Korunní země v dějinách českého státu 7 (Prague: Casablanca, 2016), 27, fig. 7, created by Jaroslav Synek xvi The Patriarchate of Aquileia at the end of the Trecento. Based on Girolamo Guerrino Corbanese, Il Friuli, Trieste e l’Istria dalla preistoria alla caduta del patriarcato d’Aquileia. Grande Atlante storico-cronologico comparato (Udine: Del Bianco, 1984), 347–355, created by Jaroslav Synek xvii

Genealogical Tree Genealogical tree of the Luxembourg family xviii

Figures 1

2

3

4

5

John Henry, margrave of Moravia and John’s father, in the so-called Gelnhausen Codex from around 1400. Státní okresní archiv Jihlava, Archiv města Jihlava do r. 1848, Úřední knihy a rukopisy, no. 17, fol. 60r 264 Jobst, margrave of Moravia and John’s half-brother, in the so-called Gelnhausen Codex from around 1400. Státní okresní archiv Jihlava, Archiv města Jihlava do r. 1848, Úřední knihy a rukopisy, no. 17, fol. 63r 265 Charles IV and his son Wenceslas IV on the votive panel of the archbishop of Prague John Očko of Vlašim from the second half of the fourteenth century. Národní galerie Praha, public domain 266 A historical reconstruction of Vyšehrad in the second half of the fourteenth century according to František Kašička. Based on Václav Moucha, Bořivoj Nechvátal, Ladislav Varadzin et al., Vyšehrad. Knížecí a královská akropole. Svědectví archeologie (Prague: Archeologický ústav AV ČR, 2015), 670, fig. 22.21, created by Jaroslav Synek 266 A historical reconstruction of the collegiate church of St. Peter at Vyšehrad in the second half of the fourteenth century according to František Kašička. Based on František Kašička and Bořivoj Nechvátal, “Vyšehrad a Karel IV.,” Staletá Praha 9 (1979), 106, created by Jaroslav Synek 267

xiv 6

Illustrations

A charter issued by John of Moravia as provost of Vyšehrad from 1377 with a fragment of his seal. Národní archiv Praha, Archiv kolegiátní kapituly vyšehradské, no. 252 267 7 A historical reconstruction of the residential complex of the bishops of Litomyšl with the cathedral in the second half of the fourteenth century according to Vojtěch Večeře. Based on Vojtěch Večeře, “Klášter, nebo hrad? Rezidence litomyšlských biskupů v letech 1344–1421, její hypotetická rekonstrukce a klasifikace,” Castellologica Bohemica 17 (2017), 145, fig. 5, created by Jaroslav Synek 268 8 The Church of the Exaltation of the Holy Cross in Litomyšl from the second half of the fourteenth century, originally part of the Augustinian monastery. Photo: Ondřej Schmidt 269 9 A fresco in the Chapel of St. Joseph in the same church, probably created during the Litomyšl episcopate of John of Moravia. Photo: Ondřej Schmidt 269 10 The large seal of John of Moravia as bishop of Litomyšl. Národní archiv Praha, Augustiniáni obutí, no. 79 270 11 The secret seal of John of Moravia as bishop of Litomyšl. Národní archiv Praha, Augustiniáni obutí, no. 79 271 12 The castle of Krakovec with the remains of the chapel, consecrated by Bishop John in 1384. Photo: Ondřej Schmidt 272 13 St. Hermagoras, patron saint of the patriarchate of Aquileia, being consecrated by St. Peter in the presence of St. Mark on a twelfth-century fresco in the crypt of the basilica of Aquileia. Photo: Ondřej Schmidt 273 14–15 Exterior and interior of the basilica of Aquileia from the fourth century, current appearance from the eleventh century. Photo: Ondřej Schmidt 274 16 The seal of John of Moravia as patriarch of Aquileia. Magyar Nemzeti Levéltár Budapest, OL DL 42398 275 17 A notarial instrument from 1393 by means of which John of Moravia donated certain property to the Cividale chapter in exchange for masses being celebrated for his soul. Museo Archeologico Nazionale di Cividale del Friuli, Archivio Capitolare, Fondo diplomatico, vol. 15, no. 89. Reproduced with permission of the Ministero dei beni e delle attività culturali e del turismo, Polo Museale del Friuli Venezia Giulia 276 18 The deniers coined by John of Moravia as patriarch of Aquileia with the Moravian chequered eagle on the obverse and St. Hermagoras on the reverse. Wikimedia Commons, CC BY-SA 2.5; photo: Classical Numismatic Group, Inc 277 19 The duomo of Udine from the thirteenth century, later substantially rebuilt. Photo: Ondřej Schmidt 277

Illustrations

xv

20 The fourteenth-century gate of Udine, called Porta Aquileia. Photo: Ondřej Schmidt 278 21 The facade of a palace in Via Savorgnana in Udine, bearing fourteenth-century paintings of the coats of arms of the patriarchate of Aquileia and the kingdom of Bohemia with a fragment of the imperial eagle above. Photo: Ondřej Schmidt 278 22 A present-day view of Cividale del Friuli with the river Natisone. Photo: Ondřej Schmidt 279 23 The throne of the patriarchs from the eleventh century, originally located in the apse of the duomo of Cividale, where the Aquileian prelates were symbolically installed in office. Museo Cristiano e Tesoro del Duomo di Cividale del Friuli; photo: Ondřej Schmidt 279 24 A fourteenth-century house in Cividale. Photo: Ondřej Schmidt 280 25 The duomo in Gemona del Friuli from the early fourteenth century, later rebuilt. Photo: Ondřej Schmidt 281 26 A present-day view of Venzone with its church. Photo: Ondřej Schmidt 281 27 The tombstone of Augustine of Litomyšl in Venzone. Photo: Ondřej Schmidt 282 28 A copperplate of the tomb of the Venetian doge Antonio Venier (1382–1400). Wikimedia Commons, public domain; from: Gustavo Strafforello, La Patria. Geografia dell’Italia. Provincia di Venezia (Turin, 1902), 72 283 29 A fresco of fourteenth-century Padua, when the city was under the rule of the Carrara dynasty, by Giusto de’ Menabuoi in the Basilica di Sant’Antonio. Wikimedia Commons, public domain 284 30 The portrait of John of Moravia from around 1600 in the palace of the patriarchs in Udine. Museo Diocesano e Gallerie del Tiepolo di Udine; photo: Riccardo Viola 285

Map 1

The Czech lands in the second half of the fourteenth century

Maps

xvii

Maps

Map 2

The Patriarchate of Aquileia at the end of the Trecento

Jobst († 1411)

John Sobieslaw († 1380?) Prokop († 1405) John of Moravia (bastard; † 1394)

John Henry († 1375) Wenceslas of Luxembourg († 1383) Nicholas of Luxembourg (bastard; † 1358)

Sigismund († 1437) John of Görlitz († 1396)

1 Genealogical tree of the Luxembourg family

Wenceslas iv († 1419)

Charles iv († 1378)

John of Luxembourg (“the Blind”) († 1346)

Genealogical Tree

Chapter 1

Introductory Remarks 1

The Background: the Luxembourg Dynasty in the Empire, the Czech Lands and Italy

The historical and geographical background to the life story of this book’s main character, John of Moravia, was constituted by the Holy Roman Empire. Actually, as far as we know—with the exception of approximately two months in Rome—he always moved within the Imperium, as he was born and spent most of his life in the Czech lands and was later to set off for the other side of the Alps on his Italian adventure. Therefore, for a better understanding of the following chapters, it may be useful to briefly outline this basic framework in which John operated along with its main protagonists, that is the members of the Luxembourg dynasty.1 As is well known, the late medieval Empire was made up of a multifarious mosaic of lay and ecclesiastical principalities, lordships and cities. This conglomerate, whose borders were not always clearly defined, formally divided into the German, Italian and Burgundian kingdoms, covered a vast area ranging from the shores of the Baltic Sea to Tuscany. The whole Empire was ruled by the elective king of the Romans, who, after his coronation in Rome, held the title of emperor. However, his power was markedly limited by a number of different factors: competition with the imperial princes, the autonomous tendencies of peripheral territories (northern Italy, northern Germany) or a lack of financial resources. Thus, the actual rule was traditionally carried out in the central and southern regions of present-day Germany (Franconia, Swabia, Rhineland etc.) for which historiography has established the term königsnahe Landschaften.2 1  Since the scope of this chapter is only to provide the reader with the basic historical context, the bibliographical references are limited to several essential and/or recent titles. 2  The most important synthesis of the late medieval Holy Roman Empire is the one by Peter Moraw, Von offener Verfassung zu gestalteter Verdichtung. Das Reich im späten Mittelalter 1250 bis 1490, Propyläen Geschichte Deutschlands 3 (Berlin: Propyläen Verlag, 1985). The same author has also developed the concept of the königsnahe/königsoffene/königsferne Landschaften. See further Malte Prietzel, Das Heilige Römische Reich im Spätmittelalter (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 2004). A basic outline of the political history of the Empire in English is provided by the relevant chapters in The New Cambridge Medieval History, vol. 6, c. 1300–c. 1415, ed. Michael Jones (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000), written by Peter Herde and Ivan Hlaváček.

© Ondřej Schmidt, 2019 | doi:10.1163/9789004407893_002

2

Chapter 1

From the beginning, the Czech lands belonged to the important, yet without doubt peripherical, imperial territories in the East. At the same time, however, since their rulers, as the only princes of the Empire, managed to obtain a hereditary royal title in the twelfth century, they also represented a sort of anomaly. The king of Bohemia became one of the seven prince-electors, i.e. the princes with the right to elect the new king; as such he bore the title of Arch-Cupbearer (archipincerna) and was regarded as a prominent lay dignitary of the Empire. Even though as early as the thirteenth century there were certain tendencies in this direction, it was only the following century, when several rulers from the Luxembourg dynasty sat on the Bohemian and imperial throne, that brought about a “deeper integration” of the Czech lands into the structures of the Empire.3 By contrast, developments in northern Italy went a completely different way. This area was dominated by powerful, mutually competing city-states, which—although formally also part of the Empire—managed to gain substantial political autonomy. By the end of the thirteenth century, the gradual transformation of most of them into autocratic signorie had begun, eventually leading, in connection with their expansion from the second half of the Trecento, to the creation of the so-called territorial states. In Tuscany in particular, oligarchic city-republics existed alongside them, while there were also some feudal principalities at the foot of the Alps which, because of their constitution, more closely resembled the German ones. Although the effective power of the kings and emperors of the Romans in this region was gradually decreasing, the rich area of northern Italy constantly constituted the object of their interest as well as military campaigns.4 When the Luxembourg count Henry was elected king of the Romans in 1308, nobody could have foreseen that his descendants would (intermittently) rule the Empire until 1437. The rise of the authority of the House of Luxembourg led to a situation where as early as 1310 both the ecclesiastical and lay elite of 3  See Ivan Hlaváček, “Politische Integration der Böhmischen Krone unter den Luxemburgern,” in Fragen der politischen Integration im mittelalterlichen Europa, ed. Werner Maleczek, Vorträge und Forschungen 63 (Ostfildern: Thorbecke, 2005), 325–374. 4   See Isabella Lazzarini, L’Italia degli Stati territoriali. Secoli XIII–XV (Rome and Bari: Laterza, 2003); The Italian Renaissance State, ed. Andrea Gamberini and Isabella Lazzarini (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012); Fritz Trautz, “Die Reichsgewalt in Italien im Spätmittelalter,” Heidelberger Jahrbücher 7 (1963), 45–81; Marie-Luise Favreau-Lilie, “König Wenzel und Reichsitalien. Beobachtungen zu Inhalt, Form und Organisation politischer Kommunikation zwischen dem Reich und Italien im ausgehenden Mittelalter,” Mitteilungen des Instituts für Österreichische Geschichtsforschung 109 (2001), 315–345. However, Italy’s place within the structures of the late medieval Empire as well as the perception of the Empire in Italy are still lacking an in-depth analysis.

Introductory Remarks

3

the kingdom of Bohemia, undergoing a deep inner crisis after the extinction of the Přemyslid dynasty, offered the throne to Henry’s son John. Henry VII died in 1313 during his expedition in Italy, where he attempted in vain to restore the imperial authority, and perhaps because of the untimely nature of his death he was not able to ensure the succession of young John to the imperial throne. Thus, John of Luxembourg—due to a later eye defect also known as John “the Blind”—remained the king of Bohemia until his death in 1346, thereby shifting the centre of the dynasty’s power from Western to East Central Europe.5 It is well known that John’s reign did not avoid clashes with the Bohemian nobility: the king was often criticised for his long absences from the country (John frequently intervened in European politics), the presence of foreigners in his council and, above all, heavy taxation. The disputes between the sovereign and his subjects is also reflected in the Czech historical tradition which generally views John as a “king-foreigner,” thus contrasting with his reputation in the rest of Europe as a skilful diplomat and chivalric hero who fell in the battle of Crécy. Nevertheless, John’s reign surely cannot be judged as a completely negative one, as he succeeded in annexing some territories to the kingdom of Bohemia (Silesia, Upper Lusatia, the Egerland and, temporarily, also Tyrol), bringing in social, legal and cultural innovations from Western Europe (chivalric culture, feudal system, art). The ultimately unsuccessful project of a Luxembourg lordship in northern Italy in the 1330s is also worthy of mention, as it clearly shows the attractiveness of this area for the dynasty.6 The reign of John’s son Charles IV is traditionally regarded as the most glorious period for the Luxembourg dynasty and Bohemia. Initially margrave of Moravia, he was elected the (anti)king of the Romans in 1346, and in the same year, after his father’s death, he also succeeded to the Bohemian throne. This ruler, who had received an excellent education at the French royal court, astutely made use of favourable circumstances as well as of his unquestionable 5  For the Luxembourg dynasty, see Jörg K. Hoensch, Die Luxemburger. Eine spätmittelalterliche Dynastie gesamteuropäischer Bedeutung 1308–1437 (Stuttgart, Berlin and Cologne: Kohlhammer, 2000), and also the most recent comprehensive volume Lucemburkové. Česká koruna uprostřed Evropy, ed. Lenka Bobková and František Šmahel (Prague: NLN, 2012). 6  For John of Luxembourg, see Lenka Bobková, Velké dějiny zemí Koruny české, vol. 4/a, 1310–1402 (Prague and Litomyšl: Paseka, 2003), 11–212; most recently Lenka Bobková, Jan Lucemburský. Otec slavného syna (Prague: Vyšehrad, 2018). For a basic outline of the history of the Czech lands in the fourteenth century in German or English, see also Ferdinand Seibt, “Die Zeit der Luxemburger und der hussitischen Revolution,” in Handbuch der Geschichte der böhmischen Länder, vol. 1, Die böhmischen Länder von der archaischen Zeit bis zum Ausgang der hussitischen Revolution, ed. Karl Bosl (Stuttgart: Hiersemann, 1967), 351–494; Miloslav Polívka “The Expansion of the Czech State During the Era of the Luxemburgs (1306–1419),” in Jaroslav Pánek, Oldřich Tůma et al., A History of the Czech Lands (Prague: Karolinum, 2009), 117–146.

4

Chapter 1

political talent in order to transform the Czech lands into a power base for his imperial and European politics. Furthermore, as the devastating Black Death from the mid-fourteenth century essentially bypassed Bohemia, its economic and demographic development was not dramatically interrupted as happened elsewhere in Western and Southern Europe. The rise of the kingdom of Bohemia also expressed itself in Charles’s formidable “foreign politics” which brought about the acquisition of several new lands. An integral part of it was the king’s interest in Italian matters, the results of which included two campaigns to Rome and attempts to install his loyal clergymen in the strategic bishoprics that controlled the Alpine passes (the appointment of his illegitimate half-brother Nicholas of Luxembourg to the see of Aquileia was not an exceptional case). Nevertheless, throughout his reign, Charles dedicated the greatest attention to Bohemia, in particular to his privileged residence, Prague, which, as the principal seat of the imperial court, was to play the role of a key power centre of the Holy Roman Empire for the rest of the century. Here he founded the University of Prague in 1348, the first studium generale north of the Alps, laid the foundations of the New Town of Prague and also began the reconstruction, or rather new construction of the traditional residence of the Bohemian kings, Prague Castle with St. Vitus Cathedral. An important step within the ecclesiastical emancipation of the Czech lands was the elevation of Prague to an archbishopric in 1344 (i.e. still during the reign of King John, but thanks to Charles’s efforts) which meant the exemption of the Bohemian Church from the structures of the Mainz province.7 No less important were the “constitutional” reforms Charles IV made by means of charters he issued on 7th April 1348, significantly altering the composition of the Czech lands. Their natural head was to be the kingdom of Bohemia, to which the other, associated lands—Moravia, the Silesian principalities and Upper Lusatia—were incorporated. Moravia was further divided into the margraviate of Moravia, the duchy of Opava and the bishopric of Olomouc, with all three parts becoming fiefs of the king of Bohemia. The whole unit was de7  For Charles IV and his reign, see Bobková, Velké dějiny, vol. 4/a, 213–586; František Kavka, Vláda Karla IV. za jeho císařství (1355–1378). Země České koruny, rodová, říšská a evropská politika, vols. 1–2 (Prague: Karolinum, 1993); the most recent monograph is by Václav Žůrek, Karel IV. Portrét středověkého vládce (Prague: NLN, 2018); for a partial reconsideration of the central role of Prague in the second half of the fourteenth century, sometimes referred to as the “capital” of the Empire in the literature, see Petr Elbel, “Prag und Ofen als Kaiserresidenzen. Die Verlagerung des Reichsschwerpunkts nach Osten unter den Luxemburgern und deren Folgen für das Reich,” in Rom 1312. Die Kaiserkrönung Heinrichs VII. und die Folgen. Die Luxemburger als Herrscherdynastie von gesamteuropäischer Bedeutung, ed. Sabine Penth and Peter Thorau, Forschungen zur Kaiser- und Papstgeschichte des Mittelalters 40 (Cologne, Weimar and Vienna: Böhlau, 2016), 259–329.

Introductory Remarks

5

nominated the “Lands of the Bohemian Crown” (Corona regni Bohemiae), a term referring not only to the territory, but also, abstractly, to an “ever-lasting ‘constitutional’ institution.” Subsequently, other territories were also gradually aggregated to the Crown (Upper Palatinate, Lower Lusatia, Brandenburg; Luxembourg had a somewhat obscure position).8 The imperial city of Cheb/ Eger in western Bohemia enjoyed a special status, being a long-term pledge to the Bohemian king.9 Charles, from 1355 Holy Roman Emperor, made the most of the fact that he concentrated the rule of both the Czech lands and the Empire in his hands, intervening markedly in the relationship between the two. In doing so, he could naturally build on previous developments. The privileged position of Bohemia and its ruler within the Holy Roman Empire was thus confirmed by the Golden Bull of 1356, which was to represent the basic imperial “constitution” in the following centuries. This document enshrined the right (already granted earlier) of the Bohemian political representation to elect a new king in the case of the ruling dynasty’s extinction—a regulation intended to prevent future emperors from claiming Bohemia as an escheated fief as was to be the case for the other lay electorates.10 However, Charles IV was not the only son of John of Luxembourg: alongside him, there were his younger brothers John Henry and Wenceslas, who also had to be sufficiently provided for. In connection with the Luxembourg dynasty’s plans to acquire the duchy of Carinthia and the county of Tyrol, John Henry was initially to become the lord of these Alpine countries.11 After his expulsion from Tyrol in 1341, however, he had no other choice than to return to Bohemia, and later Charles granted him the margraviate of Moravia, where he ruled in 8  Lenka Bobková, “Koruna království českého za vlády Lucemburků,” in Lucemburkové, 124–140, quotation ibid., 125; Bobková, Velké dějiny, vol. 4/a, 233–235; for more details, see Lenka Bobková, 7. 4. 1348. Ustavení Koruny království českého. Český stát Karla IV., Dny, které tvořily české dějiny 12 (Prague: Havran, 2006); for the territorial development of the Czech lands, see also [Zdeňka Hledíková], “Územní vývoj českého státu,” in Zdeňka Hledíková, Jan Janák and Jan Dobeš, Dějiny správy v českých zemích. Od počátků státu po současnost, 2nd ed. (Prague: NLN, 2005), 16–28. 9  See František Kubů, Chebský městský stát. Počátky a vrcholné období do počátku 16. století (České Budějovice: Veduta, 2006). 10  Bobková, Velké dějiny, vol. 4/a, 318–324; for more details, see Lenka Bobková, “Die Goldene Bulle und die Rechtsverfügungen Karls IV. für das Königreich Böhmen in den Jahren 1346–1356,” in Die Goldene Bulle. Politik—Wahrnehmung—Rezeption, vol. 2, ed. Ulrike Hohensee et al., Berichte und Abhandlungen, Sonderband 12 (Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 2009), 713–735. 11  For the fortunes of young John Henry in Tyrol, see also the chapter “Youth and Early Ecclesiastical Career” in this book.

6

Chapter 1

the years 1349–1375. The youngest of King John’s male offspring, Wenceslas, was to inherit the county of Luxembourg in 1354, simultaneously elevated by Charles IV to a duchy, which he held until his death in 1383. Both the younger brothers of King and later Emperor Charles were thus his direct vassals, and it should be added that the coexistence of all three men avoided serious disputes; on the contrary, it can be described as relatively harmonious. It was also thanks to this internal coherence that the Luxembourg dynasty was able to achieve its greatest expansion and prestige in the third quarter of the fourteenth century. Nevertheless, even in this period certain negative tendencies can already be observed that were to fully manifest themselves only later: in particular, the dialectics between the sovereign power and the pretensions of the imperial princes as well as the Bohemian nobility were not entirely unproblematic; however, thanks to his diplomatic skills and the support of the Church, Charles IV was usually still able to manage the situation and turn it to his advantage. Whereas the cooperation between Charles IV, John Henry and Wenceslas could be characterized as very good, with their descendants—the last generation of the Luxembourgs—it was to be otherwise. The absence of a male heir was traditionally a nightmare for every medieval ruler; however, an abundance of them, bringing with it partitioning of the family estates and very often also hereditary disputes, could be equally dangerous. Duke Wenceslas of Luxembourg left only illegitimate sons behind and his territory was thus to revert to the king of Bohemia.12 By contrast, Margrave John Henry, becoming the founder of the Luxembourg secundogeniture line in Moravia, begot three male heirs (besides his bastard son John, whom this book is about): Jobst, John Sobieslaw and Prokop. Charles himself had waited a long time for a son. It was not until 1361 that Wenceslas, later king of the Romans and of Bohemia, was born, who was subsequently followed by Sigismund and John, known as “of Görlitz.” Both Charles († 1378) and John Henry († 1375) made considerable efforts to determine the order of succession. Its cornerstone consisted in the principle of primogeniture. The rule over the kingdom of Bohemia and Silesia was to be inherited by Wenceslas, whom Charles also promoted as his successor to the imperial throne. Sigismund was to be given the margraviate of Brandenburg with its elector vote but, because of his planned marriage with a daughter of 12  A great deal of attention has been devoted to Duke Wenceslas by Jana Fantysová-Matějková. See especially Wenceslas’s extensive biography: Jana Fantysová-Matějková, Wenceslas de Bohême. Un prince au carrefour de l’Europe (1337–1383), Cultures et civilisations médiévales 56 (Paris, 2013). This volume, however, was not available to me.

Introductory Remarks

7

the Polish and Hungarian king, he was also expected to become the future ruler of Poland. In the end, after complicated mishaps and uncertain beginnings, Sigismund eventually acceded to the throne of Hungary (1387–1437). For his youngest son, John, Charles IV created the new duchy of Görlitz, consisting of parts of Upper and Lower Lusatia and Brandenburg. Both Sigismund and John were to be subordinated to their older brother—the king of Bohemia—to whom their lands were also ultimately to revert.13 In Moravia, however, there was a considerably less favourable situation. The margraviate was much smaller, which meant that John Henry could not bequeath sufficient portions to all of his sons. The effective lord of Moravia became the eldest, Jobst, while his brothers John Sobieslaw and Prokop were to receive only scattered estates that did not constitute compact dominions. The impossibility of realizing his ambitions clearly led to Prokop becoming frustrated (by all accounts, John Sobieslaw died as early as 1380). This resulted in frequent conflicts with his no-less-ambitious brother Jobst, leading to a series of margravial wars at the turn of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, which other members of the Luxembourg dynasty also became involved in.14 Only John of Görlitz demonstrated some loyalty towards Wenceslas, but given his premature death in 1396 he could no longer intervene in the extensive upheaval that later affected the Czech lands.15 The situation was further intensified by the unsuccessful reign of Wences­las IV, both in the Empire and the kingdom of Bohemia, whose passivity as well as incapacity to undertake his Romzug led to him being taken captive twice—the first time by the Bohemian nobility, led by his cousin Jobst, and the second time by his brother Sigismund—and also to the discontent of the prince-electors that eventually brought about his deposition as king of the Romans in 1400.16 However, Wenceslas’s weak rule and the dissension between the members of the last generation of the Luxembourgs were not the only reasons why the period after 1380 is referred to as a “crisis.”17 In fact, the 13  Bobková, Velké dějiny, vol. 4/a, 431–437. For the political history of the Czech lands after 1378, see Milena Bartlová and Lenka Bobková, Velké dějiny zemí Koruny české, vol. 4/b, 1310–1402 (Prague and Litomyšl: Paseka, 2003). 14  For fourteenth-century Moravia, see the solid synthesis by Jaroslav Mezník, Lucemburská Morava 1310–1423 (Prague: NLN, 1999). For John Sobieslaw, see also Excursus 1 in this book. 15  See Lenka Bobková, Tomáš Velička et al., Jan Zhořelecký. Třetí syn Karla IV., Korunní země v dějinách českého státu 7 (Prague: Casablanca, 2016). 16  For a recent reassessment of King Wenceslas’s reign, see the volume from the conference Wenzel IV. (1361–1419). Neue Wege zu einem verschütteten König, ed. Klara Hübner and Christian Oertel (in print). 17  For the concept of “crisis” in the Czech lands at the turn of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, see especially Petr Čornej, Velké dějiny zemí Koruny české, vol. 5, 1402–1437

8

Chapter 1

decline of sovereign authority, which can also be observed in other European monarchies at that time, was accompanied by various negative phenomena, such as the plague epidemic of 1380 or the gradual devaluation of the Prague groschen, thereby arresting the previous promising development of the Czech lands. Furthermore, the outbreak of the papal schism in 1378, whose dire consequences also affected Bohemia, brought about a decrease in the authority of the Church, an institution which had played an essential role in the political conception of Emperor Charles. Thus, it was within this complicated framework that the life of John of Moravia was to take place. 2

From John Sobieslaw to John of Moravia

Although researchers’ interest in the history of Moravia during the period of Luxembourg rule has undoubtedly increased in the past two decades,18 the fact remains that the main focus of the historiography has been on the contradictory and undoubtedly interesting figure of Margrave Jobst († 1411),19 while other members of the Luxembourg secundogeniture have tended to be of marginal interest to Czech historians. This fully applies to the two frequently confused sons of Charles IV’s younger brother Margrave John Henry, who shared the same name: the second-born legitimate son, John Sobieslaw, and the illegitimate son John. Until recently, the historiography could not even agree on who was who. The older literature usually stated that Margrave John Sobieslaw became provost of Vyšehrad in 1368/1369, bishop of Litomyšl in 1380 and eventually patriarch of Aquileia.20 Primarily under the influence of an insightful study (Prague and Litomyšl: Paseka, 2000), 11–71; František Šmahel, Die Hussitische Revolution, vol. 1, Schriften der MGH 43 (Hannover: Hahn, 2002), 85–271. 18  See Mezník, Lucemburská Morava; Václav Štěpán, Moravský markrabě Jošt (1354–1411) (Brno: Matice moravská, 2002), and the volume Moravští Lucemburkové. Forum Brunense. Sborník prací Muzea města Brna, ed. Jiří Vaněk (Brno: Muzeum města Brna, 2000). 19  See Morava v časech markraběte Jošta. K 600. výročí zvolení posledního Lucemburka z moravské větve římským králem a jeho úmrtí, ed. Libor Jan (Brno: Matice moravská, 2012). 20  Vojtěch Ruffer, Historie Wyssehradská, neb Wyprawowánj o hradu, o kapitole a městu Hory Wyssehradu u Prahy w králowstwj Českém (Prague: V. Hess, 1861), 152–153; Zdeněk Nejedlý, Dějiny města Litomyšle a okolí, vol. 1, Dějiny kláštera a biskupství litomyšlského (do r. 1421) (Litomyšl: V. Augusta, 1903), 173–174; Václav Vladivoj Tomek, Dějepis města Prahy, vol. 3, 2nd ed. (Prague: Fr. Řivnáč, 1893), 180; Rudolf Dvořák, Dějiny markrabství moravského (Brno: A. Píša, 1906), 128–129. John Sobieslaw is also identified as provost of Vyšehrad in the recent (and rather popularizing) publication by Jaroslav Čechura, Milan Hlavačka and Jiří Mikulec, Děti a levobočci českých králů (Prague: Akropolis, 2000), 65–68. Another part

Introductory Remarks

9

by Dieter Veldtrup, who brightly pointed out some overlooked connections,21 the view gradually began to prevail that the provost of Vyšehrad was actually John Henry’s illegitimate son, also named John,22 while his half-brother John Sobieslaw was supposed to have opted for a religious career as late as 1380, after resigning the title of margrave, and to have acceded to the bishopric of Litomyšl that same year.23 There was an attempt to reconcile the two theories by Václav Štěpán, who believed that John Sobieslaw did not accede to the provostry of Vyšehrad until 1377, after it was relinquished (for reasons unknown) by the bastard son John. However, the charter to which he refers paradoxically refutes his assertion.24 Thus, the only conclusion that historical research to date unanimously agreed upon was that Margrave John Sobieslaw embarked upon a religious career (be it in 1368/1369, 1377 or 1380). However, after a thorough analysis of partly well-known, partly hithertoneglected sources, which is contained in Excursus 1 in the final section of this book, it became quite clear that historical research had confused these two individuals, with this mistake evidently going back to the Baroque historian Thomas Pešina of Čechorod († 1680), whose conclusions were then adopted by virtually all subsequent historiography.25 The analysis shows that John “the Bastard,” as an illegitimate son destined for an ecclesiastical career, did indeed of the older research settled for the vague assertion that John Sobieslaw became bishop of Litomyšl. See František Palacký, Dějiny národu českého v Čechách a v Moravě, vol. 2, Od roku 1253 až do roku 1403, 4th ed. (Prague: Bursík & Kohout, 1894), 383; František Michálek Bartoš, České dějiny, vol. 2/6, Čechy v době Husově (1378–1415) (Prague: J. Laichter, 1947), 7, 48–49; Zdeněk Fiala, Předhusitské Čechy 1310–1419. Český stát pod vládou Lucemburků 1310–1419, 2nd ed. (Prague: Svoboda, 1978), 206. 21  Dieter Veldtrup, “Johann Propst von Vyšehrad. Illegitimer Sohn eines ‘impotenten’ Luxemburgers,” in Studia Luxemburgensia. Festschrift für Heinz Stoob zum 70. Geburtstag, ed. Friedrich Bernward Fahlbusch and Peter Johanek, Studien zu den Luxemburgern und ihrer Zeit 3 (Warendorf: Fahlbusch, Hölscher and Rieger, 1989), esp. 71–73. 22  Kavka, Vláda Karla IV., vol. 2, 82 and 95, note 71. 23  Jiří Spěváček, Václav IV. (1361–1419). K předpokladům husitské revoluce (Prague: Svoboda, 1986), 164–165, 713; Josef Válka, Dějiny Moravy, vol. 1, Středověká Morava, Vlastivěda moravská. Nová řada. Země a lid 5 (Brno: Muzejní a vlastivědná společnost, 1991), 105; Mezník, Lucemburská Morava, 222–223 and passim; Jaroslav Čechura, České země v letech 1378–1437. Lucemburkové na českém trůně, vol. 2 (Prague: Libri, 2000), 19, 31, 36; Bartlová and Bobková, Velké dějiny, vol. 4/b, 70, 282; Jaroslav Čechura and Václav Žůrek, Lucemburkové. Životopisná encyklopedie (České Budějovice: Veduta, 2012), 97–98; Petr Elbel, “Jan Soběslav a Prokop,” in Lucemburkové, 711. 24  Štěpán, Moravský markrabě Jošt, 128 and 148, note 48; cf. Urkundenbuch des ehemaligen Cistercienserstiftes Goldenkron in Böhmen (= UB Goldenkron), ed. Mathias Pangerl, FRA DA 37 (Vienna: Gerold, 1872), 221–242, no. 113 (5th December 1393). 25  The majority of this excursus has already been published in Czech: Ondřej Schmidt, “Jan z Moravy, patriarcha aquilejský († 1394) a Jan Soběslav, markrabě moravský († cca 1381).

10

Chapter 1

become provost of Vyšehrad in 1368, bishop of Litomyšl in 1380 and eventually, in the years 1387–1394, patriarch of Aquileia. The primary evidence for this thesis comes from documents regarding the dispute between the Vyšehrad chapter and the Cistercian monastery of Zlatá Koruna, where John’s career progression in the ecclesiastical hierarchy is well documented. It is also supported by the titulature of the two Johns, along with some necrological records and, last but not least, an Aquileian chronicle which contains an explicit reference to John’s illegitimate origin. In contrast to this, there is no evidence for the assertion that John Sobieslaw pursued a career in the church; on the contrary, we have two documents from 1377 indicating that he never even considered entering the priesthood and was regarded as a potential heir to the throne of Bohemia. In the following chapters, therefore, we will leave behind Margrave John Sobieslaw, who appears for the last time in the sources in the summer of 1380 and apparently died not long afterwards (possibly on 30th October of that year),26 and from now on will deal exclusively with the life and ecclesiastical career of his illegitimate half-brother John (henceforth, in accordance with the sources and Italian historiography, referred to as “John of Moravia”). Although, in the light of this new interpretation, he could almost be described as a “new character” of Czech (and European) history, an attempt to write his biography can make use of a limited amount of older literature, including, of course, that which was primarily concerned with John Sobieslaw. In fact, we already have quite a detailed picture of the beginnings of John’s ecclesiastical career and his activity as provost of Vyšehrad, which was clarified in a masterly way by Dieter Veldtrup.27 A less well-charted area is the period of John’s Litomyšl episcopate, where the only work available is the outdated and biased one by Zdeněk Nejedlý.28 Recently, some attention has also been devoted to John of Moravia’s two unsuccessful attempts to secure the bishopric of Olomouc for himself in 1381 and 1387–1388.29 Příspěvek k poznání genealogických vztahů lucemburské sekundogenitury,” ČMM 132, no. 1 (2013), 25–41. 26  Codex diplomaticus et epistolaris Moraviae. Urkunden-Sammlung zur Geschichte Mährens (= CDM), vol. XI, ed. Vincenz Brandl (Brno: Fr. Winiker and Schickardt, 1885), 169–170, no. 187. For the approximate date of issue of the charter, see Mezník, Lucemburská Morava, 221–222; for the death of John Sobieslaw, see Excursus 1 in this book. 27  Veldtrup, “Johann Propst von Vyšehrad.” 28  Nejedlý, Dějiny města Litomyšle, vol. 1, 172–184. 29  Božena Kopičková, “Příspěvek k dynastické politice posledních Lucemburků v Olomouci,” Vlastivědný věstník moravský 32 (1980), 21–29; Božena Kopičková, “Olomoucké biskupství v zrcadle dynastických sporů posledních Lucemburků,” Historická Olomouc a její současné problémy 3 (1980), 95–107; Petr Elbel, “Markrabě Jošt, olomoucké biskupství a olomoucká kapitula,” in Morava v časech markraběte Jošta, 33–58.

Introductory Remarks

11

However, recounting and assessing John’s tenure as head of the patriarchate of Aquileia in the years 1387/1388–1394 is much more complicated. This has already been described a number of times by Italian historians: the first critical study of John of Moravia’s rule was written by Vincenzo Marchesi in the nineteenth century, and due attention was also paid to the issue by Pio Paschini, author of a major synthesis of the history of Friuli, with Fabio Cusin adding new insights.30 The protracted conflict between the patriarch and the city of Udine was depicted in a very detailed, and yet rather biased, way by Federico Seneca.31 Other works were devoted to John’s relationship with the papal curia32 and also with the powerful neighbours of the Aquileian patriarchate: the Carrara dynasty that ruled Padua,33 and especially the Republic of Venice, where Roberto Cessi’s thorough studies should be commended.34 By contrast, no work has yet analysed John’s activities in the patriarchate as metropolitan of the Aquileian ecclesiastical province and bishop of his own diocese. However, it must be said that even this book does not contribute very much on this issue, as it is necessarily restricted mainly to the power-political dimension of his rule. In their valuable contributions, all of these authors assembled a large number of mostly unpublished documents, and this book owes them a great deal in this respect. Yet the massive local source base still has considerable potential and a good few surprises to offer, not to mention raising international ­awareness of the conclusions of the Italian historiography, which is often not

30  Vincenzo Marchesi, “Giovanni di Moravia, patriarca d’Aquileia,” Annali del R. Istituto tecnico di Udine, ser. 2, 1 (1883), 109–148; Pio Paschini, Storia del Friuli, 5th ed. (Udine: Provincia di Udine, 2010; the first edition dates back to the 1930s), 631–660; Fabio Cusin, Il confine orientale d’Italia nella politica europea del XIV e XV secolo, vol. 1 (Milan: A. Giuffrè, 1937), 164–195. 31  Federico Seneca, “Il conflitto fra Giovanni di Moravia e gli Udinesi (1389–1394),” Archivio Veneto, 5th ser., 46/47 (1950), 45–68. There was also a diploma thesis, “A. Boeri, ‘Il patriarcato di Giovanni di Moravia’ (Università di Trieste, 1963),” cited in Luigi De Biasio, “Il patriarca d’Aquileia Giovanni di Moravia e la creazione a Udine di un governo di popolo,” in Poteri, assemblee, autonomie (il lungo cammino verso la sovranità popolare). Miscellanea in memoria di Roberto Celli, Serie monografica di Storia moderna e contemporanea 21 (Udine: Del Bianco, 1989), 184–194 which, however, was not available to me. 32  Pio Paschini, “Giovanni di Moravia e la Curia Romana,” MSF 31 (1935), 105–108. 33  Gaetano Cogo, “Il patriarcato d’Aquileia e le aspirazioni de’ Carraresi al possesso del Friuli (1381–1389),” NAV 16, no. 2 (1898), 223–320. 34  Roberto Cessi, “Venezia e la prima caduta dei Carraresi,” NAV, n.s., 17 (1909), 311–337; Roberto Cessi, “La politica veneziana di terraferma dalla caduta dei Carraresi al lodo di Genova (1388–1392),” MSF 5 (1909), 127–144, 193–209; Roberto Cessi, “Venezia neutrale nella seconda lega antiviscontea (1392–1397),” NAV, n.s., 28 (1914), 233–307.

12

Chapter 1

particularly accessible.35 Moreover, many Italian historians have let themselves be carried away by the wording of some tendentious sources emanating from the milieu of John’s enemies, so that the Moravian patriarch traditionally emerges from their depictions as a very negative character. In addition, the majority of studies are already quite outdated; as a result, they lack the modern perspective which would treat the controversial figure of John in an unbiased and detached way.36 As the approach of both Czech and Italian historiography has so far been characterized by a certain disparateness and perhaps even a nationally limited geographic scope, Czech historians have generally restricted themselves to describing John’s career up to 1387, and have sometimes even regarded his appointment as patriarch as a withdrawal from the politics of the Luxembourg dynasty. On the other hand, for Italian (or more accurately Friulian) historiography, which, for its part, did not adequately reflect John’s ancestry and his dealings with other members of the Luxembourg dynasty, the Moravian patriarch generally represented merely a foreign element in the apparatus of the patriarchate of Aquileia.37 Thus, if we look back at the last one-and-a-half centuries or so and critically evaluate the less-than-abundant historiographical output devoted to John of Moravia during this period, we come to the conclusion that the current state of research fully justifies, or rather demands, the writing of a new critical biography of this rather “forgotten” member of the house of Luxembourg according to modern historiographical standards.

35  As far as Czech historiography is concerned, the only extensive treatise of John’s rule in the patriarchate (almost exclusively based on Paschini’s book) is by Štěpán, Moravský markrabě Jošt, passim. See also the brief account in Bartlová and Bobková, Velké dějiny, vol. 4/b, 343–344. 36  One of the few “apologists,” who attempted to portray John of Moravia in a more favourable light, was Marchesi, “Giovanni di Moravia”; cf. also the acute and unbiased reflections by Cusin, Il confine orientale, 164–195, Paschini, Storia del Friuli, esp. 654–655, and more recently Giordano Brunettin, “L’evoluzione impossibile. Il principato ecclesiastico di Aquileia tra retaggio feudale e tentazioni signorili (1251–1350),” in Il Patriarcato di Aquileia. Uno stato nell’Europa medievale, ed. Paolo Cammarosano (Udine: Casamassima, 1999), 220–222. 37  This historiographical “vicious circle” was recently broken in an inspiring manner by Gerald Schwedler, “Moravia (di) Giovanni, patriarca di Aquileia,” in Nuovo Liruti, vol. 1/2, 573–575 who was, of course, limited by the extent of his paper.

Introductory Remarks

3

13

A Few Words about Sources

Having summarized the main trends in the existing Czech and foreign historical research, it is also necessary to address the issue of sources concerning the life of John of Moravia. There is no need to dwell at length on the material from the period up to 1387, because the vast majority of it has already been published. In this regard, it is necessary to highlight the edition of “Bohemica” from the Vatican archives,38 which sheds significant light on the beginnings of John’s career. It is further worth mentioning the as-yet-unpublished documents from the archives of the Vyšehrad chapter39 and drawing attention to the missing series of official books from the Litomyšl bishopric, which stands in contrast to the very well preserved collection of sources from the office of the archbishop of Prague, which also contains some information about John of Moravia.40 All in all, it must be said that the corpus of sources on John’s life up to the time of his appointment as patriarch of Aquileia is a very meagre one. In comparison, assembling and processing the source base on John’s rule in the patriarchate of Aquileia represents a much more demanding research task. If there could be said to be a conspicuous lack of sources in connection with his activities in the Czech lands, here we encounter the opposite situation. It is also complicated by the fact that the overwhelming majority of the sources remain unpublished. If we leave aside some important individual items printed in volumes by Baroque and Enlightenment historians,41 the edition of material

38  M  onumenta Vaticana res gestas Bohemicas illustrantia (= MVB), vols. II–V, ed. Jan Bedřich Novák et al. (Prague: Typis Gregerianis and Středočeská tiskárna, 1907–1954); for the Avignon obedience, see Acta summorum pontificum res gestas Bohemicas aevi praehussitici et hussitici illustrantia (= ASP), II, ed. Jaroslav Eršil (Prague: Academia Scientiarum Bohemoslovaca, 1980). 39  Národní archiv Praha (= NA), Archiv kolegiátní kapituly vyšehradské (= AKV). Charters from the period 1370–1378 have not yet been edited. 40  For the registers of the archbishopric of Prague, see Zdeňka Hledíková, Úřad generálních vikářů pražského arcibiskupa v době předhusitské. Ze správních dějin pražské arcidiecéze, AUC—Phil. et hist., Monographia 41 (Prague: Karolinum, 1971); Zdeňka Hledíková, “Písemnosti církevní správy pražské (arci)diecéze v pozdním středověku,” in Církevní správa a její písemnosti na přelomu středověku a novověku, ed. Ivan Hlaváček and Jan Hrdina, AUC—Phil. et Hist. 2, 1999, Z pomocných věd historických 15 (Prague: Karolinum, 2003), 27–38. 41  Bernardo Maria de Rubeis, Monumenta Ecclesiae Aquilejensis Commentario HistoricoChronologico-Critico Illustrata. Cum Appendice In qua vetusta Aquilejensium Patriar­ charum, rerumque Forojuliensium Chronica, Emendatiora quaedam, alia nunc primum, in lucem prodeunt (Strasbourg: n.p., 1740); Giambattista Verci, Storia della Marca Trivigiana e Veronese, vol. 17 (Venice: G. Storti, 1790).

14

Chapter 1

linked with the functioning of the Friulian parliament42 and one catalogue of some Friulian sources,43 we are then forced to rely on archival study in situ. As far as the actual archive of the patriarchs of Aquileia is concerned, after the conquest and annexation of the patriarchate by the Republic of St. Mark, in the course of the sixteenth century it (or at least a substantial part of it) was transferred to the Palazzo Ducale in Venice, where it was subsequently destroyed in a fire.44 We do not know exactly what went up in the flames, but clearly not everything did, since a number of protocols are preserved which resulted from the activities of notaries employed in the chancery of the patriarchs.45 Unfortunately, those for the period of John of Moravia’s rule are preserved in a fragmentary form and contain almost no relevant information regarding “high politics”: they mostly consist of protocols arising from proceedings before the court of the vicar generals, or imbreviature regarding other matters related to ecclesiastical administration which took place without the direct participation of the patriarch.46 By contrast, it seems that John’s actual registers—of whose existence we are informed by casual references in other sources and by registration notes on some of the charters—must be regarded as lost. It is therefore necessary to turn our attention to the sporadically preserved material in the Friulian and Venetian archives and libraries. Fortunately, it is possible to make use of valuable manuscript collections of sources penned by older scholars. The collection of particular importance is the frequently used Raccolta Bianchi, which was created by the abbot and 42  Parlamento friulano, vol. I/1–2, ed. Pier Silverio Leicht, Atti delle assemblee costituzionali italiane dal Medio Evo al 1831 1/6 (Bologna: N. Zanichelli, 1917–1925). 43  Francesco di Manzano, Annali del Friuli ossia raccolta delle cose storiche appartenenti a questa regione, vols. 5–6 (Udine: G. Seitz, 1865–1868). See also the collection of abstracts of documents referring to the history of what is now Slovenia: Božo Otorepec, Gradivo za slovensko zgodovino v arhivih in bibliotekah Vidma (Udine) 1270–1405, Fontes rerum Slovenicarum 14 (Ljubljana: Slovenska akademija znanosti in umetnosti, 1995). 44  For the history of the patriarchal archive, see Guglielmo Biasutti, Mille anni di cancellieri e coadiutori nella curia di Aquileia ed Udine (Udine: Arti Grafiche Friulane, 1967), 15–16. 45  See Ivonne Zenarola Pastore, Atti della cancelleria dei patriarchi di Aquileia (1265–1420), Pubblicazioni della Deputazione di storia patria per il Friuli 12 (Udine: Arti Grafiche Friulane, 1983); Reinhard Härtel, “Note sui registri patriarcali di Aquileia,” in I registri vescovili dell’Italia settentrionale (secoli XII–XV ). Atti del Convegno di Studi (Monselice, 24–25 novembre 2000), ed. Attilio Bartoli Langeli and Antonio Rigon, Italia Sacra. Studi e documenti di storia ecclesiastica 72 (Rome: Herder, 2003), 311–326; Giordano Brunettin and Marino Zabbia, “Cancellieri e documentazione in registro nel Patriarcato d’Aquileia. Prime ricerche (secoli XIII–XIV),” in I registri vescovili, 327–372. 46  Archivio di Stato di Udine (= ASU), Notarile antico (= NA), b. 5123, 5125, 5136. The sources were collected, described and partially published in the form of short abstracts by Zenarola Pastore, Atti della cancelleria, 219–222, 235–239.

Introductory Remarks

15

librarian Giuseppe Bianchi († 1868), who over forty years of systematic effort managed to assemble and copy an admirable quantity of material from the years 1200–1400, numbering more than 6,000 items.47 For the period of John of Moravia, this collection contains more than 400 copies of charters, letters, notarial instruments and extracts from various registers and chronicles, which makes it the principal source base. Nevertheless, it should be added that the transcriptions are not always free of inaccuracies, and since Bianchi did not cite the documents precisely (he only indicated the relevant archive), it is sometimes impossible to locate them. Some original charters, correspondence and fragments of books of accounts are housed in the archives of the city of Cividale del Friuli.48 The Udinese archives contain quite well-preserved municipal books: originals of decisions made by the city council and one account book from the years 1391–1392.49 The archives of the town of Gemona del Friuli also yield surprisingly rich material, from consistently preserved books containing decisions taken by the town council, through accounts, to a sizeable number of original mandates issued by Patriarch John.50 Several original documents relating to John of Moravia 47  Biblioteca Civica “Vincenzo Joppi” di Udine (= BCU), Fondo principale (= FP), ms. 899, Raccolta Bianchi, vols. 52–58. Cf. Indice dei documenti per la storia del Friuli dal 1200 al 1400 raccolti dall’Ab. Giuseppe Bianchi (Udine: Jacob e Colmegna, 1877). For Bianchi and his collection, see Flavia De Vitt, “Bianchi Giuseppe, sacerdote, erudito, bibliofilo,” in Nuovo Liruti, vol. 3/1, 432–436. 48  Biblioteca Civica di Cividale del Friuli (= BCC), Archivio dell’antica Comunità di Cividale (= ACC), Antica cancelleria del comune—fondo Lorenzo D’Orlandi. See Francesca Trapani, Inventario della corrispondenza dell’Antica Comunità di Cividale (1176–1509) (Udine: Filacorda, 2011); Luca Olivo, Antica cancelleria del comune di Cividale del Friuli— fondo Lorenzo D’Orlandi. Inventario, vols. 1–3 (n.p., 2017); Marialuisa Bottazzi, “Le raccolte epistolari di Cividale del Friuli,” in La corrispondenza epistolare in Italia, vol. 1, Secoli XII– XV, ed. Miriam Davide (Trieste: CERM, 2013), 41–93; the sources regarding John of Moravia were often used by Seneca, “Il conflitto fra Giovanni.” Accounts in BCC, ACC, Archivio storico del Comune di Cividale del Friuli, Sezione antica, Camerari. Other sources from the Cividale chancery are deposited in ASU, Documenti storici friulani, b. II. Cf. also Luisa Villotta, “Fonti archivistiche cividalesi,” in Storia di Cividale nel Medioevo. Economia, società, istituzioni, ed. Bruno Figliuolo (Cividale del Friuli: Città di Cividale del Friuli, 2012), 3–26. 49  All the registers are deposited in BCU. Cf. Elisabetta Scarton, “Introduzione,” in Annales civitatis Utini (1347–1353, 1375, 1380), ed. Vittoria Masutti and Anna Maria Masutti (Udine: Deputazione di storia patria per il Friuli and Istituto Pio Paschini, 2017), 13–31. Due to time constraints, this material could only be used selectively; nevertheless, many register entries were transcribed into the Bianchi collection or edited in Parlamento friulano, I/2. Both series of registers have been used extensively by existing research. 50  Biblioteca Civica “Valentino Baldissera” di Gemona del Friuli (= BCG), Archivio del Comune di Gemona (= ACG). There is a manuscript index of the series “Quaderni delle

16

Chapter 1

are also located in the famous Venetian Library of St. Mark’s in the collection of Archbishop Giusto Fontanini († 1736),51 and it is also worth drawing attention to copies of some documents in the estate of the Dominican Bernardo Maria de Rubeis († 1775) in the same location.52 In addition, the rich archive of the Boiani family from Cividale, containing both charters and especially correspondence from the end of the Trecento, proved to be useful.53 Of course, we must not omit the rich Venetian archives, especially the registers of the senate, an important administrative and legislative body which, among other things, took foreign policy decisions. In its records we thus find a variety of information about Venetian embassies dispatched to the patriarchate, which sheds light on relations with the Republic of St. Mark.54 In order to make the geographical scope of the sources quite clear, we should add that a few copies of letters addressed to John as patriarch have also been preserved in the registers of the Florentine chancery55 and several original charters issued by him are located in the Archives of the Republic of Slovenia in Ljubljana.56 Of course, other source material is offered by the archives of various religious institutions. At the top of the list are the papal registers kept in the Deliberazioni” and “Quaderni dei Massari” by Valentino Baldissera, Spogli dei quaderni dei Massari. See further Beatrice Pitassi, Comune di Gemona. Archivio storico. Parte antica (sec. XIII–1815). Inventario (n.p., 2004); Miriam Davide, “Le raccolte epistolari di Gemona del Friuli,” in La corrispondenza epistolare in Italia, vol. 1, 95–153; Miriam Davide, “Politica, diplomazia e amministrazione corrente nelle lettere di Gemona del Friuli (secoli XIV– XV),” in La corrispondenza epistolare in Italia, vol. 2, Forme, stili e funzioni della scrittura epistolare nelle cancellerie italiane (secoli V–XV ), ed. Stéphane Gioanni and Paolo Cammarosano (Trieste: CERM, 2013), 317–348. 51  Biblioteca Nazionale “Marciana” di Venezia (= BNM), cod. lat. XIV, 101 (= 2804); 102 (= 2805). Short, and often inaccurate, abstracts of the documents are provided by Joseph Valentinelli, “Zur Geschichte der Patriarchen von Aquileja,” Notizenblatt. Beilage zum AfÖG 4 (1854); 5 (1855); 7 (1857). 52   B NM, cod. lat. XIV, 135 (= 4286), fol. 244v–259r. 53  Museo Archeologico Nazionale di Cividale del Friuli (= MAN), Famiglia Boiani. 54  Archivio di Stato di Venezia (= ASVen), Senato, series “Misti” and “Secreti.” For the Venetian senate and its registers, see Andrea Da Mosto, L’Archivio di Stato di Venezia. Indice generale, storico, descrittivo ed analitico, vol. 1 (Rome: Biblioteca d’Arte, 1937), 34–39. A thorough excerption of the registers was undertaken by Cessi, “Venezia e la prima caduta”; Cessi, “La politica veneziana”; Cessi, “Venezia neutrale.” 55  Archivio di Stato di Firenze (= ASFi), Signori, Missive della prima Cancelleria, regs. 21–24. The chronological range of the individual volumes of the registers is provided by Marzi Demetrio, La cancelleria della Repubblica fiorentina, vol. 2 (Florence: Le lettere, 1987), appendice 1, 527–528, no. 20. I would like to thank Dr. Marina Laguzzi for bringing some of these, mostly unknown, documents to my attention. 56  Arhiv Republike Slovenije Ljubljana (= ARS), Zbirka listin. I am grateful to Prof. Janez Mlinar and Dr. Jure Volčjak for pointing these charters out to me.

Introductory Remarks

17

Vatican secret archives; unfortunately, these are only preserved in a very fragmentary form, especially for the pontificate of Urban VI (1378–1389).57 Other sources, including original papal bulls addressed to the patriarch, can be found in the archives of the Cividale chapter,58 while the archives of the Udinese and Aquileian chapters yield hardly any material that is relevant for us.59 It would certainly be possible to seek out other sources in Padua, Venice and Milan, in the archives of various aristocratic families, not to mention regional archives and libraries throughout Friuli (e.g. the Biblioteca Guarneriana in San Daniele del Friuli). However, research of this kind would require truly long-term, systematic heuristics, which it was no longer possible to carry out in this context. So far, we have only discussed written documents of a diplomatic nature, and although these constitute the main source material, it is still necessary to add a few words about narrative sources, which sometimes help to give us a complete picture of events of the time and enrich the often dry language of charters. In the case of the Czech lands, this list will be a very short one: we are informed about the birth of John of Moravia by the St. Vitus canon and chronicler Beneš Krabice of Weitmile († 1375),60 and an account of his second attempt to secure the Olomouc bishopric in the years 1387–1388 is given by the catalogue of the Olomouc bishops (Granum catalogi praesulum Moraviae), the older part of which, covering the period up to the beginning of the Hussite Wars, was created in 1420 within the Olomouc chapter.61 This brings the modest list to an end.

57   Archivio Segreto Vaticano (= ASVat). Repertorium Germanicum, vol. 2, Urban VI., Bonifaz IX., Innocenz VII. und Gregor XII. (Berlin: Weidmann, 1933) does not encompass the area of the patriarchate of Aquileia. For a list of individual volumes of the preserved registers, see ibid., 5–22. The sources from the Vatican archives regarding John of Moravia were collected by Paschini, “Giovanni di Moravia.” 58   M AN, Archivio Capitolare (= AC), Fondo diplomatico, vol. 15; ibid., Bullae pontificiae, vol. 1. 59  Archivio Capitolare di Udine (= ACU), contains the archives of the chapters of both Udine and Aquileia. For the parchments from the period 1370–1400, there is a transcription carried out by Giordano Brunettin, Archivio del Capitolo di Udine (ACU ). Regestazione e trascrizione delle pergamene del vol. IV o E (n.p., 2007), accessible online: http://www .webdiocesi.chiesacattolica.it/triveneto/udine/00030565_Raccolta_Pergamene.html. 60  Chronicon Benesii de Weitmil, ed. Josef Emler, FRB IV (Prague: Grégr and Edv. Valečka, 1884), 491. For Beneš and his chronicle, see Jana Nechutová, Die lateinische Literatur des Mittelalters in Böhmen (Cologne, Weimar and Vienna: Böhlau, 2007), 163–164. 61  “Das Granum catalogi praesulum Moraviae nach der Handschrift des Olmützer Dom­ capitelarchivs,” ed. Johann Loserth, AfÖG 78 (1892), 91. See Ladislav Hosák, “Středověké vyprávěcí prameny k dějinám Moravy do konce 15. století, III,” Sborník Vysoké školy pedagogické v Olomouci—Historie 4 (1957), 111–114.

18

Chapter 1

In the case of the patriarchate of Aquileia, the surviving chronicle material is a good deal richer. The main reporter for the beginning of John’s rule is his contemporary, the notary Giovanni Ailini di Maniago († 1393), author of a chronicle covering the period 1366–1389. His work, tellingly entitled “History of the Friulian War” (Historia belli Forojuliensis), is quite detailed and reliable, and yet, in view of the fact that Giovanni was in the service of the Maniago family (allies of Udine and therefore opponents of John’s), it is necessary to take it— as is almost always the case—cum grano salis.62 Another two Aquileian chronicles, or rather gesta, of the patriarchs63 are anonymous, and both contain brief biographies of individual prelates. Neither their filiation relationships nor manuscript tradition have been analysed in detail, so the following conclusions cannot be regarded as definitive. The first, short chronicle (or fragment of one) covers the period 1381–1412 and gives a cursory description of the whole of John’s patriarchate.64 This account was then borrowed by an unknown copyist in the second decade of the fifteenth century and transcribed into his manuscript of the patriarchal chronicle. The codex then passed through a variety of private collections, and is now located in the library of the University of Pennsylvania.65 In the part devoted to John of Moravia, the two versions differ only in some details. It is evident that the 62   There are two outdated editions based on later copies: Historia belli Forojuliensis Johannis Aylini de Maniaco ex Codice Camilli Manini, ed. Bernardo Maria de Rubeis, MEA (Strasbourg: n.p., 1740), appendix, no. XI, 44–57; Historia Belli Forojuliensis nunc primum edita, conscripta a Johanne notario quondam Aylini de Maniaco, ed. Ludovico Antonio Muratori, AIM III (Milan: Societas Palatina, 1740), cols. 1191–1220. For Ailini and his chronicle, see Marino Zabbia, “Giovanni di Ailino da Maniago, notaio e cronista,” in Nuovo Liruti, vol. 1/1, 410–415. 63  For the characteristics of medieval gesta, see Raoul Charles Van Caenegem, Guide to the Sources of Medieval History, Europe in the Middle Ages Selected Studies 2 (Amsterdam, New York and Oxford: North Holland, 1978), 34–37. 64  Edition from an unknown manuscript: Nonnullorum Patriarcharum Vitae ex alio Chronico MS, desumpta, ed. Bernardo Maria de Rubeis, MEA (Strasbourg: n.p., 1740), appendix, no. V, 15–19. 65  University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Kislak Center for Special Collections, Rare Books and Manuscripts (= UPenn), ms. 934, Vitae episcoporum et patriarcharum Aquileiensium. See Rudolf Hirsch and Norman P. Zacour, Catalogue of Manuscripts in the Libraries of the University of Pennsylvania to 1800 (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1965), 33 (lat. 143). The manuscript was described and analysed by Charles William Previté-Orton, “A Manuscript of the Chronicon Patriarcharum Aquileiensium,” in Historical Essays in Honour of James Tait, ed. John G. Edwards, Vivian H. Galbraith and Ernest F. Jacob (Manchester: Butler & Tanner, 1933), 273–281, respectively Charles William Previté-Orton, “Un manoscritto del ‘Chronicon Patriarcharum Aquileiensium,’” Ce fastu? 10, no. 3/4 (1934), 94–102.

Introductory Remarks

19

original model must have been written immediately after 1412,66 and quite a lot of weight should therefore be given to it. The second chronicle of the patriarchs, which goes up to around the middle of the fifteenth century, is more concise, but all the more remarkable for that, since it describes John of Moravia as a truly sinister figure whose rule was filled with a continuous succession of murders, to which even the patriarch himself eventually fell victim. In this case there are at least five manuscripts (including fragments), which cover different time periods. The passage describing the rule of John of Moravia differs to a greater or lesser extent in the various versions. While one of the manuscripts breaks off its narration during the rule of Patriarch Louis of Teck (1412–1420/1439), the others come to an end by the time of the patriarchate of Ludovico Trevisan (1439–1465), so it would appear that the original text concerning Patriarch John was written by the middle of the fifteenth century at the latest.67 In several cases there are also references to John in chronicles outside the patriarchate created primarily for another purpose. These are mainly histories of the Carrara dynasty, lords of Padua, written in Italian by Galeazzo Gatari up to the year 1389, completed by his son Bartolomeo (up to 1407), and then edited by his other son Andrea. The chronicle describes events from 1318 onward and reflects the whole family’s strong links with the Carrara regime. The most interesting passages for our purposes are those relating to John of Moravia’s dealings with Francesco Carrara from 1390 regarding the recapture of Padua.68 66   Previté-Orton, “Un manoscritto,” 95. The author asserts that the chronicle was written in Udine; however, for definite conclusions it would be necessary to undertake a more thorough analysis of the text. 67  Chronicum tertium Patriarcharum Aquilejensium, Volcheri, et successorum, ed. Bernardo Maria de Rubeis, MEA (Strasbourg: n.p., 1740), appendix, no. IV, 11–15; Additamenta nunc primum edita e manuscripto codice vaticano, ed. Ludovico Antonio Muratori, RIS XVI (Milan: Societas Palatina, 1730), cols. 79–86; see also the fragment referring to the rule of Patriarch Louis of Teck: De rebus Forojuliensibus sub Ludovico de Tech ex alio Chronico MS. Patriarcharum, ed. Bernardo Maria de Rubeis, MEA (Strasbourg: n.p., 1740), appendix, no. VI, 19; another manuscript in ASU, Patriarcato d’Aquileia, Monumenta patriae Forijulii, fols. 240r–252v (with a list of the patriarchs until the sixteenth century); a slightly different and shorter text in Haus-, Hof- und Staatsarchiv Wien (= HHStA), Handschriften, Cod. Weiß 321, fols. 128r–137v. 68  It was first published as Chronicon Patavinum italica lingua conscriptum ab anno MCCCXI. usque ad Annum MCCCCVI., ed. Ludovico Antonio Muratori, RIS XVII (Milan: Societas Palatina, 1730), cols. 1–944; critical edition: Cronaca Carrarese di Galeazzo e Bartolomeo Gatari, confrontata con la redazione di Andrea Gatari [AA. 1318–1407], ed. Antonio Medin and Guido Tolomei, RIS n.s. XVII/1a (Città di Castello: S. Lapi, 1909). See Girolamo Arnaldi and Lidia Capo, “I cronisti di Venezia e della Marca Trevigiana,” in Storia della cultura veneta, vol. 2, Il Trecento, ed. Girolamo Arnaldi (Vicenza: N. Pozza, 1976), 331–336.

20

Chapter 1

One short chapter regarding John can also be found in a Cronaca volgare, drawn up by an anonymous Florentine author, once incorrectly identified with Piero di Giovanni Minerbetti. His work going from 1385 up to 1409 was probably written not long after this year.69 Finally, there is a single but noteworthy reference to John of Moravia in a work which is a cross between a personal diary, a chronicle and what Italian historiography terms a libro di famiglia, by Clemente Miari, canon of Belluno († 1413).70 This brings us to the end of our brief round-up of the diplomatic and narrative sources on the life of John of Moravia. However, it is necessary to mention one other noteworthy document, which should not be overlooked. This is the so-called Capitula contra patriarcham Johannem de Moravia, written by the Udinese in 1390. It contains all manner of accusations against the patriarch, depicting him as a cruel and treacherous tyrant, revelling in luxury and fornication, who is considered “worse than Nero” (Neronior Nerone).71 Although this source originated from the milieu of John’s sworn enemies and is tendentious in the extreme, in some respects it is worthy of closer attention than historiography has allowed it so far. For this reason, it is the subject of the Excursus 2, which also includes a critical edition of it. In conclusion, we can sum up by saying that, in several key respects, the source base for John of Moravia represents a markedly disproportionate whole. One immediately obvious difference is the small amount of surviving material up to 1387 in comparison with the following period. However, even the considerable amount of material for the time of John’s rule in the patriarchate does not constitute a homogenous corpus of sources but, on the contrary, is a very disparate set of all kinds of charters and notarial instruments, from correspondence to records in official books. In this sense it must be said that, while the beginnings of John’s rule (1388–1389) are relatively well documented, we find ourselves lacking sources for the following period. Above all, 69  C  ronaca volgare di Anonimo Fiorentino dall’anno 1385 al 1409 già attribuita a Piero di Giovanni Minerbetti, ed. Elina Bellondi, RIS n.s. XXVII/2 (Città di Castello: S. Lapi, 1915– 1918). For its authorship, see Elina Bellondi, “Prefazione,” ibid., i–v. 70  Clemente Miari, Chronicon Bellunense (1383–1412), ed. Matteo Melchiorre, Fonti per la storia della terraferma veneta 29 (Rome: Viella, 2015). For Miari and his work, see Matteo Melchiorre, “Raccontare di sé e del proprio tempo in una città del tardo medioevo,” ibid., ix–lxix; John Easton Law, “A clerical chronicler of c. 1400: Clemente Miari of Belluno,” Renaissance Studies 2, no. 2 (1988), 173–184; also in John Easton Law, Venice and the Veneto in the Early Renaissance, Variorum Collected Studies Series 672 (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2000). 71  As far as I know, there are two later copies in BCU, FP, ms. 899, Raccolta Bianchi, vol. 58, no. 5773; ibid., ms. 943/II, Codice diplomatico friulano, sub anno 1390. See the edition in Excursus 2 in this book (hereafter cited as Capitula contra patriarcham Johannem).

Introductory Remarks

21

however, it should be emphasized that the overwhelming majority of sources are of Udinese provenance, which inevitably (and adversely) affects the resultant image of John. As far as narrative sources are concerned, it is characteristic that in virtually all the chronicles from the patriarchate John is evaluated more or less negatively, which also indicates that the chroniclers were linked with the milieu of Udine and its allies as opponents of John (we know this to be true of Giovanni Ailini, but it can also be surmised in the case of the second, anonymous Aquileian chronicle). Indeed, this was one of the reasons behind the creation of the unsavoury reputation which John of Moravia has traditionally had in Italian historiography.

Chapter 2

Illegitimate Children in the Late Middle Ages 1

The Status of Bastard Children in Late Medieval Society

In late medieval society, the status of children born out of wedlock was generally worse than that of the more fortunate ones begotten within a legitimate marriage.1 From birth they were subjected to all manner of restrictions, discrimination and prejudice,2 which in some cases led to their being put into homes for foundlings or sometimes even being put to death.3 At the same time, however, it should be added that not all of them met with such a dismal fate, since bastard children’s role and chance of success in society primarily depended on the social status and financial means of their father. In practice, this meant that the bastards of secular princes, members of the upper nobility and prelates were assured a certain privileged status, which allowed them to outstrip illegitimate children from a more humble social background. There were also substantial differences between individual areas in late medieval Europe; in fourteenth and fifteenth century Italy we find a whole range of ruling bastard princes, without their illegitimate origins appearing to have been much of a barrier to their ascent to the throne. This state of affairs is also illustrated by the declaration by Pope Pius II (1458–1464) that “in Italy it is quite the custom for bastards to rule the states.”4 As is often pointed out, in 1   The older research on illegitimacy is discussed in Ludwig Schmugge, Kirche, Kinder, Karrieren. Päpstliche Dispense von der unehelichen Geburt im Spätmittelalter (Zürich: Artemis & Winkler, 1995), 25–31; Neithard Bulst, “Illegitime Kinder—viele oder wenige? Quantitative Aspekte der Illegitimität im spätmittelalterlichen Europa,” in Illegitimität im Spätmittelalter, ed. Ludwig Schmugge and Béatrice Wiggenhauser, Schriften des Historischen Kollegs 29 (Munich: Oldenbourg, 1994), 21–39; cf. also other papers in the same volume; more recently Ellen Widder, “Konkubinen und Bastarde. Günstlinge oder Außenseiter an Höfen des Spätmittelalters,” in Der Fall des Günstlings. Hofparteien in Europa vom 13. bis zum 17. Jahrhundert, ed. Jan Hirschbiegel and Werner Paravicini, Residenzenforschung 17 (Ostfildern: Thorbecke, 2004), 417–480. 2   Rolf Sprandel, “Die Diskriminierung der unehelichen Kinder im Mittelalter,” in Zur Sozialgeschichte der Kindheit, ed. Jochen Martin and August Nitschke, Veröffentlichungen des Instituts für Historische Anthropologie 4 (Munich: Karl Alber, 1986), 487–502. 3  Shulamith Shahar, Childhood in the Middle Ages (London and New York: Routledge, 1992), 125–126, 137–138. 4  Jacob Burckhardt, The Civilisation of the Period of the Renaissance in Italy, vol. 1, trans. S[amuel] G. C. Middlemore (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015), 28–29; Hermann Winterer, Die rechtliche Stellung der Bastarde in Italien von 800 bis 1500, Münchener Beiträge

© Ondřej Schmidt, 2019 | doi:10.1163/9789004407893_003

Illegitimate Children in the Late Middle Ages

23

the fifteenth century in particular, bastards can also be seen to have played a significant role in France and Burgundy in government, military and ecclesiastical offices, with some even having abilities and virile qualities attributed to them in the medieval imagination.5 Compared to other European countries, the conditions in the Holy Roman Empire—the region which will henceforth occupy our interest—seem to have been much less favourable for illegitimate offspring, and became even worse from the middle of the fifteenth century.6 If a father wanted to achieve a good position for his illegitimate child, it was first necessary to secure his legitimation, which in legal terms was supposed to rid him of the congenital stigma, thereby placing him on a par with the rest of the legitimate majority of society. From the thirteenth century on, in connection with the adoption of Roman law, there were two main ways in which this kind of legitimation could be obtained. If the child was born to parents who were not yet married, he could be legitimated by a subsequent marriage (per subsequens matrimonium). In such a case he was then supposed to have essentially the same rights as other legitimate offspring.7 However, for the majority of bastard children of monarchs and aristocrats, who were often the result of courtly affairs linked in part with the development of the cult of courtly love,8 this was essentially impossible. For children resulting from fornication or incestuous relations, there was the possibility of legitimation through an imperial rescript (per rescriptum principis).9 This could either be issued directly by the emperor himself or by someone to whom this task had been delegated; in the Late Middle Ages usually one of the Counts Palatine of the Lateran palace appointed by the emperor zur Mediävistik und Renaissance-Forschung 28 (Munich: Arbeo-Gesellschaft, 1978), 59– 60; Marco Folin, “Bastardi e principesse nelle corti del Rinascimento: spunti di ricerca,” Schifanoia 28/29 (2005), 167–174. Pius II’s remark, quoted in Folin’s article, can be found in Pii II commentarii rerum memorabilium que temporibus suis contigerunt, vol. 1, ed. Adriano van Heck, Studi e testi 312 (Vatican City: Bibliotheca Apostolica Vaticana, 1984), 250: “Ita sunt enim Italiae mores, ut spurii ferme principentur.” 5  Bulst, “Illegitime Kinder,” 34; Michael Harsgor, “L’essor des bâtards nobles au XV e siècles,” Revue historique 253 (1975), 320–323; for various “bastard-narratives,” see Simona Slanička, “Bastarde als Grenzgänger, Kreuzfahrer, und Eroberer. Von der mittelalterlichen Alexan­ derrezeption bis zu Juan de Austria,” WerkstattGeschichte 51 (2009), 5–21. 6  This is emphasized by Judith J. Hurwich, “Bastards in the German Nobility in the Fifteenth and Early Sixteenth Centuries: Evidence of the Zimmerische Chronik,” Sixteenth Century Journal 34, no. 3 (2003), 701–727. 7  Winterer, Die rechtliche Stellung, 66–68; Hurwich, “Bastards in the German Nobility,” 716. 8  Cf. Sprandel, “Die Diskriminierung,” 495. 9  For the following paragraph, see Ferdinand Kogler, Die legitimatio per rescriptum von Justinian bis zum Tode Karls IV. (Weimar: Böhlau, 1904), 42–109; for the situation in imperial Italy, see Winterer, Die rechtliche Stellung, 73–74 and passim.

24

Chapter 2

who had this authority.10 However, the legitimation of the bastard children of highborn individuals was a matter reserved for the emperor. In theory, imperial legitimation gave a child the same rights that legitimate offspring possessed, although it could differ in scope, especially in relation to the right to inherit, which was often conditional on the absence of other legitimate heirs. In practice, however, imperial legitimation was usually limited to local customary law, so even legitimated bastards had only a negligible chance of controlling and possessing their father’s estates.11 In this way the content of legitimation was thus limited more to social emancipation. As is shown by analyses of the careers of bastards from the upper nobility in different parts of the Empire, it was very difficult for them to attain an eminent social position.12 Furthermore, as a rule they did not inherit their father’s title, but at most one which was “one step below”; with royal bastards, therefore, the most they could expect was the title of duke or count with the corresponding appanage.13 This was also the case for Duke Nicholas I of Opava († 1318), the illegitimate son of King Přemysl Otakar II of Bohemia, who received the province of Opava from his father and, after many twists and turns, eventually founded a side branch of the Přemyslid dynasty.14 It was generally recognized that even unlegitimated bastards were entitled to some kind of modest ­provision 10  For the Counts Palatine, see Gisela Beinhoff, Die Italiener am Hof Kaiser Sigismunds (1410–1437), Europäische Hochschulschriften. Geschichte und ihre Hilfswissenschaften 3/620 (Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 1995), 20–22; Thomas Kuehn, Illegitimacy in Renaissance Florence (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2002), 170–172; Petr Elbel, “Falzum palatinátní listiny Zikmunda Lucemburského pro Jana Seydenneyera z Erkingen. Příspěvek k diplomatice palatinátních listin římských králů a císařů z lucemburské dynastie,” in Datum per manus. Přátelé, kolegové a žáci Zbyňku Svitákovi k 60. narozeninám, ed. Lukáš Führer et al. (Brno: Statutární město Brno and Archiv města Brna, 2015), 209–288. 11  Kogler, Die legitimatio per rescriptum, 107: “… so traten die partikularrechtlich verschiedenen Normen des Gewohnheitsrechtes und eventueller Satzung in Kraft, die teils den per rescriptum Legitimierten das Erbrecht ganz absprachen, teils nur ein beschränktes Erbrecht gaben, in den seltensten Fällen ein vollkommen gleiches Erbrecht, wie den legitimen Kindern, zuerkannten.” 12   Karl-Heinz Spiess, Familie und Verwandtschaft im deutschen Hochadel des Spätmittelalters. 13. bis Anfang des 16. Jahrhunderts, Vierteljahrschrift für Sozial- und Wirtschaftsgeschichte 111 (Stuttgart: Steiner, 1993), 381–389; Winfried Reichert, “Der fünfte Mann oder Über Bastarde im Hause Luxemburg,” in Das wichtigste ist der Mensch. Festschrift für Klaus Gerteis zum 60. Geburtstag, ed. Angela Giebmeyer and Helga Schnabel-Schüle, Trierer historische Forschungen 41 (Mainz: Zabern, 2000), esp. 389–401; Hurwich, “Bastards in the German Nobility.” 13  Hurwich, “Bastards in the German Nobility,” 720 and note 87; Spiess, Familie und Verwandtschaft, 389. 14  See Martin Wihoda, “Mikuláš I. Opavský mezi Přemyslovci a Habsburky,” ČČH 99, no. 2 (2001), 209–230.

Illegitimate Children in the Late Middle Ages

25

from the father, usually in the form of an annuity or a small fief, through which they became a support to their father in managing the family estates.15 However, another, more “elegant” solution was also available: to earmark an illegitimate son for an ecclesiastic career. By becoming a clergyman, the bastard child could no longer inherit the family property, which eliminated the risk of inheritance disputes, but, on the other hand, he had a decent chance of making a successful career for himself within the church and, in time, perhaps even acquiring one of the important bishoprics.16 Of course, this mostly concerned royal bastards, while others had to content themselves with a considerably more modest prebend, which would still provide them with a comfortable living. In this position they could then continue to further the interests of their dynasty and its politics. However, this possibility assumed that the father would invest certain financial resources in his progeny’s studies, because a certain level of education was required for admission into the priesthood.17 There was another obstacle, though, because, since the time of the papal reform in the eleventh century, church councils had repeatedly prohibited individuals born out of wedlock from being admitted into the priesthood, and this principle was subsequently adopted by the canon law of the High Middle Ages. This measure, originally directed against the children of clergymen as part of an attempt to enforce the celibacy of the priesthood, was soon extended to all illegitimate children.18 Despite the seemingly strict prohibitions, however, in reality there were ways to circumvent this obstacle. It could be done either by

15  Hurwich, “Bastards in the German Nobility,” 721–723; Spiess, Familie und Verwandtschaft, 381–389; Reichert, “Der fünfte Mann,” 390–393; cf. also Zdeňka Hledíková, “Zápisy manželských sporů—nepovšimnutý pramen 15. století,” in Zdeňka Hledíková, Svět české středověké církve (Prague: Argo, 2010), 277; Tomáš Sterneck, “K postavení levobočků v raně novověké společnosti (s důrazem na prostředí sociálních elit),” ČČH 114, no. 3 (2016), 687. 16  From the mid-fifteenth century, the same strategy was also applied in the case of “redundant” legitimate sons of imperial princes. In the event that their lay older brothers designated as heirs died, they could renounce the priesthood and take their place. See Benjamin Müsegades, Fürstliche Erziehung und Ausbildung im spätmittelalterlichen Reich, Mittelalter-Forschungen 47 (Ostfildern: Thorbecke, 2014), 30–36; Benjamin Müsegades, “Zwischen Familie und Kirche. Geistliche Fürstensöhne im spätmittelalterlichen Reich,” in Identität und Gemeinschaft. Vier Zugänge zu Eigengeschichten und Selbstbildern institutioneller Ordnungen, ed. Mirko Breitenstein et al., Abhandlungen 67 (Berlin and Münster: LIT, 2015), 189–209. However, this was hardly possible with bastards. 17  See Schmugge, Kirche, Kinder, Karrieren, 227–241. 18  Peter Landau, “Das Weihehindernis der Illegitimität in der Geschichte des kanoni­ schen Rechts,” in Illegitimität im Spätmittelalter, 41–53; Bernhard Schimmelpfennig, “‘Ex Fornicatione Nati.’ Studies on the Position of Priest’s Sons from the Twelfth to the Fourteenth Century,” Studies in Medieval and Renaissance History, n.s., 2 (1979), 1–50.

26

Chapter 2

entering a monastery or—the more usual way—through a dispensation, which was to remove the defectus natalium from the supplicant within canon law.19 Whereas the consent of the diocesan bishop was enough for conferring minor orders, the dispensation needed to confer major orders—which made it possible to obtain lucrative parishes or other benefices with the cure of souls (not to mention episcopal offices)—could only be granted by the pope. However, he could delegate this power to other persons. In the Late Middle Ages the issuing of dispensations was primarily the responsibility of the apos­ tolic penitentiary as one of the organs of the papal curia, which dealt with all manner of supplications from across Christian Europe, with precisely stipulated fees for different tasks.20 Highborn supplicants, however, usually requested a bull of dispensation directly from the papal chancery.21 The lack of such a dispensation could even result in someone being stripped of a benefice, as happened in the case of Bishop Bonifacio da Pisa († 1349).22 Up to this point only male illegitimate offspring have been discussed; however, a few words should be added about the position of daughters born out of wedlock. They essentially had two options. If the father decided to marry off his daughter, she generally received a considerably smaller dowry than would be the case with a legitimate daughter, which also meant a bridegroom from a lower social stratum than the bride herself.23 In the Czech milieu this trend can be observed with the five illegitimate daughters of Přemysl Otakar II, who 19  For the dispensation practice, see Schmugge, Kirche, Kinder, Karrieren, 33–69; for the Bohemian milieu of the first half of the fourteenth century, see Zdeňka Hledíková, Počátky avignonského papežství a české země (Prague: Karolinum, 2013), 185–196. 20  See Filippo Tamburini, “Die Apostolische Pönitentiarie und die Dispense ‘super defectu natalium,’” in Illegitimität im Spätmittelalter, 123–132; Filippo Tamburini, “La penitenzieria apostolica durante il papato avignonese,” in Aux origines de l’État moderne. Le fonctionnement administratif de la papauté d’Avignon. Actes de la table ronde organisée par l’École française de Rome avec le concours du CNRS, du Conseil général de Vaucluse et de l’Université d’Avignon (Avignon, 23–24 janvier 1988), Collection de l’École Française de Rome 138 (Rome: École française de Rome, 1990), 251–268; a Czech overview of the research on the penitentiary is provided by Aleš Pořízka, “Repertorium Poenitentiariae Germanicum. Středověká papežská penitenciárie opět v centru pozornosti,” MHB 8 (2001), 97–120. 21  Schmugge, Kirche, Kinder, Karrieren, 302–318. 22  Jadranka Neralić, “Chances of an illegitimate person to make a successful ecclesiastical career: the case of Boniface of Pisa,” Römische historische Mitteilungen 49 (2007), 159–178. It should be noted, however, that the privation of Bonifacio’s benefice seems to have been rather the result of the chapter’s election of a new bishop, carried out in spite of the papal reservation. 23  Hurwich, “Bastards in the German Nobility,” 725–726; Reichert, “Der fünfte Mann,” 398– 400; Spiess, Familie und Verwandtschaft, 388.

Illegitimate Children in the Late Middle Ages

27

were all married off to the king’s loyal men from the ranks of the Bohemian and Austrian upper nobility.24 The only other alternative which could provide daughters of illegitimate origin with a living and a reasonable status was to enter a convent with the prospect of at best attaining the position of abbess, which once again required a papal dispensation.25 All of these options assumed that the father had acknowledged the illegitimate child and attempted to support him/her and secure the best possible position for them. However, this kind of “ideal” situation was by no means always the case, even in the privileged circles of monarchs. Even there, it sometimes happened that the father virtually left his illegitimate children to their fate, as was the case with the bastard children of the Polish king Casimir III the Great († 1370).26 Within this context it would appear that rulers from the Luxembourg dynasty acknowledged their illegitimate offspring—that is, at least the ones we know of—and attempted to provide for them in an appropriate way. Let us now take a closer look at their careers.27 2

The Royal Bastards of the Bohemian Luxembourgs and Their Careers

Before we move on to the Luxembourg bastards themselves, it is worth taking a moment to look at two illegitimate offspring of the last two Přemyslids, who, supported by the new dynasty, played a significant role in the events of the first half of the fourteenth century.28 The first of these was the e­ xceptional 24  David Kalhous et al., “Přemyslovská dynastie: soupis členů původního českého panovnického rodu,” in Přemyslovci. Budování českého státu, ed. Petr Sommer, Dušan Třeštík and Josef Žemlička (Prague: NLN, 2009), 570–571; Josef Žemlička, Přemysl Otakar II. Král na rozhraní věků (Prague: NLN, 2011), 157. 25  Tamburini, “Die Apostolische Pönitentiarie,” 125; Schmugge, Kirche, Kinder, Karrieren, 234. 26  A brief comparison of the careers of the royal bastards in Poland, Bohemia and Hungary during the fourteenth century has been carried out by Stanisław A. Sroka, “Nieślubne potomstwo władców Europy Środkowej w XIV wieku,” Prace Historyczne 135 (2008), 21–28. The author concluded that—in contrast to the rather poor situation of the Polish bastards—almost all the illegitimate offspring of Bohemian and Hungarian kings became bishops or important prelates. 27  A list of bastards within the Luxembourg family is provided by Václav Žůrek, “Rodokmen Lucemburků,” in Lucemburkové, 808–809. See further Reichert, “Der fünfte Mann,” esp. 388–401 (though without a focus on the Bohemian Luxembourgs). It is quite likely that there were more Luxembourg bastards about whom the sources are silent. 28  A complex study of illegitimacy in late medieval Bohemia is still to be written. For the bastards of the Přemyslid dynasty, see Josef Žemlička, Přemyslovci. Jak žili, vládli a umírali

28

Chapter 2

figure of John Volek († 1351), the son of Wenceslas II and an unknown mother.29 He won the favour of both King John of Luxembourg and especially his wife, John Volek’s half-sister Elisabeth of Bohemia, who was a source of support to him throughout his life. It was the royal couple who helped him to secure the papal dispensations that enabled him to hold a number of lucrative capitular prebends in spite of his illegitimate origin, most notably the important Vyšehrad provostry (1316).30 Throughout his entire time in office, John was firmly in the camp of Elisabeth of Bohemia, who found herself in permanent disputes with her spouse, and it appears to have been this which resulted in John’s rift with the king and brief incarceration in 1322.31 After more than a year, however, there was a reconciliation between John of Bohemia and John Volek, and from then on his career progressed at a dizzying pace. In particular, it is worth highlighting John’s numerous stays at the curia in Avignon and his good relations with Pope John XXII. Elisabeth of Bohemia did not forget her brother either, and she sought another dispensation for him which authorized him to receive ordination as a bishop.32 After initial unsuccessful attempts to acquire the bishoprics of Bamberg and Wrocław, John Volek eventually became bishop of Olomouc in 1334. According to the contemporary chronicler Peter of Zittau, the young margrave Charles of Luxembourg (later Holy Roman Emperor and King of Bohemia), along with Duke Nicholas II of

(Prague: NLN, 2005), 237–247; Josef Žemlička, “Levobočci,” in Přemyslovský dvůr. Život knížat, králů a rytířů ve středověku, ed. Dana Dvořáčková-Malá and Jan Zelenka (Prague: NLN, 2014), 257–260. Cf. also the recent article by Sterneck, “K postavení levobočků,” focusing on the Early Modern Age (though containing many overlaps with the Middle Ages). 29  For John’s origin, see Ivo Hlobil, “Přemyslovec Jan Volek († 1351). Rodopisné, heraldické a sfragistické otázky,” Umění 35, no. 6 (1987), 478–482; for his ecclesiastical career, see Zdeňka Hledíková, “Vyšehradské proboštství a české kancléřství v první polovině 14. století,” in Královský Vyšehrad, vol. 2, Sborník příspěvků ke křesťanskému miléniu a k posvěcení nových zvonů na kapitulním chrámu sv. Petra a Pavla, ed. Bořivoj Nechvátal (Prague and Kostelní Vydří: Královská kolegiátní kapitula sv. Petra a Pavla na Vyšehradě and Karmelitánské nakladatelství, 2001), 74–89; for his relations to the papal curia, see Hledíková, Počátky avignonského papežství, 120–139; cf. also Žemlička, Přemyslovci, 246. 30  The dispensations are edited in MVB TP, ed. Zdeňka Hledíková (Prague: Academia, 2003), 116–117, no. 129 (25th January 1319); 134–135, no. 155 (11th November 1319). For the somewhat unclear dating of John’s accession to the provostry of Vyšehrad, see Hledíková, Počátky avignonského papežství, 120–126. 31  These events are described in Chronicon Aulae Regiae, ed. Josef Emler, FRB IV (Prague: Grégr and Edv. Valečka, 1884), 261–262. 32   M VB TP, 390–391, no. 684 (11th October 1327).

Illegitimate Children in the Late Middle Ages

29

Opava, played a role in his appointment.33 John continued to hold this dignity until his death in 1351, whereupon he was buried in the Benedictine monastery in Pustiměř, which he himself had founded.34 The Pustiměř monastery is also linked with the name of the other Přemyslid bastard: Elisabeth († ca. 1347), in all probability the daughter of the last of the Přemyslids, Wenceslas III.35 She too was destined for an ecclesiastical career. Among the few reports we have concerning her life, the most important is the papal dispensation from 1332. In it, Elisabeth, a nun in the Cistercian monastery in Pohled, with the support of John of Luxembourg, requests “propter debilitatem sui corporis” to be allowed to transfer to the convent of a less challenging order; specific mention is made of the Benedictine convent of St. George at Prague Castle. At the same time, she requests a dispensation to allow her to hold any office in the new religious institution, including the rank of abbess, whereupon the pope approved the supplication.36 Zdeňka Hledíková therefore believes, with justification, that the attempt to secure this prestigious position in the oldest Přemyslid monastery37 was actually the main reason for writing the supplication. In the end, however, Elisabeth did not become the abbess of St. George’s. Instead, from 1340 on she occupied this leading post in the Moravian institution established by her uncle John Volek: the aforementioned Benedictine monastery in Pustiměř, founded for the salvation of the soul of Elisabeth of Bohemia and her ancestors and thus strongly associated with the Přemyslid tradition.38 Elisabeth continued

33  The papal bull of provision from 27th March 1334 in MVB TP, 593–595, no. 1109. See further Chronicon Aulae Regiae, FRB IV, 319: “Pro eleccione huiusmodi et promocione sui ­awunculi Karolus, marchio Morauie, laboravit cum Nicolao, duce Oppavie, bona fide.” For the Olomouc episcopate of John Volek, see Václav Medek, Dějiny olomoucké arcidiecéze, vol. 1, Osudy moravské církve do konce 14. věku (Prague: Česká katolická charita, 1971), 120–126. 34  Medek, Dějiny olomoucké arcidiecéze, vol. 1, 126 and 129, note 45. 35  For Elisabeth and her career, see Zdeňka Hledíková, “Alžběta, dcera Václava III.,” in Hledíková, Svět české středověké církve, 247–253; cf. also Žemlička, Přemyslovci, 247. 36   M VB TP, 529–530, no. 965 (9th January 1332); Hledíková, “Alžběta, dcera Václava III.,” 248–250. 37  Renáta Modráková, “Úřad abatyše kláštera benediktinek u sv. Jiří na Pražském hradě v období 13.–14. století,” in Sacri canones servandi sunt. Ius canonicum et status ecclesiae saeculis XIII–XV, ed. Pavel Krafl (Prague: Historický ústav AV ČR, 2008), 580–587. 38  Hledíková, “Alžběta, dcera Václava III.,” 250–251. An edition of the foundation charter from 30th September 1340 in CDM VII, ed. Petr Chlumecký, Josef Chytil and Vincenz Brandl (Brno: Georg Gastl, 1858–1868), 209–210, no. 290; Elisabeth is mentioned only in the donation of Charles IV from 24th August 1341, edited ibid., 247–248, no. 346.

30

Chapter 2

in the office of abbess of Pustiměř until her death in 1347 (at the latest).39 As can be seen, the Luxembourgs devoted no small effort to providing for the Přemyslid bastards. Perhaps because they acknowledged the legacy of the original ­dynasty in a significant way, they regarded the care of its illegitimate offspring as their self-evident duty.40 The same applies to their treatment of their own illegitimate children, as is shown by the case of Nicholas († 1358), bastard son of John of Luxembourg.41 Again the identity of his mother remains unknown; nevertheless, the fact that Nicholas was born in Luxembourg (1321/1322) lends credence to Jiří Spěváček’s view that he was the outcome of an unspecified affair of King John’s from the period of his frequent stays outside the kingdom of Bohemia. Nicholas was also to become an important clergyman. His royal father first secured him a dispensation from the bishop of Prague, which enabled him to receive minor orders and a single benefice. After Nicholas became a canon of Vyšehrad, John of Luxembourg requested a papal dispensation for him which entitled him to receive episcopal ordination and other benefices in spite of his illegitimate origin and young age.42 Over time he went on to secure several prebends in various chapters,43 and in 1349 he was appointed to the bishopric of Naumburg by the pope. However, there he was unable to hold his own against the local chapter elect,44 and so in 1350, through the intercession of Charles IV, he was eventually transferred to 39  A new abbess, Anežka, is documented on 1st June 1347: CDM VII, 523–526, no. 708. 40  Hledíková, “Alžběta, dcera Václava III.,” 247. 41  For Nicholas and his origin, see Jiří Spěváček, Jan Lucemburský a jeho doba 1296–1346. K prvnímu vstupu českých zemí do svazku se západní Evropou (Prague: Svoboda, 1994), 311– 312; the mistake of the older historiography, identifying Nicholas with King John’s chancellor Nicholas of Luxembourg, was pointed out by Ladislav Klicman, “Mikuláš řečený Efficax z Lucemburka a Mikuláš, levoboček krále Jana,” ČČH 3 (1897), 246–249; see also Reichert, “Der fünfte Mann,” 384–388, according to whom John had three other bastard children: one daughter, Colette, wife of a certain burgher of Cologne, and two sons, Anthony and Heniken, whose position is not clear. 42  All this is summarized in the supplication of John of Luxembourg in favour of Nicholas, approved by the pope on 20th July 1342. See MVB I, ed. Ladislav Klicman (Prague: Typis Gregerianis, 1903), 33, no. 59; 34, no. 60. 43  A list of Nicholas’s benefices is given in Regesta diplomatica nec non epistolaria Bohemiae et Moraviae (= RBM), vol. IV, ed. Josef Emler (Prague: Typis Gregerianis, 1892), 625, no. 1557: “… Nicolaus, praepositus ecclesiae Oziliensis, Pragensis et Wyssegradensis ecclesiarum canonicus …” (4th June 1345). 44  An abstract of the papal bull of provision in MVB I, 587, no. 1050 (7th January 1349). For the situation regarding the Naumburg bishopric, see Heinz Wiessner, Das Bistum Naumburg, vol. 1/2, Die Diözese, Germania Sacra. Neue Folge 35/2 (Berlin and New York: De Gruyter, 1998), 841–842.

Illegitimate Children in the Late Middle Ages

31

the newly vacated see of Aquileia.45 Nicholas held this important office until his death in 1358, and throughout his tenure he maintained close ties with his imperial brother and was an important source of support to him on troubled Italian soil. At this point it is worth mentioning the strategic location of the patriarchate as a “gateway” to Italy, which Charles made use of during his descent for the Roman coronation in 1355. Another Luxembourg bastard, of whom we unfortunately know very little, was William/Guillaume, the illegitimate son of Charles IV.46 Charles appears to have fathered him in 1362 with an unknown woman; according to Jana Fantysová-Matějková, the child might have grown up at the Brabant court together with the illegitimate children of Duke Wenceslas of Luxembourg, and was later presented to Charles during his last trip to France at the end of 1377.47 The emperor appears to have acknowledged him, which he demonstrated by requesting a dispensation for him at the apostolic penitentiary that would allow William, once he reached the appropriate age, to marry an unspecified highborn lady who was related to him in the fourth degree, with their offspring being declared legitimate.48 The death of Emperor Charles, followed by that of Duke Wenceslas († 1383), prevented him from making a better career for himself; nevertheless, William continued to maintain close ties with Bohemian members of the house of Luxembourg, since he was entrusted with some diplomatic missions. Consideration was also given to his marrying the daughter of a certain ducal official, but we do not know whether this eventually came to pass.49 Nothing is known of his subsequent fate. If we leave aside John of Moravia, to whom the following chapters are devoted, we can move on to the last generation of Luxembourgs. They also fathered some illegitimate offspring. The first was Margaret, hypothetically

45  An abstract of the papal bull of provision in MVB I, 692, no. 1311 (22th October 1350). For Nicholas’s rule in the patriarchate, see Paschini, Storia del Friuli, 500–518, and more recently also Gerald Schwedler, “Lussemburgo (di) Nicolò, patriarca di Aquileia,” in Nuovo Liruti, vol. 1/2, 512–517. 46  Attention was first drawn to Charles IV’s bastard by Zdeňka Hledíková, “Opomenutá listina k životu Karla IV.,” in Hledíková, Svět české středověké církve, 266–272. 47  Jana Fantysová-Matějková, “Guillaume, bâtard de Luxembourg,” in Roma—Praga. Praha—Řím. Omaggio a Zdeňka Hledíková, ed. Kateřina Valentová et al., Bollettino dell’Istituto Storico Ceco di Roma, Supplemento 1 (Prague: Scriptorium, 2009), 81–87, on the basis of the Brussels court books of accounts. See also similar considerations by Bobková, Velké dějiny, vol. 4/a, 449. 48  The dispensation from the first half of 1378, preserved only in a formulary, was published and analysed by Hledíková, “Opomenutá listina.” 49   Fantysová-Matějková, “Guillaume, bâtard.”

32

Chapter 2

the daughter of Wenceslas IV.50 Again, we know very little about her: in fact, perhaps only that she was married to John the Elder of Vlašim, a courtier of Wenceslas IV,51 which it might be possible to interpret, as Petr Elbel suggests, as a kind of “reward” for this family’s long years of loyal service to the Luxembourg dynasty. In addition, we should mention an alleged illegitimate son of Margrave Prokop of Moravia, George, who was to become a Benedictine monk, enter the Italian monastery of Monte Cassino and die in 1457 in Augsburg. However, this information would need to be thoroughly verified first.52 Furthermore, there is sometimes speculation within historical research that Wenceslas Králík of Buřenice († 1416) might also have owed his successful ecclesiastical career to his illegitimate origin within the Luxembourg dynasty.53 However, this hypothesis cannot be backed up by any sources, so it should probably be rejected.54 Based on the previous survey, we can draw the following general conclusions: all of the (known) Luxembourg bastards were recognized by the dynasty and given an appropriate social status and source of income. As Stanisław Sroka has stated, in the vast majority of cases their royal fathers predetermined them for an ecclesiastical career, providing them with a certain level of education and the relevant papal dispensations.55 Thanks to the dynasty’s considerable influence, the Luxembourg bastards (together with those of the last two Přemyslids) advanced rapidly through the church hierarchy and obtained 50  The existence of Margaret was first brought to the attention of scholars by Stanislav Kasík, “Znaky na arkýři zámku v Brandýse nad Labem,” Heraldická ročenka 21 (1994), 98, while Petr Elbel, “Vlašimský epilog dynastie: Markéta z Lucemburku na Úsově,” in Lucemburkové, 773–776 put this figure into a wider context and, at the same time, put forward the hypothesis of Wenceslas IV’s fatherhood. 51  See “Regesta listin z lichtenštejnského archivu ve Vaduzu z let 1173–1526,” ed. Adolf Turek and Metoděj Zemek, Sborník archivních prací 33, no. 1 (1983), 256–257, no. 324, respectively Regesten Kaiser Sigismunds (1410–1437) nach Archiven und Bibliotheken geordnet, vol. 1, Die Urkunden und Briefe aus den Archiven und Bibliotheken Mährens und Tschechisch-Schlesiens, ed. Petr Elbel (Vienna, Cologne and Weimar: Böhlau, 2012), 190– 191, no. 144 (3rd July 1432). 52  There are only some—not very clear—notes in Bartoš, České dějiny, vol. 2/6, 215 and note 2. 53  See Spěváček, Václav IV., 219; Štěpán Kohout, “Wenzel Gerard von Burenitz (Králík) († 1416),” in Die Bischöfe des Heiligen Römischen Reiches 1198 bis 1448. Ein biographisches Lexikon, ed. Erwin Gatz (Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 2001), 517; Widder, “Konkubinen und Bastarde,” 468, 472–473. 54  Zdeňka Hledíková, “Arcibiskupové a kaplani za Václava IV.,” in Lucemburkové, 780. 55  Sroka, “Nieślubne potomstwo,” 27; see also Widder, “Konkubinen und Bastarde,” 468; for the situation in the county and later duchy of Luxembourg, cf. Reichert, “Der fünfte Mann,” 389–401.

Illegitimate Children in the Late Middle Ages

33

important ecclesiastical offices, which allowed some of them to become a significant source of support to their family in the field of Bohemian and European politics. Only William, the illegitimate son of Charles IV, did not become a clergyman, nor did Margaret of Luxembourg become a nun; instead, she was to share the fate of the illegitimate daughters of Přemysl Otakar II, being married off to one of the king’s favourites. By contrast, the other royal bastards of the fourteenth and fifteenth century—John Volek, Bishop of Olomouc, Elisabeth, Abbess of Pustiměř, Nicholas of Luxembourg, Patriarch of Aquileia, John of Moravia, Patriarch of Aquileia, and George, monk of Monte Cassino (?)— almost all became important prelates. It was John of Moravia, together with Nicholas, who was to rise the highest within the church hierarchy …

Chapter 3

Bastard 1

Youth and Early Ecclesiastical Career

John of Moravia was born into a very thorny situation for the entire house of Luxembourg, which resulted from the dynasty’s unsuccessful attempts to acquire the duchy of Carinthia and county of Tyrol after the death of their last ruler, Henry of Carinthia († 1335). On the basis of the marriage between the only heiress, Margaret “Maultasch,” and John Henry, son of King John of Bohemia, both Alpine countries were expected to fall to the Luxembourgs. In the end, however, only Tyrol was effectively controlled by John Henry, while Carinthia became part of the Habsburg dominion. Nevertheless, from the very beginning, the young count was not able to maintain his authority against the Tyrolean nobility, and this was aggravated by marital disharmony with Margaret. In fact, it was only a matter of time till John Henry’s fragile rule would break down.1 This occurred in November 1341, in a remarkable way that contemporary chroniclers describe as follows. When the count returned from hunting, his wife refused to open the gates of his castle to him. It soon transpired that this was actually a “finely entangled conspiracy” which involved the majority of the Tyrolean nobility and even the emperor, Louis the Bavarian, himself. John Henry, against whom the entire country had risen up, was thus forced to seek refuge with the patriarch of Aquileia, where he also learned that his wife had been spreading a rumour that he was impotent, whereupon the emperor—in complete contravention of canon law—dissolved their marriage just so that Margaret could immediately afterwards marry his son, Louis of Brandenburg.2 1  See Josef Šusta, České dějiny, vol. 2/3, Karel IV. Otec a syn 1333–1346 (Prague: J. Laichter, 1946), 185–189, 211–216, 225–235, 332–336; Bobková, Velké dějiny, vol. 4/a, 152–156, 174–180; Veldtrup, “Johann Propst von Vyšehrad,” 51–59; Mezník, Lucemburská Morava, 36–43; Bobková, Jan Lucemburský, 153–154, 182–186, 257–261; for Margaret, a traditional object of interest for historiography, see e.g. Jürgen Miethke, “Die Eheaffäre der Margarete ‘Maultasch,’ Gräfin von Tirol (1341/1342). Ein Beispiel hochadliger Familienpolitik im Spätmittelalter,” in Päpste, Pilger, Pönitentiarie. Festschrift für Ludwig Schmugge zum 65. Geburtstag, ed. Andreas Meyer, Constanze Rendtel and Maria Wittmer-Butsch (Tübingen: Niemeyer, 2004), 353–391. The following chapter about John’s life up to 1380 is based mainly on Veldtrup’s thorough study. 2  Chronicon Modoetiense ab origine Modoetiae usq; ad Annum MCCCXLIX. ubi potissimum agitur de gestis priorum Vicecomitum Principum, Auctore Bonincontro Morigia Synchrono, nunc primum prodit e Msto Codice Bibliothecae Ambrosianae, ed. Ludovico Antonio Muratori,

© Ondřej Schmidt, 2019 | doi:10.1163/9789004407893_004

Bastard

35

In the Europe of the time, this event triggered a serious scandal3 and also a rift between the emperor and the Luxembourgs, with whom the new pope, Clement VI (1342–1352), also sided. In the meantime, John Henry returned to Bohemia with an empty title, but for him this humiliating period in his life was far from over. Although his marriage to Margaret had broken down irretrievably, it had not been undone from the point of view of canon law, so it continued de jure. This also meant that John could not enter into a new marriage and thus have legitimate offspring. This uneasy state of affairs endured until 1349, when there was finally a divorce and a reconciliation between the Luxembourgs and the Wittelsbachs.4 It was within this period of seven years—undoubtedly an exceedingly frustrating time for John Henry—that John of Moravia came into the world. It is not known when and where John was born. The only contemporary chronicler to pay attention to him was Beneš Krabice of Weitmile, but his remark was not anchored in time,5 so we have to rely on the wording of charters. In a later supplication by Charles IV to the papal curia on John’s behalf, dated 1365, he is referred to as being “around twenty years of age,” which makes it possible to date his birth to around the year 1345.6 Incidentally, this report indicates that the precise date of birth was probably not even known within the Luxembourg dynasty, otherwise John’s exact age would have been given in the supplication. According to a plausible hypothesis by Dieter Veldtrup, John might have been conceived in 1344, when John Henry was acting as governor to Margrave Charles at the time of his absence from the Czech lands, and born a year later, perhaps in Brno.7 The identity of John’s mother remains RIS XII (Milan: Societas Palatina, 1728), cols. 1177–1178; Chronicon Benesii de Weitmil, FRB IV, 490–491; Iohannis abbatis Victoriensis Liber certarum historiarum, ed. Fedor Schneider, MGH SRG [36/2] (Hannover and Leipzig: Hahn, 1910), 221, 222–224. The sources were collected and summarized by Veldtrup, “Johann Propst von Vyšehrad,” 50–51 (wherein the quotation). See also Šusta, České dějiny, vol. 2/3, 366–376; Mezník, Lucemburská Morava, 44–45; Bobková, Jan Lucemburský, 261–264. 3  E.g. Iohannis abbatis Victoriensis Liber, MGH SRG [36/2], 222 remarked in this context: “Nam Iohanne filio Bohemorum regis de partibus Athasis eliminato fama percrebuit, quod causa fuerit in eo impotencia coeundi …” See further the sources collected and quoted in Veldtrup, “Johann Propst von Vyšehrad,” 51, note 5. 4  Veldtrup, “Johann Propst von Vyšehrad,” 59–61; Josef Šusta, České dějiny, vol. 2/4, Karel IV. Za císařskou korunou 1346–1355 (Prague: J. Laichter, 1948), 130–133; for the divorce, see also Martin Nodl, “Královské svatby a rozvody,” in Slavnosti, ceremonie a rituály v pozdním středověku, ed. Martin Nodl and František Šmahel (Prague: Argo, 2014), 103–106. 5  Chronicon Benesii de Weitmil, FRB IV, 491: “Interim eciam [John Henry] ex quadam libera genuit filium, postea prepositum Wissegradensem factum, cui nomen Iohannes …” 6  M VB III, 343–344, no. 568: “… etatis viginti annorum vel circa …” (11th June 1365). 7  Veldtrup, “Johann Propst von Vyšehrad,” 62–63.

36

Chapter 3

obscure (the extant supplications to the pope and the resulting papal bulls as well as Beneš Krabice’s chronicle suggest only that she was an unmarried woman)8 and the same can be said about the circumstances of his conception. One might presume that John was the result of some short-lived courtly affair. Although he was “only” an illegitimate son, his birth must have come as a great relief to the entire Luxembourg dynasty and especially his father, John Henry, who—as Beneš Krabice of Weitmile succinctly puts it—was thus “purged of the stain of impotence which had been falsely attributed to him.”9 In spite of that, however, the child remained a mere bastard, as is shown, among others, by a later covenant regarding the divorce with Margaret, in which John Henry declares that he (finally) “wishes to be a father” and “longs to beget legitimate heirs,” without alluding to the fact that he already had one son.10 This attitude stemmed from the traditional legal inferior status of illegitimate children, who found it difficult to achieve success in the secular sphere, and from John Henry’s related efforts to secure himself a legitimate heir. Therefore, it certainly cannot be said that his relationship with his bastard son was a negative one. On the contrary, the later sources make it clear that he took care of him in an exemplary manner. After all, as we have already seen, this was a tradition within the house of Luxembourg. Even so, it is evident that John grew up in the shadow of his younger legitimate half-brothers Jobst, John Sobieslaw and Prokop, and this may have left its mark on his persona and character. In accordance with contemporary practice, sketched in the previous chapter, John was destined for an ecclesiastical career from a very early age because of his illegitimate origin. Given the silence of the sources, it is impossible to say what his childhood and adolescence were actually like. Nevertheless, the young prince was certainly well provided for. First of all, it is clear that he must have acquired a certain level of education to enter the priesthood. He might have attended either a cathedral or capitular school, but it is more likely that he had private teachers as was usual in the case of princely children.11 In the 8  M VB II, 266–267, nos. 677 and 680 (2nd December 1357); 325, no. 822 (26th July 1358); MVB III, 437–438, no. 706 (29th May 1366). In addition, Chronicon Benesii de Weitmil, FRB IV, 491 affirms that John Henry “… ex quadam libera genuit filium …” which Veldtrup, “Johann Propst von Vyšehrad,” 62 translates as a woman of “free status”; however, the term libera is more likely intended to denote an unmarried woman too. 9  Chronicon Benesii de Weitmil, FRB IV, 491: “Interim eciam ex quadam libera genuit filium […] et sic vicium impotencie sibi falso ascriptum expurgavit.” 10   C DM VII, 911–912, no. 358: “Item quod dominus Johannes predictus naturalem habet potentiam, mulieres alias cognoscendi, et desiderans esse pater, non velit continere, et pro honore, ac voluntate dominiorum suorum cupit heredes legitimos procreare.” 11  For the preceptors of princely sons, see Müsegades, Fürstliche Erziehung, 133, 158–194.

Bastard

37

years 1357 and 1358 John is referred to as a “student of the Olomouc diocese,” so it can be assumed that he probably grew up in Moravia, where he also started to learn the basics of Latin as well as to gain other necessary knowledge. There are basically two places where he could have done so: Brno, the margravial residence of John’s father, and Olomouc, the seat of the bishopric.12 In light of this assumption and despite being fully in line with the common practice of the time,13 the hypothesis that John was raised at the imperial court in Prague should probably be rejected. There is a well-known reference to an unnamed son of John Henry who stayed at the imperial court in one letter from John of Neumarkt, bishop of Litomyšl and chancellor of Charles IV, in which he describes an audience Margaret “Maultasch” had with the emperor in 1362. On this occasion he had her introduced to this nephew of his in order to publicly demonstrate to her that she had unjustly accused his brother, her former husband, of impotence.14 Like Berthold Bretholz and Jaroslav Mezník, however, one might incline towards the view that it was not our John of Moravia who was at the centre of this remarkable scene, but rather his brother, John Sobieslaw, who grew up at the Prague court on account of his planned marriage to the daughter of Charles IV, necessitated by the absence of a regular heir to the monarch.15 12   M VB II, 267, no. 680 (2nd December 1357); 325, no. 824 (26th July 1358). In both cases, the pope orders the bishop of Olomouc to confer the dispensation on John, “scholari suae dioc.[esis].” Cf. Veldtrup, “Johann Propst von Vyšehrad,” 63 and note 90, who considered the possibility of the cathedral school in Olomouc. For this school, see Metoděj Zemek, “Vzdělání a kulturní snahy olomoucké kapituly v době předhusitské,” in Sborník k nedožitým padesátinám PhDr. Jiřího Radimského (Brno: Státní archiv, 1969), 255–257; for Brno as the margravial residence, see Ivan Hlaváček, “Brünn als Residenz der Markgrafen der luxemburgischen Sekundogenitur,” in Fürstliche Residenzen im spätmittelalterlichen Europa, ed. Hans Patze and Werner Paravicini, Vorträge und Forschungen 36 (Sigmaringen: Thorbecke, 1991), 361–420. 13  For the late medieval practice of sending princely sons to foreign courts for education, see Müsegades, Fürstliche Erziehung, 71–118. 14  Briefe Johanns von Neumarkt, ed. Paul Piur, Vom Mittelalter zur Reformation. Forschungen zur Geschichte der deutschen Bildung 8 (Berlin: Weidmann, 1937), 19, no. 11: “… cesar ille Romanus, filium sui fratris, marchionis Moraviae, quem in curia manere novistis, ad presenciam dicte Chrimhuldis apportari mandavit, non aliter, sicut estimo, nisi ut in presencia circumfuse multitudinis ipsa detestanda braxatrix agnosceret falso quidem suo fratri ascripsisse impotenciam coeundi, cum manifeste clareret ostensione tam preclare sobolis domini mei marchionis virilitas et dicte meretricis inconstancia pudibunda.” 15  Berthold Bretholz, “Zur Biographie des Markgrafen Jodok von Mähren,” Zeitschrift des Vereines für die Geschichte Mährens und Schlesiens 3 (1899), 246–247; Mezník, Lucemburská Morava, 212–213; for the curious marriage project, cf. also Elbel, “Jan Soběslav,” 710–711. By contrast, Veldtrup, “Johann Propst von Vyšehrad,” 65–66 seems to incline to the older

38

Chapter 3

Because of John’s illegitimate origin, it was necessary to secure the appropriate dispensations at the curia to enable him to receive the relevant holy orders and hold ecclesiastical benefices. This was effectively taken care of by John’s father and later also by his uncle. Needless to say, given the influence of the Luxembourg dynasty, the popes had no reason to obstruct its young member’s cursus honorum and apostolic approval was thus a mere formality. All things considered, John’s “chances” of making “a successful ecclesiastical career”16 for himself were quite good. The first supplication by John Henry comes from 1357: he requested that his son, “who desires to enter the services of the church,” be allowed to receive all holy orders and also two benefices, in spite of his illegitimate origin. This was approved by the pope, Innocent VI (1352–1362), who ordered the bishop of Olomouc to perform the dispensation.17 The next supplication was not long in coming. In it, he requests a third benefice in order for John to be able to receive canonries with a prebend, a benefice “with the cure of souls,” or a dignity or office in any cathedral church with the possibility of exchanging these benefices. The pope acceded to this request too.18 In the first case, John’s father had to pay 64 deniers tournois to the papal curia, while the second dispensation cost him 120.19 Not long afterwards John was able to appear before his ordinary, the bishop of Olomouc, who at the time was John Očko of Vlašim (1351–1364), with the papal bulls and receive the official dispensation from him after a formal ­­review.20 He was then free to receive his first tonsure and thus enter the priesthood. Dieter Veldtrup assumes that John had already received the tonsure in i­ nterpretation, according to which the child was John of Moravia. Elsewhere, however, he claims that the issue is “uncertain” (ibid., 63–64 and note 91). 16  Cf. Neralić, “Chances,” 159. 17   M VB II, 266, no. 677: “… ad omnes sacros ordines promoveri et beneficia ecclesiastica duo licite obtinere possit …” Ibid., 267, no. 680: “… qui militiae clericali ascribi desiderat …” (2nd December 1357). 18   M VB II, 325, no. 822: “… beneficia ecclesiastica unum, duo vel tria obtinere, eciam si canonicatus et prebende in ecclesiis cathedralibus existant, et eciam si unum eorum curatum aut dignitas, personatus vel officium, eciam si in ecclesia cathedrali existat …” Ibid., 325, no. 824 (26th July 1358). 19  The fees indicated on the papal bulls have to be multiplied by four. See Jaroslav Eršil, Správní a finanční vztahy avignonského papežství k českým zemím ve třetí čtvrtině 14. století, Rozpravy Československé akademie věd, Řada společenských věd 69/10 (Prague: Československá akademie věd, 1959), 90. 20  The charters of the bishop of Olomouc, who was to perform both dispensations, are not preserved in this case. Therefore, see at least the charters in the formulary of Archbishop Ernest of Pardubice regarding an analogical situation: “Cancellaria Arnesti. Formelbuch des ersten Prager Erzbischofs Arnest von Pardubic. Nach einer handschrift

Bastard

39

the period between the two dispensations, which was a condition for holding an ecclesiastical benefice.21 However, that would have required John to have obtained such a benefice in the meantime; that clearly had not happened, otherwise it would have been mentioned in the second supplication. The next time John makes an appearance, now a twenty-year-old cleric, is in a supplication by Charles IV, presented during a visit to the papal curia in Avignon in 1365. It cannot be ruled out that the young man travelled to France in his uncle’s entourage, but the extant sources do not support this assumption. In the document, the emperor requests for his nephew—as he did for a number of his relatives, courtiers and familiares—the provision of a canonry with reservation of a prebend or dignity in the Prague chapter or in another one on the collation of the Prague archbishop, provost, dean or chapter, along with the appropriate dispensation because of his young age. This document also indicates that at that time John was already studying the seven liberal arts and held a canonry and prebend in Brno.22 There is no mention here of which university or higher ecclesiastical school was concerned, nor has the existing historical research resolved this issue. Nevertheless, the most likely candidate obviously appears to be the recently founded university in Prague. The fact that there is no record of John in the dean’s book of the Faculty of Arts beginning in 1367 or the later register of the law faculty is not particularly decisive, as he may have already interrupted or finished his studies by then. In addition, the dean’s book only records students who achieved some kind of academic grade; however, the number of such students was minimal.23 For that matter, one cannot assume that John studied in der K. K. Universitäts-Bibliothek zu Prag,” ed. Ferdinand Tadra, AfÖG 61 (1880), 375–376, no. 7; 376, no. 8. 21  Veldtrup, “Johann Propst von Vyšehrad,” 65 and note 99. 22   M VB III, 343–344, no. 568 (11th June 1365). John is referred to here as “clerico […] studenti in artibus.” Evidence of his Brno canonry is contained in the non obstantibus clause ibid.: “… non obstante, quod canonicatum et prebendam in ecclesia s. Petri in Brunna Olomucensis dioc.[esis] noscitur obtinere …” For Charles IV’s journey to Avignon, see V[ojtěch] J. Nováček, “Císaře Karla IV pobyt při dvoře papežském v Avinioně r. 1365,” Časopis Musea Království českého 64 (1890), 151–179; Kavka, Vláda Karla IV., vol. 2, 17–27; Marie Bláhová, “Příjezd Karla IV. do Avignonu v květnu 1365 v podání soudobé historiografie,” in Ve znamení zemí Koruny české. Sborník k šedesátým narozeninám prof. PhDr. Lenky Bobkové, CSc., ed. Jana Konvičná and Jan Zdichynec (Prague: Casablanca, 2006), 559–577. 23  Cf. Liber Decanorum Facultatis Philosophicae Universitatis Pragensis ab anno Christi 1367. usque ad annum 1585. e codice membranaceo illius aetatis nunc primum luce donatus, vols. 1–2, Monumenta Historica Universitatis Carolo-Ferdinandeae Pragensis 1 (Prague: Joan. Nep. Gerzabek, 1830–1832), ad indicem; Album seu Matricula Facultatis Juridicae Universitatis Pragensis ab anno Christi 1372. usque ad annum 1418. e codice ­membranaceo

40

Chapter 3

order to attain a degree but rather—as was common at that time—in order to acquire at least the basic grounding that was needed for his ecclesiastical career.24 If John did indeed attend the university in Prague, that would also mean that he must have resided in that city and would therefore have been in contact with the imperial court there, which would explain Charles IV’s intercession on his behalf, John’s attempt to secure a position in the Prague chapter and also, as we shall see, his participation in the journey to Rome in the years 1368–1369. The fact that John’s first benefice was in the Brno collegiate chapter of St. Peter fits very well in the Luxembourgs’ ecclesiastical politics. This important ecclesiastical institution, located within sight of the margravial residence of John Henry, was closely linked with the dynasty and had traditionally enjoyed the favour of both John of Luxembourg and his son Charles, who founded several new prebends there. The Luxembourgs could thus retain a certain degree of influence over appointments to some positions in the chapter.25 Moreover, we must not forget that shortly before John became a Brno canon, Emperor Charles also successfully promoted his protonotary and secretary, Nicholas of Kroměříž, to provost.26 John remained a canon in Brno until 1380. His principal task as a member of the chapter was to take part in its everyday liturgical activities. Nevertheless, as was argued above, he probably resided in Prague, having himself represented illius aetatis nunc primum luce donatum, plenoque nominum indice auctum, vol. 1, Mon­ umenta Historica Universitatis Carolo-Ferdinandeae Pragensis 2 (Prague: J. Spurny, 1834), ad indicem. There is only a reference to Master John of Moravia, later dean of the Faculty of Arts and rector of the university: Veldtrup, “Johann Propst von Vyšehrad,” 67, note 112; Josef Tříška, Životopisný slovník předhusitské pražské univerzity 1348–1409 (Prague: Karolinum, 1981), 280. Veldtrup (ibid., 66–68) explored also other editions containing information about students of some foreign universities, such as Bologna or Paris, but with no results. I was not even able to find John’s name in Monumenti della Università di Padova (1318–1405), vols. 1–2, ed. Andrea Gloria (Padua: Tipografia del Seminario, 1888). 24  See Müsegades, Fürstliche Erziehung, 119–131; cf. Jiří Kejř, Dějiny pražské právnické univerzity (Prague: Karolinum, 1995), 77, 96. 25  Veldtrup, “Johann Propst von Vyšehrad,” 68; for the history of the chapter in the Luxembourg period, see Libor Jan, “Dějiny kapituly,” in Libor Jan, Rudolf Procházka and Bohumil Samek, Sedm set let brněnské kapituly (Brno: Biskupství brněnské and Město Brno, 1996), 48–58; Libor Jan, “Die Rolle des Brünner Kollegiatstiftes zur Zeit der Luxemburger,” in Geist, Gesellschaft, Kirche im 13.–16. Jahrhundert. Internationales Kolloquium, Prag 5.–10. Oktober 1998, ed. František Šmahel, Colloquia mediaevalia Pragensia 1 (Prague: Filosofia, 1999), 223–228. This was apparently the case with the so-called prebenda imperialis whose holder was appointed by the king himself: MVB III, 344–345, no. 570 (11th July 1365). 26  See Jan, “Dějiny kapituly,” 51–52; Jan, “Die Rolle,” 227.

Bastard

41

by a vicar during the liturgy, and used the revenues from his prebend only as a source of income. For that matter, this was quite a common practice at that time, providing these clergymen, who carried out their actual activities elsewhere (typically at a royal or papal court), with a decent living.27 Nothing is known about John’s (hypothetical) stay in Prague. We can only imagine that he attended lectures at the university and was a frequent guest at his uncle’s court, where the lay as well as ecclesiastical elite of the Empire gathered. Charles IV’s supplication from 1365 is also important from another point of view: it testifies to the fact that the emperor was making his young nephew a part of his ecclesiastical politics.28 The pope, Urban V (1362–1370), approved and signed the supplication, whereupon the apostolic chancery must have issued the relevant provision (although the document is not preserved).29 However, the papal provision did not automatically mean that the petitioner would obtain the benefice granted. In fact, there were a number of obstacles standing in the way: principally the pretensions of other clerics claiming the same position as well as the reluctance of ecclesiastical patrons to comply with the papal bull and accept the pope’s candidate.30 For these reasons, John apparently never became a canon at St. Vitus Cathedral, to say nothing of receiving the relevant prebend.31 This also goes to show how difficult it was to obtain a place in this sought-after institution, in spite of the papal provision and the support of the king of Bohemia.32 27  See Zdeňka Hledíková, “Několik úvah o kapitulách v českém středověkém státě,” in Kapituly v zemích Koruny české a v Uhrách ve středověku, ed. Jan Hrdina and Martina Maříková, Documenta Pragensia Supplementa 2 (Prague: Archiv hlavního města Prahy and Scriptorium, 2011), 26; Karin Pátrová, “Od servicií k denním podílům. Vývoj podělování kanovníků v českých středověkých kolegiátních kapitulách,” in Kapituly v zemích Koruny české, 85–86; Karin Pátrová, “Proměny českých kolegiátních kapitul ve 13.–14. století,” in Sacri canones servandi sunt, 569. 28  Veldtrup, “Johann Propst von Vyšehrad,” 68. 29  For the complicated process leading to the issuing of a provision/expectation by the papal chancery, see Sabine Weiss, Kurie und Ortskirche. Die Beziehungen zwischen Salzburg und dem päpstlichen Hof unter Martin V. (1417–1431), Bibliothek des Deutschen Historischen Instituts in Rom 76 (Tübingen: Niemeyer, 1994), 104–115, 184–186. 30  See Weiss, Kurie und Ortskirche, 115–124. At the beginning of the fifteenth century in the Salzburg ecclesiastical province, for example, the clerics who received a papal provision and especially expectation had only a small chance of actually obtaining the benefice in question (ibid., 248–257). 31  Cf. Antonín Podlaha, Series praepositorum, decanorum, archidiaconorum aliorumque praelatorum et canonicorum S. Metropolitanae Ecclesiae Pragensis a primordiis usque ad praesentia tempora, Editiones Archivi et Bibliothecae S. F. Metropolitani Capituli Pragensis 10 (Prague: V. Kotrba, 1912), ad indicem. 32  On the other hand, as Dominik Budský, “Metropolitní kapitula pražská jako dvůr v malém. Kariéra a vztahy v prostředí kapituly v letech 1378–1390,” in Dvory a rezidence

42

Chapter 3

There is an extant papal bull from the following year—undoubtedly a response to another, no longer preserved supplication from Charles—in which, as well as the previously granted graces, it was explicitly emphasized that John could hold an unlimited number of benefices and even be ordained as a bishop.33 In addition, through the rarely conferred clause licentia deinceps tacendi, John was freed once and for all from his illegitimate origin, which was no longer to be mentioned.34 This munificent concession, worth 80 deniers tournois, thus paved the way for his expected future career as a high prelate. Despite enjoying the favour of the pope and the emperor, John waited in vain for the benefice in the Prague chapter; however, he received more than adequate recompense in the form of the provostry of Vyšehrad. 2

The Vyšehrad Provostry

New horizons finally opened up for John in 1368, when the emperor took him, along with his half-brother John Sobieslaw, on his second descent into Italy and Rome. This may well have been because they were both staying at the Prague court at the time. This grand expedition involved many prominent figures of contemporary Europe, with whom John undoubtedly came into contact. On top of that, it also gave him the opportunity to see a large part of Italy, which was to become his future sphere of activity, and especially Rome, which, although a mere shadow of its former glory, still exerted a powerful symbolic effect on the mind of medieval people. There John also witnessed the stunning ceremony of the meeting between the emperor and the pope and the pompous coronation of Elisabeth of Pomerania in St. Peter’s Basilica.35 ve středověku, ed. Dana Dvořáčková-Malá, MHB 10, Supplementum 1 (Prague: Historický ústav AV ČR, 2006), 53–86 has shown, Charles exercised quite a considerable influence on the appointment of the Prague canons. Thus, John may just have been unlucky, as all the prebends were probably occupied. Cf. also the reflections by Veldtrup, “Johann Propst von Vyšehrad,” 68–70. 33   M VB III, 437–438, no. 706: “… ut defectu non obstante predicto etiam ultra predicta tria beneficia alia beneficia ecclesiastica, quecunque, quotcunque et qualiacunque fuerint […] recipere et insimul licite retinere, necnon ad dignitatem episcopalem promoveri et eligi possis […] de uberioris dono gracie dispensamus …” (29th May 1366). 34   M VB III, 437–438, no. 706: “… quod in graciis per te de cetero impetrandis aut promocionibus vel assumpcionibus quibuscumque de te faciendis nullam de huiusmodi defectu tenearis facere mencionem.” For the licentia deinceps tacendi, see Brigide Schwarz, “Dispense der Kanzlei Eugens IV. (1431–1447),” in Illegitimität im Spätmittelalter, 137. 35  Charles IV’s second descent into Italy was described by Gustav Pirchan, Italien und Kaiser Karl IV. in der Zeit seiner zweiten Romfahrt, vols. 1–2, Quellen und Forschungen

Bastard

43

It can be assumed that John spent the whole time travelling in the retinue of his imperial uncle, although there is no direct evidence for this. Unlike his half-brother, John Sobieslaw, who often features in the lists of witnesses of charters as “Margrave of Moravia”36 and whom the emperor even entrusted with the command of a unit of 700 horsemen,37 John of Moravia only emerges out of the silence of the sources in December 1368, when his presence in Rome is documented.38 Likewise, the list of Charles’s retinue from Udine, where the emperor called in to see his ally, Patriarch Marquard of Randeck—in the company of the poet Francesco Petrarca, among others—makes no mention of John. However, it is likely that he can be included in the familia imperatoris which was put up at the castle in Udine, or else in the retinue of the bishop of Olomouc, John of Neumarkt.39 Participating in the expedition to Rome and meeting many important figures must have made a strong impression on the young Luxembourg; what was even more important, however, was that at that time his status changed from an insignificant canon to one of the most prominent ecclesiastical dignitaries in the kingdom of Bohemia. The autumn of 1368 saw the death of one of the members of the emperor’s retinue, Count Burchard of Hardegg and Retz, who aus dem Gebiet der Geschichte 6/1–2 (Prague: Verlag der Deutschen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften und Künste für die Tschechoslowakische Republik, 1930); Kavka, Vláda Karla IV., vol. 2, 65–97; Ellen Widder, Itinerar und Politik. Studien zur Reiseherrschaft Karls IV. südlich der Alpen, Forschungen zur Kaiser- und Papstgeschichte des Mittelalters 10 (Cologne, Weimar and Vienna: Böhlau, 1993), 266–357; for the perception of Rome in the Middle Ages, see Kateřina Kubínová, Imitatio Romae. Karel IV. a Řím (Prague: Artefactum, 2006); for the emperor’s stay in Rome, see ibid., 137–149. 36  Regesta Imperii (= RI), vol. VIII, Die Regesten des Kaiserreichs unter Kaiser Karl IV. 1346– 1378, ed. Alfons Huber (Innsbruck: Wagner, 1877), passim; Acta Karoli IV. Imperatoris inedita. Ein Beitrag zu den Urkunden Kaiser Karls IV. aus italienischen Archiven gesammelt, ed. Franz Zimmermann (Innsbruck: Wagner, 1891), passim. References to John Sobieslaw were collected by Veldtrup, “Johann Propst von Vyšehrad,” 71, note 129, and Radka Obůrková, “Druhá římská jízda Karla IV.” (master’s thesis, Charles University, 2013). 37  See Pirchan, Italien und Kaiser Karl IV., vol. 1, 98–99, note 15, on the basis of a letter preserved in Archivio di Stato di Mantova (= ASMn), Archivio Gonzaga (= AG), b. 1591, no. 82 (23rd April [1368]). In the document, there is a reference to “la zente del marchese de Moravia con sete ce[n]to chavaii” coming to Venzone as the emperor’s vanguard. The information was also adopted by Kavka, Vláda Karla IV., vol. 2, 70. 38   M VB III, 687–689, no. 1073 (14th December 1368). 39  The source is edited in Luigi Zanutto, Carlo IV di Lussemburgo e Francesco Petrarca a Udine nel 1368. Studio storico con documenti (Udine: Del Bianco, 1904), documenti, 76, no. 10, and more recently in Claudio Griggio, “Petrarca a Udine nel 1368,” Studi Petrarcheschi, n.s., 20 (2007), appendice, 30: “Infrascripti sunt principes et barones hospitati. Imperator et imperatrix, filia domini imperatoris. Imprimis imperialis magestas in palatio maiori superiori et in toto castro eius familia.”

44

Chapter 3

was Hofmeister and at the same time provost of Vyšehrad.40 Shortly after his death, Charles bestowed this important and affluent spiritual office upon none other than John of Moravia.41 John first appears as the new provost of Vyšehrad on 14th December 1368, at the very end of Emperor Charles’s stay in Rome. On this day, John appeared before Bishop John of Neumarkt at the papal palace in the Vatican and took an oath before him on the gospel that, in view of the high revenues of his new prebend, he would donate some of them to the Vyšehrad church for necessary repairs for a period of three years. John was to receive 1,000 florins annually for his living costs and expenses, while the rest of the proceeds were to be allocated to repairs to the collegiate church of St. Peter. One very unusual aspect is that disposal of the money was left to the archbishop of Prague, who was to submit a statement of accounts to the emperor’s representative every year.42 The entire act thus comes across much more as a donation by Charles IV, who in this way was trying to maintain control over his inexperienced nephew, who must have been around twenty-three years old, and at the same time raise funds for further building activities at Vyšehrad.43 40  He is documented for the last time on 25th August 1368 in Modena: RI VIII, 384, no. 4682; Pirchan, Italien und Kaiser Karl IV., vol. 1, 332, note 48. According to Veldtrup, “Johann Propst von Vyšehrad,” 70, note 127, he died on 16th September. For Burchard, see František Kavka, “Burchard, purkrabí magdeburský a hrabě z Hardeggu a Retzu—hofmistr Karla IV. (1353–1368),” in Historia docet. Sborník prací k poctě šedesátých narozenin prof. PhDr. Ivana Hlaváčka, CSc., ed. Miloslav Polívka and Michal Svatoš (Prague: Československá akademie věd, 1992), 145–155. 41   M VB III, 687–689, no. 1073: “… quod serenissimus et invictissimus princeps ac dominus Karolus IIII […] suo et regni sui Boemie nomine preposituram dicte ecclesie s. Petri tunc vacantem per obitum quondam domini Burghardi, ultimi ipsius ecclesie prepositi, et ad collationem regis Boemie, qui est pro tempore, pertinentem auctoritate regia dicti regni Boemie sibi [i.e. on John] nuper graciose contulerat” (14th December 1368). 42   M VB III, 687–689, no. 1073. A notarial instrument is inserted in the papal confirmation from 16th December. See the summary in Pirchan, Italien und Kaiser Karl IV., vol. 1, 332 and note 48; Veldtrup, “Johann Propst von Vyšehrad,” 74–75. By contrast, Kavka, Vláda Karla IV., vol. 2, 82 wrongly states that John donated 1,000 florins to the Vyšehrad church annually and speaks of a “princely donation”; on the contrary, according to the text of the charter, these 1,000 florins from the provostry prebend were to be given to John, while only the remainder (residuum) was intended for the reparations. 43  Cf. the reflections by Veldtrup, “Johann Propst von Vyšehrad,” 74–75 from which I differ a little. Moreover, it should be added that the statutes of the Vyšehrad chapter established that every new canon was to give half of one year’s income from his prebend ad fabricam. Similarly, new canons in the Prague chapter had to renounce all of their yearly revenues for this purpose, and prelates one half of their yearly revenues. See, respectively, Pátrová, “Od servicií k denním podílům,” 87; Martina Maříková, Finance v životě pražské metropolitní kapituly. Hmotné zabezpečení kanovníků optikou účetních rejstříků z let 1358–

Bastard

45

This is only confirmed by the mandate issued by the emperor on the way back from Rome for the archbishop of Prague, stating that the said donation had come about at his own request. The archbishop was to oversee the actual carrying out of the property transactions, thus ensuring that the pious intention of Charles’s mother Elisabeth of Bohemia would be fulfilled. This is another indication of the great importance of Vyšehrad in the ideological scheme of Charles IV, of which the young provost John was now to be a part. The charter also clearly shows that John’s father, Margrave John Henry, had been involved in the emperor’s decision. In addition, the emperor decided that, in the event of his nephew’s untimely death, John’s creditors were to be repaid from the revenues of the provostry.44 As the charter of donation shows, these three years, during which the relevant amount of the donation was to be collected, were only to be counted from the day John took over his provost’s prebend. So, while John had been appointed provost in the autumn, or perhaps more likely the winter of 1368, it was not until after his return from the Eternal City the following summer that he took up his office and related duties. This appears to have been in September 1369, when the emperor and his retinue arrived back in Bohemia.45 This is also supported by the fact that in June it was still the custodian of the Vyšehrad chapter who appeared as its representative in a dispute with the Prague chapter, even though this duty was traditionally the preserve of the provost.46 Likewise, the mandate by Emperor Charles cited above from the beginning of the same month implies that John had not yet taken up the revenues of his prebend.47 John must have taken the traditional oath of allegiance to his sovereign either during the expedition or after his return to Bohemia and may also, according

1418, Documenta Pragensia Monographia 35 (Prague: Archiv hlavního města Prahy, 2018), 43–44 and note 204. Therefore, Charles IV may have taken advantage of this practice. 44   R BM VIII/2, ed. Lenka Blechová (Prague: Historický ústav AV ČR, 2017), 277–278, no. 399: “Quamvis Apostolica sedes ad instanciam nostri de bonis prepositure Wissegradensis certam ordinacionem fecerit […] ad hoc quo ea, que clare memorie illustris Elisabeth quondam regine Boemie, genitricis nostre carissime, devota principavit intencio nostra, ymo verius tua devota sollercia fine sperato pro Dei gloria et ad prefate genitricis nostre salutis remedia …” (4th June 1369). See Bořivoj Nechvátal, Kapitulní chrám sv. Petra a Pavla na Vyšehradě. Archeologický výzkum (Prague: Archeologický ústav AV ČR, 2004), 95. 45  Charles entered Brno on 1st September; however, Empress Elisabeth had already been welcomed in Prague on 20th August. See Widder, Itinerar und Politik, 357. 46   R BM VIII/2, 281–282, no. 406 (19th June 1369). 47   R BM VIII/2, 277–278, no. 399.

46

Chapter 3

to the “custom of the kingdom of Bohemia,” have taken custody of the royal sceptre from him.48 The Vyšehrad chapter was established around the year 1070 by Prince Vra‑ tislaus II and was directly subordinate to the Holy See. Vyšehrad played a significant ideological role in Vratislaus’s aspirations to the title of king and from the beginning was built as a new royal residence for Bohemian monarchs, designed on a grand scale. This was also supported by numerous symbolic allusions to Rome and the papacy, which can be observed, for example, in the consecration of the individual sacred buildings or the privilege allowing the canons and dignitaries of the chapter to use mitres during liturgy in imitation of the Roman cardinals.49 Over the course of the Middle Ages, Vyšehrad lost its original status in favour of Prague Castle, the traditional seat of Bohemian rulers; in spite of this, however, the chapter there maintained its significance. This is illustrated, for example, by the symbolic incorporation of Vyšehrad into the coronation ceremony for kings of Bohemia by Charles IV,50 and also by the fact that the provost of Vyšehrad boasted the title of supreme chancellor of the kingdom, although in the fourteenth century it was only an honorary position.51 The provost headed the chapter, which consisted of four dignitaries and twenty-three canons with prebends as well as ministers, vicars and other auxiliary clerics, presided over its assemblies and, more importantly, was responsible 48  See an undated letter from Charles IV relating to the previous period and edited in Tomáš Pešina z Čechorodu, Phosphorus Septicornis, Stella alias Matutina. Hoc est: Sanctae Metropolitanae Divi Viti Ecclesiae Pragensis Majestas et Gloria: Quibus Illa, Per tot secula, Orbi nostro enituit semper clarissima (Prague: Jo. A. de Dobroslawina, 1673), 51: “Et cum de necessitate observantiae dudum laudabilis et approbatae consuetudinis regni nostri Bohemiae requiratur omnino, quod dicto Wilelmo praeposito ratione principatus sui sceptrum regium in ecclesia Wissehradensi tradatur …” Cf. RI VIII, 635, no. 6379; Veldtrup, “Johann Propst von Vyšehrad,” 73. 49  See Andrzej Pleszczyński, Vyšehrad. Rezidence českých panovníků. Studie o rezidenci panovníka raného středověku na příkladu českého Vyšehradu (Prague: Set Out, 2002), 103–206; Marie Bláhová, “Založení vyšehradské kapituly ve středověké historiografii,” in Královský Vyšehrad, vol. 2, 13–31; Petr Kubín, “Vyšehrad jako český Řím,” Teologické texty 17, no. 2 (2006), 73–75; Petr Kubín, “Svatý Pankrác—strážce vstupu na Vyšehrad. Římský světec v Praze,” in Evropa a Čechy na konci středověku. Sborník příspěvků věnovaných Františku Šmahelovi, ed. Eva Doležalová, Robert Novotný and Pavel Soukup (Prague: Filosofia, 2004), 113–123; Jan Hrdina, “‘Spirituální konkurence’ mezi pražskými kapitulami a kláštery na přelomu 14. a 15. století,” in Kapituly v zemích Koruny české, esp. 140. 50  See Václav Žůrek, “Korunovační řád Karla IV. jako ritualizovaný panovnický program,” Časopis Národního muzea—řada historická 176, no. 3/4 (2007), 114–115. 51  Hledíková, “Vyšehradské proboštství,” 74–75; Zdeňka Hledíková, “Vyšehradská kapitula ve 13. století,” Teologické texty 19, no. 1 (2008), 51.

Bastard

47

for property matters related to the running of this ecclesiastical institution.52 His office also came with a very lucrative prebend, which included the town of Prachatice and several dozen villages scattered across the whole of the kingdom of Bohemia, as well as other property, and was regarded as the richest ecclesiastical benefice in Bohemia after the Prague archbishopric.53 Based on the amount of the papal tithe paid, the annual monetary income is estimated at roughly 1,600 shocks groschen.54 Indeed, the very fact that for the first three years John received 1,000 florins annually and at the same time was able to finance costly repairs to the Vyšehrad church from the remainder speaks for itself.55 In addition, he also had at his disposal the revenues from his Brno canonry, which he held until 1380 (John may well have obtained other ecclesiastical benefices too, but there is no evidence of them). His office was also linked to a princely dignity.56 Perhaps for that reason, with the associated obligation of some self-representation, John kept a kind of limited “court”: during his time in office as provost of Vyšehrad, he had the services of his own marshal, Michael of Dub,57 familiares from the ranks of the lower nobility,58 and there is also evidence that he had a vicar for choral services.59 His prominent status was also reflected by an artistically a­ ccomplished seal

52  For the role of the provost within the chapter, see Pátrová, “Proměny českých kolegiátních kapitul,” 567; for the structure of the Vyšehrad chapter, see Zdeňka Hledíková, “Struktura duchovenstva ve středověkých Čechách,” in Hledíková, Svět české středověké církve, 61 and 76, note 14. 53  A list of the provostry possessions is contained in a confirmation by Charles IV, edited in RBM VI/1, ed. Bedřich Mendl (Prague: ČSAV, 1928), 188–189, no. 351 (13th May 1356). See the thorough analysis of the document by Tomek, Dějepis města Prahy, vol. 3, 71–73. 54  Hledíková, “Vyšehradské proboštství,” 74. Cf. Registra decimarum papalium čili Registra desátků papežských z diocezí pražské, ed. Václav Vladivoj Tomek, Z pojednání král. české společnosti nauk 6 (Prague: Ed. Grégr, 1873), 12–13. It emerges from the source that in 1369 John paid the papal tithe of 40 shocks groschen. 55  Tomek, Dějepis města Prahy, vol. 3, 73. 56  See Veldtrup, “Johann Propst von Vyšehrad,” 73. This is mentioned in many contemporary sources, e.g. in RBM VI/1, 188–189, no. 351: “… ad tytulum principatus eidem prepositure et principatui regni cancellarie officium …” 57  Codex juris municipalis regni Bohemiae (= CIM), vol. II, ed. Jaromír Čelakovský (Prague: Edv. Grégr, 1895), 727–728, no. 563 (6th December 1379). 58   C IM II, 727–728, no. 563; Soudní akta konsistoře pražské (Acta judiciaria consistorii Pragensis) (= AICP), vol. II, ed. Ferdinand Tadra (Prague: Česká akademie císaře Františka Josefa pro vědy, slovesnost a umění, 1893), 14, no. 69 (8th April 1380). Michael of Dub, referred to as John’s familiaris in the latter document, is by all accounts to be identified with the former marshal. 59   A ICP I, ed. Ferdinand Tadra (Prague: Česká akademie císaře Františka Josefa pro vědy, slovesnost a umění, 1893), 112, no. 23 (31st January 1375); 224, no. 241 (2nd October 1377).

48

Chapter 3

which depicts the pope (St. Peter) blessing the kneeling provost.60 Unlike for the dean, higher ordination was not required for the provost and the canons, so it can be assumed that at that time John was at most a subdeacon.61 John’s residence is also worthy of mention, since it was during the reign of Charles IV, around 1350, that Vyšehrad became a showcase palace complex surrounded by a massive set of ramparts. Later, with John’s arrival, substantial renovation work on the chapter’s church—probably also including the provost’s palace as well as the canons’ houses—was initiated, first financed out of his provost’s prebend and later also supported by a papal bull of indulgence from 1371. He was not to witness the church’s completion, as the construction went on even after his death.62 All of this illustrates the background against which John was to discharge his duties. Although the Vyšehrad provostry was an important office which was usually associated with considerable political influence, we do not have a single piece of evidence to indicate that John interfered in “high politics” in any way.63 On the contrary, as observed by Dieter Veldtrup, it would appear that he was mainly concerned with routine matters related to his lucrative office and, unlike his predecessors, actually resided at Vyšehrad.64 John thus confirmed and issued privileges (he devoted particular attention to the town of Prachatice, where he also founded an altar)65 and gave consent to clerics for the p ­ ermutation 60  John’s partly damaged seal is preserved on the charter in NA, AKV, no. 252 (16th April 1377); for its iconography, see Dana Stehlíková, “Nejstarší pečeti vyšehradské kapituly a jejího duchovenstva do roku 1420,” in Královský Vyšehrad. Sborník příspěvků k 900. výročí úmrtí prvního českého krále Vratislava II. (1061–1092) (Prague: Královská kolegiátní kapitula sv. Petra a Pavla na Vyšehradě, 1992), 183. 61  Tomek, Dějepis města Prahy, vol. 3, 180 states that Provost John was deacon by 1370. However, this statement is probably just a misunderstanding of the charter in NA, AKV, no. 237 (15th February 1370) which is worded as follows: “… Ulricum de Colonia per venerabilem virum dominum Johannem, prepositum eiusdem ecclesie Wyssegradensis, dyaconus [sic!] Pragensis diocesis …” In fact, this title of deacon—which is also grammatically incorrect because the sentence is in the accusative case—probably refers to Ulrich of Kolín, who is addressed in the same way in the following text. 62  Ladislav Varadzin, “Palácový okrsek Karla IV.,” in Václav Moucha et al., Vyšehrad. Knížecí a královská akropole. Svědectví archeologie (Prague: Archeologický ústav AV ČR, 2015), 638– 642; Nechvátal, Kapitulní chrám, 95–97. A possible connection between the erection of the chapter’s church and the hypothetical reconstruction of the chapter buildings is suggested in František Kašička and Bořivoj Nechvátal, “Vyšehrad a Karel IV.,” Staletá Praha 9 (1979), 119. The text of the papal bull is edited in MVB IV, 119–120, no. 201 (10th June 1371). 63  This is also the appraisal by Veldtrup, “Johann Propst von Vyšehrad,” 75–77. 64  Tomek, Dějepis města Prahy, vol. 3, 180; for John’s itinerary, see Excursus 3 in this book. 65   C IM II, 627–630, no. 436 (7th July 1370); 727–728, no. 563 (6th December 1379); for the first charter, see also Paul Praxl, “Das Wyschehrader Landgut Prachatitz. Zur Siedlungsgeschichte des mittleren Böhmerwaldes,” Ostbairische Grenzmarken 15 (1973),

Bastard

49

of parish benefices on his collation,66 and we also have evidence of him being delegated as a papal executor by the curia several times.67 Moreover, as the provost, John had to defend the rights of the provostry and the chapter in economic matters.68 The most severe and protracted quarrel was the one with the Cistercian monastery in Zlatá Koruna over more than 20 villages in the Prachatice area, which were confiscated by Dietrich of Kugelweit, then Provost of Vyšehrad and leading counsellor to Charles IV, in 1360. In 1377 (or perhaps even earlier), however, the South Bohemian monastery lodged a protest against this occupation, whereupon the dispute continued with all manner of twists and turns before the papal curia until 1394, when it was finally settled once and for all in favour of the Zlatá Koruna monks.69 However, John did not only get involved in litigation with his neighbours, but also with his own chapter. These disputes, mostly over property, must be viewed as the culmination of developments that had begun in the twelfth century, when the major part of what was originally the common property of the chapter was divided up between the provost and the prebends belonging to individual canons while the rest constituted the so-called mensa communis. This led to frequent clashes between the two sides, which continued with varying degrees of intensity throughout the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries,

222. Reference to the newly founded altar in the Prachatice church in AICP II, 9, no. 42 (6th February 1380). 66   Libri confirmationum ad beneficia ecclesiastica Pragensem per archidioecesim, vol. III–IV, ed. Josef Emler (Prague: Spolek historický, 1879), 9 (27th March 1374); 112 (17th September 1379). 67   M VB III, 740–742, no. 1131 (6th July 1369); MVB IV, 117–118, no. 197 (19th May 1371); 295, no. 513 (8th July 1372). 68   A ICP I, 282, no. 212 (12th June 1378). 69  A large collection of charters regarding the legal dispute is edited in UB Goldenkron, passim. See Josef Braniš, Svatá koruna. Bývalý klášter cistercienský (Prague: Společnost přátel starožitností českých, 1904), 16–19; Jaroslav Kadlec, Dějiny kláštera Svaté Koruny (České Budějovice: Knihkupectví ČAT “U zlatého klasu,” 1949), 29–32; Praxl, “Das Wyschehrader Landgut,” 228–229; Kateřina Charvátová, Dějiny cisterckého řádu v Čechách 1142–1420, vol. 2, Kláštery založené ve 13. a 14. století (Prague: Karolinum, 2002), 90–92; Štěpán, Moravský markrabě Jošt, 128. Historical research puts the beginning of the dispute in the year 1379/1380 and assumes that the Cistercians of Zlatá Koruna did not dare to speak up against the occupation by Dietrich of Kugelweit during the lifetime of Charles IV, who was supposed to have given his protection to these usurpations. Nevertheless, a charter from 1377 preserved in the papal registers clearly demonstrates that the beginning of the dispute is to be put in the last years of the emperor’s life. See MVB IV, 667–668, no. 1172 (20th March 1377). This was already pointed out by Veldtrup, “Johann Propst von Vyšehrad,” 77.

50

Chapter 3

and the period of John’s provostry was clearly no exception.70 This is indicated by his dispute with the chapter over the small town of Zahrádka, the village of Koleč and other estates which had been on long-term lease to the provosts of Vyšehrad, and yet were actually part of the common property of the chapter. The dispute was eventually settled by the archbishop of Prague in favour of the canons, but John received 200 shocks groschen as compensation.71 A fairly characteristic feature of John’s time in office as provost of Vyšehrad proved to be his subordination to Emperor Charles, who exercised control over him and whose will John never dared to oppose. When, for example, John came into conflict with the burghers of Pilsen in western Bohemia over the village of Bor, the emperor gave him strict instructions to resolve the dispute at once so that this matter would no longer “trouble his ears.” Shortly afterwards, John did indeed make up with the burghers, surrendering the disputed village to them in accordance with Charles’s orders.72 There is one other factor of crucial importance which should be mentioned, namely the outbreak of the papal schism, which divided Christendom into two obediences from 1378 onwards. Throughout his life, John’s position was, in line with the ecclesiastical politics of Charles IV and Wenceslas IV, firmly in the camp of the Roman pope: for one thing, there are no known dealings between him and the Avignon antipope Clement VII (1378–1394),73 but it is also obvious from the very fact that he received the provision for the see of Litomyšl and then Aquileia from the Roman pontiff Urban VI. Nevertheless, the ecclesiastical rift also threatened to split the Vyšehrad chapter, since its dean, John’s 70  See Karin Pátrová, “Probošt versus kapitula. K problematice majetkových vztahů uvnitř vyšehradské kapituly do doby husitské,” MHB 11 (2007), 79–93; Pátrová, “Od servicií k denním podílům”; Pátrová, “Proměny českých kolegiátních kapitul,” 569–570. For the Prague chapter, cf. Martina Maříková, “Správa majetku pražské metropolitní kapituly v době předhusitské,” in Kapituly v zemích Koruny české, 101–123; Maříková, Finance, 26–56. 71   N A, AKV, no. 237 (15th February 1370); no. 243 (11th April 1375); Archiv Pražského hradu (= APH), Archiv Metropolitní kapituly u sv. Víta (= AMK), sign. 366-XV/11; cf. Archiv pražské metropolitní kapituly, vol. 1, Katalog listin a listů z doby předhusitské (–1419), ed. Jaroslav Eršil and Jiří Pražák (Prague: Archivní správa ministerstva vnitra ČSR, 1956), 123, no. 435 (4th November 1376); NA, AKV, no. 249 (5th November 1376); no. 250 (13th February 1377); no. 251 (14th February 1377); no. 252 (16th April 1377). The fact that these possessions belonged to the common property of the chapter is asserted by Pátrová, “Probošt versus kapitula,” 87–91; for the dispute, see Tomek, Dějepis města Prahy, vol. 3, 72–73. 72  Listář královského města Plzně a druhdy poddaných osad, vol. 1, ed. Josef Strnad, Publikace městského historického musea v Plzni 1 (Pilsen: Městské historické muzeum, 1891), 121– 122, no. 113: “… ne eisdem [i.e. to the burghers of Pilsen] detur occasio aures nostras super materia huiusmodi de cetero fatigandi” (13th March 1373); 123–125, no. 115 (5th May 1373). 73  See ASP II.

Bastard

51

deputy Kuneš of Veselá, was one of Clement’s most passionate supporters. It would appear that he initially managed to win the Vyšehrad scholastic over to his side, but in line with the uncompromising pro-Roman policy of the young archbishop of Prague, John of Jenštejn, Kuneš was stripped of his benefice in 1379.74 What part, if any, Provost John played in the whole affair is unknown.

74  Rudolf Holinka, Církevní politika arcibiskupa Jana z Jenštejna za pontifikátu Urbana VI. Studie z dějin velikého schizmatu západního, Spisy filosofické fakulty University Komen­ ského v Bratislavě 14 (Bratislava: Univerzita Komenského, 1933), 65–70; Zdeňka Hledíková, “Papacy of the High and Late Middle Ages and the Czech Kingdom (1198–1417),” in Tomáš Černušák et al., The Papacy and the Czech Lands. A History of Mutual Relations, Biblioteca dell’Istituto Storico Ceco di Roma, Sintesi 1 (Rome and Prague: Institute of History and Istituto Storico Ceco di Roma, 2016), 101–108.

Chapter 4

Bishop 1

The Litomyšl Episcopate

The death of the bishop of Litomyšl, Albert of Šternberk, in January 1380 meant a new phase in John’s ecclesiastical career, since he was to become Albert’s successor. It was undoubtedly King Wenceslas IV who requested, in accordance with the system of papal reservations and provisions in operation at the time, that Pope Urban VI elevate John to the see of Litomyšl.1 This shows that John continued to enjoy the favour of the Prague court even after the death of Charles IV. Due to the loss of the papal registers from this period, the papal bull of provision has not been preserved; nevertheless, a great deal can be learned from other sources. At the beginning of April 1380, John renounced the Brno canonry, which was doubtless a condition for acceding to the see of Litomyšl.2 It is therefore likely that his appointment had already taken place before this date. John later pledged to pay papal servitia amounting to 800 florins,3 and in August he was already being called bishop elect of Litomyšl,4 whereupon he

1  Nejedlý, Dějiny města Litomyšle, vol. 1, 172–173, 256 assumed that John was elected by the chapter (although he admitted some influence from King Wenceslas) because he used the title electus. However, as Kamil Krofta, “Kurie a církevní správa zemí českých v době předhusitské, IV, Volby biskupův a opatů českých v XIII. a XIV. stol.,” ČČH 12, no. 1 (1906), 17, note 8 pointed out, every bishop bore this title before his consecration. For the system of papal reservations and provisions, see Eršil, Správní a finanční vztahy; cf. also Hledíková, “Papacy,” 83–86. 2  A ICP II, 14, no. 69 (8th April 1380). Veldtrup, “Johann Propst von Vyšehrad,” 78 explains this resignation as the result of John’s supposed illness, which should have led to his early death. However, there is no evidence for such a statement. 3  There is no direct evidence for this though. Cf. MVB V; Konrad Eubel, Hierarchia catholica Medii aevi sive summorum pontificum, S. R. E. cardinalium, ecclesiarum antistitum series, vol. 1, Ab anno 1198 usque ad annum 1431 perducta (Münster: Typis Librariae Regensbergianae, 1913), 318. By contrast, Hermann Hoberg, Taxae pro communibus servitiis ex libris obligationum ab anno 1295 usque ad annum 1455 confectis, Studi e testi 144 (Vatican City: Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, 1949), 73 gives, without any other information, the date 14th June 1380, when a new bishop of Litomyšl undertook to pay his servitia. However, he is to be identified with Hynek, the anti-bishop appointed by the Avignon pope Clement VII. See ASP II, 663, no. 1158 and further in the text. The amount of the papal servitium reached roughly one third or even one half of the yearly income of a bishopric: Weiss, Kurie und Ortskirche, 417. 4  Libri confirmationum, III–IV, 136: “… d. Johannis, electi Luthomislensis …” (31st August 1380).

© Ondřej Schmidt, 2019 | doi:10.1163/9789004407893_005

Bishop

53

received ordination as a bishop. He also had to give up the office of provost of Vyšehrad at that time.5 By accepting the episcopal dignity, John joined the ranks of a specific class of clergymen who were supposed to be successors to the Apostles in their pastoral work. John’s main responsibilities were to ensure the smooth running of the spiritual administration of the diocese entrusted to him and also to oversee the purity of the faith. The relatively small Litomyšl bishopric, located on the border between Bohemia and Moravia, had only been established in 1344 in connection with the Luxembourgs’ wider church-politics plans for the creation of a separate ecclesiastical province in Prague. While the Bohemian capital was elevated into an archbishopric, the old see of Olomouc as well as the newly founded see of Litomyšl became its suffragan bishoprics. In view of the fact that Litomyšl was not situated on any “contested” territory where the interests of the Luxembourg dynasty had to be defended, the political significance of the bishopric was rather marginal, and it therefore served primarily as a form of reward for deserving courtiers and diplomats of the Bohemian king (John of Neumarkt, Albert of Šternberk, Peter Jelito).6 The episcopal mensa included a large number of villages and other salaries, but most importantly the city of Litomyšl itself with its “castle” (the rebuilt former Premonstratensian monastery from the twelfth century), which was the residence of the bishops. It was also the site of the cathedral church and chapter houses. However, in comparison with other episcopates, the Litomyšl see was among the poorer ones, as is also indicated by the amount of the main servitia (800 florins). The uncertain division of property between the bishop and the chapter during the founding of the bishopric was also the cause of protracted disputes, which were finally settled once and for all by Bishop John “Železný” (“the Iron”) in 1398.7 5  The new provost of Vyšehrad, William of Landštejn, is documented in his office for the first time on 16th November 1380. See UB Goldenkron, 159–162, no. 88. 6  For the role of a bishop within medieval society, see Zdeňka Hledíková, “Biskup,” in Člověk českého středověku, ed. Martin Nodl and František Šmahel (Prague: Argo, 2002), 139–165; for ritual aspects, see Antonín Kalous, “Biskupské a legátské rituály a ceremonie,” in Slavnosti, ceremonie a rituály, 315–367; for the foundation and development of the Litomyšl bishopric, see Zdeňka Hledíková, “Litomyšlské biskupství,” in Litomyšl. Duchovní tvář českého města (Sborník historických prací) (Litomyšl: Město Litomyšl, 1994), 29–50; Zdeňka Hledíková, “Il vescovado di Litomyšl, i suoi inizi e i suoi atti di delimitazione,” Bollettino dell’Istituto Storico Ceco di Roma 7 (2010), 15–40; Josef Kurka, Archidiakonáty kouřimský, boleslavský, hradecký a diecese litomyšlská (místopis církevní do r. 1421) (Prague: Českoslovanská akciová tiskárna, 1914), 600–610. 7  Possessions belonging to the episcopal mensa are listed in a charter from Bishop Přeclav of Wrocław in CDM VII, 539–543, no. 735 (16th October 1347), for which see Nejedlý, Dějiny města

54

Chapter 4

John of Moravia was not the only claimant to the see of Litomyšl. On 27th February 1380, the Avignon pope Clement VII, who, like the Roman pope, claimed to be the one true pontiff, granted a provision for this bishopric to the deposed dean of the Prague chapter, Hynek Kluk of Klučov. However, he primarily resided at the curia in Avignon and, because the situation in Bohemia was unfavourable for him, his appointment as bishop of Litomyšl was of a strictly declarative nature without any hope of him actually taking up office. However, that did not prevent him from calling himself the bishop elect of Litomyšl up until 1394.8 John took over the administration of the diocese entrusted to him in the summer of 1380 at the latest. In view of the destruction of most of the documents from the episcopal archive, we know very little of his activities in Litomyšl; nevertheless, he appears to have discharged his duties quite successfully and energetically.9 The first problem he had to deal with was the traditional property disputes with the chapter, which he had inherited from his predecessor Albert of Šternberk. In April, the Litomyšl chapter asked the pope to confirm its privileges,10 clearly intending to use the accession of the new bishop as an opportunity to further consolidate its rights. At the end of 1380, John therefore issued several charters whereby he gave up some of the episcopal revenues to the chapter as compensation for previous losses.11 Another delicate issue was the fate of the newly established Carthusian monastery in Tržek, which had also been founded by Albert of Šternberk,

  Litomyšle, vol. 1, 102–104; for the disputes between the bishop and chapter, see Hledíková, “Litomyšlské biskupství”; for a reconstruction of the bishop’s residence, see Vojtěch Večeře, “Klášter, nebo hrad? Rezidence litomyšlských biskupů v letech 1344–1421, její hypotetická rekonstrukce a klasifikace,” Castellologica Bohemica 17 (2017), 135–153. 8  The bull of provision issued by Clement VII is edited in ASP II, 658–659, no. 1145; many other sources referring to Hynek ibid., ad indicem. See Holinka, Církevní politika, 68–79, and, with some inaccuracies, also Nejedlý, Dějiny města Litomyšle, vol. 1, 172–173. 9  This is the appraisal of John’s episcopate by Elbel, “Jan Soběslav,” 712. 10  The papal bull is deposited in NA, ŘP Litomyšl, no. 2373; abstract in Regesta Bohemiae et Moraviae aetatis Venceslai IV. (1378, dec.–1419, aug. 16) (= RBMV), vol. V/1, fasc. 1, ed. Karel Beránek and Věra Beránková (Prague: Scriptorium, 2006), 48, no. 44 (20th April 1380). Cf. Nejedlý, Dějiny města Litomyšle, vol. 1, 172. 11   C DM XI, 187, no. 208 (31st December 1380). The charter was later, together with another of John’s confirmations for the Litomyšl custos, confirmed by the Prague archbishop John of Jenštejn: Moravský zemský archiv Brno (= MZA), E 6—Benediktini Rajhrad, sign. C g 10, no. 386 (30th April 1381); Jenštejn’s confirmation was then transcribed into the Libri erec­ tionum archidioecesis Pragensis saeculo XIV. et XV., vol. II, ed. Clemens Borový (Prague: J. G. Calve, 1878), 177–178, no. 315. Ibid., 179, no. 317 followed by a copy of Jenštejn’s confirmation of another of John’s confirmations of the tithe for the prior and cantor of Litomyšl as well as for the parish priest in Svitavy, issued on the same day.

Bishop

55

“­entirely without consent” from the chapter. Since he endowed it only with his own ancestral property, this was a legitimate act, and yet the fact that John was asked for confirmation of the foundation by the prior and “the entire convent” of the monastery demonstrates that this lack of consent from the chapter was a thorn in the side of the Litomyšl canons. John therefore confirmed the foundation of the monastery through a new charter with the consent of the chapter, and even augmented its rights.12 At the end of 1380, following the death of John of Neumarkt, the much more lucrative and, more importantly, politically significant bishopric of Olomouc fell vacant, and John expressed an interest in this see. Contributing factors may have included his ambition, the relative insignificance of the Litomyšl diocese and also financial motives (judging by John’s difficulties in paying the servi­ tia). In addition to the mensal revenues, most of the bishops of Litomyšl had ancestral properties at their disposal; John, however, did not: he had received nothing from the inheritance of his father John Henry,13 and he had had to give up both of his previous benefices. Either way, John soon secured the backing of both King Wenceslas—who interceded on his behalf with the curia14—and the Olomouc chapter, which elected him bishop at the beginning of 1381 and then asked the pope for his confirmation.15 As is well known, the Olomouc bishopric boasted an ancient tradition, which reached back to the time of Great Moravia, and which ever since its restoration in 106316 had played an important role as a base of the Bohemian rulers’ power in Moravia. This specific function of the Olomouc 12   C DM XI, 190–191, no. 211 (8th January 1381). In John’s charter, it is explicitly stated that Albert founded the monastery “… quod reprehensibile videtur, propria auctoritate et penitus sine consensu sue Luthomysslensis ecclesie capituli …” See Nejedlý, Dějiny města Litomyšle, vol. 1, 175–176; Kurka, Archidiakonáty, 615–618; Vojtěch Večeře, “Litomyšl Alberta ze Šternberka” (bachelor’s thesis, Charles University, 2014), 112–118. 13  There is no reference to John in any of John Henry’s testaments: CDM IX, ed. Vincenz Brandl (Brno: Fr. Winiker, 1875), 236–237, no. 317 (20th June 1363); 323–325, no. 420 (24th March 1366); CDM X, ed. Vincenz Brandl (Brno: Fr. Winiker, 1878), 137–142, no. 118 (26th March 1371). For individual charters, see Mezník, Lucemburská Morava, 199–201. 14  Über Formelbücher, zunächst in Bezug auf böhmische Geschichte. Nebst Beilagen. Ein Quellenbeitrag zur Geschichte Böhmens und der Nachbarländer im XIII, XIV und XV Jahrhunderte, vol. 2, ed. František Palacký (Prague: Kronberger and Řiwnač, 1847), 50–51, no. 36; reprinted in CDM XI, 451–452, no. 532. Older historical research (František Palacký, Vincenz Brandl, Božena Kopičková) gave the year of the undated letter as 1388. However, Elbel, “Markrabě Jošt,” 42–43 has convincingly demonstrated that it was actually written at the beginning of 1381. 15  The election decree from the Olomouc archive was found and edited by Kopičková, “Příspěvek k dynastické politice,” appendix, 25–26, no. 2 (28th January 1381). 16  See Martin Wihoda, Morava v době knížecí 906–1197 (Prague: NLN, 2010), 127–138.

56

Chapter 4

bishops, which was further emphasized from the year 1348 by direct feudal subordination to the kings of Bohemia,17 took on a new dimension after the death of John Henry. Unlike his father, Margrave Jobst (together with Prokop) deliberately attempted to gain influence over the occupancy of the Olomouc see and thus subordinate it to his power. However, as Petr Elbel has shown, these attempts were largely unsuccessful and Wenceslas IV was able to advance individuals loyal to him for Olomouc.18 Within existing historiography—partly under the influence of the misidentification of John of Moravia and John Sobieslaw—there has been general agreement that John’s candidature was promoted by the Moravian margraves.19 However, this is only a backward projection of later events from 1387. On the contrary, in view of the two aforementioned sources (the letter of intercession from Wenceslas IV and the election decree of the Olomouc chapter), it is possible that John’s candidature dispensed entirely with the active participation of Jobst and Prokop, even though they can be assumed to have taken an interest in the election of their half-brother. The fact that Wenceslas promoted John to this important post clearly demonstrates that he did not regard him as a staunch advocate of the interests of his Moravian cousins. Perhaps this was because of John’s long-term residence in Prague, where he gained the trust of the young Bohemian king. And yet, John undoubtedly claimed allegiance to the Moravian secundogeniture and felt himself to be a member of it, as is shown by his later close ties with Jobst, the seals from the period of the Litomyšl episcopate on which the Moravian eagle appears alongside the emblem of the bishopric,20 and other documentary evidence. John may have been, in essence, the “ideal” choice, a compromise which would satisfy both the needs of Wenceslas and the ambitions of the Moravian 17  See the chapter “The Background: The Luxembourg Dynasty in the Empire, the Czech Lands and Italy” in this book. 18  Elbel, “Markrabě Jošt.” For the later dispute over the Olomouc bishopric in 1416, whose intensity clearly shows the importance of this see for Wenceslas IV, see Petr Elbel, “Dvě neznámé listiny z roku 1416. Příspěvek k poznání sporu o olomoucké biskupství,” SPFFBU—C 50 (2003), 101–118. 19  See Kopičková, “Olomoucké biskupství,” 95; Kopičková, “Příspěvek k dynastické politice,” 23–24; Zdeňka Hledíková, “K otázkám vztahu duchovní a světské moci v Čechách ve druhé polovině 14. století,” in Hledíková, Svět české středověké církve, 22; Štěpán, Moravský markrabě Jošt, 160; Elbel, “Markrabě Jošt,” 42. 20  For a detailed description, typology and reproductions of John’s seals from the period of his Litomyšl episcopate, see Oldřich Pakosta, Pečeti litomyšlských biskupů (Litomyšl: Státní okresní archiv Svitavy, 2001), 30–34; Oldřich Pakosta, “Pečeti litomyšlských biskupů,” in Litomyšl, 59–60; Oldřich Pakosta, Typologie pečetí litomyšlských sídelních biskupů, 2nd ed. (Litomyšl: Státní okresní archiv Svitavy, 2017), 35–39.

Bishop

57

margraves. In addition, relations between the Bohemian king and the Moravian Luxembourgs were still relatively good at that time.21 These considerations may thus have prompted Wenceslas to support John’s candidature. As for the chapter’s election, this should not be assigned too much importance, as the election of bishops was generally governed by the sovereign’s wishes; it is almost unimaginable that the canons would have proceeded to elect John without any outside impetus. John’s plans eventually foundered on wider events in ecclesiastical politics within the Empire, linked with a dispute over the archbishopric of Mainz. There were two influential pretenders who laid claim to it: Louis of Meissen and Adolf of Nassau. When the dispute was settled in Louis’s favour, Adolf, who effectively controlled the archbishopric, came down on the side of the Avignon pope and had him confer the see of Mainz upon him. This represented a serious threat to the Roman obedience in the Empire, so Wenceslas was forced to take swift action to resolve the situation. In the end the Mainz archbishopric went to Adolf (on condition that he transferred his allegiance to the Roman pope), while Louis was recompensed with the equally important see of Magdeburg. However, at the time this was held by an aging diplomat of Charles IV, Peter Jelito, who “had to be convinced to resign voluntarily.” At the same time, it was necessary to provide him with an appropriate substitute and this turned out to be the vacated see of Olomouc. In the end, John was thus sacrificed to the current church-politics interests of the king of the Romans.22 It appears that, around this time, towards the end of 1380, John’s brother, John Sobieslaw, died, and this triggered the first clash between Jobst and Prokop over his inheritance.23 What position John took towards this conflict is not entirely clear. If the hypothesis about the death of Margrave John Sobieslaw on 30th October of that year is correct, then it is remarkable that the very next day John, Bishop of Litomyšl, is documented as being at Prokop’s castle of Úsov. In 21  Elbel, “Markrabě Jošt,” 43. 22  Holinka, Církevní politika, 42–43; Kopičková, “Olomoucké biskupství,” 97; most recently Elbel, “Markrabě Jošt,” 44 (wherein the quotation); for Peter Jelito, see also Petr Elbel, “Petr Jelito, dvořan a diplomat Karla IV.,” SPFFBU—C 48 (2001), 67–87. 23  Historical research (Nejedlý, Dějiny města Litomyšle, vol. 1, 175; Dvořák, Dějiny Markrabství moravského, 129; Mezník, Lucemburská Morava, 223–224; Elbel, “Jan Soběslav,” 711, 713), which has so far confused John of Moravia and John Sobieslaw, assumed that John Sobieslaw entered upon an ecclesiastical career and resigned his hereditary possessions, which supposedly led to the war between Jobst and Prokop, who both claimed this property. However, John Sobieslaw never entered upon an ecclesiastical career, and in view of the fact that he is documented for the last time in the summer of 1380, it can be assumed that he died shortly afterwards (perhaps on 30th October 1380), with his death leading to the war for his inheritance. See Excursus 1 in this book.

58

Chapter 4

1383 he then appears together with other nobles as a confidant of Prokop, who was to take possession of a certain sum which Jobst owed him.24 On the basis of these indirect (and very sporadic) clues, however, it cannot be stated unequivocally that John was on Prokop’s side. At any rate, normal relations were re-established between the two Moravian Luxembourgs shortly after the end of the first margravial war: already on 11th October 1382, Wenceslas IV, Jobst, Prokop and John of Moravia had met in Prague.25 In the following period, up to 1387, John mainly devoted himself to the running of his diocese. Given the limited number of sources, not much is known about this; nevertheless, as Zdeňka Hledíková concludes, it can be assumed that the administration of the Litomyšl diocese did not differ significantly— except in terms of its scale—from the one in Prague, which is relatively well documented and was estimated to have roughly fourteen times the number of parish churches. The role of the bishop was primarily confirming clerics to benefices (although this was actually the responsibility of the vicar general/ official as his representative) and the ordination of priests.26 As far as other evidence about the exercise of John’s spiritual power is concerned, it is known that, in the autumn of 1384, he personally consecrated the chapel of the magnificent newly completed castle of Krakovec, which had been built by the king’s favourite Jíra of Roztoky.27 It is noteworthy that the castle was located in the area around Rakovník (west of Prague), which was 24   C DM XI, 183–184, no. 203 (31st October 1380); 257, no. 286 (17th February 1383). 25   C DM XV, ed. Berthold Bretholz (Brno: Mährischer Landesausschuss, 1903), 196–198, no. 228; Mezník, Lucemburská Morava, 223–224. 26  Hledíková, “Litomyšlské biskupství,” 39–41. Around 1400, Litomyšl had only 153 parishes, while the Prague archbishopric encompassed 2,084 of them: Hledíková, “Struktura duchovenstva,” 57. 27  This emerges from a no-longer-extant inscription in the castle chapel, transcribed in the nineteenth century by Ferdinand Břetislav Mikovec, Starožitnosti a památky země České, vol. 1 (Prague: Kober & Markgraf, 1860), 192: “Anno d[omi]ni MCCCLXXXIIII die XVI mensis / octobr[is] que erat dies … s[anc]ti / Galli consecrata est hec capella / p[er] venerabilem d[omi]n[u]m Iohannem III / episc[opum] Litomysslensem in honore[m] / omnipotentis Dei, beatissime Virginis / Marie … et s[anc]te Katherine.” The author himself (ibid., 185), however, states that the consecration took place in 1383, which is often adopted in the literature. For the castle of Krakovec, see Dobroslava Menclová, České hrady, vol. 2, 2nd ed. (Prague: Odeon, 1976), 133–142; František Záruba, Hrady Václava IV. Od nedobytného útočiště k pohodlné rezidenci, Opera Facultatis theologiae catholicae Universitatis Carolinae Pragensis. Historia et historia artium 17 (Prague: NLN, 2014), 304– 316; František Záruba, Hradní kaple, vol. 2, Doba lucemburská, Opera Facultatis theologiae catholicae Universitatis Carolinae Pragensis. Historia et historia artium 21 (Prague: NLN, 2015), 275–283. Záruba voiced some doubts about the date of consecration of the chapel; nevertheless, given the clear wording of the inscription—provided that its transcription is correct—one can scarcely imagine a different solution.

Bishop

59

outside the territory of the Litomyšl diocese, so John’s active participation in what was undoubtedly a ceremonial event can perhaps be seen as indirect evidence of his links to the Prague court of Wenceslas IV.28 On the other hand, we do not have any evidence about visitations of the clergy or the holding of synods at that time. As the bishop of Litomyšl, John also had to take care of his temporal domain, belonging to the episcopal mensa. In March 1383, John thus issued a significant privilege for his city of residence, Litomyšl, to which he also granted Magdeburg city law.29 Another piece of preserved evidence regarding his administration is a charter confirming possession of the hereditary rychta in the village of Řetová (near Litomyšl).30 It is also worth mentioning John’s economic activities: in 1382, in line with a trend of the period, he had a new fish pond constructed near Litomyšl, with the water to fill it being pumped across the lands of the local Augustinians.31 All of this took place with the consent of the chapter, so it would appear that John had managed to overcome the traditional animosity between the bishop and his canons. Even so, it cannot be said that John’s tenure in Litomyšl was entirely free from problems. The early years of his episcopate in particular were marked by a fierce clash with his direct superior, the archbishop of Prague, John of Jenštejn. Empress Elisabeth, whose coronation John had once attended in Rome, even interceded on her nephew’s behalf, which is testament to the seriousness of the situation. Still extant is Jenštejn’s undated reply to Elisabeth, in which he claimed that for three years—the letter was therefore evidently written some time in 1383—the bishop of Litomyšl had taken an unfriendly stance towards him and had not shown him the appropriate respect and o­ bedience. 28  The close relations of Bishop John and Jíra of Roztoky to the court of Wenceslas IV have already been pointed out in this context by Menclová, České hrady, vol. 2, 140. 29   C IM IV/1, 182–186, no. 127 (16th March 1383). For more details, see Nejedlý, Dějiny města Litomyšle, vol. 1, 177–179. 30   Štěpán Gilar, “Dvě neznámé písemné zprávy o zaniklé tvrzi v Dlouhé Třebové,” Východočeské listy historické 17/18 (2001), 385–386, with reference to Státní oblastní archiv Zámrsk, Velkostatek Lanškroun, no. 140, vol. 1, fol. 124. John’s charter, dated 1st August 1381, is preserved only as a later Czech translation. The article was kindly brought to my attention, together with a transcription of the document, by Miloslav Renčín. 31   N A, Augustiniáni obutí, no. 79; cf. RBMV V/1, fasc. 1, 76, no. 121; Jaroslav Kadlec, Das Augustinerkloster Sankt Thomas in Prag. Vom Gründungsjahr 1285 bis zu den Hussiten­ kriegen mit Edition seines Urkundenbuches (Würzburg: Augustinus Verlag, 1985), 112 (14th May 1382). For fishpond cultivation in the second half of the fourteenth century, see František Graus, Dějiny venkovského lidu v Čechách v době předhusitské, vol. 2, Dějiny venko­vského lidu od poloviny 13. stol. do roku 1419, Studie a prameny. Sekce historická 13 (Prague: Československá akademie věd, 1957), 32–35.

60

Chapter 4

He then goes on to call him “recalcitrant and rebellious” (contumax et rebel­ lis). Apparently the archbishop could no longer tolerate this, thereby offending God’s majesty, all the saints and the pope, and in the interests of saving his own soul had to refuse even the empress’s wish and insist that John be severely punished.32 It would therefore seem that the main cause of the conflict was the Luxem­ bourg’s defiance of his metropolitan. However, it is necessary to bear in mind that this was only one side’s argument. Moreover, Jenštejn himself was a complicated and uncompromising figure, to say the least.33 The clash came to a head in May 1384, when the archbishop had John excommunicated for failing to appear before the court in the presence of a number of prelates.34 In October, however, Bishop John pronounced a sentence of excommunication (censuram ecclesiasticam) upon his metropolitan, which may have been related to his appointment as judge delegate in the dispute between Jenštejn and the Vyšehrad chapter.35 Little is known of the further course of events. If we are to believe Jenštejn’s biographer, Peter Clarificator, the archbishop visited the Litomyšl diocese in 1385 and was so overcome with reverence for the local patron, St. Victorinus, that he ordered that his saint’s day be incorporated

32  “Der Codex epistolaris des Erzbischofs von Prag Johann von Jenzenstein. Mit kritischen und erläuternden Bemerkungen,” ed. Johann Loserth, AfÖG 55 (1877), 340–341, no. 38: “… idem episcopus a tercio iam circa anno semper michi extitit contumax et rebellis, quamvis omni caritate et fraternitate eum fuerim prosecutus, voluique semper atque quesivi, quatenus ipse voluisset vicessitudine eadem fraternali et debito mecum vivere ordine. Sed quia semper ab eodem episcopo in sua contumacia, pertinacia atque duricia permanente nec per interpositas personas nec per quascunque alias vias debitam obedienciam et reverenciam habere potui, non valens divinam offendere maiestatem […] Supplico igitur, ut in hiis intuitu maiestatis divine atque iusticie ob respectum non velitis animadvertere immo pocius adiuvare et assistere, quod idem episcopus secundum sua demerita pena canonica puniatur michique indulgere …” Loserth’s incorrect dating of the letter to 1380 has already been pointed out by Nejedlý, Dějiny města Litomyšle, vol. 1, 182 and note 52. 33  For Jenštejn, see Holinka, Církevní politika; Hledíková, “Arcibiskupové a kaplani,” 777–778. 34   A ICP II, 273, no. 154: “… Johannes archiepiscopus Prag. pro tribunali sedens citacionem contra rev. d. Johannem episcopum Luthomisslensem exhibuit cum ipsius executione legitima et eius vigore eum d. episcopum ultra horam debitam exspectatum, citatum personaliter in causa inquisicionis et non comparentem racione contumacie ipsius excommunicavit …” (27th May 1384). 35   A ICP II, 292, no. 251; 293, no. 252 (19th October 1384); 293, no. 253 (21st October 1384). The best account of these events is probably by Tomek, Dějepis města Prahy, vol. 3, 363–364; cf. Bartoš, České dějiny, vol. 2/6, 48–49, who sets the whole dispute within the context of the conflict between Wenceslas IV and Jenštejn.

Bishop

61

into the liturgy of the Prague archdiocese.36 Although the visitation of suffragan dioceses was among the metropolitan’s duties, it is questionable whether this should be viewed as the restoration of normal relations between John and Jenštejn, or whether it actually represented an intervention by the archbishop on the territory of his suffragan.37 Another suit, directed not only against John but also his entire chapter, was brought by Nicholas of Jičín, called “Miketa.” He was originally a familiaris and official of Bishop Albert of Šternberk and later became a canon of Magdeburg. Although the judicial registers of the Prague vicars general inform us in detail about the procedural aspects of the dispute, this type of source does not tell us what its actual cause was, nor who eventually prevailed. Nevertheless, it can be presumed that the background to the dispute concerned property.38 Finally, it is also necessary to draw attention to John’s difficulties in paying the papal servitia. As was mentioned earlier, these amounted to 800 florins, but during the entire duration of his episcopate John did not send anything to the apostolic camera. When the see of Litomyšl was taken over by a new bishop, John “Železný,” in spring 1389, he also had to undertake to pay his predecessor’s servitia in Rome.39 At the same time, he lodged a complaint with the cardinal-chamberlain of the papal camera, who ordered John—by then patriarch of Aquileia—to settle the outstanding sum within six months, threatening him with excommunication and sequestration of the patriarchal 36  “Petri Clarificatoris Vita domini Iohannis, Pragensis archiepiscopi tercii,” ed. Helena Krmíčková, in Querite primum regnum Dei. Sborník příspěvků k poctě Jany Nechutové, ed. Helena Krmíčková et al. (Brno: Matice moravská, 2006), 458. For the cult of St. Victorinus in Litomyšl, see Hledíková, “Litomyšlské biskupství,” 39; Večeře, “Litomyšl Alberta ze Šternberka,” 81–86. 37  Jenštejn’s visitation was set within the context of the conflict by Nejedlý, Dějiny města Litomyšle, vol. 1, 182. 38   A ICP II, 175, no. 257 (14th November 1382); 184, no. 304 (12th December 1382); 187, no. 317 (22nd December 1382); 188–189, no. 4 (3rd January 1383); 191–192, no. 15 (16th January 1383); 196, no. 29 (31st January 1383); 202–203, no. 58 (23rd February 1383); 204, no. 66 (14th March 1383); 206, no. 77 (7th April 1383); 207, no. 80 (11th April 1383). The dispute was described in detail by Nejedlý, Dějiny města Litomyšle, vol. 1, 176–177; for Nicholas, see Večeře, “Litomyšl Alberta ze Šternberka,” 124–125. 39   M VB V, 112–113, no. 180 (28th April 1389). The hypothesis about the existence of Bishop John IV (1389–1391), the supposed predecessor of John “Železný,” recently argued by Aleš Pořízka, “Papežský finanční archiv a platby servicií ze zemí České koruny za Martina V. a Evžena IV.,” in Pater familias. Sborník příspěvků k životnímu jubileu Prof. Dr. Ivana Hlaváčka, ed. Jan Hrdina (Prague: Scriptorium, 2002), 416–417, note 26, probably has to be rejected. As demonstrated by Petr Elbel, “Olomoucký biskup Jan Železný a Zikmund Lucemburský. Příspěvek k poznání Zikmundovy spojenecké sítě v českých zemích a jeho dvorských struktur,” Studia Mediaevalia Bohemica 6, no. 1 (2014), 20–21, it seems that the immediate successor of John of Moravia in the see of Litomyšl was John “Železný.”

62

Chapter 4

revenues if this was not done.40 And yet, John never paid the papal servitia; it seems that he initially managed to secure an extension of the deadline, but in December 1390 the papal sentence of excommunication came down on him after all. However, this was probably as a result of unpaid servitia for the see of Aquileia.41 In conclusion, a few words can be added about John’s relationship to art. Although, unlike his predecessors and successors in the see of Litomyšl, there is no direct evidence of John’s artistic patronage,42 it is likely that the fresco decoration of the chapel of St. Joseph in the Augustinian monastery’s Church of the Exaltation of the Holy Cross in Litomyšl, which apparently served as a “private place of prayer for the Litomyšl bishops,”43 dates to the period of his episcopate. The scene depicts St. Catherine and St. Maurice (or St. Victorinus) interceding before an enthroned Virgin Mary and Infant Jesus on behalf of two kneeling knights. According to Jan Royt’s interpretation, one of the knights, who has a helmet with a depiction of Melusine on it—a reference to the Luxembourg ancestral legend—may represent Margrave Jobst. Although this is an attractive hypothesis, the whole question (and the role John might have played in it) remains moot.44 2

The Occupancy of the Olomouc Bishopric

After the death of the bishop of Olomouc, Peter Jelito, in mid-February 1387, John made a second attempt to gain control of this bishopric. Unlike the first time, when his attempt was unsuccessful, he now relied on the support of his half-brothers Jobst and Prokop, thus acting contrary to the will of King 40   M VB V, 113–114, no. 181: “… excommunicacionis sentenciam ferimus in hiis scriptis, si non fecerit, que mandamus, ad graviores penas et sentecias necnon sequestracionem fructuum ecclesie Aquilegensis, cui preest, nichilominus processuri, si dictis nostris monicionibus parere contempserit …” (12th May 1389). 41  Paschini, “Giovanni di Moravia,” 106–107 (24th December 1390). See further in the text. 42  See Veronika Tobiášová, “Nástěnná malba na území litomyšlské diecéze ve vztahu k tamním biskupům (1344–1421),” in Gotické a raně renesanční umění ve východních Čechách 1200–1550, ed. Ivo Hlobil and Milan Dospěl (Hradec Králové: Muzeum východních Čech, 2014), 176 (table). 43  Tobiášová, “Nástěnná malba,” 179. 44  Jan Royt, “Syn Meluzíny (K ikonografii panovnické ideologie Lucemburků),” in Schodištní cykly velké věže hradu Karlštejna, ed. Zuzana Všetečková, Průzkumy památek 13 (Prague: Národní památkový ústav, 2006), 91–95; see further Martin Nejedlý, Středověký mýtus o Meluzíně a rodová pověst Lucemburků, 2nd ed. (Prague: Scriptorium, 2014), 280–281, and, in a much more sceptical manner, also Tobiášová, “Nástěnná malba,” 178–179.

Bishop

63

Wenceslas. This suggests that John had grown closer to his Moravian siblings in the course of his Litomyšl episcopate. A contributing factor may have been the geographical location of Litomyšl between Bohemia and Moravia, whereas in the preceding period John had mainly been active in Prague, or rather in Vyšehrad. Because of the limited nature of the source base, what exactly occurred in Olomouc in the spring of 1387 remains uncertain. In relation to that year, the author of the Granum catalogi praesulum Moraviae remarked that, after the death of Peter Jelito, the margraves Jobst and Prokop forcibly installed their brother John, the bishop of Litomyšl, in the Olomouc church and seized the episcopal estates, and that this was only brought to an end by John’s translation to Aquileia by Pope Urban VI.45 A charter from the supreme marshal Henry of Lipá from May of that year does little to clarify the situation; in it, he declares an end to all disagreements and disputes which had arisen between him and the Olomouc chapter during his administration of the bishopric, and which had even led to an excommunication and interdict against the “people of the Olomouc bishopric.”46 These two rather vague messages have been interpreted by historians in different ways.47 According to the most likely hypothesis so far, that of Petr Elbel, in contrast to the situation in 1381, this time Wenceslas IV promoted his courtier Nicholas of Riesenburg, Bishop of Constance, for the see of Olomouc from the beginning. The king took a very strong line, and it seems that as early as April he managed to obtain a papal provision for Nicholas, who gave up his Constance bishopric at the beginning of May.48 This must have happened by 45  “Granum catalogi praesulum Moraviae,” AfÖG 78 (1892), 91: “Post cuius mortem [i.e. of Peter Jelito] Jodocus et Procopius marchiones Moravie dominum Johannem, germanum ipsorum tunc episcopum Luthomislensem, manu violenta ad ecclesiam Olomucensem intruserunt et bona ecclesie occupaverunt, demum tamen per Urbanum papam VI. ad patriarchalem ecclesiam Aquilegiensem est translatus …” 46   C DM XI, 380, no. 429: “… omnes displi[cen]cias et controversias, que inter nos et honorabile capitulum ecclesie Olomucensis occasione excommunicacionum et interdicti sentenciis in homines episcopatus Olomucensis ecclesie prefate latis, seu alias … inter nos a tempore nostri regiminis episcopatus predicti usque huc […] dimittimus, cassamus et tollimus, ita quod de cetero … ipso capitulo ecclesie predicte nullis potestate seu jure obici debeant, neque ammodo racione aliqua innovari” (15th May 1387). 47  Cf. Gregor Wolný, Kirchliche Topographie von Mähren meist nach Urkunden und Handschriften, vol. 1/1 (Brno: Nitsch & Grosse, 1855), 43; Medek, Dějiny olomoucké ar­ cidiecéze, vol. 1, 173; Kopičková, “Olomoucké biskupství,” 98–99; Elbel, “Markrabě Jošt,” 45–48. 48  Elbel, “Markrabě Jošt,” 45–49. Jan Bistřický, “Nikolaus von Riesenburg († 1397),” in Die Bischöfe des Heiligen Römischen Reiches, 515–516 states that Nicholas received the provision for the Olomouc bishopric before 22nd April, and on 4th May he resigned

64

Chapter 4

20th May at the latest, when the election of the new bishop of Constance took place, as Nicholas is already referred to in the postulation decree to the pope as bishop of Olomouc and former bishop of Constance.49 Another controversial issue is the role of Henry of Lipá. He was already serving as administrator of the Olomouc bishopric during the episcopate of Peter Jelito from 1386 on.50 Although Henry was the supreme marshal of the kingdom of Bohemia—and therefore of the Bohemian king—this was an honorary and hereditary title of the lords of Lipá, which does not necessarily tell us much about Henry’s links to the Prague royal court. On the contrary, it seems that Henry’s oldest son Hynek, who also appears on his father’s charter from 1387, was close to Margrave Jobst.51 It is therefore possible that in the dispute over the Olomouc bishopric Henry attached himself to the side of the Moravian margraves against the king, and that his conflict with the Olomouc chapter may have belonged to an earlier period. Another unknown is the stance taken by the Olomouc chapter itself. Although, once again, we have no direct evidence for this, it is likely that the canons sided with the Moravian Luxembourgs and Bishop John, whom they elected the new bishop of Olomouc. This corresponds with the fact that the following year John was still called the postulated (i.e. elected by the chapter) bishop of Olomouc.52 For that matter, his election by the chapter was also the see of Constance. The same date of resignation—also without reference to the source—can be found in Philipp Ruppert, Die Chroniken der Stadt Konstanz (Constance: Münsterbau-Verein, 1891), 441. 49  Chartularium Sangallense, vol. X, 1382–1389, ed. Otto Paul Clavadetscher and Stefan Sonderegger (St. Gallen: Thorbecke, 2007), 385–386, no. 6186: “… a qua quidem ecclesia [i.e. from the bishopric of Constance] reverendus pater dominus Nicolaus pridem episcopus Constanciensis ad ecclesiam Olomicensem canonice est translatus, vinculo, quo ipse ecclesie Constanciensi tenebatur, dissoluto …” 50   C DM XI, 347–348, no. 389 (24th February 1386); cf. Petr Elbel, “Osobnost olomouckého biskupa Petra III. řečeného Jelito (1381–1387),” Střední Morava 13, no. 1 (2001), 17. See also the analysis of Henry’s activities in Olomouc by Kopičková, “Olomoucké biskupství,” 98–99. 51  See Tomáš Baletka, “Dvůr, rezidence a kancelář moravského markraběte Jošta (1375–1411),” Sborník archivních prací 46, no. 2 (1996), 445. 52  Verci, Storia della Marca, vol. 17, documenti, 9, no. 1909: “Johanes Dei gratia Luthomustensis [sic!] episcopus et ad ecclesiam Olomucensem postulatus” (18th January [1388]); CDM XI, 417–418, no. 476: “Johannes Dei gracia episcopus Luthomislensis et postulatus ecclesie Olomucensis …” (11th May 1388); Urkundenbuch der Stadt Budweis in Böhmen (= UB Budweis), vol. I/1, ed. Karl Köpl, Städte- und Urkundenbücher aus Böhmen 4 (Prague: Verein für Geschichte der Deutschen in Böhmen, 1901), 244–245, no. 464: “Wir Hans, von Gotes gnaden der heiligen stifft czu Agel patriarch und derwelter bischoff czu Olomuncz …” (22nd July 1388); CDM XI, 429–430, no. 495: “Nos Johannes Dei gracia Aquilegiensis patriarcha et Olomucensis postulatus …” (10th August 1388).

Bishop

65

assumed by previous research, though with the difference that it was supposed to have been an act forced by violence.53 However, this is not directly stated by the unknown Olomouc canon, the author of the Granum. He only writes that Jobst and Prokop installed Bishop John in Olomouc by force. Resistance from the chapter is first mentioned by the humanist Augustine of Olomouc, but his work, published for the first time in 1511, is largely dependent on the catalogue of the Olomouc bishops, so this reference should clearly be regarded as only an interpretation of its text.54 For obvious reasons, it is impossible to determine the degree of pressure the Moravian margraves exerted on the canons; nevertheless, it is conceivable that John, the bishop of Litomyšl, with whom they had not yet had any negative experience, was a more acceptable choice to the chapter than the “foreign” courtier-bishop from distant Constance favoured by the king. This is also supported by the fact that Andrew of Třeboň, Margrave Jobst’s notary and confidant, became dean of Olomouc (i.e. head of the chapter) at the beginning of 1387. As Veronika Hradská pointed out, it is very unlikely that he would have acted against his employer in the dispute.55 After all, this would not have been the only case in which the chapter rejected Wenceslas’s candidate and openly opposed him.56 Moreover, it would appear that relations between the 53  Elbel, “Markrabě Jošt,” 46–47. By contrast, Kopičková, “Olomoucké biskupství,” 98–99 held that John’s claims were based upon the chapter election from 1381; however, this opinion was rejected by Elbel as being rather improbable. A somewhat confusing account is offered by Štěpán, Moravský markrabě Jošt, 234 who, although referring to Kopičková’s study, differs from her opinion. 54   Augustini Olomucensis episcoporum Olomucensium series, ed. Franz Xaver Richter (Olomouc: A. Skarnitzl, 1831), 125: “Johannes, Jodoci et Procopii marchionum Moraviae frater germanus, ex ecclesia Lythomyslensi violenter ac renitente capitulo cathedrae Olomucensi praeficitur, Jodoco et Procopio bona ecclesiastica praeter fas occupantibus, miserabiliterque distrahentibus. Quo audito Urbanus sextus pontifex maximus Joannem confirmare renuit, sed paci et tranquillitati ecclesiasticae consulere cupiens, ad patriarchalem apicem, ecclesiamque Aquilegiensem promovit.” Augustine’s passage was proclaimed as being a mere interpretation of the Granum by Josef Vítězslav Šimák, “‘Series’ Augustina Olomouckého (Příspěvek k dějinám českého dějepisectví),” ČČH 37 (1931), 591; however, his analysis is, in fact, a crushing review of Augustine’s work. The possibility of the adoption of the text of the Granum by Augustine is also more cautiously admitted by Elbel, “Markrabě Jošt,” 45. For Augustine, see Miloš Kouřil, “Augustin Olomoucký (1467– 1513),” in Historiografie Moravy a Slezska, vol. 1, ed. Ivo Barteček (Olomouc: Univerzita Palackého, 2001), 13–20. 55  Veronika Hradská, “Ondřej z Třeboně, notář, vyslanec a důvěrník markraběte Jošta,” ČMM 117, no. 2 (1998), 366–367. 56  For the dispute from 1416, see Elbel, “Dvě neznámé listiny.” The aversion of the Olomouc chapter towards the king’s pretenders had already shown itself earlier: Elbel, “Markrabě Jošt.”

66

Chapter 4

Moravian Luxembourgs and the Olomouc chapter were fairly decorous at that time, since in November 1387 the chapter purchased several villages from Jobst, with Margrave Prokop also confirming the agreement.57 Within this context, the text of the Granum might be interpreted in the following way: after the death of Peter Jelito, Wenceslas IV obtained a papal provision for Nicholas of Riesenburg, but in the meantime the Olomouc chapter, under the influence of the Moravian margraves—and contrary to the will of the king—elected John bishop. Jobst and Prokop then provided their military backing to allow their brother to take over the estates of the bishopric with the consent (?) of Marshal Henry of Lipá and thus installed John in the bishopric “forcibly.” This was, however, not against the will of the chapter but that of the Bohemian king and also of the pope, or rather his provision. This complicated situation was finally resolved in November 1387, when John was appointed patriarch of Aquileia. Despite this, he continued to control the episcopal estates until the summer of the following year, and in the intitulation of charters he described himself as the bishop elect of Olomouc.58 Admittedly, however, this is only one of a number of possible scenarios …

57   C DM XI, 400, no. 457 (14th November 1387); 400–401, no. 458 (18th November 1387). 58  Here, I mostly follow the conclusions by Elbel, “Markrabě Jošt,” 45–48.

Chapter 5

Patriarch 1

The Patriarchate of Aquileia in the Middle Ages

Before proceeding to recount John’s fortunes in Italy, it is necessary to outline historical developments in the patriarchate of Aquileia up to John’s accession to the patriarchal see, because, without a knowledge of the evolution of this specific ecclesiastical principality,1 it is not possible properly to understand the context of the subsequent events from 1387–1394. For this reason, the main emphasis will naturally be on the period of the Late Middle Ages, with some attention also being devoted to contacts between the patriarchate and the Czech lands.2 Even in antiquity, the port of Aquileia, founded by the Romans in 181 BC for defence against incursions by the barbarian tribes, fulfilled an important administrative, military and commercial role within the Roman Empire, and became the capital of the later province of Venetia et Histria. After the 1  The most extensive survey remains the one by Paschini, Storia del Friuli; see further Pier Silverio Leicht, Breve storia del Friuli, ed. Carlo Guido Mor, 5th ed. (Udine and Tolmezzo: Libreria Editrice “Aquileia,” 1976); Gian Carlo Menis, Storia del Friuli dalle origini alla caduta dello stato patriarcale (1420), 4th ed. (Udine: Società filologica friulana, 1978); Giorgio Fedalto, Aquileia. Una chiesa due patriarcati, Scrittori della chiesa di Aquileia 1 (Rome and Gorizia: Città Nuova and FSCBA, 1999); there is a recent overview by Elisabetta Scarton, “Il patriarcato di Aquileia: una storia ‘sbagliata,’” in Cultura in Friuli, vol. 3, Settimana della cultura friulana, 5–16 maggio 2016, ed. Matteo Venier and Gabriele Zanello (Udine: Società filo­logica friulana, 2017), 619–638; see also Heinrich Schmidinger, “Il patriarcato di Aquileia,” in I poteri temporali dei Vescovi in Italia e in Germania nel Medioevo. Atti della settimana di studio, 13–18 settembre 1976, ed. Carlo Guido Mor and Heinrich Schmidinger, Annali dell’Istituto storico italo-germanico in Trento 3 (Bologna: Il Mulino, 1979), 141–175; Karl Heinz Frankl, “Patriarchat Aquileia,” in Die Bistümer des Heiligen Römischen Reiches von ihren Anfängen bis zur Säkularisation, ed. Erwin Gatz (Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 2003), 37–51, and a useful handbook containing various maps by Girolamo Guerrino Corbanese, Il Friuli, Trieste e l’Istria dalla preistoria alla caduta del patriarcato d’Aquileia. Grande Atlante storico-cronologico comparato (Udine: Del Bianco, 1984). Since the following chapter is for the most part just a summary of these works, I limit references to them to a minimum. 2  The issue of the relations between the Czech lands and the patriarchate has not yet been studied in detail. Ferdinand Tadra, Kulturní styky Čech s cizinou až do válek husitských, Spisy poctěné jubilejní cenou Král. české společnosti náuk 8 (Prague: Královská česká společnost nauk, 1897), 93, 207, 210 made only a few remarks in this regard. See also the exhibition catalogue Gotika severní Itálie. České země a Furlansko ve středověku (Mikulov: Regionální muzeum, 2009), here especially Cesare Scalon, “Aquilejský patriarchát ve 14. století,” 10–12.

© Ondřej Schmidt, 2019 | doi:10.1163/9789004407893_006

68

Chapter 5

e­ xpansion of Christianity, Aquileia became a natural centre for the new cult in north-western Italy. A later, highly problematic tradition, which first appears with Paul the Deacon and which is usually ascribed to the period between the sixth and eighth centuries, attributes the beginnings of the church organization in Aquileia to St. Mark and his pupil—and also the first bishop— St. Hermagoras.3 The oldest reliable mention in the sources, however, only dates back to 314, when one of the participants in the synod of Arles was recorded as Theodor, Bishop of Aquileia, who also founded the basilica in the city. The large ecclesiastical province of Aquileia, headed by its metropolitan bishop, seems to have been created sometime between the fourth–fifth centuries. During the fifth century, Aquileia suffered extensive damage in attacks by Huns and later by the Ostrogoths, who ruled northern Italy under the leadership of King Theodoric. However, his empire did not withstand the pressure from Byzantium, which, during the reign of Justinian I (527–565), managed to reconquer a substantial part of its former holdings. In the middle of the sixth century, the condemnation of the teachings of three eastern theologians at the Second Council of Constantinople resulted in the so-called “schism of the three chapters” led by the metropolitans from Aquileia and Milan, which meant a long rift with Rome. It was during this period, in 559, that there was the first recorded use of the title patriarcha to designate a bishop commanding exceptional authority. The title appears to have been “conserved” as a direct result of the long-term schism, which meant the removal from papal influence, and even after the papacy suppressed attempts by other bishops to appropriate this prestigious title, which otherwise was reserved for only five apostolic sees, following the end of the rift it was recognized as an honorary and historical title, which had only limited real substance in practice.4 In 568 the Lombards occupied a large part of Italy, whereupon Patriarch Paulinus I (558–570) fled from Aquileia along with some of the population to the adjacent island of Grado, which was under the protection of the Byzantine Empire. With this Grado became the new seat of the patriarchs (Aquileia Nova), who persisted in the schism until 607/610, when the new patriarch Candidianus became reconciled with the papacy. However, this did not satisfy 3  Giuseppe Cuscito, “La tradizione marciana aquileiese come problema storiografico,” in Giuseppe Cuscito, Martiri cristiani ad Aquileia e in Istria. Documenti archeologici e questioni agiografiche (Udine: Del Bianco, 1992), 17–49. 4  Vittorio Peri, “Aquileia nella trasformazione storica del titolo patriarcale,” in Storia e arte del patriarcato di Aquileia, Antichità altoadriatiche 38 (Udine: Arti Grafiche Friulane, 1992), 41–63, esp. 58–59.

Patriarch

69

some of his Lombard suffragans in the territory of the Duchy of Friuli, who elected their own patriarch in old Aquileia. So, from that time on, two patriarchates existed side by side, observing a balance of political power: in the territory of the Lombards, the schismatic patriarch with his seat in Cormons and later in Cividale, and another patriarch in Grado in conformity with the papacy and under the protection of Byzantium. Although the patriarch of Aquileia was finally reconciled with the pope at the council of Pavia in 699, the two patriarchates continued to exist, which led to further disputes over metropolitan jurisdiction. In 773, Charlemagne invaded Italy with the consent of the pope and conquered the empire of the Lombards, thus bringing Aquileia under direct Frankish influence. Particularly under the rule of Patriarch Paulinus II (787– 802) and his successors, the patriarchate then became an important missionary centre for the Alpine region, and seems also to have partly contributed to the Christianization of the area of the later Great Moravia.5 In connection with the newly founded archbishopric of Salzburg, however, the borders of the Aquileian province shrank, resulting in a dispute which was finally settled by the emperor in Aachen in 811 by designating the River Drava as the border, which remained in force until the eighteenth century. An important milestone in the long struggle between the two patriarchs was the synod of Mantua in 827, when the patriarch of Aquileia used the argument of the apostolic tradition of St. Mark to his own advantage and achieved recognition for his metropolitan rights over the bishops of Istria, which had already been conquered by the Franks. The jurisdiction of the patriarch of Grado was thus pruned back to just the territory of Venice, where the patriarchs also resided from the ninth century on. The protracted dispute was finally settled once and for all in 1180.6 In the course of the ninth–tenth centuries, the patriarchs of Aquileia obtained a number of privileges, immunities and donations, which created the preconditions for their later temporal power.7 At the time of the incursions by 5  The presence of missionaries from Aquileia in Moravia was convincingly argued by Vladimír Vavřínek, “Předcyrilometodějské misie na Velké Moravě (K výkladu V. kapitoly staroslověnského života Metodějova),” Slavia 32 (1963), 465–480; Vladimír Vavřínek, Církevní misie v dějinách Velké Moravy (Prague: Lidová demokracie, 1963), 37–40; Vladimír Vavřínek, Cyril a Metoděj mezi Konstantinopolí a Římem (Prague: Vyšehrad, 2013), 106–110. 6  For the development of the patriarchate of Grado until its suppression in 1451 and then transformation into the patriarchate of Venice, see Antonio Niero, “Dal patriarcato di Grado al patriarcato di Venezia,” in Grado nella storia e nell’arte. Atti della 10. settimana di studi aquileiesi tenuta ad Aquileia, 28 aprile–4 maggio 1979, vol. 1, Antichità altoadriatiche 17 (Udine: Arti Grafiche Friulane, 1980), 265–284. 7  For the origins of the temporal power of the patriarchs, see Schmidinger, “Il patriarcato di Aquileia,” 147–165; for more details, see Heinrich Schmidinger, Patriarch und Landesherr. Die

70

Chapter 5

the Hungarians, they directed the defence of the country, which only increased their prestige in the eyes of the emperors, who filled this post almost exclusively with individuals from imperial families loyal to them. Particularly worthy of mention is Patriarch Poppo (1019–1045), who secured the right to mint coins and erected the present basilica in Aquileia. There he established a chapter of 50 clerics, which he richly endowed. Although the formal ruler of the area was the count of Friuli, he did not have jurisdiction over the vast estates of the patriarch of Aquileia. Thus, it was only a logical step that in 1077 Henry IV granted Patriarch Sigeard the county of Friuli, a substantial part of which already belonged to him, and, shortly after, Istria and the march of Carniola too. This led to the creation of an ecclesiastical principality or “land” under the rule of the patriarchs, who finally concentrated both spiritual and temporal power in their hands and were subordinate only to the emperor, from whom they received secular investiture.8 This state of affairs persisted until the occupation of the patriarchate by the Republic of Venice in 1420. Despite strenuous efforts and demands, it ultimately failed to hold on to the secular estates in Carniola and Istria, and the core of the patriarchate was thus primarily formed by Friuli, which was also expressed from the twelfth century on by the newly employed designation of the patriarchate as Patria Fori Iulii, derived from the original name of the town of Cividale. However, it is important to remember that the patriarchs were also metropolitan bishops of the extensive ecclesiastical province of Aquileia, which was composed of 17 suffragan bishoprics: Padua, Como, Mantua, Trent, Verona, Vicenza, Treviso, Ceneda, Feltre, Belluno, Concordia, Trieste, Giustinopoli/ Capodistria, Emona/Cittanova, Parenzo, Pola and Pedena. Although the power of the Italian metropolitan bishops was curtailed in the fourteenth century by papal centralism, the patriarchs of Aquileia continued to exercise their metropolitan rights: they convened provincial synods, intervened in the election of suffragans, who then took oaths of loyalty to them, and also operated as an appeal body for the episcopal courts. In addition, the patriarch was also bishop of the extensive diocese of Aquileia, made up of the area of today’s Friuli weltliche Herrschaft der Patriarchen von Aquileja bis zum Ende der Staufer, Publikationen des Österreichischen Kulturinstituts in Rom 1/1 (Graz and Cologne: Böhlau, 1954), 19–74. 8   Schmidinger, “Il patriarcato di Aquileia,” 158–159, 161–164; Schmidinger, Patriarch und Landesherr, 56–57, 61–67; cf. Paolo Cammarosano, “Patriarcato, Impero e Sede Apostolica, 1077–1251,” in Il Patriarcato di Aquileia, 31. For the problematic term “state” in the context of the patriarchate, see Scarton, “Il patriarcato di Aquileia,” 627–628, and Marco Bellabarba, “The feudal principalities: the east (Trent, Bressanone/Brixen, Aquileia, Tyrol and Gorizia),” in The Italian Renaissance State, 198–200.

Patriarch

71

and parts of the Veneto, Carinthia and Slovenia, which he had to administer ­independently of his secular duties as ruler.9 All of that was thus contained within the lofty title Dei gratia sanctae ecclesiae Aquilegiensis patriarcha. During the investiture controversy, the patriarchate formed an important buttress for the Holy Roman emperors, partly because of its advantageous position as a kind of “bridge” into Italy, which allowed the patriarchs to control the Alpine mountain passes.10 It is worth mentioning as an aside that one of the patriarchs during this period was Svatobor/Frederick (1084–1085), son of the Bohemian prince Spytihněv II, who was murdered in mysterious circumstances after a brief reign.11 The pro-imperial orientation of the patriarchate remained unchanged until the mid-thirteenth century, when only loyal patriarchs installed by the emperor occupied its throne. Perhaps because of this “German” influence, Friuli—along with other subalpine territories and unlike communal Italy—became more similar to the feudal principalities in the northern part of the Empire with their powerful nobility and, from the point of view of political influence, relatively weak towns.12 Given that the fate of the patriarchate was dependent on the favour and power of the progressively weakening emperorship, it also gradually began to show signs of decline. This development became fully apparent during the reign of Patriarch Berthold of Andechs (1218–1251), who finally sided with the papacy in 1245 after the excommunication of Emperor Frederick II, whom he had long served. After his death, the successor appointed by the pope was Gregorio di Montelongo 9  Andrea Tilatti, “La provincia di Aquileia (secoli XIII–XIV),” in Storia della Chiesa in Europa tra ordinamento politico-amministrativo e strutture ecclesiastiche, ed. Luciano Vaccaro, Quaderni della Gazzada 25 (Brescia: Morcelliana, 2005), 215–225. 10  Reinhard Härtel, “Il Friuli come ponte tra Nord e Sud,” in Comunicazione e mobilità nel Medioevo. Incontri fra il Sud e il Centro dell’Europa (secoli XI–XIV ), ed. Siegfried de Rachewiltz and Josef Riedmann, Annali dell’Istituto storico italo-germanico in Trento 48 (Bologna: Il Mulino, 1997), 495–518. For the patriarchate of Aquileia as a frontier region and the notion of its borders, see Donata Degrassi, “Frontiere, confini e interazioni transconfinarie nel Medioevo: alcuni esempi nell’area nordorientale d’Italia,” Archivio Storico Italiano 160 (2002), 195–220. 11  This figure deserves more attention on the part of the historiography. See Václav Novotný, České dějiny, vol. 1/2, Od Břetislava I. do Přemysla I. (Prague: J. Laichter, 1939), ad indicem; Gerhard Schwartz, Die Besetzung der Bistümer Reichsitaliens unter den sächsischen und salischen Kaisern (Leipzig: Teubner, 1913), 34–35; Pio Paschini, “Vicende del Friuli durante il dominio della casa imperiale di Franconia,” MSF 9, no. 2 (1913), 205; Paschini, Storia del Friuli, 237–238; recently, with some new insights, also Lukáš Reitinger, Vratislav. První král Čechů (Prague: Argo, 2017), ad indicem. 12  See Bellabarba, “The feudal principalities.” For a typology and development of the late medieval Italian states, see Lazzarini, L’Italia degli Stati.

72

Chapter 5

(1251–1269), who carried on his predecessor’s pro-papal politics. He was the first in an unbroken line of Italian patriarchs, many of them prominent figures from the Guelph league, which continued until 1334. However, this new political orientation did not meet with universal approval in the patriarchate. This was also one of the reasons behind the dissatisfaction of the predominantly Ghibelline nobility, mainly composed of the descendants of imperial families such as the powerful dynasty of the Counts of Gorizia, which, although it boasted the hereditary title advocatus ecclesiae Aquilegiensis, found itself in perpetual conflict with the patriarchs.13 The thirteenth century saw the rise of a new institution: the general assembly (colloquium generale), later also known as the parliament (parlamentum). The first evidence of its activities comes from the year 1228, after which it increased in status. The parliament was made up of representatives of the clergy, the nobility and the cities, who had legislative, judicial and administrative power and took decisions on major issues like levying taxes, mustering troops, declaring war and making peace. From among their number a council was then chosen which had a permanent position at the court of the patriarch and worked with him to take decisions about various matters affecting the country. This led to the creation of a kind of “constitutional monarchy,” headed by the patriarch as its executive authority and representative.14 In connection with the expansion south into the Alpine countries in the 1260s and 70s, the patriarchate also felt the influence of the Bohemian king 13  For the development of the patriarchate between 1251 and 1350, see the detailed study by Brunettin, “L’evoluzione impossibile,” 67–206; for the counts of Gorizia, see Peter Štih, Studien zur Geschichte der Grafen von Görz. Die Ministerialen und Milites der Grafen von Görz in Istrien und Krain, Mitteilungen des Instituts für Österreichische Geschichtsforschung. Ergänzungsband 32 (Vienna and Munich: Oldenbourg, 1996), 11–39; Marija Wakounig, “‘Avvocato’ contro signore. Il ruolo dei conti di Gorizia nel patriarcato d’Aquileia,” in Aquileia e il suo patriarcato. Atti del Convegno Internazionale di Studio, Udine 21–23 ottobre 1999, ed. Giuseppe Bergamini, Silvano Cavazza and Sergio Tavano, Pubblicazioni della Deputazione di storia patria per il Friuli 29 (Udine: Arti Grafiche Friulane, 2000), 339–354; Anja Thaller, “Advocati ecclesiae—zwischen Schutz und Eigennutz. Oder: Warum die Grafen von Görz die Veträge mit der Aquileier Kirche brachen,” in Der Bruch des Vertrages. Die Verbindlichkeit spätmittelalterlicher Diplomatie und ihre Grenzen, ed. Georg Jostkleigrewe and Gesa Wilangowski, Zeitschrift für Historische Forschung. Beiheft 55 (Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 2018), 247–281. 14  For the origin, structure and function of the parliament, see Pier Silverio Leicht, Il parlamento della Patria del Friuli. Sua origine, costituzione e legislazione (1231–1420) (Udine: Deputazione di storia patria per il Friuli, 1903); Parlamento friulano, I/1, xxxvi–clxv. The characterization of the fourteenth-century patriarchate as a “monarchia costituzionale/​ konstitutioneller Monarchie” was used by Schmidinger, “Il patriarcato di Aquileia,” 171; Schmidinger, Patriarch und Landesherr, 120.

Patriarch

73

Přemysl Otakar II, who acquired the town of Pordenone.15 Přemysl’s dominion in the region did not last long, and yet it would seem that even after his fall some of the Bohemian garrisons remained there and subsequently merged with the local population. According to the chronicler John of Viktring, one of the “results” of this assimilation was supposed to have been the famous Minorite friar Odoric of Pordenone, who travelled through India, China and Tibet as a missionary and left behind an account of his travels, which was very widely circulated in the Middle Ages.16 It is clear that these developments, filled with internal struggles as well as the growing ambitions of increasingly powerful neighbours (Venice, the Habsburgs, Treviso), must have led to a decline in the power and authority of the patriarchs. This period of turmoil was only restored to calm by Pagano della Torre (1318–1332), who managed to command the obedience of the restless nobility and promoted trade and the towns (in the Friulian sources often called terre). It was in the first half of the fourteenth century that Udine slowly began to transform into the main centre of the patriarchate, headed by the Savorgnano family, who, thanks to the favour of the patriarchs, gradually became one of the most powerful dynasties in Friuli.17 15  Josef Riedmann, “Die Grafen von Tirol-Görz und König Ottokar sowie der Einfluβ des Böhmenkönigs auf Nordostitalien,” in Böhmisch-österreichische Beziehungen im 13. Jahrhundert. Österreich (einschlieβlich Steiermark, Kärnten und Krain) im Groβreich­ projekt Ottokars II. Přemysl, König von Böhmen, ed. Marie Bláhová et al. (Prague: Öster­ reichisches Kulturinstitut Prag and Philosophische Fakultät der Karlsuniversität, 1998), 147–161; Reinhard Härtel, “Böhmens Ausgriff nach Süden,” in Böhmen und seine Nachbarn in der Přemyslidenzeit, ed. Ivan Hlaváček and Alexander Patschovsky, Vorträge und Forschungen 74 (Ostfildern: Thorbecke, 2011), 203–245. 16  For Odoric, see Odorik z Pordenone: z Benátek do Pekingu a zpět. Setkávání na cestách Starého světa ve 13.–14. století. Sborník příspěvků z mezinárodní konference Plzeň, 13.–14. listopadu 2006, ed. Petr Sommer and Vladimír Liščák, Colloquia mediaevalia Pragensia 10 (Prague: Filosofia, 2008); Vladimír Liščák, Po stopách bratra Odorika. Styky Evropy a mongolské Číny ve 13. a 14. století (s přílohou Biblioteca Odoriciana) (n.p.: CERM, 2014). 17  Menis, Storia del Friuli, 232–233; in more detail Leicht, Breve storia, 142–147; for the origins of Udine, see Carlo Guido Mor, “Nascita di una capitale,” in Udin. Mil agn tal cûr dal Friûl. 60n Congres, 25 di Setembar 1983, Societât Filologjche Furlane, vol. 1, ed. Gian Carlo Menis (Udine: Società filologica friulana, 1983), 79–90; for the Savorgnano, see Pier Silverio Leicht, “La giovinezza di Tristano di Savorgnano (1376–1400),” in Pier Silverio Leicht, Studi di storia friulana (Udine: Società filologica friulana, 1955), 3–40; I Savorgnan e la Patria del Friuli dal XIII al XVIII secolo. Catalogo della mostra tenutasi ad Udine nel 1984 (Udine: Provincia di Udine, 1984); Laura Casella, I Savorgnan. La famiglia e le opportunità del potere (secc. XV–XVIII), Biblioteca del Cinquecento 110 (Rome: Bulzoni, 2003); for the development of the patriarchate in the Late Middle Ages, see also Michele Zacchigna, “Il patriarcato di Aquileia: l’evoluzione dei poteri locali (1250–1420),” in Studi in onore di

74

Chapter 5

The following period, bookmarked by the years 1334 and 1381, “saw the last great effort of the patriarchs to restore dignity and prestige to the church of Aquileia,” when its throne was occupied in turn by four great figures who were still able to establish and maintain sovereign authority.18 This also corresponded to a time of economic growth, partly caused by the gradual urbanization of the region, which to some extent was spared the plague epidemics that raged elsewhere.19 The first in this series of patriarchs was the learned Frenchman Bertrand de Saint-Geniès (1334–1350),20 who had previously been in the service of the pope. He consolidated sovereign power and dealt with internal and external enemies—either through military force or using diplomacy—making some territorial gains in the process. However, Bertrand’s activities aroused o­ pposition among members of the nobility, who joined forces with Cividale and the count of Gorizia against him. This ultimately led to the killing of Bernard in 1350, which soon earned him the reputation of a martyr and saint.21 Through the efforts of Charles IV, his illegitimate brother Nicholas of Lux‑ embourg (1350–1358), the unsuccessful pretender to the bishopric of Naum­ burg, was elected to the see of Aquileia.22 After arriving in Friuli and assuming power, Nicholas embarked upon extensive and brutal reprisals against his would-be opponents under the pretext of punishing the murderers of Bertrand de Saint-Geniès; at the same time, he was also the initiator of his cult.23 In general it can be said that Nicholas followed the same political line as his predecessor and supported Udine, led by the Savorgnano. Throughout his rule, Nicholas maintained close relations with Charles IV and acted as his diplomat, which was also shown by the fact that the emperor appointed him imperial vicar in Giovanni Miccoli, ed. Liliana Ferrari, Collana del Dipartimento di Storia e Storia dell’Arte 3 (Trieste: Università di Trieste, 2004), 91–113; Bellabarba, “The feudal principalities.” 18  Menis, Storia del Friuli, 234; similarly Brunettin, “L’evoluzione impossibile,” 209. 19  Donata Degrassi, “Il Friuli tra continuità e cambiamento: aspetti economico-sociali e istituzionali,” in Italia 1350–1450: tra crisi, trasformazione, sviluppo (Pistoia: Centro italiano di studi di storia e d’arte, 1993), 273–300. I am grateful to the author for kindly having sent me her article. 20  Cf. Andrea Tilatti, “Saint-Geniès (di) Bertrando, patriarca di Aquileia,” in Nuovo Liruti, vol. 1/2, 765–774. 21  For Bertrand’s violent death and the origins of his cult, see Andrea Tilatti, “Principe, vescovo, martire e patrono: il beato Bertrando di Saint-Geniès patriarca d’Aquileia († 1350),” Rivista di Storia e Letteratura Religiosa 27, no. 3 (1991), 413–444. 22  Cf. Spěváček, Jan Lucemburský, 311–312; Klicman, “Mikuláš řečený Efficax”; Wiessner, Das Bistum Naumburg, vol. 1/2, 841–842; Paschini, Storia del Friuli, 500–518; Schwedler, “Lussemburgo (di) Nicolò.” 23  Brunettin, “L’evoluzione impossibile,” 211; for Nicholas’s support of Bertrand’s cult, see Tilatti, “Principe, vescovo,” 423–430.

Patriarch

75

Tuscany and later in Feltre and Belluno. He also secured a privilege from his brother founding the first university of Friuli in Cividale, although in the end this plan did not come to fruition.24 As for Charles, when he stopped off in Udine during his coronation journey in 1354, Nicholas donated him several folios from what was supposedly an autograph version of the gospel of St. Mark, which is still part of the treasury of St. Vitus Cathedral in Prague today.25 The rule of Nicholas’s successor, Ludovico della Torre (1359–1365),26 was characterized by conflict with the powerful Duke Rudolf IV of Austria from the house of Habsburg, who won some of the nobility over to his side and, for a short time, even took the patriarch himself captive and had him locked up in Vienna. Following intervention and assistance from Emperor Charles, Ludovico was set free, and was thus able to continue with the defence of the country. Under the leadership of Francesco di Savorgnano, the army of the patriarchate achieved victory over Rudolf’s allies, and the situation was reversed; however, shortly after that, both Rudolf and the patriarch died. The last “great” patriarch, Marquard of Randeck (1365–1381),27 also came from the circle around Charles IV, in whose service he acted as a counsellor and diplomat. His rule saw the stabilization of the situation, so the patriarch was able to concentrate on pursuing reforms: he had the basilica in Aquileia repaired, made efforts to boost trade and, most importantly, issued a collection

24  Pier Silverio Leicht, “Il primo tentativo di costituire un’università nella Venezia orientale,” in Leicht, Studi di storia friulana, 185–186; an edition of the foundation charter ibid., documenti, 190–191, no. 8 (1st August 1353). 25  Facsimile: L’Evangeliario di san Marco, ed. Cesare Scalon, Libri Rari 5 (Udine: P. Gaspari, 1999). See Antonín Podlaha and Eduard Šittler, Chrámový poklad u sv. Víta v Praze. Jeho dějiny a popis (Prague: Al. Wiesner, 1903), 37–42, 250–255; Jan Stejskal, “Codex Forojuliensis a christianizace střední Evropy,” Theatrum historiae 7 (2010), 7–14; Martin Bauch, Divina favente clemencia. Auserwählung, Frömmigkeit und Heilsvermittlung in der Herrschaftspraxis Kaiser Karls IV., Forschungen zur Kaiser- und Papstgeschichte des Mittelalters 36 (Vienna, Cologne and Weimar: Böhlau, 2015), passim; for Charles’s autograph annotation, see Martin Bauch, “‘Et hec scripsi manu mea propria’: Known and Unknown Autographs of Charles IV as Testimonies of Intellectual Profile, Royal Literacy, and Cultural Transfer,” in Ruling the Script in the Middle Ages. Formal Aspects of Written Communication (Books, Charters, and Inscriptions), ed. Sébastien Barret, Dominique Stutzmann and Georg Vogeler, Utrecht Studies in Medieval Literacy 35 (Turnhout: Brepols, 2016), 32–36. 26  Cf. Flavia De Vitt, “Torre (della) Ludovico, patriarca di Aquileia,” in Nuovo Liruti, vol. 1/2, 842–848. 27  Cf. Gerald Schwedler, “Randeck (di) Marquardo, patriarca di Aquileia,” in Nuovo Liruti, vol. 1/2, 718–725.

76

Chapter 5

of laws known as the Constitutiones patriae Fori Iulii.28 Throughout his time in office, Marquard maintained an alliance with Charles IV, to whom he played host in Udine during his second Roman expedition in 1368 in the presence of the poet Petrarch and many other prominent figures of the age. Towards the end of his reign, Marquard joined in the War of Chioggia (1378–1381) on the side of Hungary, Genoa and Padua against the Republic of Venice. However, he only managed to capture Trieste, which then permanently passed to the Habsburgs in 1382. Marquard died in 1381 and with him “the last light of patriarchal secular rule.”29 One era in the history of the Aquileian patriarchate had come to an end. The following period of decline and internal wars saw the full manifestation of the growing confidence and power of Udine, the most important city in the patriarchate and at the same time a kind of “quasi-signoria” of the Savorgnano, which was beginning to strive for supremacy over the patriarchate after the fashion of the Lombard and Tuscan city-states.30 This state of affairs was actually just the natural outcome of the patriarchs’ previous policies: for decades they had been using Udine and the Savorgnano as a buttress for their rule against the decentralizing tendencies of the nobility (castellans), who had traditionally constituted the main political force in Friuli, in exchange for political and economic advantages. At the end of the fourteenth century, however, the concentration of power in Udine had reached such a level that it was no longer compatible with visions of strong patriarchal rule.31 This fundamental 28  See Mario Ascheri, The Laws of Late Medieval Italy (1000–1500). Foundations for a European Legal System (Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2013), 314–315. 29  Leicht, Breve storia, 168: “Il periodo veramente glorioso di Marquardo è l’ultima luce del secolare principato patriarcale.” Also quoted in Menis, Storia del Friuli, 242, and Dieter Girgensohn, “La crisi del patriarcato d’Aquileia. Verso l’avvento della Repubblica di Venezia,” in Il Quattrocento nel Friuli occidentale, vol. 1, La vicenda storica; Spunti di storiografia musicale; Libri, scuole e cultura, “Itinerari del Quattrocento.” Atti del convegno organizzato dalla Provincia di Pordenone nel mese di dicembre 1993 1 (Pordenone: Provincia di Pordenone and Biblioteca dell’Immagine, 1996), 53. 30  Cusin, Il confine orientale, vol. 1, 186–187; similarly also Marchesi, “Giovanni di Moravia,” 140. Cf., however, the recent considerations by Bellabarba, “The feudal principalities,” 201– 202, who claims that in Friuli “the only towns were politically weak ones” and, as was the case in the regions beyond the Alps, it was not possible to achieve “political emancipation along the lines of the Italian communes.” The term “quasi signoria” in the context of the informal rule of the Savorgnano in Udine was used by Menis, Storia del Friuli, 245. 31  Michele Zacchigna, “Le terre friulane del basso Medioevo: verso il superamento della tradizione policentrica,” in Il Patriarcato di Aquileia, 309: “Appare chiaro che la dimensione di potere maturata al centro della regione, nella pluralità dei suoi elementi costitutivi, era troppo densa ed estesa per potersi conciliare con la sovranità del principe.” See also Bellabarba, “The feudal principalities,” 208–210.

Patriarch

77

contradiction went on to dominate the last two decades of the Trecento, and was the cause of persistent violent clashes in which powerful neighbours— particularly Venice and the Carrara dynasty from Padua—often intervened, attempting to gain control of the patriarchate under the pretext of protecting its rights and freedoms.32 Soon after Marquard’s death, Urban VI entrusted the rule of the patriarchate to the French prelate Philippe d’Alençon (1381–1387), at that time Cardinal of Santa Sabina.33 However, the pope only named Philippe administrator, which aroused stubborn resistance in Friuli, because it was assumed that the cardinal would be based in Rome and would merely use the patriarchate as a source of income. The opposition headed by Udine petitioned the pope for a “true patriarch,” but he stood by his decision. Meanwhile, Philippe moved to Friuli and was accepted there by the clergy and some of the nobility and the towns headed by Cividale, the original seat of the patriarchs and a rival to Udine. In this way, the two opposing sides of an impending conflict took shape: on one side the patriarch and Cividale, some of the aristocracy and the towns, and on the other side Federico di Savorgnano, “who was considered almost the lord of Udine,”34 and the rest of the nobles and towns with the support of Venice. Thus began a protracted conflict, in which other parties gradually became involved. When it became clear to Philippe that he would not secure the rule of the patriarchate either through the strength of his own authority and that of the pope or through ecclesiastical censures, he began to negotiate with Francesco il Vecchio da Carrara. The lord of Padua allegedly promised him that he would help Philippe to take power and pacify the opposition; in reality, however, he himself sought to take control of the patriarchate by way of his illegitimate son, whom he wanted to install there as vicar and eventually even as the future patriarch himself. 32  For the following paragraphs, see Cogo, “Il patriarcato d’Aquileia”; Paschini, Storia del Friuli, 587–630; Benjamin G. Kohl, Padua under the Carrara 1318–1405 (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1998), 229–240; Roberto Cessi, Storia della Repubblica di Venezia (Florence: Giunti-Martello, 1981), 341–344; Gian Maria Varanini, “Venezia e l’entroterra (1300 circa–1420),” in Storia di Venezia. Dalle origini alla caduta della Serenissima, vol. 3, La formazione dello stato patrizio, ed. Girolamo Arnaldi, Giorgio Cracco and Alberto Tenenti (Rome: Istituto della Enciclopedia italiana, 1997), 203–206. 33  For Philippe, see Dieter Girgensohn, “Alençon (d’) Filippo, patriarca di Aquileia,” in Nuovo Liruti, vol. 1/1, 97–106. The bull of provision was edited by De Rubeis, Monumenta Ecclesiae Aquilejensis, cols. 960–961 (11th February 1381). 34  Chronicon Tarvisinum ab Anno MCCCLXVIII. usque ad Annum MCCCCXXVIII. auctore Andrea de Redusiis de Quero, ed. Ludovico Antonio Muratori, RIS XIX (Milan: Societas Palatina, 1731), col. 784: “… Friderico de Sovergnano, qui quasi dominus Utini videbatur …” Quoted in Paschini, Storia del Friuli, 603.

78

Chapter 5

In spite of repeated calls for a peaceful settlement from the pope, the widow Queen Elisabeth of Hungary and others, it was not until June 1384 that a fragile truce was concluded. The arbitration ruling in the dispute was to be pronounced by Carrara, ally of the patriarch, who in the meantime occupied Treviso. As expected, he decreed that Udine and its allies should submit to Philippe and restore all his property to him. Udine at first reluctantly accepted the ruling and swore allegiance to the patriarch. He, however, soon began to appoint individuals loyal to Carrara to key offices, so it appeared that the real ruler of the patriarchate was Francesco il Vecchio. This triggered another wave of indignation, joined this time by Venice, which incited the opposition to continue the war and offered its support. In February 1385, an alliance against the Carrara was concluded on the island of Grado between Venice, the Savorgnano, the noble families of Spilimbergo, Di Castello, Colloredo, Prampero and Maniago and the towns of Udine, Venzone, Sacile and Marano, later joined by Antonio della Scala, the ruler of Verona.35 In addition, the Savorgnano were admitted into the ranks of the Venetian patricians, which was an expression of an even closer ties between them and the Republic of St. Mark.36 Cardinal d’Alençon fled to Francesco Carrara, while the latter invaded the patriarchate with his army. The war resumed even more fiercely than before, with both sides experiencing successes and defeats. Gradually, however, Carrara began to gain the upper hand; among other things, he made abundant use of his skilled condottieri. After Antonio della Scala had suffered several defeats, Giangaleazzo Visconti, the powerful lord of Milan, sensed an opportunity, allied himself with Carrara and occupied Verona and Vicenza, while Della Scala fled to Venice. Throughout the conflict, Pope Urban VI appealed to the warring parties to make peace and to this end sent to the patriarchate as his legate the patriarch of Jerusalem, Ferdinand, whom he named “rector, defender and governor.” However, none of the participants were willing to conclude a truce until they had obtained a clear advantage. It was not until all the combatants had exhausted themselves that peace negotiations once more came into play. However, acknowledging Philippe d’Alençon as patriarch still remained an obstacle, with the Udinese in particular persistently refusing to do so; instead 35  Roberto Cessi, “Venezia e la preparazione della guerra friulana (1381–1385),” MSF 10, no. 4 (1914), 442–445, 450–453. 36  Casella, I Savorgnan, 32; Dorit Raines, “Cooptazione, aggregazione e presenza al Maggior Consiglio: le casate del patriziato veneziano, 1297–1797,” Storia di Venezia—rivista 1 (2003), 35. The well-known privilege is edited in Francesco Caro, Istoria de’ signori Savorgnani detti del Monte, conti di Belgrado, Castel Nuovo, etc. (Udine: Fratelli Gallici, 1771), 16–17 (3rd April 1385).

Patriarch

79

they demanded that Francesco Carrara return all the towns and castles he had conquered. The pope therefore decided “discreetly” to remove the bone of contention, Cardinal Philippe, whom he sent on a “far-off mission” to the Empire in May 1387,37 and in November he appointed John of Moravia to take his place. 2

Appointment and Preparations for New Office

The circumstances surrounding John’s appointment as patriarch have not been adequately explained in historiography to date, so we will take a moment to examine this issue further. As was usual in the late fourteenth century, the see of Aquileia was subject to the all-encompassing papal reservation, so the pope himself made appointments to it. This was also the case with John of Moravia, who was appointed by the supreme pontiff without this being preceded by the standard election by the Aquileian chapter.38 But what were the reasons for this decision by the pope? This question can perhaps be answered with the help of a remarkable letter from the canon of Aquileia, Antonio Ronconi, from the middle of October 1387, addressed to his fellow brethren from the same chapter, then residing at the papal court in Perugia. In it, Ronconi starts by eloquently describing the woeful state of the patriarchate and the Aquileian chapter, whose property has 37  There is an account of it by the Venetian ambassador to the curia, Guglielmo de’ Claruti. See its abstract in I libri commemoriali della Repubblica di Venezia, vol. 3, ed. Riccardo Predelli, Monumenti storici pubblicati dalla R. Deputazione veneta di storia patria 9, Serie 1, Documenti 7 (Venice: R. Deputazione veneta di storia patria, 1883), lib. VIII, 189, no. 273. The dispatch is undated; nevertheless, we have one other letter regarding this mission to the pope edited in Flaminio Corner, Ecclesiae Venetae antiquis monumentis nunc etiam primum editis illustratae ac in decades distributae (Venice: Jo. Baptista Pasquali, 1749), 34 which was very likely written at the end of May 1387. Paschini, Storia del Friuli, 629, note 172 assumed that the dispatch comes from the period up to June 1387. Another historian who agrees with this statement is Girgensohn, “Alençon (d’) Filippo,” 104, who claims that Philippe d’Alençon was appointed legate on 9th May 1387 (though without referring to the source). 38  Pier Silverio Leicht, “Le elezioni dei patriarchi aquileiesi,” MSF 11 (1915), 17; Giulio Silano, “Episcopal elections and the apostolic see. The case of Aquileia: 1251–1420,” in Diritto e potere nella storia europea. Atti in onore di Bruno Paradisi (Florence: Olschki, 1982), 190. The papal reservation from 1322 is edited in Constitutionum Apostolicarum de generali beneficiorum reservatione ab a. 1265 usque ad a. 1378 emissarum, tam intra quam extra corpus iuris exstantium, collectio et interpretatio, ed. Karl Lux (Wrocław: Rudolph Grosser, 1904), 61–62, no. 6. For a recent overview of the topic, see Fabrizio Pagnoni, “Selezione dei vescovi e qualità del governo episcopale in Italia centro-settentrionale nel Trecento: alcune note di ricerca,” Studi di Storia Medioevale e di Diplomatica, n.s., 1 (2017), 279–289.

80

Chapter 5

been plundered, and also the general state of despair and exhaustion resulting from the long war. However, he goes on to say that a delegation has recently been sent to the curia by the Udinese to petition the pope for a new patriarch. Ronconi claims that if the pope does not comply with their request this time, they will go and request a patriarch “elsewhere.” At the same time, he briefly outlines the main streams of opinion that prevailed in the land: aside from the Cividalese and their supporters, some requested that Giangaleazzo Visconti of Milan be appointed ruler on the condition that he would not levy higher taxes; others favoured Duke Albert III of Austria, while yet other, “more powerful” individuals even considered asking the antipope Clement VII for a patriarch. Finally, he adds that the inhabitants can no longer tolerate the state of war and are waiting for a peace which cannot be made until they receive a strong patriarch who will liberate them from “those who are keeping them at war”; and if this does not happen, “the Roman church will lose the patriarchate.”39 Apart from the fact that Ronconi’s document gives us a valuable picture of what seems to be “public opinion” in the patriarchate at that time, it also provides us with some information about the Udine delegation to the papal curia, which is also mentioned by one of the Aquileian chronicles; this, however, claims that the embassy consisted of representatives of “both sides.”40 It is likely that the envoys from the city of Udine, who had been unsuccessfully 39  Luigi Zanutto, Epistolario minore di Antonio Pancera—parte prima, Estratto dal Bollettino della Civica Biblioteca e del Museo del 1910–1911 (Udine: G. Vatri, 1912), appendice, 51–52: “Status ecclesie nostre et totius Patrie et omnium de Patria est adeo malus, quod pejor non posset esse […] breviter, non possumus stare pejus: modo venerunt ad dominum nostrum papam pro parte Utinensium et eorum colligatorum ambasciatores ad supplicandum pro uno patriarcha. Credo, quod habent in mandatis dici sibi, quod si non dat ista vice unum, numquam petent ab eo plus patriarcham nec aliter, sed ibunt alio, ubi bene habebunt patriarcham. Tres oppiniones sunt in tota Patria preterquam Civitatensium et locis eis adherentibus. Aliqui volunt, quod vocemus comitem Virtutum in dominum, sed ante petamus, quod sit contentus habere dominium et id quod patriarcha habere solet, sed gabellas majores non ponat. Aliqui volunt Albertum ducem Austrie. Aliqui volunt, quod petatur patriarcha ab antipapa et in hoc qui potentiores concordant: omnes concordant, quod non expectemus plus ad habendum dominum. Faciat dominus noster, sicut sibi videtur, sed dicat, quid velit […] breviter amplius durare non possumus in guerra et pax non potest fieri, nisi sit unus verus patriarcha, vel nisi dominium habeat unus potens, qui nos liberare possit a potencia istorum, qui nos in guerra tenent. […] si papa non daret unum patriarcham aliam quam ille de Alenconio, ecclesia Romana perdet Patriam hanc …” (19th October 1387). Even though the letter was used by Cogo, “Il patriarcato d’Aquileia,” 284, note 3, Paschini, “Giovanni di Moravia,” 105, note 1, and Cusin, Il confine orientale, vol. 1, 159, its content has not been sufficiently exploited by historical research. 40  Nonnullorum Patriarcharum Vitae, MEA, appendix, no. V, 16: “Nuncios ex utraque parte mittentes, dominum apostolicum sunt consulti, ut mitteret eis unum patriarcham, sive pastorem utilem, benignum. Qui aquiescens verbis vel litteris eorum, elegit eis unum,

Patriarch

81

petitioning the pope for a new patriarch since the appointment of Cardinal d’Alençon, “threatened,” or rather warned, the pope that if he did not comply with their request on this occasion, next time they would approach the camp of the antipope Clement, which would undoubtedly have been a heavy blow for the Roman obedience. Urban VI did indeed accommodate their wishes,41 and approximately one month after that conferred the ancient patriarchal title on John of Moravia. But the question remains of what motives lay behind the choice of this particular Luxembourg. We can rule out the possibility that John was known in the patriarchate and was directly supported by the inhabitants of Udine.42 There is no mention of this anywhere in the sources, nor does the conjecture of Pier Silverio Leicht that John’s appointment was promoted at the curia by erstwhile members of the deceased Patriarch Marquard’s familia seem to be substantiated.43 In keeping with the practice of the time, it is rather unlikely that the pope decided on John of Moravia all by himself, even though this possibility cannot be disregarded entirely. Urban VI was well aware that to pacify the situation in the patriarchate and at the same time defend it against its powerful neighbours and the influence of the Avignon antipope (in particular against the claims of the energetic cardinal Pileo di Prata)44 it would take a strong personality with the support of both the emperorship and the papacy.45 A much more plausible scenario is that John’s appointment came about through the aid of his influential relatives from the Luxembourg dynasty, even though we do not appear to have any direct evidence for this. Here there are basically three possibilities which present themselves: on the one hand, it is worth considering Sigismund, the new Hungarian king, who certainly had his Johannem de Moravia, fratrem marchionis, et fratrem regis Bohemiae [sic!]; non tamen legitimum, sed spurium.” Cf. also Cogo, “Il patriarcato d’Aquileia,” 285, note 1. 41  See the papal letter in BCU, FP, ms. 899, Raccolta Bianchi, vol. 52, no. 5321: “… de bona intentione, quam ad reformationem et conservationem Patrie Forijulii habemus …” (8th November 1387). 42  In this sense, e.g. Silano, “Episcopal elections,” 190, claiming that the Udinese asked the pope “to appoint John of Moravia as patriarch,” which does not seem to be very likely. Similarly also Cogo, “Il patriarcato d’Aquileia,” 285. 43  Leicht, “La giovinezza di Tristano,” 12–13. 44  Earlier, Pileo had already attempted to gain the patriarchal see and, having joined the side of Clement VII, on 9th February 1388 he was appointed papal nuncio and later also legate—including in the province of Aquileia, where he was to agitate for the Avignon pope. See Paolo Stacul, Il Cardinale Pileo da Prata, Miscellanea della Società Romana di storia patria 19 (Rome: Società alla Biblioteca Vallicelliana, 1957), 201 and passim; cf. Sante Bortolami, “Prata (di) Pileo, cardinale,” in Nuovo Liruti, vol. 1/2, 701–707. 45  In this sense, see Schwedler, “Moravia (di) Giovanni,” 573–574; Cusin, Il confine orientale, vol. 1, 165–166 and note 63; Brunettin, “L’evoluzione impossibile,” 220, note 645.

82

Chapter 5

own interests in Friuli too.46 However, it is necessary to bear in mind that, in the early years of Sigismund’s reign in Hungary, when the challenges he was forced to deal with included opposition from rebellious barons, the power status of the young monarch rested on very shaky foundations.47 Moreover, we do not know of any close contacts between him and John of Moravia,48 so it is probably necessary to dismiss this possibility. He is more likely to have had support from his brother Jobst, but, as we already know, he and Prokop had sought to have him appointed to the see of Olomouc in order to strengthen their position in Moravia. Nevertheless, Jobst’s support cannot be entirely ruled out either. The most logical hypothesis, however, appears to be that John’s candidature was supported by his royal cousin Wenceslas IV. First of all, he was the highest ranking Luxembourg—king of the Romans—and still had the greatest influence of three individuals mentioned. Furthermore, there was the unresolved situation concerning the Olomouc bishopric, for which Wenceslas promoted Nicholas of Riesenburg against the claims of the Moravian margraves. This step would thus appear to have been something of a compromise: as usual, Wenceslas would advance an individual loyal to him for Olomouc and, at the same time, John’s elevation to the rank of patriarch would serve to fulfil his ambitions, as it would increase the prestige of the dynasty even more.49 In addition, it would secure Wenceslas an important defensive position and ally on a possible coronation journey to Rome, which was evidently still in his mind.50 This role of Friuli as a “gateway” to Italy had indeed proved to be very 46  Sigismund’s intervention was assumed by Štěpán, Moravský markrabě Jošt, 237, and, more cautiously, also by Elbel, “Markrabě Jošt,” 47. 47  See Pál Engel, The Realm of St. Stephen. A History of Medieval Hungary, 895–1526 (London and New York: I. B. Tauris, 2001), 195–202; Jörg K. Hoensch, Kaiser Sigismund. Herrscher an der Schwelle zur Neuzeit 1368–1437 (Munich: C. H. Beck, 1996), 65–71. 48  I was not able to find any reference in either the database Hungaricana or the following editions: Codex diplomaticus Hungariae ecclesiasticus ac civilis, vol. X/1–3, ed. György Fejér (Budapest: Regia Universitas Ungarica, 1834–1838); Zsigmondkori oklevéltár, vol. 1, ed. Elemér Mályusz, Magyar Országos Levéltár kiadványai 2/1 (Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 1951). 49  In this sense, see Elbel, “Jan Soběslav,” 712. 50  See e.g. the papal bull of Boniface IX in Deutsche Reichstagsakten unter König Wenzel, vol. 2, 1388–1397, ed. Julius Weizsäcker, Deutsche Reichstagsakten 2 ([Gotha]: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1874), 372, no. 218 (23rd January 1391); cf. Spěváček, Václav IV., 207–208. Wenceslas also sent his embassy to Venice, where he announced his descent into Italy: ASVen, Senato, Secreti, reg. R (E), fol. 65r (17th March 1391). For Wenceslas’s earlier attempts to undertake his descent into Italy, see Johann Lechner, “Zur Geschichte König Wenzels (bis 1387),” Mitteilungen des Instituts für Österreichische Geschichtsforschung. Ergänzungsband 6 (1901), 342–350.

Patriarch

83

important during both of Charles IV’s descents into Rome,51 and later, in a charter for Sigismund, Wenceslas himself, or rather his chancery, described the patriarchate as a “key which directly opens up the road to Italy.”52 This kind of success for the dynasty may also have pleased Jobst and Prokop, since the former in particular continued to support John, as will be evident later on. Whichever member of the last generation of the Luxembourgs was behind John’s candidacy, it is obvious that it was in the interest of the pope to accept this nomination, since the support of the head of the Holy Roman Empire and his relatives was crucial for him at the time of the schism. The decision by Urban VI, who conferred the rule of the patriarchate on John of Moravia by means of a bull dated 27th November 1387, issued in Perugia and promulgated in the college of cardinals on the same day, must therefore be understood within this context. At the same time, the pope decreed that, before the new patriarch assumed office and took possession of his property, he must take the customary oath of allegiance to two authorized bishops, who would be dispatched to him with the relevant documents. Simultaneously, the papal chancery issued a series of bulls announcing John’s appointment, addressed to King Wenceslas, the clergy, the vassals and the people of the diocese of Aquileia as well as to the suffragan bishops of the ecclesiastical province. All these documents—together with the charter of provision for John—ended up in the archive of the Cividale chapter.53 51  See Widder, Itinerar und Politik, 161–165, 283–289. 52  The charter was partially edited by Ferdinand Tadra, Kanceláře a písaři v zemích českých za králů z rodu Lucemburského Jana, Karla IV. a Václava IV. (1310–1420) (Prague: Česká akademie císaře Františka Josefa pro vědy, slovesnost a umění, 1892), 44, note 61: “… nobis ad Italie partes itineris veluti clavis directo vestigio pandit viam …” Abstract in Codex Přemyslaeus. Regesty z výpisů z dvorských register Václava IV. z doby kolem a po roku 1400, ed. Ivan Hlaváček, Archiv český 39 (Prague: Filosofia, 2013), 32–33, no. 49 (28th June 1400). Therefore we have to reject the opinion of Válka, Dějiny Moravy, vol. 1, 105, i.e. that John’s transfer to Aquileia “excluded him from the Luxembourg inner politics.” On the other hand, the importance of the patriarchate for the dynasty was rightly emphasized by Štěpán, Moravský markrabě Jošt, 266–267. 53   M AN, AC, Bullae pontificiae, vol. 1, sub dato. The charter for John is edited in De Rubeis, Monumenta Ecclesiae Aquilejensis, cols. 978–980, and reprinted in Giuseppe Cappelletti, Le chiese d’Italia dalla loro origine sino ai nostri giorni, vol. 8 (Venice: Antonelli, 1851), 491–493: “… demum ad te, episcopum Luthomuslensem, consideratis grandium virtutum donis, quibus personam tuam illarum largitor Dominus insignivit, et quod tu, qui regimini Luthomuslensis ecclesie hactenus laudabiliter prefuisti, eandem Aquilegensem ecclesiam scies et poteris auctore Domino salubriter regere et feliciter gubernare, convertimus oculos nostre mentis. Intendentes igitur tam ipsi Aquilegensi ecclesie, quam eius gregi dominico salubriter providere, te a vinculo, quo prefate ecclesie Luthomuslensis, cui tunc preeras, tenebaris, de dictorum fratrum consilio et apostolice potestatis plenitudine absolventes, te ad eandem Aquilegensem ecclesiam auctoritate apostolica transferimus,

84

Chapter 5

John’s appointment was received with great enthusiasm in the patriarchate, especially by the city of Udine, where the citizens held lively celebrations and games by day and night.54 The population of the patriarchate undoubtedly cherished the hopeful expectation that the long war would finally come to an end and everything would go back to the way it had been in the earlier “golden age.” However, as it was to turn out, a period of new conflicts was just about to begin. The fundamental problem which had to be solved first was the restoration of the extensive territories and possessions of the patriarchate which were still held by Francesco Carrara. Shortly after John’s election, in Udine in the presence of a number of prominent figures of the land, the papal nuncio Ferdinand, the patriarch of Jerusalem, charged the dean of the Udine chapter, Ottobono da Ceneda, with transferring himself to the Ferrarese court of Marquis Niccolò II d’Este, who was to arrange for the restitution of all the possessions of the patriarchate from Francesco Carrara.55 However, not even the negotiations in Ferrara, in which diplomats from Padua and Venice took part, led to the desired outcome,56 and instead of peace there was an extension of the “happy union” for another year; the allies were now listed as Venice, Udine, Gemona, Venzone and Tolmezzo.57 At the turn of 1387/1388 a number of embassies were sent from the patriarchate, both to John of Moravia and to King Wenceslas. Envoys and letters

teque illi preficimus in patriarcham, curam et administrationem ipsius Aquilegensis ecclesie tibi in spiritualibus et temporalibus plenarie commitendo …” Some inaccuracies in the old edition have been corrected with respect to the original. 54  Historia Belli Forojuliensis, AIM III, col. 1215: “… Johannes marchio Moraviae electus fuit et provocatus in patriarcam sanctae Aquilejensis ecclesiae. De cujus provocatione pars Utini libentissime audivit. Et ex laetitia, magni facti sunt per eos et parte ipsorum pagnaroli in civitate die noctuque inter omnes cives cum igne et cum hastiludio.” See also Capitula contra patriarcham Johannem, art. 1, and the letter from the dean of the Aquileia chapter to Venice, then forwarded to Udine as a copy, in BCU, Fondo Joppi (= FJ), ms. 697/ II, Autographa Vincentiana, vol. 5, sub dato (also ibid., FP, ms. 899, Raccolta Bianchi, vol. 52, no. 5322); cf. Cogo, “Il patriarcato d’Aquileia,” 285 and note 3 (27th November 1387). For the celebrations in Cividale, where it was ordered that focalia be made, see BCC, ACC, Archivio storico del Comune di Cividale del Friuli, Sezione antica, Camerari, b. 1139, fol. 22r (1st January 1388). 55  The full powers for him are edited in Verci, Storia della Marca, vol. 17, documenti, 4–9, no. 1908 (6th December 1387). 56  For the conference at Ferrara, dealing mostly with Visconti’s recent expansion in north-eastern Italy, see Kohl, Padua under the Carrara, 240–241; Daniel M. Bueno de Mesquita, Giangaleazzo Visconti, Duke of Milan (1351–1402). A study in the political career of an Italian despot (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1941), 78–79. 57  ASVen, Miscellanea atti diplomatici e privati, b. 27, no. 822 (8th February 1388).

Patriarch

85

were dispatched by Udine,58 Cividale,59 Gemona,60 Tolmezzo61 and especially Patriarch Ferdinand, together with the “council of the five deputies,” the highest executive body of Udine, which also seems to have represented the interests of its allies.62 According to the text of their instructions, the envoys first had to kneel before the new patriarch and present their letters of credence, and then shower him with the usual compliments and assure him of the indescribable rapture that his appointment had caused in the land, before finally getting down to the crux of the matter: informing the new ruler that for two and a half years the land had been in a state of war with Francesco Carrara, who held a number of towns, castles and possessions of the Aquileian church (especially Sacile), while emphasizing the generous support of the Republic of Venice, which had invested substantial effort and resources in assisting it. Finally, they were supposed to round off their speech by urging John to set off for the patriarchate and establish peace, because without his authority the country would not have the strength to resist any longer: “… quia in dicto suo adventu pendet salus dictarum Patrie et ecclesie.”63 Of course, this message only reflected the view of the Udinese side.

58   B CU, FP, ms. 899, Raccolta Bianchi, vol. 53, no. 5341 (1st January 1388). 59  This emerges from John’s letter to Cividale in BCU, FP, ms. 899, Raccolta Bianchi, vol. 56, no. 5592: “Plures scripturarum vestrarum, quas grata manu recipimus, nobis missistis litteras, in quarum tenoribus reperimus vestros cordiales affectus …” The letter was issued on 1st July in Brno, but without any indication of the year or indiction. Bianchi dated it to the year 1391; however, the document is undoubtedly to be put in 1388, because on the same day and in the same place John issued another letter with similar content: ACU, Fondo Bini, Documenta historica, vol. X, no. 78 (also in BCU, FP, ms. 899, Raccolta Bianchi, vol. 53, no. 5376). 60   B CG, ACG, Quaderni delle Deliberazioni, reg. 13, fol. 62v (19th December 1388); fol. 66v (4th January 1388). 61  According to the sixteenth-century work of Fabio Quintiliano Ermacora, a copy of which can be found i.a. in BCU, FP, ms. 899, Raccolta Bianchi, vol. 53, no. 5351; the information was later adopted by Gian Francesco Palladio degli Olivi, Historie della Provincia del Friuli (Udine: N. Schiratti, 1660), 426, and finally by Cogo, “Il patriarcato d’Aquileia,” 285. 62  For the Deputati ad regimen terre, established in 1385, see Vincenzo Joppi, “Istituzioni politiche ed amministrative,” in Statuti e ordinamenti del Comune di Udine (Udine: Gio. Batt. Doretti, 1898), xxxiv–xxxv. 63  Parlamento friulano, I/2, 349–351, no. 341; the edition is based on a contemporary copy in ACU, Fondo Bini, Varia patriarchalia Aquileiensia, vol. II (= LXVIII), fol. 47r–v (undated). See Marchesi, “Giovanni di Moravia,” 117–118; Paschini, Storia del Friuli, 631–632. According to the text, the war with Carrara had lasted for two and a half years, and therefore it is possible to date it to ca. February 1388 because, as another document shows, the inhabitants of the patriarchate considered August 1385 as the beginning of the conflict: BCU, FP, ms. 899, Raccolta Bianchi, vol. 54, no. 5507. This is also Paschini’s conclusion.

86

Chapter 5

As is apparent from a later entry in the registers of the Venetian senate, the Republic of St. Mark also dispatched an envoy to Moravia at some point; the task as well as the chronology of the embassy, however, remain obscure.64 Another delegation was sent to John of Moravia by Francesco Carrara. John received the envoys in Olomouc, where he was staying with Margrave Jobst, and assured them of the warm friendship that he harboured towards the ruler of Padua; at the same time, however, he warned the lord of Padua that no-one was to be allowed to retain the property of the Aquileian church, announcing that he would soon dispatch an embassy to him with further instructions. This was seconded by Jobst, who also invoked the authority of King Wenceslas and Sigismund.65 As Pio Paschini remarked, “it was not yet a taking a position in favour of one of the parties, but simply a first contact with who seemed to hold the fate of the land in his hands.”66 It is thus evident that John was able to count on the support of the entire Luxembourg dynasty, which it would have been difficult for Carrara to defy openly. He, however, justified himself on the grounds that the Udinese and their allies were the ones who had thwarted the peace negotiations at the conference of Ferrara.67 This is, of course, a biased view; an equally likely scenario is that Carrara did not want to accept his adversaries’ peace terms either.68 The demands of the two sides were so contradictory that concluding a peace or at least a truce was almost impossible without outside intervention. Even the 64  The patriarch was to have covered all the expenses the Venetian envoy incurred “tempore, quo stetit in Bruna,” i.e. in Brno. See ASVen, Senato, Secreti, reg. R (E), fol. 38r (29th September 1388). 65  Both letters to Carrara, based on a contemporary copy in the Udinese registers, are edited in Verci, Storia della Marca, vol. 17, documenti, 9–10, no. 1909: “… petimus et rogamus, quatenus contemplacione illustrium principum dominorum regis Romanorum et Boemiae ac regis Ungarorum et nostre pariter [i.e. of Jobst] intercessionis intuitu predictam Aquilegensem ecclesiam, ejus bona, possessiones et predia non permittatis quomodolibet impediri” (18th January [1388]). Cf. Marchesi, “Giovanni di Moravia,” 118. See also the abstracts of both documents based on the Marciana library manuscript by Joseph Valentinelli, Regesta documentorum Germaniae historiam illustrantium. Regesten zur deutschen Geschichte aus den Handschriften der Marcusbibliothek in Venedig (Munich: Verlag der k. Akademie, 1864), 119, no. 322; 120, no. 323 (in this edition, however, John’s letter is dated 8th January). 66  Paschini, Storia del Friuli, 632. 67  This emerges from a letter from Francesco Carrara addressed to his Friulian allies, edited in Verci, Storia della Marca, vol. 17, documenti, 12, no. 1911 (13th February [1388]). See also Marchesi, “Giovanni di Moravia,” 119; Paschini, Storia del Friuli, 632–633. 68  Cogo, “Il patriarcato d’Aquileia,” 286–287. That is exactly what Venice claimed. See Raphayni de Caresinis cancellarii Venetiarum Chronica. AA. 1343–1388, ed. Ester Pastorello, RIS n.s. XII/2 (Bologna: N. Zanichelli, 1922), 68–69.

Patriarch

87

efforts of Bondi, abbot of the monastery of Moggio and at the same time the patriarch’s vicar general in spiritualibus (but also referred to sometimes as vicar in spiritualibus et temporalibus), on whom John conferred the power to conclude peace between both opposing parties in Friuli, apparently did not meet with success.69 In the spring of 1388, the power-political situation in north-eastern Italy altered significantly, dramatically threatening the position of Francesco Carrara. Following secret negotiations, Giangaleazzo Visconti, the lord of Milan and his original ally against the “happy union,” joined forces with his former enemy, the Republic of Venice. This agreement may have been initiated by the Venetians, who wanted to finish off their age-old enemy once and for all. Francesco Carrara suddenly found himself alone, surrounded by adversaries who were stronger than him and who were already carving up his territory in advance: Padua was to go to the Conte di Virtù and Treviso to the Republic of St. Mark, while the independence of the patriarchate of Aquileia was to be guaranteed. Not even Carrara’s allies, Florence and Bologna, were strong enough to stand up to this alliance, and so they left the lord of Padua to his fate and merely confined themselves to diplomatic support. Now it was just a case of waiting for the slightest pretext that would justify an attack on the Carrara signoria.70 These events had a considerable influence on further developments in the patriarchate, a significant part of which was still held by Carrara. Venice uncompromisingly demanded the immediate restitution of all the territory and property of the Aquileian church, which Francesco il Vecchio vehemently refused, saying that he would only return them directly to the new patriarch.71 In fact, it seems that some kind of agreement between the lord of Padua and the Luxembourgs was made, since, at the end of March, Margrave Jobst wrote to Carrara in a very friendly manner, announcing at the same time the early arrival of his chaplain Rudolf, who was also canon of the Olomouc chapter.72 69  John’s letter to Cividale is preserved in BCC, ACC, Antica cancelleria del comune—fondo Lorenzo D’Orlandi, b. 24, no. 34 (4th February [1388]). An abstract of the document in Olivo, Antica cancelleria, vol. 3, 15, no. 46. The peace was to be concluded under the penalty of 10,000 florins. For the peace efforts of Abbot Bondi, cf. also the treatise Patriarcato aquileiense di Giovanni di Moravia by the sixteenth-century notary Marcantonio Nicoletti edited in Di Manzano, Annali del Friuli, vol. 6, 19–20. 70  Cogo, “Il patriarcato d’Aquileia,” 287–291; Cessi, “Venezia e la prima caduta”; Bueno de Mesquita, Giangaleazzo Visconti, 78–81; Kohl, Padua under the Carrara, 241–242. 71  Cessi, “Venezia e la prima caduta,” 319–322; Cogo, “Il patriarcato d’Aquileia,” 288. 72   B CC, ACC, Antica cancelleria del comune—fondo Lorenzo D’Orlandi, b. 24, no. 33/1 (24th March 1388). Cf. an abstract by Olivo, Antica cancelleria, vol. 3, 15, no. 45. Jobst’s chaplain Rudolf is not known to the historiography. See Baletka, “Dvůr, rezidence a kancelář,” 305.

88

Chapter 5

Meanwhile, John devoted considerable effort to preparing the ground for his arrival and sent a knight named Chval (Qualus) with the title of vicar general in temporalibus to the patriarchate, informing the Republic of Venice of this too.73 Working in the patriarchate alongside him was the Landeshauptmann of Carinthia, Conrad II of Kraig, who had previously been an envoy for Wenceslas IV in Padua and later transferred to the services of the patriarch.74 On top of that, John sent Stephen of Doubravník, his protonotary and canon of Olomouc, to the papal curia with unspecified documents.75 Roughly at the same time, the pope charged the bishops of Treviso and Cittanova with receiving the oath of allegiance from John according to a formula that began with the words: “I, John, Patriarch of Aquileia, promise and profess that from this hour until my death I will be loyal and obedient to the Holy Father and the Holy Roman Church and to my lord by divine providence Pope Urban VI and his canonically established successors …”76 Later, John also pledged to the papal camera to pay his servitia, which amounted to the staggering sum of 10,000 florins.77

73  ASVen, Senato, Secreti, reg. R (E), fol. 6v (9th March 1388); fol. 7r: “… quod reverendus pater dominus patriarcha Aquilegiensis, de novo creatus, nobis notificavit, quod mittit ad partes Patrie Foroiulii dominum Qualum in suum vicarium in temporalibus …” (9th March 1388). Cf. Cessi, “Venezia e la prima caduta,” 320–321, note 2. There is another reference to him in a letter from Francesco Carrara to Cividale, asking for information about this knight coming to Friuli. See BCC, ACC, Antica cancelleria del comune—fondo Lorenzo D’Orlandi, b. 5, no. 13 (3rd March [1388]). Trapani, Inventario, 37, no. 250 wrongly dates the letter to the year 1390; Olivo, Antica cancelleria, vol. 1, 58, no. 257 to 1391. 74  For his diplomatic mission to Padua, see Cronaca Carrarese di Galeazzo e Bartolomeo Gatari, RIS n.s. XVII/1a, 279–281; cf. also a reference in the above-cited letter from Carrara from 3rd March 1388. For Conrad, see Stanislava Nováková, Krajířové z Krajku. Z Korutan do zemí České koruny (České Budějovice: Veduta, 2010), ad indicem; Friedrich W. Leitner, “Die Herren von Kraig. Eine genealogische Skizze zu den Erbtruchsessen in Kärnten,” Archiv für Diplomatik, Schriftgeschichte, Siegel- und Wappenkunde 46 (2000), 239–246 (both, however, without any reference to his relationship to the patriarchate of Aquileia). 75  This emerges from John’s letter, a partially damaged copy of which is preserved in BCG, ACG, Lettere autografe, vol. 347, no. 120 (also in BCU, FP, ms. 899, Raccolta Bianchi, vol. 53, no. 5362); cf. Valentinelli, Regesta documentorum Germaniae, 120, no. 325 (29th April [1388]). For Stephen, see Paschini, “Giovanni di Moravia,” 106, note 1, and also Štěpán, Moravský markrabě Jošt, 264, 310. 76  A copy in BNM, cod. lat. XIV, 135 (= 4286), fols. 247v–248v: “Ego Iohannes, patriarcha Aquilegensis, promitto et iuro, quod ab hac hora in antea, quamdiu vixero, fidelis et obediens ero beato patri sancteque Romanae ecclesiae et domino meo Urbano divina providentia papae VI. suisque successoribus canonice intrantibus” (8th March 1388). See Paschini, Storia del Friuli, 655, note 5. 77  Hoberg, Taxae pro communibus servitiis, 11; Paschini, “Giovanni di Moravia,” 105 (13th June 1388).

Patriarch

89

John clearly had no intention of hastily setting out—as Cardinal d’Alençon had done—for a foreign land that was riven by internal conflict, and instead intended to prepare his adventus thoroughly. The postponed arrival of the new patriarch seems to have aroused a certain amount of disquiet in the patriarchate. John attempted to dispel these concerns in a letter addressed to Abbot Bondi, in which he assured him that as soon as he had attended to some unspecified “matters” involving Wenceslas IV, Sigismund and Jobst he would set out for Italy without delay.78 He also described Jobst’s recent success in acquiring the margraviate of Brandenburg and the title of prince-elector (although the official documentation did not go through until 22nd May in Šintava, the decision had evidently been taken earlier),79 the duchy of Luxembourg and the Vogtei of Alsace. On top of that, John referred to himself here as “patriarch of Aquileia and margrave of Moravia,”80 which he certainly was not. How can we explain this unusual title, which made no sense? In the fourteenth century, it was common for patriarchs to style themselves Dei et apostolice sedis gratia sancte sedis Aquilegiensis patriarcha.81 In contrast, the bishops of Feltre and Belluno, for example, used the term episcopus atque comes;82 however, this title of “count” clearly related to the temporal power that they once wielded over the relevant territory at the same time as their spiritual office. On the other hand, linking the title of patriarch with that of a secular prince in distant Moravia was highly unusual. A certain parallel might be found in the titulature of Patriarch Louis of Teck (1412–1420/1439), who was also referred to by his title of duke; in his case, however, this was because he was administering his ancestral estates.83 That was not the case with John of Moravia. 78   B CG, ACG, Lettere autografe, vol. 347, no. 120: “… nam auxiliante Altissimo cum illustris principibus et dominis Romanorum et Ungarorum regibus ac Jodoco marchione Moravie predicto, fratribus nostris carissimis, nostris et ipsorum negociis dispositis et ordinatis, iter recipiemus versus partes Fori Jullii …” (29th April [1388]). 79  See Mezník, Lucemburská Morava, 232–236; Baletka, “Dvůr, rezidence a kancelář,” 267–268. 80   B CG, ACG, Lettere autografe, vol. 347, no. 120: “Dei et apostolice sedis gracia sancte Aquilegiensis ecclesie patriarcha et marchio Moravie Iohannes …” 81  See Documenti per la storia del Friuli dal 1317 al 1325, ed. Giuseppe Bianchi (Udine: Turchetto, 1844); Documenti per la storia del Friuli dal 1326 al 1332, ed. Giuseppe Bianchi (Udine: Turchetto, 1845); I protocolli di Gabriele da Cremona. Notaio della Curia patriarcale di Aquileia (1324–1336, 1344, 1350), ed. Andrea Tilatti, Fonti per la storia della Chiesa in Friuli. Serie medievale 1 (Rome: I protocolli di Gabriele da Cremona, 2006). 82  See I documenti di Liazaro notaio vescovile di Feltre e Belluno (1386–1422), ed. Gian Maria Varanini and Carlo Zoldan, Fonti per la storia della terraferma veneta 28 (Rome: Viella, 2011). 83  Evidence in De Rubeis, Monumenta Ecclesiae Aquilejensis, cols. 1038–1042; Parlamento friulano, I/2, 437–438, no. 477. For Ludwig, see Dieter Girgensohn, “Teck (di) Ludovico, patriarca di Aquileia,” in Nuovo Liruti, vol. 1/2, 811–821.

90

Chapter 5

If we take a closer look at the intitulationes of his charters from 1388, we find that John made use of various titles, altering them flexibly according to the person for whom the document in question was intended. We find the remarkable linking of “Patriarch of Aquileia” and “Margrave of Moravia” in several letters addressed to individuals (Abbot Bondi) and cities (Cividale, Udine, Gemona) in the patriarchate;84 it was also used in a similar way by John’s officials: vicar Bondi, marshal Nicholas and captain of Cadore, Hrdibor of Drahkov.85 In the same period, however, John issued a number of charters for Bohemian recipients in which he refers to himself only as bishop of Litomyšl and bishop elect of Olomouc86 and only from July of that year, when the first use of his new Aquileian seal with an eagle is documented, as patriarch, but without the title of margrave.87 This raises the question of whether this fictitious title of margrave might not have been intended simply to increase John’s prestige in the patriarchate at the beginning of his rule, indisputably link him with the Luxembourg dynasty and perhaps also dispel the doubts about the legitimacy of his origin which 84  Besides the already-cited letter to Abbot Bondi, see BCC, ACC, Antica cancelleria del comune—fondo Lorenzo D’Orlandi, b. 24, no. 34: “Johannes, marchio Moravie, Dei et apostolice sedis gratia electus Aquilegiensis patriarcha” (4th February [1388]); BCG, ACG, Lettere autografe, vol. 347, no. 122: “Dei et apostolice sedis gratia sancte Aquilegiensis ecclesie patriarcha, marchio Moravie ac postulatus Olomucensis Johannes” (24th July 1388); BNM, cod. lat. XIV, 102 (= 2805), no. 40; edition by Cogo, “Il patriarcato d’Aquileia,” documenti, 320, no. 7: “Dei et apostolice sedis gratia sancte Aquilegiensis ecclesie patriarcha, marchio Moravie Johannes” (12th September [1388]). 85   B CC, ACC, Antica cancelleria del comune—fondo Lorenzo D’Orlandi, b. 24, no. 30/4 (10th June 1388); ibid., b. 4, no. 79 (26th June 1388); Le antiche pergamene di San Vito di Cadore. I 224 documenti dell’Archivio comunale dal 1156 al 1420, ed. Giuseppe Richebuono (Belluno: Istituto bellunese ricerche sociali e culturali, 1980), 168–172, no. 192 (2nd Sep‑ tember 1389). Hrdibor de Drathow is also mentioned in ACU, Raccolta documenti, vol. II, pag. 582 (15th March 1389). For a possible identification of him, see the card files of the Bohemian nobility by August Sedláček, accessible online: http://www.augustsedlacek.cz. 86   C DM XI, 417–418, no. 476: “Johannes Dei gracia episcopus Luthomislensis et postulatus ecclesie Olomucensis …” (11th May 1388). Cf. also the similar titulature in John’s letter to Carrara from January 1388, quoted on p. 64, note 52. 87   U B Budweis, I/1, 244–245, no. 464: “Wir Hans, von Gotes gnaden der heiligen stifft czu Agel patriarch und derwelter bischoff czu Olomuncz …” (22nd July 1388); CDM XI, 429–430, no. 495: “Nos Johannes Dei gracia Aquilegiensis patriarcha et Olomucensis postulatus …” (10th August 1388). There is an original of the second charter with a well-preserved patriarchal seal in Magyar Nemzeti Levéltár Budapest (= MNL), Országos Levéltár, Diplomatikai Levéltár (= OL DL) 42398. Despite John’s efforts to enforce his claims to the bishopric of Olomouc, he apparently never had any new seal made. Therefore, he is not considered bishop of Olomouc by Tomáš Krejčík and Richard Psík, “Pečeti olomouckých biskupů v období 1351–1457. Typologie a ikonografie,” Historica. Revue pro historii a příbuzné vědy 4, no. 1 (2013), 65–81.

Patriarch

91

undoubtedly existed in Friuli, as is testified by one of the Aquileian chronicles.88 The title may therefore have merely expressed the fact that John came from the dynasty of the Moravian margraves; in that case, it was actually a declaration of his status in the manner of a noble family. It is interesting to note that John himself used this titulature only a few times and that he did so before his arrival in the patriarchate, as if this empty title then lost any meaning it had possessed. In principle, this also applies to the use of John’s margravial titulature by the patriarch’s officials. Nevertheless, it resulted in John’s “margravial” title taking on a life of its own, since it was copied by many contemporary and later sources (especially chronicles), which sometimes spoke of him as actually being margrave of Moravia.89 This just goes to show how successful John’s “propaganda” had been. Although we may never have a completely satisfactory explanation of why John referred to himself several times as “margrave of Moravia,” there is no reason to think that this makes it impossible to identify the bastard son John of Moravia with John, Patriarch of Aquileia. For even if we were to entertain for just a moment the idea that it was actually his brother, Margrave John Sobieslaw, who became the patriarch, we would be faced with the same question: why did he not use this margravial title during the Litomyšl episcopate? Equally, we might hypothetically pose the question of why John Sobieslaw did not continue to use the title of margrave in the office of patriarch after his arrival in Friuli. It would therefore appear that the new Patriarch John used the title of margrave “improperly” and with a specific purpose. John made his next move in May, when his marshal, Nicholas, arrived in the patriarchate. This Bohemian knight, hypothetically identified with Nicholas of Bukůvka, was described by Giovanni Ailini as being a man of “great stature” aged around 60 years old.90 On 24th May he appeared in Gemona in the foothills of the Alps, where the city castle was handed over to him, becoming his 88  N  onnullorum Patriarcharum Vitae, MEA, appendix, no. V, 16: “… elegit eis unum, Johannem de Moravia, fratrem marchionis, et fratrem regis Bohemiae; non tamen legitimum, sed spurium.” Cf. UPenn, ms. 934, Vitae episcoporum et patriarcharum, fol. 36v. 89  E.g. Historia Belli Forojuliensis, AIM III, col. 1215; BNM, cod. lat. XIV, 134 (= 4285), fol. 178v; ACU, Archivio del Capitolo di Aquileia, cod. 1, Acta capituli Aquileiensis, fol. [1r]; ASU, NA, b. 5125, fasc. 18, fol. 1r. 90  Historia Belli Forojuliensis, AIM III, col. 1217: “… militem, magnificum virum, magnum hominem staturae, aetate bene annorum LX in suum marescalcum […] Cui domino marescalco, nomine dominus Nicolaus Buch Bohemus …” The identification with Nicholas of Bukůvka was suggested by Štěpán, Moravský markrabě Jošt, 263 and 335, note 5, with reference to August Sedláček, “Bukůvka z Bukůvky,” in Ottův slovník naučný, vol. 4 (Prague: J. Otto, 1891), 889; see further August Sedláček, Hrady, zámky a tvrze království Českého, vol. 1 (Prague: F. Šimáček, 1882), 71; Vladimír Březina, Rytířský stav v Čechách a na Moravě v raném novověku. Rod Bukůvků z Bukůvky od středověku do 20. století (České Budějovice:

92

Chapter 5

temporary residence.91 There he was also joined by Abbot Bondi.92 It seems that even before Nicholas’s arrival a temporary truce for the month of May had been established between the parties.93 The marshal was thus primarily responsible for ensuring a lasting peace in the land and taking back the territory and property which had been occupied by Francesco Carrara. Stephen of Doubravník also played a significant role in the negotiations, as he went to see Carrara in Padua with letters of credence from the patriarch, King Wenceslas and Margrave Jobst. In response to Marshal Nicholas’s message, Carrara declared that he was willing to make a truce with Gemona (and possibly with other towns too), calling on his allies from Cividale to do the same.94 At roughly the same time, Nicholas of Bukůvka and Stephen received letters from Federico di Savorgnano and representatives of the city of Udine assuring them that they intended to provide them both with every possible assistance and, eventually, hospitality in the city.95 However, the situation was exacerbated by the alliance between Visconti and Venice, with the rulers of Ferrara and Mantua also going over to their side, which triggered a wave of excitement in Udine. There was no longer anything to prevent the allies from destroying Padua. In June 1388, Giangaleazzo sent Carrara a declaration of war and accused him of treason, thereby establishing a formal casus belli. Francesco il Vecchio could therefore see no way out of this impasse other than to abdicate in favour of his son, known as Francesco il Novello, whereupon he moved to Treviso.96 Veduta, 2008), 36–37. Nicoletti refers to him as “Nicolò Zucchelli”: Di Manzano, Annali del Friuli, vol. 6, 19. 91   B CG, ACG, Quaderni delle Deliberazioni, reg. 14, fol. 18r–v (24th May 1388). On the same day, Nicholas became godfather of a certain newly baptized Caterina. See Il registro battesimale di Gemona del Friuli 1379–1404, ed. Flavia De Vitt, Pubblicazioni della Deputazione di storia patria per il Friuli 28 (Udine: Deputazione di storia patria per il Friuli, 2000), 190, no. 656; cf. also Historia Belli Forojuliensis, AIM III, col. 1217. 92  Their joint letter to Cividale in BCC, ACC, Antica cancelleria del comune—fondo Lorenzo D’Orlandi, b. 3, no. 36 (31st May 1388). 93  See the copy of the charter, issued by the noble families di Partistagno and di Attimis, in BCC, ACC, Antica cancelleria del comune—fondo Lorenzo D’Orlandi, b. 24, no. 33/3 (6th May 1388). Cf. Olivo, Antica cancelleria, vol. 3, 15, no. 33. 94   B CC, ACC, Antica cancelleria del comune—fondo Lorenzo D’Orlandi, b. 4, no. 77: “… nobilitatem vestram affectuose precor et hortor, quatinus, si super huiusmodi treuguis per ipsum marescallum fueritis requisiti, ad illas exhibere vos pronos velitis dispositos et paratos et bonis et amicabilibus verbis uti cum dicto marescallo et suis …” (31st May 1388). 95   B CU, FP, ms. 899, Raccolta Bianchi, vol. 53, nos. 5365, 5366 (24th May 1388). Paschini, Storia del Friuli, 656, note 18 gave the incorrect date of 14th May. 96  Cogo, “Il patriarcato d’Aquileia,” 290–293; Bueno de Mesquita, Giangaleazzo Visconti, 80– 81; Kohl, Padua under the Carrara, 241–242.

Patriarch

93

In the meantime, peace talks continued in Friuli and there was intensive communication between Udine, Cividale, Gemona, Padua and Venice.97 Although it seemed that there was no longer anything standing in the way of a peaceful settlement and all the parties concerned were in favour of an agreement, the negotiations apparently dragged on to such an extent that Marshal Nicholas of Bukůvka ordered Udine and Cividale to make peace under penalty of a fine of 10,000 florins.98 Patriarch John also intervened in the matter, urging peace and promising that in just eight days he would set out on his journey to the patriarchate.99 Nevertheless, for unknown reasons, he did not keep this promise. The peace was finally signed in Gemona on 2nd July, and two days after that it was solemnly countersigned in the duomo there in the presence of a great number of nobles, with the oath-taking ceremony two weeks later in Udine and Cividale.100 At the same time, the Venetian mercenaries in Friuli were disbanded since they were no longer needed.101 This brought an end to a war which had lasted for almost three years.102 This seems to have been followed soon afterwards by the restitution of most of the occupied territory of 97  See the letter from the Cividalese in BCU, FP, ms. 899, Raccolta Bianchi, vol. 53, no. 5374 (undated), and the individual articles of the negotiations ibid., FJ, ms. 697/II, Autographa Vincentiana, vol. 5, or ibid., FP, ms. 899, Raccolta Bianchi, vol. 53, no. 5375 (undated); BCC, ACC, Antica cancelleria del comune—fondo Lorenzo D’Orlandi, b. 4, no. 82 (undated). Trapani, Inventario, 36, no. 245 dates the latter document quite dubiously to 31st December 1388; Olivo, Antica cancelleria, vol. 1, 54, no. 238 gives only the year 1388. Intensive communication between the parties involved is also evident from the Gemona books of accounts: BCG, ACG, Quaderni dei Massari, reg. 415, fol. 15v (29th May 1388). For the negotiations of an Udinese embassy in Venice, where they were to discuss some capitula regarding peace, see ASVen, Senato, Secreti, reg. R (E), fol. 26r (23rd June 1388). 98   B CC, ACC, Antica cancelleria del comune—fondo Lorenzo D’Orlandi, b. 4, no. 79; cf. Olivo, Antica cancelleria, vol. 1, 53, no. 235 (26th June 1388). 99   A CU, Fondo Bini, Documenta historica, vol. X, no. 78, or BCU, FP, ms. 899, Raccolta Bianchi, vol. 53, no. 5376 (1st July [1388]); vol. 56, no. 5592 (1st July [1388]). 100   B CU, FP, ms. 899, Raccolta Bianchi, vol. 53, no. 5377; Di Manzano, Annali del Friuli, vol. 6, 9–10 (2nd and 15th July 1388). The peace treaty is partially edited in “Documenti goriziani del secolo XIV,” ed. Vincenzo Joppi, AT, n.s., 17 (1891), 302–304, no. 308. See also the account by Nicoletti in Di Manzano, Annali del Friuli, vol. 6, 20–21, and the summary by Marchesi, “Giovanni di Moravia,” 120; Paschini, Storia del Friuli, 634. 101  ASVen, Senato, Secreti, reg. R (E), fol. [28v]; cf. Cessi, “Venezia e la prima caduta,” 328, note 2 (6th July 1388). 102   B CU, FP, ms. 899, Raccolta Bianchi, vol. 54, no. 5507: “… guerra inter dominum cardinalem patriarcham et suos fideles ex una, et Utinenses et suos sequaces ex altera, incipit in MCCCLXXXV de mense augusti et duravit usque, quo egregius miles dominus Nicolaus de Buk, marescalcus domini Iohanni, Dei gratia patriarche Aquilegensis, fecit treguas in Patria.”

94

Chapter 5

the ­patriarchate into the hands of Nicholas of Bukůvka, who began to install his own officials there.103 However, it is evident from an account by Abbot Bondi, dated 13th August, that Carrara had not given everything back. On that day, a certain Master Benedict had arrived in the patriarchate. This, according to another contemporary source, “man of exceptional knowledge,” physician to the Bohemian king and secretary to Margrave Jobst, had been sent to Padua by the patriarch and King Wenceslas to demand that Sacile and several castles be handed over. In the event that Carrara was again unwilling to do so, he was to declare hostility against him in their name right there and then.104 We do not know what the outcome of his mission was, but from the instructions for the Venetian ambassadors from September of that year it is apparent that Carrara did not intend to give ground and did not give up the remaining strongholds.105 John spent the whole of the first half of the year 1388 until the late summer in Moravia, mainly at the castle of Modřice near Brno. In spite of the fact that the pope had granted the provision of the see of Olomouc to Nicholas of Riesenburg long before this, John still had command of the episcopal property that Jobst and Prokop had helped him to secure control of earlier, and he had

103  This emerges from a letter from Odorico di Ragogna, dean of the Aquileia chapter, in BCU, FP, ms. 899, Raccolta Bianchi, vol. 53, no. 5382 (20th July 1388) in which he writes about the conclusion of peace and restitution of possessions on the part of Carrara, as well as from Historia Belli Forojuliensis, AIM III, col. 1217; similarly also Nonnullorum Patriarcharum Vitae, MEA, appendix, no. V, 16; for the restitution of Portogruaro, see “Il Capitolo di Concordia e il Liber Anniversariorum,” ed. Giancarlo Stival, in La chiesa concordiese 389–1989, vol. 2, La diocesi di Concordia-Pordenone, ed. Giancarlo Stival (Fiume Veneto: Grafiche editoriali artistiche podenonesi, 1989), 372. 104  Verci, Storia della Marca, vol. 17, documenti, 14–15, no. 1914: “… et nisi ipsa loca subito restituere voluerit atque dare, idem magister Benedictus habet expresse in mandatis a prelibatis rege Boemie et dom. nostro dom. patriarcha de debendo ipsum dom. Padue eorum pro parte illico diffidare.” See the summary by Paschini, Storia del Friuli, 634. Cf. BCU, FP, ms. 899, Raccolta Bianchi, vol. 53, no. 5391: “… eximie scientie viro magistro Benedicto medicine doctore illustrisque ac magnifici domini domini marchionis Moravie secretario …” (28th August 1388). I was not able to identify Benedict; he is mentioned neither by Baletka, “Dvůr, rezidence a kancelář,” nor by Milada Říhová, “Královští lékaři. Lékaři na dvoře posledních Lucemburků,” in Pražské městské elity středověku a raného novověku— jejich proměny, zázemí a kulturní profil, ed. Olga Fejtová, Václav Ledvinka and Jiří Pešek, Documenta Pragensia 22 (Prague: Archiv hlavního města Prahy and Scriptorium, 2004), 327–334. 105  ASVen, Senato, Secreti, reg. R (E), fol. 36r (24th September 1388). The Venetian ambassadors were to encourage Patriarch John to require immediately from Carrara “… loca ecclesie sue, que occupata per eum, libere et sine aliqua conditione vel diminutione …”

Patriarch

95

even retained the title of bishop elect of Olomouc.106 The narratio of a later charter by Bishop Nicholas indicates that John had run up enormous debts on the estates he occupied, which then had to be paid back by his successor in this office, partly through a series of pledges in favour of Margrave Jobst.107 By this time John’s arrival in Friuli was eagerly awaited. During the month of May, the Udinese sent another embassy to Moravia, which also included representatives of the city of Gemona,108 which was to get the new patriarch to come to the country as quickly as possible and was not to return without him.109 Towards the end of May, the envoys arrived in Brno, where they discovered that John was staying at his castle in nearby Modřice. For reasons which are difficult to understand, John initially refused to grant them an audience, and it was only after the emissaries had secured the intercession of Augustine, prior of the Brno Augustinians, that John finally received them in Brno in the presence of many noblemen and promised that he would embark on his journey to Italy by 18th June.110 As we know, however, he stayed on there until the end of August. According to Giovanni Ailini, the Udinese envoys were to remain in Moravia for four months (i.e. until his departure, whereupon they accompanied him to Friuli), which involved expenditure of more than 1,000 florins.111 The reference to the influence Prior Augustine had on John is quite important, as it was he who would follow the patriarch to Italy, becoming his principal confidant and counsellor. On the one hand, this position later brought him the bishopric of Concordia but, on the other, eventually also a violent death. Augustine came from Litomyšl, entered the order of St. Augustine and undertook his studies at the convent school in Perugia, Italy. In 1377 at the latest, he 106   C DM XI, 417–418, no. 476 (11th May 1388); UB Budweis, I/1, 244–245, no. 464 (22nd July 1388); CDM XI, 429–430, no. 495 (10th August 1388). For John’s itinerary, see Excursus 3 in this book. 107   C DM XII, ed. Vincenz Brandl (Brno: Fr. Winiker and Schickardt, 1890), 180–181, no. 187: “… propter multiplicia et diversa onera debitorum per dominum Johannem patriarcham Aquilegiensem, dum nostram occuparet ecclesiam Olomucensem, contractorum, per que eadem ecclesia nostra quam plurimum involuta et miserabiliter est destructa …” (21st April 1394). See Elbel, “Markrabě Jošt,” 48–49. 108   B CG, ACG, Quaderni delle Deliberazioni, reg. 14, fol. 13r (27th April 1388); ibid., Quaderni dei Massari, reg. 415, fol. 14r (6th May 1388). 109  Historia Belli Forojuliensis, AIM III, col. 1215: “… quibus [i.e. to the envoys] mandatum fecerunt, ut nullo modo redirent sine domino Patriarcha.” 110  See the dispatch of the envoys from Brno in BCU, FP, ms. 899, Raccolta Bianchi, vol. 53, no. 5368 (5th June 1388). 111  Historia Belli Forojuliensis, AIM III, col. 1215: “Et pro nuntiis saepius missis dicti Utinenses expenderunt ultra mille ducatos, quia de melioribus eorum civibus miserunt […]. Qui ibi moram traxerunt ultra quatuor menses, ipsius adventum exspectando.” Cf. Capitula contra patriarcham Johannem, art. 1.

96

Chapter 5

became prior of the Augustinian convent of St. Thomas in Brno, and in 1385 he was appointed papal chaplain by Urban VI. He also served at the court of Margrave Jobst as his confessor and chaplain. Augustine probably met John during his Litomyšl episcopate, if not even earlier, and apparently gained his trust. When John was appointed patriarch of Aquileia, Augustine’s knowledge of the Italian environment, acquired during his studies, became crucial.112 In July, Giangaleazzo Visconti finally invaded the territory of Padua with the support of the Republic of Venice, and the Carrara regime slowly began to fall apart.113 John of Moravia did not become involved in the conflict in any way, but appears to have initially sought to establish friendly (or at least neutral) relations with Venice.114 Although the Gatari chronicle later refers to an unspecified “league” between Francesco il Vecchio da Carrara and John, this information may not be very reliable since this argument was only used expediently in 1390 to persuade the patriarch to support Francesco Novello in his reconquest of Padua.115 Meanwhile, in the patriarchate, Francesco Nascinguerra di Savorgnano— who came from the family of the original owners who had established themselves in Cividale—captured the castle of Savorgnano, which provoked an irritated response from the doge of Venice, Antonio Venier, who called on the

112  For Augustine, see Clemens d’Elpidio Janetschek, Das Augustiner-Eremitenstift S. Thomas in Brünn mit steter Bezugnahme auf die Klöster desselben Ordens in Mähren (Brno: Päpstliche Benedictiner-Buchdruckerei, 1898), 31–36; Jiří Šmeral, “Řeholníci řádu augustiniánů eremitů na Moravě v předhusitské době,” ČMM 125, no. 2 (2006), 467–468, 475; Jiří Šmeral, Řád augustiniánů eremitů na Moravě v předhusitské době, Verbum 19 (Olomouc: Univerzita Palackého, 2008), 57–58, 141; Libor Jan, “Rodové fundace moravských Lucemburků na pomezí zbožnosti a reprezentace,” in Morava v časech markraběte Jošta, 130; Tomáš Černušák, “Řeholní domy,” in Dějiny Brna, vol. 2, Středověké město, ed. Libor Jan (Brno: Statutární město Brno and Archiv města Brna, 2013), 730; most recently Ondřej Schmidt, “Mezi Litomyšlí, Brnem a Concordií: glosy k církevní kariéře biskupa Augustina († 1392),” Brno v minulosti a dnes 32 (2019) (in print). Thus, I have to correct my earlier belief, expressed in the Czech version of this book, where I referred to Augustine erroneously as “Augustine of Brno.” 113  Cogo, “Il patriarcato d’Aquileia,” 293–294; Paschini, Storia del Friuli, 633; Bueno de Mesquita, Giangaleazzo Visconti, 81; Kohl, Padua under the Carrara, 249–250. 114  This emerges i.a. from a complaint by the commune of Marano addressed to Cividale and edited in Parlamento friulano, I/2, 348–349, no. 340: “… prout vobis est notum cum voluntate d. nostri patriarche fuimus in concordia cum Venetis stare cum eis pacifice etc. …” (5th July 1388). Cf. Paschini, Storia del Friuli, 635: “Il patriarca […] badò bene a mantenersi neutrale per non offrire pretesto ai contendenti di ritenersi i luoghi che avevano accupato e di occuparne di nuovo.” 115  Cronaca Carrarese di Galeazzo e Bartolomeo Gatari, RIS n.s. XVII/1a, 399.

Patriarch

97

Cividalese to restore it to Federico di Savorgnano.116 Later, Margrave Jobst also intervened in the affairs of the patriarchate: in Venice his envoys presented a recommendation of Patriarch John as well as a declaration of hostility (diffida) to be sent to Carrara. Both were very well received; however, the idea of an alliance suggested to the Republic of St. Mark by Jobst was met with indifference.117 3

Arrival in the Patriarchate and the New Government of Udine

In late August 1388, John finally embarked on his long-awaited journey to Italy. In the preceding period, the ground had been quite successfully prepared for his arrival in the patriarchate. All in all, Marshal Nicholas of Bukůvka’s mission had gone well: some kind of peace finally prevailed in the land and most of the occupied territory of the patriarchate had also been recovered from Francesco Carrara. Very soon, however, it was to become clear that this apparent calm was only an illusion. At the beginning of September, the new patriarch showed up in Vienna,118 and from there he continued south-west following the usual route via Villach and Tarvisio,119 arriving in the Alpine town of Malborghetto on 12th September. There, he also received a new Udinese delegation, who requested that he come to their city as soon as possible, to which John gave a rather reserved response.120 116  The doge’s letter to Cividale in BCC, ACC, Antica cancelleria del comune—fondo Lorenzo D’Orlandi, b. 4, no. 81, edited in Benedetto Vollo, I Savorgnani. Storia (Venice: G. Cecchini, 1856), appendice, 222–223 (10th August 1388). The capture of the Savorgnano is also mentioned by Historia Belli Forojuliensis, AIM III, col. 1217. See further Luigi Zanutto, “I Savorgnani di Cividale. Episodio sulle ‘milizie di ventura,’” Memorie storiche cividalesi 1 (1905), 45; for the long dispute over the castle, see Pier Silverio Leicht, “L’esilio di Tristano di Savorgnano,” in Leicht, Studi di Storia friulana, 134–135, note 2; Casella, I Savorgnan, 27–28. 117  Cessi, “Venezia e la prima caduta,” 333–334; cf. ASVen, Senato, Secreti, reg. R (E), fol. 32v (20th August 1388). 118  Di Manzano, Annali del Friuli, vol. 6, 22 (2nd September 1388); BCU, FP, ms. 899, Raccolta Bianchi, vol. 53, no. 5394 (5th September 1388). John’s letter announcing his arrival reached the city the next day: ibid., no. 5395. 119  For this important trade route, see Martin Štefánik, Obchodná vojna král’a Žigmunda proti Benátkam. Stredoveký boj o trhy medzi uhorsko-nemeckým král’om a Republikou svätého Marka (Bratislava: Historický ústav SAV, 2004), 22–23. 120  John’s letter to Udine is preserved in BNM, cod. lat. XIV, 102 (= 2805), no. 40, edited in Cogo, “Il patriarcato d’Aquileia,” documenti, 320, no. 7: “… presertim inter ceteras vestrorum ambasiatorum predictorum preces nobis fuit cum instancia supplicatum, ut immediate ad vos dirigere deberemus gressus nostros; quibus peticionibus vestris libentissime inclinassemus aures vestras, si non obstarent alia negocia, statum et honorem ac profectum Patrie concernencia et promovencia, que iam vobis scribere esset nimis longum. Quare

98

Chapter 5

It is worth adding a brief comment at this juncture. It is important to be aware that the patriarchate of Aquileia did not have a permanent capital in the true sense of the word. In the Late Middle Ages, the city of Aquileia, the spiritual centre of the patriarchate, was merely the ruins of the celebrated ancient metropolis it had been.121 It was the site of the huge basilica with the throne of St. Hermagoras, where the patriarchs were formally installed in office. Then there was Cividale, ancient seat of the Lombard dukes of Friuli, where the patriarchs assumed their temporal rule. In the fourteenth century, however, they generally had their seat in the dynamically developing city of Udine, strategically located roughly in the middle of the country.122 However, in spite of its undeniable importance, not even Udine constituted an “official” capital—the patriarchs also resided in a number of other places, including Gemona and San Vito al Tagliamento. The continuity of Udine as the most important centre of the country and a traditional buttress for the patriarchs had also been interrupted by the conflict with the previous patriarch, Cardinal d’Alençon, who had sought a natural counterbalance and ally in Cividale. What stance the new patriarch would take towards the rival communes therefore took on cardinal importance, and it is against this background that we must view the flurry of activity from the Udinese as they tried to win John over to their side before his arrival in the country. John’s itinerary in the days which followed is not entirely clear due to the fragmentary nature of the sources.123 We know for sure that on 13th Septem­ ber John and his Bohemian retinue—which included his counsellor Prior desideramus, ut nobis nolitis egre ferre, si mox ad vestram dilectionem non direxerimus gressus nostros, cum hec fiant propter comodum et statum Patrie. Nichilominus tamen in brevi vos volumus propriis obtutibus contemplari, et quia negocia Patrie cum vestro consilio duximus dirigenda, intencionisque nostre est velle modos exquirere, quibus mediantibus tam nobiles, quam burgenses et plebegii in pacis possent spirare pulchritudine.” Cf. ibid., 296, note 1; Paschini, Storia del Friuli, 636. Some days before that, John had received another Udinese embassy in Arnoldstein. See BCU, FP, ms. 899, Raccolta Bianchi, vol. 53, no. 5397 (10th September 1388). 121  A succinct expression of the situation in Aquileia in the Late Middle Ages can be found in a source published as Urbes, Castra Oppida, et Arces Forojulienses ex Codice MS., ed. Bernardo Maria de Rubeis, MEA (Strasbourg: n.p., 1740), appendix, no. VII, 19: “Aquileja, civitas, olim caput Venetiarum, nunc desolata.” 122  See Elisabetta Scarton, “L’amministrazione civica nel Trecento,” in Storia di Cividale nel Medioevo, 307–339; for the residences of the patriarchs, see Gabriele Caiazza, “Le residenze dei patriarchi di Aquileia (secoli XIII–XIV)” (PhD thesis, Università degli Studi di Udine, 2015), esp. 123–235. 123  Cf. the rather different conclusions by Marchesi, “Giovanni di Moravia,” 120, Cogo, “Il patriarcato d’Aquileia,” 296, note 1, Paschini, Storia del Friuli, 636, and Schwedler, “Moravia (di) Giovanni,” 574.

Patriarch

99

Augustine of Litomyšl124—entered the country via the Canal del Ferro welcomed by crowds of people and were presented with numerous gifts. As the evidence from Udine shows, the whole ceremony of the first adventus patriarchae was carefully orchestrated. Among the decisions of the city council, there are long lists of citizens elected and sent to the patriarch as ambassadors, baldachin bearers and trumpeters, while others were to present gifts, which consisted of several silver liturgical vessels, wine and confections, or simply be present and honour their new ruler.125 The new patriarch also received congratulations from the Republic of Venice, which sent its own delegation.126 John immediately started to act. First of all, he sent word to Udine via messengers for the council of the five deputies that had controlled the city since 1385 to be disbanded and at the same time for the customs duty on flour to be abolished.127 After accepting an oath of allegiance from the Cividalese representatives,128 he may actually have gone to Cividale itself; this is supported by the Capitula contra patriarcham Johannem, according to which John did not wish to enter Udine until the council of the five deputies had been deposed.129 John then underwent the traditional enthronement ritual in the duomo of Cividale, attended by many noblemen and clergymen, whereby he formally assumed temporal rule. Although there do not appear to be any extant sources regarding John’s enthronement, it is possible to piece together the probable 124  For the reference to Augustine’s welcome in Gemona, see BCG, ACG, Quaderni dei Massari, reg. 415, fol. 25r (20th September 1388). 125  John’s arrival is documented by the annals of the Moggio Monastery, a copy of which can be found in BNM, cod. lat. XIV, 134 (= 4285), fol. 178v, and BCU, FP, ms. 899, Raccolta Bianchi, vol. 53, no. 5398: “MCCCLXXXVIII idibus Septembris [i.e. 13th September] Iohannes, marchio de Moravia, patriarcha, introivit Forumiulii et transivit per istud Canale.” See also the decisions of the Udine city council concerning the welcome and gifts in BCU, ms. 899, Raccolta Bianchi, vol. 53, no. 5396 (7th September 1388); no. 5399 (14th September 1388), and also Nonnullorum Patriarcharum Vitae, MEA, appendix, no. V, 16. More information about John’s arrival is offered by the (chronologically somewhat confused) Gemona books of accounts: BCG, ACG, Quaderni dei Massari, reg. 415, fols. 23r– 25v (September 1388). 126  ASVen, Senato, Secreti, reg. R (E), fol. 35r: “… expedit pro honore nostri dominii visitare reverendissimum dominum patriarcham Aquilegiensem, qui venit in Patriam, de nostra ambaxiata …” (17th September 1388). 127   B CU, FP, ms. 899, Raccolta Bianchi, vol. 53, no. 5401 (15th September 1388). See Cusin, Il confine orientale, vol. 1, 171–172. 128  Di Manzano, Annali del Friuli, vol. 6, 14 (16th September 1388). 129  Capitula contra patriarcham Johannem, art. 2; implicitly also Historia Belli Forojuliensis, AIM III, col. 1215, and the later sixteenth-century treatise Vitae patriarcharum Aquile­ jensium auctore Antonio Bellono Utinensi, ed. Ludovico Antonio Muratori, RIS XVI (Milan: Societas Palatina, 1730), col. 63, which, however, may just be an interpretation of Ailini’s chronicle.

100

Chapter 5

course of the ritual on the basis of analogy: the new patriarch was welcomed at the gates by representatives of the city, and from there the procession continued to the patriarchal palace. Throughout this time the ceremonial sword of the patriarchs in its white sheath was carried before the patriarch by a member of the Boiani family, to whom this prerogative traditionally belonged. After he had said a prayer in the chapel of his new palace, the prelate was shown to the adjacent duomo and was ceremonially seated on a marble throne located in the apse. There he accepted the sword of the patriarchs from the dean of the Cividale chapter (or another authorized person) as a symbol of secular government, which he ostentatiously showed to the people before ceremoniously sliding it back into its sheath.130 At the same time, the patriarch vowed on the gospel to rule fairly and not to violate the rights and privileges of anyone. This, by contrast, seems to have been a relatively new custom, which had apparently only been introduced in the days of Philippe d’Alençon.131 The new ruler then received the traditional oaths of allegiance from leading representatives of the nobility, the clergy and the cities.132 Within a year and a day of his accession to office, every imperial bishop was then to receive the episcopal regalia from the head of the Holy Roman Empire; however, this custom was not always strictly observed.133 Furthermore, the patriarchs of Aquileia seem to have been granted the right to

130  The enthronement of Patriarch Marquard of Randeck is described in a notarial instrument edited in De Rubeis, Monumenta Ecclesiae Aquilejensis, cols. 948–950: “… dedit in manibus reverendissimi in Christo patris et d. d. Marquardi Dei gratia sanctae sedis Aquilegensis patriarchae dignissimi, hodie primo Civitatem ingressi, sedentis post ipsum altare super sedem patriarchalem, quemdam ensem evaginatum in signum dominii temporalis. Quem ensem idem dominus patriarcha viriliter accepit, et in vaginam quamdam albam imposuit …” (4th June 1366). The ritual is also reported by Nicoletti in his treatise Leggi e costumi dei Furlani, part of which is edited in Di Manzano, Annali del Friuli, vol. 2 (Udine: Trombetti-Murero, 1858), 207–208. In another work of his, dedicated to John of Moravia, Nicoletti claims that the sword was to be handed over to the patriarch in the duomo by Corrado Boiani of Cividale: ibid., vol. 6, 22. During the enthronement of Louis of Teck on 12th July 1412, this task was carried out by the count of Gorizia, acting as the commissioner of King Sigismund: Parlamento friulano, I/2, 437–438, no. 477. See further Menis, Storia del Friuli, 204–205. 131  Pier Silverio Leicht, “La promissione del patriarca aquileiese,” MSF 22 (1926), 73–77. 132  The text of the traditional oath was recorded by Nicoletti. See Di Manzano, Annali del Friuli, vol. 2, 208. 133  Ivan Hlaváček, “Zastavení u udílení biskupských regálií a temporálií Karlem IV. Zároveň příspěvek k otázce pozdněstředověkých deperdit,” in Lesk královského majestátu ve středověku. Pocta Prof. PhDr. Františku Kavkovi, CSc. k nedožitým 85. narozeninám, ed. Lenka Bobková and Mlada Holá (Prague and Litomyšl: Paseka, 2005), 197–203.

Patriarch

101

accept the investiture only “quando imperator in partibus Italie existit.”134 As is well known, Wenceslas IV had never come to Italy and therefore it is hardly surprising that there is no evidence of John undergoing this ritual either. Although historical research commonly has it that at the same time John visited the basilica of Aquileia, where he was to assume the spiritual rule as bishop and metropolitan, this does not appear to be the case.135 On the one hand, this assertion is not backed up by any sources—with the exception of a much later record by Marcantonio Nicoletti from the sixteenth century136— whereas the contemporary Capitula contra patriarcham Johannem explicitly mention that John visited the basilica in Aquileia for the first time a year and a half after his arrival in the patriarchate, i.e. in spring 1390.137 Although this is a very tendentious source, this kind of information appears too detailed to have been entirely fabricated. Furthermore, it is known that John convened a general assembly for March of that year in Monfalcone, only a few kilometres from Aquileia,138 which means that his visit to the basilica there could have taken place on that occasion. If this hypothesis is correct, it would mean that John thereby inadvertently created a pretext for the legitimacy of his rule as bishop to be called into question. Shortly after his enthronement in Cividale (?), John convened a session of parliament in Gemona and, having received the oath of allegiance from representatives of the city,139 he then finally headed to Udine, where he was 134  “I memoriali ‘Nobilis Patriae Forojulii’ dell’anno 1386 (Lucifer Aquilejensis),” ed. Arnold Luschin von Ebengreuth, AT, n.s., 16 (1890), lxxix. By contrast, Hlaváček, “Zastavení,” 200 speaks of some documents from around 1360 by means of which the patriarchs were granted the right to postpone the reception of the investiture. 135  The assertion that Patriarch John took up his office in Aquileia on 16th September 1388 was voiced for the first time by Zanutto, “I Savorgnani di Cividale,” 45, with reference to Nicoletti. This statement was then adopted by the entire historiography. See Paschini, Storia del Friuli, 636 and 656, note 29; Leicht, “La giovinezza di Tristano,” 14; Schwedler, “Moravia (di) Giovanni,” 574. 136  Di Manzano, Annali del Friuli, vol. 6, 22. However, there is always the possibility that Nicoletti could have been drawing on other sources that have not survived. 137  Capitula contra patriarcham Johannem, art. 24: “Quod per annum cum dimidio stetit in Patria, antequam pati posset suam sanctam Aquilegensem et cathedralem ecclesiam visitare. Cumque sibi opponeretur per subditos […] illuc de mense martii proxime preteriti accessit …” 138   B CG, ACG, Lettere autografe, vol. 347, no. 128, edited in Parlamento friulano, I/2, 357–358, no. 356 (7th March 1390). 139  Parlamento friulano, I/2, 351, no. 342 (17th September 1388); 351, no. 343 (20th Sep‑ tember 1388). For the oath of allegiance, see BCU, FP, ms. 899, Raccolta Bianchi, vol. 54, no. 5492 (20th September [1388]). In the Bianchi collection, the document is dated 20th September 1389. However, this is clearly an error, as this act is to be dated to September 1388, when John arrived in the patriarchate.

102

Chapter 5

ceremonially welcomed.140 Via his vicar, Abbot Bondi, the new patriarch had a general city assembly (Arrengo) convened,141 which met on 26th September in the duomo of Udine and, with the consent of the people “nemine penitus discrepante,” had a new government elected, which was now to consist of twelve representatives of the guilds, each of whom was to have one additional advisor. These twenty-four representatives were to answer directly to the patriarch and report their every move to him. It is significant that the new councillors tended to come from the lower or middle classes of urban society, and no members of the original wealthy oligarchy were to be found among them. Three days after that, at another assembly held on St. Michael’s Day, when councillors had traditionally been appointed every year, John announced that the government of the city was fully in the hands of the new council, and the original city council should no longer be elected.142 John justified the reform in “populist” terms as an attempt to install a new, just government for the benefit of the poor population.143 Thus it was really about the creation of a kind of “government of the people” (governo del popolo), which was to work closely with the patriarch and to be based on mass support from the lower social classes of the city. This understandably aroused the disapproval of the former ruling elite (the Savorgnano and their clients), against whom these measures were clearly aimed. The discontent of this group is reflected in some contemporary sources, which emanated from this heated 140   B CU, FP, ms. 899, Raccolta Bianchi, vol. 53, no. 5402 (23rd September 1388); cf. Capitula contra patriarcham Johannem, art. 3. 141  At that time, the government of Udine was composed of the general assembly of citizens (Arrengo), which elected the city council (Consiglio), and the executive council of the five deputies (Deputati ad regimen Terre), suppressed by John shortly beforehand. See Leicht, Breve storia, 172; for more details Joppi, “Istituzioni politiche ed amministrative,” xxvii–xxxv. According to Cusin, Il confine orientale, vol. 1, 171, the Arrengo had not been convened since 1385. 142  For the convocation of the assembly, see BCU, FP, ms. 899, Raccolta Bianchi, vol. 53, no. 5403 (25th September 1388). The record about the election of the new Udine city council was edited and analysed by De Biasio, “Il patriarca d’Aquileia”; an older edition in Vincenzo Joppi, “Documenti per la Prefazione,” in Statuti e ordinamenti del Comune di Udine, 148–149, no. 12. See further Joppi, “Istituzioni politiche ed amministrative,” xxxv– xxxvi; Cusin, Il confine orientale, vol. 1, 171–172; Leicht, Breve storia, 172–173; Paschini, Storia del Friuli, 636–637. 143  De Biasio, “Il patriarca d’Aquileia,” appendice, 192–194: “… si aliquis pauper seu aliquis miserabilis persona opprimeretur quoquo modo et molestaretur a divite et quod non posset ius suum ottinere [sic!; obtinere] et consequi contra talem divitem et quod super his, idem reverendus dominus noster intendebat una cum dictis duodecim, paterno et benigno affectu providere et efficaciter agere, quod pauper, sicut dives iure suo posset gaudere …” Cf. ibid., 188–189.

Patriarch

103

atmosphere: the chronicle of Giovanni Ailini, who describes the newly elected government as a “rabble” and also characteristically attributes the reforms to the activities of the Cividalese and Francesco Carrara;144 and even more so the Capitula contra patriarcham Johannem, whose author accuses John of trying to use this as a way to enslave the entire country.145 The motives and purpose of John’s reforms have been correctly identified by the historiography, and in particular by Fabio Cusin: the new patriarch was well aware that Udine was a power centre, without which it was not possible to rule successfully (the recent failure of Philippe d’Alençon was eloquent proof of this) and which, in order to maintain the integrity of the patriarchate, had to be subordinated to his power and used as a base from which to govern the entire country. He was not therefore attempting, as the Capitula contra patriarcham Johannem and later historiographical tradition saw it, to destroy Udine and put Cividale in its place—quite the reverse. In order to achieve this goal, however, it was necessary to turn Udine into a loyal pillar of support for his rule, which first and foremost meant removing the Savorgnano family and their supporters from the city’s administration.146 From the beginning, that was also the intention pursued—and, it must be said, very energetically and successfully—in the first moves made by the new patriarch: having neutralized the original power structures that ruled according to the will of the Savorgnano, he appointed a new council loyal to him, while by abolishing the duty on flour he was trying to win favour with the sizeable

144  H  istoria Belli Forojuliensis, AIM III, col. 1217: “Dominus patriarcha male informatus contra Utinenses, et specialiter contra dominum Federicum de Savorgnano, partem Civitatensium cepit. Finaliter venit in Utino, et ostendit se velle consilium Utini transmutare. Et sic fecit, et deputavit quosdam ribaldos artifices numero duodecim ad regimen terrae Utini. Partes erant inter cives terrae magnae, unde ipsum dominum Federicum militem multum coepit odio habere. Hoc totum dicebatur facere inductum domini Paduae […] et inductu Civitatensium.” 145  Capitula contra patriarcham Johannem, art. 3: “… ipse totum regimen consiliumque magnum voluit etiam removere ponendo duodecim viros artistas totius terre rectores sibi sive juste sive injuste precipienti totaliter et ad plenum obedientes. Sicque sub illorum pretextu rigore tyrannico totam Patriam et specialiter terram Utini acriter conquassabat sublevando malos et opprimendo bonos et specialiter exaltando omnes rebelles Aquilegensis ecclesie, qui insteterunt domino Francisco de Carraria, ut hanc Patriam sue tyrannice submitteret servituti …” 146  Cusin, Il confine orientale, vol. 1, 167–173, esp. 171: “… Giovanni scendeva ad Udine, non con l’intenzione di spodestarla per dare la supremazia a Cividale, come l’accusarono i suoi nemici, ma per abbattere i Savorgnano, farsi signore di Udine col controllare il governo comunale e da Udine dominare di tutto il Friuli.” See also De Biasio, “Il patriarca d’Aquileia,” 186–187; Leicht, Breve storia, 172–173.

104

Chapter 5

artisan classes, which were just beginning to make their presence felt.147 Despite the clear dominance of the Savorgnano, even Udine was far from being a homogenous whole in terms of opinions, since it was also home to a group of opponents of the existing regime, who just a few months earlier had organized an unsuccessful conspiracy with the aim of assassinating Federico di Savorgnano148 and upon whose support John’s rule could rely. Seen from a broader perspective, it is also possible to add that John’s reforms in Udine were a rare example of an attempt to get rid of a family ruling over a city (in this case only de facto) by making use of the communal institutions, that is by “legal means” instead of violence.149 However, as will soon become apparent, this was only one of the strategies pursued by the patriarch which was intended to lead to the removal of the Savorgnano faction. During those days, John received a new Venetian delegation in Udine. The ambassadors assured the new patriarch of the Republic’s best intentions towards the patriarchate, declaring that the current war against the lord of Padua was being waged for its own good and in the interests of preserving its liberty and independence (naturally, they said nothing of their own plans to acquire Treviso). The Venetian plenipotentiaries then requested, among other things, that John close the access roads to Carrara, thus cutting him off from aid and supplies; at the same time, they encouraged him to hand back the castle of Savorgnano, which had been usurped by Francesco Nascinguerra of Cividale, to Federico di Savorgnano. Venice’s main intention was thus to extricate the new patriarch from the influence of Francesco Carrara, to whom he was becoming increasingly close, and, if possible, to form an alliance with him. However, John repeatedly adopted a noncommittal or negative stance towards these offers, which can be explained by the Republic’s close links to Udine and the Savorgnano: these were precisely the kind of tendencies to which John was trying to put a stop.150 On the other hand, Margrave Jobst, supported by 147  Degrassi, “Il Friuli tra continuità,” 283–284; Leicht, Breve storia, 172–173. Cf. Marchesi, “Giovanni di Moravia,” 122–123 who attempted to interpret John’s reforms in a somewhat idealistic manner. However, his arguments were rejected by Cogo, “Il patriarcato d’Aquileia,” 298, note 1, who concisely observed that the new councillors were not supposed to be anything more than “instruments in his [i.e. patriarch’s] hands.” 148  See Paschini, Storia del Friuli, 633; Cessi, “Venezia e la prima caduta,” 320. 149  See Jean-Claude Maire Vigueur, “La cacciata del tiranno,” in Tiranni e tirannide nel Trecento italiano, ed. Andrea Zorzi, Italia comunale e signorile 5 (Rome: Viella, 2013), 154–156. The author points out a remarkable event that occurred in Imola in 1365, when the city council attempted to overthrow the signore of the city, Azzo Alidosi, and return to the former communal government. This attempt, however, did not succeed. 150  Detailed instructions for the Venetian ambassadors, partly in response to John’s earlier embassy to Venice led by Doimo di Castello, in ASVen, Senato, Secreti, reg. R (E), fols. 36r–

Patriarch

105

the patriarch and a number of nobles close to Cividale and Francesco Carrara, managed to induce Venice to release Count Morando di Porcia, an important Friulian ally of the Paduan lord taken captive during the war.151 The patriarch did not content himself with simply removing the Savorgnano and their followers from public life, but apparently went on to use violent repression, which even Francesco Carrara discouraged him from doing.152 An important role in the events that followed was played by Elisabetta de Rissau, stepmother of Federico di Savorgnano, who was originally from Bohemia and had come to the patriarchate with the retinue of Patriarch Nicholas, whereupon she was married to Francesco di Savorgnano.153 After his death, Elisabetta and her children became embroiled in protracted inheritance disputes with her stepson Federico, who was from Francesco’s first marriage and is supposed to have resorted to violence against her and her daughter Sofia. When Elisabetta decided to seek the protection of the count of Gorizia and King Wenceslas, Federico had her taken captive and imprisoned in a tower in his castle of Pinzano for eight months. At the same time, he informed her daughter that if she did not hand over to him all the estates she had inherited, he would let her mother die. Sofia and subsequently also her mother eventually acceded to these threats and handed over their inheritance to Federico. After these dreadful events, Elisabetta set out for the Holy Land to visit the Holy Sepulchre, and when she learned on her return that the new patriarch, John of Moravia, had arrived in the country, she sought justice from him.154 37r (24th September 1388); see further I libri commemoriali, vol. 3, lib. VIII, 192, no. 290 (24th September 1388), and the erudite commentary by Cessi, “Venezia e la prima caduta,” 334–335; cf. also Brunettin, “L’evoluzione impossibile,” 220. 151  Verci, Storia della Marca, vol. 17, documenti, 10–11, no. 1910 (1388); I libri commemoriali, vol. 3, lib. VIII, 193–194, nos. 293 and 296 (6th October and 13th November 1388); Paschini, Storia del Friuli, 635 and 656, note 25. 152  See Capitula contra patriarcham Johannem, art. 5 and passim. Carrara’s letter to Patriarch John in BCU, FP, ms. 899, Raccolta Bianchi, vol. 53, no. 5417 (17th October 1388). 153  By contrast, in a document from 1385, she is referred to as “… Elizabeth […] de genere nobilium de Rulano …” See Valentinelli, Regesta documentorum Germaniae, 119, no. 320. As far as the Czech sources are concerned, it was possible to trace only a certain Elisabeth of Říčany, mentioned in 1334 as the wife of Michael of Zbraslav: CDM VII, 22–23, no. 30. In 1354, however, she is documented as a widow, at the bishop’s castle of Modřice, and therefore she cannot be identified with Elisabetta: RBM V/4, ed. Jana Zachová (Dolní Břežany: Scriptorium, 2004), 850–851, no. 1942. 154  The events are thoroughly described in an extensive judicial protocol in BCU, FP, ms. 899, Raccolta Bianchi, vol. 53, no. 5419 (22th October 1388), as well as in a later deposition by Sofia’s husband Venceslao di Spilimbergo ibid., partially edited in Vollo, I Savorgnani, appendice, 253–256 (1412). Moreover, there are depositions from other witnesses in the Bianchi collection. See also Marchesi, “Giovanni di Moravia,” 125–126. Furthermore, there

106

Chapter 5

On the basis of her complaint, the patriarch initiated legal proceedings against Federico di Savorgnano through his marshal, which resulted in Federico fleeing from Udine and taking refuge in the castle of Pinzano. However, it appears that other supporters of his also fled the city along with him to escape persecution. Federico failed to appear before the court and had himself represented by a procurator, who produced evidently falsified documents of an earlier date, in which the Udine council of the five deputies supposedly ordered Federico to imprison Elisabetta, since she intended to take recourse to the count of Gorizia, thereby causing harm to the patriarchate. This served as proof (or rather a pretext) that Federico had only been following orders from the government of the time, due to which—in spite of vehement protests by Marshal Nicholas—he was acquitted.155 Despite dubious attempts at reconciliation,156 however, the patriarch did not end his repressive campaign, even after Federico’s withdrawal from Udine. The first victims were two influential individuals who, among other things, also featured in the conflict between Elisabetta and Federico. First, the patriarch had the seventy-year-old Detalmo Andriotti executed. He had been a member of the original council of the five deputies, which John had disbanded, and also a loyal supporter of the Savorgnano. The pretext used was a murder that Detalmo had committed thirty years earlier on the territory of the duke of Austria, for which he had been granted absolution long before. In spite of that, he was charged and sentenced to death by the new government—which was undoubtedly only carrying out John’s wishes—and was beheaded in the is a letter of recommendation for Elisabetta which was issued by Empress Elisabeth: Valentinelli, Regesta documentorum Germaniae, 119, no. 320 (4th January 1385). 155   B CU, FP, ms. 899, Raccolta Bianchi, vol. 53, no. 5419. Cf. the summary in Marchesi, “Giovanni di Moravia,” 125–126. Federico’s withdrawal from Udine to Pinzano is linked with the trial by Historia Belli Forojuliensis, AIM III, col. 1217: “Domina Elisabeth, relicta olim nobilis domini Francisci patris ipsius domini Federici, ejus noverca, lamentabatur domini patriarchae contra ipsum Federicum. Ex quo ipse dominus Federicus secessit in castro suo Pinzani, non audens in Utino moram ducere. Domina Elisabeth predicta habebat in curia domini patriarchae quemdam militem suum consanguineum, una cum ei instantem domino patriarchae.” Similarly Nonnullorum Patriarcharum Vitae, MEA, appendix, no. V, 16, even claiming that Elisabetta was John’s relative. See also Capitula contra patriarcham Johannem, art. 5: “Quod ipse contra omnes bonos viros terre Utini et specialiter cupientes sub libertate vivere usus est gravibus et minatoriis verbis et specialiter contra generosum militem dominum Federicum de Savorgnano […] Unde factum est, quod ipse cum pluribus aliis se a terra Utini absentaverunt fugientes ejus rabiem crudelissimam.” 156   B CU, FP, ms. 899, Raccolta Bianchi, vol. 53, no. 5423 (26th October 1388). Udinese envoys were sent “… pro concordio tractando inter ipsum [i.e. Federico di Savorgnano] et dominum patriarcham …” See Paschini, Storia del Friuli, 637.

Patriarch

107

square in Udine in the presence of the patriarch.157 It should be added, however, that according to some sources Patriarch John had accepted Andriotti as his familiaris shortly before that. Ailini in particular implies some momentary rupture between Federico di Savorgnano and Andriotti which was supposed to have indirectly led to his death.158 In addition, John allegedly had Nicolò Manini, an influential notary and banker of Florentine origin (who was also a staunch supporter of Federico di Savorgnano as well as a Venetian citizen), captured and tortured. However, when news of his imprisonment reached the city, the burghers revolted and went to demand his release. Under pressure, the patriarch did indeed comply, and was subsequently forced to retreat to his castle of Soffumbergo.159 Thus, it seems clear that the patriarch generally failed in his attempt to win the support of the majority of the Udinese, since most of the populares remained loyal to the Savorgnano. However, even though John fled from Udine before a crowd of angry citizens, a good many of his supporters remained there.160 Although John’s repressive measures may come across as mere fits of cruelty and bloodlust, which is the impression given by reading some of the contemporary accounts, in reality this was probably a deliberate and unscrupulous political manoeuvre, by which the patriarch intended to eliminate the opposition. For that matter, similar practices had been employed by his predecessor in the patriarchal see, Nicholas of Luxembourg. However, John evidently paid the price for the excessive harshness, but also inconsistency, with which he pursued the reforms and the establishment of a new regime in Udine. It 157  For the events, though in a biased way, see Historia Belli Forojuliensis, AIM III, cols. 1217– 1218; Capitula contra patriarcham Johannem, art. 8. The verdict of the Udine city council in Joppi, “Documenti per la Prefazione,” 149–151, no. 13 (6th November 1388). Fifteen councillors voted for Andriotti’s death, six against it. 158  See both sources cited in the previous note. Ailini even remarked: “Qui [i.e. Detalmo Andriotti] si stetisset in dilectione ipsius Federici, non sic factum foret de eo.” 159  Historia Belli Forojuliensis, AIM III, col. 1217: “Exivit unus, et venit in plateam, dicens populo: ‘Nicolaus Manini retentus est per dominum carceratus!’ Hoc audito totus populus ascendens castrum, petierunt Nicolaum, eorum vicinum, sibi dari. […] Visoque furore civium dominus ipsum Nicolaum eis dedit, et subito de terra recessit cum quatuor sociis furibunde et cum iniquis verbis contra cives, et ivit tunc in Soffumbergo. Post haec ira major crevit inter ipsum et cives.” Similarly the Capitula contra patriarcham Johannem, art. 6, which dubiously explain Manini’s incarceration as being due only to John’s desire for money. See further Leicht, Breve storia, 173–174; for Nicolò and his family, see Elisabetta Scarton, “Ritorno al passato. I Manin: dal contado fiorentino alle glorie della Serenissima,” Nuova Rivista Storica 102, no. 2 (2018), 611–636. 160  This is suggested, among other things, by a remark in Historia Belli Forojuliensis, AIM III, col. 1217, according to which there were still “… aliqui tenentes partem domini …” in Udine. This was pointed out by Cusin, Il confine orientale, vol. 1, 175.

108

Chapter 5

would also appear that not all of the steps he took were “fully implemented”; for example, as Fabio Cusin observed in this connection, he appointed as his vicar general in temporalibus the educated lawyer, Andrea Monticoli of Udine, a man of rather moderate views, who was associated with the earlier power structures.161 At the end of November and start of December, the military campaign against Padua by Giangaleazzo Visconti and Venice, which had been joined by the Duke of Austria, came to an end. Under the pressure of the attacking forces, which conquered one after another of Carrara’s strongholds, and the animosity of his own people, Francesco Novello was forced to sign a capitulation, while his father later surrendered in Treviso. Even before that, however, he appears to have returned all the remaining strongholds that he still held in the patriarchate.162 In accordance with the prior agreement, Visconti occupied Padua, Bassano del Grappa, Feltre and Belluno, while Treviso, Ceneda and the surrounding area went to the Republic of St. Mark. This turn of events triggered a wave of joy in Udine and Gemona over the fall of the longstanding enemy.163 In the meantime, John relocated from Soffumbergo to Cividale, whose inhabitants now became his natural allies against the Udinese rebels.164 Despite the unstable internal situation in the patriarchate, he did not neglect his patriarchal duties, since in mid-December a new coin was brought into circulation, 161  Cusin, Il confine orientale, vol. 1, 174–176. The charter of appointment for Monticoli in BCU, FP, ms. 899, Raccolta Bianchi, vol. 53, no. 5410 (8th October 1388). For Monticoli, see Vittoria Masutti, “Monticoli Andrea, vicario patriarcale,” in Nuovo Liruti, vol. 1/2, 563–567. 162  Chronicon Patavinum italica lingua conscriptum, RIS XVII, col. 688: “Eranvi ancora molti gentiluomini Furlani venuti per torre licenza da lui, e a tutti restituì le loro fortezze acquistate nella Patria.” Ibid., col. 768: “… quando suo padre [i.e. Francesco il Vecchio] si partì da Treviso, egli mandò suoi messi al detto patriarca ad offerirgli Caneva, Portogruaro, S. Vido, et altre fortezze del Friuli e quelle liberamente gli diede …” See Cogo, “Il patriarcato d’Aquileia,” 295. 163  For the whole paragraph, see Cogo, “Il patriarcato d’Aquileia,” 294–295; Paschini, Storia del Friuli, 635–636; Bueno de Mesquita, Giangaleazzo Visconti, 81–82; Kohl, Padua under the Carrara, 250–253; for the festivities in Udine and Gemona, see Verci, Storia della Marca, vol. 17, documenti, 14, no. 1913 (24th December 1388); BCG, ACG, Quaderni dei Massari, reg. 415, fol. 28v (25th [?] December 1388). 164  Nonnullorum Patriarcharum Vitae, MEA, appendix, no. V, 16: “Et patriarcha recessit Soffumberch, et ad Civitatem Austriam, et ibi permanens per aliquod tempus.” There is also a copy of the undated conditions according to which the Cividalese and their allies were to take the oath of allegiance before John’s vicar general: BCU, FP, ms. 899, Raccolta Bianchi, vol. 53, no. 5430. Bianchi dated the document to this period; however, given its content, it actually seems to have been written before the peace in July 1388 because, among other things, there are remarks concerning Francesco Carrara’s mercenaries in Cividale.

Patriarch

109

which was an important means of the ruler’s representation.165 There are two known types of coinage from John’s rule: the first has the Moravian chequered eagle on the obverse, thus emphasizing his affiliation to the Luxembourg secundogeniture, while the second has only a helmet and shield with the eagle of Aquileia. On the reverse of both types of coin is a depiction of St. Hermagoras as protector and patron of the patriarchate. This iconography therefore captured John’s situation quite well, positioned between this ecclesiastical principality, the home Moravian dynasty and the Empire. It is interesting to note that John’s Aquileian deniers have also turned up in Bohemia, which confirms the (hardly surprising) existence of some trade links.166 The Udinese soon became aware of the dire consequences of a rift with the patriarch and sent a delegation to him to ask for forgiveness but also to request permission for Federico di Savorgnano to return to the city.167 Gemona also attempted to settle the malanconia which prevailed between the patriarch and Udine.168 The Venetian Republic, troubled by the internal conflicts in the patriarchate, got involved in the matter and charged its experienced diplomat Gabriele Emo with the task of acting as mediator.169 At the end of December 1388, with the attendance of Prior Augustine of Litomyšl and the vicar general in spiritualibus Marquard of Randeck (nephew of the former patriarch of the same name), an agreement was reached whereby the Udinese undertook to pay John 4,000 florins resulting from a certain penalty, while Federico was also to recompense him with a further 2,000 for withdrawing from

165   B CU, FP, ms. 899, Raccolta Bianchi, vol. 53, no. 5431 (10th December 1388). 166  See Italian Coins in the National Museum of Prague, vol. 1/1, Old Collection, Middle Ages and the Early Modern Period (IX–XVI centuries), ed. Federico Gambacorta and Luboš Polanský, Collectio Numismatica Musei Nationalis 1 (Prague: Národní muzeum, 2012), 99, nos. 260–261; Jan Videman, “Aquilejské mince moravského markraběte a nepotvrzeného olomouckého biskupa Jana Soběslava Lucemburského,” in Peníze v proměnách času, vol. 3, ed. Jan T. Štefan, Acta numismatica Bohemiae, Moraviae et Silesiae 6 (Ostrava: MARQ, 2002), 47–50 (with many inaccuracies); Federico Gambacorta and Roman Zaoral, “Akvilejské mince ve sbírce Národního muzea,” Numismatické listy 66, no. 3 (2011), 105–112; Lorenzo Passera, “Alcune considerazioni sul tipo dell’Aquila nella monetazione patriarcale di Aquileia,” MSF 83 (2003), 152–153. 167   B CU, FP, ms. 899, Raccolta Bianchi, vol. 53, no. 5429 (13th November 1388). See Marchesi, “Giovanni di Moravia,” 126; Paschini, Storia del Friuli, 637. 168   B CG, ACG, Quaderni dei Massari, reg. 415, fol. 28r (20th November 1388). 169  This emerges from BCU, FP, ms. 899, Raccolta Bianchi, vol. 53, no. 5436; Di Manzano, Annali del Friuli, vol. 6, 18 (24th December 1388). I could not find the relevant record in the senate registers. For Gabriele Emo, see Giuseppe Gullino, “Emo, Gabriele,” in DBI 42 (Rome: Istituto della Enciclopedia italiana, 1993), 625–628.

110

Chapter 5

the castle of Savorgnano.170 Nevertheless, later events indicate that the treaty was not actually fulfilled in its entirety. Soon after that—or perhaps shortly beforehand—Federico di Savorgnano marched triumphantly into Udine, where, according to Giovanni Ailini, he was welcomed “as if God had come.”171 4

The Assassination of Federico di Savorgnano

Despite the agreements reached, the internal situation in the patriarchate remained tense. There seems to have been an even greater polarization of the warring factions, with some of the nobility joining the side of Federico di Savorgnano and Udine, while Gemona and Venzone supported the patriarch. At that time, John also came into conflict with Abbot Bondi. We do not know what the specific cause of the dispute was, but it can be assumed that it had something to do with the abbot’s stance on John’s conflict with the Udinese, since Bondi was apparently on the city’s side. These disagreements were to result in scandalous behaviour from the patriarch, who allegedly had the abbot of this important monastery robbed and imprisoned. Bondi was only released under pressure from his brother Bartolomeo degli Oliari, Florentine bishop and later cardinal, supported by the Republic of Florence, which did not hesitate to send out letters of recommendation calling for Bondi’s release to Venice

170   B CU, FP, ms. 899, Raccolta Bianchi, vol. 53, no. 5433 (23rd December 1388); nos. 5437, 5438 (26th December 1388). The events are summarized in Marchesi, “Giovanni di Moravia,” 126; Paschini, Storia del Friuli, 637. The Udinese later complained about the payment of these 4,000 florins. See Capitula contra patriarcham Johannem, art. 4. For Marquard, see Paschini, Storia del Friuli, 657, note 41; Pio Paschini, I vicari generali nella diocesi di Aquileia e poi di Udine (Vittorio Veneto: Tipografia del Seminario, 1958), 13; Zenarola Pastore, Atti della cancelleria, 239, note 2. 171  Historia Belli Forojuliensis, AIM III, col. 1217: “Adhuc sui rectores regebant, et dominus Federicus requisitus per populares venit in Utino. Qui assumptus est per omnes cives, ac si Deus venisset.” Cf. Nonnullorum Patriarcharum Vitae, MEA, appendix, no. V, 16, or UPenn, ms. 934, Vitae episcoporum et patriarcharum, fol. 37r–v: “Tandem dominus Fredericus cum concilio amicorum Buriensium, civium Utinensium, Buriensium vicinorum fere omnium reversus est in terram Utini cum magno comitatu.” With slight inaccuracy it is edited in Previté-Orton, “Un manoscritto,” 97. Buttrio was one of the Udine families (ibid., 102, note 11). According to Cusin, Il confine orientale, vol. 1, 175, these events took place on the day after John’s flight from Udine. However, that seems to be in contradiction with the later negotiations over Federico’s return to the city. By contrast, Marchesi, “Giovanni di Moravia,” 126 puts Federico’s entry in the period after the reconciliation, Paschini, Storia del Friuli, 637 not until February 1389.

Patriarch

111

and to the patriarch himself.172 Following the incident, in November 1389, the abbot was transferred to the famous abbey of San Benedetto in Polirone near Mantua, becoming its head and causing irritation of Francesco Gonzaga, the patron of this ecclesiastical institution.173 Finally, he was appointed abbot of the monastery of San Nicolò al Lido on the Venetian Lagoon.174 At the request of the Udinese, the Republic of St. Mark, still striving for peace in the patriarchate, sent its diplomat Gabriele Emo there again at the beginning of February to mediate a reconciliation between the two sides.175 However, before any kind of agreement could be reached, Federico di Savorgnano was assassinated in Udine on 15th February 1389. The basic sequence of events can be pieced together quite well using chronicles and other sources. The whole affair took place against the backdrop of some kind of celebration, or rather tournament (hastiludium), which was being held in Udine. On the morning of the day in question, Federico was in the church of Santo Stefano, a family chapel near his palace. Just as the mass was being celebrated, a group of assassins burst into the church and murdered Federico, who had only three bodyguards with him, before fleeing from Udine. News of this deed quickly spread around the city, triggering an eruption of hate which was primarily directed against Federico’s stepmother Elisabetta. The citizens dragged her out of the church where she had taken refuge and executed her on the square along with two 172  For the events, see Capitula contra patriarcham Johannem, art. 30, and Antonio Battistella, L’abbazia di Moggio. Memoria storica documentata (Udine: G. B. Doretti, 1903), 54–55, who collected some other sources. Both letters from the Florentine Republic in favour of Bondi in ASFi, Signori, Missive della prima Cancelleria, reg. 21, fols. 74v–75r (25th December 1388). The letter to Venice was edited by Ferdinando Ughelli, Italia sacra sive de Episcopis Italiae, Et Insularum adjecentium, rebusque ab iis praeclare gestis, deducta serie ad nostram usque aetatem, vol. 3, 2nd ed. (Venice: S. Coleto, 1718), col. 160, who, however, dated it incorrectly to 1378. Cf. Giorgio Bolognini, “Le relazioni tra la Repubblica di Firenze e la Repubblica di Venezia nell’ultimo ventennio del secolo XIV,” NAV 9 (1895), 75–76. 173  See ASMn, AG, b. 2184, no. 659 (18th November 1389); b. 2093, no. 82 (30th November 1389), and Paschini, “Giovanni di Moravia,” 107, note 1. 174  See ASMn, AG, b. 3326, no. 47 (2nd June 1393). 175  ASVen, Senato, Misti, reg. 40, fol. 152v: “Cum inter reverendissimum dominum patriarcham Aquilegiensem et dominum Federicum de Savorgnano ac alios castellanos quamplures Patrie sint multe differencie et divisiones, ex quibus sequi possent multa mala, et pro honore nostro faciat procurare concordium inter eos, quia recurrerunt ad nos tamquam ad solam spem suam” (5th February 1389). See Cogo, “Il patriarcato d’Aquileia,” 301. A letter from the doge, in which he recommends that John settle the dispute with Bondi, is preserved in BNM, cod. lat. XIV, 101 (= 2804), no. 108; cf. Valentinelli, “Zur Geschichte der Patriarchen,” AfÖG 4 (1854), 518–519 (6th February 1389). See also the decision of the Udine city council regarding negotiations with Cividale in BCU, FP, ms. 899, Raccolta Bianchi, vol. 54, no. 5448 (19th January 1389).

112

Chapter 5

other supposed culprits. Immediately after the murder, messengers were sent to the patriarch, the Venetian doge, the individual towns and nobles with the news of Federico’s murder, with a reward being offered for the apprehension of the guilty parties. Later, a local notary Girolamo, who was regarded as an accomplice, was also hanged, and some of the patriarch’s supporters were killed.176 Who was behind the murder of Federico di Savorgnano is not entirely clear. Historical tradition as well as most of the literature put the blame for the assassination on Patriarch John, who at that time was staying in Cividale,177 and, it has to be said, not without reason.178 The animosity between him and Federico was well known, as is illustrated by the statement attributed to him (but probably invented): “It is necessary that either I kill Federico or he kill me.”179 The basic argument, however, is the fact that a number of members of John’s court were demonstrably involved in the assassination. According to Ailini, these were specifically his Bohemian senescalcus, a relative of Elisabetta’s, Enrico Bleon di Fagagna, who was appointed marshal at that time, Marco di Fagagna and also Francesco and Andrea Nascinguerra di Savorgnano from Cividale.180 In addition, other contemporary sources mention some other individuals probably of Bohemian origin (although here, as was customary, described as “Germans”): a knight called Zdeněk, someone named Aleš, Zbuch (?) and 176  As for narrative sources, see the most detailed—but at the same time very biased and, with respect to Federico, almost hagiographic—account by Historia Belli Forojuliensis, AIM III, cols. 1218–1220; see further Nonnullorum Patriarcharum Vitae, MEA, appendix, no. V, 16; Additamenta nunc primum edita, RIS XVI, col. 84; Cronaca volgare di Anonimo Fiorentino, RIS n.s. XXVII/2, 190. Cf. also the rather unreliable Capitula contra patriarcham Johannem, art. 9. As for the diplomatic sources, see BCU, FP, ms. 899, Raccolta Bianchi, vol. 54, no. 5453 (15th February 1389); nos. 5454, 5455, 5456, 5457, 5458 (17th February 1389); no. 5459 (18th February 1389); no. 5463 (8th March 1389). For the violent death of Elisabetta, see also the deposition of Venceslao di Spilimbergo ibid., vol. 53, no. 5419; Vollo, I Savorgnani, appendice, 253–256 (1412). There is an ample bibliography summarizing the sources: Cogo, “Il patriarcato d’Aquileia,” 301–303; Marchesi, “Giovanni di Moravia,” 126– 128; Paschini, Storia del Friuli, 637–638; Leicht, “La giovinezza di Tristano,” 16–18; Cusin, Il confine orientale, vol. 1, 175–176; Casella, I Savorgnan, 25–26; Schwedler, “Moravia (di) Giovanni,” 573–574. 177  See John’s itinerary in Excursus 3 in this book. 178  It is not possible to list here all the chronicles and later treatises relating to this event. For more details, see the chapter “Historical Memory” in this book. As for the literature, see at least the reflections by Paschini, Storia del Friuli, 656, note 39, and the bibliography cited in the previous note. 179  Capitula contra patriarcham Johannem, art. 5: “Dicebat enim ipse: ‘Necesse est, quod ego aut occidam Federicum, aut quod ipse me occidat.’” Marchesi, “Giovanni di Moravia,” 127. 180  Historia Belli Forojuliensis, AIM III, cols. 1218–1219; cf. Nonnullorum Patriarcharum Vitae, MEA, appendix, no. V, 16.

Patriarch

113

others.181 Within this context, this political murder might be understood as a last, desperate move by John after all the other attempts had failed, with the aim of bringing the rebellious Udinese into line by physically removing their leader.182 For that matter, assassinations were part of common practice in the struggle for power in medieval Italy, with which John—although a high-ranking prelate—was not unfamiliar, as is shown by his repressive measures against Federico’s supporters.183 Despite this, however, the events that directly followed on from the murder give little indication that John had ordered the assassination. Immediately after the murder, the Udine city council sent messengers to inform him of Federico’s death, and two days after that the same council wrote to Tolmezzo asking the town to intercede with the patriarch to obtain justice for the crime, “committed in a base way and against all humanity in the temple of God.”184 If John’s guilt had been apparent from the beginning, it is unlikely that any of this would have come about. Not even the contemporary Giovanni Ailini (who was, moreover, writing from the position of Udine to the disadvantage of the patriarch), whose testimony carries the most weight for us, explicitly refers to John as the instigator of the murder.185 Furthermore, Gian Giuseppe Liruti came across a document in the Udine archives which apparently stated that three days after the murder the ­patriarch 181   B CU, FP, ms. 899, Raccolta Bianchi, vol. 54, no. 5454: “… Sdenchus miles, Senchus, Dox [sic!], Ales, Sbuoch Theutonici …” (17th February 1389). Similarly also Nicoletti: Di Manzano, Annali del Friuli, vol. 6, 35. Capitula contra patriarcham Johannem, art. 9 list John’s marshal, chamberlain and two food and drink tasters. The knight Zdeněk is referred to as Elisabetta’s “relative” (attinente) by Nicoletti. See Di Manzano, Annali del Friuli, vol. 6, 35. Two other culprits are listed in Paschini, Storia del Friuli, 637. 182  In this sense, e.g. Marchesi, “Giovanni di Moravia,” 127–128; Cusin, Il confine orientale, vol. 1, 175–176. 183  “Purtroppo, l’assassinio politico era un mezzo a cui si ricorreva con frequenza in quegli anni,” sighed Paschini, Storia del Friuli, 656, note 39. 184   B CU, FP, ms. 899, Raccolta Bianchi, vol. 54, no. 5453 (15th February 1389). A copy of the letter to Tolmezzo, pointed out by Paschini, Storia del Friuli, 657, note 40, is preserved in BNM, cod. lat. XIV, 135 (= 4286), fol. 252r–v: “… proditorio modo et contra omnem humanitatem in templo Dei […] completa missa interemptus fuit. […] Rogantesque vos instantissime, ut predicto reverendissimo domino patriarchae supplicare velitis, quatenus […] dignetur justitiam reddere debitam …” (17th February 1389). The letter was edited on the basis of a copy in the work of Fabio Quintiliano Ermacora by Paolo Tremoli, “Il ‘De Antiqvitatibvs Carneae’ di Fabio Quintiliano Ermacora,” in Studi Tolmezzini, Antichità Altoadriatiche 20 (Udine: Arti Grafiche Friulane, 1981), 81–82, note 6. Ermacora had already used this letter as proof of John’s innocence. See BCU, FP, ms. 899, Raccolta Bianchi, vol. 53, no. 5351. 185  Historia Belli Forojuliensis, AIM III, cols. 1218–1220; similarly Nonnullorum Patriarcharum Vitae, MEA, appendix, no. V, 16 which speaks only of “Federico’s enemies” (inimici ejus).

114

Chapter 5

sentenced those involved in the assassination to exile.186 This is indirectly confirmed by an Aquileian chronicle, written approximately 20 years after the events, which says that after the patriarch found out about the murder, the guilty parties were banished, with some of them taking refuge in Padua.187 The “Pennsylvania” manuscript of that chronicle also contains a marginal gloss written in a contemporary hand which directly states that “Patriarch John was innocent of the death of Lord Federico.”188 There are two basic reasons why the unknown copyist may have made this note: either he himself was truly convinced that Patriarch John had nothing to do with Federico’s death or else, more likely, this was only his interpretation of the text of the chronicle, where—apparently contrary to common opinion—John is not named as the culprit. One individual who could be considered as a possible instigator of the assassination is Elisabetta, who, in view of the preceding events, had countless reasons to hate her stepson and, on top of that, commanded considerable influence at John’s court. This also corresponds to the account given by most chroniclers of the time and especially to the spontaneous reaction of the lynch mob which evidently regarded her as the instigator.189 From a later agreement concluded between the patriarch and the Udinese it emerges that the hanged notary Girolamo of Udine, who was regarded as one of the culprits, was apparently interrogated before being executed, whereupon he gave the names of 186  Gian Giuseppe Liruti, Notizie delle cose del Friuli scritte secondo i tempi, vol. 5 (Udine: Fratelli Gallici, 1777), 142. Liruti refers to some “processo” in the Udine archive and to a copy in his Apografi (cf. BCU, FP, ms. 873, Apographa de rerum Forojuliensium historia). However, I have not been able to locate the document in question. According to Scarton, “Introduzione,” 26 and note 41, there is a certain Liber bannitorum terrae Utini 1365–1398, also containing documents resulting from the trial against Federico’s assassins, in BCU, FP, ms. 886. However, I was not able to examine this manuscript any further. 187  Nonnullorum Patriarcharum Vitae, MEA, appendix, no. V, 16: “Tunc patriarcha permansit in Civitate Austria; et intelligens, quod d. Federicus erat occisus, ipsi, qui occisioni interfuerunt, in exilium sunt expulsi et receptis omnibus, quae possidebant, aliqui Paduam iverunt et alii alibi.” 188  UPenn, ms. 934, Vitae episcoporum et patriarcharum, fol. 38r: “Nota, quod patriarcha Johannes fuit innocens mortis domini Fredericii.” Edited in Previté-Orton, “Un manoscritto,” 102, note 11. 189  Historia Belli Forojuliensis, AIM III, col. 1220: “Et ceperunt Christophorum Misulini, et Platusium, ac ipsam dominam Elisabetham, et ipsi in furore populi, et super ipsa platea Utini in instanti crudeliter sunt jugulati ob mortem ipsius domini Federici”; Nonnullorum Patriarcharum Vitae, MEA, appendix, no. V, 16: “Et ipsa similiter in crastinum a populo cum impetu in platea communis Utini lethaliter percussa est.” Cf. Chronicum tertium Patriarcharum Aquilejensium, MEA, appendix, no. IV, 15: “Hic [i.e. John of Moravia] per quosdam suos fecit interfici d. Federicum militem de Savorgnano […] et hoc ad instantiam dominae Elisabethae novercae ipsius d. Federici.”

Patriarch

115

his accomplices.190 This might suggest that it was actually a conspiracy inside Udine among Federico’s opponents, led by Elisabetta, who took advantage of the favourable situation and won some of the patriarch’s courtiers over to her side; most importantly, the Savorgnano of Cividale, Federico’s sworn enemies. This hypothesis partly concurs with the thesis expressed by Pier Silverio Leicht which attributed the real reasons for the assassination to a dispute over the castle of Savorgnano and the ensuing long-term enmity between the Savorgnano of Cividale, its original owners, and the Savorgnano of Udine.191 On the other hand, it is hard to believe that John knew nothing of the planned assassination; all the more so because the perpetrators included a number of members of his court. Likewise, it cannot be overlooked that some of his supporters were persecuted after the murder (with three of them belonging to the council of the twenty-four guild representatives), which indicates that shortly after the deed at least some of the inhabitants of Udine blamed the patriarch for the murder. This is further underscored by the Capitula contra patriarcham Johan­nem from 1390 as well as the contemporary rumours circulating around the Apen­nine Peninsula.192 Nevertheless, even if John himself was not the main­

190  Verci, Storia della Marca, vol. 17, documenti, 26–29, no. 1920 (10th March 1389). It refers to those “… qui inculpati fuerunt per manifestationem et confessionem Jeronimi quondam Alberti de Utino scivisse de tractatu mortis prefati domini Frederici …” This remark has not been taken into consideration by the historiography. For Girolamo, see Historia Belli Forojuliensis, AIM III, col. 1220: “Post haec vero quidam notarius, nomine Hieronymus, de nece ipsius domini Federici conscius et culpatus, in alto suspensus est per rectores Utini.” 191  Leicht, “La giovinezza di Tristano,” 17; Leicht, “L’esilio di Tristano,” 134–135, note 2. 192  Capitula contra patriarcham Johannem, art. 9: “Tunc ille patriarcha maraschalcum suum et unum alium militem, magistrum camere sue, et duos alios, qui sibi serviebant in mensa, quorum unus erat faciens credegustum poti et alter cibi, cum nonnullis suis familiaribus intrinsecis misit in terram Utini sub colore jostrandi in una jostra tunc temporis ordinata, ut eundem dominum Federicum occiderent. Qui cum venissent ex toto domini sui adimplere preceptum sperantes ex inde consequi magna premia et dona promissa, dictum dominum Federicum die proxima subsecuta illam diem, qua hanc terram intraverunt, in ecclesia invenerunt sanctam Dei missam devotissime audiendo et intrantes more amicorum, ipsum salutaverunt et non videntes ibi copiam defensorum in eundem juxta preceptum domini sui atrocissime irruerunt ipsum nequiter occidendo et Dei templum sanctum et religionem turpissime violando et fugientes extra terram Utini gladios cruentatos in manibus ferentes ad loca, ubi erat ipse patriarcha, devenerunt; ab ipso receptis maximis gaudiis et honoribus et provisionibus …” The assassins’ flight directly to the patriarch does not seem to be very likely and, on top of that, it contradicts the description in Nonnullorum Patriarcharum Vitae, MEA, appendix, no. V, 16. See also Additamenta nunc primum edita, RIS XVI, col. 84, and cf. the accounts by contemporary chroniclers from Belluno and Florence, all of them naming Patriarch John as the instigator of Federico’s murder: Miari, Chronicon, 19; Cronaca volgare di Anonimo Fiorentino, RIS n.s. XXVII/2, 190.

116

Chapter 5

conspirator, the fact remains that he did not do much to punish the guilty parties, thereby indirectly sanctioning the crime. The whole question will probably never be fully answered, and yet it would appear that John was not directly responsible for Federico’s death. Either way, the fallout from it came down fully on him and had a determining influence on subsequent events in the country and, ultimately, even John’s tragic end in the autumn of 1394. If his relations with Udine had been problematic up to then, from that point on concluding a stable and lasting peace became almost impossible, and until the end of his rule the patriarch found himself in a perpetual state of conflict, only occasionally interrupted by disingenuous truces and agreements. At the same time, John had already definitively aligned himself with Cividale, where he also resided for the most part. The Cividalese also managed to profit from the new situation when John confirmed their possession of the gastaldia of Tolmino, situated on the crossroads of trade routes and considered the “special key to Friuli.”193 Probably the most influential among the Cividalese patricians was to become Corrado III Boiani, who apparently gained John’s special trust and favour for the whole period of his rule.194 Corrado’s prominent position within the patriarch’s court is demonstrated, among other things, by concessions of fiefs and offices or by his appointment as judge delegate.195 Another very telling source is a letter from 1393, by means of which John asked Corrado, addressing him respectfully as amicus et compater carissimus, to meet him secretly in a village near Udine to talk about some confidential matters “que scribere non licet, nam multum secreta existunt …”196 The 193   B CU, FP, ms. 899, Raccolta Bianchi, vol. 53, no. 5405; cf. Di Manzano, Annali del Friuli, vol. 6, 15; Paschini, Storia del Friuli, 641 (1st October 1388). For the importance of the gastaldia of Tolmino, see Leicht, Breve storia, 168–170; Caiazza, “Le residenze dei patriarchi,” 218–220. The quotation in ASU, Documenti storici friulani, b. II, no. 186, fol. 216v: “… clavis specialis huius Patrie Forijulii …” (15th March 1394). 194  For Corrado Boiani, see Maria Laura Iona, “Le podesterie di Corrado III Boiani a Muggia (precisazioni cronologiche),” MSF 41 (1954/1955), 135–154; Maria Laura Iona, “Boiani, Corrado,” in DBI 11 (Rome: Istituto della Enciclopedia italiana, 1969), 205–206; Bruno Figliuolo, “Nobiltà e aristocrazia cittadina,” in Storia di Cividale nel Medioevo, 223–224; Tommaso Vidal, “Boiani Corrado (ante 1360–1419). Diplomatico, maresciallo patriarcale,” in Nuovo Liruti, supplemento, accessible online: http://www.dizionariobiograficodeifriulani .it/boiani-corrado-ante-1360-1419/. 195  There are several of John’s charters and letters to Corrado and his heirs in MAN, Famiglia Boiani, vol. 2, Pergamene, and ibid., vol. 6, Codice diplomatico. For more information, see Iona, “Le podesterie”; Figliuolo, “Nobiltà e aristocrazia cittadina,” 223–224. 196   M AN, Famiglia Boiani, vol. 6, Codice diplomatico, no. 23/2; a copy in BCU, FP, ms. 899, Raccolta Bianchi, vol. 57, no. 5710 (2nd October 1393).

Patriarch

117

split between Patriarch John and Udine and, as a consequence, his shift towards Cividale became irrevocable. Venice responded without delay to the critical situation in neighbouring Friuli. Despite considerable resentment resulting from such a serious crime committed against a member of its patriciate, which Federico had been from 1385 on, the Republic urged the Udinese to be calm and obedient, and sent Gabriele Emo to the patriarchate once again. He was to insist that the patriarch “fiat viva et aspera justicia ita taliter, quod transeat perpetuo aliis ad exemplum,” but at the same time he was to mediate peace in the country while preventing the expected retaliation by the Savorgnano party—in other words, a delicate task requiring a great deal of diplomatic skill. On top of that, he was to ask for the castle of Savorgnano, which was still held by the patriarch, to be handed back to Federico’s heirs.197 Among other things, this means that the terms of the previous agreement had obviously not been met and Federico had never actually received the castle. After considerable effort, a peace was finally concluded and on 10th March 1389 the patriarch and the Udinese came to an agreement.198 Both sides committed themselves to further undertakings comprising a series of ritualized acts, described in minute detail in the articles of the treaty. First of all, eight selected representatives of the city were to beg the patriarch on bended knee for forgiveness, which John was to grant them. Such staged humiliation constituted a traditional part of the ritual of reconciliation by means of which the sovereign’s honour, offended by Udine’s actions, was to be restored.199 The Udinese were then to request that the murderers of Federico di Savorgnano

197  The doge’s letter to Udine in BCU, FP, ms. 899, Raccolta Bianchi, vol. 54, no. 5456, edited in Vollo, I Savorgnani, appendice, 224: “… hortantes vos, quatenus ad bonum statum et conservationem vestram attendatis et vigiletis non movendo vos ad aliquam novitatem, que posset redundare in damnum et prejudicium vestrum” (17th February 1389). The detailed instructions for Gabriele Emo in ASVen, Senato, Misti, reg. 40, fols. 160r–161r (18th February 1389), partially edited and summarized in Cogo, “Il patriarcato d’Aquileia,” 303–304 and note 6. See further Cessi, “La politica veneziana,” 137; Paschini, Storia del Friuli, 638. 198  Verci, Storia della Marca, vol. 17, documenti, 26–29, no. 1920. See the detailed summary by Paschini, Storia del Friuli, 638–639; cf. also Marchesi, “Giovanni di Moravia,” 129; Cessi, “La politica veneziana,” 137–138. 199  See Darko Darovec, “Blood Feud as Gift Exchange: The Ritual of Humiliation in the Customary System of Conflict Resolution,” Acta Histriae 25, no. 1 (2017), 58–88, esp. 70: “… the ritual of reconciliation, where the (self) humiliation of the offender works as a retribution for the injury caused, since every damage, either verbal or material insult of honour […], is perceived as a humiliation and shaming.”

118

Chapter 5

be punished, with the patriarch initially refusing to do so;200 immediately afterwards, however, he was to add that he would only ensure the punishment of the culprits thanks to the intercession of the Venetian Republic. Again at the request of Venice, John further undertook to cede the disputed castle of Savorgnano and other properties to Federico’s heirs, in exchange for the 2,000 florins which he had had to expend on acquiring it.201 Udine was then to pledge obedience and, at the same time, to allow those who had fled from persecution following Federico’s murder to return to the city. John also gave permission for the council of guild representatives to be abolished, in place of which the Udinese were to elect a new council in accordance with the “ancient customs.”202 With this, the reforms from the previous September were revoked de facto. The entire agreement was apparently orchestrated by Venice, or Gabriele Emo as its representative—even the notarial instrument which documented it was drawn up by a Venetian notary. The Republic’s active peace efforts in the patriarchate, omnipresent throughout John’s rule, were obviously not as gratuitous as they might have seemed at first sight. The pacification of the neighbouring state, through which important trade routes led, was essential for Venetian commerce; at the same time, however, such interventions also represented an effective means of increasing authority and influence in Friuli, which was slowly becoming a “protectorate” of the Serenissima.203

200  According to Paschini, Storia del Friuli, 657, note 43, this might have been because the citizens “had already carried out justice themselves” by killing Elisabetta and the others. 201  For this point, cf. Capitula contra patriarcham Johannem, art. 10: “… et specialiter cum injuste occupasset unum castellum domini Federici, numquam id reddere voluit, nisi extorsisset suis pupillis patre nequiter sic orbatis duo millia ducatorum.” 202  Historia Belli Forojuliensis, AIM III, col. 1220 implies that the overthrow of the Udine city council, appointed earlier by John, took place immediately after the assassination. However, from the charter it emerges that, as late as on 10th March, the old government of guilds still ruled, together with other representatives elected in the meantime. They were all to be replaced on the next St. Michael’s Day, i.e. on 29th September. See Verci, Storia della Marca, vol. 17, documenti, 26–29, no. 1920: “… quod illi de numero illorum viginti quatuor, qui creati fuerunt per ipsum dominum patriarcham, et deputati ad consilium terre Utini, qui ad presens sunt in dicto consilio, remaneant ad dictum consilium additione et electione facta dicto consilio per ipsam comunitatem Utini usque ad festum S. Michaelis proximi venturi. Et ab inde in antea dicta comunitas Utini eligat et faciat consilium suum secundum mores et antiquas eorum consuetudines.” Cf. Paschini, Storia del Friuli, 639; Leicht, “La giovinezza di Tristano,” 17–18. 203  For the later period, cf. Girgensohn, “La crisi del patriarcato”; Casella, I Savorgnan, 36–42.

Patriarch

5

119

The Controversy over the Bishopric of Concordia

An important role in the peace negotiations was played by the newly elected bishop of Concordia, Augustine of Litomyšl, who acted as John’s counsellor from the beginning of his stay in Friuli and became a sort of éminence grise at the court of the patriarch. It is therefore no surprise that John attempted to promote him to this crucial post. The ancient diocese of Concordia, with a tradition reaching back to late antiquity, was located on the secular territory of the patriarchate. Therefore, its bishop had a vote at sessions of parliament and, at the same time, was the patriarch’s suffragan and vassal.204 In this way, John was thus attempting to secure an important mainstay for his rule. However, the circumstances of Augustine’s promotion were quite complicated.205 As we learn from the papal bull of provision, Urban VI decided to transfer the former bishop of Concordia, Ambrogio (da Parma), to the see of Nusco in southern Italy, entrusting the Friulian bishopric to Giovanni Manco, a canon in Naples in the service of the Roman curia. After Giovanni had refused to accept this office, on 27th January 1389 the pope appointed Augustine of Litomyšl bishop of Concordia.206 Although it is not apparent from the papal documents, the decision was obviously strongly influenced by the local powers—the patriarch of Aquileia and the Republic of Venice—and their political interests. It is known that John asked the doge of Venice to intercede with the pope on behalf of Augustine’s candidature; however, Antonio Venier was unable to comply, because he himself had earlier requested the provision of this ­position 204  For the origins of the bishopric, see Fedalto, Aquileia, 128–131; for the bishop’s position within the parliament, see Leicht, Il parlamento della Patria, 42; Parlamento friulano, I/1, lxxxi; Schmidinger, Patriarch und Landesherr, 116; for the extension of the diocese in the Late Middle Ages, see the map appended to the publication Die Bistümer des Heiligen Römischen Reiches. 205  In the following paragraphs, I draw on my article Schmidt, “Mezi Litomyšlí, Brnem a Concordií.” 206  The papal bull of provision for Augustine and the mandates for the clergy as well as for the vassals of the diocese of Concordia in MAN, AC, Bullae pontificiae, vol. 1, sub dato; the bull for Augustine is edited in Schmidt, “Mezi Litomyšlí, Brnem a Concordií,” Appendix, no. I. Cf. also Eubel, Hierarchia catholica, vol. 1, 201, 532; Ernesto Degani, La diocesi di Concordia, ed. Giuseppe Vale, 2nd ed. (Brescia: Paideia, 1977), 230–231. According to both authors, Bishop Ambrogio was to be transferred to Viterbo. Venice had earlier interceded with the patriarch on Bishop Ambrogio’s behalf, calling him “persona notabilis et grata nobis.” See ASVen, Senato, Secreti, reg. R (E), fol. 37r (24th September 1388). At the beginning of 1390, Augustine sued Ambrogio at the curia for infringement of the rights of his bishopric: MAN, AC, Bullae pontificiae, vol. 1, sub dato (12th February 1390).

120

Chapter 5

for the then bishop of Cittanova, Gilberto Zorzi, who was also a Venetian patrician.207 It also emerges from the senate registers that the Republic asked the pope and the cardinals for the bishops of Cittanova and Concordia to be mutually exchanged in accordance with the wishes of both prelates. In the relevant entry, the former bishop of Concordia is indicated by the initial “J.” and therefore has to be identified with Giovanni Manco.208 Venice as well as John must have known about Giovanni’s intention to be transferred elsewhere and attempted to promote their own candidate in his place. This in itself shows the desire and endeavour of the Republic to secure its own influence within the patriarchate. In spite of these efforts by Venice, it was the patriarch’s man, Augustine, who eventually became the new bishop of Concordia.209 John may have promoted Augustine’s election in his capacity as metropolitan, since intervening in the elections of suffragan bishops—although restricted in the Late Middle Ages—was one of the important metropolitan rights and, as has been demonstrated, until the outbreak of the schism patriarchs of Aquileia maintained considerable influence over the occupancy of the see of Concordia.210 Not long after his appointment, Augustine, through 207  The doge’s letter, pointed out in this context by Paschini, Storia del Friuli, 657, note 41, is preserved in BNM, cod. lat. XIV, 101 (= 2804), no. 108: “Ad id autem, quod ipsa paternitas vestra per alias literas tangit, ut intercedamus pro reverendo patre domino fratre Augustino, priore novi monasterii Brunensis, consiliarii vestri, ut sanctissimus dominus papa ipsum promoveat ad episcopatum Concordiensem, respondemus, quod idem dominus prior ob virtutes eius meruit omnem dignitatem et honorem et ipsum sincere diligimus. Verum ante ipsarum literarum receptionem iam suppliciter scripseramus prefato domino pape pro reverendo patre domino Giberto Georgio, nobili cive nostro, episcopo Civitatis Nove, ad ecclesiam Concordiensem predictam. Sed si ante hoc prescivissemus, libentissime scripsissemus pro eodem” (6th February 1389). Cf. Valentinelli, “Zur Geschichte der Patriarchen,” AfÖG 4 (1854), 518–519. 208  ASVen, Senato, Misti, reg. 40, fol. 151r (29th January 1389). 209  Augustine must have taken up his new office between 19th and 24th February: whereas he is still referred to as prior of Brno at first, he later used the titulature “Augustinus, nunc electus Concordiensis.” See ARS, Zbirka listin, sign. SI AS 1063/4367; BCU, FP, ms. 899, Raccolta Bianchi, vol. 54, no. 5460. Cf. Degani, La diocesi di Concordia, 231. 210  See Luca Gianni, “Vita ed organizzazione interna della diocesi di Concordia in epoca medievale,” in Diocesi di Concordia 388–1974, ed. Antonio Scottà, Storia religiosa del Veneto 10 (Padua: Giunta Regionale del Veneto and Gregoriana Libreria Editrice, 2004), 206–211; for the patriarchs’ metropolitan rights, see Tilatti, “La provincia di Aquileia,” 221. On the other hand, the Concordia chapter might not have been satisfied with Augustine’s election. According to Cappelletti, Le chiese d’Italia, vol. 10 (Venice: Antonelli, 1854), 445, the canons proposed Francesco di Sbrojavacca, a member of an important noble family from the area between Tagliamento and Livenza, as the new bishop. Degani, La diocesi di Concordia, 231, citing Nicoletti, mentions Francesco di Sbrojavacca and Ambrogio da Cividale as Augustine’s rival candidates.

Patriarch

121

Stephen of Doubravník, pledged to pay servitia to the Roman curia, which amounted to 400 florins, and took the obligatory oath of allegiance to the pope, or rather to his representatives.211 Owing to the preceding long war and other conflicts, the revenues of the patriarchal mensa had been depleted. Although the patriarch had to pay the highest servitium of all the (arch)bishops in the whole of Christendom (10,000 florins), it is not very likely that his yearly income in the period of John of Moravia reached 20,000 or even 30,000 florins.212 For that matter, the dismal economic state of the Aquileian chapter is clear from the previously cited letter from the canon Antonio Ronconi.213 At John’s request, therefore, the pope permitted the patriarch to collect a sum equal to the customary papal tithe from his suffragan bishoprics, although half of this was to be diverted to the papal coffers “for the defence of the Roman Church.”214 Furthermore, at John’s request, he commissioned the bishop of Gurk, John Mayerhofer, to see to it that the alienated possessions belonging to the patriarchal mensa be restituted.215 If the supreme pontiff accommodated John in the case of the tithe and the provision for Augustine to the see of Concordia, this was certainly not just by chance: in fact, Urban VI needed his support in the papal schism. Rumours were circulating that Pileo di Prata, who had earlier abandoned Rome along with other cardinals and gone over to the side of the Avignon antipope Clement VII, was preparing to enter the territory of the Aquileian patriarchate, and Urban gave orders that—if that were indeed to happen—he was immediately to be imprisoned and his property confiscated.216 The solemnly sworn peace from the middle of March 1389 did nothing to calm the troubled mood in the patriarchate. This is obvious from the conduct 211   M VB V, 111, no. 175; Paschini, “Giovanni di Moravia,” 106, note 1; Paschini, Storia del Friuli, 657, note 41 (7th March 1389). In the end, Augustine paid 360 florins from his main servitia; the remainder as well as all of the lesser servitia were to be paid by his successor: Zanutto, Epistolario minore, 26 (12th July 1392). The text of Augustine’s forma iuramenti to the pope is preserved in the original in MAN, AC, Fondo diplomatico, vol. 15, no. 58 (undated). 212  According to the estimate by Weiss, Kurie und Ortskirche, 417, the papal servitium constituted roughly one half or one third of the yearly income of a bishopric. 213  Zanutto, Epistolario minore, appendice, 51–52. 214  On the basis of the Vatican registers, see Paschini, “Giovanni di Moravia,” 105–106 (13th January 1389). 215   M AN, AC, Bullae pontificiae, vol. 1, sub dato (30th January 1389). For Bishop John, see Christine Tropper, “Johann Mayerhofer († 1402),” in Die Bischöfe des Heiligen Römischen Reiches, 215. 216  Paschini, “Giovanni di Moravia,” 106; the papal bull in MAN, AC, Bullae pontificiae, vol. 1, sub dato (9th March 1389).

122

Chapter 5

of the widow of Federico di Savorgnano, Orsina d’Este. She was clearly distrustful of the agreement with the patriarch and asked the council of Udine for financial aid, but also for weapons to stock the newly recovered castle of Savorgnano.217 At the same time she turned to the Republic of Venice, requesting protection for her children who had not yet come of age, who, as Federico’s heirs, were also Venetian patricians, while offering an interim administration of the family castles. However, the Serenissima refused this request, because it had no desire to give the patriarch any pretext for breaking what was already a fragile peace; on the contrary, it declared with satisfaction that “by God’s grace the patriarchate is again at peace under its pastor.”218 Nothing could have been further from the truth, since the peace was in reality only an illusion. In violation of the agreement which had been concluded, the Udinese elected as their new executive body a council of six and later seven deputies; this was flatly prohibited by the patriarch, which resulted in more hostility.219 In addition to that, the Udinese accused John and his officials (especially the marshal) of various offences which they were supposed to have perpetrated to the detriment of the city and its inhabitants. All of this was dealt with in June at the general assembly convened in Cividale.220 One of the complaints regarded the issue of illicitly summoning subjects before judges in distant locations. It is true that the Capitula contra patriarcham Johannem refer to many abuses against the traditional exercise of the law on the part of the patriarch, and we also have a complaint raised by the Aquileia ­chapter 217  Leicht, “La giovinezza di Tristano,” 18–19; BCU, FP, ms. 899, Raccolta Bianchi, vol. 54, no. 5465 (12th March 1389). 218  Cessi, “La politica veneziana,” 138, quoting the answer of the Venetian Senate in ASVen, Senato, Misti, reg. 40, fol. 175r: “… nec vellemus modo, quod per Dei graciam Patria est in statu tranquillo sub suo pastore, facere aliquid, per quod in mentem ipsius domini patriarche vel aliquorum aliorum posset cadere aliqua rubigo vel aliquod dubium de nobis” (10th April 1389). See further Paschini, Storia del Friuli, 639 (with an Italian translation of the quotation). 219   B CU, FP, ms. 899, Raccolta Bianchi, vol. 54, no. 5468 (29th March 1389); no. 5469 (13th April 1389). See Joppi, “Istituzioni politiche ed amministrative,” xxxvi. The patriarch’s abolition of the council of the seven deputies is mentioned in Di Manzano, Annali del Friuli, vol. 6, 25. The entry is undated. Di Manzano put it in 1388; however, in the context of the aforementioned events, it is necessary to date it to April 1389. Nicoletti (ibid., 36–37) relates how the patriarch is supposed to have moved to Udine and abolished the election of a new council under penalty of 5,000 florins, whereupon he was expelled from the city by the Udinese. This version was also adopted by Marchesi, “Giovanni di Moravia,” 128–129; however, in view of the fact that none of this information can be verified in the sources, its reliability is rather dubious. 220  Parlamento friulano, I/2, 352–353, no. 346; 353–354, no. 347 (14th June 1389). For more details, see Marchesi, “Giovanni di Moravia,” 129–130; Paschini, Storia del Friuli, 639–640.

Patriarch

123

regarding a case in which John had a certain local widow summoned in Cividale instead of Aquileia.221 According to Gerald Schwedler, however, these accusations might actually be interpreted as attempts by John to reinforce his power at the expense of the Friulian nobles and towns.222 The Udinese envoys even complained in Venice that John “was not keeping his promises at all,” and allegedly even had individuals at his court who were implicated in the murder of Federico di Savorgnano.223 At the beginning of June, Gabriele Emo was therefore dispatched to the patriarchate once again with the aim of ensuring that John observe his obligations and, possibly, arranging a new reconciliation between the Udinese and the patriarch, “ut possint vivere in pacifico statu sub umbra sua.”224 Apparently in this connection, the Venetian doge also sent a humble letter to John imploring him to keep his promises and to treat his subjects in a more favourable way.225 Emo eventually succeeded again, and on 7th July 1389 another peace was concluded in Cividale. The content of the treaty—although formally confirming the previous agreement—differed slightly from the one from March and can perhaps be seen as more favourable to Udine. In compliance with its text, the Udinese were again to send six of their citizens to kneel before John and ask him for “veniam et indulgentiam,” to which the patriarch was to consent, pledging to uphold their privileges as well as the customs of the land “in civilibus et criminalibus,” and also promising to return the property he had seized. On top of that, it was determined that Orsina d’Este and the heirs and retainers of Federico di Savorgnano could remain in the city, with a pardon being granted for Elisabetta’s death.226 221  C  apitula contra patriarcham Johannem, passim; MAN, Famiglia Boiani, vol. 6, Codice diplomatico, no. 27 (13th July). 222  Schwedler, “Moravia (di) Giovanni,” 574. 223  Cessi, “La politica veneziana,” 139–140; Paschini, Storia del Friuli, 639, partially quoting ASVen, Senato, Misti, reg. 41, fol. 15r: “… dominus patriarcha de his, que promisit, […] nichil penitus observat, ymo retinet apud se principales auctores mortis dicti domini Federici ac multas alias iniurias et novitates eis fecit et facit, pro quibus manifeste cognoscunt, quod ipse dominus patriarcha vigilat ad destructionem eorum …” (5th June 1389). 224  The commission for Gabriele Emo in ASVen, Senato, Misti, reg. 41, fol. 15v (5th June 1389). See the detailed commentary by Cessi, “La politica veneziana,” 141. 225   B CU, FP, ms. 899, Raccolta Bianchi, vol. 56, no. 5602 (undated). Inconsistently with its text, Bianchi and Marchesi, “Giovanni di Moravia,” 137 dated the document to 1392. 226  The notarial instrument, drawn up by the same Venetian notary who had written the agreement from 10th March 1389, is preserved in ASVen, Miscellanea atti diplomatici e privati, b. 27, no. 829; its text is partially edited and summarized in Cogo, “Il patriarcato d’Aquileia,” 304–306 and note 1. See further Paschini, Storia del Friuli, 640; Seneca, “Il conflitto fra Giovanni,” 45.

124

Chapter 5

The conflicts between the Udinese and the patriarch, however, continued unabated. The same can be said of the attempts to resolve them, although these came to nothing. As a result, the Venetian doge intervened in Friuli again and, as usual, encouraged John with flowery words to keep the peace which had been concluded. At the same time, he even informed Margrave Jobst of the dismal state of affairs, complaining about the patriarch’s obstinate conduct. In his letter, the doge expressed the wish “that the lord patriarch, your brother, rule and administer his patriarchate and church in peace and quiet and with the love and benevolence of his subjects, as it would be of utility, honour and glory to him and to his house.”227 The animosity continued and, in spite of attempts to resolve it, it did not appear that the negotiations would reach a successful conclusion. Moreover, during October 1389, Francesco Novello da Carrara, earlier stripped of his signoria over Padua by Visconti, unexpectedly showed up in Friuli. After losing his estate, he had experienced the bitter life of an exile, seeking support for its reconquest wherever he could. After a year of wandering, he arrived in Friuli, where he was purportedly received by the patriarch and the Cividalese, his traditional allies, negotiating with them in order to “reducere dominum Franciscum Novellum in domum suam, videlicet in Padua.” Along with Carrara, his military captain and diplomat, Michele Rabatta, was also active in the patriarchate. Together with others, he drummed up support and hired troops there for the fight against the Conte di Virtù. However, Giangaleazzo also got to know about Carrara’s activities in Friuli, which meant that there was a serious threat of a possible Visconti retaliation. These events aroused even greater fears in Udine, and the decision was therefore taken to strengthen the city’s defences and stockpile supplies in case of a siege.228

227   B CU, FP, ms. 899, Raccolta Bianchi, vol. 54, no. 5486 (3rd August 1389); nos. 5487, 5488, 5489: “… quia carissimum nobis esset, ut dominus patriarcha predictus, frater vester, regeret et gubernaret Patriam et ecclesiam suam pacifice et quiete et cum amore et benevolentia subditorum, quia esset sibi et domui sue utilitas, honor et gloria …” (5th August 1389). See Marchesi, “Giovanni di Moravia,” 130–131; Paschini, Storia del Friuli, 640; Seneca, “Il conflitto fra Giovanni,” 46–47. 228   B CU, FP, ms. 899, Raccolta Bianchi, vol. 54, no. 5497: “… significo, qualiter filius magnifici domini Padue hodie in Spegnimbergo de sero, videlicet XVI. mensis huius, applicuit Spegnimbergum me nihil sciente, nisi quomodo venerit ad me improviso. Cras bona hora est recessurus et erit Glemone in cenis et ibi permanebit illo sero.” Cf. Di Manzano, Annali del Friuli, vol. 6, 33 (16th October [1389]). The decision of the Udine city council in BCU, FP, ms. 899, Raccolta Bianchi, vol. 54, no. 5500 (14th November 1389). See Marchesi, “Giovanni di Moravia,” 131; Seneca, “Il conflitto fra Giovanni,” 47–48; for Francesco Carrara’s fortunes after the conquest of Padua, see Kohl, Padua under the Carrara, 256–260; for Michele

Patriarch

125

Soon afterwards, however, the patriarch made a surprising move, as he turned to Venice and appealed for “friendship,” defending his aloofness up till then by saying that he had been “misinformed.” The senate accepted the offer with satisfaction.229 This gesture by John appears to be a striking deviation from his previous politics, and it is worth asking what was behind it. Was it just a ruse designed to lull the Republic into a false sense of security? In fact, it is possible that these talks were initiated by Carrara himself, who was beginning to draw closer to the Republic of St. Mark. He knew very well that he would never conquer Padua without its consent and free passage through the region of Treviso, and John’s good relations with the Venetians could therefore only benefit him.230 Likewise, the patriarch, who by all accounts was planning to use Carrara as a counterbalance to the ever-rebellious Udine,231 was now interested in luring Venice over to his side. Carrara’s negotiations with the patriarch did not escape Visconti’s attention. He therefore suggested to his Venetian ally that they join forces to appeal to the newly elected pope Boniface IX (1389–1404) for another patriarch who would rule in accordance with the interests of the Republic: literally, “personam ido­ neam et nobis acceptam.” However, this offer was politely rejected, primarily in view of the newly established “friendship” with the patriarch. On top of that, Venice expressed doubts about whether it was even possible to remove the patriarch in this way without “angering the Germans and especially the Moravian dynasty.”232 Over the winter of 1389/1390, there was another series of attempts to settle the conflict between the patriarch and Udine at sessions of the Friulian general assembly. There is a notarial instrument which, according to Paschini, appears Rabatta, see Benjamin G. Kohl, “The Paduan Elite and Francesco Novello da Carrara (1390–1405). A Selected Prosopography,” QFIAB 77 (1997), 239–240. 229  Cessi, “La politica veneziana,” 142–143; Paschini, Storia del Friuli, 642, partially quoting ASVen, Senato, Misti, reg. 41, fol. 47v: “… de dispositione domini patriarche, que est sincera et perfecta versus nos, et quod intendit esse noster amicus, quodque fuit male informatus de nobis, quando venit in Patriam. Respondeatur ipsi ambaxiatori […], adhuc summe nobis hoc placet, quia pro certo paternitas sua potest esse certissima, quod dispositio nostra bona et perfecta est, nec unquam deficiet parte nostra, quando inter paternitatem suam et nos sit sincera caritas et perfecta dilectio …” (19th November 1389). 230  Cf. Cessi, “La politica veneziana,” 141–143. The author, however, was unaware of the sources relating to Carrara’s presence in Friuli. 231  Cusin, Il confine orientale, vol. 1, 178. 232  The decision of the Venetian senate, together with the text of a letter addressed to Visconti, in ASVen, Senato, Misti, reg. 41, fol. 52v: “… putamus etiam difficile fore, quod dominus papa removeat ipsum patriarcham Aquilegiensem pro non displicendo Alemannis et specialiter domui Moravie” (23rd December 1389). See Cessi, “La politica veneziana,” 143; Paschini, Storia del Friuli, 642; Bueno de Mesquita, Giangaleazzo Visconti, 119–120.

126

Chapter 5

to come from this period and speaks of how the council of parliament decided at the request of the patriarch that the disputes were to cease and all the offences committed during the fighting were to be forgotten.233 However, none of this had any effect and, in spite of intensive negotiations which lasted for several months, it was not possible to reach an agreement which would satisfy both sides.234 Given their previous experience, the mutual animosity evidently ran so deep that concluding a genuine peace, or at least a stable truce, was essentially out of the question. In the meantime, John got into another dispute—this time with the Teutonic Order. The Austrian provincial commander, Stefan Strobein, accused the patriarch of exacting taxes from the order’s commandry in Ljubljana through his vicar general in spiritualibus, Marquard of Randeck, in spite of the papal privileges.235 However, the outcome of this controversy is not known. On the other hand, shortly afterwards John raised the status of the Nuremberg merchants by granting them a privilege guaranteeing free passage across the whole territory of the patriarchate. To all appearances, this concession, perhaps inspired by the traditional favour shown by the Luxembourg dynasty towards the Franconian city, was intended to boost trade relations with Germany, which had stagnated because of the long war.236 233  Parlamento friulano, I/2, 367–368, no. 376: “… deffinitum fuit et determinatum per dictos consiliarios quod omnia et singula facta tempore guerre intra partes sibi invicem inimicantes debeant deleri tam in criminalibus quam in civilibus nec ulterius de eis aliqua mencio fieri debebat …” In the edition the document is dated 13th January 1393, which is evidently an error. Paschini, Storia del Friuli, 641 and 657–658, note 57 puts it quite convincingly in January 1390; however, for a definite conclusion it would be necessary to consult the original in the Venetian archive. 234   B CG, ACG, Quaderni dei Massari, reg. 416, fol. 29v (December 1389); Parlamento friulano, I/2, 355, no. 349 (7th December 1389); 355, no. 350 (15th December 1389); 355–356, no. 351 (17th December 1389); 356, no. 352 (31st December 1389); BCG, ACG, Quaderni delle Deliberazioni, reg. 15, fols. 55v–56r (16th and 18th January 1390); Parlamento friulano, I/2, 356, no. 353 (19th January 1390); BCU, FP, ms. 899, Raccolta Bianchi, vol. 55, no. 5510 (20th January 1390); Parlamento friulano, I/2, 357, no. 354 (4th February 1390); 357, no. 355 (8th February 1390). For more details, see Seneca, “Il conflitto fra Giovanni,” 48–49; Paschini, Storia del Friuli, 642–643. 235  Deutschordenszentralarchiv Wien, Urkunden, no. 2535; cf. Die Urkunden des DeutschOrdens-Central archives zu Wien, ed. Gaston Graf von Pettenegg, vol. 1 (Prague and Leipzig: F. Tempsky and G. Freytag, 1887), 402, no. 1537 (15th November 1389). 236  Das Runtingerbuch 1383–1407 und verwandtes Material zum regensburger-südostdeutschen Handel und Münzwesen, vol. 3, ed. Franz Bastian, Deutsche Handelsakten des Mittelalters und der Neuzeit 8 (Regensburg: Bosse, 1943), 183, no. 9 (22nd January 1390). See Štěpán, Moravský markrabě Jošt, 295. For Wenceslas IV’s ample concessions to Nuremberg, see Paul-Joachim Heinig, Reichsstädte, freie Städte und Königtum 1389–1450. Ein Beitrag zur deutschen Verfassungsgeschichte, Veröffentlichungen des Instituts für Europäische

Patriarch

127

In March 1390, the envoys of the pope and Margrave Jobst arrived in Cividale to see the patriarch. Unfortunately, we do not know what they discussed there.237 It was probably sometime during that period—perhaps at the insistence of the papal representatives with whom he met—that John finally visited his patriarchal basilica in Aquileia, where he thus belatedly assumed the spiritual rule of the patriarchate.238 The enthroning ritual usually proceeded in the following manner: the patriarch rode on horseback at the head of his retinue while a procession of bishops, abbots and canons came towards him, carrying before them a banner with a depiction of a cross. When the procession reached the cathedral, the patriarch dismounted from his horse onto a stone specially designated for this purpose and entered the basilica. He knelt down in the middle of the nave and, after receiving the blessing of the dean of the Aquileian chapter, he was ceremonially seated on the patriarchal throne in the apse by the dean and canons and there accepted the kiss of peace (osculum pacis) from them. The ritual was then concluded with the singing of the Te Deum laudamus.239 Geschichte Mainz—Abteilung Universalgeschichte 108; Beiträge zur Sozial- und Verfas­ sungsgeschichte des Alten Reiches 3 (Wiesbaden: Steiner, 1983), 42–43 and 270–271. 237   B CU, FP, ms. 899, Raccolta Bianchi, vol. 55, no. 5520; Di Manzano, Annali del Friuli, vol. 6, 44–45 (6th March 1390). 238  As noted above, John’s visit to Aquileia is referred to only by the Capitula contra patriarcham Johannem, art. 24: “Quod per annum cum dimidio stetit in Patria, antequam pati posset suam sanctam Aquilegensem et cathedralem ecclesiam visitare. Cumque sibi opponeretur per subditos, quod invisam suam sedem haberet, quodam terrore potius quam amore illuc de mense martii proxime preteriti accessit …” Given the quite detailed chronological anchoring, the core of the information—in contrast to the actual description of this event—seems to be relatively reliable. 239  A notarial instrument describing the enthronement of Nicholas of Luxembourg is partially edited in De Rubeis, Monumenta Ecclesiae Aquilejensis, cols. 912–913: “Congregato canonicorum, mansionariorum, capellanorum, et clericorum omnium ecclesiae Aquilegensis in unum capitulo; et processione facta cum cruce vexillis usque ad portam omnium Sanctorum, ad quam obviam ivimus domino patriarchae infrascripto: in qua processione fuerunt […] Cum perventum fuit ad ecclesiam, dominus patriarcha descendit de equo super lapidem consignatum. Intrato in ecclesiam, et genuflexo in medio ecclesiae, dominus decanus fecit benedictionem. Facta benedictione, monachi expoliaverunt eum cappa, qua indosatus erat. Tunc domini decanus una cum canonicis duxerunt eum ad sedem: et ibidem eumdem reverendum in Christo patrem et dominum D. N. sanctae sedis Aquilegensis patriarcham installarunt in sede. Qui dominus patriarcha omnes canonicos ibidem ad pacis osculum recepit, et ibidem resedit, cantato Te Deum laudamus: et tunc patriarchatum accesit” (21st May 1351). Cf. Paschini, Storia del Friuli, 502; Pio Paschini, “Usanze feudali alla corte del patriarca d’Aquileia,” MSF 15 (1919), 102–103. Nicoletti offers a slightly different description of the ritual in his treatise Leggi e costumi dei Furlani. See Di Manzano, Annali del Friuli, vol. 2, 207.

128

Chapter 5

By contrast, the Capitula contra patriarcham Johannem state that John committed a bizarre desecration of this ritual when, “dressed in military clothing” and with a dagger at his side, he supposedly wielded the crozier of St. Hermagoras like a lance at a tournament.240 Although this biased account undoubtedly belongs to the realm of fantasy, we might infer from it that John’s enthronement in the Aquileian basilica took place without much in the way of pomp and ceremony, which could also be indicated by the silence of the other sources concerning this event. 6

Francesco Novello da Carrara and the Anti-Visconti League

In the spring of 1390, the patriarchate of Aquileia was once again to become embroiled in a wider North Italian conflict. For months, there had been increasing hostility between Giangaleazzo Visconti with his Lombard allies on the one side and Florence and Bologna, later joined by Duke Stephen III of Bavaria, on the other. As usual, the Republic of Venice remained officially neutral. The state of tension between the two sides resulted in a declaration of war in May 1390. As a natural enemy of the lord of Milan, Francesco Novello da Carrara also joined the anti-Visconti league and, at the same time, seized the opportunity to finally execute his plans for the reconquest of Padua.241 To successfully carry out his enterprise, however, he needed the support of the patriarch of Aquileia. For that reason, purportedly at the instigation of the count of Ortenburg, he had messengers sent to John in Cividale with a request for free passage through his territory and essential supplies. As is clear from the description of the chronicler Bartolomeo Gatari, John was fully aware of how precarious his situation was. On the one hand, he was inclined towards Carrara’s plans, but on the other hand he did not want to anger Venice, with which he now had very friendly relations. By allowing Carrara to cross the patriarchate, he would be opening a direct way for him to the territory of Treviso, which belonged to 240  C  apitula contra patriarcham Johannem, art. 24: “… ad cathedram pergens accepta ferula pastorali sancti Hermachore sub brachio more lancee, ‘ah,’ inquit, ‘quam bene hastiluderem!’ versus sedem sanctam currens indutis stipendiarii vestibus et appensa sub collo daga.” 241  Bueno de Mesquita, Giangaleazzo Visconti, 98–120; Francesco Cognasso, “L’unificazione della Lombardia sotto Milano,” in Storia di Milano, vol. 5, La signoria dei Visconti (1310– 1392) (Milan: Treccani, 1955), 541–555; Kohl, Padua under the Carrara, 256–265; cf. also Ludovico Frati, “La lega dei bolognesi e dei fiorentini contro Gio. Galeazzo Visconti (1389– 1390),” Archivio Storico Lombardo, ser. 2, 6 (1889), 5–24.

Patriarch

129

the Republic. So far, however, the Venetians were maintaining a rather cool attitude towards Carrara, mainly so as not to antagonize Visconti, with whom they had a formal alliance.242 In the end John did enter into an agreement, but in return he asked for the cession of Feltre and Belluno, strategic towns at the foot of the Alps and seats of the united bishopric, or a payment of 30,000 florins. According to Gatari, Carrara regarded this request as quite excessive and unfair; nevertheless, conscious of how indispensable an agreement with the patriarch was, he eventually agreed.243 The final documentation went through on 22nd May 1390, and the conditions of the alliance were precisely specified: Francesco Novello explicitly undertook to surrender the cities of Belluno and Feltre within one month of the patriarch’s request, or—if he did not manage to acquire them—the sum of 30,000 florins within one year. In addition, he promised that he would not cause excessive damage as he passed through the patriarchate and, “tamquam amicus,” would duly purchase all the requisite supplies. Carrara’s obligations applied not only to John, but also to any other person who might possess the charter with his knowledge (Margrave Jobst was explicitly mentioned), something which was to play a role in later events.244 Undoubtedly at the patriarch’s 242  The Carrara envoys’ negotiations with John are described in Cronaca Carrarese di Galeazzo e Bartolomeo Gatari, RIS n.s. XVII/1a, 398–400; see especially John’s fictitious speech ibid., 399: “Gienerosi cavalieri, quanto questa cosa sia gravisima credo che ’1 signor vostro e voy el chonnoscha, cioè che asentando mi per lo mio teretorio el passo alcune giente, quelle cunvignerà per forza chavalcare sul Trivixano, teretorio dela dugale signoria di Vinexia, dela quale sono amighisimo; el signor vostro e voi ancora puote sapere quanto misser Francescho da Carara, el vechio e ’1 ziovene, sono stati inimighissimy, e como per loro sapere e sua industria fu caxione chaziarlli de sua signoria, el padre e figliolo, dove certisimo mi rendo, che’a quella signoria di Vinexia non piaxerà, che ’1 detto misser Francesco da Carara procacy de requistare la cita de Padoa, per più mai con la caxa da Carara venire in alchune guerre; le quale cose poniamo che’io asenta, io remarò inimico e a guerra me converrà venire con quella signoria di Venexia; la qual cosa per niuno modo al presente non voria. Ma è vero che l’amore del conte de Ortenburgh, vostro signore e mio carisimo e amantisimo fradello, me moveria e me muove a farme responderve me eser contento di fare tuto quelo vole el signor vostro e misser Francescho da Carara, aciò che lui reconquiste sua citade.” Similarly Chronicon Patavinum italica lingua conscriptum, RIS XVII, cols. 767–769. For the position of Venice, see Cessi, “La politica veneziana,” 193–194. 243  Cronaca Carrarese di Galeazzo e Bartolomeo Gatari, RIS n.s. XVII/1a, 400. 244  A copy of the treaty is preserved e.g. in Biblioteca Civica di Belluno (= BCB), ms. 495, Documenti trascritti riguardanti la storia della provincia di Belluno dall’anno 1380 al 1420, no. 455, unpaged; facsimile of the manuscript: Documenti antichi trascritti da Francesco Pellegrini, vol. 4, Dal 1380 al 1407 (Belluno: Comune di Belluno, 1993), 130–131, no. 455. See the Italian translation in Zanutto, “I Savorgnani di Cividale,” 49–50, and the summary by Paschini, Storia del Friuli, 644. According to the corroboration clause, the charter was sealed by Francesco Carrara, count of Ortenburg and two other nobles.

130

Chapter 5

request, Francesco Carrara later also promised to provide support to Jobst as new imperial vicar for Italy whose arrival in Friuli was expected.245 It is worth noting that, only a few days after the agreement with Francesco Novello was sealed, John sent a delegation to Venice and, pretending that he was prepared to do what the Republic of St. Mark advised him, asked questions about its position towards Carrara. Not a word was said about the agreement that had been concluded, which the patriarch was evidently trying to keep a secret for the moment. The Serenissima declared itself against helping Carrara, but not in particularly resolute terms, thus giving John a free hand in his subsequent actions.246 John’s negotiations with Francesco Carrara and the assembling of armed men triggered considerable unrest in Udine, which feared an attack from his troops. The decision was therefore taken to elect seven citizens who were to exercise absolute power over the city along with the original council of seven deputies, and the city’s defences were strengthened.247 Despite the preparations for war, however, peace talks were still ongoing. John asked Venice to send a diplomat who, together with four other representatives selected by the council of the parliament, would put an end to the protracted conflict. The senate assented to this and dispatched patrician Jacopo Gradenigo to the patriarchate to that end.248 This development was met with displeasure by Giangaleazzo Visconti, since he was undoubtedly aware that the ultimate success (or failure) of Carrara’s campaign depended on the attitude of the patriarch, and once more he entreated Venice to join forces to try to get the pope to depose the patriarch. However, the Republic refused again on the grounds of the “friendship” with the patriarch and its commercial interests, adding that “our city lives off trade, especially with the Germans and Hungarians, to whom the patriarch is very

245   C DM XI, 519–520, no. 598 (28th May 1390). Carrara’s charter was issued at the castle of Gronumbergo near Cividale. For the background of this act, see below. 246  ASVen, Senato, Secreti, reg. R (E), fol. 55v: “… ipse [i.e. the patriarch] est dispositus facere secundum, quod sibi dicemus […] ad factum domini Francisci predicti sic dicimus, quod nobis utilius videretur pro tota Patria, quod dictus dominus Francisus non faceret facta ista in Patria” (3rd June 1390). Quoted in Cessi, “La politica veneziana,” 194; an English translation also in Bueno de Mesquita, Giangaleazzo Visconti, 120. Cessi was not aware of the treaty between Patriarch John and Carrara. 247   B CU, FP, ms. 899, Raccolta Bianchi, vol. 55, no. 5536: “… quibus etiam quatuordecim sic deputatis defferri debet per dictum consilium, prout ibidem delata fuit, plena auctoritas, potestas et licentia condemnandi et absolvendi ac licentiandi …” (27th May 1390). See Seneca, “Il conflitto fra Giovanni,” 50; Paschini, Storia del Friuli, 644–645. 248  Cessi, “La politica veneziana,” 194; ASVen, Senato, Secreti, reg. R (E), fol. 55v (3rd June 1390).

Patriarch

131

closely related and who would certainly not be pleased by such an exchange.”249 As we learn from a later dispatch drawn up by Lambertino Canetoli, envoy of Francesco Gonzaga in Ferrara, Visconti did not give up, and “for a long time” strove at the papal curia for John’s removal from the see of Aquileia. Nevertheless, his endeavour never met with success.250 In the meantime, Francesco Novello arrived in Cividale with his troops, where he was enthusiastically welcomed by the inhabitants of the town, bound to Carrara by an old friendship. There he was joined by a number of noblemen from the patriarchate, who willingly offered him their services in the forthcoming campaign. The entire army, “composed of Paduan and Veronese exiles, friends and allies from Friuli, and some contingents of German mercenaries,” soon marched off in the direction of Padua.251 Their passage through the Venetian territory of Treviso also went off without a hitch. Despite its strict neutrality towards the treaty of alliance with Visconti, the Republic of St. Mark allowed Carrara—evidently on the basis of a previous secret agreement—to pass through its territory without interfering in any way.252 Because of this, Francesco Novello and his army were able to reach Padua in mid-June 1390. The city fell after a surprisingly short siege, and thus, after a year and a half, Carrara once again regained possession of his former ­signoria. 249  Cessi, “La politica veneziana,” 194–195, quoting ASVen, Senato, Secreti, reg. R (E), fol. 54v: “… quod civitas nostra vivit de exercicio mercancie et pro maiori parte cum Teothonicis et Hungaris, cum quibus est in strictissimo gradu parentele coniunctus, quibus non placeret, ut talis privatio seu permutatio procuraretur, que foret cum onere domus sue. Dubitamus similiter, si ita faciliter obtineri posset, quia certissimi sumus, quod dominus papa etiam consideraret, quod faciendo hoc displiceret principibus supradictis …” (26th May 1390); fol. 55r (31st May 1390). There is also an Italian translation in Paschini, Storia del Friuli, 645, and Cessi, Storia della Repubblica, 345. 250  ASMn, AG, b. 1227, no. 570: “Ad factum privacionis patriarce ipse [i.e. marquis d’Este] nullo modo credit, quod sit privatus et specialiter ad instanciam et requisicionem domini chomitis Virtutum, quia non credit dominum nostrum papam esse dispositum de presenti in aliquo sibi complacere. Est bene verum, quod dominus chomes diu procuravit, ut dominus noster vellet dictum dominum patriarcham vel removere, vel privare et ipse nunquam volluit …” (15th January [1392]). For Canetoli, see Gianfranco Pasquali, “Canetoli, Lambertino,” in DBI 18 (Rome: Istituto della Enciclopedia italiana, 1975), 40–41. 251  Cronaca Carrarese di Galeazzo e Bartolomeo Gatari, RIS n.s. XVII/1a, 404–406. See Zanutto, “I Savorgnani di Cividale,” 50–52; Paschini, Storia del Friuli, 645; Kohl, Padua under the Carrara, 265–266 (wherein the quotation). 252  Cronaca Carrarese di Galeazzo e Bartolomeo Gatari, RIS n.s. XVII/1a, 400–402 links such an agreement with the negotiations of the Florentine and Bolognese diplomats in Venice. However, as Cessi, “La politica veneziana,” 195–197 pointed out, these negotiations are not documented by any source in the Venetian archive. This measure could perhaps be explained by the Republic of St. Mark’s caution in trying not to compromise itself in the eyes of its Milanese ally and thereby provide him with a pretext for an accusation of treason.

132

Chapter 5

A group partly made up of Friulian noblemen distinguished itself in the fighting, breaking into the city through some kind of drainage channel and opening its gates. They then wrote several letters to Cividale about their chivalric exploits.253 Afterwards, some of them were knighted by Carrara himself (including the patriarch’s marshal Nicholas Tunchil, hypothetically one and the same as Nicholas of Bukůvka).254 The success of Carrara’s campaign, with significant backing from the patriarch, thus surpassed expectations and provoked “consolation” and “exultation of the people” in Cividale and, we may add, on the part of John too.255 Despite this, however, not all of the stated aims were achieved: in particular, the cities of Feltre and Belluno remained under the control of Giangaleazzo Visconti. Therefore, Francesco Novello was to pay John 30,000 florins by the following June, in accordance with the agreement they had concluded. In reality, however, this never actually came about. Nevertheless, the struggles of the anti-Visconti league continued. At the end of June 1390, the Bavarian duke Stephen finally came to Carrara’s aid, followed by 6,000 horsemen. He first showed up in the patriarchate, where he was welcomed by Augustine of Litomyšl (there is no evidence of a personal meeting between the patriarch and the duke), whereupon he crossed the Venetian 253  For the conquest of Padua, see Kohl, Padua under the Carrara, 266–267; Bueno de Mesquita, Giangaleazzo Visconti, 121–123. The letters to Cividale in BCU, FP, ms. 899, Raccolta Bianchi, vol. 55, no. 5540; Italian translation in Zanutto, “I Savorgnani di Cividale,” 55–56 (20th June 1390); BCC, ACC, Antica cancelleria del comune—fondo Lorenzo D’Orlandi, b. 5, no. 19 (21st June 1390). Cf. Cronaca Carrarese di Galeazzo e Bartolomeo Gatari, RIS n.s. XVII/1a, 413, note 1; Seneca, “Il conflitto fra Giovanni,” 51, note 1. 254  Cronaca Carrarese di Galeazzo e Bartolomeo Gatari, RIS n.s. XVII/1a, 414–415. The identification of the two Nicholases is not unambiguous. In 1390, the Gemona city council asked the patriarch to appoint Nicholas de Buk as its captain and a few days afterwards Marshal Nicholas Thunchil entered office. This would indicate that both persons were one and the same: BCG, ACG, Quaderni delle Deliberazioni, reg. 15, fols. 53v–54r (5th [?] and 7th January 1390). However, we cannot state it with certainty. Later, the marshal is referred to as Nicholas Tunchil Pollaner. See BCC, ACC, Antica cancelleria del comune—fondo Lorenzo D’Orlandi, b. 5, no. 46 (26th June 1393). Furthermore, Enrico Miniati, “Storia di Gemona nel Basso Medioevo” (PhD thesis, Università degli Studi di Udine, 2013), 270, 274 indicates that Marshal Nicholas had the predicate de Laydinstorf. 255  See Francesco Novello’s letter addressed to Cividale in BCC, ACC, Antica cancelleria del comune—fondo Lorenzo D’Orlandi, b. 24, no. 36/3 (21st June 1390; a copy containing an erroneous date also in BCU, FP, ms. 899, Raccolta Bianchi, vol. 55, no. 5541), and especially the minute of the congratulatory letter sent by the Cividalese to Carrara ibid., b. 5, no. 84: “Vestre magnificencie valde congratulamur de felicibus successibus vestris ac prospero et tuto introitu vestre civitatis Paduane, unde consolationes letificaverunt mentes nostras et nobis occurrit celebris exultacio populorum …” (undated). There is an Italian translation of both documents in Zanutto, “I Savorgnani di Cividale,” 56. Cf. Seneca, “Il conflitto fra Giovanni,” 51, and also the account by Nicoletti: Di Manzano, Annali del Friuli, vol. 6, 58.

Patriarch

133

territory of Treviso unhindered and moved on to Padua.256 In order to support Duke Stephen’s intention, John soon sent an embassy to Venice with the aim of convincing the Republic to join the side of the allies. In view of the agreement with Visconti, the Serenissima once again refused to do so, but at the same time it was in no way hostile towards John’s participation in the league.257 In the patriarchate, meanwhile, the conflict between the patriarch and Udine did not diminish. Another bone of contention was the dispute over the abbey of Beligna. The Udine city council had decided to provide assistance to the local Celestine monks so that they could occupy the monastery in compliance with a papal bull, something which John had previously forbidden, from motives which are not entirely clear.258 In view of the unsuccessful negotiations with the patriarch—who in addition intransigently demanded the restitution of the castle of Flagogna (held by the Savorgnano family), which he claimed for the patriarchal mensa—the Udinese took an oath in which they promised mutual loyalty and readiness jointly to defend the city against anyone.259 256  Many documents regarding Stephen’s passage through the territory of the patriarchate and Treviso at the turn of June and July are edited in Verci, Storia della Marca, vol. 17, documenti, 34–36, nos. 1926–1931; reference to Augustine’s trip to Venzone “pro visitando dominum ducem” in BCG, ACG, Quaderni dei Massari, reg. 417, fol. 20r (July 1390). For the duke’s descent into Italy, see Pier L. Rambaldi, “Stefano III, duca di Baviera, al servizio della Lega contro Gian Galeazzo Visconti (Luglio–Agosto 1390). Nuove osservazioni su documenti inediti,” Archivio Storico Lombardo, ser. 3, 15 (1901), 286–326; Paschini, Storia del Friuli, 645–646; Seneca, “Il conflitto fra Giovanni,” 51–52; for Venice’s position, see Cessi, “La politica veneziana,” 196–198. The participation of the count di Duino, mentioned in the sources as “dominus comes de Duyno,” in the campaign was rejected by Rodolfo Pichler, Il castello di Duino: memorie (Trent: G. Seiser, 1882), 215–217, and Cusin, Il confine orientale, vol. 1, 185, note 118. 257  Cessi, “La politica veneziana,” 198, quoting ASVen, Senato, Secreti, reg. R (E), fol. 57v: “Sed si domino patriarche placebit attendere ad dictam ligam, ipse est sapiens et habet bonum consilium et poterit facere, ut paternitati sue placebit, quia non dubitamus, quod sapientissime providebit ad bonum statum suum et totius Patrie” (9th July 1390). According to Stephen’s subsequent embassy to Venice, the king of the Romans, i.e. Wenceslas, and the pope were also to join the league. 258  Paschini, Storia del Friuli, 644 and 658, note 66; Pio Paschini, “L’Abbazia di S. Martino alla Beligna,” Aquileia Nostra 31 (1960), 108–109. The decision of the Udine city council in BCU, FP, ms. 899, Raccolta Bianchi, vol. 55, no. 5547 (8th July 1390). 259  Parlamento friulano, I/2, 359, no. 359: “… primo quod unusquisque deberet iurare et promittere essendi fideles et legales ad invicem ac tamquam fratres. Item quod sint et esse debeant fideles et prompti ad adiuvandum et defendendum communitatem Utini contra quascumque personas” (19th August 1390). See Paschini, Storia del Friuli, 646; Seneca, “Il conflitto fra Giovanni,” 52–53; cf. Fabio Piuzzi, “Il castello di Flagogna,” in I Savorgnan e la Patria, 91, according to whom the castle was “under the jurisdiction of the Savorgnano from the first half of the fourteenth century.”

134

Chapter 5

What was originally just a local conflict threatened to take on wider dimensions, since the Udinese began to consider seeking help from Visconti, who would certainly have welcomed any kind of pretext to finally get rid of the inconvenient patriarch. Although Giangaleazzo’s intervention in the patriarchate would have contravened the wording of the treaty of alliance between him and Venice, in the light of the Republic’s odd new neutrality, which worked in favour of the anti-Visconti league, this pact appeared dubious to say the least. However, Venice had no intention of allowing Visconti to intervene, and encouraged John and Udine to end hostilities. Margrave Jobst also joined in with the peace efforts, advising his brother “not to deviate from the guidance” of the Republic of St. Mark.260 Shortly before, however, two “ambassadors of the emperor” arrived in the patriarchate.261 The reasons for their arrival could perhaps be related to the as yet obscure plan of the house of Luxembourg, which is illustrated by a letter drawn up at that time by a certain Cristoforo de Valle, envoy of King Wenceslas to Milan, and addressed to the lord of Mantua. In it, he reports that the margrave of Moravia was appointed vicar of “all Lombardy” and as soon as he had dealt with matters on the other side of the Alps, he would come into Italy with more than 2,000 lances which were to be gathered in Friuli. The outcome of all this was to have been “magna facta in partibus Lombardie.”262 260  Cessi, “La politica veneziana,” 204; Paschini, Storia del Friuli, 646. The relevant passage in the senate registers, partially quoted by Cessi, in ASVen, Senato, Misti, reg. 41, fols. 102v–103r: “… exhortatione illustris et magnifici fratris sui domini marchionis Moravie, qui tam efficaciter hortatus fuit ipsum dominum patriarcham, ut non recedat a consiliis nostri dominii, ex quibus ipse dominus patriarcha dispositus est in omnibus credere consiliis nostris et semper facere secundum voluntatem et beneplacita nostra. […] forsam ipsi [i.e. the Udinese] sperarent, quod dominus comes Virtutum se impediret de eis, quod hoc penitus trahant de mente et animo suo, quia hoc nullo modo posset accidere …” (21st August 1390). 261   B CU, FP, ms. 899, Raccolta Bianchi, vol. 55, no. 5551: “… duos ambaxiatores domini imperatoris, videlicet dominum comitem de Lozo et socium suum …” Cf. Di Manzano, Annali del Friuli, vol. 6, 51–52 (14th August 1390). The first ambassador might be hypothetically identified with the well-known condottiero Count Lutz of Landau. See Stephan Selzer, Deutsche Söldner im Italien des Trecento, Bibliothek des Deutschen Historischen Instituts in Rom 98 (Tübingen: Niemeyer, 2001), 380–383. 262  The original is preserved in ASMn, AG, b. 1407, no. 17 (18th August [1390]). The document was pointed out by Alessandro Luzio, L’Archivio Gonzaga di Mantova, vol. 2, La corrispondenza familiare, amministrativa e diplomatica dei Gonzaga (Verona: Mondadori, 1922), 221, note 1. For an edition and analysis of the text, see Ondřej Schmidt, “Václav IV., Jošt a Prokop očima italského vyslance. K situaci v lucemburském rodě roku 1390,” ČMM 137, no. 1 (2018), 3–27; cf. also Ondřej Schmidt, “Wenceslas IV and his Court through the Eyes of the Envoys of Mantua: Some New Evidence from the Gonzaga Archive,” in Wenzel IV. (1361–1419) (in print). Here I borrow some passages from my articles.

Patriarch

135

The aforementioned margrave of Moravia was undoubtedly Jobst of Luxem­ bourg, appointed imperial vicar for Italy for the second time by Wenceslas IV in September 1389. His oath as a new vicar clearly shows that one of his tasks was to have been negotiations or even combat with Visconti.263 In view of Jobst’s journey to Brandenburg in the second half of 1390, the campaign was postponed. Later, in November of the same year, Wenceslas IV dispatched an embassy consisting of Doctor Ubaldino Buonamici, the king’s counsellor, and the Minorite friar Nicholas of Unhošť, confessor to Wenceslas, to Boniface IX with the task of assuring the pontiff of vicar Jobst’s early arrival in Italy.264 Even though that never actually happened, the efforts of the Luxembourgs clearly demonstrate their joint support for the anti-Visconti league, as well as their hostility to the powerful lord of Milan.265 Patriarch John was undoubtedly involved in the plan too, since Friuli was to have become the rallying point of the imperial army. 7

New Conflicts and New Truces

Meanwhile, in Udine, another scandal was brewing. The city council ordered the imprisonment of a certain citizen by the name of Mattiusso di Leonardo Breda and charged him with treason. From his interrogation it emerged that Mattiusso was involved in some kind of a dispute with the heirs of Federico di Savorgnano, which was settled to his disadvantage. His disgust with the present council was noticed by the captain of Udine, Guglielmo Furlano or perhaps his deputy Giovanni de Fuxo, who was the highest official and representative 263   C DM XI, 480–481, no. 566 (17th September 1389). For Jobst’s appointment as imperial vicar for Italy, see Marie-Luise Heckmann, Stellvertreter, Mit- und Ersatzherrscher. Regenten, Generalstatthalter, Kurfürsten und Reichsvikare in Regnum und Imperium vom 13. bis zum frühen 15. Jahrhundert, vol. 2, Studien zu den Luxemburgern und ihrer Zeit 9 (Warendorf: Fahlbusch, 2002), 600–606. 264  Deutsche Reichstagsakten, vol. 2, 369–371, nos. 216–217 (21st November 1390). See Spěváček, Václav IV., 207; for Nicholas, see ibid., 735; Ivan Hlaváček, “Studie k dvoru Václava IV. (1. část),” Folia Historica Bohemica 3 (1981), 162, no. 40; for Ubaldino, see Michele Luzzati, “Ubaldino Buonamici arcivescovo di Torres e di Arborea in un documento pisano del 1395,” in Dal mondo antico all’età contemporanea. Studi in onore di Manlio Brigaglia offerti dal Dipartimento di Storia dell’Università di Sassari, Collana del Dipartimento di Storia dell’Università degli Studi di Sassari 7 (Rome: Carocci, 2001), 281–285. 265  For the changing relationship between Wenceslas IV and Giangaleazzo, see Ivan Hlaváček, “Wenzel (IV.) und Giangaleazzo Visconti,” in Reich, Regionen und Europa im Mittelalter und Neuzeit. Festschrift für Peter Moraw, ed. Paul-Joachim Heinig et al., Historische Forschungen 67 (Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 2000), 203–226.

136

Chapter 5

of the patriarch in the city,266 and he promised him a certain sum of money if he became the familiaris of the patriarch (later on, Mattiusso did indeed take an oath of allegiance to John, promising to inform him about any possible conspiracy against the prelate). At the same time the captain described the city council as “shepherds” who “would not even know how to govern sheep,” and added that “such a city must be run by individuals well versed in governance […], and so I believe that the patriarch will soon come to Udine and appoint administrators who will govern better, since the Savorgnano are no longer here, who would have governed as they were accustomed to, as the government of the city is in the hands of the lord patriarch.” In addition, he declared that there were more such “familiares” in Udine.267 This led directly to the indignant Udinese citizens removing the compromised captain from office and repeatedly asking the patriarch to appoint a replacement; otherwise, they threatened to choose one themselves. John thus lost another source of support in the city.268 On the other hand, the interrogation of Mattiusso Breda indicated that John still had many sympathizers there, especially among craftsmen and poorer people, who were waiting in hopeful expectation for his return and were prepared to come to his aid. In response to the pleas of Leonardo Andriotti that he come to Udine at once, however, the patriarch is supposed to have replied arrogantly that he would

266  The title of this office varied according to individual towns: captain, gastaldo or podestà. He was appointed directly by the patriarch for one year and his main responsibility was to exercise justice and preside at sessions of the city council. See Scarton, “L’amministrazione civica,” 313; Miniati, “Storia di Gemona,” 268–275; Joppi, “Istituzioni politiche ed amministrative,” xxv–xxvii; for an identification of the Udine captain, see “Statuta et ordinamenta comunitatis terre Utini MCCCCXXV,” ed. Vincenzo Joppi and Alessandro Wolf, in Statuti e ordinamenti del Comune di Udine, appendices, 115–116, no. 4 (22nd August 1390); cf. Vincezo Joppi, “Catalogo dei Gastaldi e Capitani di Udine dal 1250 al 1426,” ibid., li. 267  For the decision of the Udine city council concerning Breda’s imprisonment, see BCU, FP, ms. 899, Raccolta Bianchi, vol. 55, no. 5552 (19th August 1390); the extensive interrogation protocol in ASU, Documenti storici friulani, b. II, no. 175, fols. 151r–153r; for the quotation fol. 151v: “… et de hoc non dubites, quia [patriarcha] bene habet in Utino aduc de aliis familiaribus et volo, quod scias, quod non est congruum, neque conveniens, quod ista terra regatur per tales pegorarios, quia nescirent regere pecudes, ymo talis terra deberet regi per personas scientes regere et pro certo ego dico tibi, quia spero, quod dominus patriarcha in brevi intrabit terram Utini et tales rectores ponet, quod civitas ista melius regetur, quia ad presens non sunt illi de Savorgnano, qui regant, sicut solebant facere, quoniam regimen huius civitatis spectat et pertinet ad dominum patriarcham …” (29th August 1390). The protocol is extensively summarized and quoted in Marchesi, “Giovanni di Moravia,” 134. 268  Di Manzano, Annali del Friuli, vol. 6, 52–53 (20th and 30th August 1390). See Marchesi, “Giovanni di Moravia,” 134; Cusin, Il confine orientale, vol. 1, 185–186.

Patriarch

137

come when he himself chose to.269 As for Mattiusso, it is not known how the trial ended for him. The weakening of central power in the patriarchate did not escape the attention of the Austrian dukes, who evidently decided to profit from the turbulent internal situation in the country and thus laid siege to the castle of Manzano in early September.270 We have no information about the further course of events; nevertheless, the attack by the Habsburgs is quite surprising if we consider that, in the same year, Duke Albert III of Austria asked that John’s court jester (istrio), Gianfrancesco, be lent to him for the wedding celebration of his son, also called Albert.271 In fact, it is quite possible that the letter from the abbot of the monastery of Rosazzo that informs us about the siege of Manzano does not actually come from the year 1390.272 On the other hand, we know that later relations between the Habsburgs and the patriarchate were not without their problems: at the end of the year 1391, the Udinese captured several Austrian merchants, which triggered the intervention of the Austrian marshal in Friuli and also John’s intervention in Venice, and in April of the following year disputes between subjects of the duke and

269   A SU, Documenti storici friulani, b. II, no. 175, fol. 152v: “… directe nunc esset hora, ut ipse dominus patriarcha veniret Utinum, quia laboratores et artisani omnes qinvocant [sic!] eum et si scirent, quod se moveret causa veniendi Utinum, multi essent, qui exirent de Utino et irent sibi oviam, et quod pro certo, si veniret ad presens et intraret per unam portam, alii ceteri, qui haberent suspicionem de eo et qui fuissent sui adversarii, exirent per aliam portam et non expectarent eum […] Ego [i.e. John of Moravia] bene sciam, quando ego debebo venire, quia ego volam venire ad postulacionem meam et non ad postulacionem Leonardi de Andriotis.” According to Paschini, Storia del Friuli, 633, in March 1388, Leonardo Andriotti was involved in plotting to assassinate Federico di Savorgnano. Shortly afterwards, however, he received a provision from the Venetian Republic: ASVen, Senato, Secreti, reg. R (E), fol. 20r (8th May 1388). 270  See the letter sent to Cividale by the abbot of Rosazzo in BCC, ACC, Antica cancelleria del comune—fondo Lorenzo D’Orlandi, b. 5, no. 26: “… domini duces sunt ante Manzanum et de die in diem parant artificia ad volendum pugnare castrum, sed nescimus diem neque horam” (2nd September [1390?]). See Seneca, “Il conflitto fra Giovanni,” 53; Trapani, Inventario, 38, no. 263; Olivo, Antica cancelleria, vol. 1, 61, no. 269. 271  “Documenti goriziani del secolo XIV,” AT, n.s., 17 (1891), 306, no. 311 (1390). 272  The letter does not contain a year of issue, with 1390 being written only on an appended abstract from the nineteenth century. At the top of it, the abbot’s signature uses only the abbreviation “R,” which—given the rather unclear occupancy of the office in this period— does not help with the letter’s precise dating either. For a list of the abbots of Rosazzo, see Wilhelm Baum, “Rosazzo,” in Die benediktinischen Mönchs- und Nonnenklöster in Österreich und Südtirol, ed. Ulrich Faust and Waltraud Krassnig, Germania Benedictina 3/3 (St. Ottilien: EOS Verlag, 2002), 178–179.

138

Chapter 5

of the patriarch were dealt with at a general assembly.273 In February 1393, at a meeting of the city council in Gemona, there was talk of how the truce between the Habsburgs and the patriarch would soon come to an end, and a few months later the same council forwarded him a letter from Conrad of Kraig, in which he urged John to make peace with the duke.274 Meanwhile, a rumour was circulating in Udine that the papal legate Cosimo de’ Migliorati, “the Cardinal of Bologna,”275 had arrived in Venice, and the city council decided to send a delegation to him to complain about the patriarch and even ask that he be removed from office. At the same time, they were perhaps to present or read to him the accusations compiled around that time, with which we are familiar from the text of the Capitula contra patriarcham Johannem, in which John was depicted as a cruel tyrant who was “worse than Nero.”276 However, the Venetian senate was totally opposed to this—as well as to any other intervention in the patriarchate—and instead simply encouraged the Udinese and the patriarch to make peace.277 However, all of these efforts were to no avail, and in October 1390 the conflict escalated into armed clashes. Because of hostile actions by the patriarch’s (and his marshal’s) armed men, the Udinese council had to resort to loans from Jews in order to ensure an adequate defence of the city.278 In the meantime, John held discussions with 273   See Cessi, “Venezia neutrale,” 238; ASVen, Senato, Secreti, reg. R (E), fol. 70v (8th December 1391); Parlamento friulano, I/2, 365, no. 371; BCU, FP, ms. 899, Raccolta Bianchi, vol. 56, no. 5622 (18th April 1392). 274   B CG, ACG, Quaderni delle Deliberazioni, reg. 18, fol. 42v (11th February 1393); ibid., reg. 19, fol. 20r (20th June 1393). Furthermore, in BCC, ACC, Antica cancelleria del comune— fondo Lorenzo D’Orlandi, b. 5, no. 51, there is a letter from Pieve di Cadore asking the patriarch to provide help against the Habsburgs, who have taken possession of the temporal jurisdiction of the Trent bishopric. In an appended archival abstract the letter is dated 27th September 1393 (cf. Trapani, Inventario, 42, no. 304; Olivo, Antica cancelleria, vol. 1, 66, no. 294). However, in view of the historical context—with the issue of the so-called “compattate” a few days before—as well as the fact that the document contains only an indiction (indicione prima), it should be dated to the year 1363. For the “compattate,” see Aldo Stella, “I principati vescovili di Trento e Bressanone,” in I Ducati padani, Trento e Trieste, ed. Lino Marini, Giovanni Tocci and Aldo Stella, Storia d’Italia 17 (Turin: UTET, 1979), 512–513. 275  See Eubel, Hierarchia catholica, vol. 1, 25; Paschini, Storia del Friuli, 658, note 74. The cardinal had a commission to mediate peace between Visconti and the league opposing him. 276  Capitula contra patriarcham Johannem; for the dating and function of the text, see Excursus 2 in this book. 277  Cessi, “La politica veneziana,” 204–206; ASVen, Senato, Secreti, reg. R (E), fol. 60r (10th September 1390). 278   B CU, FP, ms. 899, Raccolta Bianchi, vol. 55, no. 5561 (17th October 1390); no. 5562 (18th October 1390); no. 5563 (19th October 1390). See Marchesi, “Giovanni di Moravia,” 135; Seneca, “Il conflitto fra Giovanni,” 54–55.

Patriarch

139

the Friulian nobility, with the aim of creating an alliance against the Udinese rebels.279 It appears that Gemona also definitively aligned itself with the patriarch, since the city council sent two envoys to him charged with refuting false rumours that they were in league with the Udinese.280 Although peace talks were resumed at the instigation of Venice, they went on until January of the following year without producing any significant results.281 It was not until 21st February 1391 that a new peace treaty was finally concluded with the help of the Venetian representative Jacopo Gradenigo. The text of the related document has probably not survived in this case; nevertheless, it emerges from a later peace treaty from 1393 summarizing one of the articles of the previous agreement that, among other things, John pledged to punish the assassins of Federico di Savorgnano—a promise he apparently did not keep. As a result of the act of reconciliation, magnificent celebrations were ordered in Udine and the Venetian doge also expressed satisfaction, urging that the peace treaty be upheld.282 In January of the same year, or perhaps some time before, Augustine of Litomyšl was unexpectedly named bishop of Lavant in the Salzburg ecclesiastical province by Boniface IX. However, he did not accept this post. The 279   B CU, FP, ms. 899, Raccolta Bianchi, vol. 55, no. 5564: “… de tractatibus patriarche cum nobilibus Patrie, quia volebat totam Patriam congregare contra nos …” (20th October 1390). Quoted in Seneca, “Il conflitto fra Giovanni,” 54, note 7. 280   B CG, ACG, Quaderni delle Deliberazioni, reg. 16, fol. 36r: “… quod quia dicebatur nos habere unionem cum Utinensibus et de his eramus indebite difamati, ob quam causam dominus erat ut plurimum agravatus etc.” (post 17th October 1390). 281   B CU, FP, ms. 899, Raccolta Bianchi, vol. 55, no. 5559 (14th October 1390); no. 5565 (31st October 1390); no. 5566 (7th November 1390); BNM, cod. lat. XIV, 102 (= 2805), no. 36 (30th November 1390); BCU, FP, ms. 899, Raccolta Bianchi, vol. 55, no. 5569 (20th December 1390); Parlamento friulano, I/2, 359–360, no. 360 (27th December 1390); BCU, FP, ms. 899, Raccolta Bianchi, vol. 56, no. 5573 (1st January 1391); Parlamento friulano, I/2, 360, no. 361 (11th January 1391). For more details, see Seneca, “Il conflitto fra Giovanni,” 54–55; Paschini, Storia del Friuli, 647. 282  The date, 21st February 1391, as well as other information emerge from a later peace treaty in BCU, FP, ms. 899, Raccolta Bianchi, vol. 57, no. 5680 (3rd April 1393). Historiography wrongly dates the treaty to 22nd February. See Paschini, Storia del Friuli, 647; Seneca, “Il conflitto fra Giovanni,” 55; cf. Marchesi, “Giovanni di Moravia,” 135, who probably confused this treaty with the one concluded exactly one year later. For Gradenigo’s mission, see Cessi, “La politica veneziana,” 206–207; for the celebrations in Udine, see Di Manzano, Annali del Friuli, vol. 6, 61–62 (22nd February 1391). The doge’s letter in BCC, ACC, Antica cancelleria del comune—fondo Lorenzo D’Orlandi, b. 5, no. 33: “… ut vos cum tota Patria essetis unanimes et uniti ad hobedientiam vestri pastoris et ad conservationem libertatis ecclesie Aquilegiensis, propterea summe laudamus et ad hoc vos sincere inducimus et hortamur, quatenus placeat, sicut firmiter credimus et speramus, perseverare in bono proposito supradicto …” (3rd March 1391).

140

Chapter 5

c­ ircumstances surrounding the appointment were quite unusual, since this see had already been turned down by the dean of the Salzburg chapter, and in the end it was conferred upon the aforementioned Bohemian Minorite friar and king’s confessor, Nicholas of Unhošť.283 It appears that in this case the pope decided upon Augustine of his own volition. However, this most certainly did not suit Augustine, let alone John, for whom he represented an important mainstay of his rule. John’s position was, however, complicated by another serious factor: on 24th December 1390, a large group of prelates, made up of thirty bishops and sixty-five abbots, was excommunicated for non-payment of papal servitia. The first name on the long, hierarchically ordered list of church dignitaries in the bull of excommunication issued by the cardinal chamberlains of the apostolic camera and the college of cardinals is that of “Dominus Johannes, patriarcha Aquilegensis.”284 The document speaks volumes about the reluctance of the clergy to pay their taxes to the papal curia—in this respect, John was certainly no exception. Nevertheless, it would appear that the excommunication did not have any direct visible impact, and John evidently soon received absolution (perhaps with the help of his influential relatives) and an extension of the deadline for payment, since in November 1392 Boniface IX ordered him to pay the servitia he owed, threatening him with excommunication again if he failed to do so.285 Sometime in early March 1391, the patriarch decided to travel to Bohemia. The motives for his departure are not known, but it is possible that they were related to his recent excommunication. Perhaps, however, John had merely decided to take advantage of a relatively peaceful period to secure the support of his relatives against Udine, since it was clear that the peace which had

283  See the abstract of the papal bull of provision for Nicholas in MVB V, 245–246, no. 444 (11th January 1391). Shortly afterwards, Nicholas received permission from the pope to be ordained bishop: NA, Archiv pražského arcibiskupství, no. 33; cf. MVB V, 250–251, no. 451 (17th January 1391). See further Spěváček, Václav IV., 219 and 735; for the bishopric of Lavant, see France M. Dolinar, “Bistum Lavant,” in Die Bistümer des Heiligen Römischen Reiches, 344–346. 284  Paschini, “Giovanni di Moravia,” 106–107. The text of the bull of excommunication in ASVat, Camera Apostolica, Diversa Cameralia, vol. 1 (= Armadio XXIX), fols. 270v–271v, edited and analysed in Paul Maria Baumgarten, “Miscellanea Cameralia II,” Römische Quartalschrift für christliche Altertumskunde und Kirchengeschichte 22, no. 2 (1908), 47– 55; cf. Dieter Girgensohn, Kirche, Politik und adelige Regierung in der Republik Venedig zu Beginn des 15. Jahrhunderts, vol. 1, Veröffentlichungen des Max-Planck-Instituts für Geschichte 118 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1996), 284–285. 285  Paschini, “Giovanni di Moravia,” 107 (16th November 1392).

Patriarch

141

been concluded would not last for long.286 Another reason may have been the attempt to obtain a new promise of military assistance from the transalpine Luxembourgs for the benefit of the anti-Visconti league, as we shall see. Before leaving Friuli on 5th March,287 John appointed Augustine, Bishop of Concordia, as governor in his absence with the title vicedominus generalis, and he took over the interim running of the patriarchate, presided over the general assembly and settled disputes in the country.288 Nicoletti in particular appreciated Augustine’s sincere efforts to pacify the patriarchate.289 Characteristically, his temporary residence seems to have been the patriarch’s palace in Cividale. Almost immediately after the patriarch’s departure from the country, the Udinese took the initiative. Despite the peace settlement, at the end of April they dispatched an embassy to the papal curia and also to their long-time ally Cardinal Pileo di Prata (who had rejoined the Roman obedience after the death of Urban VI), where they were to complain about their pastor.290 Although it seems that Boniface IX did take an interest in the complaint, since he asked the 286  Štěpán, Moravský markrabě Jošt, 310. 287  In the Udine registers, there is an entry dated 5th March according to which the city council had sent a retinue to accompany the patriarch all the way to Venzone in the north of the patriarchate. See BCU, FP, ms. 899, Raccolta Bianchi, vol. 56, no. 5579; Di Manzano, Annali del Friuli, vol. 6, 62. On the same day, John is documented near Gemona, “quando ivit in Moraviam.” See BCG, ACG, Quaderni dei Massari, reg. 418, fol. 14r. The day after, however, he was allegedly in Aquileia, convening a new session of parliament there, which seems to be impossible. See BCC, ACC, Antica cancelleria del comune—fondo Lorenzo D’Orlandi, b. 5, no. 31, edited in Parlamento friulano, I/2, 361, no. 363. Paschini, Storia del Friuli, 658, note 82, therefore, concluded that John could not have left as early as 5th March. However, in view of the fact that the letter from Aquileia is completely damaged in its intitulatio and is dated only by means of the indiction (“indictione XIIIIa”), it is probably necessary to put it in the year 1376 or 1361. 288   B CG, ACG, Lettere autografe, vol. 347, no. 135 (13th April 1391); no. 136 (19th April 1391); Parlamento friulano, I/2, 361, no. 364 (16th May 1391); BCC, ACC, Antica cancelleria del comune—fondo Lorenzo D’Orlandi, b. 24, no. 37 (16th May 1391); BCG, ACG, Lettere autografe, vol. 347, no. 138 (26th June 1391). Stephen of Doubravník, now referred to as a canon of Aquileia, also operated in the patriarchate. For the originals of Augustine’s letters in the Gemona archive, see Davide, “Le raccolte epistolari,” 116–117; for the title of vicedominus, see Schmidinger, Patriarch und Landesherr, 99–100. 289  Di Manzano, Annali del Friuli, vol. 6, 67–68; cf. Degani, La diocesi di Concordia, 232. 290  Marchesi, “Giovanni di Moravia,” 136; Paschini, Storia del Friuli, 647–648; Seneca, “Il conflitto fra Giovanni,” 55–56. The relevant entry in the account book of Udine is edited in Attilio Hortis, Giovanni Boccacci ambasciatore in Avignone e Pileo da Prata proposto da’ Fiorentini a Patriarca di Aquileia (Trieste: L. Herrmanstorfer, 1875), documenti, 74, no. 27: “… d. Bernardo juniori de Strassoldo, qui missus fuit Romam ad sanctissimum dominum nostrum papam et reverendissimum d. Pileum cardinalem Ravenatem, ut recomendaret nos sanctitati d. pape et etiam supplicaret, ut eadem sanctitatis dignaretur de statu Patrie providere et specialiter de terra nostra Utini, quia in multis angoniis [sic!] et erroribus

142

Chapter 5

Udinese for another delegation,291 for the time being the attempt by Udine had no effect. By deposing the patriarch, the Roman pontiff would have risked losing the favour of the Luxembourg dynasty, whose support in the papal schism he badly needed. Very little is known about John’s stay in Bohemia (and Moravia). A fragment of one letter he sent from Brno to Cividale in July has survived, and in it, among other things, the patriarch communicates that he will soon be returning to the patriarchate. Unfortunately, the level of damage makes it impossible to reconstruct the entire text or to be sure of its meaning; nevertheless, given that there is mention of King Wenceslas IV, King Sigismund and Margraves Jobst and Prokop, it is likely that in the course of his stay John held discussions with at least some of them.292 On the basis of Jobst’s itinerary, it is reasonable to assume that John met his half-brother in Brno.293 Furthermore, we know for certain that on 22nd August the patriarch stayed at the castle of Žebrák (west of Prague) together with Wenceslas IV. There, at his request, the king of Bohemia and of the Romans had a letter drawn up to the Cividalese, thanking them in flowery language for the favour and loyalty they had shown to John during his administration of the patriarchate and encouraging them to persevere in their efforts. Moreover, from the chancery note written below the text of the document we learn that Margrave Prokop must also have participated in the meeting at Žebrák and was delegated by the king to see to it that the chancery draw up the letter to Cividale.294 It is likely that eramus cum patriarcha et totaliter non poteramus pati; et cum multis aliis informationibus per eum portatis etc.” (21st April 1391). 291  According to an entry in the account books of Udine dated 31st May 1391, the city council dispatched a new embassy to the curia “… ad ipsius domini pape requisitionem …” See BCU, FP, ms. 899, Raccolta Bianchi, vol. 56, no. 5589; cf. Paschini, Storia del Friuli, 658–659, note 83. 292   B CC, ACC, Antica cancelleria del comune—fondo Lorenzo D’Orlandi, b. 5, no. 34 (11th July 1391). The document is unfortunately damaged even in the dating clause containing the place of issue. An appended abstract from the nineteenth century states that it was issued in Rome, which is absurd. See Trapani, Inventario, 40, no. 279; Olivo, Antica cancelleria, vol. 1, 62, no. 277. It should actually be read as “Datum Brunne,” i.e. in Brno. Another letter from 1st July is preserved as a copy in BCU, FP, ms. 899, Raccolta Bianchi, vol. 56, no. 5592. Bianchi, Seneca, “Il conflitto fra Giovanni,” 56, note 4, and also Paschini, Storia del Friuli, 648 gave the year of the document as 1391; however, it should be dated to July 1388. See above on p. 85, note 59. 293  Cf. Baletka, “Dvůr, rezidence a kancelář,” 509; Štěpán, Moravský markrabě Jošt, 811. 294  Two copies in BCU, FP, ms. 896/III, Codex diplomaticus Frangipane, no. 247; ibid., ms. 899, Raccolta Bianchi, vol. 57, no. 5705. The dating clause is very substandard as it does not contain the year of issue and, moreover, gives the wrong year of Wenceslas’s reign in Bohemia: “Datum Mendici die XXII Augusti, regnorum nostrorum Boemie XXX

Patriarch

143

Duke John of Görlitz, Wenceslas’s brother and John’s cousin, was present too.295 On the subject of the negotiations between the Luxembourgs, however, the sources are silent. In spite of his promises, in the end John remained beyond the Alps until the autumn and did not set out on his return journey until sometime in October. His arrival aroused uneasiness, especially on the part of Udine: from the beginning of the month, the anxious city council was sending out spies to find out how many men the patriarch was returning with and informing the towns to the north of the country (Gemona, Venzone and Tolmezzo) of his arrival, warning them of a potential threat.296 According to the extant sources, however, John’s return went off quietly enough: Gemona sent out riders to greet the patriarch as he arrived in the Alpine town of Malborghetto, and then entertained him and his retinue inside the city walls.297 John had scarcely returned to the patriarchate when the conflict with Udine erupted anew. He now had particular reason to be indignant in view of the treachery of the Udinese, who had gone to the pope behind his back and tried to have him removed from office. For that reason he also sent an embassy to Venice, where he accused the Udinese of not complying with the previous agreements.298 Throughout the winter of 1391/1392 the city council carefully monitored every move John made and tried to get other towns to join their [in fact XXIX], Romanorum vero XVI.” Cf. for example the dating clauses on Wenceslas’s charters edited in Franz Martin Pelzel, Lebensgeschichte des Römischen und Böhmischen Königs Wenceslaus, vol. 1 (Prague: n.p., 1788), Urkundenbuch, passim. It is therefore necessary to take into account the king’s itinerary: it shows that in 1391 Wenceslas stayed at the castle of Žebrák in the period from 21st August to 16th September. See Ivan Hlaváček, Das Urkunden- und Kanzleiwesen des böhmischen und römischen Königs Wenzel (IV.) 1376– 1419. Ein Beitrag zur spätmittelalterlichen Diplomatik, Schriften der MGH 23 (Stuttgart: Hiersemann, 1970), 418. This confirms the dating of our charter to 22nd August 1391. 295  Cf. his itinerary in Bobková, Velička et al., Jan Zhořelecký, 343. 296   Seneca, “Il conflitto fra Giovanni,” 56–57, with references to the entries in BCU, FP, ms. 882/15, Camerari del Comune di Udine, fol. 36v (9th October 1391); fol. 37r (23rd October 1391). 297   B CG, ACG, Quaderni delle Deliberazioni, reg. 17, fol. 31v (24th October 1391); ibid., Quaderni dei Massari, reg. 418, fols. 30r–31r (October 1391). Later, Udine also sent its own representatives: BCU, FP, ms. 899, Raccolta Bianchi, vol. 56, no. 5597 (26th October 1391). 298  Cessi, “Venezia neutrale,” 238–239, partially quoting ASVen, Senato, Secreti, reg. R (E), fols. 70v–71r (8th December 1391). The patriarch complained that “… ipsi Utinenses non observant compositionem et concordium alias tractatum inter ipsum dominum patriarcham et eos […], ymo contrafecerunt et contrafaciunt in multis et quod peius est, miserunt suum ambaxiatorem in Romana curia ad procurandum depositionem suam seu permutationem, de quibus ipse dominus patriarcha est valde turbatus …” In fact, the Venetian senate decided to immediately send an envoy to the papal curia in order to learn more about the disturbing news regarding the attempts to depose John.

144

Chapter 5

side. In contrast, the patriarch already seems to have been contemplating open conflict, since rumours were beginning to spread that he had formed an alliance with the count of Ortenburg and the bishop of Gurk, and had reportedly hired 200 lances over the Alps which were ready to invade Friuli. Although these reports might have been exaggerated, they are a telling indication of the tense atmosphere of those months.299 Along with preparations for war, steps were also being taken towards reconciliation. Throughout December and January there were intensive negotiations at sessions of the parliament in Cividale,300 while the Venetian Republic, which as usual was striving to restore peace and calm in the “buffer state” on its frontier, entrusted this arduous task to another of its diplomats by the name of Francesco Querini.301 The difficult negotiations ultimately proved to be successful, and on 21st February 1392—exactly one year after the previous agreement—a new peace treaty was concluded in Venice, whose guarantor was to be the Republic of St. Mark. The extant text of the pact, to which both sides agreed through their procurators (John’s embassy was led by Bishop Augustine), is clearly incomplete, as it only speaks vaguely of unspecified “constitutiones et statuta” the Udinese established during the patriarch’s absence from the country. Furthermore, one particular article is reproduced in a subsequent decision of the Venetian senate: in the event of an infringement of the peace terms, the offended party was to have recourse to the Serenissima.302 299  Valuable information about the movements of spies and envoys can be found in the Udine book of accounts. See BCU, FP, ms. 882/15, Camerari del Comune di Udine, fols. 38v–48r (10th November 1391–3rd February 1392), analysed in detail by Seneca, “Il conflitto fra Giovanni,” 57–61. Cf. also BCG, ACG, Quaderni dei Massari, reg. 418, fol. 36r (20th January 1392). 300  Parlamento friulano, I/2, 364, no. 368 (November 1391); 364, no. 369 (28th December 1391); 364–365, no. 370 (31st December 1391). For more details, see Paschini, Storia del Friuli, 648. 301  Cessi, “Venezia neutrale,” 239–241. The record about Querini’s election by the senate in ASVen, Senato, Secreti, reg. R (E), fol. 71r (8th December 1391). On 8th January, the ambassador returned to Venice, where the procurators of both the patriarch and Udine were to be sent: ibid., fol. 72r. 302  The text of the treaty in BCU, FP, ms. 899, Raccolta Bianchi, vol. 56, no. 5611; ibid., ms. 943/ II, Codice diplomatico friulano, sub dato; ibid., ms. 856, Documenti per la storia del Friuli, sub dato (with a wrong date); ACU, Fondo Bini, Varia patriarchalia Aquileiensia, vol. II (= LXVIII), fols. 58r–59v; cf. Di Manzano, Annali del Friuli, vol. 6, 71. The full powers for the Udinese delegation in ASVen, Miscellanea atti diplomatici e privati, b. 27, no. 835 (8th February 1392); the decision of the Venetian senate ibid., Senato, Misti, reg. 42, fol. 44r (23rd February 1392). See Marchesi, “Giovanni di Moravia,” 138; Cessi, “Venezia neutrale,” 241–242; Paschini, Storia del Friuli, 648–649; Seneca, “Il conflitto fra Giovanni,” 59–61. During the negotiations in Venice, the Republic interceded on behalf of Bishop Augustine, “amici nostri dominii et nunc ambaxiatoris domini patriarche Aquilegiensis,”

Patriarch

145

The act of reconciliation was later ratified in Cividale in the presence of two high-ranking Venetian ambassadors (one of them was the future doge Michele Steno), with ten representatives selected from among the Udinese elite again having to come and humble themselves before the patriarch.303 At roughly that time, the great conflict between the Conte di Virtù, the lord of Milan, and the anti-Visconti league, which had shaken a large part of Italy, was finally brought to an end. The league was primarily composed of Francesco Carrara, Florence and Bologna, but as Carrara’s “colligati, adherentes et complices” it also included Patriarch John, Cividale and a number of members of the Friulian Ghibelline noble families, mostly settled west of the Tagliamento River and traditionally opposed to Udine and the Savorgnano (Valvasone, Della Torre, Porcia, Sbrojavacca, Frattina etc., but also Strassoldo).304 Following the general state of exhaustion, in January 1392 the warring parties accepted the ruling of the doge of Genoa and the grand master of the Johannites, who had been appointed as arbitrators. In accordance with the arbitration, Francesco Novello was to continue to hold Padua, while Visconti was to content himself with the rest of the previously conquered territory in the Veneto, which included the cities of Bassano, Feltre and Belluno.305 The newly concluded peace was later ratified by the patriarch and the other Friulian allies through their procurators.306 in an unknown matter with Cardinal Pileo di Prata: ASVen, Senato, Misti, reg. 42, fol. 39v (30th January 1392). 303   B CU, FP, ms. 899, Raccolta Bianchi, vol. 56, no. 5615 (7th March 1392); no. 5616 (9th March 1392); for the dispatch of the Venetian ambassadors, see ASVen, Senato, Misti, reg. 42, fol. 44v; cf. Cessi, “Venezia neutrale,” 242 (23rd February 1392); BCC, ACC, Antica cancelleria del comune—fondo Lorenzo D’Orlandi, b. 5, no. 35/1; cf. Olivo, Antica cancelleria, vol. 1, 62, no. 278 (29th February 1392); BCU, FP, ms. 899, Raccolta Bianchi, vol. 56, no. 5614 (4th March 1392). See further Di Manzano, Annali del Friuli, vol. 6, 71–72; Seneca, “Il conflitto fra Giovanni,” 61; Paschini, Storia del Friuli, 659, note 89. 304   A SU, Documenti storici friulani, b. I, no. 56 (undated); cf. BCU, FP, ms. 899, Raccolta Bianchi, vol. 56, no. 5618: “… Iohannes […] patriarcha tamquam colligatus cum felici liga et laudabili unione magnificarum et excelsarum communitatum Florentie et Bononie atque magnifici domini domini Francisci iunioris de Carraria Padue …” (12th March 1392). For the nobles de ultra Tulmentum, see Zacchigna, “Il patriarcato di Aquileia,” passim; Bellabarba, “The feudal principalities,” 209–210. 305  Bueno de Mesquita, Giangaleazzo Visconti, 135–136; Cognasso, “L’unificazione della Lombardia,” 563–564. 306   B CU, FP, ms. 899, Raccolta Bianchi, vol. 56, no. 5618; Verci, Storia della Marca, vol. 17, documenti, 64–65, no. 1943 (12th March 1392); ASU, Documenti storici friulani, b. I, no. 56. Paschini, Storia del Friuli, 649 claims that the representatives of the patriarch and Cividale were sent “to sign the league concluded between Faenza, Bologna, Padua and Milan.” However, there is no mention of this in the cited documents. In fact, the procurators were appointed to ratify the peace.

146

Chapter 5

It is interesting to note that, shortly beforehand, Margrave Jobst sent Ubaldino Buonamici, at that time already the bishop of Cortona, and his secretary Andrew of Třeboň to Florence once again to announce his intention to come to Italy to assist the allies. Along with that, a letter was delivered from King Wenceslas, who also assured the Florentines that he would soon send his vicar, i.e. Margrave Jobst, to them, who would take action against Visconti.307 Patriarch John joined the collective action too: he assured the Florentine Republic of the best intentions of his brother and declared that, in the interests of the campaign’s success, he was prepared to provide “the whole province of our patriarchate, our person and all possessions […] with all our power together with the said lord margrave, our brother …”308 As Francesco Novati suggested, it is possible that it was he who had inspired his relatives on the other side of the Alps to intervene in Italy, which would mean that his membership of the anti-Visconti league was not nearly as passive as it might appear.309 However, the two diplomats did not arrive in Florence until a few weeks after the peace was signed in Genoa, so in the end nothing came of this ambitious plan. No sooner had some kind of peace been established in northern and central Italy than new negotiations about another alliance began. In April 1392, a league was created which was joined by Francesco Carrara, Florence, Bologna as well as the lords of Ferrara, Mantua, Faenza, Ravenna and Imola. In spite of the declaration that this was only a defensive alliance, it is evident that it was intended as a new “precautionary measure” against Visconti’s power.310 Immediately after the signing of the agreement, Francesco Novello also 307  Both letters, as well as the replies from the Republic of Florence, are preserved in ASFi, Signori, Missive della prima Cancelleria, reg. 22, fol. 187v (28th December 1391); fol. 188v (10th December 1391); fols. 187v–188r and 189r (25th February 1392). These sources were brought to attention and summarized by Francesco Novati in his edition Epistolario di Coluccio Salutati, vol. 2, ed. Francesco Novati, FSI Ep 16 (Rome: Istituto storico italiano per il Medio Evo, 1893), 427–429, note 2; see further Bretholz, “Zur Biographie des Markgrafen Jodok,” 249–250; Hradská, “Ondřej z Třeboně,” 370–371; for Ubaldino’s appointment as bishop of Cortona, see Luzzati, “Ubaldino Buonamici,” 282. 308  ASFi, Signori, Missive della prima Cancelleria, reg. 22, fol. 188r–v: “Ex certa scientia et animo deliberato etiam notificamus vobis, quod ex quo clare nobis constat dicti fratris nostri intentio, in tantum favorem vestrum dispositi sumus, totam provinciam patriarchatus nostri Aquilegensis, personam nostram et res omnes ponere in vestrum subsidium et favorem cum omni nostra potentia simul cum dicto domino marchione fratre nostro …” (25th January 1392). 309  See Novati’s commentary in Epistolario di Coluccio Salutati, vol. 2, FSI Ep 16, 427–429, note 2. 310  Giacinto Romano, “Niccolò Spinelli da Giovinazzo diplomatico del secolo XIV,” Archivio Storico per le province napoletane 26, no. 4 (1901), 471; Cessi, “Venezia neutrale,” 236–237; Bueno de Mesquita, Giangaleazzo Visconti, 142–147; Cognasso, “L’unificazione della Lombardia,” 564–567.

Patriarch

147

o­ ffered membership to Cividale as his ally.311 It almost goes without saying that the patriarch received a similar offer, although no evidence for this has yet been found. Meanwhile, in the patriarchate, old disagreements reared their head once more. On 13th April, some kind of ecclesiastical censure (probably excommunication) was pronounced auctoritate apostolica upon the patriarch and the Cividalese in the duomo of Udine in the presence of the local canons and other important clergymen and citizens. Its specific cause is not known, but, in view of the fact that it was directed not only against John but also against Cividale, it seems unlikely that this was just about unpaid servitia.312 At some time during that period, resistance to the patriarch was initiated by San Daniele, whose inhabitants pulled down the patriarch’s palace there, including the tower, with the willing support of the Udinese. John responded to these wrongs precisely in keeping with the peace treaty that had been concluded, and reported the situation to the Venetian doge, who did indeed intervene in the matter.313 To make matters worse, just then the Udinese envoys, who had been tirelessly working for John’s deposition at the curia, finally achieved apparent success. We learn of this from a report sent to John by the Florentine Republic. It states that the Florentine diplomats attempted to stand up for the patriarch with the pope, but that he appeared “constant and unchanging” in his intention to depose John. He is then supposed to have literally declared that John’s “reputation with him and his subjects is such that it is better for the Roman church to lose a patriarch than the whole patriarchate.” At the same time, however, the letter emphasized that in order to get the pope to reverse his decision it would be necessary to inform him of the viewpoint of the opposite—i.e. John’s—side.314 311   B CU, FP, ms. 899, Raccolta Bianchi, vol. 56, no. 5620 (16th April 1392). 312  See the entry in the notary Alessandro da Ceneda’s protocol in ASU, NA, b. 5136, fasc. 1, fol. 20r (a copy in BCU, FP, ms. 899, Raccolta Bianchi, vol. 56, no. 5619): “Ibique dominus Petrus, plebanus Canipe, publicavit processus per dominum Petrum Paulum auctoritate apostolica factos contra Civitatenses et dominum patriarcham etc. monens omnes et singulas personas terre Utini et diocesis Aquilegensis sub pena excommunicationis, quam incurrerent ipso facto, quod non vadant ad Civitatem Austrie, nec in aliquo participent cum eis …” Cf. Zenarola Pastore, Atti della cancelleria, 238 (with an incorrect date). 313  The doge’s letter to Udine in BCU, FP, ms. 899, Raccolta Bianchi, vol. 56, no. 5623 (23rd April 1392). The inhabitants of San Daniele, together with the Udinese, were supposed to have destroyed a tower recently purchased by John. For a patriarch’s palace in the town demolished by its inhabitants “propter superbiam eorum,” see Nonnullorum Patriarcharum Vitae, MEA, appendix, no. V, 16; Caiazza, “Le residenze dei patriarchi,” 202. 314  ASFi, Signori, Missive della prima Cancelleria, reg. 23, fol. 18v: “… considerantes per aliquos remotionem ab Aquilegiensi ecclesia vestre reverentie procurari, specialiter supplicavimus, quod vos deberet et statum vestrum favorabiliter suscipere recommissum. Super qua materia videtur idem summus pontifex satis aspere respondisse et ut eius

148

Chapter 5

The situation in the country began to resemble the previous conflict from the days of Cardinal d’Alençon, which had also ended in his removal from office, and it appears that Boniface IX no longer saw any other possibility than to sacrifice John in the interests of keeping the peace. In fact, it seems that the Udinese were not the only ones willing to get rid of the troublesome patriarch. In January 1392, i.e. a few months before, the aforementioned Mantuan envoy in Ferrara, Lambertino Canetoli, also reported on intercessions for John’s removal from the office by Giangaleazzo Visconti. Nevertheless, Marquis Alberto V d’Este “did not believe at all” that such a thing would happen.315 Indeed, as we know, John was never actually deposed, so it can be assumed that the efforts of Florentine, and also Venetian,316 diplomacy eventually bore fruit. But Cividale also seems to have been in contact with the papal curia, where its envoys were able to intercede for John.317 Not long after that, the papal nuncio and referendarius Giovanni Gabrielli, the bishop of Massa Marittima, arrived in Venice. According to the Udinese, his task was to “inform himself about the rule of Patriarch John,” so they immediately sent envoys to the bishop to notify him of “the bad manners possessed by the lord patriarch.”318 However, as Federico Seneca pointed out, the real ­reasons behind the arrival of the papal nuncio perhaps lay elsewhere: his main task was to secure as many allies as possible for the newly emerging league, verba referamus in forma, dixit, quod dignatio vestra taliter secum et cum subditis se habebat, quod ecclesie Romane prestantius erat patriarcam amittere, quam patriarcatum, ex quibus comprehendimus circa remotionem vestram intentionem suam fore stabilem et constantem, nisi, sicut ex malis relationibus hec processisse credimus, ita versa vice bonis relationibus informeret” (3rd May 1392). 315  ASMn, AG, b. 1227, no. 570: “Ad factum privacionis patriarce ipse [i.e. marquis d’Este] nullo modo credit, quod sit privatus et specialiter ad instanciam et requisicionem domini chomitis Virtutum, quia non credit dominum nostrum papam esse dispositum de presenti in aliquo sibi complacere. Est bene verum, quod dominus chomes diu procuravit, ut dominus noster vellet dictum dominum patriarcham vel removere, vel privare et ipse nunquam volluit …” (15th January [1392]). 316  It is illustrated i.a. by the entry in ASVen, Senato, Secreti, reg. R (E), fol. 78r: “Est etiam sibi [i.e. to John] notum, quantum institimus apud sanctissimum dominum nostrum papam, ut de eo nulla mutatio fieret …” (14th January 1393). This, as well as other evidence, was collected by Cessi, “Venezia neutrale,” 247–250. 317  See BCC, ACC, Antica cancelleria del comune—fondo Lorenzo D’Orlandi, b. 5, no. 36 (8th March 1392). The undated letter from the Cividalese envoys in Rome, ibid., b. 24, no. 36/1 (8th May), does not seem to have been drawn up in this period. 318  Seneca, “Il conflitto fra Giovanni,” 61–62, partially quoting BCU, FP, ms. 882/15, Camerari del Comune di Udine, fol. 53r: “… legato domini pape, qui erat Veneciis, transmisso per ipsum dominum papam in Patriam Foriiulii ad informandum se de regimine domini patriarche et dictum episcopum informare de iniquis modis tentis per dictum dominum patriarcham …” (18th May 1392). For Gabrielli, see Cappelletti, Le chiese d’Italia, vol. 17 (Venice: Antonelli, 1862), 700.

Patriarch

149

backed by Boniface IX, against France and the Avignon antipope Clement VII, which probably met with John’s approval.319 It was probably for this purpose that the nuncio moved on to Cividale and, together with John, summoned a meeting of the general assembly.320 However, the Udinese—evidently seeing it as a potential threat to them—attempted to obstruct the negotiations. At first they pleaded with the bishop not to convene parliament, but then, a week later, they went round other towns, exhorting them to accuse John openly of bad government in front of the papal representative.321 The initial negative reaction by Udine in itself indicates that the way in which John ruled was probably not supposed to be the main subject of the upcoming meeting, or, as Pio Paschini argued, there could have been fears on the part of the city that the negotiations “would turn to its detriment.”322 Nevertheless, if any complaints were made (which is more than likely), they had no effect. 8

The Death of Augustine of Litomyšl and the Escalation of Tension

While the general assembly was meeting in Cividale in the presence of the papal nuncio and the patriarch, a fatal event occurred in another part of the patriarchate. On 23rd June 1392, Augustine, Bishop of Concordia and counsellor to John, was killed by Nicolò di Savorgnano in a skirmish beside the Tagliamento River.323 Immediately after this act, he made for Udine, where he 319  Cessi, “Venezia neutrale,” 242–243; Seneca, “Il conflitto fra Giovanni,” 62. Both authors claim that the patriarch joined the league; nevertheless, in the literature they refer to I could not find any such statement. A later document, however, refers to the conclusion of “quedam unio in Patria ex persuasione domini Johannis, episcopi Messane, nuncii apostolici.” See BCU, FP, ms. 899, Raccolta Bianchi, vol. 57, no. 5713 (undated). 320  See the nuncio’s letter in Parlamento friulano, I/2, 366, no. 373: “Quia reverendissimo in Christo patri et d. d. Iohanni s. sedis Aquilegensis patriarche totique parlamento totius Patrie Foriiulii pro parte sanctissimi in Christo patris et domini nostri d. Bonifacii divina providentia pape noni aliqua ardua honorem et statum ipsius sanctissimi domini nostri d. patriarche totiusque Patrie Foriiulii concernentia sumus narraturi …” (14th June 1392). 321  Parlamento friulano, I/2, 366, no. 374: “… unus familiaris destinatus pro ambassiatore Glemonam, Venzonum et Tulmetium ad dicendum illis, qui ire debebant ad colloquium, quatenus eis placeret informare episcopum Massanensem de malis operibus d. patriarche et qualiter male regebat Patriam …” (14th–22nd June 1392). See Paschini, Storia del Friuli, 649. 322  Paschini, Storia del Friuli, 659, note 93. 323  Degani, La diocesi di Concordia, 232–233; Paschini, Storia del Friuli, 649–650. There is a record of this in an “old codex” published in Ughelli, Italia sacra, vol. 5, 2nd ed. (Venice: S. Coleto, 1720), col. 359: “1392. Ind. XV. die Sabbathi 22. Junii dictus D. Fr Augustinus super Tulmentium interfectus fuit summo mane …” Also quoted in De Rubeis, Monumenta

150

Chapter 5

sent out letters to towns and noblemen, of which the one addressed to Cividale has survived. In it, Nicolò first describes his encounter with Augustine, who supposedly somehow provoked or even assaulted him so that immediately afterwards he declared the killing of the bishop to be an act of vendetta (vindicta) for the death of his relative Federico.324 This motif conspicuously dominates the entire text and also seems to have been the real reason for Augustine’s murder, since, as a close confidant of the patriarch, the Savorgnano family regarded him as one of the main architects of Federico’s murder.325 The “culture of the vendetta” was without a doubt a widespread phenomenon in medieval and Renaissance Italy, where enmity (inimicitia) represented an “ordinary kind of social relationship.”326 An injustice committed against an individual was understood as an attack on the entire clan, which, to preserve its ancestral honour and social prestige, was obliged to avenge the offence in an appropriate way. On the other hand, the motif of the vendetta was also an understandable and attractive narrative which was regularly used in the chronicles of the time to explain or directly legitimize the “ordinary” struggle for Ecclesiae Aquilejensis, col. 985. The letter cited in the next note implies, however, that the murder took place on 23rd June. 324   B CU, FP, ms. 899, Raccolta Bianchi, vol. 56, no. 5631: “… dum externa die Sanctum Vitum [i.e. San Vito al Tagliamento] equitarem, incidi in dominum episcopum Concordiensem, quem, dum clare inspexissem se una cum sua comitiva contra me malo modo et animo me offendendi dirigere, dubitans, ne me trucidat, quemadmodum generosum militem consanguineum meum dominum Federicum de Savorgnano trucidare fecit; qui dominus meus sub securitate falsorum consiliorum et proditoriarum persuasionum ipsius domini episcopi in templo Dei extitit turpissime et crudelissime interfectus […], impetum feci, eumque tamquam meum capitalem hostem, tam pro securitate et conservatione mee persone, quam pro parte vindicte et ultionis crudelissime mortis prefati consanquinei mei, interemi et morti tradidi merite” (24th June 1392). Another copy in ASVen, Provveditori sopra feudi, b. 544, no. 23. The existence of more such letters is implied by a remark by Palladio degli Olivi, Historie della Provincia del Friuli, 433. 325  Degani, La diocesi di Concordia, 232–233; Paschini, Storia del Friuli, 650; Leicht, “La giovinezza di Tristano,” 20–21. This explanation can also be found in the contemporary Cronaca volgare di Anonimo Fiorentino, RIS n.s. XXVII/2, 190: “Avvenne che il detto giovane [i.e., by mistake, Tristano di Savorgnano] poco tempo innanzi avea morto il Vescovo di Concordia, il quale era stato altresì colpevole della morte del padre […] dicendo ch’avea vendicato il padre …” 326  For the “culture of the vendetta,” see Andrea Zorzi, “La cultura della vendetta nel conflitto politico in età comunale,” in Le storie e la memoria. In onore di Arnold Esch, ed. Roberto Delle Donne and Andrea Zorzi (Florence: Firenze University Press, 2002), 135–170; Andrea Zorzi, “Legitimation and Legal Sanction of Vendetta in Italian Cities from the Twelfth to the Fourteenth Centuries,” in The Culture of Violence in Renaissance Italy. Proceedings of the International Conference, Georgetown University at Villa Le Balze, 3–4 May, 2010, ed. Samuel Kline Cohn Jr. and Fabrizio Ricciardelli, Villa Le Balze Studies 1 (Florence: Le lettere, 2012), 27–54, quotation ibid., 34.

Patriarch

151

political power and other violence with a different background.327 However, it would be a mistake to dismiss the medieval vendetta as merely a construction by chroniclers.328 For that matter, the fact that the blood feud constituted such a powerful topos just goes to show what an important role it must have played in the minds of contemporaries. In accordance with the latest research, headed by Andrea Zorzi, it should probably be understood as an ordinary part of the political struggle and one of “the many ways of conducting and resolving conflicts.”329 Thus, the contest for political power could be viewed through the prism of a fight for honour, which made use of the mechanisms of the blood feud. As John Larner incisively remarked, party conflicts “were often contests for political advantage but they were also—and it was this which gave them their particularly unpolitical, that is to say, unconciliatory and irrational character— tournaments of honour.”330 Augustine’s killing therefore has to be viewed primarily in the wider context of the long-term hostility between the Savorgnano faction and that of the patriarch, to which the bishop of Concordia belonged as his confidant. However, Nicolò’s letter was, at the same time, an ingenious piece of propaganda: not only was it supposed to legitimate the crime, but also to elevate it to a noble defence of the family honour, which would win the Savorgnano sympathy and support from other noble families that shared the same model of behaviour. Augustine’s death was a severe blow for John, because in him he lost an important linchpin of his rule and, at the same time, a loyal counsellor. The heated atmosphere of those days is illustrated by a resolution from the council of parliament, which announced that due to “weighty matters” it was currently unable to deal with any appeals.331 The patriarch was certainly thoroughly 327  Trevor Dean, “Marriage and Mutilation: Vendetta in Late Medieval Italy,” Past & Present 157 (1997), 3–36; Trevor Dean, “Italian Medieval Vendetta,” in Feud in Medieval and Early Modern Europe, ed. Jeppe Büchert Netterstrøm and Bjørn Poulsen (Aarhus: Aarhus University Press, 2007), 135–145. 328  John Larner, Italy in the Age of Dante and Petrarch, 1216–1380, Longman History of Italy 2 (London and New York: Longman, 1980), 106–107. 329  Zorzi, “La cultura della vendetta”; Zorzi, “Legitimation and Legal Sanction,” quotation ibid., 31; for a concrete example, see Andrea Zorzi, “La faida Cerchi-Donati,” in Andrea Zorzi, La trasformazione di un quadro politico. Ricerche su politica e giustizia a Firenze dal comune allo Stato territoriale, Biblioteca di Storia 4 (Florence: Firenze University Press, 2008), 95–120. 330  Larner, Italy in the Age of Dante, 107. 331  Paschini, Storia del Friuli, 650; Parlamento friulano, I/2, 367, no. 375: “… circa negotia ardua occupati et per hoc non poterant presentialiter provideri super aliquibus appellationibus …” (24th June 1392).

152

Chapter 5

incensed, but although the perpetrator of the crime was well known, it does not appear that anyone took active steps to have him punished. The very fact that Nicolò di Savorgnano took refuge in Udine immediately after the deed is eloquent testimony to the fact that the city council de facto approved the assassination. This only added fuel to the fire in the protracted conflict between the Udinese and the patriarch. Paradoxically, however, the only evidence of a reaction from John is his request that a certain horse once belonging to Bishop Augustine be returned to him, something the Udinese authorities do not seem to have complied with.332 Violence and murder committed against prelates was, unfortunately, an area in which the province of Aquileia “excelled.”333 Patriarch Raimondo della Torre (1273–1299) had responded to this serious problem in his provincial statutes from 1282, and this text was later frequently reissued. It was decreed that anyone who had the audacity to take the life of a bishop of the Aquileian province was to be permanently stripped of his secular and ecclesiastical offices and estates in the diocese, along with all his descendants; any place where the culprit took refuge would immediately be subject to an interdict, and any person who decided to provide him with help was to be ipso facto excommunicated. After the inauguration of the new bishop, he was to appeal to the pope and the emperor for the punishment of the culprit with the support of the patriarch and his suffragans.334 However, in Augustine’s case, as in others, the practice lagged behind the theory. Another surprising aspect is the relatively passive reaction of Pope Boniface IX, who only formally charged the bishop of Treviso with investigating the matter. In view of the fact that the culprit was publicly known, this investigation could have been no more than a farce; the pope evidently did not want to agitate further the already strained mood in the patriarchate.335 Although 332   M AN, Famiglia Boiani, vol. 6, Codice diplomatico, no. 21 (5th July 1392). The vice-captain of Udine responds to John’s letter: “… recipere deberem quendam equm, quondam reverendi in Christo patris et domini Augustini, olim episcopi Concordiensis …” 333  See Andrea Tilatti, “Tra santità e oblio: storie di vescovi uccisi in Italia nordorientale (secoli XIII–XIV),” in L’évêque, l’image et la mort. Identité et mémoire au Moyen Âge, ed. Nicolas Bock, Ivan Foletti and Michele Tomasi, Études lausannoises d’histoire de l’art 16 (Rome: Viella, 2014), 603–620. 334  The text of the provincial statutes is edited in Sacrorum conciliorum nova et amplissima collectio, vol. 24, ed. Giovanni Domenico Mansi (Venice: A. Zatta, 1780), cols. 427–438, esp. cols. 432–433 for the murder of a bishop; in the same wording also the synod of 1339 ibid., vol. 25 (Venice: A. Zatta, 1782), cols. 1113–1114. Cf. Tilatti, “Tra santità e oblio,” 606–607. 335  Paschini, Storia del Friuli, 650; the text of the papal bull in ASVat, Registra Vaticana, vol. 313, fols. 374v–375r: “Nos igitur attendentes, quod nostra interest super premissis ex officio providere ac nolentes prout nec decet, nec expedit prenominatos iniquitatis filios

Patriarch

153

the bishop of Treviso did indeed later come to Friuli, nothing is known about the outcome of his mission.336 Nevertheless, the fact that Nicolò had raised his hand against a member of the clergy—and, on the top of it, a high-ranking prelate—automatically incurred excommunication (latae sententiae).337 This was formally lifted from him in the course of the jubilee year 1400.338 For the time being, the deceased bishop was interred in the duomo of Venzone, where a modest tombstone was also placed, bearing the simple inscription of decidedly poor-quality workmanship: “Hic jacet dominvs ep[iscopv]s Avgvstinvs.”339 There are also traces of a carved coat of arms which cannot be clearly identified, since none like it has been found in either the Czech lands or Italy. So far the only hypothesis is that this “may have been a clumsy attempt to depict the coat of arms of the bishopric of Concordia.”340 Augustine did not leave much of a trace in the memory of his chapter either, as is indicated by his absence from the Concordia chapter’s necrology.341 Soon afterwards he was replaced in the office of bishop of Concordia by the papal super huiusmodi causa horrendo et detestando excessu absque animadversione debita relinquere incorrectos, fraternitati tue per apostolica scripta committimus et mandamus, quatenus vocatis, qui fuerint evocandi super premissis, omnibus et singulis et eorum circumstantiis universis ex officio ac summarie simpliciter et de plano sine strepitu et figura iudicii inquiras auctoritate nostra diligentius veritatem contradictores per censuram ecclesiasticam appellatione postposita competendo” (30th August 1392). 336  See Paschini, Storia del Friuli, 659, note 95. 337  See Willibald Maria Plöchl, Geschichte des Kirchenrechts, vol. 2, Das Kirchenrecht der abendländischen Christenheit 1055 bis 1517, 2nd ed. (Vienna and Munich: Herold, 1962), 192–194. 338  A copy of the papal bull of absolution is preserved in BCU, FP, ms. 896/IV, Codex diplomaticus Frangipane, no. 256 (23rd December 1400); another, very inaccurate early modern transcription in Biblioteca del Museo Correr di Venezia (= BMC), ms. Cicogna 3428, fasc. Savorgnan, sub dato. Some passages of the document are quoted in De Rubeis, Monumenta Ecclesiae Aquilejensis, cols. 985–986; cf. Tilatti, “Tra santità e oblio,” 617. 339  Degani, La diocesi di Concordia, 233. For a transcription of the (now barely legible) inscription, see also Liruti, Notizie delle cose del Friuli, vol. 5, 143; with a minor inaccuracy Guido Clonfero, “Scritte scolpite e dipinte a Venzone,” in Venzon. 48n congres, 19 setembar 1971, ed. Luigi Ciceri (Udine: Doretti, 1971), 383. 340  Francesco Boni de Nobili, Gli stemmi dei vescovi di Concordia-Pordenone dal Medioevo a oggi (Pordenone: Propordenone, 2011), 45: “Potrebbe trattarsi di un maldestro tentativo di raffigurare l’arma del vescovato di Concordia ‘alla sbarra diminuita posta a mo’ di fascia.’” I am grateful to Dr. Luca Gianni and Dr. Paolo Goi for the reference. 341  Cf. “Il Capitolo di Concordia e il Liber Anniversariorum,” ad indicem. Some tradition might have survived among the Augustinians in Brno. See Necrologia patrum et fratrum Ordinis Eremitarum calceat. S. Augustini in Vicariatu Moraviae ab anno 1363–1888 defunctorum, ed. Clemens de Elpidio Janetschek (Brno: Typografia pontif. Benedictinorum Rajhradiensium, 1864), 5–6. It is not clear, however, which sources Janetschek drew on. I am grateful to Dr. Tomáš Borovský for the reference.

154

Chapter 5

secretary Antonio Pancera da Portogruaro, later patriarch of Aquileia in the years 1402–1412, who this time was appointed entirely by the will of Boniface IX without the intervention of the patriarch.342 It appears that the new bishop spent most of his time in Rome and only entered his diocese towards the end of 1393.343 A few months later, he was already participating in sessions of the council of the parliament.344 With the assassination of Augustine of Litomyšl, all hopes of a peace agreement were dashed and both sides began to prepare for war. John wasted no time, and just a few days after Augustine’s murder entered into a league with a number of nobles and towns (Cividale, Gemona),345 whereupon he set off for Tolmezzo in the north of the patriarchate. There he issued an extensive privilege in its favour, in which he designated Tolmezzo as the capital of the region of Carnia, confirmed its statutes, granted it the right to vote at sessions of the general assembly and in addition conferred a new coat of arms and a range of legal and economic advantages on the city.346 By granting this g­ enerous 342   For Pancera’s appointment, see Gianni, “Vita ed organizzazione interna,” 211–212; Girgensohn, Kirche, vol. 1, 276; cf. also Dieter Girgensohn, “Pancera Antonio, patriarca di Aquileia,” in Nuovo Liruti, vol. 1/2, 628–641. A letter from the new bishop to Cividale in Zanutto, Epistolario minore, 25 (10th July [1392]). Two days later, Pancera committed himself to paying his servitia (ibid., 26). 343  On 28th December 1393, the Aquileia chapter dispatched two canons to welcome the bishop, who was coming “de novo” from Rome to his diocese. See ACU, Archivio del Capitolo di Aquileia, cod. 1, Acta capituli Aquileiensis, fol. 7r. Udine also sent gifts: Di Manzano, Annali del Friuli, vol. 6, 91 (13th December 1393). Cf., however, Zanutto, Epistolario minore, 23–25. Cividale sent a silver cup as late as 19th April 1394: BCC, ACC, Archivio storico del Comune di Cividale del Friuli, Sezione antica, Camerari, b. 1144, fol. 18v. 344  Parlamento friulano, I/2, 370–372, nos. 381–382 (30th March and 7th April 1394). 345  The alliance between John and “aliquos alios de Patria” concluded on 30th June 1392 is mentioned in the text of a later peace treaty in BCU, FP, ms. 899, Raccolta Bianchi, vol. 57, no. 5680 (3rd April 1393). See further ASU, Documenti storici friulani, b. II, no. 178, fols. 166v–167r (28th June 1392); BCG, ACG, Quaderni delle Deliberazioni, reg. 18, fol. 23r–v (26th June 1392); ibid., Quaderni dei Massari, reg. 419, fol. 20r (29th June 1392). Other sources referring to a league against Udine led by the patriarch were collected by Seneca, “Il conflitto fra Giovanni,” 62. 346  Statuti e legislazione veneta della Carnia e del Canale del Ferro (Sec. XIV–XVIII), vol. 1, ed. Giulia Ventura (Udine: Deputazione di storia patria per il Friuli, 1988), appendice, 215–218, 218–223, no. 1 (7th and 9th August 1392). See Pio Paschini, Notizie storiche della Carnia da Venzone a Monte Croce e Camporosso, 2nd ed. (Udine and Tolmezzo: Aquileia, 1960), 91–92; Miriam Davide, “La Carnia nel patriarcato di Aquileia. Diritti e privilegi di un territorio alpino nel tardo medioevo,” in Naturalmente divisi. Storia e autonomia delle antiche comunità alpine, ed. Luca Giarelli (Tricase: Youcanprint, 2013), 306–308; Miriam Davide, “Tolmezzo e la Carnia: organizzazione comunitaria e rivendicazioni di autonomia di una zona alpina durante il periodo patriarcale e in seguito alla dedizione a Venezia,” in Le sub-

Patriarch

155

­ rivilege, John was undoubtedly attempting to secure himself support in the p northern part of the patriarchate. However, the patriarch was not relying only on the help of his Friulian allies, but, at the same time, was beginning to recruit mercenaries in the Empire and also seems to have been negotiating with Francesco Carrara, who sent his secretary to Cividale.347 Perhaps he had finally decided to crush Udine once and for all, as he allegedly used to say: “Oportet pro certo, ut illam terram ad spinosam sylvam faciam devenire.”348 On the other hand, the Udine city council, in a desperate attempt to secure itself as many allies as possible in the upcoming conflict, decided to confer citizenship (vicinantia) on anyone who requested it. This offer was actually taken up by many nobles from central Friuli belonging to the families defined by Michele Zacchigna as “filosavorgnane” (Di Castello, Colloredo, Prampero, Villalta, Zucco etc.). San Daniele also joined the Udinese side, and there were even negotiations with Venzone.349 For that matter, we learn from a later peace treaty that Cividale made the same provision and also welcomed many nobles and communities among its citizens.350 In the latter part of August, the conflict escalated into open war. The patriarch’s forces, under the command of his marshal, conquered and plundered the town of San Daniele. According to one of the patriarchal chronicles, John’s marshal is supposed to have killed two sons of Corrado di San Daniele, a nobleman from offshoot of the Varmo family and resident at the local castle, and imprisoned the man himself.351 In response to this, the Udinese had more mercenaries recruited both inside and outside the patriarchate and ordinazioni delle città comunali a poteri maggiori in Italia dagli inizi del secolo XIV all’ancien régime. Risultati scientifici della ricerca, ed. Miriam Davide (Trieste: CERM, 2014), 169–170. 347  Seneca, “Il conflitto fra Giovanni,” 62–63; BCC, ACC, Antica cancelleria del comune— fondo Lorenzo D’Orlandi, b. 5, no. 39/2; Olivo, Antica cancelleria, vol. 1, 63, no. 282 (8th July 1392). 348  Capitula contra patriarcham Johannem, art. 12. 349   B CU, FP, ms. 899, Raccolta Bianchi, vol. 56, no. 5634 (5th July 1392); no. 5636 (7th July 1392); no. 5637 (10th July 1392); no. 5639 (18th July 1392); no. 5640 (20th July 1392); no. 5641 (29th July 1392); no. 5643 (6th August 1392). See Paschini, Storia del Friuli, 650; Zacchigna, “Il patriarcato di Aquileia,” 105. The term vicinus indicated a newly accepted citizen: Davide, “La Carnia nel patriarcato,” 302 and note 8. 350   B CU, FP, ms. 899, Raccolta Bianchi, vol. 57, no. 5680 (3rd April 1393). 351  Nonnullorum Patriarcharum Vitae, MEA, appendix, no. V, 16: “… ipse cepit, sive marescalcus suus, S. Danielem. Et idem marescalcus interfecit duos fratres, et filios Conradi, et ipsum Conradum captivavit …” For the events and the Varmo family, see Giordano Brunettin, I registri notarili di Giorgio da Paluzza. Anni 1388, 1383, 1384, 1389, 1391 (Fondo Fontanini LXV—Cod. 38), Quaderni guarneriani 8 (San Daniele del Friuli and Udine: Comune di San Daniele del Friuli, 2017), 42, 77 and note 170.

156

Chapter 5

notified the pope and the Venetian Republic of the matter. In the meantime, there was growing influence from Tristano di Savorgnano, son and heir of the murdered Federico, who had just turned fifteen; at the Udine city assembly, he urged the citizens to defend themselves against the patriarch’s troops.352 It may have been at that time that the Compagnia di San Giorgio, a company of English mercenaries operating on the Apennine Peninsula and stationed near Fabriano in the Marche, offered John its services, having got wind of “some rebels who intend to wage war [against him].” The original offer amounted to 260 armed men; the terms were still being negotiated in September, but the outcome is not known.353 While the hostilities continued, the Udinese turned to Venice, seeking support; there, however, they received only a cold reply that even “they are not blameless, since they have not behaved towards the lord patriarch as they should behave towards their lords and pastors.” Nevertheless, this in no way lessened the efforts of the Republic, which in an attempt to end the conflict sent one embassy after another to the patriarchate and exhorted both sides to make peace.354 There are also other sources which suggest that Venice started to become less supportive of Udine, evidently in order to avoid stirring up 352   B CU, FP, ms. 882/15, Camerari del Comune di Udine, fol. 60v (26th August 1392); fol. 61v (30th August 1392); ibid., ms. 899, Raccolta Bianchi, vol. 56, no. 5634 (31th August 1392); no. 5649 (28th August 1392). See Seneca, “Il conflitto fra Giovanni,” 63–64; Paschini, Storia del Friuli, 650; Marchesi, “Giovanni di Moravia,” 141–142; for Tristano di Savorgnano, see also Leicht, “La giovinezza di Tristano,” 19–20. 353   M AN, Famiglia Boiani, vol. 6, Codice diplomatico, no. 18 (a copy in BCU, FP, ms. 899, Raccolta Bianchi, vol. 57, no. 5706): “Ad nostram audienciam devenit, quod aliqui vestri rebelles intendunt guerram contra vestram paternitatem movere, unde nos Anglici ex affectione naturali inducti desiderantes vestrum statum et honorem salvare …” (28th August); ibid., no. 28 (a copy in BCU, FP, ms. 899, Raccolta Bianchi, vol. 57, no. 5707) (17th September). Cf. Calendar of State Papers and Manuscripts, Relating to English Affairs, Existing in the Archives and Collections of Venice and in the Other Libraries of Northern Italy, vol. 1, ed. Rawdon Brown (London: H. M. Stationery Office, 1864), 31, no. 100; 31, no. 101. Both documents lack a year of issue. Whereas the manuscript abstracts in the cited codex give the year 1389, Brown wrongly assigns the letters to 1388; Bianchi, Marchesi, “Giovanni di Moravia,” 144, and Seneca, “Il conflitto fra Giovanni,” 67 dated them to 1393. However, the troubled year 1392 seems to be more probable. It is also supported by John Temple-Leader and Giuseppe Marcotti, Sir John Hawkwood. Story of a condottiere (London: T. Fisher Unwin, 1889), 216, note **, who pointed out in this connection that the Compagnia di San Giorgio existed from April to September 1392. 354  There is a detailed reconstruction of the events in Cessi, “Venezia neutrale,” 243–251; the reply of the Venetian senate in ASVen, Senato, Secreti, reg. R (E), fol. 75r: “… qualiter non sunt sine defectu [i.e. the Udinese] et qualiter ipsi non servaverunt, nec servant erga ipsum dominum patriarcham de modis, qui servari debent versus dominos suos et pastores, ymo conari videntur ad faciendum de rebus, que sibi displiceant et que sint causa

Patriarch

157

the troubled situation in Friuli even more. At roughly the same time, Pietro Morosini, a Venetian patrician in the service of the patriarch, reported on how the Udinese delegation had an audience in Venice, whereupon the envoys “totaliter non contenti reccesserunt,” assuring John of the doge’s best intentions towards him.355 The main bone of contention became the castle of San Daniele, to which both the patriarch, having entrusted it to Conrad of Kraig after its conquest, and Udine, on behalf of the local nobles, persistently laid claim.356 Because of that, the negotiations, conducted both in Venice and in Friuli, could not lead to any positive outcome. Pope Boniface IX also got involved in the matter, instructing the Neapolitan canon Giovanni Manco—the same man who had refused the promotion to the see of Concordia in 1389—to set out for the patriarchate in person as a papal nuncio and inform him of everything in detail.357 It was roughly at this time, during the second half of November 1392, that Henry, earl of Derby, later King Henry IV of England, passed through the territory of the Aquileian patriarchate with his retinue before continuing on to the Holy Land. The accounts from his time on the road show that he spent a night in Friuli in the company of the patriarch’s marshal, but no further details of his stay are known. Therefore, we do not even know for sure whether Henry and John of Moravia met, although there are grounds for assuming that they did. Given the silence of other sources, it can be concluded that during his short

inducendi eum ad faciendum ea, que facit” (10th September 1392). See also the summary in Paschini, Storia del Friuli, 651; Seneca, “Il conflitto fra Giovanni,” 64–65. 355   M AN, Famiglia Boiani, vol. 6, Codice diplomatico, no. 28 (a copy in BCU, FP, ms. 899, Raccolta Bianchi, vol. 57, no. 5707) (17th September [1392]). See also Marchesi, “Giovanni di Moravia,” 144, who, however, dated the document to 1393. By all accounts, this miles Pietro Morosini is not to be identified with the later cardinal of the same name. Cf. Girgensohn, Kirche, vol. 1, 202–205. For other members of the Morosini family called Pietro, see ibid., vols. 1–2, ad indicem. 356  Cessi, “Venezia neutrale,” 244, quoting ASVen, Senato, Secreti, reg. R (E), fol. 75r: “Sentitur etiam, quod dominus patriarcha modo de novo posuit dictum castrum Sancti Danielis et aliqua alia castra in manibus domini Conradi Crayer, qui est res satis suspecta” (26th October 1392); fol. 76r–v (6th December 1392). 357  Paschini, Storia del Friuli, 651; the papal bull is edited in Paschini, “Giovanni di Moravia,” 108: “… committimus et mandamus, quatenus ad ipsas partes te conferens de omnibus et singuliis controversiis et dissensionibus inter ipsas partes consistentibus et eorum circumstantiis etiam ipsis partibus non vocatis diligenter te informes et quicquid per huiusmodi informationem reppereris nobis quantocius per tuas littera significare procures, ut iuxta huiusmodi tuam informationem consulcius et utilius in premissis, ut appetimus, procedere valeamus” (17th November 1392). For the later ecclesiastical career of Giovanni Manco, see ibid., 107, note 4.

158

Chapter 5

visit the English prince did not significantly interfere in the turbulent events in the country in any way.358 After all the attempts at pacifying the situation in the patriarchate had come to nothing, John decided on a surprising move. During a meeting with the Venetian envoy, he hinted that, in exchange for financial compensation in the form of an annuity, he was willing to hand over Sacile, a town on the western border of the patriarchate, in which the Republic of St. Mark had always shown considerable interest. Venetian diplomacy immediately responded eagerly to this, but at the same time it was well aware of the resistance a transaction of this nature was likely to arouse in Friuli, so the secret talks continued.359 Nevertheless, Sacile does not seem to have ever been handed over,360 so, as Roberto Cessi argued, it is possible that this was only a ruse on John’s part to secure the favour of the influential neighbour, in order to keep a tight rein on Udine. Given its influence in the patriarchate, the support of Venice was crucial for John; among other things because the Udinese were constantly sending embassies to the papal curia, demanding the deposition of the patriarch.361 In fact, it seems that the alarming news from Rome also disquieted John himself, who informed the doge about the unfavourable situation.362 Either way, shortly after John’s offer regarding Sacile, the Venetian senate decided to 358  For the remarkable journey of Henry of Derby and his stay in the patriarchate, see Štěpán, Moravský markrabě Jošt, 323–325; for his meeting with John’s marshal, see Rechnungen über Heinrich von Derby’s Preussenfahrten 1390–91 und 1392, ed. Hans Prutz (Leipzig: Duncker & Humblot, 1893), 135: “… per unam noctem in Friola, cum marescallo patriarche …” Cf. the commentary ibid., lxxvii. According to the Udine book of accounts, on 23rd November a spy was sent to Cividale in order to ascertain the situation: Di Manzano, Annali del Friuli, vol. 6, 78. 359  Cessi, “Venezia neutrale,” 246–247; cf. ASVen, Senato, Secreti, reg. R (E), fol. 78r: “… eius reverendissima paternitas sepe nobis dici fecit […], quod ipse dispositus et paratus erat nobis dare de locis patriarchatus sui, quos vellemus […] essemus contenti de habendo locum et terram Sacili cum iuribus et fortiliciis suis …” (14th January 1393); fol. 79r (24th January and 27th February 1393). 360  Although undated instructions for the Udinese envoys dispatched to Visconti hint at the pledge of the Sacile castle, other sources do not seem to support this assertion. The memoriale is edited in Verci, Storia della Marca, vol. 17, documenti, 81–82, no. 1954 (ca. 1393/1394). 361   B CU, FP, ms. 899, Raccolta Bianchi, vol. 56, no. 5663; cf. Di Manzano, Annali del Friuli, vol. 6, 79; Paschini, Storia del Friuli, 651 and 659, note 103 (23rd December 1392). A certain Pietro was sent “causa tractandi contra dominum patriarcham.” There is also a letter of accusation, sent by the Udinese to the pope and evidently written sometime in the second half of 1392. See BCU, FP, ms. 899, Raccolta Bianchi, vol. 57, no. 5713. 362  The doge’s response to John’s letter in MAN, AC, Fondo diplomatico, vol. 15, no. 83: “… sed quia honorem et statum eiusdem paternitatis sinceri caritate diligimus, intendimus in

Patriarch

159

intervene on his behalf with the curia so that “[the pope] will not make any changes regarding the lord patriarch but he will remain in his patriarchate as it is at present.”363 This intervention thus shows once again the extent to which the patriarch’s position and authority depended on the good will of the Republic of St. Mark. 9

A Fragile Peace

The situation in the country showed no sign of improving. On the contrary, in February 1393, Guarnerio Favarotta di San Daniele captured the castle of Manzano with the support of the Udinese.364 The general uncertainty is also illustrated by the reaction of the Gemona city council, which, shortly afterwards, in response to the patriarch’s request that it send its representatives to him, replied that because of the danger on the roads nobody dared to set out for Cividale.365 Because of these events, John convened a meeting of the parliament in Gemona,366 where a fragile three-week truce was negotiated,367 but, shortly before it expired, the Venetian diplomat in Friuli, Giovanni Alberti, reported to Udine that the talks with the patriarch had broken down and consequently the city council had decided to reinforce the guard on the square

Romana curia et extra Romanam curiam conservationem et bonum ipsius paternitatis solicite procurare …” (29th January 1393). 363  Cessi, “Venezia neutrale,” 247–248, quoting ASVen, Senato, Secreti, reg. R (E), fol. 77r: “… scribendi domino pape et cardinalibus ac aliis in curia et procurandi, quod non faciat aliquam novitatem de ipso domino patriarcha, sed remaneat in suo patriarchatu, ut est ad presens” (4th February 1393); fol. 77v (9th February 1393). 364   A SU, Documenti storici friulani, b. II, no. 178, fol. 171r (13th February 1393); Nonnullorum Patriarcharum Vitae, MEA, appendix, no. V, 16, or UPenn, ms. 934, Vitae episcoporum et patriarcharum, fol. 38v: “Vernerius Favorota proditorie cepit castrum Manzani et expulit dominum Tadeum, cuius erat castrum, et ibi guerram volebat ducere cum patriarcha.” Edited in Previté-Orton, “Un manoscritto,” 97. See Paschini, Storia del Friuli, 651–652 and 659, note 105 (for the chronology). The chronicle wrongly gives the year of the event as 1392. The incident was also discussed in Venice: Cessi, “Venezia neutrale,” 249–250. 365   B CG, ACG, Quaderni delle Deliberazioni, reg. 18, fol. 43v: “… eidem respondeatur literatorie, quod propter stratas, que non sunt sicure, nullus audet illuc accedere etc.” (21st February 1393). 366  Parlamento friulano, I/2, 368, no. 377 (1st March 1393). Cf. Paschini, Storia del Friuli, 652. 367   A SU, Documenti storici friulani, b. II, no. 178, fol. 172r–v (4th and 12th March 1393); BCU, FP, ms. 899, Raccolta Bianchi, vol. 57, no. 5674 (12th March 1393). The truce was agreed until 12th March, but then postponed until 25th and later 29th of the same month.

160

Chapter 5

and at the city gates.368 Surprisingly, however, shortly afterwards the warring parties agreed to a peaceful solution. On 3rd April 1393, the agreement was reached and oaths were taken on the gospel at a ceremony in the gardens of the patriarchal palace in Cividale in the presence of numerous distinguished witnesses. In compliance with the peace treaty, which again emphasized the merits of the Venetian Republic, the parties pledged to cease hostilities, and all the injustices inflicted up to that point were to be pardoned. At the same time the peace treaties from the years 1389, 1391 and 1392 were reinstated. Other articles specified that Corrado di San Daniele, held captive by the patriarch, was to be set free and, together with his relatives, was to ask John for mercy and then take an oath of allegiance. The Udinese were to do the same. All forms of alliance and vicinantia concluded in the patriarchate were to be annulled. A pardon was also granted to those responsible for the death of Federico di Savorgnano and Augustine of Litomyšl. However, not all matters were resolved: the two sides were therefore to jointly choose arbitrators who would settle contentious issues regarding the castle and palace in San Daniele (the destroyed tower was to be rebuilt), to which both the patriarch and the citizens of San Daniele laid claim, as well as the castle of Manzano. The treaty was also to be ratified in Venice by the procurators of both parties.369 One week later, the enmity between the nobles of San Daniele and those of Manzano also seems to have been resolved.370 As a direct consequence of the concluded peace, the Republic decided to withdraw its envoy at the papal curia—where he supported the patriarch’s position against

368   B CU, FP, ms. 899, Raccolta Bianchi, vol. 57, no. 5676 (24th March 1393). The Venetian doge’s letter of credence for Alberti in BCC, ACC, Antica cancelleria del comune—fondo Lorenzo D’Orlandi, b. 5, no. 35/2; cf. Olivo, Antica cancelleria, vol. 1, 62, no. 278 (28th February 1393). For his mission, see Seneca, “Il conflitto fra Giovanni,” 66. 369  The extensive notarial instrument in BCU, FP, ms. 899, Raccolta Bianchi, vol. 57, no. 5680; a summary of the treaty in Marchesi, “Giovanni di Moravia,” 143; Paschini, Storia del Friuli, 652. See further Nonnullorum Patriarcharum Vitae, MEA, appendix, no. V, 16: “… et post aliquod tempus, compositione facta cum patriarcha, promiserunt illi de S. Daniele obedire ei et facere reaedificare quamdam domum, in qua solebat patriarcha descendere et habitare in ea; quam domum ruinaverunt illi de Sancto Daniele propter superbiam eorum. Et facta est pax inter d. patriarcham et homines de S. Daniele; et dimisit d. Conradum, quem captivum habebat et induit eum pulcras vestes. […] facta pace, ut superius dixi, facta est etiam pax inter Thadaeum et Varnerium Favarotta; et restituit ei castrum suum.” Cf. also Cusin, Il confine orientale, vol. 1, 192–193 who saw the peace as the outcome of the interests of moderate groups in both Udine and Cividale. 370  A damaged original with a nineteenth-century abstract in BCU, FJ, ms. 696/II, Autographa Vincentiana, vol. 2, pag. 77 (10th April 1393).

Patriarch

161

his enemies—as no longer being necessary: clearly, the threat of John’s deposition had passed.371 The oath-taking ceremony was immediately followed by celebrations on a large scale: there was popular merry-making accompanied by the ringing of bells, and the councils of Udine and Gemona ordered that the city be provided with the traditional illumination (pagnaroli).372 Both sides now vied with one another in courtly displays of reverence towards their former enemies. A number of the patriarch’s leading supporters among noblemen from Cividale (including Corrado Boiani) along with some of those de ultra Tulmentum (Rizzardo di Valvasone, Venceslao di Spilimbergo) came to Udine “causa domesticandi se cum ista communitate.” Conversely, in order to demonstrate his loyalty to John, Tristano di Savorgnano made his way to Cividale, where he was respectfully received and supplied with wine and confections. The city council, attempting to forestall any possible conflict, even ordered that Enrico di Fagagna and Francesco Nascinguerra, who had been involved in the murder of Tristano’s father, were not to show themselves in the street during his stay in the city.373 However, the high point was the adventus of the patriarch with his retinue (Conrad of Kraig is mentioned) in Udine, who was ceremonially welcomed there after a long absence and showered with gifts.374 The extant sources give the impression that, after the April peace settlement, calm of a sort finally reigned in the patriarchate.375 John even resided at his castle in Udine now and again, and we do not know of any conflicts between him and the citizens at that time. On the contrary, when the city council decided to reinforce the patrols on the square in October because of 371  ASVen, Senato, Secreti, reg. R (E), fol. 80r (15th April 1393). See Cessi, “Venezia neutrale,” 250. 372   B CU, FP, ms. 899, Raccolta Bianchi, vol. 57, no. 5681 (3rd and 5th April 1393); BCG, ACG, Quaderni dei Massari, reg. 420, fols. 12v–13r (14th and 17th April 1393). The meaning of the word pagnaroli or pirologia, which often appears in sources from that time, apparently corresponds to the Friulian pignarûl. Cf. the entry “pignarûl,” in Il nuovo Pirona. Vocabolario friulano, ed. Giulio Andrea Pirona, Ercole Carletti and Giovan Battista Corgnali, 2nd ed. (Udine: Società filologica friulana, 2004), 753. I am grateful to Prof. Andrea Tilatti for the reference. Di Manzano, Annali del Friuli, vol. 6, 83, note 3 translates it as “luminarie.” 373   B CU, FP, ms. 899, Raccolta Bianchi, vol. 57, no. 5682 (7th April 1393); no. 5683: “… ex parte communis dicatur Francisco ser Nascinguerre de Savorgnano et Henrico de Faganea, ut, donec hic erit in Civitate Austrie idem Tristanus, ipsi Franciscus et Henricus maneant in domo, nec vadant per Civitatem Austriam” (6th April 1393), edited in Vollo, I Savorgnani, appendice, 236 (with an erroneous dating to 16th April). The events are also described in Marchesi, “Giovanni di Moravia,” 143. 374   B CU, FP, ms. 899, Raccolta Bianchi, vol. 57, no. 5684 (18th April 1393); nos. 5687, 5688 (22nd April 1393); cf. Di Manzano, Annali del Friuli, vol. 6, 83. 375  Cf. Paschini, Storia del Friuli, 653.

162

Chapter 5

reports of some kind of armed men gathering in the mountains, it assured the patriarch that he should not be suspicious and that all these measures had been taken only in the interests of security.376 In fact, as late as December 1393, when the patriarch offered to mediate between Udine and Cividale with regard to some alleged disputes, it was decided that there was no need for any peace negotiations.377 To all appearances, the long-term enmity between the Savorgnano of Cividale and the Savorgnano of Udine was also successfully resolved when Francesco Nascinguerra and his brothers finally handed over the castle of Savorgnano, to which both families laid claim, and in return took possession of the gastaldia of Antro near Cividale, to be held until the death of the patriarch.378 Likewise, the Venetian sources from this period are also silent regarding Friulian matters, as there was no reason to intervene in the patriarchate. Shortly after that, however, John’s traditionally amicable relations with Francesco Carrara were shaken to their foundations. John even made an accusation against him in Florence, where he complained of Carrara not having fulfilled some unspecified commitments. The Florentine Republic replied with surprise that it regarded the lord of Padua as beyond reproach and called on the patriarch to renew his friendship. At the same time, however, it recommended to Carrara that he resolve the situation calmly so as to avoid any possible scandals.379 What exactly John meant by this “failure to keep p ­ romises” 376   B CU, FP, ms. 899, Raccolta Bianchi, vol. 57, no. 5710 (2nd October 1393); no. 5711: “… ad declarandum sibi, qualiter non debet capere suspitionem, si fieret custodia super platea, eo quia propter dictas suspitiones communitas intendebat facere bonam custodiam” (7th October 1393). 377   B CU, FP, ms. 899, Raccolta Bianchi, vol. 57, no. 5721: “Prefato domino nostro domino patriarche responderi debeat, tractationem alicujus pacis inter predictas communitates non fore necessariam regratiando humiliter ipsi domino nostro domino patriarche de premissis, que inquirere intendebat, quia puro zelo ejus dominatio et gratia ad premisa movebatur” (20th December 1393). See also the similar reply from the Udine city council to the patriarch half a year later ibid., vol. 58, no. 5738 (1st June 1394). By contrast, Marchesi, “Giovanni di Moravia,” 144–145, as well as Seneca, “Il conflitto fra Giovanni,” 67 saw the document as evidence of new discord between the two cities. 378  Leicht, “La giovinezza di Tristano,” 22; Paschini, Storia del Friuli, 653. A copy of John’s charter in BCU, FP, ms. 899, Raccolta Bianchi, vol. 57, no. 5699; cf. Di Manzano, Annali del Friuli, vol. 6, 86–87 (7th July 1393). 379  See the reply from the Florentine Republic to John and its letter to Carrara in ASFi, Signori, Missive della prima Cancelleria, reg. 23, fol. 138r: “… videmus, quantum de magnifico fratre nostro domino Paduano vestra reverentia conqueratur. In quorum quidem litterarum serie summus non modicum admirati considerantes virtutem et fidem domini prelibati et quod in mentem nostram nullo modo potest ascendere, quod idem dominus Franciscus promissionum suarum non sit diligentissimus observator” (30th July 1393).

Patriarch

163

we do not know; nevertheless, it is very likely that it concerned the 30,000 florins that Carrara had pledged to pay him in exchange for his support in conquering Padua and which he had never disbursed. Some dispute (probably still the same one) between the patriarch and Carrara regarding an unspecified amount of money was even referred to in the spring of 1394. It is remarkable that the Cividalese—despite being John’s allies—secretly encouraged Carrara “pro bono patrie” to pay off the debt only gradually and in small sums, as they feared that the patriarch would use the money to redeem Tolmino, held by the city as a pledge.380 This was a “Machiavellian” step indeed, testifying that the partnership between John and Cividale constituted merely a temporary pragmatic alliance against a common enemy, namely Udine. In fact, neither Udine nor Cividale intended to allow a permanent consolidation of the patriarch’s power, using him in turn only in order to undermine the position of the rival city. Scarcely had the internal conflict in the country been temporarily resolved when a threat appeared on its borders, in Istria. The situation there was quite complicated and messy. Only the remnants of the original patriarchal estate remained. The Habsburgs, who had held the important port of Trieste since 1382, had possessions there, while the coast was controlled by the Venetians. Patriarchs thus effectively ruled only modest areas of land, especially in the middle of the peninsula, where they installed their governors with the title of Margrave of Istria.381 The turbulent atmosphere had been affected by the 380   A SU, Documenti storici friulani, b. II, no. 186, fol. 216v, or BCU, FP, ms. 899, Raccolta Bianchi, vol. 58, no. 5729: “… providam, igitur, discretionem tuam hortamur attente, quatenus ipsi domino nostro Plaustrigero [sic!] hec demonstrans illum supplici ortatione inducas […], ut, cum publice hic dicatur, quod cum pecunia ipsi domino nostro domino patriarche danda per eum, vellit dominus ipse noster dominus patriarcha a nobis Tolmino exigere, dignetur et velit nos habendo, ut confidimus, remissos, si qua pecunia venit danda per eum, ita in minuto terminisque in diversis promittere et dare illam, quod cum ea pecunia dominus noster prefatus dominus patriarcha ipsum locum Tolmini cum contrata non posit redimere a nobis” (15th March 1394). 381  See Bernardo Benussi, L’Istria nei suoi due millenni di storia, Collana degli atti Centro di ricerche storiche—Rovigno 14 (Venice and Rovigno: Consiglio regionale del Veneto, 1997), 243–254; Štih, Studien zur Geschichte, 160–169; Luigi Tomaz, Il confine d’Italia in Istria e Dalmazia. Duemila anni di storia (Rome and Venice: Associazione Nazionale Venezia Giulia e Dalmazia, 2007); Degrassi, “Frontiere,” 216–217. There is a succinct remark in a treatise called Lucifer Aquileiensis from 1386, drawn up by the patriarch’s chancellor Odorico Susanna da Udine. See “I memoriali ‘Nobilis Patriae Forojulii,’” lxxvii: “Marchionatus Histrie et tota Histria consuevit obedire et obedivit ex privilegiis pleno jure concessis sancte Aquilejensi ecclesie ejusque patriarchatus pasto[ribus] ac presulibus, qui fuerunt primo tempore. Sed Veneti per vim et potentiam pluribus retroactis temporibus occuparunt et occupant plures civitates, terras et loca marchionatus predicti …”

164

Chapter 5

e­ arlier War of Chioggia: although the disputes between the powers had officially been settled, the rivalry between their subjects persisted. To add to this, there were bands of robbers looting and plundering the country, which the declining authority of the margrave was not capable of curbing. All of this is documented in a report by Bernardo da Cividale, to whom the patriarch entrusted the government of the region. Among other things, Bernardo complained bitterly that if he had had any idea what difficulties he would have to contend with in his office he would never have accepted it.382 At roughly the same time, John received a letter from the Istrian commune of Muggia. Its contents reveal that he required a tax (collecta) as well as an additional sum of money to be paid by the town; however, the local authorities responded with an ultimatum that they would only pay after the patriarch had attended to the punishment of some traitors banished from Muggia, and not before. The wording of the document thus clearly demonstrates the town’s self-confidence towards its lord and this proves once again the limits of the patriarch’s authority in this distant region.383 On the other hand, it should also be pointed out that between 1383 and 1396, the episcopal see of Trieste was held by Henry of Wildenstein/Vildštejn, a prelate of somewhat obscure origins, active in Litomyšl and Prague in the 1370s, where he probably got to know John of Moravia. From 1391, he is referred to as the patriarch’s auxiliary bishop and thus he could serve as John’s ally in the Habsburg Istrian territory.384 However, the crumbling patriarchal estate in Istria was not the only problem that beset John. On the other side of the Alps, the long-anticipated conflict For Odorico, see Laura Casella, “Susanna Odorico, notaio, cancelliere patriarcale,” in Nuovo Liruti, vol. 1/2, 805–809. 382  The document is edited in Codice Diplomatico Istriano (= CDI), vol. III, ed. Pietro Kandler (Trieste: Riva, 1986), 1473–1476, no. 863: “Et certe si credidissem habere tot labores; et malinconias et expensas in veritate pro aliqua mea utilitate non acceptassem marchionatum si mihi gratis prebnissetis [sic!]; tamen de mandato vestro acceptasse ad faciendum omnia que sint honoris et proficui Aquilegensis ecclesie et vestri” (October 1393). 383   M AN, Famiglia Boiani, vol. 6, Codice diplomatico, no. 172, edited in CDI III, 1477–1478, no. 864 (12th December 1393). For the “traitors” and the complicated relationship between John of Moravia and Muggia, see Iona, “Le podesterie,” 137–140. 384  The figure of Bishop Henry as well as his possible links to John of Moravia were recently pointed out by Vojtěch Večeře, “Kazatel a biskup Jindřich z Vildštejna († 1409): Životní osudy muže, který promlouval na pohřbu Karla IV.,” Theatrum historiae 22 (2018), 9–31; cf. also Helmut Bansa, “Heinrich von Wildenstein und seine Leichenpredigten auf Kaiser Karl IV.,” Deutsches Archiv für Erforschung des Mittelalters 24 (1968), 187–223. Henry is described as the patriarch’s vicar in pontificalibus by Paschini, Storia del Friuli, 660, note 110, and Večeře, “Kazatel a biskup,” 28 (with some new evidence). In 1393, at John’s intercession, the bishop was accepted as a citizen of Udine: Paschini, Storia del Friuli, 653; CDI III, 1472, no. 862.

Patriarch

165

within the Luxembourg dynasty finally erupted. As Jaroslav Mezník remarked, although relations between the Luxembourgs in the period up to 1390 were not entirely problem-free, outwardly the dynasty still presented a united front. Among other things, this was shown by the joint support of Wenceslas IV and Jobst at the beginnings of John’s rule in the patriarchate. In contrast, the situation gradually began to intensify from the early 1390s, with two power groups gradually forming: the first was represented by Wenceslas IV, Margrave Prokop and the Polish king Władysław II Jagiełło, and the second by King Sigismund of Hungary, Margrave Jobst and Duke Albert III of Austria.385 What position John of Moravia adopted in this power struggle cannot be determined with certainty. While he was staying in Bohemia in the summer of 1391, we know that he spent some time in Brno and then at the castle of Žebrák together with King Wenceslas.386 Of course, this does not necessarily mean that he had joined his “side”; for one thing, we know very little about John’s itinerary during his stay on the other side of the Alps—it can be assumed that he at least visited Margrave Jobst too—and relations between the Luxembourgs were still quite decorous at that time, as is shown by Wenceslas’s plan to send Jobst to Italy as his vicar in early 1392.387 From spring 1393, however, what was already a latent conflict escalated into an open clash, and in Moravia fighting broke out between Jobst and Prokop.388 This was followed by unsuccessful attempts at reconciliation, in which John also played a part. In November/December, he was summoned back to the Czech lands by King Wenceslas “because of a dispute which his brothers, the margraves of Moravia, are having with each other.”389 The patriarch actually attempted to comply with this order from the head of the Empire and the dynasty and resolved to depart for Bohemia. At the same time, however, he was well aware of the potential risks: the last time he had left the patriarchate for several months, the Udinese had immediately taken advantage of his absence 385  Mezník, Lucemburská Morava, 250–258; see also Bartoš, České dějiny, vol. 2/6, 94–95, 107– 112; Bartlová and Bobková, Velké dějiny, vol. 4/b, 340–348. 386  For more details, see above. 387  ASFi, Signori, Missive della prima Cancelleria, reg. 22, fols. 187v–189r; Epistolario di Coluccio Salutati, vol. 2, FSI Ep 16, 427–429, note 2. For more details, see above. 388  Mezník, Lucemburská Morava, 254–255 dated the beginning of the second war between the Moravian margraves to February or March 1393. 389  ASVen, Senato, Secreti, reg. R (E), fol. 90r: “… quod ipse dominus patriarcha velit recedere de Patria et ire ad presentiam domini regis Romanorum secundum requisitionem suam, et hoc esse videtur occasione discordie, quam habent insimul fratres domini patriarche, marchiones Moravie …” (13th December 1393). Partially quoted in Cessi, “Venezia neutrale,” 262, and Paschini, Storia del Friuli, 653.

166

Chapter 5

and begun systematically to undermine his position in the country and at the papal curia. John notified Venice of his, or rather Wenceslas’s, intention—eloquent proof of his political dependence on the Republic—and at the same time had a general assembly convened in Cividale, where an interim governor (vicedominus) was to be appointed for the period of his absence. However, in Venice this aroused considerable unrest, because there were widespread fears of the outbreak of further conflicts caused by the lack of a central authority in the country. The senate therefore instructed its diplomat Francesco Querini to convince the patriarch by any means possible to abandon his planned journey. However, if he were to fail in this attempt, he was at least to ensure that a vicedominus who was favourably inclined towards the Republic was chosen.390 During these days, perhaps with the prospect of an imminent departure, John revealed himself to be a pious benefactor by donating certain property in the village of Ragogna to the Cividale collegiate chapter. In return, the canons were to ensure that every week “for all time” a priest chosen by them would celebrate three masses at the newly founded altar of the Immaculate Conception in the sacristy of the church; as long as John was alive, for his health, and, after his death, for his soul and those of his ancestors.391 Yet John does not appear to have left the patriarchate, since at the end of December 1393 he is documented as being in Udine.392 Perhaps he had been dissuaded by the advice of the Venetian ambassador (and others), or perhaps by the difficult of crossing the Alps in winter, which would be risky to say the least.

390  Cessi, “Venezia neutrale,” 262–263; ASVen, Senato, Secreti, reg. R (E), fol. 90r–v. For the session of parliament where John’s departure and the election of a new governor was to be discussed, see Parlamento friulano, I/2, 369, no. 379: “… consilium colloquii tunc ibi celebratum per d. patriarcham asserentem se velle accedere ad d. imperatorem” (6th December 1393). 391  The notarial instrument is preserved in MAN, AC, Fondo diplomatico, vol. 15, no. 89; a large part of it was edited in “Il libro degli anniversari del capitolo,” in I libri degli anniversari di Cividale del Friuli, vol. 1, ed. Cesare Scalon, Fonti per la storia della Chiesa in Friuli. Serie medievale 5 (Rome: Istituto storico italiano per il Medio Evo, 2008), 459, note 38 (9th December 1393). On 19th January 1394, the Cividale chapter officially took possession of the property in question: MAN, AC, Fondo diplomatico, vol. 15, no. 91. It is interesting to note that in the same church John apparently also founded another altar or chapel dedicated to St. Wenceslas, the patron saint of Bohemia. See Alba Zanini, Il capitolo collegiato di Santa Maria Assunta di Cividale. Inventario (n.p., [2015]), 17, accessible online: http:// www.sa-fvg.archivi.beniculturali.it/index.php?id=archivi_ecclesiastici0. 392  See John’s itinerary in Excursus 3 in this book.

Patriarch

10

167

“… fuit interfectus dominus patriarcha …”

In April 1394—i.e. a year after the last peace treaty was concluded—the internal situation in the patriarchate slowly began to escalate once again. Disputes broke out anew between San Daniele and the patriarch,393 while he concluded a defence treaty with Cividale concerning mutual assistance against any threats.394 Meanwhile, John also held intensive talks about a new alliance with Francesco Carrara. In spite of the agreement and support of the Florentine Republic,395 however, this intention met with reserve on the part of the Venetians, who discouraged the league, arguing that “there are those in the patriarchate who have their doubts about it.”396 We do not know whether this recommendation was followed. Furthermore, a letter of intercession sent by Francesco Carrara to Corrado Boiani reveals that at that time the patriarch had a certain relative of Cesare, son of Nicoletto d’Alessio (the well-known chronicler and chancellor in the service of the Paduan dynasty), imprisoned for some unspecified crimes.397 Nevertheless, this incident probably had nothing to do with “high politics” and had no substantial impact on the good relations then existing between Carrara and John. Some other sources indicate that the Udinese, on the other hand,

393  P arlamento friulano, I/2, 372, no. 383: “… differentia existentes inter ipsum [i.e. the patriarch] ex una et illos de S. Daniele ex altera …” (11th April 1394). For more details, see Paschini, Storia del Friuli, 653. 394  Two copies of the treaty were drawn up: a copy of John’s charter in BCU, FP, ms. 899, Raccolta Bianchi, vol. 58, no. 5731; an original of the one issued by Cividale in BCC, ACC, Antica cancelleria del comune—fondo Lorenzo D’Orlandi, b. 5, no. 58 (22nd April 1394). See Marchesi, “Giovanni di Moravia,” 145; Paschini, Storia del Friuli, 653; Seneca, “Il conflitto fra Giovanni,” 67; Olivo, Antica cancelleria, vol. 1, 67, no. 301. 395  See the letter from the Florentine Republic to Carrara in ASFi, Signori, Missive della prima Cancelleria, reg. 24, fol. 21r, edited in Ester Pastorello, Nuove ricerche sulla storia di Padova e dei principi da Carrara al tempo di Gian Galeazzo Visconti (Padua: Fratelli Gallina, 1908), documenti, 215, no. 53: “Federa, que cum reverendissimo in Christo patre domino patriarca Aquilegiensi, quia vobis utilia fore cognoscimus, modis omnibus commendamus et quamvis in hoc liber sitis, nec opporteat nostrum vel aliorum adhibere consensum …” (26th April 1394). 396  Cessi, “Venezia neutrale,” 263–264, quoting ASVen, Senato, Secreti, reg. R (E), fol. 92v: “… dubitamus, quod sunt aliqui in Patria, qui caperent de hoc umbram et dubium, nescimus bene sibi suadere …” (28th April 1394). 397   M AN, Famiglia Boiani, vol. 6, Codice diplomatico, no. 114 (23rd April 1394). For Nicoletto, see Paolo Sambin, “Alessio, Nicoletto d’,” in DBI 2 (Rome: Istituto della Enciclopedia italiana, 1960), 247–248.

168

Chapter 5

sought support at the Milanese court of Giangaleazzo Visconti.398 These negotiations must therefore have contributed to an even greater polarization of the two traditional power groupings. Although there does not appear to have been any armed confrontation, events were drawing towards their tragic conclusion. From the following period, which is not particularly rich in sources, it is worth mentioning an edict by John forbidding all individuals from the diocese of Aquileia from presenting any kind of papal bull without the prior approval of the patriarch or his vicar general under penalty of a hundred florins and excommunication, which he had nailed to the door of the churches in Udine and Cividale. The document does not appear to have survived; however, its content is reproduced in a mandate from John’s vicar general, who ordered that excommunication be declared upon a Cividale canon who—in spite of the ban—had presented some documents from the papal auditor in the chapter.399 For that matter, the Capitula contra patriarcham Johannem mention some kind of earlier decree by John which allegedly banned all appeals to the papal curia in legal disputes.400 Although it is difficult to imagine that these decrees were actually complied with, both of them show quite clearly John’s aversion to papal interference in matters concerning the patriarchate, which he was trying to turn into an independent state whose head, the patriarch, was to be the sovereign ruler in both secular and spiritual matters. John’s resistance to paying his servitia also manifested itself again, earning him another excommunication. We do not know when exactly this occurred, but we do have evidence that, on 11th August 1394, Pope Boniface IX charged the bishop of Concordia with collecting the servitia still owed by the patriarch, which were originally supposed to have been paid at a rate of 500 florins a year, and lifted the excommunication from him. As Pio Paschini calculated, in the

398  The relevant sources were collected by Seneca, “Il conflitto fra Giovanni,” 67; see also Cessi, “Venezia neutrale,” 263–264. 399  A contemporary copy of the document is preserved in ASU, Documenti storici friulani, b. II, no. 185: “… mandavimus, quatenus nullus clericus aut laicus cuiuscumque conditionis, gradus seu preminentie existat, audiret aliquas litteras seu processus domini pape, auditorum, seu delegatorum alicuius presentare alicui persone, collegio vel universitati ecclesiastico seu seculari, nisi primo et ante omnia eas presentaret prefato domino patriarche vel eius vicario sub pena centum ducatorum et excommunicationis …” (7th May 1394). See also Paschini, Storia del Friuli, 654–655. 400  Capitula contra patriarcham Johannem, art. 25: “… volens, quod ab eorum sententiis nemo nec ad pedes sacros beatissimi patris numquam modo quopiam posset ab injusta vel justa sententia appellare …” Ibid., art. 32: “Querebat enim sub illo colore etiam in isto consilio deliberari, quod tota Patria querulose commota edictum faceret, ne aliquis ad pedes sacros pro meliori judice impetrando recurreret …”

Patriarch

169

end John thus paid only 2,462 florins of his main servitia, while he did not pay his servitia minuta at all.401 In early October, the Udine city council decided to send messengers to the patriarch—according to an anonymous patriarchal chronicle, it did so under the influence of the Savorgnano—together with an unnamed archbishop and the bishop of Concordia (i.e. Antonio Pancera), to invite him to visit the city.402 John complied with the Udinese request and shortly afterwards made his way to the city, a decision which was to prove fateful. Although what happened next is described by a number of sources, their versions of events do not always match up. What is certain is that on 13th October 1394 John was assassinated before the gates of his Udinese castle by Tristano and Nicolò di Savorgnano and other conspirators, including noblemen linked with Udine such as Guarnerio Favarotta di San Daniele, Simone and Odorico di Colloredo, Doimo di Castello, Bernardo di Strassoldo, Nicolò de’ Soldonieri and Giovanni di Zucco.403 While the necrology of the Cividale chapter states that this occurred at “the

401  Paschini, “Giovanni di Moravia,” 108. John’s successor Antonio Caetani had to undertake not only to pay his servitia, but also 7,538 florins and all of the lesser servitia of his predecessor. See Pio Paschini, “Il patriarca Antonio Caetani (1395–1402),” MSF 27/29 (1931/33), 74, note 4. By contrast, Girgensohn, “La crisi del patriarcato,” 56 speaks of 9,324 florins owed by John (perhaps including the lesser servitia). 402   B CU, FP, ms. 899, Raccolta Bianchi, vol. 58, no. 5750: “… ambaxiatores ad dominum patriarcham cum societate dominorum archiepiscopi et episcopi Concordiensis pro convitando ipsum, ut venire dignaretur in terram suam Utini …” (8th October 1394); Nonnullorum Patriarcharum Vitae, MEA, appendix, no. V, 17. See also Paschini, Storia del Friuli, 654 and 660, note 117, combining both sources. 403  Nonnullorum Patriarcharum Vitae, MEA, appendix, no. V, 17: “… interemptus est in castello ante portam castelli Utini in MCCCXCIV die XII Octobris …” Additamenta nunc primum edita, RIS XVI, col. 84: “Tuncque dominus Tristanus filius praedicti domini Federici fecit occidere ipsum dominum patriarcham in castro ante portam […] Et hoc fuit MCCCXCIV. die XIII. Octobris.” Miari, Chronicon, 19: “Eodem anno, die martis XIIIo octubris, nobilis vir dominus Tristanus de Sovergnano de Utino […] cum societate IIIIor hominum ingressus est castrum terre Utini Foriiullii et interfecit reverendum in Christo patrem dominum Iohannem patriarcham Acquilegensem […] Et hec facta fuerunt in palacio dicti castri …” Cronaca volgare di Anonimo Fiorentino, RIS n.s. XXVII/2, 190: “Tristano di messer Francesco d’Avignano [sic!] del mese d’ottobre nella città d’Udine in Frigoli uccise il Patriarca d’Aquilea […] Poi una mattina giunse a lui in sulla sala con dodici compagni armati e quivi uccise il detto Patriarca.” The date 13th October is also given by both necrologies from Cividale: “Il libro degli anniversari del capitolo,” 458–459; “Il libro degli anniversari di San Domenico,” in I libri degli anniversari di Cividale del Friuli, vol. 2, 704– 705. The later list of the culprits in BCU, FP, ms. 899, Raccolta Bianchi, vol. 58, no. 5754 (ca. 1412). For John’s murder, see Leicht, “La giovinezza di Tristano,” 23–26; Paschini, Storia del Friuli, 654; Tilatti, “Tra santità e oblio,” 617–619.

170

Chapter 5

first hour,”404 another contemporary source from Cividale claims that John was killed “around the fourteenth hour,” immediately after attending mass.405 These differences may be partly due to different ways of measuring time in the Late Middle Ages. It can be assumed that the Cividale canons were calculating time according to the canonical hours, where hora prima corresponded to the time when the sun rose. In the second case, the principle used was probably that of the “Italian hours,” according to which the new day, divided into twenty-four hours, began at sunset. In October this took place at roughly six o’clock in the evening, and the fourteenth hour would thus have corresponded to eight o’clock in the morning, which almost exactly matches the information from the Cividale necrology.406 There is also a contemporary entry in the registers of Gemona stating that the patriarch was killed “circa medias tercias,” which (according to the system of canonical hours) would also indicate that John’s death occurred in the morning.407 Of course, determining the precise time of the assassination is not the most important thing. The entire incident seems to have been a premeditated armed conspiracy organized by the Savorgnano and their closest supporters, who were then joined by other citizens, since immediately after John’s murder his property was plundered and his entourage imprisoned (although later released under oath).408 The support of the popolo was “often a determining element for the result of the plot” and the Savorgnano might therefore have made some effort

404  “Il libro degli anniversari del capitolo,” 458–459: “… interfectus fuit in castro Utini, die martis hora prima, anno Domini MCCCLXXXXIIII.” Similarly also the second redaction of “Il libro degli anniversari di San Domenico,” 704. 405   A SU, Documenti storici friulani, b. II, no. 186, fol. 220v: “… circa XIIIIam horam […] subito audita missa per eum, Utini fuit gladiis interfectus et turpiter traditus sepulture” (15th October 1394). 406  For both ways of measuring time, see Marie Bláhová, Historická chronologie (Prague: Libri, 2001), 283–285, 294–295. 407   B CG, ACG, Quaderni delle Deliberazioni, reg. 20, fol. 29r: “Notandum est, quod patriarcha Johannes de Moravia mortuus et interfectus fuit Utini ante castrum sub Mo CCCo LXXXXIIIIto, indictione secunda, die Martis, XIII mense Octobris, circa medias tercias.” Also quoted in Liruti, Notizie delle cose del Friuli, vol. 5, 144. 408  See Chronicum tertium Patriarcharum Aquilejensium, MEA, appendix, no. IV, 15: “… et omnia bona ipsius d. patriarchae fuerunt posita ad saccomanum …” See also, with some differences, the Vatican manuscript of the chronicle: Additamenta nunc primum edita, RIS XVI, col. 84: “… et omnia ejus bona depraedata fuerunt …” For the imprisonment and later release of John’s familiares, see BCU, FP, ms. 899, Raccolta Bianchi, vol. 58, no. 5759 (15th October 1394); no. 5761 (23rd October 1394). The property belonging to Marshal Nicholas seems to have been alienated too: BCC, ACC, Antica cancelleria del comune— fondo Lorenzo D’Orlandi, b. 8, no. 106 (15th November [1395]).

Patriarch

171

to win its favour.409 On the other hand, it is hard to imagine that the conspiracy could have been known to a wide circle of individuals in advance without its being discovered: the patriarch still had his defenders and spies in Udine. Thus, it seems that the Udinese citizens joined the conspirators after the murder spontaneously and out of the affection they always had for the Savorgnano, as well as out of hatred towards the patriarch. John’s remains had quite a remarkable “afterlife.”410 Initially, they were provisionally placed in the adjacent church of Santa Maria di Castello, but the very next day, on 14th October, they were moved to the duomo of Udine.411 There, according to an anonymous chronicler, they were to be interred “before the main altar, secretly and at night, without the participation of priests, in the tomb of Patriarch Nicholas [of Luxembourg].”412 Another later reporter remarked that “it was said that his body would be stolen by some from the patriarchate, and so it was taken up and placed in the great church [i.e. the duomo] in Udine, where it still lies to this day.”413 The fact that the “some” were from Cividale can be inferred from a letter from their city council to King Wenceslas. In it, they write that their urgent demands that John’s body be handed over so that it can be interred in Cividale in accordance with his wishes have not been met because of the vehement opposition of the Udinese.414 Those behind the assassination were clearly anxious to get rid of any relics of the inconvenient 409  See Jean-Claude Maire Vigueur, “Le rivolte cittadine contro i ‘tiranni,’” in Rivolte urbane e rivolte contadine nell’Europa del Trecento: un confronto, ed. Monique Bourin, Giovanni Cherubini and Giuliano Pinto (Florence: Firenze University Press, 2008), 354; cf. Maire Vigueur, “La cacciata del tiranno,” 152. 410  See Paschini, Storia del Friuli, 654; Tilatti, “Tra santità e oblio,” 618–619. 411   B CU, FP, ms. 899, Raccolta Bianchi, vol. 58, no. 5755; Di Manzano, Annali del Friuli, vol. 6, 100. 412  Nonnullorum Patriarcharum Vitae, MEA, appendix, no. V, 17: “… et sepultus in Utino in ecclesia majori ante altare majus, clam et in nocte, absque sacerdotibus, in sepulcro olim patriarchae Nicolai.” UPenn, ms. 934, Vitae episcoporum et patriarcharum, fol. 39r, explicitly states: “… in sepulchro olim patriarche Nicolay, parentis sui.” Edited in Previté-Orton, “Un manoscritto,” 97. 413  Additamenta nunc primum edita, RIS XVI, col. 84: “Et fuit sepultus in ecclesia sanctae Mariae de castro Utini. Deinde dictum fuit, quod ejus corpus erat per aliquos furandum, qui erant de Patria, licet tamen fuit evulsum et positum in ecclesia majori Utini, ubi adhuc jacet.” Cf., with minor differences, Chronicum tertium Patriarcharum Aquilejensium, MEA, appendix, no. IV, 15. 414   A SU, Documenti storici friulani, b. II, no. 186, fol. 220v: “… ut illud posent corpus in ordinata sepultura honorifice ponere, instantius petiverunt et ipsis corpus illius prefati Utinenses dare firmiter denegarunt” (15th October 1394). By contrast, Marchesi, “Giovanni di Moravia,” 145 interprets the transferral of John’s remains differently: in this way, they were to be protected against the anger of the people who could have committed “excesses even on a dead body.” However, the word furari should actually be translated in this

172

Chapter 5

prelate as quickly and quietly as possible, so his mortal remains were secretly placed in another man’s grave. We are left with the question of how to interpret John’s assassination. Contemporary and later chroniclers (as well as historical research based on them) generally viewed the murder as a vendetta by the Savorgnano for the death of Federico.415 This, as the whole incident was outwardly presented by the Savorgnano themselves, is partly revealed by the bull of absolution from Boniface IX for John’s murderers from 1400. The extensive narratio, which para­ phrases Tristano’s supplication, places a conspicuous emphasis on the patriarch’s direct responsibility for the death of Federico di Savorgnano. Although the supplication bases its main argument on the assassins’ fears for their own lives, the motif of revenge is also implied by the document.416 Another important aspect of John’s murder was the absence of a proper funeral: the fact that he was denied a Christian burial and his own grave by the Savorgnano and the Udine city council was also sometimes part of a vendetta—a way of dishonouring an enemy post mortem.417 The fact that a vendetta was executed more than five years after Federico’s assassination was not unusual; as the medieval treatises emphasized, it was important to plan one’s revenge carefully and wait for the right moment to carry it out: vendettas were thus “planned strategies, or, in other words the opposite of impulsive acts.”418 The Minorite friar Salimbene de Adam († ca. 1288) even remarked in his chronicle that “the men of Parma, of whom I am one, have the saying that thirty years is time enough for vengeance.”419 Such a moment did c­ ontext as “steal”; moreover, the chronicle speaks about “aliquos […] de Patria,” i.e. not about the Udinese. 415  Chronicum tertium Patriarcharum Aquilejensium, MEA, appendix, no. IV, 15: “… et sic vindicta facta fuit de morte ipsius d. Federici Savorgnani.” Cronaca volgare di Anonimo Fiorentino, RIS n.s. XXVII/2, 190: “La cagione perché il fece [i.e. why Tristano di Savorgnano assassinated John] fu perché il detto Patriarca avea più anni passati innanzi fatto uccidere a tradimento messer Federico suo padre.” Miari, Chronicon, 19. Cf. Marchesi, “Giovanni di Moravia,” 145; Cogo, “Il patriarcato d’Aquileia,” 306; Leicht, “La giovinezza di Tristano,” 24; Cusin, Il confine orientale, vol. 1, 195; Casella, I Savorgnan, 25–26. 416   B MC, ms. Cicogna 3428, fasc. Savorgnan, sub dato; De Rubeis, Monumenta Ecclesiae Aquilejensis, cols. 983 and 984–985 (1th August 1400). 417  See Edward Muir, Mad Blood Stirring. Vendetta in Renaissance Italy, 2nd ed. (Baltimore and London: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1998), 97. 418  Zorzi, “La cultura della vendetta,” 143; Larner, Italy in the Age of Dante, 103–104; the quotation is from Zorzi, “Legitimation and Legal Sanction,” 35; cf. also Darovec, “Blood Feud,” 74. 419  Cronica fratris Salimbene de Adam ordinis Minorum, ed. Oswald Holder-Egger, MGH SS 32 (Hannover and Leipzig: Hahn, 1905–1913), 533: “Et nota, quod Parmenses, ex quibus sum ego, soliti sunt dicere, quod vindicta XXXta annorum satis est tempestiva.” The English translation of the quotation in Larner, Italy in the Age of Dante, 103.

Patriarch

173

indeed present itself in the autumn of 1394. In the spring King Wenceslas had been taken captive after the nobility rose up against him under Margrave Jobst’s leadership, with Duke John of Görlitz and probably also Prokop joining in the conflict.420 News of the king’s capture and the rift within the Luxembourg dynasty soon reached Italy,421 where it must have significantly weakened the prestige of the dynasty to which the patriarch belonged. As Václav Štěpán suggested, this may have been the trigger for the Savorgnano, who finally decided to do away with the hated prelate.422 A number of different aspects thus came together in the assassination of John of Moravia.423 On the one hand, there was the long-term power-political conflict between the patriarch and the opposition for predominance in the patriarchate, which persisted with varying degrees of intensity from 1388 onwards. No less important, however, was the “binding obligation” of the Savorgnano to avenge Federico’s death, which—rightly or wrongly—they attributed to John. It does not seem possible to draw a clear dividing line between these two aspects, since they blended together in the minds of contemporaries.424 So although the hostility between Patriarch John and the Savorgnano undoubtedly had its roots in a power-political struggle, contemporaries and clearly even the Savorgnano themselves viewed the conflict through the prism of the blood feud, which also outwardly legitimized it.425 420  See Spěváček, Václav IV., 231–242; the participation of Margrave Prokop in the conflict is assumed by Mezník, Lucemburská Morava, 259–261. 421  See Ivan Hlaváček, “Ohlas prvního zajetí Václava IV. v r. 1394 v Padově,” in Ad vitam et honorem. Profesoru Jaroslavu Mezníkovi přátelé a žáci k pětasedmdesátým narozeninám, ed. Tomáš Borovský, Libor Jan and Martin Wihoda (Brno: Matice moravská, 2003), 481–490. 422  Štěpán, Moravský markrabě Jošt, 368. 423  See the reflections by Casella, I Savorgnan, 25–27. 424  See Muir, Mad Blood Stirring, 46–47; Larner, Italy in the Age of Dante, 107; Marco Gentile, “Cultura della vendetta e pratiche di resistenza nello stato territoriale: osservazioni sull’aristocrazia signorile lombarda (XV secolo),” in La politique de l’histoire en Italie. Arts et pratiques du réemploi (XIV e–XVIIe siècle), ed. Caroline Callard, Élisabeth Crouzet-Pavan and Alain Tallon (Paris: PUPS, 2014), 294–297; the quoted characteristic of vendetta as ­“obbligo vincolante” ibid., 288; similarly also Leicht, “La giovinezza di Tristano,” 20; Casella, I Savorgnan, 25–26. 425  Cf. Muir, Mad Blood Stirring, 46.

Chapter 6

Historical Memory 1

Damnatio memoriae versus patriarcha sanctae memoriae

Having chronologically described John’s life up to his death, we will now focus on his “second life” in historical memory: in other words, there will be an analysis of how John was perceived by his contemporaries and subsequent generations. At the same time, we will attempt to answer the important question of why, throughout the entire period of the patriarchate’s long existence, no other patriarch “left such a sinister mark [in the memory] as this Moravian prelate,” as the Friulian historian Luigi De Biasio observed.1 Returning to the events that immediately followed John’s murder, it is remarkable that the assassination of the head of the Aquileian patriarchate did not cause any great turmoil (with the possible exception of the plundering of John’s property) in Udine or elsewhere. The contemporary Belluno canon Clemente Miari even remarked that “no stranger, nor citizen was agitated for this.”2 Several years after, another chronicler from distant Florence also observed that following the murder, Tristano “returned home and nothing else happened in the city of Udine because of that.”3 Thus, it would seem that the Savorgnano faction had everything firmly in hand from the start. The day after the murder, Tristano di Savorgnano was appointed captain of Udine at a meeting of the city council for the whole period of sede vacante, which represented a de facto legitimization of the crime by the city.4 On the same day, the council 1  De Biasio, “Il patriarca d’Aquileia,” 190: “Nella lunga serie di patriarchi che hanno governato la chiesa di Aquileia, dal periodo delle origini alla fine del Cinquecento, nessuno ha lasciato una traccia così sinistra come il prelato di Moravia.” Cf. also Marchesi, “Giovanni di Moravia,” 116: “Sul capo di questo personaggio si accumularono ire ed odi feroci, ed oggi ancora il suo nome è coperto d’infamia.” 2  Miari, Chronicon, 19: “… nobilis vir dominus Tristanus de Sovergnano […] ingressus est castrum terre Utini Foriiullii et interfecit reverendum in Christo patrem dominum Iohannem patriarcham Acquilegensem […] Et hec facta fuerunt in palacio dicti castri et tamen nullus forensis vel civis propter hoc motus est.” In this context, the source was pointed out already by Marchesi, “Giovanni di Moravia,” 146; cf. Leicht, “La giovinezza di Tristano,” 26. 3  Cronaca volgare di Anonimo Fiorentino, RIS n.s. XXVII/2, 190: “… e partissi di quindi dove morto l’aveva e tornossi a casa sua [i.e. Tristano di Savorgnano], e niente altro ne fu nella città d’Udine.” 4  B CU, FP, ms. 899, Raccolta Bianchi, vol. 58, no. 5757 (14th October 1394). See Marchesi, “Giovanni di Moravia,” 146; Leicht, “La giovinezza di Tristano,” 26; Casella, I Savorgnan, 34.

© Ondřej Schmidt, 2019 | doi:10.1163/9789004407893_007

Historical Memory

175

quietly transferred John’s body to the tomb of Patriarch Nicholas in the presbytery of the Udinese duomo.5 Care was thus taken to remove all traces of the dead patriarch, who was even denied his own grave, thus depriving him of an important place of commemoration which would have preserved his memory after death.6 This brings us to the ancient practices of damnatio memoriae, which can be defined as the deliberate destruction of the memory of a person, dynasty or other subject. This was not just about the physical destruction of an enemy, but erasing all memory of him too. Such an aim was carried out by destroying as far as possible all traces of the individual in question (inscriptions, documents, depictions): if these “stimuli of remembrance” were eliminated, it would accelerate the process of forgetting. However, damnatio memoriae could take on a variety of forms; it was not always about destroying a memory, but also—and much more frequently—entailed the deliberate deformation of the memory.7 These practices were most widespread in ancient Rome, where they even had a legal dimension, but we can also come across some instances of them in a modified form in the Middle Ages. As an example, the notorious Cadaver Synod of Pope Formosus († 896) can be mentioned.8 In other cases, it was not 5  B CU, FP, ms. 899, Raccolta Bianchi, vol. 58, no. 5755: “… pro faciendo accipi corpus olim patriarche Iohannis extra sepulturam ecclesie castri et portari ipsum in ecclesiam maiorem …” (14th October 1394); Nonnullorum Patriarcharum Vitae, MEA, appendix, no. V, 17: “… et sepultus in Utino in ecclesia majori ante altare majus, clam et in nocte, absque sacerdotibus, in sepulcro olim patriarchae Nicolai,” or Previté-Orton, “Un manoscritto,” 97. The common grave of both Luxembourgs was opened in 1937. Nicholas’s tombstone was set into the wall of the adjacent sacristy, while in the original place on the floor of the presbytery there were two marble plates bearing the inscriptions “Nicolavs de Luxemburgo † 1358” and “Johannes de Moravia † 1394.” Both of them were lost during later renovations in 1964. See Marco Innocenti, “Die Grabstätte der luxemburgischen Patriarchen von Aquileja,” Hémecht 51 (1999), 73–78. 6  Tilatti, “Tra santità e oblio,” 618–619. 7  See Gerald Schwedler, “Damnatio memoriae—oblio culturale: concetti e teorie del non ricordo,” in Condannare all’oblio. Pratiche della damnatio memoriae nel Medioevo. Atti del convegno di studio svoltosi in occasione della XX edizione del Premio internazionale Ascoli Piceno (Ascoli Piceno, Palazzo dei Capitani, 27–29 novembre 2008), ed. Isa Lori Sanfilippo and Antonio Rigon (Rome: Istituto storico italiano per il Medio Evo, 2010), 3–18, and also Gerald Schwedler, “Was heißt und zu welchem Ende untersucht man damnatio in memoria?,” in Damnatio in memoria. Deformation und Gegenkonstruktionen in der Geschichte, ed. Sebastian Scholz, Gerald Schwedler and Kai-Michael Sprenger, Zürcher Beiträge zur Geschichtswissenschaft 4 (Cologne, Weimar and Vienna: Böhlau, 2014), 9–23; cf. Martin Nodl, “Memoria et damnatio memoriae ve středověku,” in Memoria et damnatio memoriae ve středověku, ed. Martin Nodl and Piotr Węcowski, Colloquia mediaevalia Pragensia 15 (Prague: Filosofia, 2014), 7–13. 8  See Michael Edward Moore, “The Body of Pope Formosus,” Millennium 9 (2012), 277–297; for damnatio memoriae in the context of the papacy, see Kai-Michael Sprenger, “Damnatio

176

Chapter 6

so much about “destroying” a memory as deliberately manipulating it to show it in the worst possible light (damnatio in memoria). Although this might appear to be inconsistent with the original intention, such practices were not so rare. In 1100, for example, Pope Paschal II had the corpse of his arch enemy, the antipope Clement III, exhumed after his death and thrown into the Tiber as part of a public, symbolic act. This bizarre ritual was intended to ensure that Clement would be remembered for all time as a convicted heretic who was not even worthy of a proper burial.9 Indeed, as Gadi Algazi suggests, damnatio memoriae can actually be understood as the “disfiguring and dishonoring” of a person’s remembrance rather than true “forgetting.”10 It would appear that the concept of damnatio memoriae, as aptly defined by Gerald Schwedler, can justifiably be applied to the case of John of Moravia, even though it did not involve any special ritual. This is primarily supported by the (deliberate) absence of a grave or tomb for John, as well as the dispersal of his property, both of which represent ways of destroying an enemy post mortem. In the first case at least, this was an official decision by the Udine city council, so the required “institutional” dimension was also present.11 Everything seems to indicate that John’s assassins did all they could to ensure that no trace remained of the murdered patriarch. Nevertheless, it was impossible completely to “erase” the memory of such a high-ranking prelate, and above all it was necessary to justify his murder. That is why John had to be portrayed in the worst possible light: as a tyrant who was rightly murdered because of his cruelty. This theme was certainly nothing new. Its theoretical foundations had been laid by John of Salisbury († 1180), who viewed tyrants as a divine punishment for people’s sins whom God would sometimes decide to remove after penance had been done using tyrannicide

  ­memoriae o damnatio in memoria. Qualche osservazione metodologica sui cosiddetti antipapi,” in Condannare all’oblio, 67–87, or Kai-Michael Sprenger, “Damnatio memoriae oder Damnatio in memoria? Überlegungen zum Umgang mit so genannten Gegenpäpsten als methodisches Problem der Papstgeschichtsschreibung,” QFIAB 89 (2009), 31–62. 9  See the brilliant study by Kai-Michael Sprenger, “The Tiara in the Tiber. An Essay on the damnatio in memoria of Clement III (1084–1100) and Rome’s River as a Place of Oblivion and Memory,” Reti Medievali Rivista 13, no. 1 (2012), 153–174. 10  Gadi Algazi, “Forget Memory: Some Critical Remarks on Memory, Forgetting and History,” in Damnatio in memoria, 25–34. 11  See Schwedler, “Damnatio memoriae,” 12: “Il concetto di damnatio memoriae sembra ragionevole per spiegare una particolare forma di dimostrazione del potere politico all’interno di una controversia, in cui si vuole attuare non solo un danno fisico, ma anche un annullamento post-mortem del nemico. Questo è valido per tutti i casi di violenza fisica contro i beni reali e simbolici dell’avversario. […] Inoltre senza l’esistenza di un certo grado istituzionalizzazione non si può parlare di damnatio memoriae.”

Historical Memory

177

(tyrannicidium).12 Not long after John’s death, a similar picture was painted in the famous defence by Jean Petit, who had to justify the assassination of Duke Louis of Orléans in 1407 by killers hired by John the Fearless, Duke of Burgundy.13 It was precisely this image of John which was meant to dominate the memory of Udine immediately after the assassination, and this was seen to by its leading elites, headed by the Savorgnano. In February 1395, the Udinese requested that the pope lift the ecclesiastical censures from the main culprit, Tristano di Savorgnano, stressing that he had murdered the patriarch in order to liberate the land “from the hands of the Pharaoh” and even claiming that, in doing so, he “deserved mercy and gratitude” from God as well as from the pope. In their supplication, John is explicitly characterized as a “squanderer of humanity, savage mutilator, a prince of all crimes and vices and a disgrace to the clergy.”14 Such a severe and direct condemnation of a dead prelate—and on top of that, in a letter addressed to the pope—seems almost incredible.

12  For an interpretation of his famous treatise Policraticus, see Richard H. Rouse and Mary A. Rouse, “John of Salisbury and the Doctrine of Tyrannicide,” Speculum 42, no. 4 (1967), 693–709; cf. Joseph Canning, A History of Medieval Political Thought 300–1450 (London: Routledge, 1996), 110–114; for the notion of tyranny in fourteenth-century Italy, see Andrea Zorzi, “La questione della tirannide nell’Italia del Trecento,” in Tiranni e tirannide nel Trecento italiano, 11–36, as well as the other papers in this volume; cf. Andrea Zorzi, Le signorie cittadine in Italia (secoli XIII–XV ) (Milan and Turin: Mondadori, 2010), 145–155. 13  See Richard Vaughan, John the Fearless. The Growth of Burgundian Power, 2nd ed. (Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 2002), 44–48; Charity Cannon Willard, “The Manuscripts of Jean Petit’s Justification: Some Burgundian Propaganda Methods of the Early Fifteenth Century,” Studi Francesi 38 (1969), 271–286; Sophie Vallery-Radot, “Die Causa Jean Petit und das Problem des Tyrannenmordes,” in Das Konstanzer Konzil 1414–1418. Weltereignis des Mittelalters. Essays, ed. Karl-Heinz Braun et al. (Darmstadt: Theiss, 2013), 111–115. 14   B CU, FP, ms. 899, Raccolta Bianchi, vol. 59, no. 5800: “… supplicamus, quatenus generosum iuvenem dominum Tristanum de Savorgnano, eiusdem sanctitatis devotissimum servitorem, dignemini gratiose suscipere recomissum sibi absolutionem postulatam per nostros ambasciatores benignius concedentes, quia humanitatis discipatorem et trucem laniatorem, principem quorumlibet scelerum et vitiorum et dedecus cleri removit a seculo. De quo quidem opere apud Deum et sanctitatem vestram veniam et gratiam ipsum dominum Tristanum credimus meruisse, quia populum nedum huius civitatis, sed Patrie a manu Pharaonis certissime liberavit …” Cf. Di Manzano, Annali del Friuli, vol. 6, 108 (25th February 1395). John’s “nickname,” faraone, is also referred to by Schwedler, “Moravia (di) Giovanni,” 575. However, I was not able to find it in other sources. Another attempt to obtain a pardon at the papal curia was made on 12th August 1395. See BCU, FP, ms. 899, Raccolta Bianchi, vol. 59, no. 5823; cf. Di Manzano, Annali del Friuli, vol. 6, 112; Paschini, “Il patriarca Antonio Caetani,” 169, note 3; Casella, I Savorgnan, 35, note 36.

178

Chapter 6

Nevertheless, the most vivid impression was left by the oft-cited Capitula contra patriarcham Johannem, written several years earlier in Udine, where John was depicted in the worst possible light embodying the “anti-ideal” of a ruler15—a cruel tyrant who abused his power and committed all manner of crimes and was therefore deemed “worse than Nero.”16 This comparison to one of the worst ancient emperors, who was viewed during the Middle Ages as the very model of a perverse tyrant and eventually died a miserable death as a result of his horrendous crimes, speaks for itself.17 This tradition was preserved in the memory of the city of Udine, and resurfaced in a remarkable way two centuries after John’s death. Around the year 1600, Patriarch Francesco Barbaro (1593–1616) decided to build a magnificent palace in Udine. For the grand hall, now called la Sala del Trono, he commissioned portraits of all the patriarchs of Aquileia from the time of St. Mark to the end of the sixteenth century. In addition, he asked his erudite governor, Giovanni Battista Scarsaborsa, to write a panegyric to go with each painting to characterize the rule of the prelate in question.18 The hall also included a portrait of John of Moravia, which Scarsaborsa accompanied with these unflattering words: “Because of the sins of the people, evil princes rule, but the inglorious and unhappy end of John, margrave of Moravia, murdered patriarch of Aquileia, reminds us how severely the Lord punishes those who defile the morals of the church with their tyrannical ways.”19 The portraits were later repainted in 1729, some of them by the famous Venetian painter Giambattista Tiepolo.20 Interestingly, the inscription beneath John’s portrait was also changed (probably) at that time. Although the wording was toned down, the negative impression remained: “John of the Moravian 15  Cf. Robert Antonín, The Ideal Ruler in Medieval Bohemia, East Central and Eastern Europe in the Middle Ages, 450–1450 44 (Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2017), 294–310. 16  Capitula contra patriarcham Johannem; see further Excursus 2 in this book. 17  For the image of Emperor Nero in the Middle Ages, see Glynnis M. Cropp, “Nero, Emperor and Tyrant, in the Medieval French Tradition,” Florilegium 24 (2007), 21–36. 18  Giuseppe Trebbi, Francesco Barbaro, patrizio veneto, e patriarca di Aquileia, Storia della società friulana. Sezione studi e testi 2 (Udine: Casamassima, 1984), 217–219, esp. 219, note 87. 19  A transcription of the original text in Palladio degli Olivi, Historie della Provincia del Friuli, 434: “Ob peccata popvlorvm / regnant principes mali / sed qvam severe Devs eos pvniat / qvi tyrannicis artibvs ecclesiasticos / foedant mores / Ioannis marchionis Moraviae / patriarchae Aqvil.[egiensis] / trvcidati monet inglorivs / atqve infelix exitvs.” 20  Aldo Rizzi, Tiepolo a Udine. Palazzo Arcivescovile, Duomo, Chiesa della Purità e Musei, Associazione udinese amici dei musei e dell’arte 3, 2nd ed. (Udine: Del Bianco, 1974), 48– 50; Gian Carlo Menis, Il Patriarca e il Tiepolo. Guida breve al Museo diocesano e Gallerie del Tiepolo nel Palazzo patriarcale di Udine, 4th ed. (Udine: Arti Grafiche Friulane, 2007), 59.

Historical Memory

179

dukes, elected by Urban VI while Philippe [d’Alençon] still lived, was not more beloved than his predecessor. A pastor without gentleness of spirit, a prince lacking in prudence and equity, he divided the minds of his subjects. Hated by most, murdered by his enemies, he left behind doubt and suspicion.”21 One parallel worth mentioning here is a similar case of damnatio in memoria involving the Venetian doge, Marino Faliero. In 1355, he was accused of plotting against the Republic, convicted and subsequently beheaded.22 Eleven years later, the Council of Ten (Consiglio dei Dieci) ordered that his portrait be removed from la Sala del Maggior Consiglio (containing portraits of all the doges, together with a description of their exploits) and replaced with the inscription: “This was the place for Ser Marino Faliero, beheaded for the crime of treason.”23 The inscription was intended primarily as a warning, to remind any would-be traitors of the fate that awaited them. John’s portrait in the patriarchal palace in Udine was clearly meant to have a similar effect: here, the Moravian patriarch was held up as an example of a leader who was murdered in accordance with divine justice because of his tyrannical rule. Francesco Barbaro—or rather his governor, Scarsaborsa— took his inspiration from the negative Udinese tradition, and at the same time raised this memory to “official” status, thereby enabling the image of John of Moravia as prince-bishop-tyrant to enter into the general consciousness. It is also worth noting how the murdered Patriarch John was remembered by the Savorgnano dynasty. Here the theme of vendetta came to the fore. In early 1511, on a day which was to go down in history as “the Cruel Carnival of Udine” (Crudele giovedì grasso), a conflict between two enemy factions reached its climax during the carnival in Udine. This ended in the massacre of dozens of noblemen, whose bodies were either thrown into wells and latrines, or chopped up and fed to dogs and pigs. In this way, the leader of the winning side, Antonio di Savorgnano, managed effectively to remove any opposition and consolidate his position as the unofficial ruler of Friuli. Shortly afterwards, his passionate 21  The text is still visible: “Ioannes ex ducibus Moraviae Philippo adhuc viven / ti ab Urbano VI subrogatus, gratior praecessore / non fuit. Pastor non in spiritu lenitatis, princeps / minus prudens et aeqvus, divisos habuit subditor[um] / animos: plerisq[ue] invisus, ab adversariis occisus / ambiguae suspicioni locum reliquit.” I am grateful to Dr. Mariarita Ricchizzi from the Museo Diocesano e Gallerie del Tiepolo for kindly sending me a photograph of John’s portrait. 22  See Cessi, Storia della Repubblica, 315–316; Giorgio Ravegnani, “Falier, Marino,” in DBI 44 (Rome: Istituto della Enciclopedia italiana, 1994), 429–438. 23  “Hic fuit locus ser Marini Faletro decapitati pro crimine proditionis.” See Vittorio Lazzarini, Marino Faliero (Florence: G. C. Sansoni, 1963), 293. After the fire of the Palazzo Ducale in 1577 and its subsequent reconstruction, the inscription was slightly modified: “Hic est locvs Marini Faletri / decapitati pro criminibvs.” This version is still visible.

180

Chapter 6

supporter Francesco Janis di Tolmezzo appraised the situation in the following words: “Never had a more notable thing been achieved by a man of the house of Savorgnano, although they had already killed a patriarch.”24 As Edward Muir aptly noted, “vendettas were stories.”25 These stories were handed down within noble families in an appropriately modified form and formed the basis of ancestral memory. The function of such “revenge narratives” was not only to preserve memory of injustices suffered and revenge taken for them, but also to create a model of behaviour that was to be followed.26 The fact that, more than a century after the events, the murder of Patriarch John of Moravia was still remembered by the house of Savorgnano and their closest followers as a heroic act in defence of the family’s honour is indicated by the quoted words of Francesco Janis di Tolmezzo. However, a completely different tradition developed in Cividale, the traditional heartland of John’s rule. Immediately after the assassination, the Cividalese sent a letter of condolence to King Wenceslas to inform him of how John had met his end, and in it they described themselves as “orphans who had lost their father, lord and pastor.” One of the things that emerges from the document is that John had founded an altar in the Cividale collegiate church where he wished to be laid to rest (perhaps this can be identified with his donation from December 1393), and yet despite the strenuous efforts of the dean and the canons, they were unable to retrieve John’s remains because of opposition from the Udinese. The letter goes on to say that the Cividalese had repeatedly implored John not to go to Udine, but he had ignored their advice and this had ultimately led to his tragic end.27 24  For the whole event, see the famous book by Muir, Mad Blood Stirring; the English translation of the quotation ibid., 10; for the original, cf. “Historia della crudel zobia grassa et altri nefarii excessi et horrende calamità intervenute in la città di Udine et Patria del Friuli del 1511 di Gregorio Amaseo,” ed. Antonio Ceruti, in Diarii udinesi dall’anno 1508 al 1541 di Leonardo e Gregorio Amaseo e Gio. Antonio Azio (Venice: R. Deputazione veneta di storia patria, 1884–1885), 520: “… mai esser sta fatta la più notabil cosa per homo de casa Savorgnana, quantunque fusse già per loro occiso un patriarcha …” 25  Muir, Mad Blood Stirring, 46. 26  Muir, Mad Blood Stirring, 126–132 and passim; Dean, “Marriage and Mutilation,” 31–32; see also Gentile, “Cultura della vendetta,” 294. 27   A SU, Documenti storici friulani, b. II, no. 186, fol. 220v: “… heu dolentes velut orfani amisso patre, domino et pastore nostro […] Corpus cuius venerabiles viri domini decanus et canonici maioris ecclesie sancte Marie huius Civitatis Austrie, in qua prope altare, quod ibi construi fecit et dotavit, suam, dum sanitate florida potiretur, ordinaverat sepulturam, ab Utinensibus eis dari, ut illud posent corpus in ordinata sepultura honorifice ponere, instantius petiverunt et ipsis corpus illius prefati Utinenses dare firmiter denegarunt” (15th October 1394). But see also the much more pragmatic letter from the Cividalese to Venice ibid., fol. 220r (14th October 1394), and the reply from the doge in BCC, ACC,

Historical Memory

181

The document thus reaffirms the warm relationship between the patriarch, Cividale and the religious institutions of whose liturgical memory John was an indelible part. This particularly applied to the Cividale chapter, where John had established an anniversary “for his soul and that of his ancestors,”28 as well as two altars or chapels (of the Immaculate Conception and of St. Wenceslas),29 one of which he designated as his final resting place. He was not forgotten by the local canons: John appears in the chapter’s necrology30 as well as two calendars,31 and his name was recited every year along with those of the other patriarchs after the procession for the feast of the Purification of the Blessed Virgin Mary.32 The Cividale Dominicans also prayed for the soul of the deceased patriarch on the anniversary of his death.33 Furthermore, we can assume that John had dealings with the ancient Benedictine convent in Cividale, as he donated a (clearly valuable) Bible to one of its nuns by the name of Caterina.34 All

Antica cancelleria del comune—fondo Lorenzo D’Orlandi, b. 5, no. 59; cf. Olivo, Antica cancelleria, vol. 1, 68, no. 302 (21st October 1394). Marchesi, “Giovanni di Moravia,” 145–146 claimed that the letter to Wenceslas IV was “the only testimony of grief” at John’s death. However, the evidence cited below paints a rather different picture. 28   M AN, AC, Fondo diplomatico, vol. 15, no. 89; “Il libro degli anniversari del capitolo,” 459, note 38: “… tres missas […] pro salute eiusdem domini patriarche donatoris, donec vixerit, et post eius mortem pro anima sua et suorum progenitorum” (9th December 1393). 29  For the altar/chapel of St. Wenceslas, see Zanini, Il capitolo collegiato, 17. 30  “Il libro degli anniversari del capitolo,” 458–459: “Reverendus pater dominus Iohannes de Moravia patriarcha Aquilegensis interfectus fuit in castro Utini, die Martis hora prima, anno Domini MCCCLXXXXIIII.” 31  I codici della Biblioteca capitolare di Cividale del Friuli, ed. Cesare Scalon and Laura Pani, Biblioteche e archivi 1 (Florence: SISMEL, 1998), 247, no. 69; 255, no. 73. 32  Series patriarcharum Aquilegiensium, ed. Oswald Holder-Egger, MGH SS 13 (Hannover: Hahn, 1881), 367–368: “In die Purificationis beate Marie Virginis post processionem recitantur nomina patriarcharum […] Iohannes patriarcha …” 33  “Il libro degli anniversari di San Domenico,” 704: “Anno Domini MCCCLXXXXIIII fuit interfectus dominus patriarcha Aquilegensis in castro Utini, dominus Iohannes de Morawya magnificus ecclesie Aquilegiensis.” Cf. the second redaction of the same necrology ibid.: “MCCCLXXXXIIII obitus incliti et magnifici domini domini patriarche Aquilegensis sancte sedis ecclesie Iohannis de Moravia, qui interfectus fuit in castro Utini hora prima.” 34  See the letter to Margrave Jobst, edited in Cesare Scalon, Produzione e fruizione del libro nel basso Medioevo, Medioevo e umanesimo 88 (Padua: Antenore, 1995), 231, no. 149, reprinted with a Czech translation by Giorgio Cadorini, “Tři zmínky o patriarchovi aquilej­ ském Janu z Moravy ve vztahu k uměleckým předmětům,” in Mezi kulturou a uměním. Věnováno Zdeňku Hojdovi k životnímu jubileu, ed. Ivana Ebelová et al. (Prague: NLN, 2013), 25 (25th October 1395). Another document shows that John donated one large missal worth 60 florins to the monastery of Moggio: Scalon, Produzione e fruizione, 282, no. 183; Cadorini, “Tři zmínky,” 26.

182

Chapter 6

of this shows John in a rather different light: as a deeply pious man who was concerned for his own salvation. The strong impression that John left on the liturgical memory of Cividale’s ecclesiastical institutions contrasts sharply with the complete lack of interest shown by his own chapter of Aquileia. A few days after the assassination, it met in the sacristy of the Aquileian basilica to elect interim administrators of the patriarchate. There is not a trace of sentiment towards the dead patriarch to be found in the capitular records: “It was a mere bureaucratic act.”35 Nor did the canons deem it necessary to record John’s name in the “official” necrology of the Aquileia church.36 To return to Cividale, it is clear from the evidence presented that John enjoyed great reverence there, both among the laity and the clergy. This is also documented by the remarkable testament of the Cividale notary, Pietro di Monasteto, drawn up in 1405, some eleven years after John’s death. In his last will, Pietro left the city an annuity of one mark of florins to be paid on the anniversary of John’s death. In return, the gastaldo and other leading town dignitaries were to attend the mass held on this day in John’s memory in the church of the Cividale collegiate chapter, whereupon they were to invite the dean and the canons to the town hall to share a collatio with wine and confections. Even more remarkable is the fact that John is described in the document as a “patriarch of good, holy and venerable memory, who was shamefully murdered in Udine.”37 A similar theme is later repeated in another, quite different source. In the autumn of 1411, during the war between Sigismund, new king of the Romans, and the Venetian Republic, Hungarian troops invaded the patriarchate and quickly 35  De Biasio, “Il patriarca d’Aquileia,” 191. See ACU, Archivio del Capitolo di Aquileia, cod. 1, Acta capituli Aquileiensis, fol. 9r–v: “… propter vacacionem patriarchalis scedis [sic!] per mortem quondam domini patriarche Johannis, ne Patria Foriiulii remaneat absque rectore, debeat provideri de novo suficienti et ydoneo vicedomino in ipsa Patria generali …” (16th October 1394). 36  Cf. Necrologium Aquileiense, ed. Cesare Scalon, Fonti per la storia della Chiesa in Friuli 1 (Udine: Istituto Pio Paschini, 1982), ad indicem. 37  A barely legible and incomplete copy of the document, pointed out by Pio Paschini, “Antonio Caetani cardinale Aquileiese,” Archivio della Società Romana di storia patria 52 (1929), 152, note 2, in BCU, FJ, ms. 681, Notariorum, vol. 5, fol. 14r–v: “Item legavit comunitati Civitatis Austrie unam marcham denariorum novorum monete Aquilegensi dandam et solvendam in die anniversarii bone, sancte et reverende memorie patriarche Iohannis, qui fuit in Utino nequiter interemptus, perpetualiter annuatim …” (23rd July 1405). Pietro is documented as a notary in Cividale between 1377 and 1414: ASU, Repertorio topografico dei notai, pag. 45. Interestingly enough, in his later testament from 13th July 1414, there is no reference to John. See BCC, ACC, Antica cancelleria del comune—fondo Lorenzo D’Orlandi, b. 9, no. 149. Pietro died in 1425: “Il libro degli anniversari del capitolo,” 319.

Historical Memory

183

conquered the whole territory, including Udine, while Tristano di Savorgnano, Sigismund’s enemy, was forced to flee the city.38 In January of the following year, a general assembly was convened there, which—as a result of the radical shift in the political equilibrium within the patriarchate—decided in the presence of many nobles and clergymen that Tristano was to be banished from the country forever.39 Evidently not long afterwards, a list was drawn up containing the names of Tristano and his supporters who had been sentenced to the same punishment. However, there is something else here of interest to us. Probably at the same time, two other lists were drawn up, one of which is headed with the words: “Those listed below are guilty of the death of the lord Patriarch John of holy memory,” and contains the names of John’s murderers.40 The double mention of John as a patriarch “of holy memory” (sancte memorie) could mean that some kind of a “cult” was emerging around him. The letter of condolence sent by the Cividalese to King Wenceslas immediately after John’s murder clearly showed the warm relationship that the city had with the patriarch, though there was nothing to suggest that John was thought of as anything more than just a beloved prince-bishop. However, if we take into account the distinctive trace John left in the liturgy of the city—in addition, its leading representatives were to take part in the anniversary masses held in John’s memory—and the double mention of him being of “holy memory,” which went beyond the usual respect for the dead, then it is possible to surmise that a popular “cult” was gradually being established, centred on Cividale,

38  For Sigismund’s campaign, see Otto Schiff, König Sigmunds italienische Politik bis zur Romfahrt (1410–1431), Frankfurter historische Forschungen 1 (Frankfurt am Main: Baer, 1909), 6–11; Wilhelm Baum, Kaiser Sigismund. Hus, Konstanz und Türkenkriege (Graz, Vienna and Cologne: Styria, 1996), 83–89. There is a detailed reconstruction of Tristano’s role in the events in Leicht, “L’esilio di Tristano”; cf. also Casella, I Savorgnan, 42–44. 39  Parlamento friulano, I/2, 423–427, no. 464 (17th January 1412). 40  Copies in BCU, FP, ms. 899, Raccolta Bianchi, vol. 58, no. 5754; ibid., ms. 896/III, Codex diplomaticus Frangipane, no. 248: “Infrascripti sunt rei mortis olim sancte memorie domini patriarche Iohannis.” The second list, entitled “Infrascripti sunt, qui interfuerunt morti domini episcopi Augustini Concordiensis,” contains only one name of Augustine’s assassin, Nicolò di Savorgnano. The document is undated; Bianchi and Cusin, Il confine orientale, vol. 1, 195, note 152 put it in the year 1394, which is, however, impossible for many reasons. Its wording actually fully reflects the altered power-political situation in 1412 or, at the latest, 1413. One of the lists called “Primi proclamati” is identical to the names of persons banished from Udine on 15th May and, once again, on 16th June 1412. See Leicht, “L’esilio di Tristano,” 109, note 1. The year 1412 is also given in margine on the second copy cited above. Therefore, it is very likely that the formation of the other lists came about at more or less the same time.

184

Chapter 6

within which the Moravian patriarch enjoyed the reputation of a saint (fama sanctitatis).41 It was not unheard-of for local cults of this kind to spring up, which often did not extend beyond the town or village in question.42 Of course, this could not have been an official cult of sainthood (i.e. one sanctified by the pope), which was conditional upon the complicated canonization process with its uncertain outcome. After all, how could the pope give his blessing to worshipping a bishop who had never paid his servitia to the curia and had been excommunicated several times, about whom the pope had received nothing but complaints from Udine? On top of that, John had been killed in a vendetta, which was a far cry from the model of the bishop-martyr who had died in the defence of the church and its freedom, as represented by St. Thomas Becket of Canterbury († 1170).43 However, these circumstances, which appear quite fundamental to us today, may have seemed irrelevant to the inhabitants of Cividale at the time. Popular cults usually had one thing in common: the violent end of the individual-saint, who thus became a martyr in the eyes of the people.44 This was perhaps also hinted at in the testament of the notary Pietro, which emphasized that the patriarch had been “shamefully murdered” (nequiter interemptus).45 On the other hand, it must be admitted that here we can only draw upon two isolated accounts, which are not sufficiently representative to provide a basis for any convincing conclusions. In order to create a cult (albeit an unofficial one), it was necessary to have a spiritual authority to promote it and take charge of it, as was the case with Patriarch Bertrand de Saint-Geniès, who was killed in an armed skirmish in 1350. As Andrea Tilatti demonstrated in an exemplary way, at first, Bertrand was not considered a saint either. That changed with the arrival of the new patriarch, Nicholas of Luxembourg, who initiated the cult of Bertrand in Udine and, at the same time, dealt with his murderers in a drastic manner.46 In 41  Almost the entire historiography ignores this Cividale tradition at the expense of the negative one which originated in Udine and later prevailed, although Paschini, “Antonio Caetani,” 152, note 2 has already drawn attention to the testament of the notary Pietro di Monasteto, cited above. 42  For popular cults in the Middle Ages, see André Vauchez, La santità nel Medioevo (Bologna: Il Mulino, 1999), 95–107. 43  Tilatti, “Tra santità e oblio,” 618; for Thomas Becket’s assassination, see Ursula Nilgen, “The Manipulated Memory: Thomas Becket in Legend and Art,” in Memory & Oblivion. Proceedings of the XXIXth International Congress of the History of Art held in Amsterdam, 1–7 September 1996, ed. Wessel Reinink and Jeroen Stumpel (Dordrecht: Kluwer, 1999), 765–772. 44  Vauchez, La santità nel Medioevo, 96–101. 45   B CU, FJ, ms. 681, Notariorum, vol. 5, fol. 14r. 46  Tilatti, “Principe, vescovo”; cf. Tilatti, “Tra santità e oblio,” 614–616.

Historical Memory

185

c­ ontrast, Bertrand was regarded by his enemies as a cruel and merciless ruler; for example, the count of Gorizia saw his violent end as divine retribution for atrocities committed against the rural population.47 Although the cult of Bertrand survived, it was more or less limited to Udine. Despite attempts to have him canonized, he was “only” beatified, and not until 1760. Although it might not appear so at first sight, the example of Patriarch Bertrand turns out to be very enlightening when it comes to understanding the genesis of the “veneration” for John of Moravia. There are a number of parallels between the two murdered prelates. Both of them were quite far from constituting the ideal model of a bishop-saint—on the contrary, they were true princes of their time, who ruled with an iron fist without any scruples. While John was often accused of being involved in the murder of Federico di Savorgnano, Bertrand was probably mixed up in an ultimately unsuccessful plot to do away with Filippo de’ Portis, his political rival from Cividale.48 However, one fundamental difference was that the cult of Bertrand originated in the dominant centre of Udine, whereas the “cult,” or rather reverence, for John in provincial Cividale was doomed to oblivion. There was also another important factor at play here: John’s body had been secretly interred in another man’s grave and, consequently, could not be the source of any miracles, which were essential to the success of any cult.49 Perhaps this was the reason for the initial efforts by the Cividale chapter to get hold of John’s remains. The chapter might have been interested in creating its “own” cult, similar to that of Bertrand in Udine, in order to increase its prestige. However, John’s body was never handed over. Besides—and it is important to stress this—John lacked the support of any significant ecclesiastical authority which would have laid the foundations for the creation of an organized, albeit unofficial, cult, as was the case for Bertrand. Thus, no-one wrote a hagiographical account of his

47  See his letter edited in “Documenti goriziani del secolo XIV,” AT, n.s., 15 (1890), 448, no. 210: “De modo mortis d. patriarche novit Altissimus quantum dolemus. Sed forsan Deus scit, eum mori permittere voluit propter crudelitates, quas eodem die personaliter equitando, ut notorium est, faciebat in combustionibus domorum, predis animalium, mortalitatibus sive interfectionibus et captionibus personarum pauperum innocentium ruralium virorum, quod crudeliter cum brutis animalibus, ligatis manibus, tamquam latrones, captivos ducebat, quorum preces forsan Altissimus exaudivit” (14th June 1350). Quoted in Tilatti, “Principe, vescovo,” 416. 48   See Scarton, “L’amministrazione civica,” 319–320; Giordano Brunettin, Bertrando di Saint-Geniès patriarca di Aquileia (1334–1350) (Spoleto: Centro italiano di studi sull’alto medioevo, 2004), 581–583; cf. also Brunettin, “L’evoluzione impossibile,” 198 and note 549. 49  Cf. Tilatti, “Tra santità e oblio,” 618, who aptly remarked that “those who killed him [i.e. Patriarch John] certainly did not intend to permit the creation of a veneration.”

186

Chapter 6

death or initiated the canonization process (which would undoubtedly have been doomed to failure anyway). No such support could be expected from the new patriarch, Antonio Caetani (1395–1402), who was trying at all costs to avoid provoking another conflict in the country,50 or from the pope. This is also evident from the position the two of them adopted towards Tristano di Savorgnano. Having dared to raise his hand against the head of the Aquileian church, according to the provincial statutes he and all his descendants should have been permanently stripped of all their dignities, fiefs and possessions, and an interdict should have been pronounced on the diocese, with anyone who decided to help the guilty party being subject to excommunication. Moreover, following the election of a new patriarch, a synod should have met to demand justice from both the pope and the emperor.51 Naturally, nothing of the sort happened and Tristano continued to enjoy an exceptional position in Udine.52 Nevertheless, Tristano was automatically subject to excommunication due to the seriousness of the offence he had committed. Therefore, from the start of 1395, the Udinese, with the help of the local chapter, interceded with the pope to ask for the excommunication to be lifted.53 Later, perhaps on the advice of the patriarch Antonio, Tristano set out on a pilgrimage of penance to the Holy Land in the company of the duke of Austria,54 and in the jubilee year of 1400 he and the other guilty parties were finally granted absolution by the pope with instructions to carry out various forms of penance (which included founding a chapel in the basilica of Aquileia for the salvation of John’s soul),55 which was then mitigated in 1426 due to Tristano’s ill health and advanced age.56 It has 50  For Caetani, see Dieter Girgensohn, “Caetani Antonio, patriarca di Aquileia,” in Nuovo Liruti, vol. 1/1, 182–189. 51  The text of the provincial statutes from 1339 is edited in Sacrorum conciliorum nova et amplissima collectio, vol. 25, col. 1112. 52  As Paschini, “Il patriarca Antonio Caetani,” 169, and Casella, I Savorgnan, 35 observed, on 15th October 1395 the patriarch even conferred feudal investiture of his possessions on him although Tristano was in a state of excommunication. 53  Di Manzano, Annali del Friuli, vol. 6, 108 (25th February 1395); 112 (11th August 1395). See further Paschini, “Il patriarca Antonio Caetani,” 170, note 2, and Leicht, “La giovinezza di Tristano,” 30–31, according to whom Tristano was granted a suspension of the excommunication on 3rd April 1396. 54  Leicht, “La giovinezza di Tristano,” 33–35; Tilatti, “Tra santità e oblio,” 619. 55  The original papal bull in BMC, ms. Cicogna 3428, fasc. Savorgnan, sub dato; part of it is edited in De Rubeis, Monumenta Ecclesiae Aquilejensis, cols. 983 and 984–985 (1st August 1400). 56   B MC, ms. Cicogna 3428, fasc. Savorgnan, sub dato; an abstract and reproduction in I Savorgnan e la Patria, 115, no. 89 (8th August 1426). See Maria Teresa Dolso, “Il secolo XV: l’osservanza,” in Frati minori in Friuli. Otto secoli di presenze, relazioni, proposte, ed. Andrea

Historical Memory

187

been argued that his decision to found the monastery of San Francesco della Vigna in Udine a year later may have been a result of this papal absolution.57 The Luxembourg dynasty, preoccupied and weakened as it was by internal conflict, remained completely indifferent to the murder of its kinsman in Italy.58 Yet in the patriarchate there were serious fears of reprisals by John’s relatives. Such concerns are clearly evident in a letter from the humanist Pier Paolo Vergerio († 1444) addressed to Michele Rabatta, written soon after John’s death.59 Later, when Tristano took an oath of allegiance to the dukes of Austria in 1411, he also made sure to enlist their support “so as not to be persecuted for the death of John of Moravia.”60 Nevertheless, there was no intervention by the Luxembourg dynasty in Friuli. One of the later chroniclers even noted with surprise that “no vendetta was ever carried out” for John’s death.61 This interesting remark could therefore imply that the inability of the dynasty to “properly” avenge the patriarch’s murder contributed significantly to the diminution of its authority in Italy. It certainly appears that at the outset the Luxembourgs made absolutely no attempt in this regard. Soon after the assassination, King Wenceslas interceded with the pope to ask that the bishop of Regensburg be appointed to the recently vacated episcopal see of Aquileia;

Tilatti, Franciscalia Venetica 2 (Vicenza: LIEF, 2008), 82–83; cf. Tilatti, “Tra santità e oblio,” 619. Interestingly enough, in the second supplication Tristano claimed not to have directly laid hands on the patriarch. 57  Dolso, “Il secolo XV,” 81–84. 58  This was pointed out by Štěpán, Moravský markrabě Jošt, 369. 59  Epistolario di Pier Paolo Vergerio, ed. Leonardo Smith, FSI Ep 74 (Rome: Tipografia del Senato, 1934), 97–101, no. 44: “Imminet praeterea non usquequaque aspernenda res, metus Germanorum, ex qua natione editus Patrie preses occisus est. Iuncti illi erant summi principes sanguine atque arctissima necessitudine, quos optare vindictam verisimillimum michi videtur …” The document is cited several times by Cusin, but each time in a different context. 60  Paschini, Storia del Friuli, 714; Liliana Cargnelutti, “Tristano Savorgnan (1377–1440) nella crisi del Patriarcato,” I Savorgnan e la Patria, 113 (wherein the quotation); Casella, I Savorgnan, 43, note 61. An abstract and reproduction of the document, preserved in the Tiroler Landesarchiv in Innsbruck, in I Savorgnan e la Patria, 115, no. 90 (2nd November 1411). 61  Additamenta nunc primum edita, RIS XVI, col. 84: “… Tristanus […] fecit occidere ipsum dominum patriarcham in castro ante portam, et omnia ejus bona depraedata fuerunt; et de hoc numquam fuit facta vindicta.” Nevertheless, another manuscript of the chronicle puts it differently. See Chronicum tertium Patriarcharum Aquilejensium, MEA, appendix, no. IV, 15: “… et omnia bona ipsius d. patriarchae fuerunt posita ad saccomannum, et sic vindicta facta fuit de morte ipsius d. Federici Savorgnani.” Some degree of surprise at the lack of a reaction to John’s murder can perhaps also be found in Miari, Chronicon, 19, and Cronaca volgare di Anonimo Fiorentino, RIS n.s. XXVII/2, 190.

188

Chapter 6

here John is referred to as “venerable,” but nothing more.62 Perhaps in this connection, on 8th December 1394, the king’s envoy and pincerna supremus, Stephen of Dobruška (Opočno), appeared in Udine. In view of the previous events, it seems almost paradoxical that the city council decided to supply him with confections and wine.63 In fact, the Luxembourgs were only willing to exert any effort when it was for their own financial benefit. In 1396, Margrave Jobst and King Sigismund sent their letters to Cividale requesting a document stating that Francesco Carrara owed 30,000 florins to their brother “of happy memory” (felicis memorie), Patriarch John, which should now go to Jobst.64 This was undoubtedly a reference to the earlier agreement obliging Carrara to withdraw from the cities of Feltre and Belluno or pay 30,000 florins as remuneration for John’s support in the reconquest of Padua in 1390.65 However, Carrara had evidently never complied with the terms of his charter. According to the wording of the document, the agreement could also apply to another person (here Jobst is explicitly mentioned) who held it in accordance with John’s wishes, and the two Luxembourgs therefore took considerable pains to acquire the document so that they could demand the corresponding amount. Probably to this end, Jobst sent Dietrich de Stibicz, his chaplain and provost of San Pietro in Carnia, to Cividale; nevertheless, even if he did acquire the desired document, it is doubtful whether he ever obtained the amount owed by Carrara.66 In fact, there is some evidence suggesting that the lord of Padua 62  Wenceslas’s letter to the pope is preserved in a formulary. See Über Formelbücher, vol. 2, 58–59, no. 50; reprinted in CDM XII, 270, no. 292: “… ex morte quondam venerabilis Johannis patriarchae Aquilegiensis vacantis …” (undated). 63   B CU, FP, ms. 899, Raccolta Bianchi, vol. 58, no. 5777; Di Manzano, Annali del Friuli, vol. 6, 103. Copies of King Wenceslas’s letter of credence for Stephen, addressed to Corrado Boiani and Cividale, in MAN, Famiglia Boiani, vol. 6, Codice diplomatico, no. 88; ASVen, Archivio proprio di Giusto Fontanini, b. 2, pag. 853 (2nd November 1394). 64  Both letters in BCC, ACC, Antica cancelleria del comune—fondo Lorenzo D’Orlandi, b. 5, no. 43/2 (14th March 1396); no. 62 (21st March [1396]). Trapani, Inventario, 41, no. 295; 43, no. 316, and Olivo, Antica cancelleria, vol. 1, 64, no. 286; 68, no. 305 dated the first letter to the year 1394 and the second one to 1395. In fact, they were both written in March 1396 when Sigismund and Jobst were staying in Prague. See Jörg K. Hoensch, Itinerar König und Kaiser Sigismunds von Luxemburg 1368–1437. Studien zu den Luxemburgern und ihrer Zeit 6 (Warendorf: Fahlbusch, 1995), 62; Štěpán, Moravský markrabě Jošt, 812. 65   B CB, ms. 495, Documenti trascritti, no. 455; Documenti antichi, vol. 4, 130–131, no. 455 (22nd May 1390). 66   B CU, FP, ms. 899, Raccolta Bianchi, vol. 59, no. 5847; cf. Di Manzano, Annali del Friuli, vol. 6, 117 (8th February 1396). See also the previously cited letter from King Sigismund. Dietrich, at that time the Prague canon, received the provostry of San Pietro in Carnia through the intercession of Patriarch John: MVB V, 127–128, no. 198 (9th November 1389);

Historical Memory

189

acquired the charter right after John’s death in October 1394, i.e. long before Dietrich’s arrival in Cividale. In his letter to the representatives of Cividale, Francesco Carrara argued that, following the discussions with the Venetians and Florentines, the agreement was believed to be invalid “ratione maxime inobservantie pactorum” on the part of John, claiming deceptively that the debt was owed to the patriarch only and to no-one else. Despite this argumentation, he asked the Cividale city council to send him the documents in question, described as “due scripte” and held at the castle of Soffumbergo.67 It was probably not until 1412 that—as part of his military action and persecution of opponents in the patriarchate—Sigismund ordered that those responsible for the murders of John of Moravia and Augustine of Litomyšl be found and punished. This is evident from the aforementioned list of culprits drawn up at some point during this period.68 Firstly, Tristano di Savorgnano was forced to submit and swear allegiance to Sigismund, and in return he was pardoned, among other things, for the murder of John of Moravia.69 Soon afterwards, however, in April 1412, he went over to the Venetian side once and for all. As a result, he was declared a rebel of the Empire and his property was confiscated and later divided up among those loyal to the king of the Romans.70 In the spring of 1413, Sigismund instructed the Friulian parliament to find those guilty of murdering John of Moravia and Augustine of Litomyšl, but we have no Paschini, Notizie storiche della Carnia, 183. For this chapter, see Flavia De Vitt, “Vita della chiesa nel tardo Medioevo,” in Storia della società friulana. Il Medioevo, ed. Paolo Cammarosano (Tavagnacco: Casamassima, 1988), 181–182. 67   B CC, ACC, Antica cancelleria del comune—fondo Lorenzo D’Orlandi, b. 5, no. 54; cf. Olivo, Antica cancelleria, vol. 1, 67, no. 297 (23rd October 1394). 68   B CU, FP, ms. 899, Raccolta Bianchi, vol. 58, no. 5754. 69  The text of Tristano’s oath, preserved as a fifteenth-century copy in BCU, FJ, ms. 697/II, Autographa Vincentiana, vol. 5, sub dato, is edited in Pier Silverio Leicht, “Maneggi poli­ tici di Tristano Savorgnan nel 1412,” MSF 5 (1909), 186–187 (12th February 1412). Sigismund’s absolution is preserved in a formulary in Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Pal. Lat. 701, fols. 190v–191v: “… in nostre graciam recepimus maiestatis, offensas omnes et culpas, in quibus pretextu necis quondam venerabilis Johannis, patriarche Aquilegiensis, necnon […] ipsi incusantur et infamantur, ipsis et eorum heredibus misericorditer indulgentes …” (undated). Partially quoted in Hermann Heimpel, “Aus der Kanzlei Kaiser Sigismunds (Über den Cod. Pal. Lat. 701 der Vatikanischen Bibliothek),” Archiv für Urkundenforschung 12 (1932), 140–141, no. 9; cf. Stanislav Petr, Soupis rukopisných bohemik ve vatikánské knihovně Palatina, Codices manuscripti Bohemici bibliothecarum Vaticanarum et Italicarum 1 (Prague: Masarykův ústav and Archiv Akademie věd České republiky, 2016), 300, no. 34/u. For more details, see Leicht, “L’esilio di Tristano,” 95–98. 70  Leicht, “L’esilio di Tristano”; Leicht, “Maneggi politici”; Cargnelutti, “Tristano Savorgnan”; Casella, I Savorgnan, 42–51. For Sigismund’s concessions of Tristano’s confiscated possessions, see RI XI/1, ed. Wilhelm Altmann (Innsbruck: Wagner, 1896–1897), ad indicem (May and June 1413).

190

Chapter 6

further information about any efforts in this connection.71 Tristano was eventually pardoned in 1438 by a royal charter issued by the king of the Romans, Albert of Habsburg.72 At this point, several facts can be observed. First of all, it should be noted that John of Moravia was not initially remembered in a negative way everywhere. Clearly, it would be difficult to talk about a “unified” memory in the patriarchate; instead, two main traditions gradually began to form which were diametrically opposed. On the one hand, there was the Udinese tradition nurtured by the Savorgnano and their supporters, which viewed the patriarch as nothing more than a cruel tyrant who “deserved” to be murdered. This image endured in the city’s memory, and around the year 1600 it was resurrected in the form of the inscription which Patriarch Francesco Barbaro included in the gallery in his newly constructed patriarchal residence. However, there was an entirely different tradition in Cividale, where the patriarch enjoyed great respect both among the church institutions which prayed for his salvation during memorial services and among the laity. Given that the sources twice refer to John as “patriarcha sancte memorie” (1405, 1412), it is even conceivable that he enjoyed the reputation of a saint within certain circles. However, in John’s case, the conditions for establishing an organized cult— which after all happened very rarely—were exceptionally unfavourable.73 It can therefore be assumed that the consciousness of Patriarch John “of holy memory” died along with the last of those who remembered him. The line between “sanctity and oblivion”74 was a very thin one.

71  Parlamento friulano, I/2, 440–441, no. 481: “Deputati per generale coloquium Patrie Foriiulii ad inveniendos illos, qui interfecerunt d. Iohannem olim patriarcham, d. episcopum Concordiensem et rebelles Sacro Imperio, d. patriarche et Aquilegensi ecclesie de mandato invictissimi principis et d. nostri d. Sixmundi Romanorum et Ungarie regis” (27th April 1413). 72  Das Reichsregister König Albrechts II., ed. Heinrich Koller, Mitteilungen des Österre­i­ chischen Staatsarchiv. Ergänzungsband 4 (Vienna: Berger, 1955), 200–201, no. 287 (10th November 1438). 73  Schwedler, “Moravia (di) Giovanni,” 575 observed that “… la mala reputazione del prelato tedesco di Moravia impedì la creazione di un culto, come in numerosi altri casi di assassinio di vescovi era successo.” By contrast, Tilatti, “Tra santità e oblio” recently demonstrated that the creation of a cult of sanctity was a rather rare phenomenon, conditioned by a number of factors which were lacking in John’s case. 74  Here I borrowed the title of the article by Tilatti, “Tra santità e oblio.”

Historical Memory

2

191

John of Moravia in the Written Tradition

On the basis of some evidence, I have attempted to reveal how John of Moravia was viewed by his contemporaries. However, an important means of preserving memory has been left to one side: chronicles and the written tradition in general. The conclusions reached thus far apply to John’s contemporaries, who knew him, and possibly the following generation, who could still have had first-hand information about him. Of course, human memory is fallible and we cannot assume that it would have been preserved without written sources, especially narrative-based ones. Chronicles contributed in a significant way to creating the image of Patriarch John and represented the primary source for later historians. It is therefore useful to attempt to map out how this written tradition formed and developed. There is no need to dwell on the narrative sources from the Czech lands, as they have very little to say about John of Moravia. According to a remark by Beneš Krabice of Weitmile, John was first and foremost a bastard whose birth proved the falseness of the accusations of impotence against his father, John Henry, and who went on to become the provost of Vyšehrad.75 Later, at the start of the Hussite Wars, an unknown author from the Olomouc chapter included in his work Granum catalogi praesulum Moraviae a reference to John’s “violent” occupation of the Olomouc bishopric and its estates, which helped to land him with a reputation as a usurper.76 It was through the prism of these two disparate accounts that John was viewed in the centuries which followed. In addition, most likely beginning with Thomas Pešina of Čechorod, a myth took root in the historiography that John’s legitimate brother, Margrave John Sobieslaw, had entered the priesthood, thereby relegating John to the rather 75  C  hronicon Benesii de Weitmil, FRB IV, 491: “Interim eciam [John Henry] ex quadam libera genuit filium, postea prepositum Wissegradensem factum, cui nomen Iohannes, et sic vicium impotencie sibi falso ascriptum expurgavit.” Cf. the conclusion by Veldtrup, “Johann Propst von Vyšehrad,” 78: “Dieser illegitime Luxemburger […] scheint Geschichte nur dadurch gemacht zu haben, daβ er durch seine Geburt den Nachweis dafür erbrachte, daβ sein Vater nicht impotent war.” 76  “Granum catalogi praesulum Moraviae,” AfÖG 78 (1892), 91: “Post cuius mortem [i.e. of Peter Jelito] Jodocus et Procopius marchiones Moravie dominum Johannem, germanum ipsorum tunc episcopum Luthomislensem, manu violenta ad ecclesiam Olomucensem intruserunt et bona ecclesie occupaverunt, demum tamen per Urbanum papam VI. ad patriarchalem ecclesiam Aquilegiensem est translatus …” See also Pavel Krafl, “Olomoucké panoptikum. Obraz moravských biskupů v Granum catalogi praesulum Moraviae,” Sborník prací Pedagogické fakulty Masarykovy univerzity—řada společenských věd 26, no. 2 (2012), 46.

192

Chapter 6

unimportant position of the bastard-provost, who was supposed to have died shortly after 1380.77 In truth, John received rather short shrift from the homeland where he had spent most of his life. But what was the situation with the far richer chronicle tradition in the patriarchate of Aquileia and Friuli? The most important work describing the beginning of John’s rule was a chronicle written by his contemporary, Giovanni Ailini († 1393),78 to which subsequent generations of chroniclers and historians were to return again and again. Giovanni was a notary from Maniago and was closely linked to the local nobility, who ranked among the allies of Udine. From this simple fact alone we can deduce that his attitude towards Patriarch John was not very positive. In his work, he first mentions the joy that broke out in Udine when John was appointed, alludes to the numerous delegations dispatched to Moravia and goes on to describe Marshal Nicholas’s activities in the patriarchate. This is followed by John’s arrival in Friuli, his reforms (which Ailini condemned) and the beginning of the conflict with Udine and especially Federico di Savorgnano. It is the dispute between the patriarch and Federico that forms the linchpin of the entire narrative. It is quite obvious that Ailini was on Federico’s side, and yet his work does not contain any invective aimed directly against John. Given that the chronicle was written during John’s rule, there may well have been an element of “self-censorship” on the part of the author. That is probably why the chronicler resorted to the classic topos of bad counsellors in describing how the patriarch had been “misinformed” when he went up against Udine and Federico.79 A good deal of attention was also devoted to John’s repressive measures against supporters of the Savorgnano. The culmination of the entire narrative is the murder of Federico di Savor­ gnano, which Ailini sets in an almost hagiographic framework. The whole episode takes place in a church, where Federico is lingering over his prayers when one of his servants comes to warn him that familiares of the patriarch are on 77  Tomáš Pešina z Čechorodu, Mars Moravicus. Sive bella horrida et cruenta, seditiones, tumultus, praelia, turbae et ex ijs enatae crebrae et funestae rerum mutationes, dirae calamitates, incendia, clades, agrorum depopulationes, urbium vastitates, aedium sacrarum et prophanarum ruinae, arcium et oppidorum eversiones, pagorum cineres, populorum excidia, et alia id genus mala, quae Moravia hactenus passa fuit (Prague: Jo. A. de Dobroslawina, 1677), 48: “… tertio filio Joanne-Sobeslao sacris ordinibus initiato; quem primo Litomyslensem, deinde Olomucensem episcopum fuisse creatum, postea et ad Aquilegiensis patriarchatus apicem evectum legimus.” See further Excursus 1 in this book. 78  Historia Belli Forojuliensis, AIM III, cols. 1215–1220. See Zabbia, “Giovanni di Ailino.” 79  Historia Belli Forojuliensis, AIM III, col. 1217: “Dominus patriarcha male informatus contra Utinenses, et specialiter contra dominum Federicum de Savorgnano, partem Civitatensium cepit.”

Historical Memory

193

their way to kill him. Federico, however, replies: “I have no doubts about the household of my lord.” He then orders that the gate be opened, crosses himself with holy water and walks humbly towards his murderers to meet his fate.80 The description bears the unmistakeable hallmark of martyrdom. It is interesting to note that Ailini never explicitly states that John ordered the murder; instead, he blames it on some members of his entourage, assigning an important role to Federico’s stepmother, Elisabetta, who was subsequently killed along with others “for the death of Lord Federico.”81 Of course, it is possible that this was another example of the chronicler exercising caution. Giovanni Ailini’s depiction of John of Moravia is thus an entirely negative one: although we do not find any direct criticism here, it is not difficult for a perceptive reader to read between the lines. Patriarch John also appears in three contemporary chronicles written outside the patriarchate of Aquileia. These had only a minimal influence on the later local chronicle tradition, so I will confine myself to a few remarks. The first of the chronicles was written by the Gatari family and describes the deeds of the Carrara dynasty of Padua, with John making only a brief appearance as a (perhaps slightly greedy) ally of Francesco Novello during the reconquest of Padua in the summer of 1390.82 Of greater interest is the entry given for 13th October 1394 in the work later known as the Chronicon Bellunense, written by Clemente Miari († 1414), a canon in Belluno.83 What interested him was that Tristano di Savorgnano had broken into Udine Castle with four other men and killed Patriarch John, who three years previously had had Tristano’s father, Federico, murdered. The incident was therefore viewed as a natural vendetta. He also expressed some surprise at the fact that the assassination of the head 80  H  istoria Belli Forojuliensis, AIM III, col. 1219: “… unus custos portae ipsius domini Federici, nomine Paulus, illico videns istos sic venire, festinanter ivit ad ipsum dominum suum et clausit ostium cappellae, dicens: ‘Domine, velociter veniunt versus vos, familiares domini patriarchae. Dubito, quod non veniant in nocumento vestre personae.’ Cui dominus Federicus respondens, dixit: ‘Aperi ostium. Non dubito familiam domini mei.’ Et confestim aperuit ostium. Aperto ostio isti applicuerunt prope ostium, et dominus Federicus erigens se, dicto evangelio sancti Johannis, ad aquam sanctam, quae est in medio ecclesiae, se signavit. […] Et quum dominus Federicus eos vidit, non dubitans, eos ipsum laedere velle, obviam eis immo fuit, et elevans caputium, eos humiliter suscepit. Ipsi autem evaginatis gladiis ipsum inter templum et altare crudeliter et proditorie ibi mortuum permiserunt.” 81  Historia Belli Forojuliensis, AIM III, col. 1220: “Et ceperunt Christophorum Misulini, et Platusium, ac ipsam dominam Elisabetham, et ipsi in furore populi, et super ipsa platea Utini in instanti crudeliter sunt jugulati ob mortem ipsius domini Federici.” 82  Cronaca Carrarese di Galeazzo e Bartolomeo Gatari, RIS n.s. XVII/1a, 398–400, 404. 83  For Miari and his chronicle, see Law, “A clerical chronicler”; Melchiorre, “Raccontare di sé.”

194

Chapter 6

of the Aquileian patriarchate did not cause a commotion.84 Miari, therefore, unwittingly reveals what the people of Belluno (or at least the local cathedral chapter) thought of Patriarch John at the time. A similar, more detailed account can also be found in the chronicle of an anonymous Florentine author.85 He included in his work a short chapter with the title “How Tristano, son of Messer Federico di Savorgnano, killed the patriarch of Aquileia because he had had his father killed and before killed the bishop of Concordia.”86 The Florentine starts with the assassination of John of Moravia by Tristano di Savorgnano, explained as vendetta for his father’s murder, ordered “perfidiously” by the patriarch. John was to be very well aware of the danger he found himself in after Federico’s murder, and for that reason he was never to come to Udine and always to “be strongly protected.” After Augustine’s assassination, incorrectly attributed to Tristano, and seen as revenge for Federico’s murder (considering the bishop as one of the culprits), a peace between the patriarch and the young Savorgnano was seemingly restored. Because of Tristano’s pretended “great reverence” towards him, John was to lose fear, come to Udine and even manifest numerous graces in favour of his former enemy. However, one morning Tristano, together with twelve armed companions, was to come to John in his palace and kill him, whereupon “he returned home and nothing else happened in the city of Udine because of that.” In concluding his narration, the author remarked that being only ca. twenty years old, Tristano “very early learned to commit such treasons.”87 As well as in the case 84  Miari, Chronicon, 19: “Eodem anno, die martis XIIIo octubris, nobilis vir dominus Tristanus de Sovergnano de Utino Acquilegensis, natus quondam domini Frederici de Sovergnano, cum societate IIIIor hominum ingressus est castrum terre Utini Foriiullii et interfecit reverendum in Christo patrem dominum Iohannem patriarcham Acquilegensem, qui olim fecerat occidi prefatum dominum Fredericum iam tribus annis elapsis. Et hec facta fuerunt in palacio dicti castri et tamen nullus forensis vel civis propter hoc motus est.” 85  For the author of the chronicle, see Bellondi, “Prefazione.” 86  Cronaca volgare di Anonimo Fiorentino, RIS n.s. XXVII/2, 190: “Come Tristano figliuolo di messer Federigo da Savignano uccise il Patriarca d’Aquilea, perché elli avea fatto uccidere il padre e prima avea morto il Vescovo di Concordia.” 87  Cronaca volgare di Anonimo Fiorentino, RIS n.s. XXVII/2, 190: “Tristano di messer Francesco d’Avignano del mese d’ottobre nella città d’Udine in Frigoli uccise il Patriarca d’Aquilea; il quale Patriarca era consorto del Re di Boemia. La cagione perché il fece fu perché il detto Patriarca avea più anni passati innanzi fatto uccidere a tradimento messer Federigo suo padre. E per questo il detto Patriarca non era mai venuto nella città d’Udine per paura; anzi istava sempre in luoghi molto forti e facea grandissima guardia. Avvenne che il detto giovane poco tempo innanzi avea morto il Vescovo di Concordia’, il quale era stato altresì colpevole della morte del padre. E però acconsenti, e fece pace col detto Patriarca, dicendo ch’avea vendicato il padre, e liberamente li perdonò. Il Patriarca, parendoli che il

Historical Memory

195

of Miari, the Florentine author thus saw John’s rule in the patriarchate as an almost “logical” sequence of vendetta without attributing to it any—either negative, or positive—appraisal. In view of the fact that the narrations of the Miari’s and Florentine chronicles are very similar to each other, despite both being undoubtedly independent (the Belluno canon wrote his “diary” for private reasons only), it seems that they represented the communis opinio spread across contemporary Italy. To return to the patriarchate, an anonymous chronicle was written not long after John’s death, which described events up to the year 1412.88 The unknown author was obviously inspired by Ailini’s chronicle and does not deviate significantly from his interpretation of events. Nearly all the attention devoted to the rule of John of Moravia is focused on the period up to the murder of Federico di Savorgnano (as was the case with Ailini), while the next five years of John’s patriarchate are only documented through a few (mostly chronologically muddled) notes. Nevertheless, this is not mere worthless borrowing from an earlier model: the author is, for example, the only contemporary chronicler to mention John’s illegitimate origin.89 Here too the central theme is the conflict between the patriarch and the Savorgnano. The chronicler attributes John’s actions against them to the inducements of Elisabetta, whom he also considers to be a relative of his. He too avoids suggesting that the patriarch was involved in the murder of Federico di Savorgnano, instead blaming unspecified “enemies of Federico” for the crime.90 In contrast, the scribe who copied out the chronicle shortly after it was written added a marginal note to the manuscript explicitly stating that the patriarch was innocent of Federico’s murder.91 Although we lack a direct giovane liberamente li avesse perdonato, si fidò di venire in Udine e non prendea guardia di lui, anzi più e più volte, poiché fu nella città, il detto giovane andò a lui con grande reverenza per più grazie e tutte l’ebbe. Poi una mattina giunse a lui in sulla sala con dodici compagni armati e quivi uccise il detto Patriarca; e partissi di quindi dove morto l’avea e tornossi a casa sua, e niente altro ne fu nella città d’Udine. Avea allora questo giovane forse venti anni; sicché assai per tempo apparò di fare cotali tradimenti.” 88  Nonnullorum Patriarcharum Vitae, MEA, appendix, no. V, 15–19. 89  Nonnullorum Patriarcharum Vitae, MEA, appendix, no. V, 16: “… Johannem de Moravia, fratrem marchionis, et fratrem regis Bohemiae; non tamen legitimum, sed spurium.” 90  Nonnullorum Patriarcharum Vitae, MEA, appendix, no. V, 16: “Scientes autem inimicis ejus, quod [Federico] esset in terra Utini; consilium inierunt, ut morti traderent eum …” However, he then goes on to list Federico’s murderers, with the patriarch’s courtiers being among them. 91  UPenn, ms. 934, Vitae episcoporum et patriarcharum, fol. 38r: “Nota, quod patriarcha Johannes fuit innocens mortis domini Fredericii.” Edited in Previté-Orton, “Un manoscritto,” 102, note 11.

196

Chapter 6

evaluation of Patriarch John in this case too, he appears in a somewhat more favourable light. These are all the narrative sources which were written either during John’s lifetime or shortly after his death. One other anonymous chronicle of the Aquileian patriarchs, which goes up to the mid-fifteenth century, also briefly mentions the rule of John of Moravia. The unknown chronicler describes him as “a terrible man, consuming and devouring a great deal.”92 John’s rule is depicted in the worst possible light as an endless succession of vendettas: the patriarch first had Federico di Savorgnano killed, which led to the murder of Elisabetta and two other citizens, and ultimately to that of the patriarch himself. Here too there is evidence of the negative Udinese tradition, which viewed John as a cruel tyrant who in the end was justly eliminated. Interestingly, however, in none of the above-analysed narrative sources hostile to John do we find any explicit argument based on the stereotype of the patriarch’s “German” origins (on the other hand, we cannot exclude its influence on the individual chroniclers either), since animosity towards the inhabitants of the Empire on the other side of the Alps generally constituted a traditional topos of late medieval Italian historiography.93 For the rest, we must not restrict ourselves only to what chroniclers wrote about Patriarch John: we should also take into account the cases where they did not do so. In this context, it is interesting to note that John of Moravia is not mentioned at all in the annals of Spilimbergo, which go up to the end of the fifteenth century. The only event from the period in question deemed worthy of recording was a great fire in 1390 which destroyed most of the town.94 The annals usually focused on events related to the local nobility, who were John’s 92  A  dditamenta nunc primum edita, RIS XVI, col. 84: “Fuit hic vir horribilis, et multa consumens ac devorans …” 93  For the negative perception of “Germans” in late medieval Italy, see Klaus Heitmann, “Zum Bild der Deutschen im Oberitalien des Spätmittelalters,” in Die Visconti und der deutsche Südwesten. Kulturtransfer im Spätmittelalter / I Visconti e la Germania meridionale. Trasferimento culturale nel tardo medioevo, ed. Peter Rückert and Sönke Lorenz, Tübinger Bausteine zur Landesgeschichte 11 (Ostfildern: Thorbecke, 2008), 103–113; Werner Maleczek, “Das Reich im 14. Jahrhundert—Blicke von außen,” in Die Goldene Bulle, vol. 2, 563–598. 94  Chronicon Spilimbergense nunc primum in lucem editum, ed. Giuseppe Bianchi (Udine: Turchetto, 1856), 14: “Anno Domini MCCCXC. Totum oppidum Spegnimbergi usque ad portas arcis ingenti flamma occupatum, omnes fere domos et edificia in cinere versa conspexit, pauculis dumtaxat intactis.” The new edition was not available to me: Chronicon Spilimbergense. Note storiche su Spilimbergo e sul Friuli dal 1241 al 1489, ed. Mario D’Angelo (Spilimbergo, 1998). There is also some information about the chronicle in Uwe Ludwig, “Zwischen Österreich, Venedig und Ungarn. Die ‘Chronik von Valvasone’ als Zeugnis der Geschichte Friauls im späten Mittelalter,” QFIAB 89 (2009), 113–117.

Historical Memory

197

supporters,95 so it is rather surprising that there is no mention of him in the text. However, it is possible that there were other factors at play here which we are no longer able to identify. We can now move on from the medieval scriptoria to the writings of the Renaissance period. The first historical synthesis of Friuli, Commentariorum Aquileiensium libri octo, was compiled by Giovanni Candido of Udine († 1528).96 He sought out sources in older chronicles and archives, and yet his work still contains many mistakes and errors. In his narrative, John of Moravia comes across as merely a spendthrift prelate, who squandered most of his and the public’s wealth and violated the ancient regulations and privileges, whereupon he was expelled from Udine.97 His contemporary was the notary and humanist Antonio Belloni of Udine († 1554), who wrote a Latin history of the Aquileian patriarchs entitled De vitis et gestis patriarcharum Aquileiensium.98 He clearly took Ailini’s chronicle as his model, but he was also familiar with another anonymous Aquileian chronicle from the mid-fifteenth century. Belloni actually limits himself to a description of the conflict between John and Federico di Savorgnano, after which he immediately moves on to John’s murder, which was supposedly carried out by Tristano “so that the death of his father would not go unpunished.” He concludes his description with the words: “And so the prelate, who had sinned by committing murder, was himself unable to escape being murdered.”99

95  Venceslao di Spilimbergo acted as one of John’s envoys in Venice: BCU, FP, ms. 899, Raccolta Bianchi, vol. 55, no. 5566 (7th November 1390). Moreover, in the years 1389–1390, he was also appointed captain of the castle of Buja: Il castello di Buja ed i suoi statuti, ed. Vincenzo Joppi (Udine: J. B. Doretti, 1877), 12–13. Tommaso di Spilimbergo, for a change, was appointed captain of Gemona. See BCG, ACG, Pergamene varie, scatola 1643, no. 11 (26th February 1389); ibid., Quaderni delle Deliberazioni, reg. 14, fol. 39v (1st March 1389). Miniati, “Storia di Gemona,” 274 gives an incorrect year (1387). 96  The first Latin edition of Candido’s work was not available to me: Commentariorum Aquileiensium libri octo ab ultimis temporibus usque ad inducias quinquennales a. C. 1517 (Venice: A. de Bindonis, 1521). I used the later Italian translation: Commentarii di Giovan Candido givreconsvlto dei fatti d’Aquileia (Venice: [M. Tramezino], 1544). For Candido, see Liliana Cargnelutti, “Candido Giovanni, storico,” in Nuovo Liruti, vol. 2/1, 609–612. 97  Commentarii di Giovan Candido, fols. 80v–81v. The entire passage was adopted by Ughelli, Italia sacra, vol. 5, cols. 116–117. 98  Vitae patriarcharum Aquilejensium, RIS XVI, col. 63. For Belloni’s life and work, see Roberto Norbedo, “Belloni Antonio, notaio, umanista,” in Nuovo Liruti, vol. 2/1, 439–445. 99  Vitae patriarcharum Aquilejensium, RIS XVI, col. 63: “Tristanus patriarcham, qui reus tanti criminis habebatur, simul atque Utinum reversus fuit, ne parentis mors maneret inulta, aliquidve decederet Savorgnanorum gloriae, ad portam, qua ad arcem conscenditur, sustulit […] Ita praesul, qui in caedem peccasset, nequivit effugere, quin caesus sit.”

198

Chapter 6

Jacopo Valvasone di Maniago († post-1566), another writer from Udine, also attempted to chronicle the lives of the Aquileian patriarchs, this time in Italian.100 Unlike his predecessors, he based his work on a relatively solid source base: he was obviously familiar with Ailini’s chronicle, the two anonymous patriarchal chronicles and the Capitula contra patriarcham Johannem de Moravia, as well as other charters and documents from the Udinese archives. Here John is portrayed as a thoroughly negative character, a cruel and profligate tyrant who “oppressed the good and exalted criminals,” and “consumed public revenues to indulge his own appetites, principally for keeping armies of dogs and birds and numerous jesters and fools.”101 All three of these works thus clearly reveal the pervasive influence of the negative Udinese tradition. The Cividale notary and chancellor Marcantonio Nicoletti († 1596) built his treatise Patriarcato aquileiense di Giovanni di Moravia, which only covers the period 1387–1392, upon completely different foundations.102 However, his work is highly problematic: on the one hand, he is commended for the diligence with which he amassed a great deal of source material (much of it no longer extant), mainly from the Cividale archives. On the other hand, he is criticized for the naivety with which he interpreted it and the number of errors he made. Moreover, due to the lack of citations, it is difficult to differentiate between what Nicoletti actually copied from the sources and what he simply invented or took from the local tradition.103 As Nicoletti’s sources were mainly of Cividale provenance, his work shows John of Moravia in a completely different light. Nicoletti calls him a “prince of the most noble blood” and “a lover of peace” and praises his initial efforts to calm the situation in the war-torn country.104 He does not mention John having anything to do with the murder of Federico, but instead depicts him as a mostly just ruler who was, however, stubbornly insistent on his rights. Again, 100  Jacopo Valvasone di Maniago, Successi della Patria del Friuli sotto i Patriarchi d’Aquileia dal 1332 al 1402, ed. Nicolò Brandis (Milan: A. Lombardi, 1857). See Luca Simonetto, “Valvasone di Maniago Iacopo, storico,” in Nuovo Liruti, vol. 2/3, 2569–2573. 101  Valvasone di Maniago, Successi della Patria, 41: “… trovò più volte occasione di opprimere i buoni, et esaltare i scellerati, et avendo in poco tempo consumate l’entrate pubbliche in compiacere i suoi appettiti, massimamente in sostenere eserciti di cani, uccelli con assai buffoni e pazzi …” 102  The treatise only goes up to the year 1392 and thus does not contain the whole of John’s rule. A barely legible later copy is preserved in BCU, FP, ms. 610, no. 1471, fols. 1r–11r; the text was edited on the basis of another manuscript in Di Manzano, Annali del Friuli, vol. 6, 19–24, 34–42, 57–59, 67–69, 79. 103  Liliana Cargnelutti, “Nicoletti Marcantonio, storico,” in Nuovo Liruti, vol. 2/3, 1827–1830. 104   B CU, FP, ms. 610, no. 1471, fol. 1r: “… principe di nobilissimo sangue. Costui geloso della pace …” Cf. Di Manzano, Annali del Friuli, vol. 6, 19: “… amante della pace …”

Historical Memory

199

this points to the positive trace that the patriarch left in the Cividale memory. However, another work by Nicoletti indicates that he saw the period of John of Moravia’s rule as a time of chaos, constant wars and calamities, which should be “lamented rather than commemorated.”105 The case of Fabio Quintiliano Ermacora († 1610), the first historian of Carnia operating in Tolmezzo, is an interesting one. The town’s archive became the starting point for his work De antiquitatibus Carneae.106 In it John is characterized as a benevolent lord who conferred an important privilege as well as a new coat of arms upon Tolmezzo and “carried out many other celebrated deeds in the town.”107 Ermacora vigorously defended the patriarch against accusations that he was involved in the assassination of Federico di Savorgnano, presenting as evidence the aforementioned Udinese letter sent to Tolmezzo immediately after the murder.108 This therefore represents another, different tradition which was preserved in Tolmezzo in the north of the patriarchate, where John was remembered as a kind-hearted ruler who granted special prerogatives to the town during his stay there. John of Moravia was viewed differently by Girolamo Sini († 1602) in his history of the town of San Daniele.109 He took a cautious attitude towards the patriarch’s involvement in the murder of Federico di Savorgnano and also mentions the revolt of San Daniele against him. On the other hand, he is aware of John’s privilege from 1392, granting the town the right to a market; however, “this had to be cancelled due to the negligence of the inhabitants, who did not

105  S eguito degli Estratti degli Annali di Cividale del Friuli dal 1384 al 1419, ed. Fabio Beretta (Udine: Seitz, 1864), 12: “… le guerre continue, e gravi tra il patriarca e cittadini di Cividale da una e tra gli Udinesi e collegati dall’altra, per le quali occorsero à questa città e Patria accidenti tanto calamitosi, che sono piuttosto da esse lacrimati, che commemorati.” 106  It has remained unedited for a long time. Only recently the complete Latin text together with an Italian translation was published. See Docti viri Fabii Quintiliani Hermacorae nobilis tulmetiensis De antiquitatibus Carneae libri quatuor, ed. Igino Piutti (Udine: Forum, 2014). Although this new edition was not available to me, the passage regarding John of Moravia was already transcribed by Bianchi in BCU, FP, ms. 899, Raccolta Bianchi, vol. 53, no. 5351. For Ermacora, see Ermes Dorigo, “Ermacora Fabio Quintiliano, storico,” in Nuovo Liruti, vol. 2/2, 1026–1030. 107   B CU, FP, ms. 899, Raccolta Bianchi, vol. 53, no. 5351: “… multaque alia preclara gesta in communitatem exercuit …” John’s charter is edited in Statuti e legislazione veneta, vol. 1, appendice, 218–223, no. 1 (9th August 1392). See above in the text. 108  The letter is inserted in the text. See its edition in Tremoli, “Il ‘De Antiqvitatibvs Carneae,’” 81–82, note 6; another copy is preserved in BNM, cod. lat. XIV, 135 (= 4286), fol. 252r–v (17th February 1389). See further the chapter “The Assassination of Federico di Savorgnano.” 109  For Sini, see Giorgio Ferigo, “Sini Girolamo, rettore di scuola,” in Nuovo Liruti, vol. 2/3, 2349–2353.

200

Chapter 6

take account of this concession.”110 Moreover, Sini refrained from making any direct evaluation, so the image of Patriarch John in his work is a rather ambiguous one. One of the most important historians of the Friulian Seicento was Gian Francesco Palladio degli Olivi of Udine († 1669). His extensive “History of the Friuli Province” was still being cited in the twentieth century, despite being burdened with numerous mistakes.111 It is difficult to tell to what extent Palladio went back to the original sources and how much he took from later writings, but he seems to have been familiar with Ailini’s chronicle and the Capitula contra patriarcham Johannem de Moravia as well as other charters and documents. However, he was also inspired by the portrait of John in the patriarchal palace in Udine, the inscription below which he transcribed into his own work. It is, therefore, unsurprising that he saw Patriarch John as a thoroughly negative character: a cruel, spendthrift tyrant, broadly repeating the assessment given earlier by Jacopo Valvasone. He therefore views John’s murder as an unsurprising end for someone “who built his power on violence and the oppression of his subjects.”112 Because of Palladio’s influential work, the negative image of John of Moravia which dominated the Udinese memory thus gained wider currency. Beginning in the following century, a new generation of scholars emerged who were no longer content to accept information from older authorities uncritically and embarked on their own thorough study of the sources. This meant that they were able to refute many of the deep-rooted myths and mistakes that dominated the historiography of the time. At the forefront was the erudite Dominican and theologian Bernardo Maria de Rubeis († 1775), who edited a series of sources—including the papal bull of provision for John of Moravia and several chronicles from Friulian archives and libraries—in his

110  Girolamo Sini, Cronaca della magnifica comunità di San Daniele del Friuli, ed. Giuseppe Barbaro (Venice: Gio. Cecchini, 1865), 20: “Questo mercato però ebbe a cessare in appresso per incuria degli abitanti, che non tennero conto di quella concessione.” See the copy of John’s charter for San Daniele in BCU, FP, ms. 899, Raccolta Bianchi, vol. 56, no. 5655 (4th October 1392). 111  Palladio degli Olivi, Historie della Provincia del Friuli. For Palladio, see Liliana Cargnelutti, “Palladio degli Olivi Gian Francesco, storico,” in Nuovo Liruti, vol. 2/3, 1903–1905. His work is quite often referred to e.g. by Cogo, “Il patriarcato d’Aquileia.” 112  Palladio degli Olivi, Historie della Provincia del Friuli, 426–434, esp. 434: “Spettacolo memorabile, ma ordinaria caduta di quelli, che fondano il loro dominio sopra le violenze, e l’estorsioni de’ sudditi. Iddio sovente concede in potere di qualche famiglia il principe tiranno per fare le pubbliche vendette della libertà soggiogata.”

Historical Memory

201

monumental and still useful work Monumenta Ecclesiae Aquilejensis. However, he refrained from making a direct assessment of Patriarch John.113 Another writer worthy of mention is Bernardo’s contemporary Gian Gi­u­ seppe Liruti († 1780). He too became an assiduous collector of sources and, among other things, wrote several volumes on the history of Friuli, modestly entitled Notizie delle cose del Friuli.114 Of particular interest to us is one of his discoveries in the Udine archives: a charter stating that, three days after the assassination of Federico di Savorgnano, Patriarch John had sentenced his killers to exile. This served as an argument for John’s innocence, which Liruti maintained: “Those of our historians who blame Patriarch John for this murder are, therefore, mistaken.”115 Nevertheless, over time this astute remark was forgotten. It was not until 1883 that the first critical appraisal of John of Moravia’s rule in the patriarchate appeared. This difficult task was undertaken by Vincenzo Marchesi, who set about it in what was, for his time, quite a remarkable way.116 He was the first to attempt an objective evaluation of the controversial figure of John, which was shrouded in age-old myths, and he depicted him in a much more favourable light as a confident prince of his time, who “had been born to become a warlike prince and to use the sword and shield rather than the mitre and cope.”117 He acknowledged some of John’s bad qualities and shortcomings, but at the same time he tried to understand his actions and place them within the appropriate context. Marchesi made use of a fairly decent source base (principally the Bianchi collection), which allowed him to give proper weight to his conclusions. On the other hand, today some of his interpretations can almost come across as an apologia for John of Moravia. Because of that, Marchesi’s study, which to a large extent contradicted the traditional view of Patriarch John as a debauched tyrant, was not very well received at first and even provoked a critical review in a local Udinese newspaper. Its author, the 113  De Rubeis, Monumenta Ecclesiae Aquilejensis, cols. 977–986; see also his unedited manuscript in BNM, cod. lat. XIV, 135 (= 4286), fols. 244v–259r. For De Rubeis, see Simone Volpato, “De Rubeis Bernardo Maria, storico,” in Nuovo Liruti, vol. 2/2, 910–915. 114  Liruti, Notizie delle cose del Friuli; for John of Moravia, vol. 5, 138–144. For Liruti, see Ugo Rozzo, “Liruti Gian Giuseppe, storico e bibliografo,” in Nuovo Liruti, vol. 2/2, 1482–1500. 115  Liruti, Notizie delle cose del Friuli, vol. 5, 142: “… furono dopo tre giorni fatti solennemente bandire dal patriarca; come dal processo nell’Archivio della città di Udine, e ne’ miei Apografi T. III. n. 1016. Prendono però sbaglio que’ nostri storici, che incolpano di questa uccisione il patriarca Giovanni …” 116  Marchesi, “Giovanni di Moravia.” 117  Marchesi, “Giovanni di Moravia,” esp. 121, 146–148; the quotation ibid., 147: “Giovanni non aveva tempra sacerdotale; egli era nato per essere un principe battagliero e per usare lo scudo e la spada, piuttosto che la mitra e il piviale.”

202

Chapter 6

local journalist Pacifico Valussi, considered John’s only merit to be his “tyranny, which paved the way for the patriarchate’s annexation by Venice,” and he condemned the attempt to “rehabilitate characters who had left behind a bad reputation in history” as “a disease of the time.”118 This goes to show what vitality the traditional, negative image of John of Moravia still had 500 years on. Since Marchesi’s time, our knowledge of John of Moravia has been partially extended. Unfortunately, the factually detailed studies by Gaetano Cogo, Federico Seneca and Roberto Cessi are all imbued to a greater or lesser extent with an implicit aversion to John of Moravia and an overly sympathetic attitude towards the opposing side, which became the object of their analysis, i.e. Udine and the Savorgnano or Venice.119 It is also worth mentioning the most comprehensive (and most influential) synthesis of Friulian history to date, written by Pio Paschini, which described John’s rule in a more traditional way, though objectively and with a critical detachment,120 as well as the erudite writings of Pier Silverio Leicht,121 and especially the work of Fabio Cusin, whose wider geographical scope allowed him to break free from the traditional, narrowly local, focus of older Friulian historiography.122 Furthermore, the acute observations by Giordano Brunettin should be mentioned, putting John’s rule in the

118  G  iornale di Udine e del Veneto orientale, year 17, no. 241, 9th October 1883: “Ora il prof. Marchese con un suo scritto su Giovanni di Moravia, che ebbe solo merito colla sua tyrannide di preparare l’annessione della Patria del Friuli a Venezia, ci riporta al passato, e bisogna che vediamo come. Il prof. Marchese è certamente un brav’uomo, ma ci sembra troppo invaso anche’egli dalla febbre delle riabilitazioni di coloro che lasciarono un cattivo nome nella storia. È una malattia del tempo …” The continuation ibid., no. 242, 10th October 1883. At the end of the review article, the author is subscribed as “P.V.” (ibid., no. 245, 13th October 1883) and is thus to be identified with Pacifico Valussi, the founder of the journal. See Tiziano Sguazzero, “Valussi Pacifico, giornalista,” in Nuovo Liruti, vol. 3/4, 3489–3501; for Friulian historiography at the turn of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, see Andrea Tilatti, “La Società storica friulana, la storia, le patrie,” in Patrie storiografiche sui confini orientali tra Otto e Novecento, ed. Andrea Tilatti and Marino Zabbia, Reti Medievali Rivista 16, no. 1 (Florence: Firenze University Press, 2015), 191–220. It is also worth noting that even later Marchesi was not afraid to go against contemporary paradigms when he openly questioned the venerated “myth of Venice.” See Andrea Zannini, “Il Friuli nella storiografia veneta tra Otto e Novecento,” ibid., 243–246. 119  Cogo, “Il patriarcato d’Aquileia”; Seneca, “Il conflitto fra Giovanni”; Cessi, “Venezia e la prima caduta”; Cessi, “La politica veneziana”; Cessi, “Venezia neutrale.” 120  Paschini, Storia del Friuli, 631–660; for a brief evaluation of Patriarch John, see ibid., esp. 653, 654–655, 655, note 8 and 656, note 39. 121  Leicht, Breve storia, 171–176; Leicht, “La giovinezza di Tristano.” See further Leicht’s valu­ able edition Parlamento friulano, I/2. 122  Cusin, Il confine orientale, vol. 1, 164–195. Cusin’s considerations were later adopted i.a. by De Biasio, “Il patriarca d’Aquileia.”

Historical Memory

203

context of the long crisis in which the Aquileian patriarchate found itself in the fourteenth and early fifteenth century.123 Most recently Gerald Schwedler, independent of the previous traditions, has characterized Patriarch John as a generally progressive ruler, who attempted to create a new model of government through his reforms in favour of the poorer social classes, and tried to maintain the integrity of the patriarchate and restore the declining power of the patriarch.124 The above analysis has shown how the image of John of Moravia developed in historical memory over the past six hundred years. Above all, it is important to stress that the Udinese tradition originally shaped by the Savorgnano faction, which portrayed John of Moravia as a cruel tyrant, was by no means the only one: quite apart from this, there was the reverence for Patriarch John “of holy memory” in Cividale, and it appears that the citizens of Tolmezzo also remembered John of Moravia with gratitude as a benevolent prince who granted the town a great privilege and a new coat of arms.125 However, these local traditions were gradually overshadowed by the negative memory which prevailed in the dominant city of Udine, where most of the later historians came from. As a result of their work, this negative memory was preserved at the expense of the others, and it had a remarkable longevity. Thus, what was originally the local Udine city memory gradually became the Friulian memory. This process culminated in the early seventeenth century when Patriarch Francesco Barbaro installed a portrait of John in the grand hall of his newly built patriarchal residence in Udine along with a damning inscription which characterized him as a tyrant. This negative tradition was still remark­ ably alive in the twentieth century, and even modern critical historiography has not managed completely to eradicate the image of Patriarch John as a cruel and debauched prelate. On the other hand, a street on the outskirts of Udine was recently named Via Giovanni di Moravia.126 Could this be a sign that there is finally a reconciliation between Udine and Patriarch John? 123  Brunettin, “L’evoluzione impossibile,” 220–222. 124  Schwedler, “Moravia (di) Giovanni.” New stimuli regarding John’s “second life” in historical memory were recently put forward by Tilatti, “Tra santità e oblio,” who occupied himself with research on the construction of assassinated bishops’ memoria. 125  By analogy, it is possible to refer to similarly contradictory traditions created around King Wenceslas IV. As demonstrated by Petr Čornej, Tajemství českých kronik. Cesty ke kořenům husitské tradice, 2nd ed. (Prague and Litomyšl: Paseka, 2003), 67–115, in this case, “the image of Wenceslas IV as a dull despot crystallized among the Catholic party, while the same ruler was seen by the Utraquist party as resembling the ideal of a just and popular king” (ibid., 114). 126  For the sake of completeness, we might add that a street bearing the same name can also be found in Tolmezzo.

Chapter 7

Final Reflections The time has come to attempt a final assessment of the complicated figure of John of Moravia. He was the descendant of one of the most powerful dynasties of the Middle Ages, and although he had been born a bastard, which destined him for a career in the church, he always felt himself to be a rightful member of the Luxembourg family. This is shown by his “fictitious” margravial titulature and by the Moravian eagle on his seal from Litomyšl and on the Aquileian deniers, as well as his close ties with Charles IV, Wenceslas IV and Jobst. The house of Luxembourg also treated John quite generously: thanks to its support, which secured him the relevant dispensations and the necessary education (as well as Czech, a knowledge of German, Italian and Latin can be assumed),1 he was able to ascend to the highest echelons of the ecclesiastical hierarchy despite the stigma of his illegitimate origin. In his twenties he became a canon in Brno, but even then he must have counted on becoming a bishop one day. When his uncle Charles took him along on his second Roman expedition in 1368/1369, a major event of European significance, a great ecclesiastical career opened up before him: during the campaign the provost of Vyšehrad died and by the emperor’s will John was to be his successor. Over the following ten years or so, John devoted himself to the regular duties associated with his office, but we have no record of his interfering in “high politics” in any way; instead, it would seem that he deferred to the will of his imperial uncle in all matters. It may have been this close relationship with the Prague court that later ensured him the support of Wenceslas IV, who made him part of his ecclesiastical politics. 1  In this connection, there is an interesting piece of evidence in ASU, Documenti storici friulani, b. II, no. 175, fol. 152v, describing an audience Mattiusso Breda from Udine had with the patriarch in 1390. According to the document, “… prefatus dominus patriarcha habuit respondere et dicere eidem Mathiussio per interpretacionem Erardi …” However, an earlier audience seems to have come about without any interpreter. The quotation would therefore suggest that John’s proficiency in Italian was rather average. The aforementioned Erardo/ Erhart is referred to in the same source as John’s caniparius, i.e. the official who was to supervise the revenues of the patriarch. For this important office, see Caiazza, “Le residenze dei patriarchi,” 251–253, 267. In a charter of John’s from 1394, he is also given the predicate de Puoch: BCU, FJ, ms. 697/II, Autographa Vincentiana, vol. 5, sub dato (31st July 1394). Thus, it is reasonable to assume that Erhart came from Bohemia and was even a relative of Marshal Nicholas, who had a similar predicate.

© Ondřej Schmidt, 2019 | doi:10.1163/9789004407893_008

Final Reflections

205

In 1380, the bishop of Litomyšl, Albert of Šternberk, died and John—no doubt in accordance with the wishes of King Wenceslas—became his successor; in connection with this, he resigned the Vyšehrad provostry and the Brno canonry. Although his time in charge of the modest Litomyšl diocese can on the whole be evaluated positively, John was not satisfied with his position as head of a bishopric which was neither very politically significant nor lucrative, and therefore twice attempted to obtain the vacant see of Olomouc. The first time, in 1381, John failed due to the delicate situation surrounding the archbishopric of Mainz, and the second attempt from 1387/1388 also came to nothing despite the support of his half-brothers Margraves Jobst and Prokop. It was perhaps only with his appointment as patriarch of Aquileia, where he was to promote the interests of the house of Luxembourg and the Roman obedience, that John was fully satisfied. By that time, however, the patriarchate was only a shadow of its former glory: the land had been thrown into turmoil by war and weakened by internal instability and external interference from its neighbours, and the revenues of the patriarchal mensa had been depleted. When John acceded to the see of St. Hermagoras, he was a little over 40, and he remained in this office for seven years. Whereas in the earlier period of John’s life the lack of sources generally prevent us from reaching convincing conclusions about him, between 1387 and 1394 the situation is considerably more favourable. Even before his arrival, John ensured some kind of peace and the restitution of most of the occupied territories of the patriarchate through his marshal. The population initially welcomed him with enthusiasm, but the vision of peace and calm and a return to the earlier “golden age” quickly dissipated. From the beginning, John’s aim was to restore the authority of a strong ruler, and this inevitably resulted in long-term conflict.2 The patriarch was always fiercely protective of his rights and did not hesitate to reclaim property and revenues belonging to his mensa from both his subjects and neighbours.3 When, for example, Federico di Bello di Savorgnano sold the castle of Madrisio, which he held as a fief of the Aquileian church, without the knowledge of the patriarch, John immediately lodged a protest against this breach of his rights; thus,

2  See Leicht, Breve storia, 172; Brunettin, “L’evoluzione impossibile,” 209, 220. 3   See e.g. John’s demands of the Udinese in Parlamento friulano, I/2, 356, no. 353 (19th January 1390), summarized by Paschini, Storia del Friuli, 643. His claim to the castle of Flagogna is also telling, for which see above on p. 133. The protests the patriarch raised against Venice are listed in ASVen, Senato, Misti, reg. 41, fol. 44r–v; cf. Cessi, “La politica vene­ ziana,” 142 (12th October 1389).

206

Chapter 7

Federico first had to appear before the patriarch and formally cede the castle to him, and only after that was consent given for the earlier transaction.4 On the other hand, John was not afraid to change the established order completely. The reforms at the beginning of his rule are an important feature of his politics. In order for John to be able to rule successfully, it was above all necessary to subordinate Udine, the most important city and the effective centre of the patriarchate, to his power. However, it was dominated by the Savorgnano family, which over the preceding century had built such a privileged position for itself there that its members were regarded as de facto rulers of the city. This was not something Patriarch John could resign himself to. He therefore had the old city council, which ruled according to the will of the Savorgnano, disbanded, and in its place had twelve representatives of the craft guilds elected. The result, which significantly altered the balance of power in the city, was a “government of the people” based on the support of the middle and lower classes of the population. He also went on to persecute some of his opponents physically.5 Initially, it appeared that the new patriarch’s endeavours would be crowned with success, but quite soon his efforts foundered upon his excessive severity, which triggered a revolt. What worked to John’s disadvantage was the fact that the class of craftsmen he relied upon was not strong and united enough to keep its grip on power in the face of the original rich oligarchy.6 Moreover, after the assassination of Federico di Savorgnano in February 1389, whose death John was probably not directly involved in, the situation changed completely. From 4  “Documenti goriziani del secolo XIV,” AT, n.s., 17 (1891), 304–305, no. 309: “Cum nobilis vir d. Federicus q. nobilis d. Bielli de Savorgnano vendidisset castrum suum Madrisii, quod in feudum ab Aquilegensi ecclesia cognoscebat et habuerat, nobili Henrico de Cormono ob necessitatem eidem incumbentem et iuxta iura et consuetudines Aquilegensis ecclesie nullus de Patria posse vendere et alienare castra, que ab Aquilegensi [ecclesia] in feudum cognoscerent et haberent, nisi primo renuntiarent et repudiarent in manibus domini patriarche. Quare prefatus nobilis Federicus renuntiavit dictum castrum et repudiavit in manibus serenissimi principis et reverendissimi domini nostri d. Johannis sancte Aquilegensis ecclesie patriarche dignissimi. Qui quidem d. patriarcha eidem licentiam dedit de alienando dictum castrum salvo iure Aquilegensis ecclesie de investitura videlicet feudi superius nominati” (26th March 1390). Cf. also Paschini, Storia del Friuli, 642. 5  Cf. Cusin, Il confine orientale, vol. 1, 167–173. The author viewed John’s rule as a clash between the model of the “transalpine state” headed by a strong prince, which was pursued by the patriarch, and Udine, with the Savorgnano family gradually transforming itself into a signoria analogous to the tendencies in other Italian regions. The traditional characterization of the patriarchate as being similar to the German ecclesiastical principalities is pointed out e.g. by Bellabarba, “The feudal principalities,” 201–202. 6  Leicht, Breve storia, 172–173; Angelo Ventura, Nobiltà e popolo nella società veneta del Quattrocento e Cinquecento, 2nd ed. (Milan: Unicopli, 1993), 110–111.

Final Reflections

207

that moment on, the patriarch found himself in perpetual conflict with the Udinese and lost his early initiative. He thus abandoned the original conception of his rule and firmly associated himself with Cividale as his natural ally, residing there for most of the time in his patriarchal palace. Despite that, the patriarch did not intend to give up his ambitious plans and continued to make efforts to strengthen his authority and power. This is shown, for example, by his reluctance to submit to the Holy See. This was not only about the non-payment of papal servitia, but, above all, his decree forbidding appeals to the curia in legal disputes, or the presentation of any papal documents in the patriarchate without his consent. As an aside, it is worth mentioning that a similar decree was issued in 1404 by Sigismund of Luxembourg in the kingdom of Hungary.7 As far as his financial situation is concerned, it must be said that John was not particularly good at balancing the books. This is clear enough from the unpaid servitia for the provision to the see of Litomyšl, as well as the lamentations of Bishop Nicholas over the indebtedness of the estates of the Olomouc bishopric during their occupancy by John in the years 1387–1388. However, it is necessary to bear in mind that the revenues of the patriarchal mensa had been swallowed up by the preceding war, as is shown by the papal bull issued by Urban VI, which permitted John to collect a special tithe from his suffragans.8 However, even that was obviously not enough. Because of his financial difficulties, John was even forced to mortgage several castles in the patriarchate (Chiusa, Venzone, Gemona, Monfalcone etc.) to Conrad of Kraig, and in order to buy them back, he had to ask for loans from both his subjects and the Venetian Republic. The Venetians decided to contribute 196 pounds of grossi.9 On another occasion, he gave a house in Udine belonging to the patriarchal mensa to his vicar general as compensation when he was momentarily unable to pay him 150 florins that was owed to him in wages.10 7  See Imre Bard, “The Break of 1404 between the Hungarian Church and Rome,” Ungarn Jahrbuch 10 (1979), 59–69. 8  Paschini, “Giovanni di Moravia,” 105–106. 9  ASVen, Senato, Misti, reg. 42, fol. 111v: “… recuperare de manibus domini Conradi Crayer certa castra ecclesie, scilicet Clusam, Venzoni, castrum Glemone, Monfalconem et alia castra, que ipse dominus Conradus habet in pignore pro certa summa et quantitate pecunie ei prestita, quam nullo modo recuperare posset, nisi apud subventionem, quam sibi faciunt illi de Patria, ipse etiam subveniatur a nostro dominio …” (4th May 1393); fols. 111v–112r (6th May 1393). See Cessi, “Venezia neutrale,” 261 and note 3; also adopted by Paschini, Storia del Friuli, 660, note 109. 10  Brunettin, Archivio del Capitolo, 263–265, no. 60 (17th December 1393). In connection to this, it is also possible to point out an account containing sums owed for the making of some objects for Patriarch John, drawn up after his death. Nevertheless, it is more useful

208

Chapter 7

John’s relations with his neighbours cannot be fully reconstructed. The most important among them was the Republic of Venice, whose increasingly strong influence in Friuli was unquestionable; at the same time, it was “extremely cautious, careful not to damage the relationship” with John.11 The patriarch, trying to suppress this tendency, initially maintained a cool distance from the Serenissima, although after his sudden about-turn in November 1389 this transformed into a pragmatic “friendship,” leading gradually to his strong political dependence on the Republic.12 John’s relations with the Carrara dynasty are partly shrouded in the silence of the sources; yet from numerous hints we can conjecture that they were quite close (references in chronicles, the support John gave to Francesco Novello during the reconquest of Padua, personnel links between John’s and Carrara’s courts).13 The relationship with the Austrian Habsburgs was not entirely without its problems, but the patriarch always tried to resolve them. It is important to bear in mind that the dynasty held the city of Pordenone and exercised great influence among some of the old Friulian noble families.14 The counts of Gorizia, neighbours and traditional rivals of the patriarchs, were undergoing a serious dynastic crisis which led to a weakening of their power as well as to their dependence on the Habsburgs. In 1385, Count Meinhard VI died, leaving behind two sons who had not yet come of age under the guardianship of the bishop of Gurk who did not constitute any threat to John.15 If John’s policies towards his neighbours were characterized by an attempt to preserve peace and calm, it was quite different in the case of the most powerful ruler on the Apennine Peninsula: Giangaleazzo Visconti. Like many others, John joined the anti-Visconti league. It was perhaps at his instigation that Wenceslas IV and Jobst decided to intervene in Italy in favour of the allies. for a linguist than for a historian, as it is one of the oldest known texts in the medieval Friulian language. It contains only several items and names without context. For the edition, see “Testi inediti friulani dei secoli XIV al XIX,” ed. Vincenzo Joppi, Archivio glotto­ logico italiano 4 (1878), 196–197, no. 10; the text was newly reprinted and translated into Czech with a commentary by Cadorini, “Tři zmínky,” 26–28. 11  Varanini, “Venezia e l’entroterra,” 206–207. 12  In this connection, cf. the succinct conclusion by Cessi, “Venezia neutrale,” 263: “Sta il fatto che, pur essendo sostenitori del patriarca, pur difendendone l’autorità e l’indi­ pendenza, i Veneziani non mancarono di impedire ogni vitale consolidamento della sua potenza.” 13  One of the important contact persons, closely linked to both John and Carrara, was Corrado Boiani, but some of the comites de ultra Tulmentum played this role too. 14  Cf. Josef Riedmann, “La specificità pordenonese: i rapporti con gli Asburgo e l’Austria,” in Il Quattrocento nel Friuli occidentale, vol. 1, 69–79. 15  Cf. Štih, Studien zur Geschichte, 38.

Final Reflections

209

However, given that peace had been concluded in the meantime, in the end the planned intervention did not take place. Although John did not directly take part in military operations, the patriarchate had an important strategic function enabling the swift conquest of Padua and the unobstructed passage of Duke Stephen of Bavaria. An evaluation of John as metropolitan and bishop would be a task for further research. It seems that the patriarch traditionally left the routine administrative work to his vicars general in spiritualibus and auxiliary bishops.16 Although he never convened any provincial or diocesan synod,17 as metropolitan he made his presence felt at least twice: he promoted the election of his counsellor Augustine of Litomyšl to the see of Concordia (here, of course, the fact that the bishop of Concordia was the patriarch’s vassal also played an important role) and he collected a tithe from his suffragans. As far as his activities as a bishop are concerned, we have sporadic reports which illustrate that the patriarch was also engaged in the normal church administration of the diocese: he ratified the Vogtei of the monastery of Obernburg/Gornji Grad for the counts of Celje,18 he confirmed the abbess of the Benedictine nuns of Santa Maria in

16  According to the list compiled by Paschini, I vicari generali, 13, there were three of John’s vicars in spiritualibus: Marquard of Randeck, Corradino da Gallarate and Giovanni, dean of the Cividale chapter. To them, we can also add Abbot Bondi, who played an important role at the beginning of John’s rule. For Corradino, see Eugenio Marin, “Generaliter clerici nuncupantur omnes qui in ecclesia Christi deserviunt. Chierici ordinati a Portogruaro alla fine del Trecento,” Atti dell’Accademia “San Marco” di Pordenone 12 (2010), 89, note 5. As for John’s auxiliary bishops, i.e. vicars in pontificalibus, we know about Andrea Gradenigo, titular bishop of Skopje (ASU, NA, b. 5136, fasc. 1, fol. 55r; Otorepec, Gradivo za sloven­ sko zgodovino, 261, no. 1346; BCU, FJ, ms. 697/I, Autographa Vincentiana, vol. 4, sub dato 18th August 1389) and Henry of Wildenstein, bishop of Trieste (Paschini, Storia del Friuli, 660, note 110; Večeře, “Kazatel a biskup,” 28). Furthermore, Leonard of Villach, titular bishop of Tbilisi, is also referred to as John’s comissarius on 14th March 1394 (MAN, Famiglia Boiani, vol. 2, Pergamene, no. 126; cf. Eubel, Hierarchia catholica, vol. 1, 476). 17  Cf. Sacrorum conciliorum nova et amplissima collectio, vol. 26, ed. Giovanni Domenico Mansi (Venice: A. Zatta, 1784); Sinodi aquileiesi: ricerche e ricordi, ed. Giacomo Marcuzzi (Udine: Tipografia del Patronato, 1910). 18  Original in ARS, Zbirka listin, sign. SI AS 1063/4366; photocopy in HHStA, Allge­meine Urkundenreihe, sub dato; cf. Marija Wakounig, Dalmatien und Friaul. Die Auseinander­ setzungen zwischen Sigismund von Luxemburg und der Republik Venedig um die Vor­ herrschaft im adriatischen Raum, Dissertationen der Universität Wien 212 (Vienna: VWGÖ, 1990), 126, note 445 (19th February 1389). The Archive of Ljubljana also contains other charters of John’s for the counts of Celje. See ARS, Zbirka listin, sign. SI AS 1063/4367 (19th February 1389); sign. SI AS 1063/4382, or sign. SI AS 1063/4383 (28th December 1393).

210

Chapter 7

Valle in Cividale,19 he incorporated a parish into the m ­ onastery of Arnoldstein,20 he issued indulgences for a fraternitas calcificum in Villach21 and he ratified the possession of another parish by the monastery of Lavanttal.22 Furthermore, he also intervened in the fierce dispute over the parish church in Venzone, which was separated from the one in Gemona.23 Of course, these random pieces of evidence would need to be augmented through systematic research. Another issue which has remained almost untouched is that of John’s court and chancery, a knowledge of which could help to provide a better understanding of the dynamics of his rule. Within this context it is worth drawing attention to the significance of the Bohemian entourage which John brought with him to Italy: this included Augustine of Litomyšl, Marshal Nicholas of Bukůvka, Conrad of Kraig, Stephen of Doubravník and Hrdibor of Drahkov, who have already been discussed. However, we could also mention the knight Zdeněk and others responsible for the assassination of Federico di Savorgnano, as well as Nicholas de Crimulin, the captain of the castle of Buja,24 John’s retainer John de Lopucz/Aputio from Bohemia25 and Dietrich de Stibicz, provost of the chapter of San Pietro in Carnia.26 All of them were John’s courtiers, and together with the aristocratic elite of Cividale—represented especially by Corrado Boiani— formed the backbone of his government. The presence of both Bohemians and Friulians in the offices of the patriarchal court can be seen in the case of John’s direct deputies. At first, the title of vicar general in temporalibus was held by Abbot Bondi and a certain Bohemian knight called Chval, then, permanently, by Andrea Monticoli from Udine and Santo de’ Pellegrini da Capodistria. During the patriarch’s absence from the patriarchate in 1391, Bishop Augustine was appointed as his governor in the quality of a vicedominus generalis. Many of the nobles originating from the 19   M AN, Biblioteca Capitolare (= BC), Guerra, Otium forojuliensium, vol. 35, pags. 298–301 (9th February 1390). 20  Kärntner Landesarchiv Klagenfurt (= KLA), Allgemeine Urkundenreihe, sign. A 562 (19th November 1391); sign. A 560 (21st November 1391); sign. A 559 (23rd November 1391); sign. A 546 (25th May 1394). Some of these as well as other sources are edited in Monumenta historica Ducatus Carinthiae, vol. X, Die Kärntner Geschichtsquellen 1335–1414, ed. Hermann Wiessner (Klagenfurt: Kleinmayr, 1968), 304–306, nos. 978, 979, 981, 981a. 21   K LA, Allgemeine Urkundenreihe, sign. A 3791, no. 6 (10th September 1389). 22  HHStA, St. Paul, Benediktiner, sub dato; abstract in Urkundenbuch des Benedictiner-Stiftes St. Paul in Kärnten, ed. Beda Schroll, FRA DA 39 (Vienna: Gerold, 1876), 276–277, no. 310 (5th June 1392). 23  Paschini, Notizie storiche della Carnia, 89; Miniati, “Storia di Gemona,” 406–408. 24  Il castello di Buja, 12–13 (1389). 25  “Il libro degli anniversari del capitolo,” 375 and note 97. 26  As far as the clergymen are concerned, Albert, son of Nicholas de Etmicz, priest of the Olomouc diocese and chaplain of Patriarch John, can also be mentioned. See MVB V, 325–326, no. 573 (21st September 1391).

Final Reflections

211

area west of the Tagliamento River and linked both to Cividale and Carrara can also be regarded as supporters, or rather temporary allies, of the patriarch. The analysis of John’s relations with the Friulian nobility is certainly a subject worthy of further study (e.g. conferring of offices and fiefs, presence at the patriarch’s court etc.). As far as the chancery and its organization is concerned, it would be worth undertaking an analysis of protocols written by the notaries working for John. These were: Ambrogio di Alberto da Cucagna, Giacomo di Giovanni da Val di Carnia and Alessandro di Bartolomeo da Ceneda.27 There are further references to other patriarch’s chancellors, notaries and scribes, namely Giovanni di Odorico Susanna da Udine, Nicolussio di Domenico Cucculussio da Santa Maria la Longa, Nicolò di Antonio da Cividale, Henry Praytenrewt de Dyeberstrewt and Giovanni Fulcherio da Spilimbergo; however, their imbre­ viature from the period between 1388 and 1394 do not seem to have survived.28 The position of Stephen of Doubravník, at the beginning of John’s rule sometimes referred to as chancellor or protonotary, who died in January 1392 at the latest,29 within John’s chancery is not known. John’s lengthy conflict with Udine and the Savorgnano, in which the struggle for political power mingled with the mechanisms of the vendetta, proved fatal for many individuals on either side, and in October 1394 the patriarch himself finally fell victim to it. From the point of view of the history of the late medieval patriarchate, “this explosion of rebellion and violence” can truly be considered “a culminating phase of the inner conflict shaking Friuli.”30 Indeed, it must be admitted that John’s rule in the patriarchate was ultimately a ­failure.

27  Zenarola Pastore, Atti della cancelleria, 219–222, 235–239. 28  Except for the latter, they are all listed by Biasutti, Mille anni di cancellieri, 45–46. Furthermore, Joseph von Zahn, “Archivalische Untersuchungen in Friaul,” Beiträge zur Kunde steiermärkischer Geschichtsquellen 9 (1872), 114 also indicates Nicholas de Neczdicz as the patriarch’s chancellor. Nicholas probably came from Bohemia. In 1388 he was archdeacon of Carnia (Paschini, Notizie storiche della Carnia, 185), in an undated treaty from ca. 1389–1392 he is referred to as provost of Concordia and the patriarch’s chancellor (ACU, Fondo Bini, Varia patriarchalia Aquileiensia, vol. II [= LXVIII], fol. 48r–v) and on 16th October 1392, 23rd August 1393 and 30th March 1394 as the parish priest in San Daniele and chancellor or chaplain of the patriarch (BCU, FP, ms. 899, Raccolta Bianchi, vol. 56, no. 5656; MAN, AC, Fondo diplomatico, vol. 15, no. 87; Parlamento friulano, I/2, 370–371, no. 381). There is also other evidence of him, see ARS, Zbirka listin, sign. 1063/5342 (8th December 1388); Scalon, Produzione e fruizione, 231, no. 149; Cadorini, “Tři zmínky,” 25 (25th October 1395). In addition, a certain Filippo/Philip is mentioned as a notary of the patriarch’s in the chancery note on John’s charter from 30th October 1392: MAN, Famiglia Boiani, vol. 6, Codice diplomatico, no. 23/1. 29   M VB V, 344, no. 603. 30  Girgensohn, “La crisi del patriarcato,” 53.

212

Chapter 7

Nevertheless, not even his successors on the throne of St. Hermagoras ­managed to restore the sovereign authority, and in 1420 the patriarchate was eventually conquered by Venice. Needless to say, John of Moravia’s “political programme” did not meet with a favourable response in the contemporary sources (mostly linked with Udine and the Savorgnano), which unequivocally condemned his actions and characterized the man himself as a cruel tyrant who tried to subordinate the patriarchate to his power. Foremost among them are the Capitula contra patriarcham Johannem de Moravia, which paradoxically bequeathed to us the most complete (albeit most distorted) assessment of John’s rule. They depict him as a ruler who tried to usurp absolute power, persecuted the Savorgnano and their supporters, violated their privileges and prerogatives, rejected the authority of the pope, etc. However, if we look at this biased source, so to speak, from the other side and disregard the negative tone of the text, we are presented with an image of an intransigent prince-bishop who tried at all costs—sometimes by very unscrupulous means—to destroy the hegemony of the Savorgnano in Udine, restore the declining sovereign authority and turn the patriarchate into an independent ecclesiastical principality whose ruler, the patriarch, was to be supreme in both secular and spiritual matters.31 I believe that it is this image of Patriarch John which comes closest to reality. It is necessary to forget once and for all some of the unfounded myths which have accumulated around this controversial figure over the past six centuries and which belong more to the realm of fantasy than fact. John was certainly not the godless and perverse tyrant that he was described as by the (dominant) Udinese tradition. It is enough to note John’s donation to the Cividale chapter and the founding of an anniversary for the salvation of his soul. However, John was neither a humble and ascetic pastor nor a patriarch “of holy memory,” as he seems to have been remembered by some of the citizens of Cividale. Or perhaps he might have been all of that. As banal as it may sound, we must content ourselves with the conclusion that John of Moravia was simply an unscrupulous prince of his time, a bastard who was forced by circumstances into becoming a priest, and a figure full of contradictions, as were the majority of the members of the last generation of the house of Luxembourg …

31  It should be added, however, that this appraisal is not a particularly new one. Cf. e.g. the reflections by Marchesi, “Giovanni di Moravia,” 121, 146–148 and passim; Cusin, Il con­ fine orientale, vol. 1, 164–195; Brunettin, “L’evoluzione impossibile,” 209, 220; Schwedler, “Moravia (di) Giovanni,” 574–575.

Excursus 1

John of Moravia and John Sobieslaw This excursus will focus on the complicated issue of identifying Margrave John Henry’s two frequently confused sons: John of Moravia and John Sobieslaw.1 As mentioned in the overview of the literature presented in the opening chapter (“From John Sobieslaw to John of Moravia”), the research to date has concluded that John Sobieslaw became bishop of Litomyšl (1380–1387) and later patriarch of Aquileia (1387–1394). By contrast, I shall attempt to demonstrate that it was actually his illegitimate half-brother John who made a successful ecclesiastical career for himself. Naturally, we are left with no choice but to seek an answer directly in the sources. However, these generally do not provide us with an unambiguous answer. The situation is particularly complicated because of the identical names: whenever John is spoken of as bishop of Litomyšl, or as patriarch of Aquileia, the sources always describe him—if at all—only as Johannes, or as the son of John Henry, or as brother to Jobst and Prokop, but this can apply to both Johns. A large degree of circumspection is therefore required. First, let us briefly outline what we actually know about John Sobieslaw,2 focusing in detail only on the period which is important for us (the second half of the 1370s) and on sources which can potentially shed light on his conduct during this period. John Sobieslaw was born as the second son3 of Margrave John Henry, probably between 1355 and 1357,4 with 1357 appearing to be the most likely possibility.5 The second name “Sobieslaw,” which was quite unusual at the time, might have been a nickname designed to distinguish him from his older illegitimate half-brother John. He was the only one of the margrave’s sons to be brought up at the imperial court in Prague, because of his planned 1  This chapter is a revised and extended version of my article Schmidt, “Jan z Moravy.” 2  The following short account of John Sobieslaw as margrave of Moravia is based on Mezník, Lucemburská Morava; Štěpán, Moravský markrabě Jošt; Elbel, “Jan Soběslav.” 3  John Sobieslaw is often mentioned as the youngest son by the historical literature; however, the sources explicitly refer to him as the second-born. See CDM IX, 324, no. 420: “… Johanni, dicto Sobezlao, secundogenito nostro …” (24th March 1366). This is pointed out by Elbel, “Jan Soběslav,” 710. 4  The dating is based on records of gifts donated by the Brno city council to the Margravine Margaret of Opava for successful parturitions between 1353 and 1358. See Knihy počtů města Brna z let 1343–1365, ed. Bedřich Mendl, Knihy městských počtů z doby předhusitské 1 (Brno: Československý státní ústav historický, 1935), ad indicem. The individual records were analysed in detail by Mezník, Lucemburská Morava, 168. 5  See Štěpán, Moravský markrabě Jošt, 19, on the basis of Knihy počtů města Brna, 249.

© Ondřej Schmidt, 2019 | doi:10.1163/9789004407893_009

214

Excursus 1

­ arriage to the daughter of Charles IV, which was necessitated by the lack of m a proper heir to the throne. That changed with the birth of Wenceslas in 1361, which meant that the original plan lost its meaning. Despite that, however, John Sobieslaw remained at the Prague court, accompanied the emperor on his trips throughout the Empire and took part in Charles’s second Roman expedition in the years 1368–1369.6 Meanwhile, his older brother Jobst and younger brother Prokop grew up in Moravia. John Henry divided the government of Moravia between these three sons in three testaments, with the first-born Jobst becoming its ruler, while John Sobieslaw and Prokop had to content themselves with the title of margrave and a number of scattered towns, castles and villages. After the death of his father, John Henry († 1375), John Sobieslaw took possession of his inheritance in Moravia, where he immediately got into a dispute with his brother Jobst, which he settled by handing over part of his property to him in exchange for 2,000 shocks groschen and a weekly remuneration.7 This agreement was perhaps only intended to ensure him a much-needed regular income. Shortly after that, in February 1377, a new contract was concluded with Jobst, which evidently cancelled out the previous agreement from the year before and according to which John Sobieslaw received estates that John Henry had bequeathed to him in a testament.8 Financial motives might also explain John Sobieslaw’s attacks on the estates of the Olomouc bishopric, which Bishop John of Neumarkt complains about in his letters.9 Nevertheless, from what the sources tell us, it is clear that John Sobieslaw took up his duties as margrave and entered into public life: in 1376, he took part in a meeting of the provincial court in Brno,10 and a year later, like his brother Jobst, he confirmed an earlier

6  During Charles’s second descent into Italy, Margrave John Sobieslaw is often cited as a witness on the charters issued by the emperor. References in RI VIII, and Acta Karoli IV. Imperatoris were collected by Veldtrup, “Johann Propst von Vyšehrad,” 71, note 129; Obůrková, “Druhá římská jízda Karla IV.” 7  See the arbitration sentence in CDM XI, 17–18, no. 16 (12th January 1376); John Sobieslaw’s ratification ibid., 18–19, no. 17 (13th January 1376). 8  C DM XI, 60–61, no. 69 (17th February 1377); Wenceslas IV’s confirmation ibid., 62, no. 70 (22nd February 1377). For an interpretation of both agreements between Jobst and John Sobieslaw, see Mezník, Lucemburská Morava, 216–219. 9  Briefe Johanns von Neumarkt, 305–306, no. 222; 310–311, no. 226; 314, no. 230; 315, no. 231; “Cancellaria Johannis Noviforensis episcopi Olomucensis (1364–1380). Briefe und Urkunden des olmützer Bischoffs Johanns von Neumarkt,” ed. Ferdinand Tadra, AfÖG 68 (1886), 91–92, no. 104. 10  Die Landtafel des Markgrafthumes Mähren (1344–1466). Brünner Cuda, ed. Josef Chytil et al. (Brno: Nitsch & Grosse, 1856), lib. 6, 113, no. 223 (19th January 1376).

John of Moravia and John Sobieslaw

215

charter by King Wenceslas II for the Premonstratensians of Želiv,11 issued a privilege for the burghers of Olomouc12 and in 1378 donated some kind of courtyard in Ivančice.13 According to research to date, the last mention of John Sobieslaw as Moravian margrave is a charter for Olomouc from the summer of 1377.14 However, there is another charter, dated early May 1379—and unknown to historiography—in which there is a reference to “Zdeněk de Krzyzenicz, marshal of the Moravian margrave Sobieslaw.”15 Among other things, this charter convincingly demonstrates that in the spring of 1379 John Sobieslaw had still not embarked on a spiritual career. John Sobieslaw appears for the last time in a text concerning the settlement of a dispute between Jobst and John of Neumarkt, Bishop of Olomouc, probably from the summer of 1380, one article of which refers to Jobst’s “brothers Sobieslaw and Prokop and other inhabitants of Moravia” alongside one another.16 If there were to be any violation of the treaty on their part, John of Neumarkt was to complain to King Wenceslas. It is obvious that John Sobieslaw was still Moravian margrave at that time. Now let us move on to the illegitimate John, of whom we know for sure that he was the son of Margrave John Henry and later became provost of Vyšehrad.17 For the moment, we will focus only on his time in office as provost of Vyšehrad (1368/1369–1380)18 and, more specifically, on a dispute between the Vyšehrad chapter and the Cistercians of Zlatá Koruna in the years 1377–1396 over twenty-two villages in the district of Prachatice (in South Bohemia), in which 11   N A, Premonstráti Strahov, no. 60 (1st April 1377); no. 61 (21st September 1377). 12   C DM XI, 73–74, no. 84 (4th July 1377). 13  Jobst’s agreement with the transaction is preserved in NA, Archiv České koruny, no. 1215 (10th July 1378). 14   C DM XI, 73–74, no. 84 (4th July 1377). It was probably this document which led Štěpán, Moravský markrabě Jošt, 128 to the conclusion that John Sobieslaw entered upon an ecclesiastical career in the second half of 1377. 15   A PH, AMK, sign. 390-XII/31, XV/32: “… Sdenco miles de Krzyzenicz marssalcus illustris principis march[i]onis Morawie Sobesslai …” Cf. Archiv pražské metropolitní kapituly, vol. 1, 129–130, no. 460; RBMV I/1, ed. Věra Jenšovská (Prague: Academia, 1967), 46, no. 134 (1st [?] May 1379). I have not been able to find more information about this figure in the sources. 16   C DM XI, 169, no. 187: “… fratri sui Sobie.[slaus] et Procopius vel alii inhabitatores principatus Moravie …” The document is undated; terminus post quem is 10th May 1380. According to Mezník, Lucemburská Morava, 221–222, it is possible to date the charter to the summer of 1380. 17  Chronicon Benesii de Weitmil, FRB IV, 491: “Interim eciam [John Henry] ex quadam libera genuit filium, postea prepositum Wissegradensem factum, cui nomen Iohannes …” 18  The fact that John was provost of Vyšehrad between 1368 and 1380 has already been demonstrated convincingly by Veldtrup, “Johann Propst von Vyšehrad,” 71–73.

216

Excursus 1

John played a certain role.19 A fairly extensive collection of documents has been preserved in connection with the case, which was brought before the papal court, and by analysing them we are able to shed new light on the “relationship” between the two Johns.20 From the whole corpus of extant documents there is one in particular which is important for us at this point. This is the final verdict of the papal auditor Bertrando, Bishop of Gubbio, from 5th December 1393, which incorporates earlier documents relating to the dispute.21 The verdict has been preserved in a document which also contains a provision by the same auditor from 16th December 1394 concerning the amount of the costs that the provost of Vyšehrad was sentenced to pay, and it is certified by the mark and signature of the public notary and also by Bertrando’s seal. The older supplication from the period prior to 1380 inserted into the verdict recapitulates in detail the course of the initial phase of the trial and speaks of the then provost of Vyšehrad, John, who assumed his office in 1369.22 Another part of the verdict then mentions the same Provost John who later became bishop of Litomyšl and eventually (at the time the verdict was written, i.e. 1393) patriarch of Aquileia.23 Here it is perfectly clear that this is a reference to John “the Bastard”; after all, John Sobieslaw was still margrave of Moravia in 1380.24 The fact that John 19  For the dispute, see Braniš, Svatá koruna, 16–19; Kadlec, Dějiny kláštera, 29–32; Praxl, “Das Wyschehrader Landgut,” 228–229; Charvátová, Dějiny cisterckého řádu, vol. 2, 90–92; Štěpán, Moravský markrabě Jošt, 128. Historical research puts the beginning of the dispute in the year 1379/1380 and assumes that the Cistercians of Zlatá Koruna did not dare to speak up against the occupation by Dietrich of Kugelweit during the lifetime of Charles IV, who was supposed to have given his protection to these usurpations. Nevertheless, a charter from 1377, preserved in the papal registers, clearly demonstrates that the beginning of the dispute is to be put in the last years of the emperor’s life. See MVB IV, 667–668, no. 1172 (20th March 1377). This was already pointed out by Veldtrup, “Johann Propst von Vyšehrad,” 77. 20  Documents regarding the dispute are edited in UB Goldenkron, passim. The most detailed account of the process is that by Kadlec, Dějiny kláštera, 29–32. 21   N A, ŘC Zlatá Koruna, no. 1019, edited in UB Goldenkron, 221–242, no. 113. 22   U B Goldenkron, 226–227, no. 113: “… dominus Johannes nunc praepositus Wissegradensis in vitium praefatae spoliationis et occupationis scienter succederent ac vitium huius­ modi spoliationis continuantes et in eodem succedentes, et idem dominus Johannes sciens dictas villas […] ad dictos abbatem et conventum et eorum monasterium tempore suae assecutionis praepositurae praedicto videlicet ab anno domini millesimo trecentisimo LXIX. et citra …” 23   U B Goldenkron, 231, no. 113: “… dicto Johanni tunc praeposito postea vero episcopo Luthomislensi et successive patriarchae Aquilegiensi …” 24  The editor of UB Goldenkron, Mathias Pangerl, has already interpreted the wording of the charter in the same way; however, he considered this Provost John to be John Sobieslaw. See ibid., 160, no. 88, note 2. Paradoxically, it was with reference to this document—but

John of Moravia and John Sobieslaw

217

had ­become provost in the winter of 1368 is not an obstacle, because—as was shown above—he did not actually take up his office until the following year, after his return from Rome. The verdict from 1393 is not, however, the only source which explicitly states that Provost John became bishop of Litomyšl and subsequently patriarch of Aquileia; we can also cite other sources preserved in connection with this case. The former provost John is first mentioned in the Zlatá Koruna collection of documents in the autumn of 1380 as the new bishop of Litomyšl,25 in an undated supplication addressed to the pope which was incorporated into a charter by the papal auditor Peter Gasconis from 16th November 1380. We can find other references in a citation charter by the same papal auditor drawn up on 31st January 1390.26 Here too several earlier documents are inserted: first, an earlier supplication from the procurator of the monastery of Zlatá Koruna, in which John is still called provost of Vyšehrad27 and which thus probably originates from the period prior to 1380, and also a later supplication to the new pope Boniface IX in which John is referred to as the former provost, who had been promoted to the bishopric of Litomyšl by the previous pope.28 This supplication is also incorporated into a later citation charter by the next papal auditor, Bishop Bertrando, from 5th March 1393.29 John finally appears as patriarch of Aquileia in a charter by the same auditor, Bertrando, from 11th July 1393 for “John, patriarch of Aquileia, former provost of Vyšehrad.”30 Among other things, the letter contains another older inserted supplication to Urban VI, which also speaks of a John who was promoted to the see of Litomyšl.31 John is once again described as patriarch and in contradiction with its text—that Štěpán, Moravský markrabě Jošt, 128 and 148, note 48, stated that John Sobieslaw replaced the bastard John in the office of provost of Vyšehrad in 1377. 25   U B Goldenkron, 160, no. 88: “… idem dominus Johannes praepositus per eiusdem [i.e. Urban VI] sanctam beatitudinem ad ecclesiam Luthomuslensem est promotus et cuidam Wilhelmo [i.e. William of Landštejn] de dicta praepositura est provisum …” 26   U B Goldenkron, 190–195, no. 102. 27   U B Goldenkron, 191, no. 102: “… venerabilem virum dominum Johannem praepositum ecclesiae sancti Petri Wissegradensis prope Pragam …” 28   U B Goldenkron, 191, no. 102: “… idem dominus Johannes tunc praepositus per felicis recordationis dominum Urbanum papam sextum […] ad ecclesiam Luthomislensem fuerit promotus et cuidam Wilhelmo de dicta praepositura extitit provisum …” 29   U B Goldenkron, 208, no. 110. 30   U B Goldenkron, 215, no. 112: “… domino domino Johanni miseratione divina patriarchae Aquilegensi olim praeposito ecclesiae Wissegradensis prope Pragam …” 31   U B Goldenkron, 216, no. 112: “… praefatus dominus Johannes per sanctitatem vestram ad ecclesiam Luthomislensem extitit promotus …”

218

Excursus 1

former p ­ rovost of Vyšehrad in a papal bull from 15th May 1394.32 The document also contains a brief summary of the foregoing dispute, and even that speaks of a John who was elevated from the provostry to become bishop of Litomyšl.33 Another papal bull, issued after John’s death on 17th December 1394, again informs us of the stages in John’s ecclesiastical career: once again, it refers to Patriarch John (already “of good memory”), formerly provost of Vyšehrad, who was later promoted to the see of Litomyšl in the course of the dispute.34 John appears for the last time in connection with the dispute in a papal bull from Boniface IX from 10 January 1395, which repeats the above information in different words.35 On the basis of this analysis, we can thus formulate the following thesis with very little hesitation: John “the Bastard,” as an illegitimate son destined for a career in the church, became provost of Vyšehrad in 1368/1369, bishop of Litomyšl in 1380 and eventually patriarch of Aquileia. In contrast to that, we do not have any direct or indirect evidence that John Sobieslaw embarked upon an ecclesiastical career. The sources always speak only of Bishop or Patriarch John, of the son of John Henry, or of the brother of Jobst and Prokop, which can apply to both Johns.36 In addition, as Dieter Veldtrup has already 32   U B Goldenkron, 250, no. 115: “… venerabilem fratrem nostrum Johannem patriarcham Aquilegiensem tunc clericum secularem et praepositum ecclesiae sancti Petri Wissegradensis prope Pragam …” 33   U B Goldenkron, 251, no. 115: “… et deinde dictus praedecessor [i.e. Urban VI] de persona dicti patriarchae tunc praepositi ecclesiae Luthomislensi tunc vacanti providit, praeficiendo eum praedictae ecclesiae Luthomyslensi in episcopum et pastorem …” 34   U B Goldenkron, 266, no. 118: “… bonae memoriae Johannes patriarcha Aquilegensis tunc etiam clericus secularis existens et se praepositum dictae ecclesiae praetendens eidem Theoderico [i.e. Dietrich of Kugelweit] in vitium successisset […] per praedictum praedecessorem [i.e. Urban VI] ecclesiae Aquilegensis tunc pastore carenti de persona dicti Johannis patriarchae tunc Luthomislensis episcopi auctoritate apostolica proviso, et per dictum Johannem patriarcham eadem praepositura dimissa …” 35   U B Goldenkron, 279, no. 120: “… bonae memoriae Johannes patriarcha Aquilegensis tunc praepositus dictae ecclesiae primo …” 36  Here, a comparison with the royal bastards John Volek and Nicholas of Luxembourg suggests itself. In fact, in relation to their half-siblings—in the first case to Queen Elisabeth and in the second to Charles IV—they were both referred to as frater or germanus. See e.g. Chronicon Aulae Regiae, FRB IV, 261: “… Johannes, Wencezlai regis sexti filius licet illegittimus, regine ex patre germanus …” Chronicon Benesii de Weitmil, FRB IV, 523: “… Nicolaus, patriarcha Aquilegensis, filius quondam Iohannis regis Boemie a latere, fraterque domini imperatoris …” Dokumente zur Geschichte des Deutschen Reiches und seiner Verfassung 1350–1353, ed. Margarete Kühn, MGH Const 10 (Weimar: Harrassowitz, 1979–1991), 420–421, no. 566: “… Nicolaus patriarcha Aquilegen[sis], princeps et frater noster carissimus …” (1st August 1353). Therefore, it is not an obstacle if John “the Bastard” is referred to as Jobst’s and Prokop’s brother.

John of Moravia and John Sobieslaw

219

d­ emonstrated, in the vast majority of cases, John Sobieslaw was consistently referred to in the sources as “Margrave John, called Sobieslaw,” or else only as “Margrave Sobieslaw.” From the whole collection of ca. 50 references to John Sobieslaw up to 1380, only six or, more precisely, seven of them refer to him only as “John.”37 Furthermore, we even have a record of him from as late as 1377 which clearly demonstrates that he never considered entering the priesthood, since he was counting on having heirs in the future.38 At the end of the same year, he was also included in the last testament of his uncle Charles IV as a potential heir to the throne of Bohemia in the event of the death of his cousins— Wenceslas IV, Sigismund and John of Görlitz—and older brother Jobst with their legitimate sons.39 Another piece of evidence is an entry in one of the Aquileian chronicles, which goes up to the early fifteenth century, describing in detail the circumstances of John’s election as patriarch. Whereas other chronicles from the Italian setting either devote very little attention to John’s family background, making do with the epithet “of Moravia,”40 or describe him erroneously as “margrave of Moravia,”41 here we can explicitly read that Patriarch John was born out of wedlock.42 This reference was later picked up on by some of the 37   R BM VII/5, ed. Milena Linhartová and Bedřich Mendl (Prague: ČSAV, 1963), 870, no. 1437 (20th June 1363); CDM X, 137–142, no. 118 (26th March 1371); 146–147 and 148–155, nos. 121 and 123 (12th May 1371; Latin and German confirmation of the previous charter); 143–145, no. 119 (18th April 1371); 235–236, no. 219 (19th March 1374); L[udwig] Schlesinger, “Eine Erbtheilungs- und Erbfolgeordnungsurkunde Kaiser Karls IV.,” Mittheilungen des Vereines für Geschichte der Deutschen in Böhmen 31 (1892/1893), 9 (21st December 1376); Fritz Quicke, “Un testament inédit de l’Empereur Charles IV (18 Octobre 1377),” Revue belge de philologie et d’historie 6 (1927), 274 (18th October 1377). See Veldtrup, “Johann Propst von Vyšehrad,” 72–73 and notes 134–137. 38   C DM XI, 60–61, no. 69: “… wir und unsre erben, die wir gewynnen werden […] fur uns und unsere erben …” (17th February 1377). This passage was—with a different intention— pointed out by Mezník, Lucemburská Morava, 216–217. 39  Quicke, “Un testament inédit,” 274 (18th October 1377). For Charles IV’s testaments, see Kavka, Vláda Karla IV., vol. 2, 201–203, 210; Bobková, Velké dějiny, vol. 4/a, 432–435. 40  Additamenta nunc primum edita, RIS XVI, col. 84: “Joannes de Moravia patriarcha electus …” 41  Historia Belli Forojuliensis, AIM III, col. 1215: “… reverendissimus in Christo pater et dominus dominus Joannes marchio Moraviae electus fuit et provocatus in patriarcam sanctae Aquilejensis ecclesiae.” The most probable explanation is that the chronicler automatically connected the margravial title of John’s father, John Henry, with the son. This would also correspond to the better position of bastard children in Italy. Furthermore, he might have been influenced by John of Moravia referring to himself on several occasions as Moravian margrave. 42  Nonnullorum Patriarcharum Vitae, MEA, appendix, no. V, 16: “… elegit eis unum, Johannem de Moravia, fratrem marchionis, et fratrem regis Bohemiae; non tamen legitimum, sed

220

Excursus 1

Italian Baroque historiography which considered John to be a bastard.43 It is true that John had a very negative reputation in the patriarchate, so within this context we have to concede the possibility that the chronicler mentioned John’s illegitimate origin simply because he felt an aversion towards the foreign “German prelate”; even so, this remark cannot be ignored. Moreover, in this particular chronicle, Patriarch John appears in a somewhat more favourable light than in other Friulian narrative sources.44 The proposed identification of the illegitimate John with the patriarch of the same name is also supported by the very epithet “of Moravia.” In the notarial instrument and then the papal confirmation from 1368, the bastard John as the new provost of Vyšehrad is described as “Johannes de Moravia,”45 which, according to Dieter Veldtrup, “is a direct reference to his illegitimate origin.”46 Although as Aquileian patriarch John used only the name “John” in the intitulationes of his charters, he was publicly known by the designation “John of Moravia,” as is confirmed by many contemporary and later sources.47 Once again, the identification of the Vyšehrad provost John of Moravia with the Aquileian patriarch John of Moravia is quite clear.

spurium.” Cf. UPenn, ms. 934, Vitae episcoporum et patriarcharum, fol. 36v. Nevertheless, the chronicle incorrectly stated that the patriarch was the brother of the Bohemian king when he was only his cousin. 43   Valvasone di Maniago, Successi della Patria, 40; De Rubeis, Monumenta Ecclesiae Aquilejensis, col. 978. 44  See the chapter “John of Moravia in the Written Tradition” in this book. 45   M VB III, 687–689, no. 1073. For the charter, see above on p. 44. 46  Veldtrup, “Johann Propst von Vyšehrad,” 73: “Daβ in ihr [i.e. in the cited charter] der Propst Johannes de Moravia genannt wird, ist zudem geradezu ein Hinweis auf dessen uneheliche Abkunft; auch sein illegitimer Onkel Nikolaus, später Patriarch von Aquileja, wurde in den offiziellen Verlautbarungen seiner Zeit immer als Nikolaus de Luxemburg angesprochen.” An early modern parallel to this phenomenon was the practice of conferring the title de Austria on illegitimate sons within the Habsburg dynasty. See Sterneck, “K postavení levobočků,” 699. 47  See Capitula contra patriarcham Johannem; BCG, ACG, Quaderni delle Deliberazioni, reg. 20, fol. 29r: “… patriarcha Johannes de Moravia …” MAN, AC, Fondo diplomatico, vol. 15, no. 91: “… Johannem de Moravia …” BCC, ACC, Archivio storico del Comune di Cividale del Friuli, Sezione antica, Camerari, b. 1139, fol. 22r: “… Johannis de Moravia …” “Il libro degli anniversari del capitolo,” 458–459: “… Iohannes de Moravia patriarcha Aquilegensis …” “Il libro degli anniversari di San Domenico,” 704: “… Iohannes de Morawya magnificus ecclesie Aquilegiensis …” (similarly also the second redaction of the necrology); Cronaca Carrarese di Galeazzo e Bartolomeo Gatari, RIS n.s. XVII/1a, 398: “… misser Zuane de Moravia, patriarcha d’Aquilea …” Nonnullorum Patriarcharum Vitae, MEA, appendix, no. V, 16: “… Johannes de Moravia, patriarcha Aquilegensis …” Additamenta nunc primum edita, RIS XVI, col. 84: “… Joannes de Moravia, patriarcha …”

John of Moravia and John Sobieslaw

221

Furthermore, it is worth mentioning one other type of source which may help to identify the two Johns: necrologies. Margrave John Sobieslaw appears in two Olomouc necrologies in a manuscript from 1522, which drew upon an older template from the years 1380–1411. Unfortunately, these necrologies do not give the date of death, only the day on which requiem masses were celebrated for the soul of the deceased. It is also quite surprising that although the necrologies are contained within the same manuscript, each of them gives a different date (23rd and 24th September).48 On the basis of this, we can perhaps assume that John Sobieslaw died sometime in the autumn. More important, however, is the fact that the necrology only gives the description “Moravian margrave,” without any kind of spiritual title. This once again confirms that John Sobieslaw never embarked upon an ecclesiastical career. Rather more problematic information is given by Thomas Pešina of Čecho­ rod († 1680). In his work Phosphorus Septicornis he compiled a digest of a now lost necrology created in the first quarter of the fifteenth century within the Prague chapter. For 30th October he then gives the anniversary of “Joan. Sobieslavvek Patriarchae Aquil. fratris Jodoci March. Morav.”49 This piece of information appears problematic for a number of reasons. For one thing, he gives the wrong date for Patriarch John’s death (actually 13th October), but more importantly he describes him using the nickname “Sobieslawek,” although in the medieval sources the margrave was always written as “Sobieslaw.” It is therefore quite possible that the Prague canons in the fifteenth century were praying for the soul of Patriarch John, but this nickname “Sobieslawek” seems 48  Zemský archiv Opava—pobočka Olomouc, Metropolitní kapitula Olomouc, sign. E II 12, fol. 29r: “Eodem die [i.e. 24th September] habetur memoria Sobeslai marchionis Moravie …” Ibid., fol. 110r: “Eodem die [i.e. 23rd September] agitur memoria pro domino Sobieslao marchione …” For this so-called third Olomouc necrology, see the preface by Beda Dudík in “Über Nekrologe der Olmützer Domkirche,” ed. Beda Dudík, AfÖG 65 (1884), 511–513. I am grateful to Dr. Petr Elbel for pointing this source out to me. 49  Pešina z Čechorodu, Phosphorus Septicornis, 702. For the lost Prague necrology, see Dieter Veldtrup, “Ein ‘luxemburgisches’ Anniversarbuch? Auszüge aus einer vergessenen Memorialüberlieferung des Prager Veits-Domes,” in Manipulus Florum. Aus Mittelalter, Landesgeschichte, Literatur und Historiographie. Festschrift für Peter Johanek zum 60. Geburtstag, ed. Maria-Theresia Leuker, Mark Mersiowsky and Ellen Widder (Münster et al.: Waxmann, 2000), 99–150; the entry was reprinted and commented on ibid., 132–133, no. 155. Cf. also Martina Maříková, “Aniversária jako součást liturgického provozu pražské metropolitní kapituly a hmotného zajištění jejích členů v době předhusitské,” in Trzecie polsko-czeskie forum młodych mediewistów. Commemoratio praeteritorum—społeczności średniowieczne wobec przeszłości, ed. Hanna Krzyżostaniak, Jakub Kujawiński and Marzena Matla (Poznań: Instytut Historii UAM, 2012), 151–163; Maříková, Finance, 74–83. There are no further references to John of Moravia in other necrological sources from the Prague chapter. See ibid., appendix, table no. 24, 712.

222

Excursus 1

to have been added by Pešina himself, who was behind the confusion of these two Johns, as will become clear. In fact, as demonstrated by Dieter Veldtrup, Pešina also added a similar “explanatory” comments of his own to the original text at other points in his digest.50 Of course, we might equally consider the opposite case: that it was indeed John Sobieslaw who was mentioned in the original necrology, which Pešina corrupted into “Sobieslawek,” adding only the putative patriarchal title. This possibility appears more likely for two reasons. First and foremost, this fact would fit in with the structure of the Prague necrology, where the whole Moravian Luxembourg secundogeniture was essentially recorded in its entirety.51 As the legitimate son of John Henry, it would thus have been perfectly logical for John Sobieslaw—unlike his illegitimate brother—to have a place there. The second indirect piece of evidence might be an unidentified record from the Carthusian monastery in Královo Pole (now part of Brno), where, according to an independent Baroque tradition, the commemoration “Sobicolai Secundogeniti” was preserved on 30th October, i.e. the same as in the Prague chapter.52 The importance of this tradition should not be underrated, since John Sobieslaw was regarded as the co-founder of this spiritual institution, who also affixed his seal to its foundation charter in 1375.53 Equally, it is also necessary to concede the possibility that Pešina took the necrological or other records of the Královo Pole charterhouse as his starting point and added the relevant date of 30th October to his digest from the Prague necrology.54 However, this would appear to be less likely. So if we were to attempt to clarify the life of John Sobieslaw within the framework of the probable, for the reasons outlined above we might regard the date of his death as 30th October 1380. The following year, the first war between 50  See Veldtrup, “Ein ‘luxemburgisches’ Anniversarbuch?,” 105–106. 51  See Veldtrup, “Ein ‘luxemburgisches’ Anniversarbuch?,” 104; Maříková, Finance, 78. 52  Carlo Giuseppe Morozzo, Theatrum chronologicum sacri Cartusiensis Ordinis lectori exhibens. Ordinis eiusdem primordia, et consuetudines, priores magnae Cartusiae, Ord. Gen. cardinalium purpuras, episcoporum infulas, scriptorum athenaeum, piorum fastos, singularum denique per orbem Cartusiarum erectiones, Ordinis antiquitate digestas (Turin: Io. Sinibaldus, 1681), 270: “… vt adnotantur in monumentis eiusdem Cartusiae.” This source was also brought to attention by Veldtrup, “Ein ‘luxemburgisches’ Anniversarbuch?,” 133, no. 155. 53  The foundation charter with the well-preserved seals of John Henry, Jobst, John Sobieslaw and Prokop is kept in MZA, E 6—Benediktini Rajhrad, sign. D g 1, no. 408, edited in CDM X, 268–271, no. 258 (13th August 1375). See further Jan, “Rodové fundace,” 132–133. 54  As pointed out by Mezník, Lucemburská Morava, 285, the fact that Pešina did indeed make use of some manuscript from the Královo Pole charterhouse is evident from his work Mars Moravicus, 447.

John of Moravia and John Sobieslaw

223

Jobst and Prokop broke out, very likely caused by a dispute over acquiring the property of John Sobieslaw. For that matter, there is agreement on that point in research to date, which assumes that John Sobieslaw gave up his estates in connection with his accession to the episcopal see of Litomyšl.55 In view of the poor condition of the source base for this period, we know very little of the first margravial war, which might also explain the lack of any contemporary reports of the death of John Sobieslaw: no Moravian chronicle from this period is available to us; the later catalogue of the Olomouc bishops56 and second Olomouc necrology57 only take note of events linked with the Olomouc bishopric; and charters from the years 1380–1381 are also in short supply. Indeed, there are also many ambiguities surrounding the death of Margrave Prokop, who left a much greater mark on the historical memory of Moravia than John Sobieslaw. The date of his death (24th September 1405) is first given by Pešina’s work Mars Moravicus58 and contemporary sources make no mention of where he was laid to rest. His tomb in the church of the Holy Trinity at the Carthusian monastery in Královo Pole was only discovered by chance in 1975, and its attribution to Prokop is only hypothetical. According to much later reports, which are riddled with contradictions, Prokop was interred either with the Brno Augustinians (i.e. as John Henry and later Jobst were), or in the church of the Královo Pole charterhouse.59 We could go even further: what if it was not actually the tomb of Prokop which was uncovered, but that of John Sobieslaw? The only thing that might contradict this possibility would be an anthropological analysis of the skeletal remains, which showed that they belonged to the body of a man aged roughly fifty years old,60 which would rule out John Sobieslaw. Given that our knowledge of the death and burial of 55  See Nejedlý, Dějiny města Litomyšle, vol. 1, 175; Dvořák, Dějiny Markrabství moravského, 129; Mezník, Lucemburská Morava, 223–224; Elbel, “Jan Soběslav,” 711, 713. It is also implied by Štěpán, Moravský markrabě Jošt, 156, 170. 56  “Granum catalogi praesulum Moraviae,” AfÖG 78 (1892), 41–97. 57  “Über Nekrologe der Olmützer Domkirche,” AfÖG 65 (1884), 487–589. 58  Mezník, Lucemburská Morava, 284 and 474, note 315; cf. Pešina z Čechorodu, Mars Moravicus, 447. 59  Dana Cejnková, Karel Maráz and Irena Loskotová, “Výzkum hrobek moravských Lucem­ burků Jošta a Prokopa v Brně,” in Pocta Janu Janákovi. Předsedovi Matice moravské, profesoru Masarykovy univerzity věnují k sedmdesátinám jeho přátelé a žáci, ed. Bronislav Chocholáč and Jiří Malíř (Brno: Matice moravská, 2002), 565–581; cf. also Dana Cejnková, “Die Erforschung der Grüfte der mährischen Luxemburger Jost und Prokop in Brünn,” in La Maison de Luxembourg en Moravie / Die Luxemburger in Mähren (1350–1411) (Luxembourg: Ministère de la culture, de l’enseignement supérieur et de la recherche, 2001), 65–66. 60  See Cejnková, Maráz and Loskotová, “Výzkum hrobek,” 578; Cejnková, “Die Erforschung der Grüfte,” 70.

224

Excursus 1

Margrave Prokop rests on such fragile foundations, the lack of reports of the death of John Sobieslaw is not particularly surprising. Jaroslav Mezník explains the first war between the Moravian Luxembourgs from the early 1380s with reference to the fact that, according to the last testament of John Henry from 1371, in the event of John Sobieslaw’s death his estates were to go to the younger Prokop,61 but since John Sobieslaw (according to Mezník) had not died but had only given up his inheritance in connection with his accession to the Litomyšl bishopric, it was Jobst who laid claim to his property.62 If, however, we accept the thesis of the death of John Sobieslaw, this puts the facts in an entirely different light. Above all, it is clear that Prokop had an unambiguous legal right to the estates of John Sobieslaw; however, Jobst— with his rapacious and ambitious nature—had no intention of putting up with this. The outcome of the war also corresponds to this hypothesis, because in the end it was Prokop who acquired most of the estates of John Sobieslaw.63 Finally, it is also necessary to draw attention to one recent “archaeological” discovery which seems to refute the whole of our previous construction. In 2009, a reliquary case with two seals was found in the altar of the church of St. Martin in Žirovnica, Slovenia. Matjaž Ambrožič concluded that the first of them belonged to Gotepold, bishop of Pedena in the 1130s, while the owner of the second was supposedly the patriarch of Aquileia John “Sobieslav.” The author reads—or rather interprets—the legend of the seal as follows: “Aq[vi] lie[n]se + [e]piscop[vs] Ioann[es] [S]obie[s]l[av].”64 Right at the outset it should be said that there is significant damage to the legend, making an unequivocal reading of it difficult.65 In my opinion, the interpretation proposed by the author is impossible for a number of reasons. For one thing, it is unimaginable that the patriarch of Aquileia would have described himself as episcopus in the fourteenth century. Since the sixth century, all of the prelates who occupied the see of St. Hermagoras called themselves by the Latin term patriarcha. The text of the legend arouses further doubts from the grammatical and graphical point of view: the adjective “Aqviliense” is neuter in gender, which does not correspond with the word “episcopvs”; 61   C DM X, 141, no. 118. For John Henry’s testaments, see Mezník, Lucemburská Morava, 199– 201; Štěpán, Moravský markrabě Jošt, 30. 62  Mezník, Lucemburská Morava, 223–224. 63  Margrave Prokop was seen as the clear winner of the first margravial war by both Mezník, Lucemburská Morava, 224, and Štěpán, Moravský markrabě Jošt, 178. 64  Matjaž Ambrožič, “O cerkvenih pečatih z ozirom na relikvijska pečata v p. c. sv. Martina v Žirovnici,” Arhivi. Glasilo Arhivskega društva in arhivov Slovenije 34, no. 2 (2011), esp. 239– 240; a German summary ibid., 241–242. 65  See the reproduction of the seal in Ambrožič, “O cerkvenih pečatih,” 240.

John of Moravia and John Sobieslaw

225

similarly, the form of the word “Sobieslav” appears extremely unlikely. Finally, there is one more argument which contradicts Ambrožič’s interpretation: as the author correctly states, the seals which were found were undoubtedly intended to certify the authenticity of the relics. This would imply that the owner of the seal must have been present during the closing of the reliquary case and subsequent consecration of the altar. However, Žirovnica is situated in north-western Slovenia, quite far from Friuli, and, according to John’s itinerary, there is no record of any stay by him in that region. On the contrary, it clearly shows that between 1388 and 1394 the patriarch resided exclusively in the territory of Friuli, with the only exception being his journey to Bohemia in 1391.66 In addition—and this is worth emphasizing—there is no other record of this seal having been used by Patriarch John. John of Moravia seems to have made use of two seals in the office of patriarch, both of which had a depiction of the eagle of Aquileia.67 On the basis of all this, I would argue that the seal did not belong to Patriarch John of Moravia at all, and that, if it did, then its legend could certainly not have read as Matjaž Ambrožič suggests.68 Thus, in view of the counterarguments put forward, not even the seal discovered in Žirovnica can serve as proof for identifying Margrave John Sobieslaw with the Aquileian patriarch John. 66  See Excursus 3 in this book. 67  John’s Aquileian seals are preserved e.g. in MNL, OL DL 42398 (10th August 1388); KLA, Allgemeine Urkundenreihe, sign. A 560 (21st November 1391); HHStA, St. Paul, Benediktiner, sub dato (5th June 1392); ARS, Zbirka listin, sign. 1063/5342 (8th December 1388); sign. SI AS 1063/285 (29th January 1392); sign. SI AS 1063/4382 (28th December 1393); sign. SI AS 1063/4383 (28th December 1393). There is a number of John’s letters containing an impression of his seal in BCG, ACG, Lettere autografe, vol. 347. A letter from John, dated 24th July 1388, with his secret seal on the dorsum can also be found ibid., no. 122; however, it is under a paper cover, so it is not possible to distinguish the seal clearly. The same goes for the (probably identical) secret seal owned by John and attached to his letter in BCC, ACC, Antica cancelleria del comune—fondo Lorenzo D’Orlandi, b. 24, no. 34 (4th February [1388]). Since both documents were issued in Moravia, one can assume that in both cases the secret seal from the period of John’s Litomyšl episcopate was used; such a seal was described and documented between 1380 and 1388 by Pakosta, Typologie pečetí, 36–37 (description), 39 (reproduction). Nevertheless, this secret seal can by no means be identified with the one found in Žirovnica, as their proportions differ significantly: according to Pakosta, John’s secret seal has a diameter of 25 mm while the “Žirovnica seal” measures 43 mm. See Ambrožič, “O cerkvenih pečatih,” 239. 68  It cannot be identified with any of the seals of the Aquileian patriarchs collected by Costanza Pecoraro, “Appunti di sfragistica medievale. I sigilli dei patriarchi d’Aquileia conservati nel Museo archeologico cividalese,” Forum Iulii 23 (1999), 97–112. Moreover, they are all (including the secret seals) considerably larger in size than the Žirovnica one. It is more likely that the seal belonged to some auxiliary bishop of the Aquileian patriarch, whose participation in the ordination of the altar could quite logically be assumed.

226

Excursus 1

With regard to John’s seals, there is seemingly one more “difficulty.” In this connection, Oldřich Pakosta rightly pointed out that “it is necessary to reconsider” whether a bastard of the margrave of Moravia really could inherit the coat of arms of his father.69 In fact, we know that the Moravian chequered eagle was present both on John’s Litomyšl seals and on his Aquileian deniers. The symbol of the Luxembourg secundogeniture thus undoubtedly constituted an important means of representation and identification for John of Moravia. For a comparison, we might look to another prominent Luxembourg bastard who was John’s predecessor on the throne of Aquileia, Nicholas of Luxembourg, son of King John of Bohemia. On all the types of deniers he coined as patriarch, there appears a crowned lion, the symbol of the kingdom of Bohemia.70 The coat of arms with the Bohemian lion is also to be found on a palace in Udine (nowadays Via Savorgnana 12), believed to have been painted during the reign of Patriarch Nicholas.71 Therefore, as Nicholas of Luxembourg used the coat of arms of his father regularly, we should probably not be surprised that John of Moravia as the illegitimate son of the margrave of Moravia did likewise. We must therefore conclude, in accordance with previous findings, that there is no source which supports the assertion of the historiography that John Sobieslaw gave up the rank of margrave in 1380 and subsequently embarked upon a religious career, becoming bishop of Litomyšl and later patriarch of Aquileia. Instead, he seems to have died on 30th October 1380 as margrave of Moravia. In contrast, it is evident from the previous argumentation that, when it comes to the promotion of the provost of Vyšehrad, John “the Bastard” (John of Moravia), to the see of Litomyšl and then of Aquileia, the sources scarcely permit any other solution. Explained in this new way, the lives of the two Johns not only cease to be inconsistent with the sources, but also make much more sense.

69  Pakosta, Typologie pečetí, 35, note 42. 70  See Italian Coins, vol. 1/1, 97, nos. 250–252; Gambacorta and Zaoral, “Akvilejské mince,” 109–110. For that matter, the coat of arms of the kingdom of Bohemia also appears on the seal of John Volek, illegitimate son of King Wenceslas II and bishop of Olomouc. However, in this case it was clearly not intended as his personal symbol, having a rather different function. See Hlobil, “Přemyslovec Jan Volek,” 480–481. For comparison, Hurwich, “Bastards in the German Nobility,” 709, 710, 712 and 724, note 106 also records several bastards of the Swabian counts of Zimmern and Montfort who were allowed or granted the right to bear the coat of arms of their fathers. However, this was by no means the case with all bastards. Apparently, there was no strict regulation in this regard; by custom, all that seems to have been required was permission from the bastard’s father/family. 71  See Tomáš Krejčík, “Český lev v Udine,” Genealogické a heraldické informace 17 (2012), 135–137.

John of Moravia and John Sobieslaw

227

There is one last question which remains to be answered: how did the mistake of confusing these two brothers with the same name find its way onto the pages of modern historiography? The only contemporary author from the Bohemian milieu to refer to John of Moravia in his chronicle was Beneš Krabice of Weitmile, who merely stated briefly that he became provost of Vyšehrad.72 However, Beneš Krabice’s work only went up to 1374 and he died the following year,73 which means that logically he could not have known the next stages of John’s ecclesiastical career. Nevertheless, his chronicle was to take on considerable importance for the later historiographical tradition. In his Chronicle of Bohemia, the renowned fabricator Wenceslas Hájek of Libočany († 1553) only copied the information from Beneš’s chronicle about the birth of the illegitimate son John in 1341. In another part of his work, he then briefly stated for the year 1375 that after the death of John Henry, Moravia was divided up between Jobst and Prokop.74 Surprisingly, there is no mention of John Sobieslaw here. These details were eventually copied from Hájek by the Olomouc bishop John Dubravius († 1553), who incorporated them into his own work.75 The scholarly Jesuit historian Bohuslav Balbín († 1688) likewise founded his own interpretation, or rather the few notes he made about the Moravian Luxembourgs, on the account by Beneš Krabice of Weitmile. He too states that John Henry fathered an illegitimate son called John, later provost of Vyšehrad, but, unlike Hájek, he also knows of all three other sons including John Sobieslaw. However, he does not expand upon this information in any way.76 In addition, there was also a parallel Olomouc tradition, based on the catalogue of the Olomouc bishops, which features John as the brother of Jobst 72  C  hronicon Benesii de Weitmil, FRB IV, 491: “Interim eciam [John Henry] ex quadam libera genuit filium, postea prepositum Wissegradensem factum, cui nomen Iohannes …” 73  See Nechutová, Die lateinische Literatur, 163–164. 74  Václav Hájek z Libočan, Kronika česká, ed. Jan Linka (Prague: Academia, 2013), 727, 816. 75  [Jan Dubravius], Historiae Regni Boiemiae, de rebvs memoria dignis, in illa gestis, ab initio Boiemorum, qui ex Illyria venientes, eandem Boiemiam, in medio propemodum superioris Germaniae sitam, occupauerunt. Libri XXXIII, ex fide tandem narrationeque historica scripti, absolutique, et in lucem iamprimum aediti, sat videlicet citô, si sat bene (Prostějov: Io. Guntherus, 1552), fol. 141v. 76  Bohuslav Balbín, Epitome Historica Rerum Bohemicarum. Quam Ob Venerationem Chris­ tianae Antiqvitatis, Et Primae In Bohemia Collegialis Ecclesiae Honorem, Boleslaviensem Historiam Placuit Appellare. In ea, pleraque in historiis nostris incerta, controversa, obscura; multa item ab aliis praeterita, summa fide, diligentia, claritate, et brevitate quinque libris explicantur et statuuntur. Adjecti sunt libri duo, VI. et VII., de antiquissimo Boleslaviensis ecclecia collegio; deque origine et miraculis magnae Dei Matris, quæ ibidem in basilica sua summa Populi veneratione colitur (Prague: Typis Universitatis Carolo-Ferdinandeae, 1677), 383.

228

Excursus 1

and Prokop, who attempted to secure the episcopal see of Olomouc with their support.77 This information was subsequently copied by the humanist Augustine of Olomouc († 1513)78 and from there, with almost identical wording, it made it into the work of Bartholomew Paprocký of Hloholy († 1614).79 It is this tradition that also gave rise to the inscription under the portrait of John which Charles of Liechtenstein-Castelcorn, Bishop of Olomouc, commissioned around the year 1667 as part of a portrait gallery depicting his predecessors.80 Thus far, however, it had not occurred to anyone directly to associate the unsuccessful pretender to the Olomouc bishopric by the name of John with John of Moravia or John Sobieslaw. It would appear to be “thanks” to the Prague dean Thomas Pešina of Čecho­ rod that the erroneous interpretation concerning the two Johns found its way into modern works of history; he seems to have been the first to state explicitly, under the influence of the Series by Augustine of Olomouc, that the Moravian margrave John Sobieslaw pursued an ecclesiastical career, becoming bishop of Litomyšl and eventually patriarch of Aquileia, and at the same time to identify him incorrectly as the youngest son of John Henry (the youngest was, in fact, Prokop).81 As it turned out, these few words of his were to have a very long life … 77  “Granum catalogi praesulum Moraviae,” AfÖG 78 (1892), 91. 78  Augustini Olomucensis episcoporum Olomucensium series, 125. 79  Bartoloměj Paprocký z Hlohol, Zrdcadlo Slawného Margkrabstvii Morawského, w kterémž geden každý Staw, dáwnost, wzáctnost, y powinnost swau vhléda (Olomouc: Haeredes Milichtalleri, 1593), fol. 577r. 80  For the portrait gallery of the bishops of Olomouc, see Radmila Pavlíčková, “Olomouc a Brno—dvě biskupské rezidence (K vlivu funkcí šlechtického sídla na ikonografický program výzdoby interiérů),” SPFFBU—F 46 (2002), 31–44. The inscription was transcribed by Antonín Breitenbacher, “Legendy na obrazích olomouckých biskupů v kroměřížském zámku,” in XII. výroční zpráva arcibiskupského gymnasia v Kroměříži za školní rok 1921–1922 (Kroměříž: Arcibiskupské gymnasium, 1922), 16, no. 29. 81  Pešina z Čechorodu, Mars Moravicus, 48: “… tertio filio Joanne-Sobeslao sacris ordinibus initiato; quem primo Litomyslensem, deinde Olomucensem Episcopum fuisse creatum, postea et ad Aquilegiensis patriarchatus apicem evectum legimus.” The fact that Pešina drew on Augustine of Olomouc’s work is evident i.a. from the word apex, identical in both versions.

Excursus 2

Capitula contra patriarcham Johannem de Moravia In many respects, the Capitula contra patriarcham Johannem de Moravia is a remarkable source, which has already been touched upon many times without having had the space for detailed analysis. Surprisingly enough, this document has not aroused a great deal of interest even within Italian historiography, which in general has not attributed much importance to it and has regarded it only as a collection of unreliable defamatory statements without any special testimonial value.1 However, this is only true to some extent. Upon a more careful reading of the text, it can be seen that in some respects the Capitula deserve more attention than was previously assumed. Even the question of dating the text is a contentious one. It is generally believed that these allegations against Patriarch John were drawn up soon after his murder in Udine on 13th October 1394 for Pope Boniface IX, and that they were intended as a kind of “justification” for the assassination.2 This thesis is certainly not lacking in logic and even a certain appeal, apart from the fact that the text itself indicates nothing of the sort.3 In the following excursus, I shall attempt to show that the Capitula were written while Patriarch John was still alive, suggest a possible answer to the question of why they were compiled and, at the same time, point out some possible ways of using this remarkable source. The document has not survived as an original, but only in the form of copies. The first (A) comes from the pen of Giuseppe Bianchi († 1868), who incorporated it into his extensive manuscript collection. He based it on another 1  The Capitula are briefly summarized by Di Manzano, Annali del Friuli, vol. 6, 89 and note 1, and Marchesi, “Giovanni di Moravia,” 146. See also its appraisal ibid., 146–147: “Di tale scrittura […] noi non possiamo fare quasi alcun conto, perchè dettata da uomini animati da profondo odio ed agitati della passione.” Cf. also Paschini, Storia del Friuli, 654, and most recently Schwedler, “Moravia (di) Giovanni,” 575 who rightly considered the Capitula as one of the prerequisites for creating John’s bad reputation in historical memory. 2  It was Giuseppe Bianchi who first dated the document to ca. November 1394. See further Marchesi, “Giovanni di Moravia,” 127, 146–147; with some doubts also Paschini, Storia del Friuli, 654 and 660, note 120; De Biasio, “Il patriarca d’Aquileia,” 192. 3  Pier Silverio Leicht, in his edition Parlamento friulano, I/2, 369, no. 378, note a, has already expressed the opinion that the Capitula were drawn up during John’s lifetime, sometime before the conclusion of the peace treaty between the patriarch and the Udinese from 3rd April 1393. Di Manzano, Annali del Friuli, vol. 6, 89, note 1, seems to have dated the Capitula to October 1393.

© Ondřej Schmidt, 2019 | doi:10.1163/9789004407893_010

230

Excursus 2

copy in an unidentified Collezione Pirona, which it has unfortunately not been possible to trace.4 This means that we are left with a text that has been transcribed multiple times (at least twice), and may not always correspond exactly with the original version. The full text begins with the heading “Capitula contra patriarcham Johannem de Moravia,” and this is followed by a list of the individual accusations, arranged in a total of 37 articles. The other exemplar (ca. 18th/19th century) (B) is a transcription of another sixteenth-century copy made by the Udine city chancellor and public notary Matteo di Giacomo Clapiz.5 In the signature formula, Matteo states that he made this copy from an original found among the documents in the Udinese archives, checked it and affixed the seal of the city to it.6 On 17th March 1517, it was then certified by the Venetian governor in Friuli, Giacomo Corner (1515–1518),7 whereby he testified to the probity of notary Matteo and conferred full validity upon the document. The year 1517 can therefore be regarded with confidence as the time when the copy was made. If we leave aside the remarkable fact that at the beginning of the Cinquecento there was still interest on the part of the city in preserving the text of this document (the purpose for which this was done is unclear), something else catches our attention. The whole text is entitled in the following manner: “Capitula contra patriarcham Joannem de Moraviam [sic!] pro defensione 1390.” This would suggest that the year of the original text’s creation is clear. Although this tempting possibility cannot be ruled out, a certain amount of caution is still in order. First and foremost, we do not know whether the “original” that notary Matteo copied out was truly an original. It could, for example, have been a copy which Matteo took for an original because of its age, with the title—i.e. the year 1390—having been added afterwards. We also have to bear in mind that we do not have the original text by notary Matteo, but only a transcription of it that comes from a few centuries later, so it is quite possible 4  B CU, FP, ms. 899, Raccolta Bianchi, vol. 58, no. 5773. There is also a later Italian translation (nineteenth century?) ibid., no. 5775 and in ACU, Fondo Bini, Varia patriarchalia Aquileiensia, vol. II (= LXVIII), fols. 49r–54v. Only a fraction was edited in Parlamento friulano, I/2, 368– 369, no. 378, and Vollo, I Savorgnani, appendice, 234. For a critical edition of the entire text, see the appendix to this chapter. 5  B CU, FP, ms. 943/II, Codice diplomatico friulano, sub anno 1390. Matteo is documented as a notary in Udine between 1504 and 1546. See the manuscript repertory of notaries in ASU, Repertorio topografico dei notai, pag. 297. 6  B CU, FP, ms. 943/II, Codice diplomatico friulano, sub anno 1390: “… post exemplum prefactum cum quodam originali reperto in scripturis et cancellarie dicti communis Utini …” 7  For Corner, see Giuseppe Gullino, “Corner, Giacomo,” in DBI 29 (Rome: Istituto della Enciclopedia italiana, 1983), 206–208.

Capitula contra patriarcham Johannem de Moravia

231

that the year 1390 was appended later by an unknown copyist. For that reason it is first necessary to carry out an internal analysis of the text. The two copies seem to originate from different textual traditions: whereas Bianchi transcribed the text from an unknown earlier copy, notary Matteo did so from an unspecified “original”—perhaps only an older transcription that he regarded as the original. There are only minor differences between the texts: Matteo’s copy, or perhaps just the transcription of it, contains a number of grammatical errors and inaccuracies and in a few places several words or even part of a sentence have been omitted in relation to Bianchi’s copy.8 As mentioned above, the text begins with a heading, immediately followed by the 37 articles, which are numbered using words (A) or Roman numerals (B). The document does not contain any of the formal requisites that we might expect, and corresponds more to what was sometimes referred to in the Middle Ages as a cedula. Because of this, we do not know when, by whom, for whom or even why the text was written. The individual articles do not give the impression of being very well ordered, and in some cases their content repeats itself. The text begins with an account of how the Udinese initially welcomed John of Moravia’s promotion to the patriarchal see with enthusiasm and hoped that he would be a good lord and pastor to them, sending a number of delegations to him at no small expense (art. 1). After that John was accused of having had the council of the five deputies disbanded even before his arrival in the country; the Udinese obeyed reluctantly, and this was to lead to the destruction of their city (art. 2). John’s next move, which is supposed to have been damaging to them, relates to the fact that, after his ceremonial welcome in Udine, he had a new city government appointed, consisting of twelve representatives of the guilds (art. 3). The other articles relate to John’s hostile actions against Federico di Savorgnano, who fled from Udine to escape his wrath (art. 5) only to be assassinated on the patriarch’s orders when he finally returned to the city following false promises from the prelate (art. 9). Federico’s property was then seized by the patriarch—in particular one castle (undoubtedly Savorgnano), which he handed over to Federico’s children only after extorting 2,000 florins from them (art. 10). The Capitula also accuse John of repressive measures against the retainers and supporters of Federico di Savorgnano. One of the accusations states that he had Detalmo Andriotti treacherously killed and then denied him a burial (art. 8); another that he had another rich citizen by the name of Nicolò Manini taken captive and tortured for the purpose of obtaining money and only released him under pressure from the people (art. 6). 8  See the notes of the edition.

232

Excursus 2

A number of complaints (arts. 4, 7, 11, 12, 13, 14, 33) relate to actions taken by the patriarch against the Udinese, whom he had unjustly captured and kept prisoner or whose rights and ancient prerogatives he had violated in other ways. Many articles (15, 16, 17, 18, 29) also accuse John of all manner of machinations connected with the exercise of the law: he is supposed to have appointed suspicious judges, who gave unjust verdicts and pardoned murderers and other criminals in exchange for money to the extent that “justice, which is considered the mother of all virtues, was entirely driven out of the land by this prelate.”9 Furthermore, John was said to have forbidden anyone from appealing to the apostolic see (arts. 25, 32); he is even supposed to have taken a hostile stance towards the pope (arts. 27, 28) and on top of that to have robbed and physically attacked pilgrims who passed through the patriarchate on their way to Rome at the time of the Great Jubilee (art. 26).10 John was also supposed to have transgressed by leading a life inconsistent with the spiritual estate, instead imitating a secular prince (arts. 23, 24, 34): he did not attend church, he never celebrated mass, and he did not even give his blessing to the people, declaring: “I could make the sign of the cross for them with a sword, but not with my hand!”11 Brothel keepers and prostitutes were said to be present at his court (art. 20), and the patriarch himself is supposed to have fornicated (art. 21) and gambled—and what’s more, with loaded dice (art. 22). Emphasis is placed on his boundless greed, lust for gold and hoarding of property (arts. 31, 35). Furthermore, article 19 describes John’s alleged, almost farcical foolhardiness. On top of that, the Capitula mention the capture and spoliation of the abbot of the monastery of Moggio, Bondi degli Oliari, who was supposedly only released by John thanks to the entreaties of Bondi’s brother Cardinal Bartolomeo (art. 30). John was also said to have transgressed by ceding three unspecified border towns to the “Germans” and enemies of the patriarchate (art. 36). All of this was supposed to have led to a situation where “no faith or constancy is to be found in him, he does not abound in any virtues but on the contrary is the

9  C  apitula contra patriarcham Johannem, art. 18: “… et sic justitia, que mater omnium virtutum esse dignoscitur, per dictum presulem ab hac Patria penitus est expulsa.” 10  This was the jubilee year 1390, originally promulgated by Urban VI. However, the pope died in the meantime, so the jubilee took place during the pontificate of Boniface IX. See Paolo Brezzi, Storia degli Anni Santi. Da Bonifacio VIII ai giorni nostri, Storia e documenti 18 (Milan: Mursia, 1975), 54–57; Arnold Esch, “Bonifacio IX,” in Enciclopedia dei papi, vol. 2, ed. Massimo Bray (Rome: Istituto della Enciclopedia italiana, 2000), 574. 11  Capitula contra patriarcham Johannem, art. 23: “… respondit: ‘Cum ense scirem eis crucem facere, non cum manu.’”

Capitula contra patriarcham Johannem de Moravia

233

master, instigator and lord of all criminal deeds; because of this he is considered by all who know him as truly worse than Nero himself” (art. 37).12 As we can see, a picture forms before our eyes of the prince-prelate as a repulsive tyrant who perpetrated just about every possible type of crime upon his subjects, committed all seven deadly sins, and thus constitutes the antithe­ sis of the ideal ruler.13 However, this image of John of Moravia surely bears little relation to reality, since the document was created by his sworn enemies.14 Although it is never explicitly stated in the text by whom it was written, it is perfectly obvious from its wording that it originated in Udine. Because of this, it is probably quite easy to reject the bizarre and vague accusation of the Udinese relating to his alleged debauchery and licentiousness. After all, it is enough to point to the quite different Cividale tradition. On the other hand—as the preceding lines indicate—it must be admitted that, when the Capitula speak of specific events and individuals, their description is, in fact, quite accurate and reliable. Of course, it is biased in its interpretations and in that sense its view of events cannot be taken literally; and yet, the actual core, which can usually be verified with the help of other sources, is largely accurate. As is also shown by its wording, in compiling the text the author (or authors) evidently made use of written sources, probably those housed in the city archives of Udine at the time.15 For the moment, then, suffice it to say that the Capitula present us with a considerably distorted and

12  C  apitula contra patriarcham Johannem, art. 37: “Qualiter nulla fides in eo reperitur, nec ulla constantia in eoque nulla virtus penitus viget, sed omnium sceleratorum actuum utique magister est, actor et dominator: in tantum quod ab omnibus ejus notitiam habentibus Neronior Nerone vere censetur.” 13  Cf. Antonín, The Ideal Ruler, 294–310. 14  This was already stated by Marchesi, “Giovanni di Moravia,” 127, 139, 146–147, and Paschini, Storia del Friuli, 654. Once again, it is possible to draw attention to the “black legend” about King Wenceslas IV, which had some shared features: there was the king’s unbridled behaviour, various acts of wilful cruelty, the motif of bad officials abusing their power within the exercise of law for their own personal profit, and we can even find here the comparison with Emperor Nero. See Čornej, Tajemství českých kronik, esp. 80–91; Petra Roscheck, “König Wenzel IV.—Opfer einer Schwarzen Legende und ihrer Strahlkraft,” in Regionen Europas—Europa der Regionen. Festschrift für Kurt-Ulrich Jäschke zum 65. Geburtstag, ed. Peter Thorau, Sabine Penth and Rüdiger Fuchs (Cologne, Weimar and Vienna: Böhlau, 2003), 207–229; Robert Novotný, “Ráj milců? Nižší šlechta na dvoře Václava IV.,” in Dvory a rezidence ve středověku, vol. 2, Skladba a kultura dvorské společnosti, ed. Dana Dvořáčková-Malá and Jan Zelenka, MHB 11, Supplementum 2 (Prague: Historický ústav AV ČR, 2008), 215–229. 15  Capitula contra patriarcham Johannem, art. 13: “… ipse ea juramento promisit bina vice, prout publicis documentis apparet …”

234

Excursus 2

skewed picture of events and processes which are mostly true; that is, if we leave out the vague and fanciful attacks upon John’s dissolute life. Let us now take a closer look at the issue of dating. To do so, we must eliminate from our analysis the general, chronologically indeterminable articles which do not relate to specific events or individuals. From those which remain, one article can be dated to the year 1387 (art. 1), four to 1388 (arts. 2, 3, 4, 8), eight to 1389 or possibly earlier (arts. 5, 6, 9, 10, 13, 25, 27, 30) and two to 1390 (arts. 24, 26). Article 28, regarding the dispute between the patriarch and Baldussio di Maniago, may have been related to the accusations John made in Venice in October 1389, but this is only an assumption.16 With regard to article 32, which relates to John’s ban on appeals to the apostolic see, we have at our disposal a mandate by his vicar general from May 1394, which is addressed to the clerics of the Aquileian diocese and relates to a ban on presenting any kind of papal charter without the consent of the patriarch.17 In contrast, however, the Capitula speak of a ban on appealing to the pope which was also supposed to have been approved by a session of parliament.18 This would suggest that the text was probably not referring to the charter from 1394 and that another such decree may have been issued much earlier. John’s alleged cession of the three border towns to the “Germans” could not be either dated or verified.19 Based on the analysis, we thus come to the conclusion that all the articles which can be backed up by other sources can be dated to no later than 1390. Let us now focus on a few references which convincingly demonstrate that the Capitula were written within John’s lifetime. At the point which deals with the 16  ASVen, Senato, Misti, reg. 41, fol. 44r–v (12th October 1389). Cf. Cessi, “La politica veneziana,” 142. The patriarch required 200 florins from Udine, previously disbursed by Baldussio to a Venetian provveditore. In August 1393, there was a new legal dispute between John and the lord of Maniago. See BCU, FP, ms. 943/II, Codice diplomatico friulano, sub anno. 17   A SU, Documenti storici friulani, b. II, no. 185 (7th May 1394). See also Paschini, Storia del Friuli, 654–655. 18  Capitula contra patriarcham Johannem, art. 32: “… in isto consilio [i.e. in the council of the parliament] deliberari, quod tota Patria querulose commota edictum faceret, ne aliquis ad pedes sacros pro meliori judice impetrando recurreret …” 19  This may be a reference to the castle of Chiusa and the castles in Venzone, Gemona and Monfalcone (the latter, however, was situated further inland) which were pledged by Patriarch John to Conrad of Kraig. This emerges from the record about a loan John was forced to take from Venice in May 1393 in order to buy the pledge back. However, the pledge could have taken place much earlier. See ASVen, Senato, Misti, reg. 42, fol. 111v: “… recuperare de manibus domini Conradi Crayer certa castra ecclesie, scilicet Clusam, Venzoni, castrum Glemone, Monfalconem et alia castra, que ipse dominus Conradus habet in pignore …” (4th May 1393); fols. 111v–112r (6th May 1393). See Cessi, “Venezia neutrale,” 261 and note 3.

Capitula contra patriarcham Johannem de Moravia

235

murder of Federico di Savorgnano, there is a reference to his murderers, who, after committing the crime, fled to the patriarch, whereupon they are supposed to have been received with great celebrations and honours, and these men “to this day continually assist at general colloquia of the patriarchate in the sight of the patriarch.”20 In article 29 there is also a mention of how John is supposed to have collected 50,000 florins “to this day” for delivering false judgements.21 In other places, the patriarch is also spoken of in the present tense.22 When we add to this the fact that, as Pier Silverio Leicht observed, John is not referred to as deceased anywhere in the text,23 we are forced to conclude that the Capitula were actually written during his lifetime. However, the question of a more precise dating of the document poses a greater challenge. An important clue is provided by article 13, according to which the patriarch twice concluded a peace with Udine in the presence of Venetian ambassadors and on that occasion also reaffirmed his oath to observe the customs of the land.24 These acts can probably be linked with the agreements concluded on 10th March and 7th July 1389.25 In later years they were followed by other peace treaties, the first of which was signed on 21st February 1391 and the next exactly a year after that, on 21st February 1392,26 of which the compiler of our document would probably have been aware. 20  C  apitula contra patriarcham Johannem, art. 9: “… et fugientes extra terram Utini gla­ dios cruentatos in manibus ferentes ad loca, ubi erat ipse patriarcha, devenerunt; ab ipso receptis maximis gaudiis et honoribus et provisionibus aucti usque in hodiernam diem in colloquiis generalibus Patrie continuo astantes ante conspectum ipsius domini patriarche.” 21  Capitula contra patriarcham Johannem, art. 29: “Quomodo usque ad hodiernam diem in Patria hinc inde a suis subditis dando sententias falsas et imponendo eis taleas et mo­ vendo varias questiones extorsit ultra quinquaginta millia ducatorum in absolvendo …” 22  Capitula contra patriarcham Johannem, art. 22: “Quod taxilusor est maximus …” Ibid., art. 23: “… omnem populum facit a propria devotione cessare …” Ibid., art. 25: “… eos in Patria facit undique persequi et male tractari.” 23  Parlamento friulano, I/2, 369, no. 378, note a. 24  Capitula contra patriarcham Johannem, art. 13: “Quod cum inter ipsum et Utinenses pro tractando concordio inclitum Venetiarum dominium se sepe interponeret, cum Utinenses peterent ab eo aliqua honestissima et manifesta debita, puta justitiam fieri in Patria, servari propriam libertatem et antiquas Patrie consuetudines, ipse ea juramento promisit bina vice, prout publicis documentis apparet …” 25  The text of the first treaty is edited in Verci, Storia della Marca, vol. 17, documenti, 26–29, no. 1920; the text of the second one can be found in ASVen, Miscellanea atti diplomatici e privati, b. 27, no. 829, partially edited in Cogo, “Il patriarcato d’Aquileia,” 305–306. For the individual charters, see above in the text. 26  The text of the first treaty is not preserved, but we know about it from Di Manzano, Annali del Friuli, vol. 6, 61–62 (22nd February 1391); the text of the second one can be found in BCU, FP, ms. 899, Raccolta Bianchi, vol. 56, no. 5611; cf. Di Manzano, Annali del Friuli,

236

Excursus 2

It would appear that the key could be article 24, which deals with John’s first visit to the cathedral of Aquileia and therefore his formal enthronement in the patriarchal see. John is supposed to have decided to make the journey to Aquileia a year and a half after his arrival in the patriarchate “de mense martii proxime preteriti,” that is “in the previous month of March.” This would place the event in March 1390, which does indeed precisely correspond to the length of John’s stay in the country (from September 1388); in addition, in that month the patriarch had a general assembly convened in Monfalcone,27 which is only a few kilometres from Aquileia, which means that his visit to its basilica may have occurred on just that occasion. Although historiography traditionally assigns John’s enthronement in Aquileia to September 1388, this assertion is not supported by any sources.28 On the contrary, in view of the fact that the Capitula date the event quite precisely, this seems unlikely to be a mere fabrication. The text must therefore logically have been written after John’s visit to Aquileia; and yet, at the same time, this could have happened at the latest in February 1391. The previous analysis, as we have seen, is not at odds with this assertion: quite the reverse. For that matter, if the Capitula had been written later, it is hard to imagine that the author or authors would not have mentioned John’s pillaging of San Daniele, which took place in August 1392 and about which the Udinese then complained to the pope and in Venice.29 Thus far, we have concluded that the Capitula were drawn up by the Udinese within John’s lifetime, specifically in the period between March 1390 and February 1391. This brings us back to the copy by the Udinese notary Matteo: it appears that the year 1390 in its heading was indeed the year when this document was written. Let us now consider the function of this source. Given that the text has none of the formal requisites of a charter or letter and is lacking intitulation, dating or means of authentication, it is hard to imagine that it vol. 6, 71. In the last peace agreement, dated 3rd April 1393, there is also a summary of previous treaties; however, the one from 7th July 1389 is lacking. See BCU, FP, ms. 899, Raccolta Bianchi, vol. 57, no. 5680: “Item quod conventiones, compositiones et concordia […] primum in MCCCLXXXIX, Indictione XII, die X mensis Martii, secundum in MCCCXCI, mensis Februarii, die XXI, Indictione XIV …” 27   B CG, ACG, Lettere autografe, vol. 347, no. 128, edited in Parlamento friulano, I/2, 357–358, no. 356 (7th March 1390). 28  The assertion that Patriarch John took up his office in Aquileia on 16th September 1388 was first expressed by Zanutto, “I Savorgnani di Cividale,” 45, with reference to Nicoletti’s less-than-reliable treatise. This statement was then adopted by the entire historiography. See Paschini, Storia del Friuli, 636 and 656, note 29; Leicht, “La giovinezza di Tristano,” 14; Schwedler, “Moravia (di) Giovanni,” 574. 29   B CU, FP, ms. 882/15, Camerari del Comune di Udine, fols. 60v and 61v; Seneca, “Il conflitto fra Giovanni,” 64. See above in the text.

Capitula contra patriarcham Johannem de Moravia

237

would have simply been “sent off to the pope” in this form. Instead, it is worth considering whether it might not have been a draft for a document created later which incorporated all the necessary formalities. However, a more likely scenario is that the Capitula formed part of diplomatic instructions, “articles,” which an Udinese envoy, for example, may have communicated verbally or presented in writing. Here, we can draw attention to some contemporary parallels. For instance, in 1417 the council of the city of Belluno compiled “chapters” (capitula) containing alleged crimes and blunders committed by the imperial vicar Ulrich Skála of Luleč. The text, along with other instructions, was given to accredited envoys bound for the court of Sigismund of Luxembourg, King of the Romans, at Constance, where they were to bring a case against Ulrich Skála in the name of the city and present these articles “de verbo ad verbum.” The structure of the document is very similar to our text. It too begins with a heading, “Tenor autem capitullorum contra dominum Ulricum Skala talis est, videlicet,” which is then followed by the individual articles.30 Shared features are also displayed by the famous Acta in Curia Romana, a case brought by John of Jenštejn, Archbishop of Prague, against King Wenceslas IV, which was presented to the pope in 1393.31 I believe that the Capitula contra patriarcham Johannem had a similar function. Given that the Capitula were a serious indictment of one of the highest ranking prelates in Christendom, answerable only to the pope, they were almost certainly intended for the pontiff himself or his representatives. This may have been the reason behind the inclusion of the nonsensical article 27, which states that, after the election of Boniface IX, the patriarch proclaimed in the land that the supreme pontiff had been murdered immediately after the conclave, upon which John is supposed to have greatly rejoiced and even added some disparaging comments at his expense.32 Might this, at first glance absurd, 30  A contemporary copy is preserved in Archivio Storico del Comune di Belluno, Comunità di Cividàl di Belluno, Provisioni, Libro D, fols. 304r–306v. For the whole issue, see Ondřej Schmidt, “Vikáři a hejtmani krále Zikmunda na severu Benátska (1411/12–1420),” Studia Mediaevalia Bohemica 7, no. 1 (2015), 81–113. 31  The document is more in the nature of a supplication containing individual articles. There is an older edition by Jan Zítek, “Ke sporu Jana z Jenšteina s Václavem IV.,” Časopis katolického duchovenstva 50 (1909), 64–69, 135–141, 211–218, 324–332, 566–572, 636–644; a newer edition in Paul De Vooght, Hussiana, Bibliothèque de la Revue d’historie ecclésiastique 35 (Louvain: Publications Universitaires, 1960), 422–441. See also Bartoš, České dějiny, vol. 2/6, 103–107. 32  Capitula contra patriarcham Johannem, art. 27: “Qualiter in creatione sanctissimi patris domini nostri domini Bonifacii IX. fecit fieri novum, quod ipse statim post sanctam creationem rumore populari fuisset turpiter et nequiter vulneratus et tandem violenter oc-

238

Excursus 2

passage not have been intended to provoke the necessary outrage in Rome and give the whole text the desired effect? In light of these considerations, let us now attempt to set the Capitula within the context of contemporary events. Assuming that the articles were written as instructions or background documentation for Udinese envoys to Pope Boniface IX sometime during the year 1390, we have no record of any communications between the Udinese and the Holy See during that period. It was not until shortly after John’s departure from the patriarchate for Bohemia in early March 139133 that the Udinese sent an embassy to the pope, headed by Bernardo di Strassoldo, which was to accuse the patriarch of misgovernment at the Roman curia and request his deposition.34 By all accounts, the delegation did not set off from Udine until 21st April 1391, and although the instructions must have been written a little earlier than that date, it seems unlikely that it would have happened several months beforehand. The creation of our document can, however, also be linked with another event: the arrival of the papal legate Cosimo de’ Migliorati, “Cardinal of Bologna,”35 in Venice in September 1390. We know from a record in the registers of the Venetian senate that the Udinese sent their diplomats to him in the city on the lagoon in order to present their grievances against the patriarch to him as the pope’s representative.36 One particular passage indicates that their objective was probably John’s removal from office.37 Their efforts—partly due to the opposition of the Venetian Republic—were ultimately unsuccessful, but it is possible, if not probable, that the Capitula contra patriarcham Johannem were drawn up on this occasion. This interpretation fits the chronology and the context of the events quite well and does not contradict the (known) sources. cisus. Unde ipse magnum festum monstrabat in Patria et ipsum novum fecit per Patriam divulgari proferens stolide multa verba in contemptum prefati domini nostri eum insi­ pientem asserendo.” 33  See Excursus 3 in this book. 34  Hortis, Giovanni Boccacci, documenti, 74, no. 27; Paschini, Storia del Friuli, 647–648. 35  See Eubel, Hierarchia catholica, vol. 1, 25; Paschini, Storia del Friuli, 658, note 74. 36  Cessi, “La politica veneziana,” 204–205; ASVen, Senato, Secreti, reg. R (E), fol. 60r: “Et quia ipsi ambaxiatores in conclusione ambasiate predicte tangunt, quod dominus cardinalis, qui hic est, habet specialem comissionem et mandatum a sede apostolica providendi de ipsa Patria et contra ipsum dominum patriarcham et comissum eis est, quod, inquantum placeat nostro dominio, ipsi debeant comparere ad presentiam dicti domini cardinalis et supplicare sibi, quod cum favore et consilio nostro dignetur superinde providere et remedia adhibere …” (10th September 1390). 37  ASVen, Senato, Secreti, reg. R (E), fol. 60r: “Consideramus eciam parentelam ipsius domini patriarche, que magna est, nec est credendum, quod parentes sui paterentur, quod cum tanta infamia et onere domus sue ipse privaretur ecclesia sua, vel in ea taliter vexaretur.”

Capitula contra patriarcham Johannem de Moravia

239

On the other hand, it must be admitted that this is only a hypothesis, and it will probably never be possible to prove it with complete certainty. We must therefore content ourselves with the conclusion that the Capitula were definitely written by the Udinese during John’s lifetime, probably in early September 1390. This is a very problematic and biased source, which must be approached with great caution. In truth, the Capitula do not so much tell us what John of Moravia was really like as how he was presented by his Udinese enemies. Despite that, they offer valuable information which helps to supplement our knowledge of John’s rule (the capture and imprisonment of Abbot Bondi, the existence of food and drink tasters at the patriarch’s court38) and sometimes even enrich it with an event we would otherwise have known nothing about from the sources (John’s enthronement in Aquileia in March 1390?). In conclusion, it can be added that the Capitula played a greater role after the death of John of Moravia than during his lifetime, because they undoubtedly contributed in a significant way to the creation of the negative image of him in historical memory. 1 Edition There appears to be no extant original. A later transcription (19th century), which was made by Giuseppe Bianchi from another older copy, is preserved in BCU, FP, ms. 899, Raccolta Bianchi, vol. 58, no. 5773, unpaged (A). Another transcription (ca. 18th/19th century) of a notarial copy from 1517, which is supposed to have been based on an original from the Udine archives, can be found ibid., ms. 943/ II, Codice diplomatico friulano, sub anno 1390, unpaged (B). This edition is based on the text A. Ed.: Only a fraction (art. 25 and 32) was published in the edition Parlamento friulano, I/2, 368–369, no. 378; another section (art. 5 and 10) was printed by Vollo, I Savorgnani, appendice, 234. Capitula contra patriarcham Johannem de Moravia39 [1] Quod Utinenses fecerunt maximum festum et gaudium de creatione ipsius domini patriarche sperantes ipsum esse bonum et justum dominum

38  C  apitula contra patriarcham Johannem, art. 9: “… duos alios, qui sibi serviebant in mensa, quorum unus erat faciens credegustum poti et alter cibi …” 39  Capitula contra patriarcham Joannem de Moraviam [sic!] pro defensione 1390, B.

240

Excursus 2

et ­pastorem Aquilegensis ecclesie mittentes pro ipsis40 plures ambasciatores suos cum magnis sumptibus. [2] Quod in ejus adventu, antequam ad terram Utini perveniret,41 procuravit omni posse sibi terras Patrie tyrannice subjugare intrando velut rapax et famelicus lupus et specialiter consuetum a diuturno tempore secretum consilium deputatorum terre Utini salutiferum pro ecclesia Aquilegensi et tota Patria removere procuravit cum maximis minis et terroribus dicendo se nunquam42 terram illam ingressurum,43 nisi illud consilium ex toto44 aboleretur, quod Utinenses sicut fidelissimi puro animo sibi consenserunt, licet inviti, videntes id cedere in destructionem specialiter terre Utini, quod factorum subsecutorum45 experientia lucide demonstravit. [3] Quod post ejus ingressum in terram Utini recepto46 cum magnis honoribus et muneribus ipse totum regimen consiliumque magnum voluit etiam removere ponendo duodecim viros artistas47 totius terre rectores sibi48 sive juste sive injuste precipienti totaliter et ad plenum obedientes.49 Sicque sub illorum pretextu rigore tyrannico totam Patriam et specialiter terram Utini acriter conquassabat sublevando malos et opprimendo bonos et specialiter exaltando omnes50 rebelles Aquilegensis ecclesie, qui insteterunt domino Francisco de Carraria, ut hanc Patriam sue tyrannice submitteret servituti et51 quosdam alios rebelles olim per Utinenses expulsos a terra ab ipso patriarcha in suo introitu in dictam terram in bonorum omnium perniciem et despectum sine omni justitia et sententia introductos. [4] Quod de facto et sine omni justitia voluit habere ab Utinensibus quatuor millia ducatos, que ipsi propter secum pacifice vivere assenserunt credentes eum ex illa pecunia suum animum aliqualiter mitigare. [5] Quod ipse contra omnes bonos viros terre Utini et specialiter cupientes sub libertate vivere usus est gravibus et minatoriis verbis et specialiter contra generosum militem dominum Federicum de Savorgnano, qui more suorum predecessorum fuerat Patrie totius valorosus defensor et terre Utini auctor 40  per ipsos, B. 41  pervenirit, A; amended according to B. 42  unquam, B. 43  ingressurum terram illam, B. 44  ex toto lacking in A; amended according to B. 45  subsequutorum, B. 46  recepti, A; amended according to B. 47  suos artistas, B. 48  ubi, A; amended according to B. 49  dividentes, A; amended according to B. 50  omnes lacking in B. 51  et et, A.

Capitula contra patriarcham Johannem de Moravia

241

et conservator ecclesie Aquilegensis. Unde factum est, quod ipse cum pluribus aliis se a terra Utini absentaverunt fugientes ejus rabiem crudelissimam. Dicebat enim ipse: “Necesse est, quod ego aut occidam Federicum, aut quod ipse me occidat.” [6] Quod absentato prefacto domino Federico et pluribus aliis civibus a terra ipse patriarcha fecit ad se vocari52 quemdam virum bonum de terra nomine53 Nicolaum Manini aliqualiter ditem, quem ordinaverat atrocissime flagellari et diris torturis coartari ad dandum sibi aurum, sed ipse Nicolaus tandem instantia populi humiliter supplicantis prefacto domino, ut dictum Nicolaum de facto aggravare non vellet, sed eum per laudum et sententiam ducere velle juxta consuetudines nostras, relaxatus fuit sub securitate quatuor millium ducatorum. [7] Quod cives terre Utini faciebat continue capi eos injustissime et nequiter carcerando et specialiter aliqua reddi rebellibus Aquilegensis ecclesie et ejus inimicis54 sicut domino Francisco de Carraria, cui injustissime reddi salem tempore guerre ei per vicinos nostros acceptum. [8] Quod Detalmum de Andriottis, virum nobilem et istius terre civem optimum, dolose et fraudolenter deduxit sua seditione, ut fieret ejus domicellus55 et familiaris intrinsecus et factis et litteris familiariter eum ipse cepisset de eo aliqualiter posse confidere, ipse fecit eum in camera sua capi, tradiditque ipsum suis inimicis,56 qui ipsum suo precepto et voluntate fecerunt injustissime mori et non solum vivere, sed etiam sepelire ipse patriarcha prohibuit volens etiam post mortem pecuniam suam. [9] Quod sub cujusdam concordii specie57 ipse dominus patriarcha dominum Federicum fecit in terram Utini pervenire sibi alta et magnalia promittendo, cumque inter ipsos esset concordium per tractatum, licet sub falsa seditione, fecit sibi dici, quod ipse eum sincerissime58 diligebat, unde mirabatur, quod ipse dominus Federicus post se aliquos servientes in custodia sue persone cum armi duceret,59 quod pure credens ille miles fidelis domestice cepit ubilibet60 commorari. Tunc ille patriarcha maraschalcum suum et unum

52  vocare, B. 53  nomen, B. 54  et ejus inimicis lacking in B. 55  donzelus, A; amended according to B. 56  inimicis suis, B. 57  sub ejusdem concordii spem, B. 58  ipse sincerissime eum, B. 59  ducent, B. 60  undelibet, B.

242

Excursus 2

alium militem, magistrum camere sue, et duos alios, qui61 sibi serviebant in mensa, quorum unus62 erat faciens credegustum poti et alter cibi, cum nonnullis suis familiaribus intrinsecis misit in terram Utini sub colore jostrandi in una jostra tunc temporis ordinata, ut eundem dominum Federicum occiderent. Qui cum venissent ex toto domini sui adimplere preceptum sperantes ex inde consequi magna premia63 et dona promissa, dictum dominum Federicum die proxima subsecuta illam diem, qua hanc terram intraverunt, in ecclesia invenerunt sanctam Dei missam devotissime audiendo et intrantes more amicorum, ipsum salutaverunt et non videntes ibi copiam defensorum in eundem juxta preceptum domini sui atrocissime irruerunt ipsum nequiter occidendo et Dei templum sanctum et religionem turpissime violando64 et fugientes extra terram Utini gladios cruentatos65 in manibus ferentes ad loca, ubi erat ipse patriarcha, devenerunt; ab ipso receptis maximis gaudiis et honoribus et provisionibus aucti usque in hodiernam diem in colloquiis generalibus Patrie continuo astantes ante conspectum ipsius domini patriarche. [10] Quod multa bona ipsius domini Federici et aliorum civium terre Utini cepit tyrannice occupare ipsos sine jure et justitia et Patrie consuetudine suis possessionibus66 indebite spoliando et specialiter cum injuste occupasset unum castellum domini Federici, numquam id reddere voluit, nisi extorsisset suis pupillis patre nequiter sic orbatis duo millia ducatorum. [11] Quod aliquos forenses et emulos terre Utini inducebat, ut illius cives caperent, forinsecus67 captivatos abducerent eis velut inimicis taleam impo‑ nendo,68 de qua exigenda immo exacta idem dominus69 patriarcha cum illis predatoribus pro parte lucri communicavit et ipse quidem dominus patriarcha70 in quodam generali colloquio, dum Utinenses conquererentur71 de eo, quod inducebat forenses, ut ipsos Utinenses capere deberent, confessus fuit se licentiam super hoc dedisse cuidam72 militi vocato Coscistagner.

61  quod, B. 62  unum, A; amended according to B. 63  pecunia, B. 64  et Dei templum sanctum et religionem turpissime violando lacking in B. 65  cructatas, B. 66  Utinensibus, B. 67  forinfesa, B. 68  exponendo, B. 69  dominus idem, B. 70  cum illis predatoribus pro parte lucri communicavit et ipse quidem dominus patriarcha lacking in B. 71  consequenter, B. 72  cujusdam, B.

Capitula contra patriarcham Johannem de Moravia

243

[12]73 Quomodo juravit74 ad posse suum illam terram Utini destruere et hoc quia moleste ferebant tantam totius Patrie et sui servitutem tyrannicam, nam sepe petendo, ut facerent75 coemptiones gravissimas76 in ejus subsidium, cum ipsi non assentirent, dicebat: “Oportet pro certo, ut illam terram ad spinosam sylvam faciam devenire.” [13] Quod cum inter ipsum et Utinenses pro tractando concordio inclitum Venetiarum dominium se sepe interponeret, cum Utinenses peterent ab eo aliqua honestissima et manifesta debita, puta justitiam fieri in Patria,77 servari propriam libertatem et antiquas Patrie consuetudines, ipse ea juramento promisit bina vice, prout publicis documentis apparet, nec post promissa aliqua78 voluit adimplere totam Patriam magis solito continue aggravando. [14] Quod cum plures cives Utinenses secundum morem Patrie ad unum festum fuissent, ipse patriarcha misit mareschalcum suum contra ipsos injustissime capiendos, quod ipse fecit eos atrociter vulnerando et super strata libera depredando et demum aliquos cepit et carceribus captivavit imponens eis taleam, ac si guerra justa inter eos esset. Cumque aliqui suis pecuniis se redemissent,79 alii impotentes et parve pecunie80 relinquuntur adhuc in fundo unius turris acriter mancipati. Sicque mareschalcus suus, qui contra predatores debet justitiam procurare, sui jussu domini81 justorum suorum civium est factus maximus82 spoliator. [15] Quomodo plures falsas sententias pro pecunia ipse dominus patriarcha suos officiales fecit injustissime pronunciare, cumque eorum aliqui conscientia ducti hujusmodi sententias proferre recusarent, ipse dicebat: “Ah miseri vos, non vultis lucrari83 et estis pauperes. Ego, qui sum dominus, non spernam tantum lucrum.” Et sic ipse84 sepe pro mille, pro quingentis, sepe pro tercentis ducatis, imo quandoque pro decem et paucioribus85 iniquas et falsas sententias86 pronuntiavit. 73  in B incorrectly XI. 74  curavit, B. 75  fuerunt, B. 76  gravissime, B. 77  in Patriam, B. 78  aliquod, B. 79  reluissent, B. 80  imponentes et prave pecunie, B. 81  sue jura domini, B. 82  proximus, B. 83  lucrare, B. 84  ipse lacking in A. 85  quingenti, sepe pro tercenti, immo quinquaginta pro ducatis et paucioribus, B. 86  in B followed by ferenti materia tandem.

244

Excursus 2

[16] Dum87 plures per alios gravati recurrerent ad ipsum dominum patriarcham pro suo favore obtinendo circa justitiam, consequenter88 ipse pecunias postulabat et extortis ab hujusmodi aggravatis illis pecuniarum quantitatibus, quas poterat, subito procurabat ab adversa parte etiam pecunias extorquere dicendo: “Talis movet tibi talem litem. Si vis, tenebo modum, quod non poterit aliquid agere contra te.” Sicque sumpta pecunia inhibebat89 vicariis et officialibus, ut actorem justitiam petentem,90 qui primo recursum habuerat ad dictum dominum, audire minime deberent, ex quo plura jura sua tamquam91 decepti92 per dictum dominum et bona93 amiserunt. [17] Item qualiter prefatus dominus patriarcha ad instantiam nocentium virorum ejus sceleratam causam sequentium pluribus petentibus ipsis exequentibus eum ad aliquibus amicis ipsorum judices suspectos delegavit et ultra hoc, cum sunt in actu ipsi actores seu petentes jura sua probandi, ipse patriarcha mandat talibus judicibus delegatis, ut judicium suspendere debeant. Unde94 regulam est,95 quod nulli96 evidentissima jura litium a longo tempore citra consequi minime potuerunt factis nihilominus magnis expensis et gravibus latoribus per Patriam equitando toleratis. [18] Quomodo plures homicidas pro pecuniis absolvit et ab omni pena exemit97 dicens se velle potius centum ducatos quam centum capita, et sic justitia, que mater omnium virtutum esse dignoscitur, per dictum presulem ab hac Patria penitus est expulsa. [19] Qualiter, dum ab aliis visiis vacat, nunquam cessat nunc incidere ligna, nunc cancellos camere, nunc dagam contra aliquem vertit98 dicens: “Oh, quomodo subito ego99 te occiderem!” Immo etiam fortuito omnes litteras ad manus suas pervenientes lacerando.100 [20] Quod ipse more satellitum vivit et non habitu clericali, immo tenens gladium in aurata zona collo suspensum, continue velut sicarius vivit inter 87  Cum, B. 88  consequendi, B. 89  inhiebat, B. 90  faventem, B. 91  tamquam erased in A; amended according to B. 92  deperiti, B. 93  jura sua instead of et bona in B. 94  Une, A; amended according to B. 95  sequutum instead of regulam est in B. 96  multi, B. 97  exerit, B. 98  mittere, B. 99  ego subito, B. 100  provenientes lucrando, B.

Capitula contra patriarcham Johannem de Moravia

245

lenones et meretrices continue commorando; et quod non potest facto in actu luxurie adimplere, lupanaribus verbis omnes adeuntes101 ad ipsum gaudet turpissime fastidire et quod deterius est, usque ad genitalia vestes suas abbreviat vestes longas togatas et honestas multipliciter aspernendo. [21] Quod mulieres et juvenculas pauperum et etiam ditiorum ad se facit sepissime violenter adduci, nunc unam, nunc aliam, more bestiali102 sub inhonestissime luxurie actu publice deturpando; et quod de eis superest, suis familiaribus tribuendo pro luxuria et infamia predictarum amplius consequenda. [22] Quod taxilusor est maximus103 vocari faciens plerumque nobiles et alios de paura ad ludendum cum eo utens etiam falsis taxillis in non modicum damnum ludentium secum. [23] Quod nedum voluit, aut potuit, missam aliquam unquam, ut est moris in Patria, celebrare, immo nec, cum alii clerici104 celebrant, unquam potuit ad misse finem permanere, sed nunc huc, nunc illuc, per ecclesiam vadens more miserrimi tiranni et callidissimi105 peccatoris omnem populum facit a propria devotione cessare, non preferens sibi crucem, ut moris est patriarche, nec velut prelatus crucem propria manu voluit unquam devoto petenti et expectanti populo, cum per terras iret, efficere, nec etiam ab equo descendere, dum cruces et sanctimonia106 sibi obviam portarentur, dum primo terras Patrie intrabat, nec etiam templa Dei visitare,107 ut moris est prelatorum. Admonitus autem ipse patriarcha a quibusdam suis domesticis, quare non faciebat crucem populo suo, respondit: “Cum ense scirem eis crucem facere, non cum manu.” [24] Quod per annum cum dimidio stetit in Patria, antequam pati posset suam sanctam Aquilegensem et cathedralem ecclesiam visitare. Cumque sibi opponeretur per subditos, quod invisam suam108 sedem haberet, quodam109 terrore potius quam amore illuc110 de mense martii proxime preteriti accessit et ad cathedram pergens accepta ferula pastorali sancti Hermachore111 sub

101  audientes, B. 102  bestiale, B. 103  massima, B. 104  aliis clericis, B. 105  caldissimi, B. 106  sanctimoniam, B. 107  after visitare follows primo in B. 108  sua, A. 109  quosdam, B. 110  illud, B. 111  evangelii, A; amended according to B.

246

Excursus 2

brachio more lancee, “ah,” inquit, “quam bene hastiluderem!” versus sedem sanctam currens indutis112 stipendiarii113 vestibus et appensa sub collo daga. [25] Quod cupiens ex toto suam ecclesiam tyrannice conquassare114 plura parlamenta fecit et colloquia celebrare, in quibus omnino decrevit in tota Patria tres eligi judices sibi gratos, qui de jure et de facto et ex proprio libito voluntatis possent in omnibus litibus et questionibus ad placitum causas quas­ libet terminare frangendo Patrie consuetudines et leges et proprie libertatis115 consuetudines antiquas, volens, quod ab eorum sententiis nemo nec ad pedes sacros beatissimi patris numquam116 modo quopiam posset ab injusta vel117 justa sententia appellare, quod quia Utinenses contradixerunt protestando, quod tali parlamento et deliberationi118 stare nolebant et quia ab illa et omni alia119 iniqua sententia appellare volebant ad curiam120 sanctissimi121 patris, ut moris est et fuit, ipse ex hoc tanta ira incanduit, ut nemo amplius ad sui conspectum de illa terra vellit accedere et eos in Patria facit undique122 persequi et male tractari. [26] Quomodo per totam Patriam ipse instituit pedagia et gabellas, sicut solet fieri in terris subiectis tyrannice servituti, non obstante quod numquam in Patria aliquis patriarcha consimilia posuit et specialiter posuit gravissimam gabellam super peregrinis, qui in isto jubileo sanctam Romanam ecclesiam visitabant, et si ipsi denegarent123 solvere scientes Patrie libertatem, aut propter paupertatem124 non possent, ipse fecit eos per suos officiales spoliari vestibus peregrinalibus et atrociter percuti et eis tandem calceamenta et baculum jussit auferri, constituitque officialem ad hujusmodi gabellam exigendam125 in Portugruario unum judicem.126 [27] Qualiter in creatione sanctissimi patris domini nostri domini Bonifacii IX. fecit fieri novum, quod ipse statim post sanctam creationem rumore populari 112  inductus, B. 113  stipendiariis, B. 114  conquasse, A; amended according to B. 115  consuetudines et leges et proprie libertatis lacking in B. 116  unquam, B. 117  et, A; amended according to B. 118  deliberatione, B. 119  aliqua, B. 120  curias, B. 121  sancti, B. 122  undeque, B. 123  denegabant, B. 124  libertatem, B. 125  exigere, B. 126  judicium, B.

Capitula contra patriarcham Johannem de Moravia

247

fuisset turpiter et nequiter vulneratus et tandem violenter occisus. Unde ipse magnum festum monstrabat in Patria et ipsum novum fecit per Patriam divulgari proferens127 stolide multa verba in contemptum128 prefati domini nostri eum insipientem asserendo. [28] Qualiter, dum sibi novum delatum fuisset, qualiter nobilis Balassius de Maniaco etiam a dicto domino multis aggravatus a sanctissimo domino nostro obtinuerat ipsum patriarcham posse facere citari ad curiam, ipse in hec verba verba prorupit: “Quid129 curo de isto papa? Ipse nil mihi facere potest,130 nam ego sum melior ipso.” [29] Quomodo usque ad131 hodiernam diem in Patria hinc inde a suis subditis dando sententias falsas et imponendo eis taleas et movendo varias questiones extorsit ultra quinquaginta millia ducatorum132 in absolvendo et pro pecunia homicidas et proditores quoscumque sibi pecunias offerentes. [30] Quod venerabilem patrem Bondi, abbatem Mosacensem, turpiter et nequiter captivavit, cui fecit predari domum et pecuniam et jocalia sua, quem, cum relaxasset precibus reverendissimi patris et133 domini domini cardinalis Padue, ejus fratris ad has partes de Florentia ob dictam causam tunc perventi, coactum sacramento constrinxit, ne unquam pro illatis sibi damnis et injuriis alicui persone nec etiam ad pedes apostolicos sancti patris porrigeret aut porrigi faceret, aliquam querimoniam contra se et sic eo a Patria et monasterio expulso injuste monasterium illud cuidam suo satelliti134 commendavit. Unde facta est illa sancta Dei ecclesia latronum spelunca fugatis hinc inde monachis et altaribus desolatis, in qua non Dei officium sacrum, sed Bacchi et Veneris nephanda contubernia celebrantur merchatoribus illac transeuntibus etiam sepissime spoliatis. [31] Quomodo plures suos capitaneatus et gastaldias diversis personis vendidit et receptis preciis ab emptoribus eos ab hujusmodi officiis expulit135 et ipsos capitaneatus et gastaldias tunc aliquibus suis perversis et sceleratis servitoribus tradidit136 vel aliis personis vendidit. 127  proferiens, B. 128  in contemptu, B. 129  Quad, B. 130  facere posse potest, A. 131  in, B. 132  ducatos, B. 133  et lacking in B. 134  satelico, B. 135  expellit, B. 136  tradit, B.

248

Excursus 2

[32] Quomodo fecit137 in quodam suo consilio parlamenti138 proponi, quod dispendiosum erat satis in Patria, quod quilibet compatriota posset ad pedes apostolicos pro suis recurrere questionibus, eratque sibi domino patriarche verecundosum et impotentibus damnosum, quod sanctissimus pater apostolicus posset petenti cuilibet specialem judicem delegare, fecitque per suum vicarium illud tali sophistico colorari colore, sic possent petentes ad placitum pauperes ad curiam concitare, qui tantis insufficientes sumptibus et muneribus, quot139 in curia requiruntur, etiam in sua causa justa succumbere poterunt dicendo per Patriam, quod in curia sancti patris dicior pro pecunia etiam injuste pauperem vincere possit. Querebat enim sub illo colore etiam in isto consilio deliberari, quod tota Patria querulose commota edictum faceret, ne aliquis140 ad pedes sacros pro meliori judice impetrando recurreret, tanta ductus insania, ut dici faceret,141 quod si nuntii Patrie ad papam decederent, ipse super isto complaceret iniquum illud edictum etiam confirmando, quo facto credebat sic posse totam142 Patriam iniquus tyrannice conquassare.143 [33]144 Qualiter pluribus fraudolosis, malitiosis et coloratis modis sepissime fuit conatus seditionem et discordiam in hanc terram145 Utini inducere et cives commovere ad digladiandum inter se et sepius146 occidere.147 [34]148 Qualiter palam habuit dicere se nunquam149 missam celebraturum et specialiter una die cuidam150 petenti, cur missam non celebrabat, cum utilitatem ultra quantitatem trium millium151 ducatorum consequeretur, respondit, quod nedum pro tribus millibus, sed pro decem millibus missam non celebraret. [35]152 Qualiter ipse patriarcha tanquam lupus insatiabilis dudum talibus verbis usus fuit: “Omnia pro auro facerem et unum aliud, videlicet153 137  fuit, B. 138  parlamentum, B. 139  quante, B. 140  et aliquid, B. 141  ut diceret, ut dici faceret, B. 142  tantam, B. 143  conquassari, B. 144  in B incorrectly XXXIV. 145  hac terra, A; hac terram, B. 146  se quos instead of sepius in B. 147  occiderent, A; amended according to B. 148  in B incorrectly XXXV. 149  unquam, B. 150  quidam, B. 151  tria millia, B. 152  in B incorrectly XXXVI. 153  quod instead of videlicet in B.

Capitula contra patriarcham Johannem de Moravia

249

destruerem154 et submergerem totum mundum pro uno despetto,155 ubi possibile foret, quod eum in pugno continerem.” [36]156 Qualiter tria oppida sita in confinibus Patrie dedit tenenda et custodienda quibusdam Theutonicis stipendiariis hujus Patrie emulis et inimicis. [37] Qualiter nulla fides in eo reperitur, nec ulla constantia in eoque nulla virtus penitus viget, sed omnium sceleratorum actuum utique magister est, actor et dominator:157 in tantum quod ab omnibus ejus158 notitiam habentibus Neronior Nerone vere159 censetur. 154  destrueret, B. 155  dispetto, B. 156  in B incorrectly XXXVII. 157  magister et auctor est et dominator, B. 158  omnis eis, B. 159  vere lacking in B.

Excursus 3

The Itinerary and Residences of John of Moravia The study of itineraries has long been an integral part of medieval historiog­ raphy. It has traditionally focused on the itineraries of monarchs, but recent research has also begun to devote attention to the itineraries of bishops or diplomats, and sometimes even of people from the lower social classes of me­ dieval society. These can be used in various ways: from understanding the na­ ture of the sovereign’s residence and rulership practice, through questions of mobility and travel, to a critique of the authenticity of charters with regard to their place of issue. However, compiling an itinerary is conditional upon an adequate source base, primarily made up of charters.1 As far as John of Moravia is concerned,2 his life can be divided into two phases which are disproportionate to each other in terms of the number of sources, with the boundary being formed by the year 1388. While we have only a few fragmentary reports for the earlier period, the evidence for John’s stay in the patriarchate is comparatively abundant. Even so, relatively few of John’s charters have survived and most of the information has to be derived from references in correspondence and also from books of accounts for the towns of Udine, Gemona and partially also Cividale, which, among other things, record visits to the patriarch by their messengers. However, even these records cannot be relied upon one hundred per cent, since the city council was not always well informed about where the patriarch happened to be. One example of this 1  For itineraries and the possibilities of their study, see Ivan Hlaváček, K organizaci státního správního systému Václava IV. Dvě studie o jeho itineráři a radě, AUC—Phil. et Hist., Mono­ graphia 137 (Prague: Karolinum, 1991), 33–72; Ivan Hlaváček, “The Itineraries of the Bohemi‑ an Luxemburgs,” in Ivan Hlaváček, Höfe—Residenzen—Itinerare, ed. Mlada Holá, Martina Jeránková and Klára Woitschová (Prague: Karolinum, 2011), 117–124; Robert Antonín, Tomáš Borovský and Demeter Malaťák, “Královský itinerář a královské slavnosti středověké Moravy,” SPFFBU—C 54 (2007), 99–120; for the itinerary of a bishop-diplomat, see Antonín Kalous, “Itinerář Jana Filipce (1431–1509),” Acta Universitatis Palackianae Olomucensis. Facultas philosophica—Historica 34 (2008), 17–43; for the patriarchs of Aquileia, from various per­ spectives, see Reinhard Härtel, “Itinerar und Urkundenwesen am Beispiel der Patriarchen von Aquileia (12. und 13. Jahrhundert),” Römische historische Mitteilungen 31 (1989), 93–121; Caiazza, “Le residenze dei patriarchi,” 102–235. 2  A compilation of John of Moravia’s (at that time John Sobieslaw’s) itinerary was attempted by Štěpán, Moravský markrabě Jošt, 826–828. However, as far as the period 1387–1394 is con­ cerned, Štěpán drew almost exclusively on Paschini’s synthesis, which resulted in its incom­ pleteness and inaccuracy.

© Ondřej Schmidt, 2019 | doi:10.1163/9789004407893_011

The Itinerary and Residences of John of Moravia

251

might be the entry for 8th October 1394, when envoys were sent to the patri­ arch in Cividale only to discover that he was actually at Soffumbergo.3 With regard to the methodological basis,4 it should be noted that the only stays of John’s taken into consideration were those which can actually be sub­ stantiated by the sources, or those which can be surmised with a high degree of probability. In the latter case, details are generally given in the relevant note. Most of these are cases where the patriarch convened a general assembly at a specific place on a specific date (usually around a week in advance) but we have no record of it taking place since most of the documentation regarding the Friulian parliament has been lost. We also run into difficulties when attempting to monitor an uninterrupted stay by John in one place (indicated by a vertical line), since the documents we have at our disposal are often quite widely spaced apart in time, which means that trips of short duration could easily have taken place during that period. For the sake of simplification, therefore, a period of one week was chosen as the maximum such time span. In each case the first and last document is cited; in the event that John’s location is substantiated by multiple sources on the same day, only one of these is given. 1368 1370 1373

14 XII 7 VII 5V

– Rome – Vyšehrad – Prague

1376

4 XI

– Prague

1377 1380

16 IV 8 IV 31 X 31 XII 8I

– – – – –

1381

Vyšehrad Vyšehrad Úsov Litomyšl Tržek

MVB III, 687–689, no. 1073. CIM II, 627–630, no. 436. Listář královského města Plzně, vol. 1, 123–125, no. 115. Archiv pražské metropolitní kapituly, vol. 1, 123, no. 435. NA, AKV, no. 252. AICP II, 14, no. 69. CDM XI, 183–184, no. 203. CDM XI, 187, no. 208. CDM XI, 190–191, no. 211.

3  B CU, FP, ms. 899, Raccolta Bianchi, vol. 58, no. 5750: “… missi fuerunt Cividatum […] in am­ baxiatores ad dominum patriarcham Iohannem […] quem ibidem non invenerunt, unde ipsos ire oportuit Sophumbergum …” 4  For the most part, I followed Hlaváček, Das Urkunden- und Kanzleiwesen, 395–431; Ivan Hlaváček, “Studie k diplomatice Václava IV., IV, Itinerář krále Václava IV. (1361–1419),” Československý časopis historický 10, no. 1 (1962), 64–94; Baletka, “Dvůr, rezidence a kancelář,” 504–517.

252

Excursus 3

(cont.)

1382 1383 1384 1388

1 VIII

– Dlouhá Třebová

14 V 11 X 16 III 16 X 18 I

– – – – –

4 II

– Modřice

29 IV 11 V 22 V

– Modřice – Modřice – Modřice

4 VI

– Brno

5 VI

– Modřice

1 VII

– Brno

24 VII 10 VIII 2 IX 12 IX

– – – –

13 IX 19 IX

– Moggio –

22 IX

| Gemona –

26 IX

–

1X

| Udine –

Litomyšl Prague Litomyšl Krakovec Olomouc

Modřice Modřice Vienna Malborghetto

Gilar, “Dvě neznámé písemné zprávy,” 385–386. RBMV V/1, fasc. 1, 76, no. 121. CDM XV, 196–198, no. 228. CIM IV/1, 182–186, no. 127. Mikovec, Starožitnosti a památky, vol. 1, 192. Verci, Storia della Marca, vol. 17, documenti, 9, no. 1909. BCC, ACC, Antica cancelleria del comune— fondo Lorenzo D’Orlandi, b. 24, no. 34. BCG, ACG, Lettere autografe, vol. 347, no. 120. CDM XI, 417–418, no. 476. BCU, FP, ms. 899, Raccolta Bianchi, vol. 53, no. 5368. BCU, FP, ms. 899, Raccolta Bianchi, vol. 53, no. 5368. BCU, FP, ms. 899, Raccolta Bianchi, vol. 53, no. 5368. ACU, Fondo Bini, Documenta historica, vol. X, no. 78. BCG, ACG, Lettere autografe, vol. 347, no. 122. CDM XI, 429–430, no. 495. Di Manzano, Annali del Friuli, vol. 6, 22. Cogo, “Il patriarcato d’Aquileia,” documenti, 320, no. 7. BNM, cod. lat. XIV, 134 (= 4285), fol. 178v. BCG, ACG, Quaderni dei Massari, reg. 415, fol. 24r. BCG, ACG, Quaderni dei Massari, reg. 415, fol. 25v. De Biasio, “Il patriarca d’Aquileia,” appendice, 192–194. BCU, FP, ms. 899, Raccolta Bianchi, vol. 53, no. 5405.

The Itinerary and Residences of John of Moravia

253

(cont.)

1389

2X

– Savorgnano (?)5

5X

–

6X

| Udine –

23 X

– Cividale

26 X

– Udine

5 XI

–

6 XI

| Udine –

13 XI

– Soffumbergo

8 XII 10 XII

– | Cividale –

24 XII

– Cividale

17 I

– Cividale

10 II

– Cividale

19 II

– | Cividale

BCU, FP, ms. 899, Raccolta Bianchi, vol. 53, no. 5406. BCU, FP, ms. 899, Raccolta Bianchi, vol. 53, no. 5410. I libri commemoriali, vol. 3, lib. VIII, 193, no. 293. MAN, Famiglia Boiani, vol. 2, Pergamene, no. 123. BCU, FP, ms. 899, Raccolta Bianchi, vol. 53, no. 5424. BCU, FP, ms. 899, Raccolta Bianchi, vol. 53, no. 5419. BCU, FP, ms. 899, Raccolta Bianchi, vol. 53, no. 5427.6 BCU, FP, ms. 899, Raccolta Bianchi, vol. 53, no. 5429. ARS, Zbirka listin, sign. SI AS 1063/5342. BCU, FP, ms. 899, Raccolta Bianchi, vol. 53, no. 5431. BCU, FP, ms. 899, Raccolta Bianchi, vol. 53, no. 5436. BCU, FP, ms. 899, Raccolta Bianchi, vol. 54, no. 5447. BCU, FP, ms. 899, Raccolta Bianchi, vol. 54, no. 5450. ARS, Zbirka listin, sign. SI AS 1063/4367.

5  The Udine city council writes to the garrison of the castle of Savorgnano that the patriarch will visit them today and commands them to open the gates to him if he wishes to enter. 6  On this day, Detalmo Andriotti was sentenced to death, and Historia belli Forojuliensis, AIM III, col. 1218 states that the patriarch was present at the execution.

254

Excursus 3

(cont.)

1390

15 III 6 IV

– – Gemona

13 IV

– Cividale

2V 31 V 2 VI

– Cividale – | Soffumbergo –

11 VI

– Soffumbergo

13 VI 14 VI

– | Cividale –

22 VI

– Cividale

7 VII

– Cividale

31 VII

–

1 VIII

| Cividale –

10 IX

– Cividale

3I

– Cividale (?)7

18 I

– Cividale

22 I

– Soffumbergo

ACU, Raccolta documenti, vol. II, pag. 582. BCG, ACG, Quaderni dei Massari, reg. 416, fol. 8r. BCU, FP, ms. 899, Raccolta Bianchi, vol. 54, no. 5469. BNM, cod. lat. XIV, 102 (= 2805), no. 38. Parlamento friulano, I/2, 352, no. 345. BCG, ACG, Lettere autografe, vol. 347, no. 126. BCU, FP, ms. 899, Raccolta Bianchi, vol. 54, no. 5475. Parlamento friulano, I/2, 352, no. 345. Parlamento friulano, I/2, 352–354, no. 346–347. BCU, FP, ms. 899, Raccolta Bianchi, vol. 54, no. 5481. ASVen, Miscellanea atti diplomatici e privati, b. 27, no. 829. BCU, FP, ms. 899, Raccolta Bianchi, vol. 54, no. 5484. BCU, FP, ms. 899, Raccolta Bianchi, vol. 54, no. 5485. KLA, Allgemeine Urkundenreihe, sign. A 3791, no. 6. BCG, ACG, Quaderni delle Deliberazioni, reg. 15, fol. 51v. BCG, ACG, Quaderni dei Massari, reg. 416, fol. 32v. Das Runtingerbuch 1383–1407, vol. 3, 183, no. 9.8

7  The patriarch convened a session of parliament on this day. 8  The edition indicates Spilimbergo as the place of issue of the charter; however, it was un­ doubtedly the castle of Soffumbergo (Sophumbergi).

The Itinerary and Residences of John of Moravia

255

(cont.)

25 I

– Gemona

26 I

– Cividale

5 II

– Gemona

6 II

– Fagagna

9 II

– Cividale

7 III 11 III 24 III

– Cividale – Monfalcone (?)9 – Cividale

26 III

– Soffumbergo

3 IV 17 IV 18 V

– Soffumbergo – Soffumbergo – Cividale

20 VI

– Soffumbergo

19 VII

– Soffumbergo

1 VIII

– Gemona

8/9 VIII – Gemona 19 VIII – Gemona 10 IX – Venzone 12 IX

– Gemona

29 IX

– Cividale

BCG, ACG, Quaderni dei Massari, reg. 416, fol. 33v. BCU, FP, ms. 899, Raccolta Bianchi, vol. 55, no. 5511. BCG, ACG, Pergamene varie, scatola 1643, no. 36. BCG, ACG, Quaderni dei Massari, reg. 416, fol. 37v. MAN, BC, Guerra, Otium forojuliensium, vol. 35, pags. 298–301. Parlamento friulano, I/2, 357–358, no. 356. Parlamento friulano, I/2, 357–358, no. 356. MAN, Famiglia Boiani, vol. 2, Pergamene, no. 124. “Documenti Goriziani del secolo XIV,” AT, n.s., 17 (1891), 304–305, no. 309. BCG, ACG, Lettere autografe, vol. 347, no. 129. Parlamento friulano, I/2, 358, no. 357. BCU, FP, ms. 899, Raccolta Bianchi, vol. 55, no. 5535. BCG, ACG, Quaderni dei Massari, reg. 417, fol. 19r. BCG, ACG, Lettere autografe, vol. 347, no. 127.10 BCG, ACG, Quaderni dei Massari, reg. 417, fol. 21v. ASU, Documenti storici friulani, b. II, no. 175, fol. 152r–v. Parlamento friulano, I/2, 359, no. 359. BCG, ACG, Quaderni dei Massari, reg. 417, fol. 23v. BCG, ACG, Quaderni dei Massari, reg. 417, fol. 23v. BCG, ACG, Lettere autografe, vol. 347, no. 132.

9  The patriarch convened a session of parliament on this day. 10  The dating clause is torn off; the year 1390 was later written at the top of the letter.

256

Excursus 3

(cont.)

14 X

– Cividale

30 XI

28 XII 29 XII

– | Cividale – – | Soffumbergo – – Cividale

7 II

– Fagagna

24 II

–

2 III

| Cividale –

5 III

– Gemona13

11 VII

– Brno

4 XII 27 XII

1391

22 VIII – Žebrák 24 X

– Venzone

28 X

– | Cividale

Davide, “Le raccolte epistolari,” appendice, 134, no. 3. BNM, cod. lat. XIV, 102 (= 2805), no. 36. BNM, cod. lat. XIV, 102 (= 2805), no. 36.11 Parlamento friulano, I/2, 359–360, no. 360. Parlamento friulano, I/2, 359–360, no. 360. BCU, FP, ms. 899, Raccolta Bianchi, vol. 55, no. 5572. BCU, FP, ms. 899, Raccolta Bianchi, vol. 56, no. 5576. BCG, ACG, Lettere Autografe, vol. 347, no. 134. BCG, ACG, Lettere Autografe, vol. 347, no. 134.12 BCG, ACG, Quaderni dei Massari, reg. 418, fol. 14r. BCC, ACC, Antica cancelleria del comune— fondo Lorenzo D’Orlandi, b. 5, no. 34. BCU, FP, ms. 899, Raccolta Bianchi, vol. 57, no. 5705. BCG, ACG, Quaderni dei Massari, reg. 418, fol. 31r. BCG, ACG, Quaderni dei Massari, reg. 418, fol. 31v.

11  The patriarch convened a session of parliament on this day. 12  The patriarch convened a session of parliament on this day. 13  The day after, the patriarch is supposed to have been in Aquileia, where he is also sup­ posed to have convened the next session of parliament, which seems impossible. See BCC, ACC, Antica cancelleria del comune—fondo Lorenzo D’Orlandi, b. 5, no. 31; Parlamento friulano, I/2, 361, no. 363. Given the fact that the intitulatio of the letter is completely illeg­ ible and that the document is dated only by means of the indiction, it is very likely that it should be dated to 1376 or 1361 (“indictione XIIIIa”).

The Itinerary and Residences of John of Moravia

257

(cont.)

1392

3 XI 12 XI

– –

29 XI

| Cividale –

2 XII

– Soffumbergo

18 XII

– Cividale

31 XII 8I 10 I

– Soffumbergo – Cividale (?)15 – Gemona

17 I 25 I

– Cividale –

29 I 7 III

| Cividale – –

12 III

| Cividale –

28 III 18 IV

– Cividale – | Cividale

Parlamento friulano, I/2, 364, no. 368.14 BCG, ACG, Lettere autografe, vol. 347, no. 141 ½. Monumenta historica Ducatus Carinthiae, X, 305–306, no. 981. BCG, ACG, Lettere autografe, vol. 347, no. 140. Valentinelli, “Zur Geschichte der Patriarchen,” AfÖG 4 (1854), 78. Parlamento friulano, I/2, 364–365, no. 370. Parlamento friulano, I/2, 364–365, no. 370. BCG, ACG, Quaderni dei Massari, reg. 418, fol. 35r. ARS, Zbirka listin, sign. SI AS 1063/283. ASFi, Signori, Missive della prima Cancelleria, reg. 22, fol. 188r–v. ARS, Zbirka listin, sign. SI AS 1063/285. BCU, FP, ms. 899, Raccolta Bianchi, vol. 56, no. 5615. BCU, FP, ms. 899, Raccolta Bianchi, vol. 56, no. 5618. BCG, ACG, Lettere autografe, vol. 347, no. 142. Parlamento friulano, I/2, 365, no. 371.

14  The document is almost illegible in the dating clause. The year 1391 was later written at the top of the letter; at the bottom, there is a note indicating “ultimo novembre.” See BCG, ACG, Lettere autografe, vol. 347, no. 139. This date, 30th November 1391, was also adopted by Leicht in his edition; nevertheless, it totally contradicts the content of the letter, in which the patriarch convenes a session of parliament on 26th November. Perhaps it is necessary to read the dating as “tercia die Novembris.” 15  The patriarch convened a session of parliament on this day.

258

Excursus 3

(cont.)

25 IV 10 V

– –

19 V

| Cividale –

5 VI

– Cividale

15 VI

– Cividale

23 VI 29 VI

– | Cividale –

7 VIII

–

9 VIII

| Tolmezzo –

27 VIII – Cividale 30 VIII – Soffumbergo 4 IX

–

9 IX

| San Daniele –

14 IX

– Cividale

25 IX

– Cividale

4X

– Cividale

Parlamento friulano, I/2, 365, no. 371.16 BCU, FP, ms. 899, Raccolta Bianchi, vol. 56, no. 5605. BCU, FP, ms. 899, Raccolta Bianchi, vol. 56, no. 5605. Urkundenbuch des Benedictiner-Stiftes St. Paul, 276–277, no. 310. BCG, ACG, Lettere autografe, vol. 347, no. 144. Parlamento friulano, I/2, 366, no. 373. BCG, ACG, Quaderni dei Massari, reg. 419, fol. 20r. Statuti e legislazione veneta, vol. 1, appendice, 215–218, no. 1. Statuti e legislazione veneta, vol. 1, appendice, 218–223, no. 1. BCU, FP, ms. 899, Raccolta Bianchi, vol. 56, no. 5634. BCU, FP, ms. 899, Raccolta Bianchi, vol. 56, no. 5634. BCG, ACG, Lettere autografe, vol. 347, no. 148. BCG, ACG, Quaderni dei Massari, reg. 419, fol. 26v. BCG, ACG, Quaderni dei Massari, reg. 419, fol. 28r. BCG, ACG, Quaderni dei Massari, reg. 419, fol. 29v. BCU, FP, ms. 899, Raccolta Bianchi, vol. 56, no. 5655.

16  The patriarch convened a session of parliament on this day.

The Itinerary and Residences of John of Moravia

259

(cont.)

1393

16 X

–

30 X

| San Daniele –

21 II

– Cividale

1 III 8 III

– Cividale –

10 III

| Gemona –

22 III

– Cividale

31 III

–

14 IV

| Cividale –

22 IV

– Udine

29 V 13 VI

– Udine – Udine

21 VI

– Cividale

7 VII

– Udine

23 VII 4 VIII

– Udine – Cormons

23 VIII – Cividale 27 IX – Udine 30 IX

– Cividale

MAN, Famiglia Boiani, vol. 6, Codice diplomatico, no. 22. MAN, Famiglia Boiani, vol. 6, Codice diplomatico, no. 23/1. BCG, ACG, Quaderni delle Deliberazioni, reg. 18, fol. 43v. Parlamento friulano, I/2, 368, no. 377. BCG, ACG, Quaderni dei Massari, reg. 420, fol. 8r. BCG, ACG, Quaderni dei Massari, reg. 420, fol. 8v. MAN, Famiglia Boiani, vol. 6, Codice diplomatico, no. 26. MAN, Famiglia Boiani, vol. 6, Codice diplomatico, no. 24. BCG, ACG, Quaderni dei Massari, reg. 420, fol. 12v. BCU, FP, ms. 899, Raccolta Bianchi, vol. 57, no. 5687. ARS, Zbirka listin, sign. SI AS 1063/299. ASVen, Archivio proprio di Giusto Fontanini, b. 2, pags. 593–594. MAN, Famiglia Boiani, vol. 6, Codice diplomatico, no. 25. BCU, FP, ms. 899, Raccolta Bianchi, vol. 57, no. 5699. ASU, Documenti storici friulani, b. I, no. 39. BCU, FP, ms. 899, Raccolta Bianchi, vol. 57, no. 5704. MAN, AC, Fondo diplomatico, vol. 15, no. 87. BCU, FP, ms. 899, Raccolta Bianchi, vol. 57, no. 5708. BCU, FP, ms. 899, Raccolta Bianchi, vol. 57, no. 5709.

260

Excursus 3

(cont.)

1394

2X

– Udine

MAN, Famiglia Boiani, vol. 6, Codice diplomatico, no. 23/2. San Gottardo (?)17 MAN, Famiglia Boiani, vol. 6, Codice diplomatico, no. 23/2. Udine BCU, FP, ms. 899, Raccolta Bianchi, vol. 57, no. 5711. Parlamento friulano, I/2, 369, no. 379. Cividale “Il libro degli anniversari del capitolo,” 459, note 38. Udine Brunettin, Archivio del Capitolo, 263–265, no. 60. Udine ARS, Zbirka listin, sign. SI AS 1063/4382. BCC, ACC, Archivio storico del Comune di Cividale del Friuli, Sezione antica, Camerari, b. 1144, fol. 13r. Udine BCC, ACC, Archivio storico del Comune di Cividale del Friuli, Sezione antica, Camerari, b. 1144, fol. 13r. Soffumbergo BCC, ACC, Archivio storico del Comune di Cividale del Friuli, Sezione antica, Camerari, b. 1144, fol. 13r–v. Udine BCC, ACC, Archivio storico del Comune di Cividale del Friuli, Sezione antica, Camerari, b. 1144, fol. 15r. Soffumbergo BCC, ACC, Archivio storico del Comune di Cividale del Friuli, Sezione antica, Camerari, b. 1144, fol. 15r. Soffumbergo BCC, ACC, Archivio storico del Comune di Cividale del Friuli, Sezione antica, Camerari, b. 1144, fol. 15v. Cividale BCU, FP, ms. 899, Raccolta Bianchi, vol. 58, no. 5731.

3X

–

7X

–

6 XII 9 XII

– | –

17 XII

–

28 XII 16 I

– –

17 I

| –

20 I

–

8 II

–

19 II

–

28 II

–

22 IV

–

17  In his letter dated 2nd October, the patriarch writes to Corrado Boiani that he will meet him tomorrow afternoon in San Gottardo (on the outskirts of Udine).

The Itinerary and Residences of John of Moravia

261

(cont.)

1 VI

– Udine

4 VI

–

10 VI

| Soffumbergo –

24 VI

– Soffumbergo

31 VII

– Cividale

8X

– Soffumbergo

13 X

– Udine

BCC, ACC, Archivio storico del Comune di Cividale del Friuli, Sezione antica, Camerari, b. 1144, fol. 23v. BCC, ACC, Archivio storico del Comune di Cividale del Friuli, Sezione antica, Camerari, b. 1144, fol. 24r. BCC, ACC, Archivio storico del Comune di Cividale del Friuli, Sezione antica, Camerari, b. 1144, fol. 24v. BCC, ACC, Archivio storico del Comune di Cividale del Friuli, Sezione antica, Camerari, b. 1144, fol. 25v. BCU, FJ, ms. 697/II, Autographa Vincentiana, vol. 5, sub dato. BCU, FP, ms. 899, Raccolta Bianchi, vol. 58, no. 5750. “Il libro degli anniversari del capitolo,” 458–459.

For the period up to 1388 it is not really possible to speak of an itinerary in the true sense of the word, since we only have at our disposal a few documents from this era, which are quite widely spaced apart in time. Even these, how­ ever, at least indicate some general tendencies. If we disregard John’s partici­ pation in Charles IV’s second descent into Italy (1368–1369), we do not know of any trips that he made outside the Czech lands. From several other pieces of information we can infer that John mainly resided in Prague and in Vyšehrad, as well as in Litomyšl during his episcopate there. In Vyšehrad, he had the provost’s palace—probably under construction during the period of John’s provostship—at his disposal, along with the chapter’s church, which was also being rebuilt at that time.18 In Litomyšl, on the other hand, John resided in the “castle,” transformed from an older monastery and also containing the ­cathedral church, which served as the seat of bishops.19

18  Cf. Kašička and Nechvátal, “Vyšehrad a Karel IV.,” 119; Nechvátal, Kapitulní chrám, 95–97. 19  Cf. Večeře, “Klášter, nebo hrad?”

262

Excursus 3

From 1388 the number of sources increases significantly, allowing us to chart John’s pattern of residence in more detail. John spent almost the whole of the first half of 1388 at the episcopal castle at Modřice near Brno,20 which once again confirms that the possessions of the Olomouc bishopric were actually in his hands. The fact that he had a particular fondness for this castle is also demonstrated by a dispatch from the Udinese envoys who arrived in Brno only to discover that the patriarch was in Modřice. It was only after the interces­ sion of Prior Augustine that John finally came to Brno, where he received the envoys, but the very next day he headed back to Modřice again.21 The itinerary also allows us to retrace (very roughly) John’s journey from Moravia to Friuli. He first set out for Vienna with his retinue, then continued south-west by the usual route through Villach and Tarvisio, later reaching Malborghetto in the Carnic Alps. Here, for example, it is worth pointing out that John and his retinue apparently managed to travel about thirty-five kilo­ metres across difficult terrain from Malborghetto to the monastery of Moggio at the foot of the Alps in just one day. John’s pattern of residence in the period which followed illustrates the dy­ namics of his rule quite well. In the short space of time between his arrival in the patriarchate and November 1388, he mostly stayed at the patriarchal castle in Udine, located on a small hill in the middle of the city. After the “revolt” of the citizens, he withdrew to Cividale, which became his residence for most of the remaining period; it was also there that nearly all of the important acts associated with the exercise of government took place (e.g. political negotia­ tions, investitures). John may have sought an escape from the dismal condi­ tions in the country at the nearby castle of Soffumbergo, the traditional seat of the patriarchs known as la perla del Patriarcato, below which he is even said to have had a “hunting reserve” constructed.22 20  For the castle of Modřice, see Miroslav Plaček, Ilustrovaná encyklopedie moravských hradů, hrádků a tvrzí (Prague: Libri, 2001), 397; František Augustin Slavík, Brněnský okres, Vlastivěda moravská. Místopis Moravy 2/1 (Brno: Musejní spolek, 1897), 196–197. 21   B CU, FP, ms. 899, Raccolta Bianchi, vol. 53, no. 5368. 22  For the castle of Soffumbergo, see Angelo De Benvenuti, I castelli friulani (Udine: Camera di commercio, industria e agricoltura, 1950), 86–87; Fabio Piuzzi, Alessandra Biasi and Roberta Costantini, “Il caso del castello di Soffumbergo (Faedis-Udine): un’eccezione o la regola?,” Archeologia medievale 21 (1994), 541–554; Caiazza, “Le residenze dei patriar­ chi,” 210–218; for John’s “riserva di caccia,” see ibid., 215–216. In this connection, it is in­ teresting to note that John’s court was also famous for the abundance and quality of its horses. In 1392, Francesco Dotti from Padua, before taking up his office as podestà and captain of Bologna, asked Corrado Boiani to procure him a riding horse (curserius) since he had heard that “in curia patriarcali esse quamplures et bonos et pulcros etc.” See MAN, Famiglia Boiani, vol. 6, Codice diplomatico, no. 283 (4th April 1392).

The Itinerary and Residences of John of Moravia

263

The patriarch left Cividale and Soffumbergo only occasionally, usually because of a session of parliament. Gemona, where he could sojourn at the local castle, is also documented as John’s place of residence several times. By contrast, we have only indirect evidence that the patriarch visited Aquileia, the official seat of the diocese and the chapter, although there is no reason to doubt that he did so. It is important to note that John remained within the territory of the patriarchate throughout his rule. The only exception was his trip to Bohemia from March to October 1391. However, apart from his stop­ over in Brno and the visit to Wenceslas IV and Margrave Prokop at the castle of Žebrák, we know nothing of his whereabouts during that time. The situa­ tion changed to some extent in early April 1393, when the patriarch concluded a peace with Udine, with his ceremonial arrival in the city taking place on 22nd April. During that period up until his death, John then resided alternately in Udine and Cividale, or rather at Soffumbergo, which is an indication of the (at least ostensible) calming of the situation in the country. We can therefore conclude that, by and large, John’s itinerary from the years 1388–1394 accurately reflects the changes in the current political situation in the patriarchate. Nevertheless, John’s main seat can unequivocally be regarded as Cividale, or, more precisely, the patriarchal palace there. This large complex of buildings (also encompassing a garden), with its ancient tradition reaching back to the eighth century, extended all the way from the duomo to the church/ chapel of Santa Maria di Corte and thus constituted a dignified and prestigious residence fully in keeping with John’s status as prince-bishop.23 23  The patriarchal palace was demolished in the sixteenth century. For a reconstruction of its appearance, see Sandro Colussa, Monica Baggio and Gian Pietro Brogiolo, “Il palazzo del Patriarca a Cividale,” Archeologia medievale 26 (1999), 67–92; Caiazza, “Le residenze dei patriarchi,” 135–157.

Illustrations

Figure 1

John Henry, margrave of Moravia and John’s father, in the so-called Gelnhausen Codex from around 1400

Illustrations

265

Figure 2 Jobst, margrave of Moravia and John’s half-brother, in the so-called Gelnhausen Codex from around 1400

266

Illustrations

Figure 3

Charles IV and his son Wenceslas IV on the votive panel of the archbishop of Prague John Očko of Vlašim from the second half of the fourteenth century

Figure 4

A historical reconstruction of Vyšehrad in the second half of the fourteenth century according to František Kašička

Illustrations

267

Figure 5

A historical reconstruction of the collegiate church of St. Peter at Vyšehrad in the second half of the fourteenth century according to František Kašička

Figure 6

A charter issued by John of Moravia as provost of Vyšehrad from 1377 with a fragment of his seal

268

Figure 7

Illustrations

A historical reconstruction of the residential complex of the bishops of Litomyšl with the cathedral in the second half of the fourteenth century according to Vojtěch Večeře

Illustrations

Figure 8

The Church of the Exaltation of the Holy Cross in Litomyšl from the second half of the fourteenth century, originally part of the Augustinian monastery

Figure 9

A fresco in the Chapel of St. Joseph in the same church, probably created during the Litomyšl episcopate of John of Moravia

269

270

Figure 10 The large seal of John of Moravia as bishop of Litomyšl

Illustrations

Illustrations

Figure 11 The secret seal of John of Moravia as bishop of Litomyšl

271

272

Illustrations

Figure 12 The castle of Krakovec with the remains of the chapel, consecrated by Bishop John in 1384

Illustrations

273

Figure 13 St. Hermagoras, patron saint of the patriarchate of Aquileia, being consecrated by St. Peter in the presence of St. Mark on a twelfth-century fresco in the crypt of the basilica of Aquileia

274

Illustrations

Figures 14–15 Exterior and interior of the basilica of Aquileia from the fourth century, current appearance from the eleventh century

Illustrations

Figure 16 The seal of John of Moravia as patriarch of Aquileia

275

276

Illustrations

Figure 17 A notarial instrument from 1393 by means of which John of Moravia donated certain property to the Cividale chapter in exchange for masses being celebrated for his soul

Illustrations

Figure 18 The deniers coined by John of Moravia as patriarch of Aquileia with the Moravian chequered eagle on the obverse and St. Hermagoras on the reverse

Figure 19 The duomo of Udine from the thirteenth century, later substantially rebuilt

277

278

Illustrations

Figure 20 The fourteenth-century gate of Udine, called Porta Aquileia

Figure 21 The facade of a palace in Via Savorgnana in Udine, bearing fourteenth-century paintings of the coats of arms of the patriarchate of Aquileia and the kingdom of Bohemia with a fragment of the imperial eagle above

279

Illustrations

Figure 22 A present-day view of Cividale del Friuli with the river Natisone

Figure 23 The throne of the patriarchs from the eleventh century, originally located in the apse of the duomo of Cividale, where the Aquileian prelates were symbolically installed in office

280

Figure 24 A fourteenth-century house in Cividale

Illustrations

Illustrations

281

Figure 25 The duomo in Gemona del Friuli from the early fourteenth century, later rebuilt

Figure 26 A present-day view of Venzone with its church

282

Figure 27 The tombstone of Augustine of Litomyšl in Venzone

Illustrations

Illustrations

Figure 28 A copperplate of the tomb of the Venetian doge Antonio Venier (1382–1400)

283

284

Illustrations

Figure 29 A fresco of fourteenth-century Padua, when the city was under the rule of the Carrara dynasty, by Giusto de’ Menabuoi in the Basilica di Sant’Antonio

Illustrations

285

Figure 30 The portrait of John of Moravia from around 1600 in the palace of the patriarchs in Udine

Bibliography

Archival Sources1



Archivio Capitolare di Udine



Archivio Segreto Vaticano



Archivio di Stato di Firenze



Archivio di Stato di Mantova



Archivio di Stato di Udine (www.archiviodistatoudine.beniculturali .it)

Archivio del Capitolo di Aquileia, cod. 1, Acta capituli Aquileiensis Fondo Bini Documenta historica, vol. X Varia patriarchalia Aquileiensia, vol. II (= LXVIII) Raccolta documenti, vol. II

Camera Apostolica, Diversa Cameralia, vol. 1 (= Armadio XXIX) Registra Vaticana, vol. 313

Signori, Missive della prima Cancelleria, regs. 21–24

Archivio Gonzaga, busta 1227, 1407, 1591, 2093, 2184, 3326

Documenti storici friulani, busta I, II Notarile antico, busta 5123, 5125, 5136 Patriarcato d’Aquileia, Monumenta patriae Forijulii Repertorio topografico dei notai



Archivio di Stato di Venezia (www.archiviodistatovenezia.it)

Archivio proprio di Giusto Fontanini, busta 2 Miscellanea atti diplomatici e privati, busta 27 Provveditori sopra feudi, busta 544 Senato Misti, regs. 40–42 Secreti, reg. R (E)

1  In cases where some of the documents are accessible online, the relevant link is given in brackets.

Bibliography



Archivio Storico del Comune di Belluno



Archiv Pražského hradu [Archives of Prague Castle] (www.monasterium.net)

287

Comunità di Cividàl di Belluno Provisioni, Libro D

Archiv Metropolitní kapituly u sv. Víta



Arhiv Republike Slovenije Ljubljana [Archives of the Republic of Slovenia in Ljubljana] (arsq.gov.si)

Zbirka listin



Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana (www.ub.uni-heidelberg.de)



Biblioteca Civica di Belluno (biblioteca.comune.belluno.it)



Biblioteca Civica di Cividale del Friuli



Biblioteca Civica “Valentino Baldissera” di Gemona del Friuli



Biblioteca Civica “Vincenzo Joppi” di Udine

Pal. Lat. 701

ms. 495, Documenti trascritti riguardanti la storia della provincia di Belluno dall’anno 1380 al 1420

Archivio dell’antica Comunità di Cividale, Antica cancelleria del comune—fondo Lorenzo D’Orlandi, busta 3–5, 8, 24 Archivio storico del Comune di Cividale del Friuli, Sezione antica Camerari, busta 1139, 1144

Archivio del Comune di Gemona Lettere autografe, vol. 347 Pergamene varie, scatola 1643 Quaderni dei Massari, regs. 415–420 Quaderni delle Deliberazioni, regs. 13–20 Valentino Baldissera, Spogli dei quaderni dei Massari

Fondo Joppi ms. 681, Notariorum, vol. 5 ms. 696/II, Autographa Vincentiana, vol. 2 ms. 697/I–II, Autographa Vincentiana, vols. 4–5 Fondo principale ms. 610, no. 1471, Marcantonio Nicoletti, Patriarcato di Giovanni di Moravia ms. 856, Documenti per la storia del Friuli

288

Bibliography



ms. 873, Apographa de rerum Forojuliensium historia ms. 882/15, Camerari del Comune di Udine ms. 896/III–IV, Codex diplomaticus Frangipane ms. 899, Raccolta Bianchi, vols. 52–59 ms. 943/II, Codice diplomatico friulano



Biblioteca del Museo Correr di Venezia



Biblioteca Nazionale “Marciana” di Venezia



Deutschordenszentralarchiv Wien (www.monasterium.net)



Haus-, Hof- und Staatsarchiv Wien (www.monasterium.net)



Kärntner Landesarchiv Klagenfurt (www.monasterium.net)



Magyar Nemzeti Levéltár Budapest [National Archives of Hungary in Budapest] (https://hungaricana.hu/)

ms. Cicogna 3428

cod. lat. XIV, 101 (= 2804) cod. lat. XIV, 102 (= 2805) cod. lat. XIV, 134 (= 4285) cod. lat. XIV, 135 (= 4286)

Urkunden

Allgemeine Urkundenreihe Handschriften, Cod. Weiß 321 St. Paul, Benediktiner

Allgemeine Urkundenreihe

Országos Levéltár, Diplomatikai Levéltár



Moravský zemský archiv Brno [Moravian Land Archives in Brno] (www.monasterium.net)

E 6—Benediktini Rajhrad



Museo Archeologico Nazionale di Cividale del Friuli

Archivio Capitolare Bullae pontificiae, vol. 1 Fondo diplomatico, vol. 15 Biblioteca Capitolare Guerra, Otium forojuliensium, vol. 35

Bibliography

289

Famiglia Boiani vol. 2, Pergamene vol. 6, Codice diplomatico



Národní archiv Praha [National Archives in Prague] (www.monasterium.net)

Archiv České koruny Archiv kolegiátní kapituly vyšehradské Archiv pražského arcibiskupství Augustiniáni obutí Premonstráti Strahov ŘC Zlatá Koruna ŘP Litomyšl



University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Kislak Center for Special Collections, Rare Books and Manuscripts (www.library.upenn.edu)

ms. 934, Vitae episcoporum et patriarcharum Aquileiensium



Zemský archiv Opava—pobočka Olomouc [Land Archives in Opava—Olomouc Branch] (digi.archives.cz)

Metropolitní kapitula Olomouc, sign. E II 12



Editions of Sources, Inventories & Catalogues

Acta Karoli IV. Imperatoris inedita. Ein Beitrag zu den Urkunden Kaiser Karls IV. aus italienischen Archiven gesammelt, ed. Franz Zimmermann (Innsbruck: Wagner, 1891). Acta summorum pontificum res gestas Bohemicas aevi praehussitici et hussitici illustrantia, vol. II, ed. Jaroslav Eršil (Prague: Academia Scientiarum Bohemoslovaca, 1980). Additamenta nunc primum edita e manuscripto codice vaticano, ed. Ludovico Antonio Muratori, RIS XVI (Milan: Societas Palatina, 1730), cols. 79–86. Album seu Matricula Facultatis Juridicae Universitatis Pragensis ab anno Christi 1372. usque ad annum 1418. e codice membranaceo illius aetatis nunc primum luce donatum, plenoque nominum indice auctum, vol. 1, Monumenta Historica Universitatis Carolo-Ferdinandeae Pragensis 2 (Prague: J. Spurny, 1834). Le antiche pergamene di San Vito di Cadore. I 224 documenti dell’Archivio comunale dal 1156 al 1420, ed. Giuseppe Richebuono (Belluno: Istituto bellunese ricerche sociali e culturali, 1980). Archiv pražské metropolitní kapituly [Archive of the Metropolitan Chapter of Prague], vol. 1, Katalog listin a listů z doby předhusitské (–1419) [Catalogue of Charters and

290

Bibliography

Letters from the Pre-Hussite Period], ed. Jaroslav Eršil and Jiří Pražák (Prague: Archivní správa ministerstva vnitra ČSR, 1956). Briefe Johanns von Neumarkt, ed. Paul Piur, Vom Mittelalter zur Reformation. Forschungen zur Geschichte der deutschen Bildung 8 (Berlin: Weidmann, 1937). Brunettin, Giordano. Archivio del Capitolo di Udine (ACU ). Regestazione e trascrizione delle pergamene del vol. IV o E (n.p., 2007), accessible online: http://www.webdiocesi .chiesacattolica.it/triveneto/udine/00030565_Raccolta_Pergamene.html. Calendar of State Papers and Manuscripts, Relating to English Affairs, Existing in the Archives and Collections of Venice and in the Other Libraries of Northern Italy, vol. 1, ed. Rawdon Brown (London: H. M. Stationery Office, 1864). “Cancellaria Arnesti. Formelbuch des ersten Prager Erzbischofs Arnest von Pardubic. Nach einer handschrift der K. K. Universitäts-Bibliothek zu Prag,” ed. Ferdinand Tadra, AfÖG 61 (1880), 267–567. “Cancellaria Johannis Noviforensis episcopi Olomucensis (1364–1380). Briefe und Urkunden des olmützer Bischoffs Johanns von Neumarkt,” ed. Ferdinand Tadra, AfÖG 68 (1886), 1–157. “Il Capitolo di Concordia e il Liber Anniversariorum,” ed. Giancarlo Stival, in La chiesa concordiese 389–1989, vol. 2, La diocesi di Concordia-Pordenone, ed. Giancarlo Stival (Fiume Veneto: Grafiche editoriali artistiche podenonesi, 1989), 323–479. Il castello di Buja ed i suoi statuti, ed. Vincenzo Joppi (Udine: J. B. Doretti, 1877). Chartularium Sangallense, vol. X, 1382–1389, ed. Otto Paul Clavadetscher and Stefan Sonderegger (St. Gallen: Thorbecke, 2007). Chronicon Aulae Regiae, ed. Josef Emler, FRB IV (Prague: Grégr and Edv. Valečka, 1884), 1–337. Chronicon Benesii de Weitmil, ed. Josef Emler, FRB IV (Prague: Grégr and Edv. Valečka, 1884), 457–548. Chronicon Modoetiense ab origine Modoetiae usq; ad Annum MCCCXLIX. ubi potissimum agitur de gestis priorum Vicecomitum Principum, Auctore Bonincontro Morigia Synchrono, nunc primum prodit e Msto Codice Bibliothecae Ambrosianae, ed. Ludovico Antonio Muratori, RIS XII (Milan: Societas Palatina, 1728), cols. 1053–1184. Chronicon Patavinum italica lingua conscriptum ab anno MCCCXI. usque ad Annum MCCCCVI., ed. Ludovico Antonio Muratori, RIS XVII (Milan: Societas Palatina, 1730), cols. 1–944. Chronicon Spilimbergense nunc primum in lucem editum, ed. Giuseppe Bianchi (Udine: Turchetto, 1856). Chronicon Tarvisinum ab Anno MCCCLXVIII. usque ad Annum MCCCCXXVIII. auctore Andrea de Redusiis de Quero, ed. Ludovico Antonio Muratori, RIS XIX (Milan: Societas Palatina, 1731), cols. 735–866. Chronicum tertium Patriarcharum Aquilejensium, Volcheri, et successorum, ed. Bernardo Maria de Rubeis, MEA (Strasbourg: n.p., 1740), appendix, no. IV, 11–15.

Bibliography

291

Codex diplomaticus et epistolaris Moraviae. Urkunden-Sammlung zur Geschichte Mährens, vol. VII, ed. Petr Chlumecký, Josef Chytil and Vincenz Brandl (Brno: Georg Gastl, 1858–1868); vol. IX, ed. Vincenz Brandl (Brno: Fr. Winiker, 1875); vol. X, ed. Vincenz Brandl (Brno: Fr. Winiker, 1878); vol. XI, ed. Vincenz Brandl (Brno: Fr. Winiker and Schickardt, 1885); vol. XII, ed. Vincenz Brandl (Brno: Fr. Winiker and Schickardt, 1890); vol. XV, ed. Berthold Bretholz (Brno: Mährischer Landesausschuss, 1903). Codex diplomaticus Hungariae ecclesiasticus ac civilis, vol. X/1–3, ed. György Fejér (Budapest: Regia Universitas Ungarica, 1834–1838). “Der Codex epistolaris des Erzbischofs von Prag Johann von Jenzenstein. Mit kritischen und erläuternden Bemerkungen,” ed. Johann Loserth, AfÖG 55 (1877), 266–400. Codex juris municipalis regni Bohemiae, vol. II, ed. Jaromír Čelakovský (Prague: Edv. Grégr, 1895). Codex Přemyslaeus. Regesty z výpisů z dvorských register Václava IV. z doby kolem a po roku 1400 [Codex Přemyslaeus: Abstracts of Excerpts from Wenceslas IV’s Court Registers from around 1400], ed. Ivan Hlaváček, Archiv český 39 (Prague: Filosofia, 2013). Codice Diplomatico Istriano, vol. 3, ed. Pietro Kandler (Trieste: Riva, 1986). I codici della Biblioteca capitolare di Cividale del Friuli, ed. Cesare Scalon and Laura Pani, Biblioteche e archivi 1 (Florence: SISMEL, 1998). Constitutionum Apostolicarum de generali beneficiorum reservatione ab a. 1265 usque ad a. 1378 emissarum, tam intra quam extra corpus iuris exstantium, collectio et interpretatio, ed. Karl Lux (Wrocław: Rudolph Grosser, 1904). Cronaca Carrarese di Galeazzo e Bartolomeo Gatari, confrontata con la redazione di Andrea Gatari [AA. 1318–1407], ed. Antonio Medin and Guido Tolomei, RIS n.s. XVII/1a (Città di Castello: S. Lapi, 1909). Cronaca volgare di Anonimo Fiorentino dall’anno 1385 al 1409 già attribuita a Piero di Giovanni Minerbetti, ed. Elina Bellondi, RIS n.s. XXVII/2 (Città di Castello: S. Lapi, 1915–1918). Cronica fratris Salimbene de Adam ordinis Minorum, ed. Oswald Holder-Egger, MGH SS 32 (Hannover and Leipzig: Hahn, 1905–1913). Da Mosto, Andrea. L’Archivio di Stato di Venezia. Indice generale, storico, descrittivo ed analitico, vol. 1 (Rome: Biblioteca d’Arte, 1937). De rebus Forojuliensibus sub Ludovico de Tech ex alio Chronico MS. Patriarcharum, ed. Bernardo Maria de Rubeis, MEA (Strasbourg: n.p., 1740), appendix, no. VI, 19. Deutsche Reichstagsakten unter König Wenzel, vol. 2, 1388–1397, ed. Julius Weizsäcker, Deutsche Reichstagsakten 2 ([Gotha]: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1874).

292

Bibliography

Documenti antichi trascritti da Francesco Pellegrini, vol. 4, Dal 1380 al 1407 (Belluno: Comune di Belluno, 1993). “Documenti goriziani del secolo XIV,” ed. Vincenzo Joppi, AT, n.s., 15 (1890), 417–453; 17 (1891), 293–324. I documenti di Liazaro notaio vescovile di Feltre e Belluno (1386–1422), ed. Gian Maria Varanini and Carlo Zoldan, Fonti per la storia della terraferma veneta 28 (Rome: Viella, 2011). Documenti per la storia del Friuli dal 1317 al 1325, ed. Giuseppe Bianchi (Udine: Turchetto, 1844). Documenti per la storia del Friuli dal 1326 al 1332, ed. Giuseppe Bianchi (Udine: Turchetto, 1845). Dokumente zur Geschichte des Deutschen Reiches und seiner Verfassung 1350–1353, ed. Margarete Kühn, MGH Const 10 (Weimar: Harrassowitz, 1979–1991). Epistolario di Coluccio Salutati, vol. 2, ed. Francesco Novati, FSI Ep 16 (Rome: Istituto storico italiano per il Medio Evo, 1893). Epistolario di Pier Paolo Vergerio, ed. Leonardo Smith, FSI Ep 74 (Rome: Tipografia del Senato, 1934). “Das Granum catalogi praesulum Moraviae nach der Handschrift des Olmützer Domcapitelarchivs,” ed. Johann Loserth, AfÖG 78 (1892), 41–97. Heimpel, Hermann. “Aus der Kanzlei Kaiser Sigismunds (Über den Cod. Pal. Lat. 701 der Vatikanischen Bibliothek),” Archiv für Urkundenforschung 12 (1932), 111–180. Hirsch, Rudolf, and Norman P. Zacour. Catalogue of Manuscripts in the Libraries of the University of Pennsylvania to 1800 (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1965). Historia belli Forojuliensis Johannis Aylini de Maniaco ex Codice Camilli Manini, ed. Bernardo Maria de Rubeis, MEA (Strasbourg: n.p., 1740), appendix, no. XI, 44–57. Historia Belli Forojuliensis nunc primum edita, conscripta a Johanne notario quondam Aylini de Maniaco, ed. Ludovico Antonio Muratori, AIM III (Milan: Societas Palatina, 1740), cols. 1191–1220. Indice dei documenti per la storia del Friuli dal 1200 al 1400 raccolti dall’Ab. Giuseppe Bianchi (Udine: Jacob e Colmegna, 1877). Iohannis abbatis Victoriensis Liber certarum historiarum, ed. Fedor Schneider, MGH SRG [36/2] (Hannover and Leipzig: Hahn, 1910). Joppi, Vincenzo. “Documenti per la Prefazione,” in Statuti e ordinamenti del Comune di Udine, 139–155. Knihy počtů města Brna z let 1343–1365 [Books of Accounts of the City of Brno from 1343–1365], ed. Bedřich Mendl, Knihy městských počtů z doby předhusitské 1 (Brno: Československý státní ústav historický, 1935). Die Landtafel des Markgrafthumes Mähren (1344–1466). Brünner Cuda, ed. Josef Chytil, Petr Chlumecký, Karl Demuth and Adolf Wolfskron (Brno: Nitsch & Grosse, 1856).

Bibliography

293

Liber Decanorum Facultatis Philosophicae Universitatis Pragensis ab anno Christi 1367. usque ad annum 1585. e codice membranaceo illius aetatis nunc primum luce donatus, vols. 1–2, Monumenta Historica Universitatis Carolo-Ferdinandeae Pragensis 1 (Prague: Joan. Nep. Gerzabek, 1830–1832). I libri commemoriali della Repubblica di Venezia, vol. 3, ed. Riccardo Predelli, Monumenti storici pubblicati dalla R. Deputazione veneta di storia patria 9, Serie 1, Documenti 7 (Venice: R. Deputazione veneta di storia patria, 1883). Libri confirmationum ad beneficia ecclesiastica Pragensem per archidioecesim, vol. III– IV, ed. Josef Emler (Prague: Spolek historický, 1879). Libri erectionum archidioecesis Pragensis saeculo XIV. et XV., vol. II, ed. Clemens Borový (Prague: J. G. Calve, 1878). “Il libro degli anniversari del capitolo,” in I libri degli anniversari di Cividale del Friuli, vol. 1, ed. Cesare Scalon, Fonti per la storia della Chiesa in Friuli. Serie medievale 5 (Rome: Istituto storico italiano per il Medio Evo, 2008), 197–526. “Il libro degli anniversari di San Domenico,” in I libri degli anniversari di Cividale del Friuli, vol. 2, ed. Cesare Scalon, Fonti per la storia della Chiesa in Friuli. Serie medievale 6 (Rome: Istituto storico italiano per il Medio Evo, 2008), 527–750. Listář královského města Plzně a druhdy poddaných osad [Edition of Letters of the Royal City of Pilsen and Other Subject Settlements], vol. 1, ed. Josef Strnad, Publikace městského historického musea v Plzni 1 (Pilsen: Městské historické muzeum, 1891). Luzio, Alessandro. L’Archivio Gonzaga di Mantova, vol. 2, La corrispondenza familiare, amministrativa e diplomatica dei Gonzaga (Verona: Mondadori, 1922). di Manzano, Francesco. Annali del Friuli ossia raccolta delle cose storiche appartenenti a questa regione, vols. 2, 5–6 (Udine: Trombetti-Murero and G. Seitz, 1858–1868). “I memoriali ‘Nobilis Patriae Forojulii’ dell’anno 1386 (Lucifer Aquilejensis),” ed. Arnold Luschin von Ebengreuth, AT, n.s., 16 (1890), lxi–lxxxvi. Miari, Clemente. Chronicon Bellunense (1383–1412), ed. Matteo Melchiorre, Fonti per la storia della terraferma veneta 29 (Rome: Viella, 2015). Monumenta historica Ducatus Carinthiae, vol. X, Die Kärntner Geschichtsquellen 1335– 1414, ed. Hermann Wiessner (Klagenfurt: Kleinmayr, 1968). Monumenta Vaticana res gestas Bohemicas illustrantia, Tomus prodromus, ed. Zdeňka Hledíková (Prague: Academia, 2003); vol. I, ed. Ladislav Klicman (Prague: Typis Gregerianis, 1903); vol. II, ed. Jan Bedřich Novák (Prague: Typis Gregerianis, 1907); vol. III, ed. [Bedřich Jenšovský] and Věra Jenšovská (Prague: Typis Gregerianis, 1944–1954); vol. IV, ed. Karel Stloukal (Prague: Středočeská tiskárna, 1949–1953); vol. V, ed. Kamil Krofta (Prague: Typis Gregerianis, 1903).

294

Bibliography

Monumenti della Università di Padova (1318–1405), vols. 1–2, ed. Andrea Gloria (Padua: Tipografia del Seminario, 1888). Necrologia patrum et fratrum Ordinis Eremitarum calceat. S. Augustini in Vicariatu Moraviae ab anno 1363–1888 defunctorum, ed. Clemens de Elpidio Janetschek (Brno: Typografia pontif. Benedictinorum Rajhradiensium, 1864). Necrologium Aquileiense, ed. Cesare Scalon, Fonti per la storia della Chiesa in Friuli 1 (Udine: Istituto Pio Paschini, 1982). Nonnullorum Patriarcharum Vitae ex alio Chronico MS, desumpta, ed. Bernardo Maria de Rubeis, MEA (Strasbourg: n.p., 1740), appendix, no. V, 15–19. Olivo, Luca. Antica cancelleria del comune di Cividale del Friuli—fondo Lorenzo D’Orlandi. Inventario, vols. 1–3 (n.p., 2017). Otorepec, Božo. Gradivo za slovensko zgodovino v arhivih in bibliotekah Vidma (Udine) 1270–1405 [Material on the History of Slovenia in the Archives and Libraries of Udine 1270–1405], Fontes rerum Slovenicarum 14 (Ljubljana: Slovenska akademija znanosti in umetnosti, 1995). Parlamento friulano, vol. I/1–2, ed. Pier Silverio Leicht, Atti delle assemblee costituzionali italiane dal Medio Evo al 1831 1/6 (Bologna: N. Zanichelli, 1917–1925). Petr, Stanislav. Soupis rukopisných bohemik ve vatikánské knihovně Palatina [Catalogue of Manuscript Bohemica in the Vatican Palatina Library], Codices manuscripti Bohemici bibliothecarum Vaticanarum et Italicarum 1 (Prague: Masarykův ústav and Archiv Akademie věd České republiky, 2016). “Petri Clarificatoris Vita domini Iohannis, Pragensis archiepiscopi tercii,” ed. Helena Krmíčková, in Querite primum regnum Dei. Sborník příspěvků k poctě Jany Nechutové, ed. Helena Krmíčková, Anna Pumprová, Dana Růžičková and Libor Švanda (Brno: Matice moravská, 2006), 441–461. Pii II commentarii rerum memorabilium que temporibus suis contigerunt, vol. 1, ed. Adriano van Heck, Studi e testi 312 (Vatican City: Bibliotheca Apostolica Vaticana, 1984). Pitassi, Beatrice. Comune di Gemona. Archivio storico. Parte antica (sec. XIII–1815). Inventario (n.p., 2004). I protocolli di Gabriele da Cremona. Notaio della Curia patriarcale di Aquileia (1324–1336, 1344, 1350), ed. Andrea Tilatti, Fonti per la storia della Chiesa in Friuli. Serie medie­ vale 1 (Rome: Istituto storico italiano per il Medio Evo, 2006). Raphayni de Caresinis cancellarii Venetiarum Chronica. AA. 1343–1388, ed. Ester Pastorello, RIS n.s. XII/2 (Bologna: N. Zanichelli, 1922). Rechnungen über Heinrich von Derby’s Preussenfahrten 1390–91 und 1392, ed. Hans Prutz (Leipzig: Duncker & Humblot, 1893). Regesta Bohemiae et Moraviae aetatis Venceslai IV. (1378, dec.–1419, aug. 16), vol. I/1, ed. Věra Jenšovská (Prague: Academia, 1967); vol. V/1, fasc. 1, ed. Karel Beránek and Věra Beránková (Prague: Scriptorium, 2006).

Bibliography

295

Regesta diplomatica nec non epistolaria Bohemiae et Moraviae, vol. IV, ed. Josef Emler (Prague: Typis Gregerianis, 1892); vol. V/4, ed. Jana Zachová (Dolní Břežany: Scriptorium, 2004); vol. VI/1, ed. Bedřich Mendl (Prague: Historický ústav AV ČR, 1928); vol. VII/5, ed. Milena Linhartová and Bedřich Mendl (Prague: ČSAV, 1963); vol. VIII/2, ed. Lenka Blechová (Prague: Historický ústav AV ČR, 2017). Regesta Imperii, vol. VIII, Die Regesten des Kaiserreichs unter Kaiser Karl IV. 1346–1378, ed. Alfons Huber (Innsbruck: Wagner, 1877); vol. XI, Die Urkunden Kaiser Sigismunds (1410–1437), ed. Wilhelm Altmann (Innsbruck: Wagner, 1896–1897); Regesten Kaiser Sigismunds (1410–1437) nach Archiven und Bibliotheken geordnet, vol. 1, Die Urkunden und Briefe aus den Archiven und Bibliotheken Mährens und Tschechisch-Schlesiens, ed. Petr Elbel (Vienna, Cologne and Weimar: Böhlau, 2012). “Regesta listin z lichtenštejnského archivu ve Vaduzu z let 1173–1526 [Abstracts of Charters from the Liechtenstein Archive in Vaduz from 1173–1526],” ed. Adolf Turek and Metoděj Zemek, Sborník archivních prací 33, no. 1 (1983), 149–296. Registra decimarum papalium čili Registra desátků papežských z diocezí pražské [Registra decimarum papalium, or Registers of Papal Tithes from the Prague Diocese], ed. Václav Vladivoj Tomek, Z pojednání král. české společnosti nauk 6 (Prague: Ed. Grégr, 1873). Il registro battesimale di Gemona del Friuli 1379–1404, ed. Flavia De Vitt, Pubblicazioni della Deputazione di storia patria per il Friuli 28 (Udine: Deputazione di storia patria per il Friuli, 2000). Das Reichsregister König Albrechts II., ed. Heinrich Koller, Mitteilungen des Österreichischen Staatsarchiv. Ergänzungsband 4 (Vienna: Berger, 1955). Repertorium Germanicum, vol. 2, Urban VI., Bonifaz IX., Innocenz VII. und Gregor XII. (Berlin: Weidmann, 1933). Das Runtingerbuch 1383–1407 und verwandtes Material zum regensburger-südostdeutschen Handel und Münzwesen, vol. 3, ed. Franz Bastian, Deutsche Handelsakten des Mittelalters und der Neuzeit 8 (Regensburg: Bosse, 1943). Sacrorum conciliorum nova et amplissima collectio, vols. 24–26, ed. Giovanni Domenico Mansi (Venice: A. Zatta, 1780–1784). Seguito degli Estratti degli Annali di Cividale del Friuli dal 1384 al 1419, ed. Fabio Beretta (Udine: Seitz, 1864). Series patriarcharum Aquilegiensium, ed. Oswald Holder-Egger, MGH SS 13 (Hannover: Hahn, 1881), 367–368. Sinodi aquileiesi: ricerche e ricordi, ed. Giacomo Marcuzzi (Udine: Tipografia del Patronato, 1910).

296

Bibliography

Soudní akta konsistoře pražské (Acta judiciaria consistorii Pragensis) [Judicial Registers of the Consistory of Prague], vols. I–II, ed. Ferdinand Tadra (Prague: Česká akademie císaře Františka Josefa pro vědy, slovesnost a umění, 1893). “Statuta et ordinamenta comunitatis terre Utini MCCCCXXV,” ed. Vincenzo Joppi and Alessandro Wolf, in Statuti e ordinamenti del Comune di Udine, 1–131. Statuti e legislazione veneta della Carnia e del Canale del Ferro (Sec. XIV–XVIII), vol. 1, ed. Giulia Ventura (Udine: Deputazione di storia patria per il Friuli, 1988). Statuti e ordinamenti del Comune di Udine (Udine: Gio. Batt. Doretti, 1898). “Testi inediti friulani dei secoli XIV al XIX,” ed. Vincenzo Joppi, Archivio glottologico italiano 4 (1878), 185–342. Trapani, Francesca. Inventario della corrispondenza dell’Antica Comunità di Cividale (1176–1509) (Udine: Filacorda, 2011). Über Formelbücher, zunächst in Bezug auf böhmische Geschichte. Nebst Beilagen. Ein Quellenbeitrag zur Geschichte Böhmens und der Nachbarländer im XIII, XIV und XV Jahrhunderte, vol. 2, ed. František Palacký (Prague: Kronberger and Řiwnač, 1847). “Über Nekrologe der Olmützer Domkirche,” ed. Beda Dudík, AfÖG 65 (1884), 487– 589. Urbes, Castra Oppida, et Arces Forojulienses ex Codice MS., ed. Bernardo Maria de Rubeis, MEA (Strasbourg: n.p., 1740), appendix, no. VII, 19–20. Urkundenbuch des Benedictiner-Stiftes St. Paul in Kärnten, ed. Beda Schroll, FRA DA 39 (Vienna: Gerold, 1876). Urkundenbuch des ehemaligen Cistercienserstiftes Goldenkron in Böhmen, ed. Mathias Pangerl, FRA DA 37 (Vienna: Gerold, 1872). Urkundenbuch der Stadt Budweis in Böhmen, vol. I/1, ed. Karl Köpl, Städte- und Urkundenbücher aus Böhmen 4 (Prague: Verein für Geschichte der Deutschen in Böhmen, 1901). Die Urkunden des Deutsch-Ordens-Central archives zu Wien, ed. Gaston Graf von Pettenegg, vol. 1 (Prague and Leipzig: F. Tempsky and G. Freytag, 1887). Valentinelli, Joseph. Regesta documentorum Germaniae historiam illustrantium. Regesten zur deutschen Geschichte aus den Handschriften der Marcusbibliothek in Venedig (Munich: Verlag der k. Akademie, 1864). Valentinelli, Joseph. “Zur Geschichte der Patriarchen von Aquileja,” Notizenblatt. Beilage zum AfÖG 4 (1854), 49–60, 73–79, 515–524; 5 (1855), 169–176, 217–222, 268– 277, 451–455; 7 (1857), 86–89, 103–106, 115–119, 133–138, 148–152, 166–1704. Zanini, Alba. Il capitolo collegiato di Santa Maria Assunta di Cividale. Inventario (n.p., [2015]), accessible online: http://www.sa-fvg.archivi.beniculturali.it/index.php?id =archivi_ecclesiastici0. Zenarola Pastore, Ivonne. Atti della cancelleria dei patriarchi di Aquileia (1265–1420), Pubblicazioni della Deputazione di storia patria per il Friuli 12 (Udine: Arti Grafiche Friulane, 1983).

Bibliography

297

Zsigmondkori oklevéltár, vol. 1, ed. Elemér Mályusz, Magyar Országos Levéltár kiadvá­ nyai 2/1 (Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 1951).



Renaissance, Baroque & Enlightenment Historiography

Augustini Olomucensis episcoporum Olomucensium series, ed. Franz Xaver Richter (Olomouc: A. Skarnitzl, 1831). Balbín, Bohuslav. Epitome Historica Rerum Bohemicarum. Quam Ob Venerationem Christianae Antiqvitatis, Et Primae In Bohemia Collegialis Ecclesiae Honorem, Boleslaviensem Historiam Placuit Appellare. In ea, pleraque in historiis nostris incerta, controversa, obscura; multa item ab aliis praeterita, summa fide, diligentia, claritate, et brevitate quinque libris explicantur et statuuntur. Adjecti sunt libri duo, VI. et VII., de antiquissimo Boleslaviensis ecclecia collegio; deque origine et miraculis magnae Dei Matris, quæ ibidem in basilica sua summa Populi veneratione colitur (Prague: Typis Universitatis Carolo-Ferdinandeae, 1677). Caro, Francesco. Istoria de’ signori Savorgnani detti del Monte, conti di Belgrado, Castel Nuovo, etc. (Udine: Fratelli Gallici, 1771). Commentarii di Giovan Candido givreconsvlto dei fatti d’Aquileia (Venice: [M. Tramezino], 1544). Corner, Flaminio. Ecclesiae Venetae antiquis monumentis nunc etiam primum editis illustratae ac in decades distributae (Venice: Jo. Baptista Pasquali, 1749). [Dubravius, Jan]. Historiae Regni Boiemiae, de rebvs memoria dignis, in illa gestis, ab initio Boiemorum, qui ex Illyria venientes, eandem Boiemiam, in medio propemodum ­superioris Germaniae sitam, occupauerunt. Libri XXXIII, ex fide tandem narrationeque historica scripti, absolutique, et in lucem iamprimum aediti, sat videlicet citô, si sat bene (Prostějov: Io. Guntherus, 1552). Hájek z Libočan, Václav. Kronika česká [Chronicle of Bohemia], ed. Jan Linka (Prague: Academia, 2013). “Historia della crudel zobia grassa et altri nefarii excessi et horrende calamità intervenute in la città di Udine et Patria del Friuli del 1511 di Gregorio Amaseo,” ed. Antonio Ceruti, in Diarii udinesi dall’anno 1508 al 1541 di Leonardo e Gregorio Amaseo e Gio. Antonio Azio (Venice: R. Deputazione veneta di storia patria, 1884–1885), 497–548. Liruti, Gian Giuseppe. Notizie delle cose del Friuli scritte secondo i tempi, vol. 5 (Udine: Fratelli Gallici, 1777). Morozzo, Carlo Giuseppe. Theatrum chronologicum sacri Cartusiensis Ordinis lectori exhibens. Ordinis eiusdem primordia, et consuetudines, priores magnae Cartusiae, Ord. Gen. cardinalium purpuras, episcoporum infulas, scriptorum athenaeum, piorum fastos, singularum denique per orbem Cartusiarum erectiones, Ordinis antiquitate digestas (Turin: Io. Sinibaldus, 1681).

298

Bibliography

Palladio degli Olivi, Gian Francesco. Historie della Provincia del Friuli (Udine: N. Schiratti, 1660). Paprocký z Hlohol, Bartoloměj. Zrdcadlo Slawného Margkrabstvii Morawského, w kterémž geden každý Staw, dáwnost, wzáctnost, y powinnost swau vhléda [Mirror of the Glorious Margraviate of Moravia in Which Is Seen its Every Single Estate, Ancientness, Preciousness and Obligation] (Olomouc: Haeredes Milichtalleri, 1593). Pelzel, Franz Martin. Lebensgeschichte des Römischen und Böhmischen Königs Wence­s­ laus, vol. 1 (Prague: n.p., 1788). Pešina z Čechorodu, Tomáš. Mars Moravicus. Sive bella horrida et cruenta, seditiones, tumultus, praelia, turbae et ex ijs enatae crebrae et funestae rerum mutationes, dirae calamitates, incendia, clades, agrorum depopulationes, urbium vastitates, aedium sacrarum et prophanarum ruinae, arcium et oppidorum eversiones, pagorum cineres, populorum excidia, et alia id genus mala, quae Moravia hactenus passa fuit (Prague: Jo. A. de Dobroslawina, 1677). Pešina z Čechorodu, Tomáš. Phosphorus Septicornis, Stella alias Matutina. Hoc est: Sanctae Metropolitanae Divi Viti Ecclesiae Pragensis Majestas et Gloria: Quibus Illa, Per tot secula, Orbi nostro enituit semper clarissima (Prague: Jo. A. de Dobroslawina, 1673). de Rubeis, Bernardo Maria. Monumenta Ecclesiae Aquilejensis Commentario HistoricoChronologico-Critico Illustrata. Cum Appendice In qua vetusta Aquilejensium Patriar­ charum, rerumque Forojuliensium Chronica, Emendatiora quaedam, alia nunc primum, in lucem prodeunt (Strasbourg: n.p., 1740). Sini, Girolamo. Cronaca della magnifica comunità di San Daniele del Friuli, ed. Giuseppe Barbaro (Venice: Gio. Cecchini, 1865). Ughelli, Ferdinando. Italia sacra sive de Episcopis Italiae, Et Insularum adjecentium, rebusque ab iis praeclare gestis, deducta serie ad nostram usque aetatem, vols. 3 and 5, 2nd ed. (Venice: S. Coleto, 1718–1720). Valvasone di Maniago, Jacopo. Successi della Patria del Friuli sotto i Patriarchi d’Aquileia dal 1332 al 1402, ed. Nicolò Brandis (Milan: A. Lombardi, 1857). Verci, Giambattista. Storia della Marca Trivigiana e Veronese, vol. 17 (Venice: G. Storti, 1790). Vitae patriarcharum Aquilejensium auctore Antonio Bellono Utinensi, ed. Ludovico Antonio Muratori, RIS XVI (Milan: Societas Palatina, 1730), cols. 25–70.

Newspapers Giornale di Udine e del Veneto orientale (accessible online: http://periodicifriuli.sbhu.it), year 17, no. 241, 9th October 1883; year 17, no. 242, 10th October 1883; year 17, no. 245, 13th October 1883.

Bibliography



299

Secondary Literature

Algazi, Gadi. “Forget Memory: Some Critical Remarks on Memory, Forgetting and History,” in Damnatio in memoria, 25–34. Ambrožič, Matjaž. “O cerkvenih pečatih z ozirom na relikvijska pečata v p. c. sv. Martina v Žirovnici [Ecclesiastical Seals with Special Regard to Seals Attached to the Relics at the Succursal Church of St. Martin in Žirovnica],” Arhivi. Glasilo Arhivskega društva in arhivov Slovenije 34, no. 2 (2011), 227–242. Antonín, Robert. The Ideal Ruler in Medieval Bohemia, East Central and Eastern Europe in the Middle Ages, 450–1450 44 (Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2017). Antonín, Robert, Tomáš Borovský and Demeter Malaťák. “Královský itinerář a královské slavnosti středověké Moravy [The Royal Itinerary and Royal Festivities of Medieval Moravia],” SPFFBU—C 54 (2007), 99–120. Arnaldi, Girolamo, and Lidia Capo. “I cronisti di Venezia e della Marca Trevigiana,” in Storia della cultura veneta, vol. 2, Il Trecento, ed. Girolamo Arnaldi (Vicenza: N. Pozza, 1976), 272–337. Ascheri, Mario. The Laws of Late Medieval Italy (1000–1500). Foundations for a European Legal System (Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2013). Baletka, Tomáš. “Dvůr, rezidence a kancelář moravského markraběte Jošta (1375–1411) [The Court, Residence and Chancery of Margrave Jobst of Moravia (1375–1411)],” Sborník archivních prací 46, no. 2 (1996), 259–536. Bansa, Helmut. “Heinrich von Wildenstein und seine Leichenpredigten auf Kaiser Karl IV.,” Deutsches Archiv für Erforschung des Mittelalters 24 (1968), 187–223. Bard, Imre. “The Break of 1404 between the Hungarian Church and Rome,” Ungarn Jahrbuch 10 (1979), 59–69. Bartlová, Milena, and Lenka Bobková. Velké dějiny zemí Koruny české [The Great History of the Lands of the Bohemian Crown], vol. 4/b, 1310–1402 (Prague and Litomyšl: Paseka, 2003). Bartoš, František Michálek. České dějiny [A History of Bohemia], vol. 2/6, Čechy v době Husově (1378–1415) [Bohemia during the Age of Hus (1378–1415)] (Prague: J. Laichter, 1947). Battistella, Antonio. L’abbazia di Moggio. Memoria storica documentata (Udine: G. B. Doretti, 1903). Bauch, Martin. Divina favente clemencia. Auserwählung, Frömmigkeit und Heilsver­ mittlung in der Herrschaftspraxis Kaiser Karls IV., Forschungen zur Kaiser- und Papstgeschichte des Mittelalters 36 (Vienna, Cologne and Weimar: Böhlau, 2015). Bauch, Martin. “‘Et hec scripsi manu mea propria’: Known and Unknown Autographs of Charles IV as Testimonies of Intellectual Profile, Royal Literacy, and Cultural Transfer,” in Ruling the Script in the Middle Ages. Formal Aspects of Written Communication (Books, Charters, and Inscriptions), ed. Sébastien Barret, Dominique

300

Bibliography

Stutzmann and Georg Vogeler, Utrecht Studies in Medieval Literacy 35 (Turnhout: Brepols, 2016), 25–47. Baum, Wilhelm. Kaiser Sigismund. Hus, Konstanz und Türkenkriege (Graz, Vienna and Cologne: Styria, 1993). Baum, Wilhelm. “Rosazzo,” in Die benediktinischen Mönchs- und Nonnenklöster in Österreich und Südtirol, ed. Ulrich Faust and Waltraud Krassnig, Germania Benedictina 3/3 (St. Ottilien: EOS Verlag, 2002), 152–182. Baumgarten, Paul Maria. “Miscellanea Cameralia II,” Römische Quartalschrift für christliche Altertumskunde und Kirchengeschichte 22, no. 2 (1908), 36–55. Beinhoff, Gisela. Die Italiener am Hof Kaiser Sigismunds (1410–1437), Europäische Hochschulschriften. Geschichte und ihre Hilfswissenschaften 3/620 (Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 1995). Bellabarba, Marco. “The feudal principalities: the east (Trent, Bressanone/Brixen, Aquileia, Tyrol and Gorizia),” in The Italian Renaissance State, 197–219. Bellondi, Elina. “Prefazione,” in Cronaca volgare di Anonimo Fiorentino dall’anno 1385 al 1409 già attribuita a Piero di Giovanni Minerbetti, ed. Elina Bellondi, RIS n.s. XXVII/2 (Città di Castello: S. Lapi, 1915–1918), i–v. Benussi, Bernardo. L’Istria nei suoi due millenni di storia, Collana degli atti Centro di ricerche storiche—Rovigno 14 (Venice and Rovigno: Consiglio regionale del Veneto, 1997). Biasutti, Guglielmo. Mille anni di cancellieri e coadiutori nella curia di Aquileia ed Udine (Udine: Arti Grafiche Friulane, 1967). Die Bischöfe des Heiligen Römischen Reiches 1198 bis 1448. Ein biographisches Lexikon, ed. Erwin Gatz (Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 2001). Bistřický, Jan. “Nikolaus von Riesenburg († 1397),” in Die Bischöfe des Heiligen Römischen Reiches, 515–516. Die Bistümer des Heiligen Römischen Reiches von ihren Anfängen bis zur Säkularisation, ed. Erwin Gatz (Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 2003). Bláhová, Marie. Historická chronologie [Historical Chronology] (Prague: Libri, 2001). Bláhová, Marie. “Příjezd Karla IV. do Avignonu v květnu 1365 v podání soudobé historiografie [Charles IV’s Entry into Avignon in May 1365 as Presented by Contemporary Historiography],” in Ve znamení zemí Koruny české. Sborník k šedesátým naroze­ ninám prof. PhDr. Lenky Bobkové, CSc., ed. Jana Konvičná and Jan Zdichynec (Prague: Casablanca, 2006), 559–577. Bláhová, Marie. “Založení vyšehradské kapituly ve středověké historiografii [The Foundation of the Vyšehrad Chapter in Medieval Historiography],” in Královský Vyšehrad, vol. 2, 13–31. Bobková, Lenka. 7. 4. 1348. Ustavení Koruny království českého. Český stát Karla IV. [7th April 1348: The Establishment of the Crown of the Kingdom of Bohemia. The

Bibliography

301

Bohemian State of Charles IV], Dny, které tvořily české dějiny 12 (Prague: Havran, 2006). Bobková, Lenka. “Die Goldene Bulle und die Rechtsverfügungen Karls IV. für das Königreich Böhmen in den Jahren 1346–1356,” in Die Goldene Bulle, vol. 2, 713–735. Bobková, Lenka. Jan Lucemburský. Otec slavného syna [John of Luxembourg: The Father of a Famous Son] (Prague: Vyšehrad, 2018). Bobková, Lenka. “Koruna království českého za vlády Lucemburků [The Bohemian Crown during the Reign of the Luxembourg Dynasty],” in Lucemburkové, 124–140. Bobková, Lenka. Velké dějiny zemí Koruny české [The Great History of the Lands of the Bohemian Crown], vol. 4/a, 1310–1402 (Prague and Litomyšl: Paseka, 2003). Bobková, Lenka, Tomáš Velička et al. Jan Zhořelecký. Třetí syn Karla IV. [John of Görlitz: The Third Son of Charles IV], Korunní země v dějinách českého státu 7 (Prague: Casablanca, 2016). Bolognini, Giorgio. “Le relazioni tra la Repubblica di Firenze e la Repubblica di Venezia nell’ultimo ventennio del secolo XIV,” NAV 9 (1895), 5–109. Boni de Nobili, Francesco. Gli stemmi dei vescovi di Concordia-Pordenone dal Medioevo a oggi (Pordenone: Propordenone, 2011). Bortolami, Sante. “Prata (di) Pileo, cardinale,” in Nuovo Liruti, vol. 1/2, 701–707. Bottazzi, Marialuisa. “Le raccolte epistolari di Cividale del Friuli,” in La corrispondenza epistolare in Italia, vol. 1, 41–93. Bourdieu, Pierre. “The biographical illusion,” in Identity: A Reader, ed. Paul du Gay, Jessica Evans and Peter Redman (Los Angeles: Sage, 2000), 297–303. Braniš, Josef. Svatá koruna. Bývalý klášter cistercienský [Svatá koruna: The Former Cistercian Monastery] (Prague: Společnost přátel starožitností českých, 1904). Breitenbacher, Antonín. “Legendy na obrazích olomouckých biskupů v kroměřížském zámku [Inscriptions on the Portraits of the Bishops of Olomouc in Kroměříž Castle],” in XII. výroční zpráva arcibiskupského gymnasia v Kroměříži za školní rok 1921–1922 (Kroměříž: Arcibiskupské gymnasium, 1922), 3–22. Bretholz, Berthold. “Zur Biographie des Markgrafen Jodok von Mähren,” Zeitschrift des Vereines für die Geschichte Mährens und Schlesiens 3 (1899), 237–265. Brezzi, Paolo. Storia degli Anni Santi. Da Bonifacio VIII ai giorni nostri, Storia e documenti 18 (Milan: Mursia, 1975). Brunettin, Giordano. Bertrando di Saint-Geniès patriarca di Aquileia (1334–1350) (Spoleto: Centro italiano di studi sull’alto medioevo, 2004). Brunettin, Giordano. “L’evoluzione impossibile. Il principato ecclesiastico di Aquileia tra retaggio feudale e tentazioni signorili (1251–1350),” in Il Patriarcato di Aquileia, 65–226. Brunettin, Giordano. I registri notarili di Giorgio da Paluzza. Anni 1388, 1383, 1384, 1389, 1391 (Fondo Fontanini LXV—Cod. 38), Quaderni guarneriani 8 (San Daniele del Friuli and Udine: Comune di San Daniele del Friuli, 2017).

302

Bibliography

Brunettin, Giordano, and Marino Zabbia. “Cancellieri e documentazione in registro nel Patriarcato d’Aquileia. Prime ricerche (secoli XIII–XIV),” in I registri vescovili dell’Italia settentrionale, 327–372. Březina, Vladimír. Rytířský stav v Čechách a na Moravě v raném novověku. Rod Bukůvků z Bukůvky od středověku do 20. století [The Knightly Estate in Bohemia and Moravia in the Early Modern Age: The House of Bukůvka of Bukůvka from the Middle Ages to the Twentieth Century] (České Budějovice: Veduta, 2008). Budský, Dominik. “Metropolitní kapitula pražská jako dvůr v malém. Kariéra a vztahy v prostředí kapituly v letech 1378–1390 [The Metropolitan Chapter of Prague as a Small-Scale Court: The Career and Relationships within the Chapter in the Years 1378–1390],” in Dvory a rezidence ve středověku, ed. Dana Dvořáčková-Malá, MHB 10, Supplementum 1 (Prague: Historický ústav AV ČR, 2006), 53–86. Bueno de Mesquita, Daniel M. Giangaleazzo Visconti, Duke of Milan (1351–1402). A study in the political career of an Italian despot (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1941). Bulst, Neithard. “Illegitime Kinder—viele oder wenige? Quantitative Aspekte der Illegitimität im spätmittelalterlichen Europa,” in Illegitimität im Spätmittelalter, 21–39. Burckhardt, Jacob. The Civilisation of the Period of the Renaissance in Italy, vol. 1, trans. S[amuel] G. C. Middlemore (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015). Cadorini, Giorgio. “Tři zmínky o patriarchovi aquilejském Janu z Moravy ve vztahu k uměleckým předmětům [Three References to the Patriarch of Aquileia, John of Moravia, in Relation to Works of Art],” in Mezi kulturou a uměním. Věnováno Zdeňku Hojdovi k životnímu jubileu, ed. Ivana Ebelová, Jiří Pešek, Tomáš Sekyrka and Vít Vlnas (Prague: NLN, 2013), 24–29. Caiazza, Gabriele. “Le residenze dei patriarchi di Aquileia (secoli XIII–XIV)” (PhD thesis, Università degli Studi di Udine, 2015). Cammarosano, Paolo. “Patriarcato, Impero e Sede Apostolica, 1077–1251,” in Il Patriarcato di Aquileia, 25–64. Canning, Joseph. A History of Medieval Political Thought 300–1450 (London: Routledge, 1996). Cappelletti, Giuseppe. Le chiese d’Italia dalla loro origine sino ai nostri giorni, vols. 8, 10, 17 (Venice: Antonelli, 1851–1862). Cargnelutti, Liliana. “Candido Giovanni, storico,” in Nuovo Liruti, vol. 2/1, 609–612. Cargnelutti, Liliana. “Nicoletti Marcantonio, storico,” in Nuovo Liruti, vol. 2/3, 1827– 1830. Cargnelutti, Liliana. “Palladio degli Olivi Gian Francesco, storico,” in Nuovo Liruti, vol. 2/3, 1903–1905. Cargnelutti, Liliana. “Tristano Savorgnan (1377–1440) nella crisi del Patriarcato,” in I Savorgnan e la Patria, 113–114.

Bibliography

303

Casella, Laura. I Savorgnan. La famiglia e le opportunità del potere (secc. XV–XVIII), Biblioteca del Cinquecento 110 (Rome: Bulzoni, 2003). Casella, Laura. “Susanna Odorico, notaio, cancelliere patriarcale,” in Nuovo Liruti, vol. 1/2, 805–809. Cejnková, Dana. “Die Erforschung der Grüfte der mährischen Luxemburger Jost und Prokop in Brünn,” in La Maison de Luxembourg en Moravie / Die Luxemburger in Mähren (1350–1411) (Luxembourg: Ministère de la culture, de l’enseignement supérieur et de la recherche, 2001), 65–71. Cejnková, Dana, Karel Maráz and Irena Loskotová. “Výzkum hrobek moravských Lucemburků Jošta a Prokopa v Brně [Exploration of the Tombs of the Moravian Luxembourgs, Jobst and Prokop, in Brno],” in Pocta Janu Janákovi. Předsedovi Matice moravské, profesoru Masarykovy univerzity věnují k sedmdesátinám jeho přátelé a žáci, ed. Bronislav Chocholáč and Jiří Malíř (Brno: Matice moravská, 2002), 565–581. Cessi, Roberto. “La politica veneziana di terraferma dalla caduta dei Carraresi al lodo di Genova (1388–1392),” MSF 5 (1909), 127–144, 193–209. Cessi, Roberto. Storia della Repubblica di Venezia (Florence: Giunti-Martello, 1981). Cessi, Roberto. “Venezia e la preparazione della guerra friulana (1381–1385),” MSF 10, no. 4 (1914), 414–473. Cessi, Roberto. “Venezia e la prima caduta dei Carraresi,” NAV, n.s., 17 (1909), 311–337. Cessi, Roberto. “Venezia neutrale nella seconda lega antiviscontea (1392–1397),” NAV, n.s., 28 (1914), 233–307. Charvátová, Kateřina. Dějiny cisterckého řádu v Čechách 1142–1420 [A History of the Cistercian Order in Bohemia 1142–1420], vol. 2, Kláštery založené ve 13. a 14. století [Monasteries Founded in the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Centuries] (Prague: Karolinum, 2002). Clonfero, Guido. “Scritte scolpite e dipinte a Venzone,” in Venzon. 48n congres, 19 setembar 1971, ed. Luigi Ciceri (Udine: Doretti, 1971), 383–391. Cognasso, Francesco. “L’unificazione della Lombardia sotto Milano,” in Storia di Milano, vol. 5, La signoria dei Visconti (1310–1392) (Milan: Treccani, 1955), 1–567. Cogo, Gaetano. “Il patriarcato d’Aquileia e le aspirazioni de’ Carraresi al possesso del Friuli (1381–1389),” NAV 16, no. 2 (1898), 223–320. Colussa, Sandro, Monica Baggio and Gian Pietro Brogiolo. “Il palazzo del Patriarca a Cividale,” Archeologia medievale 26 (1999), 67–92. Condannare all’oblio. Pratiche della damnatio memoriae nel Medioevo. Atti del convegno di studio svoltosi in occasione della XX edizione del Premio internazionale Ascoli Piceno (Ascoli Piceno, Palazzo dei Capitani, 27–29 novembre 2008), ed. Isa Lori Sanfilippo and Antonio Rigon (Rome: Istituto storico italiano per il Medio Evo, 2010). Corbanese, Girolamo Guerrino. Il Friuli, Trieste e l’Istria dalla preistoria alla caduta del patriarcato d’Aquileia. Grande Atlante storico-cronologico comparato (Udine: Del Bianco, 1984).

304

Bibliography

La corrispondenza epistolare in Italia, vol. 1, Secoli XII–XV, ed. Miriam Davide (Trieste: CERM, 2013). Cropp, Glynnis M. “Nero, Emperor and Tyrant, in the Medieval French Tradition,” Florilegium 24 (2007), 21–36. Cuscito, Giuseppe. “La tradizione marciana aquileiese come problema storiografico,” in Giuseppe Cuscito, Martiri cristiani ad Aquileia e in Istria. Documenti archeologici e questioni agiografiche (Udine: Del Bianco, 1992), 17–49. Cusin, Fabio. Il confine orientale d’Italia nella politica europea del XIV e XV secolo, vol. 1 (Milan: A. Giuffrè, 1937). Čechura, Jaroslav. České země v letech 1378–1437. Lucemburkové na českém trůně [The Czech Lands in the Years 1378–1437: The Luxembourgs on the Throne of Bohemia], vol. 2 (Prague: Libri, 2000). Čechura, Jaroslav, Milan Hlavačka and Jiří Mikulec. Děti a levobočci českých králů [The Children and Bastards of the Kings of Bohemia] (Prague: Akropolis, 2000). Čechura, Jaroslav, and Václav Žůrek. Lucemburkové. Životopisná encyklopedie [The Luxembourgs: A Biographical Encyclopedia] (České Budějovice: Veduta, 2012), 97–98. Černušák, Tomáš. “Řeholní domy [Monastic Houses],” in Dějiny Brna, vol. 2, Středověké město, ed. Libor Jan (Brno: Statutární město Brno and Archiv města Brna, 2013), 718–742. Čornej, Petr. Tajemství českých kronik. Cesty ke kořenům husitské tradice [The Secret of the Bohemian Chronicles: Journeys to the Roots of the Hussite Tradition], 2nd ed. (Prague and Litomyšl: Paseka, 2003). Čornej, Petr. Velké dějiny zemí Koruny české [The Great History of the Lands of the Bohemian Crown], vol. 5, 1402–1437 (Prague and Litomyšl: Paseka, 2000). Damnatio in memoria. Deformation und Gegenkonstruktionen in der Geschichte, ed. Sebastian Scholz, Gerald Schwedler and Kai-Michael Sprenger, Zürcher Beiträge zur Geschichtswissenschaft 4 (Cologne, Weimar and Vienna: Böhlau, 2014). Darovec, Darko. “Blood Feud as Gift Exchange: The Ritual of Humiliation in the Customary System of Conflict Resolution,” Acta Histriae 25, no. 1 (2017), 58–88. Davide, Miriam. “La Carnia nel patriarcato di Aquileia. Diritti e privilegi di un territorio alpino nel tardo medioevo,” in Naturalmente divisi. Storia e autonomia delle antiche comunità alpine, ed. Luca Giarelli (Tricase: Youcanprint, 2013), 301–309. Davide, Miriam. “Politica, diplomazia e amministrazione corrente nelle lettere di Gemona del Friuli (secoli XIV–XV),” in La corrispondenza epistolare in Italia, vol. 2, Forme, stili e funzioni della scrittura epistolare nelle cancellerie italiane (secoli V–XV ), ed. Stéphane Gioanni and Paolo Cammarosano (Trieste: CERM, 2013), 317–348. Davide, Miriam. “Le raccolte epistolari di Gemona del Friuli,” in La corrispondenza epistolare in Italia, vol. 1, 95–153.

Bibliography

305

Davide, Miriam. “Tolmezzo e la Carnia: organizzazione comunitaria e rivendicazioni di autonomia di una zona alpina durante il periodo patriarcale e in seguito alla dedizione a Venezia,” in Le subordinazioni delle città comunali a poteri maggiori in Italia dagli inizi del secolo XIV all’ancien régime. Risultati scientifici della ricerca, ed. Miriam Davide (Trieste: CERM, 2014), 165–185. Dean, Trevor. “Italian Medieval Vendetta,” in Feud in Medieval and Early Modern Europe, ed. Jeppe Büchert Netterstrøm and Bjørn Poulsen (Aarhus: Aarhus University Press, 2007), 135–145. Dean, Trevor. “Marriage and Mutilation: Vendetta in Late Medieval Italy,” Past & Present 157 (1997), 3–36. De Benvenuti, Angelo. I castelli friulani (Udine: Camera di commercio, industria e ­agricoltura, 1950). De Biasio, Luigi. “Il patriarca d’Aquileia Giovanni di Moravia e la creazione a Udine di un governo di popolo,” in Poteri, assemblee, autonomie (il lungo cammino verso la sovranità popolare). Miscellanea in memoria di Roberto Celli, Serie monografica di Storia moderna e contemporanea 21 (Udine: Del Bianco, 1989), 184–194. Degani, Ernesto. La diocesi di Concordia, ed. Giuseppe Vale, 2nd ed. (Brescia: Paideia, 1977). Degrassi, Donata. “Il Friuli tra continuità e cambiamento: aspetti economico-sociali e istituzionali,” in Italia 1350–1450: tra crisi, trasformazione, sviluppo (Pistoia: Centro italiano di studi di storia e d’arte, 1993), 273–300. Degrassi, Donata. “Frontiere, confini e interazioni transconfinarie nel Medioevo: ­alcuni esempi nell’area nordorientale d’Italia,” Archivio Storico Italiano 160 (2002), 195–220. Demetrio, Marzi. La cancelleria della Repubblica fiorentina, vol. 2 (Florence: Le lettere, 1987). Depkat, Volker. “The Challenges of Biography: European-American Reflections,” Bulletin of the German Historical Institute 55 (2014), 39–48. De Vitt, Flavia. “Bianchi Giuseppe, sacerdote, erudito, bibliofilo,” in Nuovo Liruti, vol. 3/1, 432–436. De Vitt, Flavia. “Torre (della) Ludovico, patriarca di Aquileia,” in Nuovo Liruti, vol. 1/2, 842–848. De Vitt, Flavia. “Vita della chiesa nel tardo Medioevo,” in Storia della società friulana. Il Medioevo, ed. Paolo Cammarosano (Tavagnacco: Casamassima, 1988), 157–267. De Vooght, Paul. Hussiana, Bibliothèque de la Revue d’historie ecclésiastique 35 (Louvain: Publications Universitaires, 1960). Dolinar, France M. “Bistum Lavant,” in Die Bistümer des Heiligen Römischen Reiches, 344–346.

306

Bibliography

Dolso, Maria Teresa. “Il secolo XV: l’osservanza,” in Frati minori in Friuli. Otto secoli di presenze, relazioni, proposte, ed. Andrea Tilatti, Franciscalia Venetica 2 (Vicenza: LIEF, 2008), 73–116. Dorigo, Ermes. “Ermacora Fabio Quintiliano, storico,” in Nuovo Liruti, vol. 2/2, 1026–1030. Dvořák, Rudolf. Dějiny markrabství moravského [A History of the Margraviate of Moravia] (Brno: A. Píša, 1906). Elbel, Petr. “Dvě neznámé listiny z roku 1416. Příspěvek k poznání sporu o olomoucké biskupství [Two Unknown Charters from 1416: A Contribution to the Study of the Dispute over the Olomouc Bishopric],” SPFFBU—C 50 (2003), 101–118. Elbel, Petr. “Falzum palatinátní listiny Zikmunda Lucemburského pro Jana Seyden­ neyera z Erkingen. Příspěvek k diplomatice palatinátních listin římských králů a císařů z lucemburské dynastie [The Forgery of Sigismund of Luxembourg’s Palatinate Charter for John Seydenneyer of Erkingen: A Contribution to the Diplomatics of the Palatinate Charters of the Holy Roman Kings and Emperors from the Luxembourg Dynasty],” in Datum per manus. Přátelé, kolegové a žáci Zbyňku Svitákovi k 60. narozeninám, ed. Lukáš Führer, Ivana Musilová, Josef Voborný and Radana Červená (Brno: Statutární město Brno and Archiv města Brna, 2015), 209–288. Elbel, Petr. “Jan Soběslav a Prokop [John Sobieslaw and Prokop],” in Lucemburkové, 710–718. Elbel, Petr. “Markrabě Jošt, olomoucké biskupství a olomoucká kapitula [Margrave Jobst, the Bishopric of Olomouc and the Chapter of Olomouc],” in Morava v časech markraběte Jošta, 33–58. Elbel, Petr. “Olomoucký biskup Jan Železný a Zikmund Lucemburský. Příspěvek k poznání Zikmundovy spojenecké sítě v českých zemích a jeho dvorských struktur [Bishop of Olomouc John Železný and Sigismund of Luxembourg: A Contribution to the Study of Sigismund’s Network of Allies in the Czech Lands and his Court Structures],” Studia Mediaevalia Bohemica 6, no. 1 (2014), 17–68. Elbel, Petr. “Osobnost olomouckého biskupa Petra III. řečeného Jelito (1381–1387) [Bishop Peter III of Olomouc, called Jelito (1381–1387)],” Střední Morava 13, no. 1 (2001), 4–26. Elbel, Petr. “Petr Jelito, dvořan a diplomat Karla IV. [Peter Jelito, Courtier and Diplomat of Charles IV],” SPFFBU—C 48 (2001), 67–87. Elbel, Petr. “Prag und Ofen als Kaiserresidenzen. Die Verlagerung des Reichsschwer­ punkts nach Osten unter den Luxemburgern und deren Folgen für das Reich,” in Rom 1312. Die Kaiserkrönung Heinrichs VII. und die Folgen. Die Luxemburger als Herrscherdynastie von gesamteuropäischer Bedeutung, ed. Sabine Penth and Peter Thorau, Forschungen zur Kaiser- und Papstgeschichte des Mittelalters 40 (Cologne, Weimar and Vienna: Böhlau, 2016), 259–329. Elbel, Petr. “Vlašimský epilog dynastie: Markéta z Lucemburku na Úsově [The Vlašim Epilogue to the Dynasty: Margaret of Luxembourg at Úsov],” in Lucemburkové, 773–776.

Bibliography

307

Engel, Pál. The Realm of St. Stephen. A History of Medieval Hungary, 895–1526 (London and New York: I. B. Tauris, 2001). Eršil, Jaroslav. Správní a finanční vztahy avignonského papežství k českým zemím ve třetí čtvrtině 14. století [Administrative and Financial Relations between the Avignon Papacy and the Czech Lands in the Third Quarter of the Fourteenth Century], Rozpravy Československé akademie věd, Řada společenských věd 69/10 (Prague: Československá akademie věd, 1959). Esch, Arnold. “Bonifacio IX,” in Enciclopedia dei papi, vol. 2, ed. Massimo Bray (Rome: Istituto della Enciclopedia italiana, 2000), 570–580. Eubel, Konrad. Hierarchia catholica Medii aevi sive summorum pontificum, S. R. E. cardinalium, ecclesiarum antistitum series, vol. 1, Ab anno 1198 usque ad annum 1431 perducta (Münster: Typis Librariae Regensbergianae, 1913). L’Evangeliario di san Marco, ed. Cesare Scalon, Libri Rari 5 (Udine: P. Gaspari, 1999). Fantysová-Matějková, Jana. “Guillaume, bâtard de Luxembourg,” in Roma—Praga. Praha—Řím. Omaggio a Zdeňka Hledíková, ed. Kateřina Valentová, Eva Doležalová, Eva Chodějovská, Zdeněk Hojda and Martin Svatoš, Bollettino dell’Istituto Storico Ceco di Roma, Supplemento 1 (Prague: Scriptorium, 2009), 81–87. Favreau-Lilie, Marie-Luise. “König Wenzel und Reichsitalien. Beobachtungen zu Inhalt, Form und Organisation politischer Kommunikation zwischen dem Reich und Italien im ausgehenden Mittelalter,” Mitteilungen des Instituts für Österreichische Geschichtsforschung 109 (2001), 315–345. Fedalto, Giorgio. Aquileia. Una chiesa due patriarcati, Scrittori della chiesa di Aquileia 1 (Rome and Gorizia: Città Nuova and FSCBA, 1999). Ferigo, Giorgio. “Sini Girolamo, rettore di scuola,” in Nuovo Liruti, vol. 2/3, 2349–2353. Fiala, Zdeněk. Předhusitské Čechy 1310–1419. Český stát pod vládou Lucemburků 1310– 1419 [Pre-Hussite Bohemia 1310–1419: The Bohemian State under the Reign of the Luxembourgs 1310–1419], 2nd ed. (Prague: Svoboda, 1978). Figliuolo, Bruno. “Nobiltà e aristocrazia cittadina,” in Storia di Cividale nel Medioevo, 185–241. Folin, Marco. “Bastardi e principesse nelle corti del Rinascimento: spunti di ricerca,” Schifanoia 28/29 (2005), 167–174. Frankl, Karl Heinz. “Patriarchat Aquileia,” in Die Bistümer des Heiligen Römischen Reiches, 37–51. Frati, Ludovico. “La lega dei bolognesi e dei fiorentini contro Gio. Galeazzo Visconti (1389–1390),” Archivio Storico Lombardo, ser. 2, 6 (1889), 5–24. Gambacorta, Federico, and Roman Zaoral. “Akvilejské mince ve sbírce Národního muzea [Aquileian Coins in the Collection of the National Museum],” Numismatické listy 66, no. 3 (2011), 105–112. Gentile, Marco. “Cultura della vendetta e pratiche di resistenza nello stato territoriale: osservazioni sull’aristocrazia signorile lombarda (XV secolo),” in La politique

308

Bibliography

de l’histoire en Italie. Arts et pratiques du réemploi (XIVe–XVIIe siècle), ed. Caroline Callard, Élisabeth Crouzet-Pavan and Alain Tallon (Paris: PUPS, 2014), 287–297. Gianni, Luca. “Vita ed organizzazione interna della diocesi di Concordia in epoca medievale,” in Diocesi di Concordia 388–1974, ed. Antonio Scottà, Storia religiosa del Veneto 10 (Padua: Giunta Regionale del Veneto and Gregoriana Libreria Editrice, 2004), 205–343. Gilar, Štěpán. “Dvě neznámé písemné zprávy o zaniklé tvrzi v Dlouhé Třebové [Two Unknown Written Reports about the Defunct Fortress in Dlouhá Třebová],” Východočeské listy historické 17/18 (2001), 385–386. Girgensohn, Dieter. “Alençon (d’) Filippo, patriarca di Aquileia,” in Nuovo Liruti, vol. 1/1, 97–106. Girgensohn, Dieter. “Caetani Antonio, patriarca di Aquileia,” in Nuovo Liruti, vol. 1/1, 182–189. Girgensohn, Dieter. “La crisi del patriarcato d’Aquileia. Verso l’avvento della Repubblica di Venezia,” in Il Quattrocento nel Friuli occidentale, vol. 1, 53–68. Girgensohn, Dieter. Kirche, Politik und adelige Regierung in der Republik Venedig zu Beginn des 15. Jahrhunderts, vols. 1–2, Veröffentlichungen des Max-Planck-Instituts für Geschichte 118 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1996). Girgensohn, Dieter. “Pancera Antonio, patriarca di Aquileia,” in Nuovo Liruti, vol. 1/2, 628–641. Girgensohn, Dieter. “Teck (di) Ludovico, patriarca di Aquileia,” in Nuovo Liruti, vol. 1/2, 811–821. Die Goldene Bulle. Politik—Wahrnehmung—Rezeption, vol. 2, ed. Ulrike Hohensee, Mathias Lawo, Michael Lindner, Michael Menzel and Olaf B. Rader, Berichte und Abhandlungen, Sonderband 12 (Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 2009). Gotika severní Itálie. České země a Furlansko ve středověku [The Gothic of Northern Italy: The Czech Lands and Friuli in the Middle Ages] (Mikulov: Regionální muzeum, 2009). Graus, František. Dějiny venkovského lidu v Čechách v době předhusitské [A History of the Rural Population in Bohemia in the Pre-Hussite Period], vol. 2, Dějiny venko­ vského lidu od poloviny 13. stol. do roku 1419 [A History of the Rural Population from the Mid-Thirteenth Century to 1419], Studie a prameny. Sekce historická 13 (Prague: Československá akademie věd, 1957). Griggio, Claudio. “Petrarca a Udine nel 1368,” Studi Petrarcheschi, n.s., 20 (2007), 1–56. Gullino, Giuseppe. “Corner, Giacomo,” in DBI 29 (Rome: Istituto della Enciclopedia italiana, 1983), 206–208. Gullino, Giuseppe. “Emo, Gabriele,” in DBI 42 (Rome: Istituto della Enciclopedia ita­ liana, 1993), 625–628. Harsgor, Michael. “L’essor des bâtards nobles au XVe siècles,” Revue historique 253 (1975), 319–354.

Bibliography

309

Härtel, Reinhard. “Böhmens Ausgriff nach Süden,” in Böhmen und seine Nachbarn in der Přemyslidenzeit, ed. Ivan Hlaváček and Alexander Patschovsky, Vorträge und Forschungen 74 (Ostfildern: Thorbecke, 2011), 203–245. Härtel, Reinhard. “Il Friuli come ponte tra Nord e Sud,” in Comunicazione e mobilità nel Medioevo. Incontri fra il Sud e il Centro dell’Europa (secoli XI–XIV ), ed. Siegfried de Rachewiltz and Josef Riedmann, Annali dell’Istituto storico italo-germanico in Trento 48 (Bologna: Il Mulino, 1997), 495–518. Härtel, Reinhard. “Itinerar und Urkundenwesen am Beispiel der Patriarchen von Aquileia (12. und 13. Jahrhundert),” Römische historische Mitteilungen 31 (1989), 93–121. Härtel, Reinhard. “Note sui registri patriarcali di Aquileia,” in I registri vescovili dell’Italia settentrionale, 311–326. Heckmann, Marie-Luise. Stellvertreter, Mit- und Ersatzherrscher. Regenten, General­ statthalter, Kurfürsten und Reichsvikare in Regnum und Imperium vom 13. bis zum frühen 15. Jahrhundert, vol. 2, Studien zu den Luxemburgern und ihrer Zeit 9 (Warendorf: Fahlbusch, 2002). Heinig, Paul-Joachim. Reichsstädte, freie Städte und Königtum 1389–1450. Ein Beitrag zur deutschen Verfassungsgeschichte, Veröffentlichungen des Instituts für Europäische Geschichte Mainz—Abteilung Universalgeschichte 108; Beiträge zur Sozial- und Verfassungsgeschichte des Alten Reiches 3 (Wiesbaden: Steiner, 1983). Heitmann, Klaus. “Zum Bild der Deutschen im Oberitalien des Spätmittelalters,” in Die Visconti und der deutsche Südwesten. Kulturtransfer im Spätmittelalter / I Visconti e la Germania meridionale. Trasferimento culturale nel tardo medioevo, ed. Peter Rückert and Sönke Lorenz, Tübinger Bausteine zur Landesgeschichte 11 (Ostfildern: Thorbecke, 2008), 103–113. Hlaváček, Ivan. “Brünn als Residenz der Markgrafen der luxemburgischen Sekundo­ genitur,” in Fürstliche Residenzen im spätmittelalterlichen Europa, ed. Hans Patze and Werner Paravicini, Vorträge und Forschungen 36 (Sigmaringen: Thorbecke, 1991), 361–420. Hlaváček, Ivan. “The Itineraries of the Bohemian Luxemburgs,” in Ivan Hlaváček, Höfe—Residenzen—Itinerare, ed. Mlada Holá, Martina Jeránková and Klára Woitschová (Prague: Karolinum, 2011), 117–124. Hlaváček, Ivan. “Ohlas prvního zajetí Václava IV. v r. 1394 v Padově [The Echo of Wenceslas IV’s First Captivity in 1394 in Padua],” in Ad vitam et honorem. Profesoru Jaroslavu Mezníkovi přátelé a žáci k pětasedmdesátým narozeninám, ed. Tomáš Borovský, Libor Jan and Martin Wihoda (Brno: Matice moravská, 2003), 481–490. Hlaváček, Ivan. K organizaci státního správního systému Václava IV. Dvě studie o jeho itineráři a radě [The Organization of Wenceslas IV’s State Administrative System: Two Studies on his Itinerary and Council], AUC—Phil. et Hist., Monographia 137 (Prague: Karolinum, 1991), 33–72.

310

Bibliography

Hlaváček, Ivan. “Politische Integration der Böhmischen Krone unter den Luxem­ burgern,” in Fragen der politischen Integration im mittelalterlichen Europa, ed. Werner Maleczek, Vorträge und Forschungen 63 (Ostfildern: Thorbecke, 2005), 325–374. Hlaváček, Ivan. “Studie k diplomatice Václava IV., IV, Itinerář krále Václava IV. (1361–1419) [A Study on the Diplomatics of Wenceslas IV, Part IV: The Itinerary of King Wenceslas IV (1361–1419)],” Československý časopis historický 10, no. 1 (1962), 64–94. Hlaváček, Ivan. “Studie k dvoru Václava IV. (1. část) [A Study on the Court of Wenceslas IV (Part 1)],” Folia Historica Bohemica 3 (1981), 135–193. Hlaváček, Ivan. Das Urkunden- und Kanzleiwesen des böhmischen und römischen Königs Wenzel (IV.) 1376–1419. Ein Beitrag zur spätmittelalterlichen Diplomatik, Schriften der MGH 23 (Stuttgart: Hiersemann, 1970). Hlaváček, Ivan. “Wenzel (IV.) und Giangaleazzo Visconti,” in Reich, Regionen und Europa im Mittelalter und Neuzeit. Festschrift für Peter Moraw, ed. Paul-Joachim Heinig, Sigrid Jahns, Hans-Joachim Schmidt et al., Historische Forschungen 67 (Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 2000), 203–226. Hlaváček, Ivan. “Zastavení u udílení biskupských regálií a temporálií Karlem IV. Zároveň příspěvek k otázce pozdněstředověkých deperdit [The Granting of Episcopal Regalia and Temporalia by Charles IV. At the Same Time a Contribution to the Issue of Late Medieval Deperdita],” in Lesk královského majestátu ve středověku. Pocta Prof. PhDr. Františku Kavkovi, CSc. k nedožitým 85. narozeninám, ed. Lenka Bobková and Mlada Holá (Prague and Litomyšl: Paseka, 2005), 197–203. Hledíková, Zdeňka. “Alžběta, dcera Václava III. [Elisabeth, Daughter of Wenceslas III],” in Hledíková, Svět české středověké církve, 247–253. Hledíková, Zdeňka. “Arcibiskupové a kaplani za Václava IV. [Archbishops and Chaplains during the Reign of Wenceslas IV],” in Lucemburkové, 777–784. Hledíková, Zdeňka. “Biskup [The Bishop],” in Člověk českého středověku, ed. Martin Nodl and František Šmahel (Prague: Argo, 2002), 139–165. Hledíková, Zdeňka. “K otázkám vztahu duchovní a světské moci v Čechách ve druhé polovině 14. století [On the Issue of the Relationship between Spiritual and Temporal Powers in Bohemia during the Second Half of the Fourteenth Century],” in Hledíková, Svět české středověké církve, 13–54. Hledíková, Zdeňka. “Litomyšlské biskupství [The Bishopric of Litomyšl],” in Litomyšl, 29–50. Hledíková, Zdeňka. “Několik úvah o kapitulách v českém středověkém státě [Some Reflections on the Chapters in the Bohemian Medieval State],” in Kapituly v zemích Koruny české, 9–44. Hledíková, Zdeňka. “Opomenutá listina k životu Karla IV. [A Neglected Charter on the Life of Charles IV],” in Hledíková, Svět české středověké církve, 266–272.

Bibliography

311

Hledíková, Zdeňka. “Papacy of the High and Late Middle Ages and the Czech Kingdom (1198–1417),” in Tomáš Černušák et al., The Papacy and the Czech Lands. A History of Mutual Relations, Biblioteca dell’Istituto Storico Ceco di Roma, Sintesi 1 (Rome and Prague: Institute of History and Istituto Storico Ceco di Roma, 2016), 61–113. Hledíková, Zdeňka. “Písemnosti církevní správy pražské (arci)diecéze v pozdním středověku [Documents of the Ecclesiastical Administration of the Prague (Arch) Diocese in the Late Middle Ages],” in Církevní správa a její písemnosti na přelomu středověku a novověku, ed. Ivan Hlaváček and Jan Hrdina, AUC—Phil. et Hist. 2, 1999, Z pomocných věd historických 15 (Prague: Karolinum, 2003), 27–38. Hledíková, Zdeňka. Počátky avignonského papežství a české země [The Origins of the Avignon Papacy and the Czech Lands] (Prague: Karolinum, 2013). Hledíková, Zdeňka. “Struktura duchovenstva ve středověkých Čechách [The Structure of the Clergy in Medieval Bohemia],” in Hledíková, Svět české středověké církve, 55–83. Hledíková, Zdeňka. Svět české středověké církve [The World of the Medieval Bohemian Church] (Prague: Argo, 2010). Hledíková, Zdeňka. Úřad generálních vikářů pražského arcibiskupa v době předhusitské. Ze správních dějin pražské arcidiecéze [The Office of Vicars General of the Prague Archbishop in the Pre-Hussite Period: From the Administrative History of the Prague Archdiocese], AUC—Phil. et hist., Monographia 41 (Prague: Karolinum, 1971). Hledíková, Zdeňka. “Územní vývoj českého státu [The Territorial Development of the Bohemian State],” in Zdeňka Hledíková, Jan Janák and Jan Dobeš, Dějiny správy v českých zemích. Od počátků státu po současnost, 2nd ed. (Prague: NLN, 2005), 16–28. Hledíková, Zdeňka. “Il vescovado di Litomyšl, i suoi inizi e i suoi atti di delimitazione,” Bollettino dell’Istituto Storico Ceco di Roma 7 (2010), 15–40. Hledíková, Zdeňka. “Vyšehradská kapitula ve 13. století [The Vyšehrad Chapter in the Thirteenth Century],” Teologické texty 19, no. 1 (2008), 50–52. Hledíková, Zdeňka. “Vyšehradské proboštství a české kancléřství v první polovině 14. století [The Vyšehrad Provostry and the Chancellorship of Bohemia in the First Half of the Fourteenth Century],” in Královský Vyšehrad, vol. 2, 74–89. Hledíková, Zdeňka. “Zápisy manželských sporů—nepovšimnutý pramen 15. století [Records of Matrimonial Disputes—An Unnoticed Source of the Fifteenth Century],” in Hledíková, Svět české středověké církve, 273–283. Hlobil, Ivo. “Přemyslovec Jan Volek († 1351). Rodopisné, heraldické a sfragistické otázky [John Volek from the Přemyslid Dynasty († 1351): Genealogical, Heraldic and Sigillographic Issues],” Umění 35, no. 6 (1987), 478–482. Hoberg, Hermann. Taxae pro communibus servitiis ex libris obligationum ab anno 1295 usque ad annum 1455 confectis, Studi e testi 144 (Vatican City: Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, 1949).

312

Bibliography

Hoensch, Jörg K. Itinerar König und Kaiser Sigismunds von Luxemburg 1368–1437. Studien zu den Luxemburgern und ihrer Zeit 6 (Warendorf: Fahlbusch, 1995). Hoensch, Jörg K. Kaiser Sigismund. Herrscher an der Schwelle zur Neuzeit 1368–1437 (Munich: C. H. Beck, 1996). Hoensch, Jörg K. Die Luxemburger. Eine spätmittelalterliche Dynastie gesamteuropäi­ scher Bedeutung 1308–1437 (Stuttgart, Berlin and Cologne: Kohlhammer, 2000). Holinka, Rudolf. Církevní politika arcibiskupa Jana z Jenštejna za pontifikátu Urbana VI. Studie z dějin velikého schizmatu západního [The Ecclesiastical Politics of Archbishop John of Jenštejn during the Pontificate of Urban VI: A Study on the History of the Great Western Schism], Spisy filosofické fakulty University Komenského v Bratislavě 14 (Bratislava: Univerzita Komenského, 1933). Hortis, Attilio. Giovanni Boccacci ambasciatore in Avignone e Pileo da Prata proposto da’ Fiorentini a Patriarca di Aquileia (Trieste: L. Herrmanstorfer, 1875). Hosák, Ladislav. “Středověké vyprávěcí prameny k dějinám Moravy do konce 15. století, III [Medieval Narrative Sources for the History of Moravia up to the End of the Fifteenth Century (Part 3)],” Sborník Vysoké školy pedagogické v Olomouci—Historie 4 (1957), 111–136. Hradská, Veronika. “Ondřej z Třeboně, notář, vyslanec a důvěrník markraběte Jošta [Andrew of Třeboň, Notary, Envoy and Fiduciary of Margrave Jobst],” ČMM 117, no. 2 (1998), 353–376. Hrdina, Jan. “‘Spirituální konkurence’ mezi pražskými kapitulami a kláštery na přelomu 14. a 15. století [‘Spiritual Competition’ between the Prague Chapters and Monasteries at the Turn of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Centuries],” in Kapituly v zemích Koruny české, 137–149. Hurwich, Judith J. “Bastards in the German Nobility in the Fifteenth and Early Sixteenth Centuries: Evidence of the Zimmerische Chronik,” Sixteenth Century Journal 34, no. 3 (2003), 701–727. Illegitimität im Spätmittelalter, ed. Ludwig Schmugge and Béatrice Wiggenhauser, Schriften des Historischen Kollegs 29 (Munich: Oldenbourg, 1994). Innocenti, Marco. “Die Grabstätte der luxemburgischen Patriarchen von Aquileja,” Hémecht 51 (1999), 73–78. Iona, Maria Laura. “Boiani, Corrado,” in DBI 11 (Rome: Istituto della Enciclopedia ita­ liana, 1969), 205–206. Iona, Maria Laura. “Le podesterie di Corrado III Boiani a Muggia (precisazioni cronologiche),” MSF 41 (1954/1955), 135–154. Italian Coins in the National Museum of Prague, vol. 1/1, Old Collection, Middle Ages and the Early Modern Period (IX–XVI centuries), ed. Federico Gambacorta and Luboš Polanský, Collectio Numismatica Musei Nationalis 1 (Prague: Národní muzeum, 2012). The Italian Renaissance State, ed. Andrea Gamberini and Isabella Lazzarini (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012).

Bibliography

313

Jan, Libor. “Dějiny kapituly [History of the Chapter],” in Libor Jan, Rudolf Procházka and Bohumil Samek, Sedm set let brněnské kapituly (Brno: Biskupství brněnské and Město Brno, 1996), 41–106. Jan, Libor. “Rodové fundace moravských Lucemburků na pomezí zbožnosti a repre­ zentace [The Ancestral Foundations of the Moravian Luxembourgs between Piety and Representation],” in Morava v časech markraběte Jošta, 123–146. Jan, Libor. “Die Rolle des Brünner Kollegiatstiftes zur Zeit der Luxemburger,” in Geist, Gesellschaft, Kirche im 13.–16. Jahrhundert. Internationales Kolloquium, Prag 5.–10. Oktober 1998, ed. František Šmahel, Colloquia mediaevalia Pragensia 1 (Prague: Filosofia, 1999), 223–228. Janetschek, Clemens d’Elpidio. Das Augustiner-Eremitenstift S. Thomas in Brünn mit steter Bezugnahme auf die Klöster desselben Ordens in Mähren (Brno: Päpstliche Benedictiner-Buchdruckerei, 1898). Joppi, Vincenzo. “Catalogo dei Gastaldi e Capitani di Udine dal 1250 al 1426,” in Statuti e ordinamenti del Comune di Udine (Udine: Gio. Batt. Doretti, 1898), xlix–li. Joppi, Vincenzo. “Istituzioni politiche ed amministrative,” in Statuti e ordinamenti del Comune di Udine (Udine: Gio. Batt. Doretti, 1898), xxiii–xl. Kadlec, Jaroslav. Das Augustinerkloster Sankt Thomas in Prag. Vom Gründungsjahr 1285 bis zu den Hussitenkriegen mit Edition seines Urkundenbuches (Würzburg: Augustinus Verlag, 1985). Kadlec, Jaroslav. Dějiny kláštera Svaté Koruny [A History of the Monastery of Svatá Koruna] (České Budějovice: Knihkupectví ČAT “U zlatého klasu,” 1949). Kalhous, David, Petr Kopal, Irena Moravcová and Luboš Polanský. “Přemyslovská dynastie: soupis členů původního českého panovnického rodu [The Přemyslid Dynasty: A List of Members of the Former Bohemian Ruling Family],” in Přemyslovci. Budování českého státu, ed. Petr Sommer, Dušan Třeštík and Josef Žemlička (Prague: NLN, 2009), 541–573. Kalous, Antonín. “Biskupské a legátské rituály a ceremonie [Episcopal and Legatine Rituals and Ceremonies],” in Slavnosti, ceremonie a rituály, 315–367. Kalous, Antonín. “Itinerář Jana Filipce (1431–1509) [The Itinerary of John Filipec (1431–1509)],” Acta Universitatis Palackianae Olomucensis. Facultas philosophica— Historica 34 (2008), 17–43. Kapituly v zemích Koruny české a v Uhrách ve středověku [The Chapters in the Lands of the Bohemian Crown and in Hungary in the Middle Ages], ed. Jan Hrdina and Martina Maříková, Documenta Pragensia Supplementa 2 (Prague: Archiv hlavního města Prahy and Scriptorium, 2011). Kasík, Stanislav. “Znaky na arkýři zámku v Brandýse nad Labem [The Coats of Arms on the Oriel Window of the Brandýs nad Labem Castle],” Heraldická ročenka 21 (1994), 95–110. Kašička, František and Bořivoj Nechvátal. “Vyšehrad a Karel IV.,” Staletá Praha 9 (1979), 103–125.

314

Bibliography

Kavka, František. “Burchard, purkrabí magdeburský a hrabě z Hardeggu a Retzu— hofmistr Karla IV. (1353–1368) [Burchard, Burgrave of Magdeburg and Count of Hardegg and Retz—Hofmeister of Charles IV (1353–1368)],” in Historia docet. Sborník prací k poctě šedesátých narozenin prof. PhDr. Ivana Hlaváčka, CSc., ed. Miloslav Polívka and Michal Svatoš (Prague: Československá akademie věd, 1992), 145–155. Kavka, František. Vláda Karla IV. za jeho císařství (1355–1378). Země České koruny, rodová, říšská a evropská politika [The Reign of Charles IV during his Emperorship (1355–1378): The Lands of the Bohemian Crown, Dynastic, Imperial and European Politics], vols. 1–2 (Prague: Karolinum, 1993). Kejř, Jiří. Dějiny pražské právnické univerzity [A History of the Prague Law University] (Prague: Karolinum, 1995). Klicman, Ladislav. “Mikuláš řečený Efficax z Lucemburka a Mikuláš, levoboček krále Jana [Nicholas from Luxembourg, called Efficax, and Nicholas, Bastard of King John],” ČČH 3 (1897), 246–249. Kogler, Ferdinand. Die legitimatio per rescriptum von Justinian bis zum Tode Karls IV. (Weimar: Böhlau, 1904). Kohl, Benjamin G. “The Paduan Elite and Francesco Novello da Carrara (1390–1405). A Selected Prosopography,” QFIAB 77 (1997), 206–258. Kohl, Benjamin G. Padua under the Carrara 1318–1405 (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1998). Kohout, Štěpán. “Wenzel Gerard von Burenitz (Králík) († 1416),” in Die Bischöfe des Heiligen Römischen Reiches, 517–518. Kopičková, Božena. “Olomoucké biskupství v zrcadle dynastických sporů posledních Lucemburků [The Olomouc Bishopric as Reflected in the Dynastic Disputes of the Last Generation of the Luxembourgs],” Historická Olomouc a její současné problémy 3 (1980), 95–107. Kopičková, Božena. “Příspěvek k dynastické politice posledních Lucemburků v Olomouci [A Contribution to the Dynastic Politics of the Last Generation of the Luxembourgs in Olomouc],” Vlastivědný věstník moravský 32 (1980), 21–29. Kouřil, Miloš. “Augustin Olomoucký (1467–1513) [Augustine of Olomouc (1467–1513)],” in Historiografie Moravy a Slezska, vol. 1, ed. Ivo Barteček (Olomouc: Univerzita Palackého, 2001), 13–20. Krafl, Pavel. “Olomoucké panoptikum. Obraz moravských biskupů v Granum catalogi praesulum Moraviae [The Olomouc Freak Show: The Image of the Moravian Bishops in the Granum Catalogi Praesulum Moraviae],” Sborník prací Pedagogické fakulty Masarykovy univerzity—řada společenských věd 26, no. 2 (2012), 45–50. Královský Vyšehrad [Royal Vyšehrad], vol. 2, Sborník příspěvků ke křesťanskému miléniu a k posvěcení nových zvonů na kapitulním chrámu sv. Petra a Pavla [An Anthology of Contributions to the Christian Millennium and the Consecration of the New

Bibliography

315

Bells in the Collegiate Church of St. Peter and Paul], ed. Bořivoj Nechvátal (Prague and Kostelní Vydří: Královská kolegiátní kapitula sv. Petra a Pavla na Vyšehradě and Karmelitánské nakladatelství, 2001). Krejčík, Tomáš. “Český lev v Udine [The Bohemian Lion in Udine],” Genealogické a heraldické informace 17 (2012), 135–137. Krejčík, Tomáš, and Richard Psík. “Pečeti olomouckých biskupů v období 1351–1457. Typologie a ikonografie [The Seals of the Bishops of Olomouc from 1351 to 1457: Typology and Iconography],” Historica. Revue pro historii a příbuzné vědy 4, no. 1 (2013), 65–81. Krofta, Kamil. “Kurie a církevní správa zemí českých v době předhusitské, IV, Volby biskupův a opatů českých v XIII. a XIV. stol. [The Curia and the Ecclesiastical Administration of the Czech Lands in the Pre-Hussite Period (Part 4): The Elections of Bohemian Bishops and Abbots in the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Centuries],” ČČH 12, no. 1 (1906), 7–33. Kubín, Petr. “Svatý Pankrác—strážce vstupu na Vyšehrad. Římský světec v Praze [St. Pancras—Guardian of the Entrance to Vyšehrad: The Roman Saint in Prague],” in Evropa a Čechy na konci středověku. Sborník příspěvků věnovaných Františku Šmahelovi, ed. Eva Doležalová, Robert Novotný and Pavel Soukup (Prague: Filosofia, 2004), 113–123. Kubín, Petr. “Vyšehrad jako český Řím [Vyšehrad as the Bohemian Rome],” Teologické texty 17, no. 2 (2006), 73–75. Kubínová, Kateřina. Imitatio Romae. Karel IV. a Řím [Imitatio Romae: Charles IV and Rome] (Prague: Artefactum, 2006). Kubů, František. Chebský městský stát. Počátky a vrcholné období do počátku 16. století [The Cheb City-State: The Beginnings and Peak Period up to the Early Sixteenth Century] (České Budějovice: Veduta, 2006). Kuehn, Thomas. Illegitimacy in Renaissance Florence (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2002). Kurka, Josef. Archidiakonáty kouřimský, boleslavský, hradecký a diecese litomyšlská (místopis církevní do r. 1421) [The Archdiaconates of Kouřim, Boleslav and Hradec and the Litomyšl Diocese (An Ecclesiastical Topography up to 1421)] (Prague: Českoslovanská akciová tiskárna, 1914). Landau, Peter. “Das Weihehindernis der Illegitimität in der Geschichte des kanoni­ schen Rechts,” in Illegitimität im Spätmittelalter, 41–53. Larner, John. Italy in the Age of Dante and Petrarch, 1216–1380, Longman History of Italy 2 (London and New York: Longman, 1980). Law, John Easton. “A clerical chronicler of c. 1400: Clemente Miari of Belluno,” Renaissance Studies 2, no. 2 (1988), 173–184. Law, John Easton. Venice and the Veneto in the Early Renaissance, Variorum Collected Studies Series 672 (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2000).

316

Bibliography

Lazzarini, Isabella. L’Italia degli Stati territoriali. Secoli XIII–XV (Rome and Bari: Laterza, 2003). Lazzarini, Vittorio. Marino Faliero (Florence: G. C. Sansoni, 1963). Lechner, Johann. “Zur Geschichte König Wenzels (bis 1387),” Mitteilungen des Instituts für Österreichische Geschichtsforschung. Ergänzungsband 6 (1901), 339–354. Le Goff, Jacques. Saint François d’Assise (Paris: Gallimard, 1999). Czech translation: Svatý František z Assisi (Prague: Vyšehrad, 2004). Le Goff, Jacques. “The Whys and Ways of Writing a Biography: The Case of Saint Louis,” Exemplaria 1 (1989), 210–211. Leicht, Pier Silverio. Breve storia del Friuli, ed. Carlo Guido Mor, 5th ed. (Udine and Tolmezzo: Libreria Editrice “Aquileia,” 1976). Leicht, Pier Silverio. “Le elezioni dei patriarchi aquileiesi,” MSF 11 (1915), 1–18. Leicht, Pier Silverio. “L’esilio di Tristano di Savorgnano,” in Leicht, Studi di Storia friulana, 41–174. Leicht, Pier Silverio. “La giovinezza di Tristano di Savorgnano (1376–1400),” in Leicht, Studi di storia friulana, 3–40. Leicht, Pier Silverio. “Maneggi politici di Tristano Savorgnan nel 1412,” MSF 5 (1909), 185–189. Leicht, Pier Silverio. Il parlamento della Patria del Friuli. Sua origine, costituzione e legislazione (1231–1420) (Udine: Deputazione di storia patria per il Friuli, 1903). Leicht, Pier Silverio. “Il primo tentativo di costituire un’università nella Venezia orientale,” in Leicht, Studi di storia friulana, 175–191. Leicht, Pier Silverio. “La promissione del patriarca aquileiese,” MSF 22 (1926), 73–77. Leicht, Pier Silverio. Studi di storia friulana (Udine: Società filologica friulana, 1955). Leitner, Friedrich W. “Die Herren von Kraig. Eine genealogische Skizze zu den Erbtruchsessen in Kärnten,” Archiv für Diplomatik, Schriftgeschichte, Siegel- und Wappenkunde 46 (2000), 225–275. Liščák, Vladimír. Po stopách bratra Odorika. Styky Evropy a mongolské Číny ve 13. a 14. století (s přílohou Biblioteca Odoriciana) [In the Footsteps of Brother Odoric: Relations between Europe and Mongolian China in the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Centuries (with the Appendix Biblioteca Odoriciana)] (n.p.: CERM, 2014). Litomyšl. Duchovní tvář českého města (Sborník historických prací) [Litomyšl: The Ecclesiastical Face of the Bohemian City (Anthology of Historical Studies)] (Litomyšl: Město Litomyšl, 1994). Lucemburkové. Česká koruna uprostřed Evropy [The Luxembourgs: The Bohemian Crown in the Centre of Europe], ed. Lenka Bobková and František Šmahel (Prague: NLN, 2012). Ludwig, Uwe. “Zwischen Österreich, Venedig und Ungarn. Die ‘Chronik von Valvasone’ als Zeugnis der Geschichte Friauls im späten Mittelalter,” QFIAB 89 (2009), 113–182.

Bibliography

317

Luzzati, Michele. “Ubaldino Buonamici arcivescovo di Torres e di Arborea in un documento pisano del 1395,” in Dal mondo antico all’età contemporanea. Studi in onore di Manlio Brigaglia offerti dal Dipartimento di Storia dell’Università di Sassari, Collana del Dipartimento di Storia dell’Università degli Studi di Sassari 7 (Rome: Carocci, 2001), 281–285. Maire Vigueur, Jean-Claude. “La cacciata del tiranno,” in Tiranni e tirannide nel Trecento italiano, 143–169. Maire Vigueur, Jean-Claude. “Le rivolte cittadine contro i ‘tiranni,’” in Rivolte urbane e rivolte contadine nell’Europa del Trecento: un confronto, ed. Monique Bourin, Giovanni Cherubini and Giuliano Pinto (Florence: Firenze University Press, 2008), 351–380. Maleczek, Werner. “Das Reich im 14. Jahrhundert—Blicke von außen,” in Die Goldene Bulle, vol. 2, 563–598. Marchesi, Vincenzo. “Giovanni di Moravia, patriarca d’Aquileia,” Annali del R. Istituto tecnico di Udine, ser. 2, 1 (1883), 109–148. Marin, Eugenio. “Generaliter clerici nuncupantur omnes qui in ecclesia Christi deserviunt. Chierici ordinati a Portogruaro alla fine del Trecento,” Atti dell’Accademia “San Marco” di Pordenone 12 (2010), 87–110. Maříková, Martina. “Aniversária jako součást liturgického provozu pražské metropolitní kapituly a hmotného zajištění jejích členů v době předhusitské [Anniversaries as Part of the Liturgical Activities of the Prague Metropolitan Chapter and the Material Support of its Members in the Pre-Hussite Period],” in Trzecie polsko-czeskie forum młodych mediewistów. Commemoratio praeteritorum—społeczności średniowieczne wobec przeszłości, ed. Hanna Krzyżostaniak, Jakub Kujawiński and Marzena Matla (Poznań: Instytut Historii UAM, 2012), 151–163. Maříková, Martina. Finance v životě pražské metropolitní kapituly. Hmotné zabezpečení kanovníků optikou účetních rejstříků z let 1358–1418 [Finance in the Life of the Prague Metropolitan Chapter: The Material Provision of the Canons Through the Lens of the Registers of Accounts from the Years 1358–1418], Documenta Pragensia Monographia 35 (Prague: Archiv hlavního města Prahy, 2018). Maříková, Martina. “Správa majetku pražské metropolitní kapituly v době předhusitské [The Property Administration of the Prague Metropolitan Chapter in the Pre-Hussite Period],” in Kapituly v zemích Koruny české, 101–123. Masutti, Vittoria. “Monticoli Andrea, vicario patriarcale,” in Nuovo Liruti, vol. 1/2, 563–567. Medek, Václav. Dějiny olomoucké arcidiecéze [A History of the Olomouc Archdiocese], vol. 1, Osudy moravské církve do konce 14. věku [The Fortunes of the Moravian Church up to the End of the Fourteenth Century] (Prague: Česká katolická charita, 1971). Melchiorre, Matteo. “Raccontare di sé e del proprio tempo in una città del tardo medioevo,” in Clemente Miari, Chronicon Bellunense (1383–1412), ed. Matteo Melchiorre, Fonti per la storia della terraferma veneta 29 (Rome: Viella, 2015), ix–lxix.

318

Bibliography

Menclová, Dobroslava. České hrady [Bohemian Castles], vol. 2, 2nd ed. (Prague: Odeon, 1976). Menis, Gian Carlo. Il Patriarca e il Tiepolo. Guida breve al Museo diocesano e Gallerie del Tiepolo nel Palazzo patriarcale di Udine, 4th ed. (Udine: Arti Grafiche Friulane, 2007). Menis, Gian Carlo. Storia del Friuli dalle origini alla caduta dello stato patriarcale (1420), 4th ed. (Udine: Società filologica friulana, 1978). Mezník, Jaroslav. Lucemburská Morava 1310–1423 [Moravia in the Luxembourg Period 1310–1423] (Prague: NLN, 1999). Miethke, Jürgen. “Die Eheaffäre der Margarete ‘Maultasch,’ Gräfin von Tirol (1341/1342). Ein Beispiel hochadliger Familienpolitik im Spätmittelalter,” in Päpste, Pilger, Pönitentiarie. Festschrift für Ludwig Schmugge zum 65. Geburtstag, ed. Andreas Meyer, Constanze Rendtel and Maria Wittmer-Butsch (Tübingen: Niemeyer, 2004), 353–391. Mikovec, Ferdinand Břetislav. Starožitnosti a památky země České [Antiquities and Monuments of the Land of Bohemia], vol. 1 (Prague: Kober & Markgraf, 1860). Miniati, Enrico. “Storia di Gemona nel Basso Medioevo” (PhD thesis, Università degli Studi di Udine, 2013). Modráková, Renáta. “Úřad abatyše kláštera benediktinek u sv. Jiří na Pražském hradě v období 13.–14. století [The Office of Abbess of the Benedictine Monastery of St. George at Prague Castle],” in Sacri canones servandi sunt, 580–587. Moore, Michael Edward. “The Body of Pope Formosus,” Millennium 9 (2012), 277–297. Mor, Carlo Guido. “Nascita di una capitale,” in Udin. Mil agn tal cûr dal Friûl. 60n Congres, 25 di Setembar 1983, Societât Filologjche Furlane, vol. 1, ed. Gian Carlo Menis (Udine: Società filologica friulana, 1983), 79–90. Morava v časech markraběte Jošta. K 600. výročí zvolení posledního Lucemburka z moravské větve římským králem a jeho úmrtí [Moravia in the Age of Margrave Jobst: For the 600th Anniversary of the Election of the Last Luxembourg from the Moravian Branch as King of the Romans and of his Death], ed. Libor Jan (Brno: Matice moravská, 2012). Moravští Lucemburkové. Forum Brunense. Sborník prací Muzea města Brna [The Moravian Luxembourgs: Forum Brunense. Studies of the Museum of Brno], ed. Jiří Vaněk (Brno: Muzeum města Brna, 2000). Moraw, Peter. Von offener Verfassung zu gestalteter Verdichtung. Das Reich im späten Mittelalter 1250 bis 1490, Propyläen Geschichte Deutschlands 3 (Berlin: Propyläen Verlag, 1985). Muir, Edward. Mad Blood Stirring. Vendetta in Renaissance Italy, 2nd ed. (Baltimore and London: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1998). Müsegades, Benjamin. Fürstliche Erziehung und Ausbildung im spätmittelalterlichen Reich, Mittelalter-Forschungen 47 (Ostfildern: Thorbecke, 2014).

Bibliography

319

Müsegades, Benjamin. “Zwischen Familie und Kirche. Geistliche Fürstensöhne im spätmittelalterlichen Reich,” in Identität und Gemeinschaft. Vier Zugänge zu Eigen­ g­eschichten und Selbstbildern institutioneller Ordnungen, ed. Mirko Breitenstein, Julia Burkhardt, Stefan Burkhardt and Jörg Sonntag, Abhandlungen 67 (Berlin and Münster: LIT, 2015), 189–209. Nechutová, Jana. Die lateinische Literatur des Mittelalters in Böhmen (Cologne, Weimar and Vienna: Böhlau, 2007). Nechvátal, Bořivoj. Kapitulní chrám sv. Petra a Pavla na Vyšehradě. Archeologický výzkum [The Collegiate Church of St. Peter and Paul at Vyšehrad] (Prague: Archeologický ústav AV ČR, 2004). Nejedlý, Martin. Středověký mýtus o Meluzíně a rodová pověst Lucemburků [The Medieval Myth of Melusine and the Ancestral Legend of the Luxembourgs], 2nd ed. (Prague: Scriptorium, 2014). Nejedlý, Zdeněk. Dějiny města Litomyšle a okolí [A History of the City of Litomyšl and its Environs], vol. 1, Dějiny kláštera a biskupství litomyšlského (do r. 1421) [A History of the Monastery and Bishopric of Litomyšl (up to 1421)] (Litomyšl: V. Augusta, 1903). Neralić, Jadranka. “Chances of an illegitimate person to make a successful ecclesiastical career: the case of Boniface of Pisa,” Römische historische Mitteilungen 49 (2007), 159–178. The New Cambridge Medieval History, vol. 6, c. 1300–c. 1415, ed. Michael Jones (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000). Niero, Antonio. “Dal patriarcato di Grado al patriarcato di Venezia,” in Grado nella storia e nell’arte. Atti della 10. settimana di studi aquileiesi tenuta ad Aquileia, 28 aprile–4 maggio 1979, vol. 1, Antichità altoadriatiche 17 (Udine: Arti Grafiche Friulane, 1980), 265–284. Nilgen, Ursula. “The Manipulated Memory: Thomas Becket in Legend and Art,” in Memory & Oblivion. Proceedings of the XXIXth International Congress of the History of Art held in Amsterdam, 1–7 September 1996, ed. Wessel Reinink and Jeroen Stumpel (Dordrecht: Kluwer, 1999), 765–772. Nodl, Martin. “Královské svatby a rozvody [Royal Weddings and Divorces],” in Slavnosti, ceremonie a rituály, 67–119. Nodl, Martin. “Memoria et damnatio memoriae ve středověku [Memoria et Damnatio Memoriae in the Middle Ages],” in Memoria et damnatio memoriae ve středověku, ed. Martin Nodl and Piotr Węcowski, Colloquia mediaevalia Pragensia 15 (Prague: Filosofia, 2014), 7–13. Norbedo, Roberto. “Belloni Antonio, notaio, umanista,” in Nuovo Liruti, vol. 2/1, 439–445. Nováček, V[ojtěch] J. “Císaře Karla IV pobyt při dvoře papežském v Avinioně r. 1365 [Emperor Charles IV’s Stay at the Papal Court in Avignon in 1365],” Časopis Musea Království českého 64 (1890), 151–179.

320

Bibliography

Nováková, Stanislava. Krajířové z Krajku. Z Korutan do zemí České koruny [The Kraiger of Kraig: From Carinthia to the Lands of the Bohemian Crown] (České Budějovice: Veduta, 2010). Novotný, Robert. “Ráj milců? Nižší šlechta na dvoře Václava IV. [A Favourites’ Paradise? The Lower Nobility at the Court of Wenceslas IV],” in Dvory a rezidence ve středověku, vol. 2, Skladba a kultura dvorské společnosti, ed. Dana Dvořáčková-Malá and Jan Zelenka, MHB 11, Supplementum 2 (Prague: Historický ústav AV ČR, 2008), 215–229. Novotný, Václav. České dějiny [A History of Bohemia], vol. 1/2, Od Břetislava I. do Přemysla I. [From Břetislav I to Přemysl I] (Prague: J. Laichter, 1939). Nuovo Liruti. Dizionario biografico dei Friulani, vol. 1/1–2, Il Medioevo, ed. Cesare Scalon (Udine: Forum, 2006); vol. 2/1–3, L’età veneta, ed. Cesare Scalon, Claudio Griggio and Ugo Rozzo (Udine: Forum, 2009); vol. 3/1–4, L’età contemporanea, ed. Cesare Scalon, Claudio Griggio and Giuseppe Bergamini (Udine: Forum, 2011). Il nuovo Pirona. Vocabolario friulano, ed. Giulio Andrea Pirona, Ercole Carletti and Giovan Battista Corgnali, 2nd ed. (Udine: Società filologica friulana, 2004). Obůrková, Radka. “Druhá římská jízda Karla IV. [Charles IV’s Second Expedition to Rome]” (master’s thesis, Charles University, 2013). Odorik z Pordenone: z Benátek do Pekingu a zpět. Setkávání na cestách Starého světa ve 13.–14. století. Sborník příspěvků z mezinárodní konference Plzeň, 13.–14. listopadu 2006 [Odoric of Pordenone: From Venice to Peking and Back Again. Encounters on the Roads of the Old World in the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Centuries. Anthology of Papers from the International Conference held in Pilsen on 13th–14th November 2006], ed. Petr Sommer and Vladimír Liščák, Colloquia mediaevalia Pragensia 10 (Prague: Filosofia, 2008). Pagnoni, Fabrizio. “Selezione dei vescovi e qualità del governo episcopale in Italia centro-settentrionale nel Trecento: alcune note di ricerca,” Studi di Storia Medioevale e di Diplomatica, n.s., 1 (2017), 279–289. Pakosta, Oldřich. Pečeti litomyšlských biskupů [The Seals of the Bishops of Litomyšl] (Litomyšl: Státní okresní archiv Svitavy, 2001). Pakosta, Oldřich. “Pečeti litomyšlských biskupů [The Seals of the Bishops of Litomyšl],” in Litomyšl, 53–69. Pakosta, Oldřich. Typologie pečetí litomyšlských sídelních biskupů, 2nd ed. [Typology of the Seals of the Residential Bishops of Litomyšl] (Litomyšl: Státní okresní archiv Svitavy, 2017). Palacký, František. Dějiny národu českého v Čechách a v Moravě [A History of the Czech Nation in Bohemia and Moravia], vol. 2, Od roku 1253 až do roku 1403 [From 1253 to 1403], 4th ed. (Prague: Bursík & Kohout, 1894). Paschini, Pio. “L’Abbazia di S. Martino alla Beligna,” Aquileia Nostra 31 (1960), 95–116.

Bibliography

321

Paschini, Pio. “Antonio Caetani cardinale Aquileiese,” Archivio della Società Romana di storia patria 52 (1929), 147–222. Paschini, Pio. “Giovanni di Moravia e la Curia Romana,” MSF 31 (1935), 105–108. Paschini, Pio. Notizie storiche della Carnia da Venzone a Monte Croce e Camporosso, 2nd ed. (Udine and Tolmezzo: Aquileia, 1960). Paschini, Pio. “Il patriarca Antonio Caetani (1395–1402),” MSF 27/29 (1931/33), 73–206. Paschini, Pio. Storia del Friuli, 5th ed. (Udine: Provincia di Udine, 2010). Paschini, Pio. “Usanze feudali alla corte del patriarca d’Aquileia,” MSF 15 (1919), 101–106. Paschini, Pio. I vicari generali nella diocesi di Aquileia e poi di Udine (Vittorio Veneto: Tipografia del Seminario, 1958). Paschini, Pio. “Vicende del Friuli durante il dominio della casa imperiale di Franconia,” MSF 9, no. 2 (1913), 176–205. Pasquali, Gianfranco. “Canetoli, Lambertino,” in DBI 18 (Rome: Istituto della Enci­ clopedia italiana, 1975), 40–41. Passera, Lorenzo. “Alcune considerazioni sul tipo dell’Aquila nella monetazione patriarcale di Aquileia,” MSF 83 (2003), 131–160. Pastorello, Ester. Nuove ricerche sulla storia di Padova e dei principi da Carrara al tempo di Gian Galeazzo Visconti (Padua: Fratelli Gallina, 1908). Il Patriarcato di Aquileia. Uno stato nell’Europa medievale, ed. Paolo Cammarosano (Udine: Casamassima, 1999). Patrie storiografiche sui confini orientali tra Otto e Novecento, ed. Andrea Tilatti and Marino Zabbia, Reti Medievali Rivista 16, no. 1 (Florence: Firenze University Press, 2015). Pátrová, Karin. “Od servicií k denním podílům. Vývoj podělování kanovníků v českých středověkých kolegiátních kapitulách [From Servitia to Daily Rations: The Development of Wage Distribution among Canons in Bohemian Medieval Collegiate Chapters],” in Kapituly v zemích Koruny české, 75–99. Pátrová, Karin. “Probošt versus kapitula. K problematice majetkových vztahů uvnitř vyšehradské kapituly do doby husitské [Provost vs. Chapter: On the Issue of Property Relations within the Vyšehrad Chapter up to the Hussite Period],” MHB 11 (2007), 79–93. Pátrová, Karin. “Proměny českých kolegiátních kapitul ve 13.–14. století [The Trans­ formation of the Bohemian Collegiate Chapters in the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Centuries],” in Sacri canones servandi sunt, 567–570. Pavlíčková, Radmila. “Olomouc a Brno—dvě biskupské rezidence (K vlivu funkcí šlechtického sídla na ikonografický program výzdoby interiérů) [Olomouc and B ­ rno— Two Episcopal Residences (On the Influence of the Functions of an Aristocratic Residence on the Iconographic Programme of the Interior Decoration)],” SPFFBU—F 46 (2002), 31–44. Pecoraro, Costanza. “Appunti di sfragistica medievale. I sigilli dei patriarchi d’Aquileia conservati nel Museo archeologico cividalese,” Forum Iulii 23 (1999), 97–112.

322

Bibliography

Peri, Vittorio. “Aquileia nella trasformazione storica del titolo patriarcale,” in Storia e arte del patriarcato di Aquileia, Antichità altoadriatiche 38 (Udine: Arti Grafiche Friulane, 1992), 41–63. Pichler, Rodolfo. Il castello di Duino: memorie (Trent: G. Seiser, 1882). Pirchan, Gustav. Italien und Kaiser Karl IV. in der Zeit seiner zweiten Romfahrt, vols. 1–2, Quellen und Forschungen aus dem Gebiet der Geschichte 6/1–2 (Prague: Verlag der Deutschen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften und Künste für die Tschechoslowakische Republik, 1930). Piuzzi, Fabio. “Il castello di Flagogna,” in I Savorgnan e la Patria, 91. Piuzzi, Fabio, Alessandra Biasi and Roberta Costantini. “Il caso del castello di Soffumbergo (Faedis-Udine): un’eccezione o la regola?,” Archeologia medievale 21 (1994), 541–554. Plaček, Miroslav. Ilustrovaná encyklopedie moravských hradů, hrádků a tvrzí [The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Moravian Castles, Strongholds and Fortresses] (Prague: Libri, 2001). Pleszczyński, Andrzej. Vyšehrad. Rezidence českých panovníků. Studie o rezidenci panovníka raného středověku na příkladu českého Vyšehradu [Vyšehrad: The Residence of Bohemian Rulers. A Study of a Ruler’s Residence in the Early Middle Ages Based on the Example of Vyšehrad in Bohemia] (Prague: Set Out, 2002). Plöchl, Willibald Maria. Geschichte des Kirchenrechts, vol. 2, Das Kirchenrecht der abendländischen Christenheit 1055 bis 1517, 2nd ed. (Vienna and Munich: Herold, 1962). Podlaha, Antonín. Series praepositorum, decanorum, archidiaconorum aliorumque praelatorum et canonicorum S. Metropolitanae Ecclesiae Pragensis a primordiis usque ad praesentia tempora, Editiones Archivi et Bibliothecae S. F. Metropolitani Capituli Pragensis 10 (Prague: V. Kotrba, 1912). Podlaha, Antonín, and Eduard Šittler. Chrámový poklad u sv. Víta v Praze. Jeho dějiny a popis [The Church Treasure of St. Vitus in Prague: Its History and Description] (Prague: Al. Wiesner, 1903). Polívka, Miloslav. “The Expansion of the Czech State During the Era of the Luxemburgs (1306–1419),” in Jaroslav Pánek, Oldřich Tůma et al., A History of the Czech Lands (Prague: Karolinum, 2009), 117–146. Pořízka, Aleš. “Papežský finanční archiv a platby servicií ze zemí České koruny za Martina V. a Evžena IV. [The Papal Financial Archive and Payments of Servitia from the Lands of the Bohemian Crown during the Pontificate of Martin V and Eugene IV],” in Pater familias. Sborník příspěvků k životnímu jubileu Prof. Dr. Ivana Hlaváčka, ed. Jan Hrdina (Prague: Scriptorium, 2002), 401–419. Pořízka, Aleš. “Repertorium Poenitentiariae Germanicum. Středověká papežská penitenciárie opět v centru pozornosti [Repertorium Poenitentiariae Germanicum: The Medieval Apostolic Penitentiary Once Again at the Centre of Attention],” MHB 8 (2001), 97–120.

Bibliography

323

Praxl, Paul. “Das Wyschehrader Landgut Prachatitz. Zur Siedlungsgeschichte des mittleren Böhmerwaldes,” Ostbairische Grenzmarken 15 (1973), 210–237. Previté-Orton, Charles William. “Un manoscritto del ‘Chronicon Patriarcharum Aquileiensium,’” Ce fastu? 10, no. 3/4 (1934), 94–102. Previté-Orton, Charles William. “A Manuscript of the Chronicon Patriarcharum Aquileiensium,” in Historical Essays in Honour of James Tait, ed. John G. Edwards, Vivian H. Galbraith and Ernest F. Jacob (Manchester: Butler & Tanner, 1933), 273–281. Prietzel, Malte. Das Heilige Römische Reich im Spätmittelalter (Darmstadt: Wissen­ schaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 2004). Il Quattrocento nel Friuli occidentale, vol. 1, La vicenda storica; Spunti di storiografia musicale; Libri, scuole e cultura, “Itinerari del Quattrocento.” Atti del convegno organizzato dalla Provincia di Pordenone nel mese di dicembre 1993 1 (Pordenone: Provincia di Pordenone and Biblioteca dell’Immagine, 1996). Quicke, Fritz. “Un testament inédit de l’Empereur Charles IV (18 Octobre 1377),” Revue belge de philologie et d’historie 6 (1927), 256–277. Raines, Dorit. “Cooptazione, aggregazione e presenza al Maggior Consiglio: le casate del patriziato veneziano, 1297–1797,” Storia di Venezia—rivista 1 (2003), 1–64. Rambaldi, Pier L. “Stefano III, duca di Baviera, al servizio della Lega contro Gian Galeazzo Visconti (Luglio–Agosto 1390). Nuove osservazioni su documenti inediti,” Archivio Storico Lombardo, ser. 3, 15 (1901), 286–326. Ravegnani, Giorgio. “Falier, Marino,” in DBI 44 (Rome: Istituto della Enciclopedia ita­ liana, 1994), 429–438. I registri vescovili dell’Italia settentrionale (secoli XII–XV ). Atti del Convegno di Studi (Monselice, 24–25 novembre 2000), ed. Attilio Bartoli Langeli and Antonio Rigon, Italia Sacra. Studi e documenti di storia ecclesiastica 72 (Rome: Herder, 2003). Reichert, Winfried. “Der fünfte Mann oder Über Bastarde im Hause Luxemburg,” in Das wichtigste ist der Mensch. Festschrift für Klaus Gerteis zum 60. Geburtstag, ed. Angela Giebmeyer and Helga Schnabel-Schüle, Trierer historische Forschungen 41 (Mainz: Zabern, 2000), 365–401. Reitinger, Lukáš. Vratislav. První král Čechů [Vratislaus: The First King of the Bohemians] (Prague: Argo, 2017). Riedmann, Josef. “Die Grafen von Tirol-Görz und König Ottokar sowie der Einfluβ des Böhmenkönigs auf Nordostitalien,” in Böhmisch-österreichische Beziehungen im 13. Jahrhundert. Österreich (einschlieβlich Steiermark, Kärnten und Krain) im Groβreichprojekt Ottokars II. Přemysl, König von Böhmen, ed. Marie Bláhová, Ivan Hlaváček, Jan Hrdina and Petr Kubín (Prague: Österreichisches Kulturinstitut Prag and Philosophische Fakultät der Karlsuniversität, 1998), 147–161. Riedmann, Josef. “La specificità pordenonese: i rapporti con gli Asburgo e l’Austria,” in Il Quattrocento nel Friuli occidentale, vol. 1, 69–79.

324

Bibliography

Rizzi, Aldo. Tiepolo a Udine. Palazzo Arcivescovile, Duomo, Chiesa della Purità e Musei, Associazione udinese amici dei musei e dell’arte 3, 2nd ed. (Udine: Del Bianco, 1974). Romano, Giacinto. “Niccolò Spinelli da Giovinazzo diplomatico del secolo XIV,” Archivio Storico per le province napoletane 26, no. 4 (1901), 471–542. Roscheck, Petra. “König Wenzel IV.—Opfer einer Schwarzen Legende und ihrer Strahlkraft,” in Regionen Europas—Europa der Regionen. Festschrift für Kurt-Ulrich Jäschke zum 65. Geburtstag, ed. Peter Thorau, Sabine Penth and Rüdiger Fuchs (Cologne, Weimar and Vienna: Böhlau, 2003), 207–229. Rouse, Richard H., and Mary A. Rouse. “John of Salisbury and the Doctrine of Tyrannicide,” Speculum 42, no. 4 (1967), 693–709. Royt, Jan. “Syn Meluzíny (K ikonografii panovnické ideologie Lucemburků) [The Son of Melusine (On the Iconography of the Monarchical Ideology of the Luxembourgs)],” in Schodištní cykly velké věže hradu Karlštejna, ed. Zuzana Všetečková, Průzkumy památek 13 (Prague: Národní památkový ústav, 2006), 91–95. Rozzo, Ugo. “Liruti Gian Giuseppe, storico e bibliografo,” in Nuovo Liruti, vol. 2/2, 1482–1500. Ruffer, Vojtěch. Historie Wyssehradská, neb Wyprawowánj o hradu, o kapitole a městu Hory Wyssehradu u Prahy w králowstwj Českém [The History of Vyšehrad, or a Narrative about the Castle, Chapter and Town of the Mountain of Vyšehrad near Prague in the Kingdom of Bohemia] (Prague: V. Hess, 1861). Ruppert, Philipp. Die Chroniken der Stadt Konstanz (Constance: Münsterbau-Verein, 1891). Říhová, Milada. “Královští lékaři. Lékaři na dvoře posledních Lucemburků [Royal Physicians: Physicians at the Court of the Last Generation of the Luxembourgs],” in Pražské městské elity středověku a raného novověku—jejich proměny, zázemí a kulturní profil, ed. Olga Fejtová, Václav Ledvinka and Jiří Pešek, Documenta Pragensia 22 (Prague: Archiv hlavního města Prahy and Scriptorium, 2004), 327–334. Sacri canones servandi sunt. Ius canonicum et status ecclesiae saeculis XIII–XV, ed. Pavel Krafl (Prague: Historický ústav AV ČR, 2008). Sambin, Paolo. “Alessio, Nicoletto d’,” in DBI 2 (Rome: Istituto della Enciclopedia ita­ liana, 1960), 247–248. I Savorgnan e la Patria del Friuli dal XIII al XVIII secolo. Catalogo della mostra tenutasi ad Udine nel 1984 (Udine: Provincia di Udine, 1984). Scalon, Cesare. “Aquilejský patriarchát ve 14. století [The Patriarchate of Aquileia in the Fourteenth Century],” in Gotika severní Itálie, 10–12. Scalon, Cesare. Produzione e fruizione del libro nel basso Medioevo, Medioevo e umanesimo 88 (Padua: Antenore, 1995). Scarton, Elisabetta. “L’amministrazione civica nel Trecento,” in Storia di Cividale nel Medioevo, 307–339.

Bibliography

325

Scarton, Elisabetta. “Introduzione,” in Annales civitatis Utini (1347–1353, 1375, 1380), ed. Vittoria Masutti and Anna Maria Masutti (Udine: Deputazione di storia patria per il Friuli and Istituto Pio Paschini, 2017), 13–31. Scarton, Elisabetta. “Il patriarcato di Aquileia: una storia ‘sbagliata,’” in Cultura in Friuli, vol. 3, Settimana della cultura friulana, 5–16 maggio 2016, ed. Matteo Venier and Gabriele Zanello (Udine: Società filologica friulana, 2017), 619–638. Scarton, Elisabetta. “Ritorno al passato. I Manin: dal contado fiorentino alle glorie della Serenissima,” Nuova Rivista Storica 102, no. 2 (2018), 611–636. Schiff, Otto. König Sigmunds italienische Politik bis zur Romfahrt (1410–1431), Frankfurter historische Forschungen 1 (Frankfurt am Main: Baer, 1909). Schimmelpfennig, Bernhard. “‘Ex Fornicatione Nati.’ Studies on the Position of Priest’s Sons from the Twelfth to the Fourteenth Century,” Studies in Medieval and Renaissance History, n.s., 2 (1979), 1–50. Schlesinger, L[udwig]. “Eine Erbtheilungs- und Erbfolgeordnungsurkunde Kaiser Karls IV.,” Mittheilungen des Vereines für Geschichte der Deutschen in Böhmen 31 (1892/1893), 1–13. Schmidinger, Heinrich. “Il patriarcato di Aquileia,” in I poteri temporali dei Vescovi in Italia e in Germania nel Medioevo. Atti della settimana di studio, 13–18 settem‑ bre 1976, ed. Carlo Guido Mor and Heinrich Schmidinger, Annali dell’Istituto storico italo-germanico in Trento 3 (Bologna: Il Mulino, 1979), 141–175. Schmidinger, Heinrich. Patriarch und Landesherr. Die weltliche Herrschaft der Patri­ archen von Aquileja bis zum Ende der Staufer, Publikationen des Österreichischen Kulturinstituts in Rom 1/1 (Graz and Cologne: Böhlau, 1954). Schmidt, Ondřej. “Jan z Moravy, patriarcha aquilejský († 1394) a Jan Soběslav, markrabě moravský († cca 1381). Příspěvek k poznání genealogických vztahů lucemburské sekundogenitury [John of Moravia, Patriarch of Aquileia († 1394), and John Sobieslaw, Margrave of Moravia († ca. 1381): A Contribution to the Study of Genealogical Relationships within the Luxembourg Secundogeniture],” ČMM 132, no. 1 (2013), 25–41. Schmidt, Ondřej. Jan z Moravy. Zapomenutý Lucemburk na aquilejském stolci [John of Moravia: A Forgotten Luxembourg on the Throne of Aquileia] (Prague: Vyšehrad, 2016). Schmidt, Ondřej. “Mezi Litomyšlí, Brnem a Concordií: glosy k církevní kariéře biskupa Augustina († 1392) [Between Litomyšl, Brno and Concordia: Notes on the Eccle­ siastical Career of Bishop Augustine († 1392)],” Brno v minulosti a dnes 32 (2019) (in print). Schmidt, Ondřej. “Václav IV., Jošt a Prokop očima italského vyslance. K situaci v lucemburském rodě roku 1390 [Wenceslas IV, Jobst and Prokop through the Eyes of an Italian Envoy: On the Situation within the Luxembourg Family in 1390],” ČMM 137, no. 1 (2018), 3–27.

326

Bibliography

Schmidt, Ondřej. “Vikáři a hejtmani krále Zikmunda na severu Benátska (1411/12–1420) [Vicars and Captains of King Sigismund in the North of Veneto (1411/12–1420)],” Studia Mediaevalia Bohemica 7, no. 1 (2015), 81–113. Schmidt, Ondřej. “Wenceslas IV and his Court through the Eyes of the Envoys of Mantua: Some New Evidence from the Gonzaga Archive,” in Wenzel IV. (1361–1419) (in print). Schmugge, Ludwig. Kirche, Kinder, Karrieren. Päpstliche Dispense von der unehelichen Geburt im Spätmittelalter (Zürich: Artemis & Winkler, 1995). Schwartz, Gerhard. Die Besetzung der Bistümer Reichsitaliens unter den sächsischen und salischen Kaisern (Leipzig: Teubner, 1913). Schwarz, Brigide. “Dispense der Kanzlei Eugens IV. (1431–1447),” in Illegitimität im Spätmittelalter, 133–146. Schwedler, Gerald. “Damnatio memoriae—oblio culturale: concetti e teorie del non ricordo,” in Condannare all’oblio, 3–18. Schwedler, Gerald. “Lussemburgo (di) Nicolò, patriarca di Aquileia,” in Nuovo Liruti, vol. 1/2, 512–517. Schwedler, Gerald. “Moravia (di) Giovanni, patriarca di Aquileia,” in Nuovo Liruti, vol. 1/2, 573–575. Schwedler, Gerald. “Randeck (di) Marquardo, patriarca di Aquileia,” in Nuovo Liruti, vol. 1/2, 718–725. Schwedler, Gerald. “Was heißt und zu welchem Ende untersucht man damnatio in memoria?,” in Damnatio in memoria, 9–23. Sedláček, August. “Bukůvka z Bukůvky [Bukůvka of Bukůvka],” in Ottův slovník naučný, vol. 4 (Prague: J. Otto, 1891), 889. Sedláček, August. Hrady, zámky a tvrze království Českého [Castles, Chateaux and Fortresses of the Kingdom of Bohemia], vol. 1 (Prague: F. Šimáček, 1882). Seibt, Ferdinand. “Die Zeit der Luxemburger und der hussitischen Revolution,” in Handbuch der Geschichte der böhmischen Länder, vol. 1, Die böhmischen Länder von der archaischen Zeit bis zum Ausgang der hussitischen Revolution, ed. Karl Bosl (Stuttgart: Hiersemann, 1967), 349–568. Selzer, Stephan. Deutsche Söldner im Italien des Trecento, Bibliothek des Deutschen Historischen Instituts in Rom 98 (Tübingen: Niemeyer, 2001). Seneca, Federico. “Il conflitto fra Giovanni di Moravia e gli Udinesi (1389–1394),” Archivio Veneto, 5th ser., 46/47 (1950), 45–68. Sguazzero, Tiziano. “Valussi Pacifico, giornalista,” in Nuovo Liruti, vol. 3/4, 3489– 3501. Shahar, Shulamith. Childhood in the Middle Ages (London and New York: Routledge, 1992). Silano, Giulio. “Episcopal elections and the apostolic see. The case of Aquileia: 1251– 1420,” in Diritto e potere nella storia europea. Atti in onore di Bruno Paradisi (Florence: Olschki, 1982), 163–194.

Bibliography

327

Simonetto, Luca. “Valvasone di Maniago Iacopo, storico,” in Nuovo Liruti, vol. 2/3, 2569–2573. Slanička, Simona. “Bastarde als Grenzgänger, Kreuzfahrer, und Eroberer. Von der mittelalterlichen Alexanderrezeption bis zu Juan de Austria,” WerkstattGeschichte 51 (2009), 5–21. Slavík, František Augustin. Brněnský okres [The Brno District], Vlastivěda moravská. Místopis Moravy 2/1 (Brno: Musejní spolek, 1897). Slavnosti, ceremonie a rituály v pozdním středověku [Festivities, Ceremonies and Rituals in the Late Middle Ages], ed. Martin Nodl and František Šmahel (Prague: Argo, 2014). Spěváček, Jiří. Jan Lucemburský a jeho doba 1296–1346. K prvnímu vstupu českých zemí do svazku se západní Evropou [John of Luxembourg and his Era 1296–1346: On the First Entry of the Czech Lands into a Union with Western Europe] (Prague: Svoboda, 1994). Spěváček, Jiří. Václav IV. (1361–1419). K předpokladům husitské revoluce [Wenceslas IV (1361–1419): On the Preconditions of the Hussite Revolution] (Prague: Svoboda, 1986). Spiess, Karl-Heinz. Familie und Verwandtschaft im deutschen Hochadel des Spätmit­ telalters. 13. bis Anfang des 16. Jahrhunderts, Vierteljahrschrift für Sozial- und Wirtschaftsgeschichte 111 (Stuttgart: Steiner, 1993). Sprandel, Rolf. “Die Diskriminierung der unehelichen Kinder im Mittelalter,” in Zur Sozialgeschichte der Kindheit, ed. Jochen Martin and August Nitschke, Veröffentlichungen des Instituts für Historische Anthropologie 4 (Munich: Karl Alber, 1986), 487–502. Sprenger, Kai-Michael. “Damnatio memoriae o damnatio in memoria. Qualche osservazione metodologica sui cosiddetti antipapi,” in Condannare all’oblio, 67–87. Sprenger, Kai-Michael. “Damnatio memoriae oder Damnatio in memoria? Überlegungen zum Umgang mit so genannten Gegenpäpsten als methodisches Problem der Papstgeschichtsschreibung,” QFIAB 89 (2009), 31–62. Sprenger, Kai-Michael. “The Tiara in the Tiber. An Essay on the damnatio in memoria of Clement III (1084–1100) and Rome’s River as a Place of Oblivion and Memory,” Reti Medievali Rivista 13, no. 1 (2012), 153–174. Sroka, Stanisław A. “Nieślubne potomstwo władców Europy Środkowej w XIV wieku [The Illegitimate Offspring of Central European Rulers in the Fourteenth Century],” Prace Historyczne 135 (2008), 21–28. Stacul, Paolo. Il Cardinale Pileo da Prata, Miscellanea della Società Romana di storia patria 19 (Rome: Società alla Biblioteca Vallicelliana, 1957). Stehlíková, Dana. “Nejstarší pečeti vyšehradské kapituly a jejího duchovenstva do roku 1420 [The Oldest Seals of the Vyšehrad Chapter and its Clergy up to 1420],” in Královský Vyšehrad. Sborník příspěvků k 900. výročí úmrtí prvního českého krále Vratislava II. (1061–1092) (Prague: Královská kolegiátní kapitula sv. Petra a Pavla na Vyšehradě, 1992), 171–186.

328

Bibliography

Stejskal, Jan. “Codex Forojuliensis a christianizace střední Evropy [Codex Forojuliensis and the Christianization of Central Europe],” Theatrum historiae 7 (2010), 7–14. Stella, Aldo. “I principati vescovili di Trento e Bressanone,” in I Ducati padani, Trento e Trieste, ed. Lino Marini, Giovanni Tocci and Aldo Stella, Storia d’Italia 17 (Turin: UTET, 1979), 499–606. Sterneck, Tomáš. “K postavení levobočků v raně novověké společnosti (s důrazem na prostředí sociálních elit) [On the Position of Illegitimate Children in Early Modern Society (With Particular Regard to the Milieu of the Social Elites)],” ČČH 114, no. 3 (2016), 677–716. Storia di Cividale nel Medioevo. Economia, società, istituzioni, ed. Bruno Figliuolo (Cividale del Friuli: Città di Cividale del Friuli, 2012). Šimák, Josef Vítězslav. “‘Series’ Augustina Olomouckého (Příspěvek k dějinám českého dějepisectví) [Augustine of Olomouc’s ‘Series’ (A Contribution to the History of Czech Historiography)],” ČČH 37 (1931), 584–593. Šmahel, František. Die Hussitische Revolution, vol. 1, Schriften der MGH 43 (Hannover: Hahn, 2002). Šmeral, Jiří. Řád augustiniánů eremitů na Moravě v předhusitské době [The Order of Hermits of St. Augustine in Moravia in the Pre-Hussite Period], Verbum 19 (Olomouc: Univerzita Palackého, 2008). Šmeral, Jiří. “Řeholníci řádu augustiniánů eremitů na Moravě v předhusitské době [The Friars of the Order of Hermits of St. Augustine in Moravia in the Pre-Hussite Period],” ČMM 125, no. 2 (2006), 461–486. Štefánik, Martin. Obchodná vojna král’a Žigmunda proti Benátkam. Stredoveký boj o trhy medzi uhorsko-nemeckým král’om a Republikou svätého Marka [King Sigismund’s Commercial War against Venice: The Medieval Struggle for Markets between the Hungarian/German King and the Republic of St. Mark] (Bratislava: Historický ústav SAV, 2004). Štěpán, Václav. Moravský markrabě Jošt (1354–1411) [Margrave Jobst of Moravia (1354– 1411)] (Brno: Matice moravská, 2002). Štih, Peter. Studien zur Geschichte der Grafen von Görz. Die Ministerialen und Milites der Grafen von Görz in Istrien und Krain, Mitteilungen des Instituts für Österreichische Geschichtsforschung. Ergänzungsband 32 (Vienna and Munich: Oldenbourg, 1996). Šusta, Josef. České dějiny [A History of Bohemia], vol. 2/3, Karel IV. Otec a syn 1333–1346 [Charles IV: Father and Son 1333–1346] (Prague: J. Laichter, 1946). Šusta, Josef. České dějiny [A History of Bohemia], vol. 2/4, Karel IV. Za císařskou korunou 1346–1355 [Charles IV: For the Imperial Crown 1346–1355] (Prague: J. Laichter, 1948). Tadra, Ferdinand. Kanceláře a písaři v zemích českých za králů z rodu Lucemburského Jana, Karla IV. a Václava IV. (1310–1420) [Chanceries and Scribes in the Czech Lands during the Reign of the Luxembourg Kings, John, Charles IV and Wenceslas IV

Bibliography

329

(1310–1420)] (Prague: Česká akademie císaře Františka Josefa pro vědy, slovesnost a umění, 1892). Tadra, Ferdinand. Kulturní styky Čech s cizinou až do válek husitských [Cultural Relations between Bohemia and Foreign Countries up to the Hussite Wars], Spisy poctěné jubilejní cenou Král. české společnosti náuk 8 (Prague: Královská česká společnost nauk, 1897). Tamburini, Filippo. “Die Apostolische Pönitentiarie und die Dispense ‘super defectu natalium,’” in Illegitimität im Spätmittelalter, 123–132. Tamburini, Filippo. “La penitenzieria apostolica durante il papato avignonese,” in Aux origines de l’État moderne. Le fonctionnement administratif de la papauté d’Avi­ gnon. Actes de la table ronde organisée par l’École française de Rome avec le ­concours du CNRS, du Conseil général de Vaucluse et de l’Université d’Avignon (Avignon, 23–24 janvier 1988), Collection de l’École Française de Rome 138 (Rome: École française de Rome, 1990), 251–268. Temple-Leader, John, and Giuseppe Marcotti. Sir John Hawkwood. Story of a condottiere (London: T. Fisher Unwin, 1889). Thaller, Anja. “Advocati ecclesiae—zwischen Schutz und Eigennutz. Oder: Warum die Grafen von Görz die Veträge mit der Aquileier Kirche brachen,” in Der Bruch des Vertrages. Die Verbindlichkeit spätmittelalterlicher Diplomatie und ihre Grenzen, ed. Georg Jostkleigrewe and Gesa Wilangowski, Zeitschrift für Historische Forschung. Beiheft 55 (Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 2018), 247–281. Tilatti, Andrea. “Principe, vescovo, martire e patrono: il beato Bertrando di Saint-Geniès patriarca d’Aquileia († 1350),” Rivista di Storia e Letteratura Religiosa 27, no. 3 (1991), 413–444. Tilatti, Andrea. “La provincia di Aquileia (secoli XIII–XIV),” in Storia della Chiesa in Europa tra ordinamento politico-amministrativo e strutture ecclesiastiche, ed. Luciano Vaccaro, Quaderni della Gazzada 25 (Brescia: Morcelliana, 2005), 215–225. Tilatti, Andrea. “Saint-Geniès (di) Bertrando, patriarca di Aquileia,” in Nuovo Liruti, vol. 1/2, 765–774. Tilatti, Andrea. “Tra santità e oblio: storie di vescovi uccisi in Italia nordorientale (secoli XIII–XIV),” in L’évêque, l’image et la mort. Identité et mémoire au Moyen Âge, ed. Nicolas Bock, Ivan Foletti and Michele Tomasi, Études lausannoises d’histoire de l’art 16 (Rome: Viella, 2014), 603–620. Tilatti, Andrea. “La Società storica friulana, la storia, le patrie,” in Patrie storiografiche sui confini orientali, 191–220. Tiranni e tirannide nel Trecento italiano, ed. Andrea Zorzi, Italia comunale e signorile 5 (Rome: Viella, 2013). Tobiášová, Veronika. “Nástěnná malba na území litomyšlské diecéze ve vztahu k tamním biskupům (1344–1421) [Mural Painting in the Territory of the Litomyšl Diocese in Relation to its Bishops (1344–1421)],” in Gotické a raně renesanční umění

330

Bibliography

ve východních Čechách 1200–1550, ed. Ivo Hlobil and Milan Dospěl (Hradec Králové: Muzeum východních Čech, 2014), 175–184. Tomaz, Luigi. Il confine d’Italia in Istria e Dalmazia. Duemila anni di storia (Rome and Venice: Associazione Nazionale Venezia Giulia e Dalmazia, 2007). Tomek, Václav Vladivoj. Dějepis města Prahy [A History of the City of Prague], vol. 3, 2nd ed. (Prague: Fr. Řivnáč, 1893). Trautz, Fritz. “Die Reichsgewalt in Italien im Spätmittelalter,” Heidelberger Jahrbücher 7 (1963), 45–81. Trebbi, Giuseppe. Francesco Barbaro, patrizio veneto, e patriarca di Aquileia, Storia della società friulana. Sezione studi e testi 2 (Udine: Casamassima, 1984). Tremoli, Paolo. “Il ‘De Antiqvitatibvs Carneae’ di Fabio Quintiliano Ermacora,” in Studi Tolmezzini, Antichità Altoadriatiche 20 (Udine: Arti Grafiche Friulane, 1981), 77–97. Tropper, Christine. “Johann Mayerhofer († 1402),” in Die Bischöfe des Heiligen Römischen Reiches, 215. Tříška, Josef. Životopisný slovník předhusitské pražské univerzity 1348–1409 [Biographical Dictionary of the University of Prague in the Pre-Hussite Period 1348–1409] (Prague: Karolinum, 1981). Tuchman, Barbara. A Distant Mirror: The Calamitous 14th Century (New York: Knopf, 1978). Válka, Josef. Dějiny Moravy [A History of Moravia], vol. 1, Středověká Morava [Medieval Moravia], Vlastivěda moravská. Nová řada. Země a lid 5 (Brno: Muzejní a vlastivědná společnost, 1991). Vallery-Radot, Sophie. “Die Causa Jean Petit und das Problem des Tyrannenmordes,” in Das Konstanzer Konzil 1414–1418. Weltereignis des Mittelalters. Essays, ed. Karl-Heinz Braun, Mathias Herweg, Hans W. Hubert, Joachim Schneider und Thomas Zotz (Darmstadt: Theiss, 2013), 111–115. Van Caenegem, Raoul Charles. Guide to the Sources of Medieval History, Europe in the Middle Ages Selected Studies 2 (Amsterdam, New York and Oxford: North Holland, 1978). Varadzin, Ladislav. “Palácový okrsek Karla IV. [The Palace District of Charles IV],” in Václav Moucha, Bořivoj Nechvátal, Ladislav Varadzin et al., Vyšehrad. Knížecí a královská akropole. Svědectví archeologie (Prague: Archeologický ústav AV ČR, 2015), 621–649. Varanini, Gian Maria. “Venezia e l’entroterra (1300 circa–1420),” in Storia di Venezia. Dalle origini alla caduta della Serenissima, vol. 3, La formazione dello stato patrizio, ed. Girolamo Arnaldi, Giorgio Cracco and Alberto Tenenti (Rome: Istituto della Enciclopedia italiana, 1997), 159–236. Vauchez, André. La santità nel Medioevo (Bologna: Il Mulino, 1999). Vaughan, Richard. John the Fearless. The Growth of Burgundian Power, 2nd ed. (Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 2002).

Bibliography

331

Vavřínek, Vladimír. Církevní misie v dějinách Velké Moravy [Church Missions in the History of Great Moravia] (Prague: Lidová demokracie, 1963). Vavřínek, Vladimír. Cyril a Metoděj mezi Konstantinopolí a Římem [Cyril and Methodius between Constantinople and Rome] (Prague: Vyšehrad, 2013). Vavřínek, Vladimír. “Předcyrilometodějské misie na Velké Moravě (K výkladu V kapitoly staroslověnského života Metodějova) [The Pre-Cyril-and-Methodius Missions in Great Moravia (On the Interpretation of Chapter V of the Old-Church-Slavonic Life of Methodius)],” Slavia 32 (1963), 465–480. Večeře, Vojtěch. “Kazatel a biskup Jindřich z Vildštejna († 1409): Životní osudy muže, který promlouval na pohřbu Karla IV. [The Preacher and Bishop Henry of Wildenstein († 1409): The Life of the Man Who Spoke at the Funeral of Charles IV],” Theatrum historiae 22 (2018), 9–31. Večeře, Vojtěch. “Klášter, nebo hrad? Rezidence litomyšlských biskupů v letech 1344– 1421, její hypotetická rekonstrukce a klasifikace [Monastery or Castle? The Residence of the Bishops of Litomyšl between 1344 and 1421, its Hypothetical Reconstruction and Classification],” Castellologica Bohemica 17 (2017), 135–153. Večeře, Vojtěch. “Litomyšl Alberta ze Šternberka [The Litomyšl of Albert of Šternberk]” (bachelor’s thesis, Charles University, 2014). Veldtrup, Dieter. “Johann Propst von Vyšehrad. Illegitimer Sohn eines ‘impotenten’ Luxemburgers,” in Studia Luxemburgensia. Festschrift für Heinz Stoob zum 70. Geburtstag, ed. Friedrich Bernward Fahlbusch and Peter Johanek, Studien zu den Luxemburgern und ihrer Zeit 3 (Warendorf: Fahlbusch, Hölscher and Rieger, 1989), 50–78. Veldtrup, Dieter. “Ein ‘luxemburgisches’ Anniversarbuch? Auszüge aus einer vergessenen Memorialüberlieferung des Prager Veits-Domes,” in Manipulus Florum. Aus Mittelalter, Landesgeschichte, Literatur und Historiographie. Festschrift für Peter Johanek zum 60. Geburtstag, ed. Maria-Theresia Leuker, Mark Mersiowsky and Ellen Widder (Münster, New York, Munich and Berlin: Waxmann, 2000), 99–150. Ventura, Angelo. Nobiltà e popolo nella società veneta del Quattrocento e Cinquecento, 2nd ed. (Milan: Unicopli, 1993). Vidal, Tommaso. “Boiani Corrado (ante 1360–1419). Diplomatico, maresciallo patriarcale,” in Nuovo Liruti, supplemento, accessible online: http://www.dizionario biograficodeifriulani.it/boiani-corrado-ante-1360-1419/. Videman, Jan. “Aquilejské mince moravského markraběte a nepotvrzeného olomouckého biskupa Jana Soběslava Lucemburského [The Aquileian Coins of John Sobieslaw of Luxembourg, Margrave of Moravia and Unconfirmed Bishop of Olomouc],” in Peníze v proměnách času, vol. 3, ed. Jan T. Štefan, Acta numismatica Bohemiae, Moraviae et Silesiae 6 (Ostrava: MARQ, 2002), 47–50. Villotta, Luisa. “Fonti archivistiche cividalesi,” in Storia di Cividale nel Medioevo, 3–26.

332

Bibliography

Vollo, Benedetto. I Savorgnani. Storia (Venice: G. Cecchini, 1856). Volpato, Simone. “De Rubeis Bernardo Maria, storico,” in Nuovo Liruti, vol. 2/2, 910–915. Wakounig, Marija. “‘Avvocato’ contro signore. Il ruolo dei conti di Gorizia nel patriarcato d’Aquileia,” in Aquileia e il suo patriarcato. Atti del Convegno Internazionale di Studio, Udine 21–23 ottobre 1999, ed. Giuseppe Bergamini, Silvano Cavazza and Sergio Tavano, Pubblicazioni della Deputazione di storia patria per il Friuli 29 (Udine: Arti Grafiche Friulane, 2000), 339–354. Wakounig, Marija. Dalmatien und Friaul. Die Auseinandersetzungen zwischen Sigis­ mund von Luxemburg und der Republik Venedig um die Vorherrschaft im adriatischen Raum, Dissertationen der Universität Wien 212 (Vienna: VWGÖ, 1990). Watts, John. The Making of Polities: Europe, 1300–1500 (Cambridge: Cambridge Uni­ versity Press, 2009). Weiss, Sabine. Kurie und Ortskirche. Die Beziehungen zwischen Salzburg und dem päpstlichen Hof unter Martin V. (1417–1431), Bibliothek des Deutschen Historischen Instituts in Rom 76 (Tübingen: Niemeyer, 1994). Wenzel IV. (1361–1419). Neue Wege zu einem verschütteten König, ed. Klara Hübner and Christian Oertel (in print). Widder, Ellen. Itinerar und Politik. Studien zur Reiseherrschaft Karls IV. südlich der Alpen, Forschungen zur Kaiser- und Papstgeschichte des Mittelalters 10 (Cologne, Weimar and Vienna: Böhlau, 1993). Widder, Ellen. “Konkubinen und Bastarde. Günstlinge oder Außenseiter an Höfen des Spätmittelalters,” in Der Fall des Günstlings. Hofparteien in Europa vom 13. bis zum 17. Jahrhundert, ed. Jan Hirschbiegel and Werner Paravicini, Residenzenforschung 17 (Ostfildern: Thorbecke, 2004), 417–480. Wiessner, Heinz. Das Bistum Naumburg, vol. 1/2, Die Diözese, Germania Sacra. Neue Folge 35/2 (Berlin and New York: De Gruyter, 1998). Wihoda, Martin. “Mikuláš I. Opavský mezi Přemyslovci a Habsburky [Nicholas I of Opava between the Přemyslids and the Habsburgs],” ČČH 99, no. 2 (2001), 209–230. Wihoda, Martin. Morava v době knížecí 906–1197 [Moravia in the Age of the Dukes 906– 1197] (Prague: NLN, 2010). Wihoda, Martin. Vladislaus Henry: The Formation of Moravian Identity, East Central and Eastern Europe in the Middle Ages, 450–1450 33 (Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2015). Willard, Charity Cannon. “The Manuscripts of Jean Petit’s Justification: Some Burgundian Propaganda Methods of the Early Fifteenth Century,” Studi Francesi 38 (1969), 271–286. Winterer, Hermann. Die rechtliche Stellung der Bastarde in Italien von 800 bis 1500, Münchener Beiträge zur Mediävistik und Renaissance-Forschung 28 (Munich: Arbeo-Gesellschaft, 1978). Wolný, Gregor. Kirchliche Topographie von Mähren meist nach Urkunden und Handschriften, vol. 1/1 (Brno: Nitsch & Grosse, 1855).

Bibliography

333

Zabbia, Marino. “Giovanni di Ailino da Maniago, notaio e cronista,” in Nuovo Liruti, vol. 1/2, 410–415. Zacchigna, Michele. “Il patriarcato di Aquileia: l’evoluzione dei poteri locali (1250–1420),” in Studi in onore di Giovanni Miccoli, ed. Liliana Ferrari, Collana del Dipartimento di Storia e Storia dell’Arte 3 (Trieste: Università di Trieste, 2004), 91–113. Zacchigna, Michele. “Le terre friulane del basso Medioevo: verso il superamento della tradizione policentrica,” in Il Patriarcato di Aquileia, 299–318. von Zahn, Joseph. “Archivalische Untersuchungen in Friaul,” Beiträge zur Kunde steiermärkischer Geschichtsquellen 9 (1872), 83–118. Zannini, Andrea. “Il Friuli nella storiografia veneta tra Otto e Novecento,” in Patrie storiografiche sui confini orientali, 243–260. Zanutto, Luigi. Carlo IV di Lussemburgo e Francesco Petrarca a Udine nel 1368. Studio storico con documenti (Udine: Del Bianco, 1904). Zanutto, Luigi. Epistolario minore di Antonio Pancera—parte prima, Estratto dal Bollettino della Civica Biblioteca e del Museo del 1910–1911 (Udine: G. Vatri, 1912). Zanutto, Luigi. “I Savorgnani di Cividale. Episodio sulle ‘milizie di ventura,’” Memorie storiche cividalesi 1 (1905), 39–63. Záruba, František. Hradní kaple [Castle Chapels], vol. 2, Doba lucemburská [The Luxembourg Period], Opera Facultatis theologiae catholicae Universitatis Carolinae Pragensis. Historia et historia artium 21 (Prague: NLN, 2015). Záruba, František. Hrady Václava IV. Od nedobytného útočiště k pohodlné rezidenci [The Castles of Wenceslas IV: From Impregnable Fortress to Comfortable Residence], Opera Facultatis theologiae catholicae Universitatis Carolinae Pragensis. Historia et historia artium 17 (Prague: NLN, 2014). Zemek, Metoděj. “Vzdělání a kulturní snahy olomoucké kapituly v době předhusitské [Education and Cultural Policy of the Olomouc Chapter in the Pre-Hussite Period],” in Sborník k nedožitým padesátinám PhDr. Jiřího Radimského (Brno: Státní archiv, 1969), 254–275. Zítek, Jan. “Ke sporu Jana z Jenšteina s Václavem IV. [On the Dispute between John of Jenštejn and Wenceslas IV],” Časopis katolického duchovenstva 50 (1909), 64–69, 135–141, 211–218, 324–332, 566–572, 636–644. Zorzi, Andrea. “La cultura della vendetta nel conflitto politico in età comunale,” in Le storie e la memoria. In onore di Arnold Esch, ed. Roberto Delle Donne and Andrea Zorzi (Florence: Firenze University Press, 2002), 135–170. Zorzi, Andrea. “La faida Cerchi-Donati,” in Andrea Zorzi, La trasformazione di un quadro politico. Ricerche su politica e giustizia a Firenze dal comune allo Stato territoriale, Biblioteca di Storia 4 (Florence: Firenze University Press, 2008), 95–120. Zorzi, Andrea. “Legitimation and Legal Sanction of Vendetta in Italian Cities from the Twelfth to the Fourteenth Centuries,” in The Culture of Violence in Renaissance Italy.

334

Bibliography

Proceedings of the International Conference, Georgetown University at Villa Le Balze, 3–4 May, 2010, ed. Samuel Kline Cohn Jr. and Fabrizio Ricciardelli, Villa Le Balze Studies 1 (Florence: Le lettere, 2012), 27–54. Zorzi, Andrea. “La questione della tirannide nell’Italia del Trecento,” in Tiranni e tirannide nel Trecento italiano, 11–36. Zorzi, Andrea. Le signorie cittadine in Italia (secoli XIII–XV ) (Milan and Turin: Mondadori, 2010). Žemlička, Josef. “Levobočci [The Bastard Children],” in Přemyslovský dvůr. Život knížat, králů a rytířů ve středověku, ed. Dana Dvořáčková-Malá and Jan Zelenka (Prague: NLN, 2014), 257–260. Žemlička, Josef. Přemysl Otakar II. Král na rozhraní věků [Přemysl Otakar II: A King at the Turn of Ages] (Prague: NLN, 2011). Žemlička, Josef. Přemyslovci. Jak žili, vládli a umírali [The Přemyslids: How They Lived, Ruled and Died] (Prague: NLN, 2005). Žůrek, Václav. Karel IV. Portrét středověkého vládce [Charles IV: A Portrait of a Medieval Ruler] (Prague: NLN, 2018). Žůrek, Václav. “Korunovační řád Karla IV. jako ritualizovaný panovnický program [The Coronation Order of Charles IV as a Ritualized Royal Programme],” Časopis Národního muzea—řada historická 176, no. 3/4 (2007), 105–143. Žůrek, Václav. “Rodokmen Lucemburků [The Family Tree of the Luxembourg Dynasty],” in Lucemburkové, 808–809.



Online Resource

http://www.augustsedlacek.cz (card files of the Bohemian nobility by August Sedláček)

Index Aachen 69 Adam, Salimbene de 172 Adolf of Nassau 57 Albert III, duke of Austria 80, 137, 165 Albert IV, duke of Austria 137 Albert V (II), king of the Romans 190 Alberti, Giovanni 159, 160n Alençon, Philippe d’ 77–79, 80n, 81, 89, 98, 100, 103, 148, 179 Alessio, Nicoletto d’ 167 Aleš, Bohemian knight 112, 113n Algazi, Gadi 176 Alidosi, Azzo 104n Alps 1, 2, 4, 76n, 91, 129, 134, 143, 144, 146, 164–166, 196, 262 Alsace 89 Ambrožič, Matjaž 224, 225 Andechs, Berthold of 71 Andriotti Detalmo 106, 107, 231, 241, 253n Leonardo 136, 137n Anežka, abbess of the Pustiměř Monastery 30n Anthony, illegitimate son of John of Luxembourg 30n Antro 162 Apennine Peninsula see Italy Aputio see Lopucz Aquileia 67–70, 75, 98, 101, 123, 127, 128, 141n, 182, 186, 236, 239, 245, 256n, 263 basilica 68, 70, 75, 98, 101, 127, 128, 182, 186, 236, 245 chapter 17, 70, 79, 84n, 94n, 121–123, 127, 154n, 182, 263 dean 84n, 94n, 127 widow in 123 see also Ceneda, Ottobono da; Doubravník; Ronconi Arles 68 Arnoldstein, monastery 98n, 210 Attimis, family 92n Augsburg 32

Augustine of Litomyšl 95, 96, 99, 109, 119–121, 132, 133n, 139–141, 144, 149–154, 160, 183n, 189, 194, 209, 210, 262 Augustine of Olomouc 65, 228 Austria 27, 106, 108, 137, 186, 187 see also Albert III; Albert IV; Albert V (II); Habsburgs; Rudolf IV; Strobein Avignon 13n, 28, 39, 50, 52n, 54, 57, 81, 121, 149 see also Clement VII Balbín, Bohuslav 227 Baltic Sea 1 Bamberg, bishopric 28 Barbaro, Francesco 178, 179, 190, 203 Bassano del Grappa 108, 145 Belloni, Antonio 197 Belluno 20, 75, 108, 115n, 129, 132, 145, 174, 188, 193–195, 237 bishop 89 bishopric 70, 129 chapter 194 see also Luleč; Miari Benedict, physician to Wenceslas IV and secretary to Margrave Jobst 94 Bertrando, bishop of Gubbio 216, 217 Bianchi, Giuseppe 14, 15, 229, 231, 239 Bohemia 2–8, 10, 27, 30, 31, 35, 41, 43, 45–47, 49, 50, 53–57, 63, 64, 66, 71–73, 90, 91, 94, 98, 105, 109, 112, 140, 142, 165, 166n, 195, 204n, 210, 211n, 215, 219, 220n, 225–227, 238, 263 see also Charles IV; Elisabeth of Bohemia; Elisabeth of Pomerania; John of Luxembourg; Luxembourgs; Přemysl Otakar II; Přemyslids; Spytihněv II; Vratislaus II; Wenceslas II; Wenceslas III; Wenceslas IV Boiani, family 16, 100 Corrado III 100n, 116, 161, 167, 188n, 208n, 210, 260n, 262n

336 Bologna 40n, 87, 128, 145, 146, 262n “Cardinal of” see Migliorati podestà and captain 262n see also Dotti Bondi see Oliari Boniface IX, pope 82n, 125, 135, 139–142, 148, 149, 152, 154, 157, 168, 172, 217, 218, 229, 232n, 237, 238 Bor, village 50 Brabant 31 Brandenburg 5–7, 89, 135 Breda, Mattiusso di Leonardo 135, 136, 204n Bretholz, Berthold 37 Brno 35, 37, 45n, 85n, 86n, 94, 95, 142, 165, 213n, 214, 222, 252, 256, 262, 263 Augustinian monastery of St. Thomas  95, 96, 120n, 153n, 223 Carthusian monastery in Královo Pole  222, 223 castle 40 chapter 39, 40, 47, 52, 204, 205 see also Augustine; Kroměříž Brunettin, Giordano 202 Buja, castle 197n, 210 see also Crimulin; Spilimbergo, Tommaso di Bukůvka, Nicholas of 90–94, 97, 106, 132, 170n, 192, 204n, 210 Buonamici, Ubaldino 135, 146 Burgundy 1, 23, 177 see also John the Fearless Buřenice, Václav Králík of 32 Buttrio, family 110n Byzantium 68, 69 Cadore 90 see also Drahkov; Pieve di Cadore Caetani, Antonio 169n, 186 Canal del Ferro 99 Candidianus, patriarch of Aquileia 68 Candido, Giovanni 197 Canetoli, Lambertino 131, 148 Capodistria (Giustinopoli) 70 Santo de’ Pellegrini da 210 Carinthia 5, 34, 71, 88 see also Henry of Carinthia; Kraig; Margaret “Maultasch”

Index Carnia 154, 199, 211n see also Neczdicz Carniola 70 Carrara, family 11, 19, 77, 78, 193, 208 Francesco Novello 19, 108, 124, 125, 128–132, 145, 146, 155, 162, 163, 167, 188, 189, 208, 211 Francesco Vecchio 77–79, 84–87, 88n, 90n, 92, 94, 96, 97, 103–105, 108 see also Gatari; Rabatta Casimir III the Great 27 Caterina, neonate from Gemona 92n Caterina, nun in Cividale 181 St. Catherine 62 Čechorod, Tomáš Pešina of 9, 191, 221–223, 228 Celje, counts of 209 Ceneda 108 bishopric 70 Alessandro di Bartolomeo da 147n, 211 Ottobono da 84 Cesare, son of Nicoletto d’Alessio 167 Cessi, Roberto 11, 158, 202 Charlemagne 69 Charles IV 3–8, 28, 29n, 30, 31, 33, 35, 37, 39–46, 47n, 48–50, 52, 57, 74–76, 83, 204, 214, 216n, 218n, 219, 261 see also Elisabeth of Pomerania; Hardegg; Kugelweit; Peter Jelito; Neumarkt; Šternberk; William (Guillaume) Cheb, city 5 China 73 Chioggia 76, 164 Chiusa, castle 207, 234n Chval, John’s vicar 88, 210 Cittanova bishop 88, 120 bishopric 70 see also Zorzi, Gilberto Cividale del Friuli 15, 16, 69, 70, 74, 75, 77, 80, 84n, 85, 87n, 88n, 90, 92, 93, 96–101, 103, 105, 108, 111n, 112, 114n, 116, 117, 122–124, 127, 128, 130n, 131, 132, 137n, 142, 144, 145, 147–150, 154, 155, 158n, 159–163, 166–168, 170, 171, 180–185, 188–190, 192n, 198, 199, 203, 207, 210–212, 233, 250, 251, 253–263

Index Ambrogio da 120n Bernardo da 164 chapter 17, 83, 100, 166, 168–170, 180–182, 185, 209n, 212 dean 100, 180, 182, 209n duomo 99, 100, 180, 263 Nicolò di Antonio da 211 patriarch’s palace 141, 160, 263 San Domenico, monastery 181 Santa Maria di Corte, church/chapel  263 Santa Maria in Valle, monastery 181, 209, 210 university 75 see also Boiani; Caterina; Giovanni; Monasteto; Nicoletti; Portis; Savorgnano Clapiz, Matteo di Giacomo 230, 236 Clement III, antipope 176 Clement VI, pope 35 Clement VII, antipope 50, 52n, 54, 80, 81, 121, 149 Cogo, Gaetano 202 Colette, illegitimate daughter of John of Luxembourg 30n Colloredo, family 78, 155 Odorico di 169 Simone di 169 Cologne 30n Como, bishopric 70 Concordia bishop 119, 120, 141, 149, 150n, 151, 152n, 153, 154, 168, 169, 183n, 190n, 194, 209 bishopric 70, 95, 119–121, 153, 157, 209 chapter 120n, 153, 211n see also Augustine of Litomyšl; Manco; Neczdicz; Pancera; Parma, Ambrogio da; Sbrojavacca, Francesco di Constance 237 bishop 63–65 bishopric 63, 64n see also Riesenburg Constantinople 68 Conte di Virtù see Visconti Cormons 69, 259 Corner, Giacomo 230

337 Cortona, bishop 146 see also Buonamici Coscistagner, knight 242 Crécy 3 Crimulin, Nicholas de 210 Cucagna, Ambrogio di Alberto da 211 Cusin, Fabio 11, 103, 108, 202 Czech lands 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 13, 17, 35, 67, 153, 165, 191, 261 see also Bohemia; Moravia De Biasio, Luigi 174 Della Scala, Antonio 78 Della Torre, family 145 Ludovico 75 Pagano 73 Raimondo 152 Derby, Henry of 157 Di Castello, family 78, 155 Doimo 104n, 169 Dlouhá Třebová 252 Dobruška see Opočno Dotti, Francesco 262n Doubravník, Stephen of 88, 92, 121, 141n, 210, 211 Drahkov, Hrdibor of 90, 210 Drava, river 69 Dub, Michael of 47 Dubravius, John 227 Duino, count of 133n Dyeberstrewt, Henry Praytenrewt de 211 Eger see Cheb Egerland 3 Elbel, Petr 32, 56, 63 Elisabeth of Bohemia, queen of Bohemia, wife of John of Luxembourg 28, 29, 45, 218n Elisabeth, illegitimate daughter of Wenceslas III 29, 30, 33 Elisabeth of Pomerania, empress, wife of Charles IV 42, 45n, 59, 106n Elisabeth, queen of Hungary 78 Elisabetta, stepmother of Federico di Savorgnano 105, 106, 111, 112, 113n, 114, 115, 118n, 123, 193, 195, 196

338 Emo, Gabriele 109, 111, 117, 118, 123 Emona, bishopric 70 Empire 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 23, 24, 41, 57, 67, 71, 79, 83, 100, 109, 155, 165, 189, 196, 214 see also Albert V (II); Charlemagne; Charles IV; Elisabeth of Pomerania; Frederick II; Henry IV; Henry VII; Louis the Bavarian; Sigismund of Luxembourg; Wenceslas IV England 157 see also Henry IV Ermacora, Fabio Quintiliano 85n, 113n, 199 Este Alberto V d’ 131n, 148 Niccolò II d’ 84 Orsina d’ 122, 123 Etmicz, Albert Mikulášův de 210n Fabriano 156 Faenza 145n, 146 Fagagna 255, 256 Enrico Bleon di 112, 161 Marco di 112 Faliero, Marino 179 Fantysová-Matějková, Jana 31 Feltre 75, 108, 129, 132, 145, 188 bishop 89 bishopric 70 Ferdinand, patriarch of Jerusalem 78, 84, 85 Ferrara 84, 86, 92, 131, 146, 148 see also Este Filippo, John’s notary 211n Flagogna, castle 133, 205n Florence 16, 20, 87, 107, 110, 111n, 115n, 128, 131n, 145–148, 162, 167, 174, 189, 194, 195, 247 see also Minerbetti; Oliari, Bartolomeo degli Fontanini, Giusto 16 Formosus, pope 175 France 3, 23, 31, 39, 149 Franconia 1, 126 Franks 69 Frattina, family 145 Frederick II, emperor 71 Furlano, Guglielmo 135 Fuxo, Giovanni de 135

Index Gabrielli, Giovanni 148, 149 Gallarate, Corradino da 209n Gasconis, Peter 217 Gatari, family 96, 193 Andrea 19 Bartolomeo 19, 128, 129 Galeazzo 19 Gemona del Friuli 15, 84, 85, 90–93, 95, 98, 99n, 101, 108–110, 124n, 132n, 138, 139, 141n, 143, 149n, 154, 159, 161, 170, 197n, 207, 250, 252, 254–257, 259, 263 castle 91, 207, 234n, 263 duomo 93, 210 see also Caterina; Spilimbergo, Tommaso di Genoa 76, 146 doge 145 George, alleged illegitimate son of Margrave Prokop of Moravia 32, 33 Germany 1, 126 Gianfrancesco, John’s court jester 137 Giovanni, dean of the Cividale Chapter 209n Girolamo di Alberto, notary in Udine 112, 114, 115n Gonzaga, Francesco 111, 131 Gorizia, counts of 72, 74, 100n, 105, 106, 185, 208 Meinhard VI 208 Görlitz 7 see also John, duke of Görlitz Gotepold, bishop of Pedena 224 Gradenigo Andrea 209n Jacopo 130, 139 Grado 68, 69, 78 Great Moravia 55, 69 Gronumbergo, castle 130n Gubbio, bishop of 216, 217 see also Bertrando Gurk, bishop of 121, 144, 208 see also Mayerhofer Habsburgs 34, 73, 75, 76, 137, 138, 163, 208, 220n see also Albert III; Albert IV; Albert V (II); Austria; Rudolf IV

Index Hardegg, Burchard of 43, 44 Heniken, illegitimate son of John of Luxembourg 30n Henry IV, emperor 70 Henry IV, king of England see Derby Henry VII, emperor 3 Henry of Carinthia 34 St. Hermagoras 68, 98, 109, 128, 205, 212, 245 Hledíková, Zdeňka 29, 58 Hloholy, Bartoloměj Paprocký of 228 Holy Land 105, 157, 186 Holy Roman Empire see Empire Hradská, Veronika 65 Hungarians 70, 130, 131n Hungary 7, 27n, 76, 81, 82, 165, 182, 207 see also Elisabeth; Sigismund of Luxembourg Huns 68 Imola 104n, 146 see also Alidosi India 73 Innocent VI, pope 38 Istria 69, 70, 163, 164 Italy 1–4, 10–12, 20–22, 23n, 31, 42, 67–72, 82, 83, 84n, 87, 89, 95–97, 101, 113, 115, 119, 128, 130, 133n, 134, 135, 145, 146, 150, 153, 156, 165, 170, 173, 177n, 187, 195, 196, 206n, 208, 210, 214n, 219, 220, 229, 261 Ivančice 215 Jenštejn, John of 51, 54n, 59–61, 237 see also Peter Clarificator Jičín, Nicholas “Miketa” of 61 Jobst, margrave of Moravia 6–8, 36, 56–58, 62–66, 82, 83, 86, 87, 89, 92, 94–97, 104, 124, 127, 129, 130, 134, 135, 142, 146, 165, 173, 181n, 188, 191n, 204, 205, 208, 213–215, 218, 219, 221, 222n, 223, 224, 227 see also Benedict; Rudolf; Třeboň John XXII, pope 28 John, duke of Görlitz 6, 7, 143, 173, 219 John the Fearless, duke of Burgundy 177 John Henry, margrave of Moravia 5–9, 34–38, 40, 45, 55, 56, 191, 213–215, 218, 219n, 222–224, 227, 228 John of Luxembourg (“the Blind”), king of Bohemia 3–6, 28–30, 34, 40, 226

339 see also Anthony; Colette; Elisabeth of Bohemia; Heniken; Nicholas of Luxembourg John Sobieslaw, margrave of Moravia 6–10, 36, 37, 42, 43, 56, 57, 91, 191, 213–216, 217n, 218, 219, 221–228, 250n John Volek 28, 29, 33, 218n, 226n John Železný (“the Iron”) 53, 61 Justinian I, Byzantine emperor 68 Klučov, Hynek Kluk of 52n, 54 Koleč, village 50 Kolín, Oldřich of 48n Kraig, Conrad II of 88, 138, 157, 161, 207, 210, 234n Krakovec, castle 58, 252 see also Roztoky Kroměříž, Nicholas of 40 Krzyzenicz, Zdeněk de 215 Kugelweit, Dietrich of 49, 216n, 218n Landau, Lutz of 134n Landštejn, William of 53n, 217n Larner, John 151 Lavant 139, 140 Lavanttal, monastery 210 Leicht, Pier Silverio 81, 115, 202, 235 Libočany, Wenceslas Hájek of 227 Liechtenstein-Castelcorn, Charles of 228 Lipé, family 64 Henry of 63, 64, 66 Hynek of 64 Liruti, Gian Giuseppe 113, 201 Litomyšl 53, 54, 59, 62, 63, 83n, 95, 164, 204, 225n, 226, 251, 252, 261 Augustinian monastery 59 bishop 8, 9n, 10, 37, 52, 54–59, 61–63, 64n, 65, 90, 91, 96, 191n, 192n, 205, 213, 216–218, 225n, 226, 228, 261 bishopric 9, 10, 13, 50, 52–56, 58–63, 83n, 205, 207, 217, 218, 223, 224, 226 cantor 54n castle 53, 261 cathedral 53, 261 chapter 52n, 53–55, 61 custodian 54n Premonstratensian monastery 53 prior 54n

340 Litomyšl (cont.) see also Augustine of Litomyšl; John “Železný”; Jičín; Neumarkt; Peter Jelito; Šternberk Livenza, river 120n Ljubljana 16, 126 Lombards 68, 69 Lombardy 134 Lopucz, John/Hanuš de 210 Louis the Bavarian 34, 35 Louis of Brandenburg 34 Louis of Meissen 57 Louis of Orléans 177 Lower Lusatia 5, 7 Luleč, Oldřich Skála of 237 Luxembourg 5, 6, 30, 32n, 89 Nicholas of, chancellor of John of Luxembourg 30n see also Wenceslas Luxembourgs 1–3, 5–8, 12, 27, 30–36, 38, 40, 53, 57, 58, 62, 64, 66, 81–83, 86, 87, 90, 91, 109, 125, 126, 134, 135, 141–143, 165, 173, 187, 188, 204, 205, 212, 222, 224, 226, 227 Madrisio, castle 205, 206 Magdeburg 57, 59, 61 see also Louis of Meissen; Peter Jelito Mainz, archbishopric 4, 57, 205 see also Adolf of Nassau; Louis of Meissen Malborghetto, town 97, 143, 252, 262 Manco, Giovanni 119, 120, 157 Maniago 192 family 18, 78 Baldussio di 234, 247 Giovanni Ailini di, notary in 18, 21, 91, 95, 103, 107, 110, 112, 113, 192, 193, 195, 197, 198, 200 Manini, Nicolò 107, 231, 241 Mantua 69, 70, 92, 111, 134, 146, 148 see also Gonzaga; Canetoli Manzano, castle 137, 159, 160 family 160 Taddeo di 159n, 160n Marano, town 78, 96n Marche 156 Marchesi, Vincenzo 11, 201, 202n Margaret, hypothetical illegitimate daughter of Wenceslas IV 31–33

Index Margaret “Maultasch” 34–37 Margaret of Opava 213n St. Mark 68, 69, 75, 178 Massa Marittima, bishop of 148 see also Gabrielli St. Maurice 62 Mayerhofer, John 121 Mezník, Jaroslav 37, 165, 224 Miari, Clemente 20, 174, 193–195 Migliorati, Cosimo de’ 138, 238 Milan 17, 68, 78, 80, 87, 128, 131n, 134, 135, 145, 168 see also Visconti Minerbetti, Piero di Giovanni 20 Modena 44n Modřice, castle 94, 95, 105n, 252, 262 Moggio, monastery 87, 99n, 181n, 232, 252, 262 see also Oliari, Bondi degli Monasteto, Pietro di 182, 184n Monfalcone 101, 234n, 236, 255 castle 207, 234n Monte Cassino, monastery 32, 33 see also George Montelongo, Gregorio di 71 Montfort, counts of 226n Monticoli, Andrea 108, 210 Moravia 3–8, 29, 37, 43, 53, 55–58, 63–66, 69n, 82, 86, 89–91, 94, 95, 109, 125, 134, 135, 141n, 142, 165, 192, 204, 213n, 214–216, 219–224, 225n, 226–228, 262 John of, master 40n see also Charles IV; Great Moravia; Jobst; John Henry; John Sobieslaw; Luxembourgs; Margaret of Opava; Prokop Morosini, family 157n Pietro 157 Muggia 164 Muir, Edward 180 Naples 119, 157 see also Manco Naumburg, bishopric 30, 74 see also Nicholas of Luxembourg Neczdicz, Nicholas de 211n Nejedlý, Zdeněk 10 Nero, Roman emperor 20, 138, 178, 233, 249 Neumarkt, John of 37, 43, 44, 53, 55, 214, 215

Index Nicholas of Luxembourg 4, 30, 31, 33, 74, 75, 105, 107, 127n, 171, 175, 184, 218n, 226 Nicholas I of Opava 24 Nicholas II of Opava 28, 29 Nicoletti, Marcantonio 87n, 92n, 93n, 100n, 101, 113n, 122n, 127n, 132n, 141, 198, 199, 236n Novati, Francesco 146 Nuremberg 126 Nusco, bishopric 119 see Parma, Ambrogio da Obernburg (Gornji Grad), monastery 209 Oliari Bartolomeo degli 110, 232, 247 Bondi degli 87, 89, 90, 92, 94, 102, 110, 111, 209n, 210, 232, 239, 247 Olivi, Gian Francesco Palladio degli 200 Olomouc 37, 63, 64n, 86, 192n, 215, 221, 223, 226n, 227, 228, 252 bishop 17, 28, 29n, 33, 37n, 38, 43, 55, 56, 62–66, 90, 95, 192n, 215, 223, 226n, 227, 228 bishopric 4, 10, 17, 37, 39n, 53, 55–57, 62–64, 65n, 82, 90n, 94, 95n, 191, 205, 207, 210n, 214, 223, 228, 262 cathedral 37n chapter 17, 55–57, 59, 63–66, 87, 88, 191 dean 65 see also Augustine of Olomouc; Doubravník; Dubravius; John Volek; Neumarkt; Peter Jelito; Riesenburg; Rudolf; Třeboň Opava 4, 24 see also Margaret of Opava; Nicholas I; Nicholas II Opočno, Stephen of 188 Ortenburg, count of 128, 129n, 144 Ostrogoths 68 Padua 11, 17, 19, 70, 76, 77, 84, 86–88, 92–94, 96, 103n, 104, 105, 108, 114, 124, 125, 128, 131–133, 145, 162, 163, 167, 188, 193, 208, 209, 247, 262n see also Carrara; Dotti; Gatari; Rabatta Pakosta, Oldřich 226 Pancera, Antonio 154, 169 Pardubice, Ernest of 38n

341 Parenzo, bishopric 70 Paris 40n Parma 172 Ambrogio da 119 see also Adam Partistagno, family 92n Paschal II, pope 176 Paschini, Pio 11, 86, 125, 149, 168, 202 Paul the Deacon 68 Paulinus I, patriarch of Aquileia 68 Paulinus II, patriarch of Aquileia 69 Pavia 69 Pedena, bishopric 70, 224 see also Gotepold Pennsylvania 18, 114 Perugia 79, 83, 95 St. Peter 48 Peter Clarificator 60 Peter Jelito 53, 57, 62–64, 66, 191n Peter of Zittau 28 Petit, Jean 177 Petrarca, Francesco 43, 76 Pieve di Cadore 138n Pilsen, city 50 Pinzano, castle 105, 106 Pisa, Bonifacio da 26 Pius II, pope 22, 23n Pohled, monastery 29 see also Elisabeth, illegitimate daughter of Wenceslas III Pola, bishopric 70 Poland 7, 27, 165 see also Casimir III; Władysław II Poppo, patriarch of Aquileia 70 Porcia, family 145 Morando di 105 Pordenone, town 73, 208 Odoric of 73 Portis, Filippo de’ 185 Portogruaro, town 94n, 108n Prachatice, town 47–49, 215 Prague 4, 8, 29, 30, 37, 40–42, 45n, 52, 56, 58, 59, 63, 64, 75, 142, 164, 188n, 204, 213, 214, 217n, 218n, 251, 252, 261 archbishop 13, 39, 40, 44, 45, 50, 51, 54n, 59, 60n, 237 archbishopric 4, 13n, 47, 48n, 53, 58, 61 bishop 30

342 Prague (cont.) castle 4, 29, 46 cathedral 4, 17, 41, 75 chapter 39, 40, 42, 44n, 45, 50n, 54, 188n, 221, 222 dean 39, 54, 228 St. George, monastery 29 provost 39 university 4, 39–41 see also Klučov; Jenštejn; Pardubice; Vlašim, John Očko of; Weitmile Prampero, family 78, 155 Prata, Pileo di 81, 121, 141, 145n Přeclav, bishop of Wrocław 53n Přemyslids 3, 24, 27, 29, 30, 32 Přemysl Otakar II 24, 26, 33, 73 Prokop, margrave of Moravia 6, 7, 32, 36, 56–58, 62, 63, 65, 66, 82, 83, 94, 142, 165, 173, 191n, 205, 213–215, 218, 222n, 223, 224, 227, 228, 263 see also George Puoch, Erhart de 204n Pustiměř, monastery 29, 30, 33 see also Anežka; Elisabeth, illegitimate daughter of Wenceslas III; John Volek Querini, Francesco 144, 166 Rabatta, Michele 124, 187 Ragogna, village 166 Odorico di 94 Rakovník, town 58 Randeck Marquard of, patriarch of Aquileia 43, 75–77, 81, 100n, 109 Marquard of, his nephew and John’s vicar 109, 126, 209n Ravenna 146 Republic of St. Mark see Venice Řetová, village 59 Rhineland 1 Říčany, Elisabeth of 105n Riesenburg, Nicholas of 63, 66, 82, 94, 95, 207 Romans 67 Rome 1, 4, 31, 40, 42–46, 59, 61, 67, 68, 76, 77, 82, 83, 121, 141n, 142n, 148n, 154, 158, 175, 204, 214, 217, 232, 238, 251 St. Peter’s Basilica 42

Index Ronconi, Antonio 79, 80, 121 Rosazzo, monastery 137 Royt, Jan 62 Roztoky, Jíra of 58, 59n Rubeis, Bernardo Maria de 16, 200, 201 Rudolf IV, duke of Austria 75 Rudolf, chaplain of Margrave Jobst and Olomouc canon 87 Sacile 78, 85, 94, 158 castle 158n Saint-Geniès, Bertrand de 74, 184, 185 Salisbury, John of 176 Salzburg, archbishopric 41n, 69, 139 chapter 140 dean 140 San Benedetto in Polirone, abbey 111 San Daniele del Friuli 17, 147, 155, 160, 167, 199, 236, 258, 259 castle and palace 147n, 155, 157, 160 Corrado di 155, 160 Guarnerio Favarotta di 159, 160n, 169 parish priest 211n see also Neczdicz; Sini San Gottardo 260 San Martino alla Beligna, abbey 133 San Nicolò al Lido, monastery 111 San Pietro in Carnia 188, 210 see also Stibicz Santa Maria la Longa, Nicolussio di Domenico Cucculussio da 211 Savorgnano, castle 96, 97, 104, 110, 115, 117, 118, 122, 162, 231, 253 Savorgnano of Cividale, family 96, 115, 162 Andrea Nascinguerra di 112 Francesco Nascinguerra di 96, 104, 112, 161, 162 Savorgnano of Udine, family 73, 74, 76, 78, 102–107, 115, 117, 133, 136, 150, 151, 155, 162, 169–174, 177, 179, 180, 187n, 190, 192, 195, 197n, 203, 206, 211, 212 Antonio di 179 Federico di 77, 92, 97, 103n, 104–107, 109–118, 122, 123, 135, 137n, 139, 145, 150, 156, 160, 172, 173, 185, 192–199, 201, 202, 205, 206, 210, 231, 235, 240–242 Federico di Bello di 205, 206 Francesco di 75, 105 Nicolò di 149–153, 169, 183n

Index Sofia di 105 Tristano di 150n, 156, 161, 169, 172, 174, 177, 183, 186, 187, 189, 190, 193, 194, 197 see also Elisabetta; Este, Orsina d’ Sbrojavacca, family 120n, 145 Francesco di 120n Scarsaborsa, Giovanni Battista 178, 179 Schwedler, Gerald 123, 176, 203 Seneca, Federico 11, 148, 202 Serenissima see Venice Sigeard, patriarch of Aquileia 70 Sigismund of Luxembourg 6, 7, 81–83, 86, 89, 100n, 142, 165, 182, 183, 188, 189, 207, 219, 237 Silesia 3, 4, 6 Sini, Girolamo 199, 200 Šintava, village 89 Skopje, bishop of 209n see also Gradenigo, Andrea Slovenia 14n, 16, 71, 224, 225 Soffumbergo, castle 107, 108, 189, 251, 253–258, 260–263 Soldonieri, Nicolò de’ 169 Spěváček, Jiří 30 Spilimbergo, town 124n, 196, 254n family 78, 196 Tommaso di 197n Venceslao di 105n, 112n, 161, 197n Giovanni Fulcherio da 211 Spytihněv II, duke of Bohemia 71 see also Svatobor (Frederick) Sroka, Stanisław 32 Steno, Michele 145 Štěpán, Václav 9, 173 Stephen III, duke of Bavaria 128, 132, 133, 209 Šternberk, Albert of 52–54, 55n, 61, 205 Stibicz, Dietrich de 188, 189, 210 Strassoldo, family 145 Bernardo di 141n, 169, 238 Strobein, Stefan 126 Susanna Giovanni di Odorico 211 Odorico 163n, 164n Svatobor (Frederick), patriarch of Aquileia 71 Svitavy, parish priest of 54n Swabia 1, 226n

343 Tagliamento, river 120n, 145, 149, 211 Tarvisio, town 97, 262 Tbilisi, bishop of 209n see also Villach, Leonard of Teck, Louis of 19, 89, 100n Theodor, bishop of Aquileia 68 Theodoric, king of the Ostrogoths 68 St. Thomas Becket of Canterbury 184 Tiber, river 176 Tibet 73 Tiepolo, Giambattista 178 Tilatti, Andrea 184 Tolmezzo 84, 85, 113, 143, 154, 199, 203, 258 Francesco Janis di 180 see also Ermacora Tolmino, gastaldia 116, 163 Třeboň, Andrew of 65, 146 Trent, bishopric 70, 138n Trevisan, Ludovico 19 Treviso 73, 78, 87, 92, 104, 108, 125, 128, 131, 133 bishop 88, 152, 153 bishopric 70 Trieste 70, 76, 163, 164, 209n see also Wildenstein (Vildštejn) Tržek, monastery 54, 55, 251 Tunchil, Nicholas see Bukůvka Tuscany 1, 2, 75, 76 Tyrol 3, 5, 34 castle 34 see also Henry of Carinthia; John Henry; Margaret “Maultasch” Udine 11, 15, 18, 19n, 20, 21, 43, 73, 74–81, 84–86, 90, 92, 93, 95, 97–99, 101–104, 106–118, 122–125, 130, 133–145, 147–149, 152, 154n, 155–163, 164n, 165–169, 170n, 171, 172, 174, 175n, 176–180, 182–186, 188, 190, 192, 193n, 194, 195n, 196–203, 204n, 205n, 206, 207, 211, 212, 226, 229–233, 234n, 235–243, 246, 248, 250, 252, 253, 259–263 castle 43, 161, 169, 170n, 181n, 193, 262 Celestine monastery 133 chapter 17, 84, 147, 186 dean 84 duomo 102, 147, 171, 175 patriarch’s palace 178, 179, 200

344 Udine (cont.) San Francesco della Vigna, monastery 187 Santa Maria di Castello, church 171 Santo Stefano, church/chapel 111 see also Andriotti; Breda; Buttrio; Clapiz; Elisabetta; Furlano; Fuxo; Girolamo di Alberto; Manini; Monticoli; Olivi; Savorgnano Unhošť, Nicholas of 135, 140 Upper Lusatia 3, 4 Upper Palatinate 5 Urban V, pope 41, 42 Urban VI, pope 17, 50, 52, 63, 65n, 77, 78, 81, 83, 88, 96, 119, 121, 141, 179, 191n, 207, 217, 218n, 232n Úsov, castle 57, 251 Val di Carnia, Giacomo di Giovanni da 211 Valle, Cristoforo de 134 Valussi, Pacifico 202 Valvasone, family 145 Rizzardo di 161 Valvasone di Maniago, Jacopo 198, 200 Varmo, family 155 Vatican 13, 17, 44 Veldtrup, Dieter 9, 10, 35, 38, 48, 218, 220, 222 Veneto 71, 145 Venice 11, 14, 16, 17, 69, 70, 73, 76–78, 79n, 82n, 84–88, 92–94, 96, 97, 99, 104, 105, 107–111, 117–120, 122, 123, 125, 126n, 128–134, 137–139, 143–145, 148, 156–160, 162, 163, 166, 167, 178, 180n, 182, 189, 197n, 202, 205n, 207, 208, 212, 230, 234–236, 238, 243 Consiglio dei Dieci 179 doge 96, 97n, 111n, 112, 117n, 119, 120n, 123, 124, 139, 145, 147, 157, 158, 160n, 179, 180n Palazzo Ducale 14, 179n patriarchate 69n Senate 16, 86, 109n, 120, 122n, 125, 130, 134n, 138, 143n, 144, 156n, 158, 166, 238 see also Alberti; Corner; Emo; Faliero; Gradenigo; Morosini; Querini; Steno; Tiepolo; Venier Venier, Antonio 96, 119

Index Venzone 43n, 78, 84, 110, 133n, 141n, 143, 153, 155, 207, 210, 234n, 255, 256 castle 207, 234n duomo 153, 210 Vergerio, Pier Paolo 187 Verona 70, 78 see also Della Scala Veselá, Kuneš of 51 Vicenza 70, 78 see also Della Scala St. Victorinus 60, 61n, 62 Vienna 75, 97, 252, 262 Viktring, John of 73 Villach 97, 210, 262 Leonard of 209n Villalta, family 155 Visconti, Giangaleazzo 78, 80, 84n, 87, 92, 96, 108, 124, 125, 128–135, 138n, 141, 145, 146, 148, 158n, 168, 208 see also Milan Vlašim, family 32 John the Elder of 32 John Očko of 38 Vratislaus II, duke and king of Bohemia 46 Vyšehrad 44–46, 48, 63, 251, 261 chapter 10, 13, 30, 44n, 45, 46, 47n, 50, 60, 215 custodian 45 dean 48, 50 palace 48, 261 St. Peter, church 44, 47, 48, 261 provost 8–10, 28, 35n, 42, 44, 46–50, 53, 191, 204, 205, 215–218, 220, 226, 227 scholastic 51 see also Hardegg; John Volek; Kugelweit; Landštejn; Veselá Weitmile, Beneš Krabice of 17, 35, 36, 191, 227 St. Wenceslas 166n, 181 Wenceslas II, king of Bohemia 28, 215, 226n see also John Volek Wenceslas III, king of Bohemia 29 see also Elisabeth Wenceslas IV, king of the Romans and of Bohemia 6, 7, 32, 50, 52, 55–59, 60n, 63,

Index 65, 66, 82–84, 86, 88, 89, 92, 94, 101, 105, 126n, 133n, 134, 135, 142, 143, 146, 165, 166, 171, 173, 180, 181n, 183, 187, 188n, 203n, 204, 205, 208, 214, 215, 219, 220n, 233n, 237, 263 see also Benedict; Buřenice; Margaret; Opočno; Stibicz; Unhošť; Valle Wenceslas, duke of Luxembourg 5, 6, 31 Wildenstein (Vildštejn), Henry of 164, 209n William (Guillaume), illegitimate son of Charles IV 31, 33 Wittelsbachs 35 see also Louis the Bavarian; Louis of Brandenburg; Stephen III Władysław II Jagiełło 165 Wrocław, bishopric 28, 53n see also Přeclav

345 Zacchigna, Michele 155 Zahrádka, town 50 Zbraslav, Michael of 105n Zbuch (Sbuoch), Bohemian knight 112, 113n Zdeněk, Bohemian knight 112, 113n, 210 Žebrák, castle 142, 143n, 165, 256, 263 Želiv, monastery 215 Zimmern, counts of 226n Žirovnica, village 224, 225 St. Martin, church 224 Zlatá Koruna, monastery 10, 49, 215, 216n, 217 Zorzi, Andrea 151 Zorzi, Gilberto 120 Zucco, family 155 Giovanni di 169