The Archaeology and Material Culture of Queenship in Medieval Hungary, 1000–1395 9783030665111, 3030665119

Citation preview

The Archaeology and Material Culture of Queenship in Medieval Hungary, 1000–1395 Christopher Mielke

Queenship and Power

Series Editors Charles E. Beem, University of North Carolina, Pembroke, NC, USA Carole Levin, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, NE, USA

This series focuses on works specializing in gender analysis, women’s studies, literary interpretation, and cultural, political, constitutional, and diplomatic history. It aims to broaden our understanding of the strategies that queens—both consorts and regnants, as well as female regents— pursued in order to wield political power within the structures of maledominant societies. The works describe queenship in Europe as well as many other parts of the world, including East Asia, Sub-Saharan Africa, and Islamic civilization.

More information about this series at http://www.palgrave.com/gp/series/14523

Christopher Mielke

The Archaeology and Material Culture of Queenship in Medieval Hungary, 1000–1395

Christopher Mielke Beverly, WV, USA

ISSN 2730-938X ISSN 2730-9398 (electronic) Queenship and Power ISBN 978-3-030-66510-4 ISBN 978-3-030-66511-1 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-66511-1 © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. Cover credit: Rolf Richardson/Alamy Stock Photo This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland

For my Mother, Elizabeth. My interest in clever women overcoming adversity is inspired by bearing witness to your success in the same.

Acknowledgments

This work would not have been possible without my family, friends, colleagues, advisers, and institutional partners. To start, I would expressly like to thank Central European University’s Department of Medieval Studies for their support throughout this entire venture—I do not think this work could have been done any other place. I would also like to express thanks to the American Research Center in Sofia, the ERASMUS program, and the German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD) for their support while doing this research as part of my doctoral dissertation. I am also grateful to the Medieval Academy of America—their award of the Charles T. Wood Dissertation Grant in 2015 allowed me to do necessary fieldwork for this study. My special thanks are to József Laszlovszky and Alice Choyke for their work in supervising this work. I am also grateful to my other advisers, such as János Bak, Katalin Szende, Gábor Klaniczay, Gerhard Jaritz, Béla Zsolt Szakács, Roberta Gilchrist, Aleks Pluskowski, and many others. For aiding in the transition from dissertation to monograph, I would like to thank my friends and colleagues who helped with the translations and copy editing. Zsuzsanna Eke, Barbara Litzlfellner, Magdalena Debna, and Svetlana Tsonkova all provided necessary double checking and translation help for works I consulted in Hungarian, German, Polish, and Russian, respectively. My friends Justin Hager and Joseph Sherren helped review some of the chapters after they were assembled into a book form with the aim of trying to make this more readable.

vii

viii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would finally like to thank my family—my parents Lisa and Tom Mielke, my grandmother Marilyn Kinsey, my sister Jennifer Linhart Wood, and her husband Bryan Talenfeld. Their love, support, and kindness made this work possible during the many times I thought it was something insurmountable.

Contents

1

1

Introduction

2

The Beginnings of the Hungarian ‘Queendom’ (c. 1000–1090)

27

Stones and Bones and the Queens of the Twelfth Century (1097–1193)

71

4

The “Office” of the Queen Begins (1172–1233)

91

5

The Second Foundresses (1235–1295)

133

6

Long Widowhoods (1296–1380)

171

7

Regent and Regnant (1370–1395)

225

8

Conclusions

263

3

Bibliography

269

Index

307

ix

List of Figures

Fig. 1.1

Fig. 2.1 Fig. 2.2

Fig. 2.3 Fig. 2.4

Fig. 2.5 Fig. 2.6 Fig. 2.7 Fig. 2.8 Fig. 3.1 Fig. 3.2

The death of Prince Emeric and the blinding of Vazul. The Hungarian Illuminated Chronicle, National Széchényi Library, Budapest, Cod. Lat. 404 The Árpád dynasty in the eleventh century The Birth of St. Stephen The Hungarian Illuminated Chronicle, National Széchényi Library, Budapest, Cod. Lat. 404 The Gisela Cross, ca. 1006. Schatzkammer, Munich Residenz St. Stephen I and Gisela founding the Cathedral of SS Peter and Paul in Óbuda. The Hungarian Illuminated Chronicle, National Széchényi Library, Budapest, Cod. Lat. 404 Modern monument to Gisela based on her eleventh-century tombstone Gravestone of Tuta of Formbach, Abbey of Suben The Holy Crown of Hungary, eleventh-century to twelfth century The Adelaide Cross, front, ca. 1080s (Source Stift Sankt Paul am Lavanttal. © Foto Stift St. Paul, Gerfried Sitar) The Árpád dynasty in the twelfth century The Council of Arad. The Hungarian Illuminated Chronicle, National Széchényi Library, Budapest, Cod. Lat. 404

5 29

31 37

41 45 48 60 65 72

83

xi

xii

LIST OF FIGURES

Fig. 3.3

Fig. 4.1 Fig. 4.2 Fig. 4.3

Fig. 4.4 Fig. 4.5

Fig. 4.6 Fig. 4.7 Fig. 4.8 Fig. 4.9

Fig. 5.1 Fig. 5.2

Fig. 5.3

Fig. 5.4 Fig. 5.5 Fig. 5.6

Fig. 5.7 Fig. 5.8 Fig. 5.9

Agnes of Babenberg in the Babenberger Stammbaum at the Stiftsmuseum Klosterneuburg (Photograph by IMAREAL Krems) The Árpád dynasty in the thirteenth century Crown of Anna of Antioch. Hungarian National Museum Clothing fragments from the tomb of Anna of Antioch. From Gyula Forster, III. Béla magyar király emlékezete (1900) Ring of Anna of Antioch. Hungarian National Museum The betrothal of Margaret to Béla III of Hungary. Grandes Chroniques de France, British Library, Royal 16 G VI, f. 341 The Elisabethkleid. Andechs Abbey The Andechs family in the Hedwig Codex (Digital Image Courtesy of Getty’s Open Content Program) Seal of Yolanda of Courtenay, drawing by the author Coinage of Andrew II featuring Yolanda. From László Réthy, Corpus Nummorum Hungariae (1899–1907) Seal of Maria Laskarina. Hungarian National Archives, OL DF 686 Coinage of Béla IV featuring Maria Laskarina. From László Réthy, Corpus Nummorum Hungariae (1899–1907) Béla IV and Maria Laskarina crowning Stephen V. The Hungarian Illuminated Chronicle, National Széchényi Library, Budapest, Cod. Lat. 404 First Seal of Elizabeth the Cuman. From Sándor Szilágyi, A Magyar Nemzet Története (1895) Second seal of Elizabeth the Cuman. Hungarian National Archives, OL DF 63612 Coinage of Ladislas featuring Elizabeth the Cuman. From László Réthy, Corpus Nummorum Hungariae (1899–1907) Burial Crown from Margaret Island. Hungarian National Museum. 1847.43.a Second Seal of Isabella of Naples. Hungarian National Archives, OL DF 1119 Seal of Fenenna of Kujavia. Illustration from György Pray, Syntagma historicum de sigillis regum, et reginarum Hungariae (1805)

89 93 95

98 100

106 117 120 126

127 136

137

145 147 148

150 152 160

166

LIST OF FIGURES

Fig. 6.1 Fig. 6.2

Fig. 6.3 Fig. 6.4 Fig. 6.5 Fig. 6.6 Fig. 6.7

Fig. 6.8

Fig. 6.9

Fig. 6.10

Fig. 6.11 Fig. 6.12

Fig. 6.13 Fig. 6.14

Fig. 7.1

Fig. 7.2

The Hungarian Angevin Dynasty in the fourteenth century First seal of Agnes Habsburg. Drawing by Nándor Malachovsky, from Sándor Szilágyi, A Magyar Nemzet Története (1895) Lost window of Agnes of Habsburg. From Martin Gerbert, Monumenta Augustae Domus Austriacae (1772) Inside cover of the Prayers and Benedictions of Muri. Sarnen Benediktinerkollegium, Codex MS. 69 Crypt at Königsfelden. From Martin Gerbert, Monumenta Augustae Domus Austriacae (1772) Seal of Maria of Bytom. Hungarian National Archives, OL DF 1814 The burial of Maria of Bytom. The Hungarian Illuminated Chronicle, National Széchényi Library, Budapest, Cod. Lat. 404 The betrothal of Elizabeth of Poland. The Hungarian Illuminated Chronicle, National Széchényi Library, Budapest, Cod. Lat. 404 3 illustrations of the life of Elizabeth of Poland. The Hungarian Illuminated Chronicle, National Széchényi Library, Budapest, Cod. Lat. 404 The attempt on the life of the king and queen by Felician Záh. The Hungarian Illuminated Chronicle, National Széchényi Library, Budapest, Cod. Lat. 404 Great seal of Elizabeth of Poland. Hungarian National Archives, OL DF 3137 Coinage of Charles I Robert featuring Elizabeth of Poland and her initials. From László Réthy, Corpus Nummorum Hungariae (1899–1907) Reliquary altar owned by Elizabeth of Poland. The Cloisters Collection, 1962. 62.96 Drawing of the capital from St. Mary Gate at the Church of Our Lady in Buda featuring Elizabeth of Poland. Drawing by Josef Keintzel, 1876. From József Csemegi, A budavári f˝otemplom középkori építéstörténete (1955) Great seal of Elizabeth of Bosnia. From György Pray, Syntagma historicum de sigillis regum, et reginarum Hungariae (1805) Reliquary Sarcophagus of St. Simeon, Zadar

xiii

173

175 179 185 188 191

194

195

197

198 200

202 206

212

228 230

xiv

LIST OF FIGURES

Fig. 7.3

Fig. 7.4

Fig. 7.5

Fig. 7.6 Fig. 7.7 Fig. 7.8

Possible former rood screen featuring Louis I of Hungary and Elizabeth of Bosnia. Drawing from Sándor Márki, Mária Magyarország királynéja 1370–1395, (1885) Great seal of Queen Mary. From György Pray, Syntagma historicum de sigillis regum, et reginarum Hungariae (1805) Third Signet Ring of Queen Mary. From György Pray, Syntagma historicum de sigillis regum, et reginarum Hungariae (1805) Coinage issued by Queen Mary. From László Réthy, Corpus Nummorum Hungariae (1899–1907) Orb found in royal tomb at Oradea. Hungarian National Museum. 1934.415.b The Florian Psalter, folio 53v, c. 1395–1405. National Library of Poland

236

242

245 247 251 256

A List of Queens Included in this Study

Queen

Life and Death

Consort

Sarolta of Transylvania Gisela of Bavaria Tuta of Formbach

(d. 1008?)

Prince Géza (r. 975–997)

(c. 985–1065) (d. 1055?) (d. ?) (1022–1048/49)

St. Stephen I (r. 997–1038) Peter Orseolo? (r. 1038–1041/1044–1046) Samuel Aba (r. 1041–1044) Andrew I (r. 1046–1060)

(d. 1096?) (d. ?) (1047–1094?) (d. after 1079/1080) (d. 1090)

Andrew I (r. 1046–1060) Béla I (r. 1060–1063) Salomon (r. 1063–1074) Géza I (r. 1074–1077) St. Ladislas I (r. 1077–1095)

(d. (d. (d. (d.

Coloman (r. 1095–1116) Coloman (r. 1095–1116) Stephen II (r. 1116–1131) Stephen II? (r. 1116–1131)

N. N. of Hungary Adelaide of Brunswick Anastasia of Kiev Richeza of Poland Judith of Swabia Synadene Synadenos Adelaide of Rheinfelden Felicia of Sicily Euphemia of Kiev N. N. Of Capua Adelaide of Regensburg Helen of Serbia Euphrosyne of Kiev Agnes of Babenberg Maria Komnene Anna (Agnes) of Antioch

before 1112) 1138) ?) ?)

(d. 1146?) (1130?–1193?) (1154–1182) (d. ?) (d. 1184)

Béla II (r. 1131–1141) Géza II (r. 1141–1161) Stephen III (r. 1161–1173) Stephen IV (r. 1163–1165) Béla III (r. 1173–1196) (continued)

xv

xvi

A LIST OF QUEENS INCLUDED IN THIS STUDY

(continued) Queen

Life and Death

Consort

Margaret of France Constance of Aragon Gertrude of Andechs-Meran Yolanda of Courtenay Beatrice of Este Maria Laskarina Elizabeth the Cuman Isabella of Naples Fenenna of Kujavia Agnes of Habsburg Maria of Bytom

(1158–1197) (1179–1222)

Béla III (r. 1173–1196) Emeric (r. 1196–1204)

(d. 1213)

Andrew II (r. 1205–1235)

(d. 1233)

Andrew II (r. 1205–1235)

(d. 1245) (d. 1270) (d. 1290?)

Andrew II (r. 1205–1235) Béla IV (r. 1235–1270) Stephen V (r. 1270–1272)

(d. 1303) (1276–1295) (1281–1364) (d. 1317)

Beatrice of Luxemburg Elizabeth of Poland

(d. 1319)

Margaret of Luxemburg Elizabeth of Bosnia Mary

(d. 1349)

Ladislas IV (r. 1272–1290) Andrew III (r. 1290–1301) Andrew III (r. 1290–1301) Charles I Robert (r. 1308–1342) Charles I Robert (r. 1308–1342) Charles I Robert (r. 1308–1342) Louis I (r. 1342–1382)

(d. 1380)

(d. 1387) b. 1370 (r. 1382–1395)

Louis I (r. 1342–1382) Sigismund of Luxemburg (r. 1387–1437)

CHAPTER 1

Introduction

This book aims to document how medieval queens in the Hungarian kingdom used material culture and structured space as expressions of their own power. The lives of twenty-seven women are presented here in order to understand how they used objects, images, and space in terms of their own agency and capacity for action. This concern for the individual experience is a tricky one as reconstructing individual lives through material culture is extremely difficult and in some cases impossible. Most Hungarian queens have been understood only through written evidence—charters, chronicles, hagiography, etc. The past millennium of Hungarian history has been wave after wave of destruction and most of the medieval archives are in an incredibly fragmentary state; they should not be taken as the final word on the agency of the medieval queens. This destruction also applies to the material culture and spaces of the queens, but the few, fortunate survivals are worthy of investigation in their own right. This works aims to understand who these women were and how they expressed their power through over 150 objects, images, and spaces. In order to understand the context that these objects appear in, this book is divided chronologically into six chapters. The main questions asked of this material will be: How is power related to the office of queenship manifested in the preserved material and archaeological record? To what © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 C. Mielke, The Archaeology and Material Culture of Queenship in Medieval Hungary, 1000–1395, Queenship and Power, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-66511-1_1

1

2

C. MIELKE

extent are artifacts remnants of the queen’s personal (i.e., as mother, wife, daughter) or her official duties? How can the queen’s presence be detected at archaeological sites associated with her? The ultimate goal of this study is to provide a different, more nuanced view of the narrative that medieval queens in Hungary were passive and dependent figures. The evidence presented here shows that they understood and used the media of objects, images, and spaces to display their own power to public and private audiences.

Power and Medieval Queenship One of the potential problems of biography as a means of writing women’s’ history is a tendency to focus too much on “great women” who left written documents.1 Yet, in Bianchini’s study on Berenguela of Castile (r. 1217–1246), the author makes two points: first, all women’s history is meaningful and worth recovering. The second point is that studying these women breaks the stranglehold on political history being primarily associated with male actors and actions.2 With the active agency of the medieval queens in mind, it is of utmost importance to define what constituted power for these women and to understand how this power is evident in the material record. On the one hand, the conclusions of Zsoldos and Szakács reflect the idea that Hungarian queens were essentially powerless; the institution of the queen was entirely dependent on the king, and the smattering of art historical objects related to them that survive seem to be singular examples that had little chance to make a larger impact on broader artistic forms in Hungary.3 Nonetheless, this apparent “invisibility” is one of the hallmarks of a queen consort; if a woman was to be a good queen, wife, and mother (not necessarily in that order) her goals, intents, and motives had to be inherently subordinated to that of the king. The Hungarian Kingdom is no exception in having 1 Judith Bennett, History Matters: Patriarchy and the Challenge of Feminism (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2010), 24–25. 2 Janna Bianchini, The Queen’s Hand: Power and Authority in the Reign of Berenguela of Castile (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2012), 3. 3 Attila Zsoldos, The Az Árpáds and Their Wives: Queenship in Early Medieval Hungary,

1000–1301 (Rome: Viella, 2019), 180–182; Béla Zsolt Szakács, “A királynék m˝ uvészete – a m˝ uvészettörténészek királynéi” [The Art of the Queens—The Queens of the Art Historians], in Judit Majorossy, ed. Egy történelmi gyilkosság margójára: Merániai Gertrúd emlékezete, 1213–2013 [To the Margin of a Historical Murder: Commemorate Gertrude of Andechs-Meran, 1213–2013] (Szentendre, 2014), 217–226, 317–318.

1

INTRODUCTION

3

queens who sought to break these boundaries and make power plays of their own, but it is an exception in possessing an efficient bureaucratic system with the king at the center. This centralized character of the Hungarian kingdom and the regional tendency to minimize the presence of women in public documents means that it is no surprise that at first glance it appears medieval Hungarian queens had no power. It is worth examining what “power” meant for a medieval queen and how the Hungarian case studies either conform to or defy expectations. Another of the chief claims of Zsoldos has been that since the Hungarian queens in the Árpádian period obtained income on an ad hoc basis, they were probably not very powerful.4 Fößel, however, has demonstrated in her study of German queens and empresses that a queen did not necessarily need to have wealth in order to be powerful.5 To be sure, access to wealth meant that a queen was able to enter into lavish building and artistic programs, generous endowments of the church, and commissioning certain books in order to bolster their own image and record their version of events, such as in the case of the Encomium Emmae Reginae.6 At the same time, if a queen found herself without funds, she often involved herself in marriage negotiations, issuing charters (though these often concerned monetary matters), letter writing, and education of the royal children. For instance, in the twelfth century (a period where there is little material culture associated with the queens), the widowed queen Euphrosyne of Kiev was instrumental in negotiating a marriage between her daughter and the son of the duke of Bohemia at a time when Hungary desperately needed military allies.7 Huneycutt observes “The power of a medieval queen rested on a perception of influence rather than any institutional base, and the loss of that perceived influence could spell disaster.”8

4 Zsoldos, The Árpáds and Their Wives, 182–185. 5 Amalie Fößel, “The Queen’s Wealth in the Middle Ages,” Majestas 13 (2005): 31–34. 6 Alistair Campbell, ed., Encomium Emmae Reginae (Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press, 1998). 7 Ferenc Makk, The Árpáds and the Comneni: Political Relations Between Hungary and Byzantium in the 12th Century (Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 1989), 89. 8 Lois L. Huneycutt, “Intercession and the High Medieval Queen: The Esther Topos,” in Power of the Weak: Studies on Medieval Women, ed. Jennifer Carpenter and Sally-Beth MacLean, et al. (Urbana & Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1995), 138.

4

C. MIELKE

Many aspects of the queen’s power are preserved in material and visual culture in ways that contemporaries understood. The queen’s seal is directly related to her issuance of charters; it was as good as having the issuer hand over the document in person. Coins with her image imprinted on them next to the king’s show her own image enhancing that of the king’s and the king bestowing his status on her, both in and outside the realm. Items worn on the body would indicate her rank and status to those fortunate enough to be in her physical presence. Images in public space (i.e., stone carvings or frescos in churches) and heraldic banners made the queen’s presence known when she was in remote locations. Objects donated to the church, books, and images in illuminated chronicles had a much more restricted audience, but nonetheless represented more private or contemplative acts with political overtones. Gifts given to and from the queens had a purpose and meaning far beyond the mere exchange of trinkets; when recorded, they are usually part of an international meeting of princes and were thus extremely political in nature. Grave monuments testified to the legitimacy and lineage of the queen as well as a marker of emotional attachment on the part of the dynasty. Finally, the residences, monasteries, and construction projects associated with the queen marked her place in the landscape in the centers of power as well as in remote situations. In all these ways, the queen’s presence and power were displayed in ways that did not always merit a mention in the written record but that were nonetheless understood by contemporaries. It should also be noted that while many of the cases will involve the queen’s active participation and an exertion of her own power, there will be several instances where the queen’s image is used when she is not the planner, creator, or executor. For example, on coinage, on some public monuments and in some illuminated manuscripts her presence is there, but the queen has herself become an object of material culture. In some cases, her appearance is used against her; the Hungarian Illuminated Chronicle blames Gisela of Bavaria (d. 1065?) for blinding Vazul (d. 1031) and exiling his three sons and the image of this event shows her husband mourning their son while Vazul is being blinded in the background (Fig. 1.1).9 However, the queen’s image and person could 9 Klára Gárdonyi-Csapodi, “Description and Interpretation of the Illustrations in the Illuminated Chronicle,” in The Hungarian Illuminated Chronicle: Chronica de Gestis Hungarorum, ed. Dezs˝ o Dercsényi (Budapest: Corvina Press, 1969), 75; J´anos M. Bak,

1

INTRODUCTION

5

Fig. 1.1 The death of Prince Emeric and the blinding of Vazul. The Hungarian Illuminated Chronicle, National Széchényi Library, Budapest, Cod. Lat. 404

6

C. MIELKE

strengthen the image of the king and the dynasty in general. Burials of English queens were usually attended with great ceremony as the queen was not only the key to dynastic continuity but in many cases a good queen was also instrumental in conveying dynastic legitimacy, usually hinging on her own high status background.10 The few instances where more is known of the burial of a Hungarian queen (such as the case of Agnes/Anna of Antioch in Székesfehérvár) indicate that queens were buried with the highest quality textiles as well as a major symbol of their office (a crown). The queens’ presence on coinage was certainly not a necessity, yet when Hungarian kings begin to depict busts of themselves on coinage, queens soon after appeared as well. The queen’s involvement in these depictions is passive at best (and sometimes posthumous). Nonetheless, it shows that the image of the queen carried enough symbolic weight to merit particular treatment in these instances.

Literature Review Many studies have influenced the focus and scope of this work, and thus, this work aims to shed light on these previous works, first on queenship studies in the continent, and then on specific works related to Hungarian queens. The focus here will be on secondary literature most helpful in raising questions about the actions and agency of Hungarian queens. One of the seminal works that has influenced my methodology is Nolan’s Queens in Stone and Silver. This book is a study of the visual culture of queenship in twelfth and thirteenth century France, primarily through the examination of seals and tombs from that period.11 John Steane has two books that deal with how power is expressed in the

“Queens as Scapegoats in Medieval Hungary,” in Queens and Queenship in Medieval Europe, ed. Anne J. Duggan (Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 1997), 225–226. 10 John Carmi Parsons, “‘Never Was a Body Buried in England with Such Solemnity and Honour’: The Burials and Posthumous Commemorations of English Queens to 1500,” in Queens and Queenship in Medieval Europe, ed. Anne Duggan (Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 1997), 319–320. 11 Kathleen Nolan, Queens in Stone and Silver: The Creation of a Visual Imagery of Queenship in Capetian France (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2009), 1–15.

1

INTRODUCTION

7

material record, concentrating on medieval England.12 Both volumes are thorough and while Steane’s focus on the queens is minimal, his works nonetheless show the potential for understanding how power can be displayed visually and spatially through relevant material culture. The twovolume Reassessing the Roles of Women as ‘Makers’ of Medieval Art and Architecture argues that both artists and patrons were seen as creators— thus, the creation of a work of art not only reflects a clear exercise of power, but women who commissioned such pieces were considered as their authors.13 Earenfight recently published an overview on medieval queenship in an attempt to create a broad overview on the changing nature of the queen’s power.14 Richardson’s study on the spaces that queens occupied in castles uses both access analysis as well as an examination of the imagery in their personal rooms.15 Regrettably, there is not enough data available for Hungarian royal castles even in the sixteenth century to make such a study feasible at present. Crossley traced patterns of an architectural program in which women connected to the AndechsMeran family in Central Europe (particularly in Bohemia and Poland) emulated the church at Marburg that served as the burial place for St. Elizabeth of Hungary (d. 1231).16 Proctor-Tiffany’s study analyzes the items related to Clémence of Hungary (d. 1328), queen of Louis X of France (r. 1314–1316) including the gifts she gave; Bartha continued to research this queen, not only her gifts but also her “Hungarian” identity.17 The intent of the edited volume Medieval Queenship was, as the 12 John Steane, The Archaeology of the Medieval English Monarchy (London & New York: Routledge, 1999); John Steane, The Archaeology of Power: England and Northern Europe, A.D. 800–1600 (Stroud: Tempus, 2001). 13 Therese Martin, “Exceptions and Assumptions: Women in Medieval Art history,” in Reassessing the Roles of Women as ‘Makers’ of Medieval Art and Architecture, ed. Therese Martin (Leiden & Boston: Brill, 2012), 30–31. 14 Theresa Earenfight, Queenship in Medieval Europe (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2013). 15 Amanda Richardson, “Gender and Space in English Royal Palaces c. 1160–c.1547: A Study in Access Analysis and Imagery,” Medieval Archaeology 47 (2003): 131–165. 16 Paul Crossley, “The Architecture of Queenship: Royal Saints, Female Dynasties and the Spread of Gothic Architecture in Central Europe,” in Queens and Queenship in Medieval Europe, ed. Anne J. Duggan (Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 2002), 263–289. 17 Mariah Proctor-Tiffany, “Portrait of a Medieval Patron: The Inventory and Gift Giving of Clémence of Hungary” (Ph.D. diss.: Brown University, 2007); Annamária Bartha, “Magyarországi Klemencia kapcsolatai Magyarországgal” [Clémence of Hungary’s

8

C. MIELKE

editor notes, to “dissect the ways in which queens pursued and exploited means to power, and how their actions were interpreted by others.”18 The focus was thus on strategies and means of action in the examples provided, rather than focusing on particular biographies. Another edited volume answered similar questions to the Parsons volume, though its chronological framework is longer and there are more varied case studies.19 All of these works show the possibility and potential for action on the part of medieval queens. For non-Hungarian speakers, two articles in the last two aforementioned volumes by Bak are the main (often only) source for medieval Hungarian queens: one deals with the roles and functions of the Árpádian and Angevin queens while the other addresses their use as scapegoats for various calamities and circumstances.20 These articles are great fundamental sources that highlight how queens were on one hand able to wield power of their own but that on the other hand, there were external forces influencing the actions of the queens. Queens of Hungary could be scapegoats, agents of foreign influence and immigration, intercessors, owners of extensive estates, and also the kings’ wives.21 His work starts with evidence from chronicles which tend to discuss the various (usually negative) moral aspects of the queens while charters reveal something of their estates; little is known of the personal interactions between the queen and her family. It is also worth noting that most of the queens came from abroad. In the eleventh century, most of the queens came from German

Relationship with Hungary], in Francia-magyar kapcsolatok a középkorban [French and Hungarian Contacts in the Middle Ages], ed. Attila Györkös and Gergely Kiss (Debrecen: University of Debrecen Press, 2013), 181–193; Annamária Bartha, “Magyarországi Klemencia kegytárgyai” [Clémence of Hungary’s Objects of Devotion,” Fiatal Középkoros Régészek VI. Konferenciájának Tanulmánykötete [Study Volume of the 6th Conference of Young Medieval Archaeologists] VI (2015): 169–179. 18 John Carmi Parsons, “Introduction: Family, Sex, and Power: The Rhythms of Medieval Queenship,” in Medieval Queenship, ed. John Carmi Parsons (Stroud: Sutton Publishing Limited, 1993), 2. 19 Anne Duggan, ed. Queens and Queenship in Medieval Europe (Woodbridge: Boydell

Press, 2002). 20 János M. Bak, “Roles and Functions of Queens in Árpádian and Angevin Hungary (1000–1386 A.D.),” in Medieval Queenship, ed. John Carmi Parsons (Stroud: Sutton Publishing Limited, 1993), 13–24; Bak, “Queens as Scapegoats in Medieval Hungary,” 223–233. 21 Bak, “Roles and Functions of Queens in Árpádian and Angevin Hungary,” 14, 20.

1

INTRODUCTION

9

or Polish neighbors, in the twelfth century more came from the Mediterranean and Russian lands, while toward the end of the twelfth century there was a greater interest in French and Spanish matches. After the Mongol Invasion, important marriages were made with Naples as well as neighboring states like Austria, Poland, Bohemia, and Bosnia. The only exceptions to this are the Hungarian wife of Samuel Aba (r. 1041–1044) and Elizabeth the Cuman (d. 1290?), wife of Stephen V (r. 1270–1272). Though these are the most internationally known works, there is a long tradition of research on the Hungarian queens. In the eighteenth century, a posthumous work by Schier focused on the genealogy and descent of the Árpádian queens from Gisela of Bavaria (d. 1065) to Agnes of Habsburg (d. 1364).22 In 1892, a seminal work was published by Wertner on the Family History of the Árpáds. Each member of the Árpád Dynasty had their own entry; this work continues to be a major starting point for most researchers.23 While Wertner’s work contains several errors (particularly with regard to royal women) it is nonetheless a foundational piece in its scope. In the past fifty years, several important works have focused on the lives of particular queens. Vajay continued the genealogical research of earlier historians, answering certain questions about the identities of various female figures in the first centuries of the Hungarian kingdom.24 Vajay also elaborated on a dissertation written by Kerbl on the Byzantine princesses who were married or betrothed to various members of the Árpád Dynasty in the eleventh and twelfth centuries.25 There are two edited volumes on Gisela of Bavaria, the first wife of St. Stephen of Hungary; one with new contributions, the other republished previously written works about her. It is no coincidence that both were published in 22 Xystus Schier, Reginae Hungariae primae stirpis (Vienna, 1776). 23 Mór Wertner, Az Árpádok családi történeti [A Family History of the Árpáds]

(Nagybecskerek: Pleitz, 1892). 24 To name only a few: Szabolcs de Vajay, “Großfürst Geysa von Ungarn. Familie und Verwandtschaft,” Südostforschungen XXI (1962): 88–101; “Agatha, Mother of St. Margaret, Queen of Scotland,” Duquesne Review 7/2 (1962): 71–80; “Még egy királynénk…? I. Endre els˝ o felesége” [Another of Our Queens…? The First Wife of Andrew I]. Turul 72 (1999): 17–23. 25 Raimund Kerbl, “Byzantinische Prinzessinnen in Ungarn zwischen 1050–1200 und ihr Einfluß auf das Arpadenkönigreich (Ph.D. dissertation: University of Vienna, 1979); Szabolcs de Vajay, “Byzantinische Prinzessinnen in Ungarn,” Ungarn Jahrbuch 10 (1979): 15–28.

10

C. MIELKE

Veszprém, the favored city of the queen and the site of the bishopric she founded.26 Laszlovszky devotes a section of a volume on medieval English and Hungarian contacts to Margaret of France (d. 1197), the second wife of Béla III (r. 1173–1196).27 A conference held in Szentendre upon the eight-hundred year anniversary commemorated the murder of Queen Gertrude of Andechs-Meran (d. 1213). The volume of essays presented on her and her contemporaries was published the following year.28 Museums in Budapest and Barcelona cooperated on an exhibition catalogue which featured a collection of essays on the topic of Iberian and Hungarian dynastic alliances, particularly focusing on Constance of Aragon (d. 1222) and Yolanda of Hungary (d. 1251), Queen of Aragon.29 Honneman wrote an article on the tangled historiographic tradition related to the last Árpádian queen (Agnes of Habsburg, d. 1364) and her stepdaughter Elisabeth of Töss (d. 1336) that has proven essential.30 Several scholars have published on the artistic program, pilgrimage, and burial site of Elizabeth of Poland (d. 1380), considering the many

26 Zsuzsa V. Fodor, ed. Gizella és kora: felolvasóülések az Árpád-korból [Gisela and Her Era: A Session of Readings from the Age of the Árpáds] (Veszprém, 1993); János Gécsi, ed. Gizella királyné 985-k. 1060 [Queen Gisella, ca. 985–1060] (Veszprém, 2000). 27 József Laszlovszky, “Angol-Magyar kapcsolatok a 12 század második felében” [English-Hungarian Relations in the Second Half of the Twelfth Century]. Angol-Magyar kapcsolatok a középkorban [English-Hungarian Contacts in the Middle Ages] I, ed. Attila Bárány, József Laszlovszky, and Zsuzsanna Papp (Máriabesny˝ o: Attraktor, 2008), 153–165. 28 Judit Majorossy, ed. Egy történelmi gyilkosság margójára: Merániai Gertrúd emlékezete, 1213–2013 [To the Margin of a Historical Murder: Commemorate Gertrude of Andechs-Meran, 1213–2013] (Szentendre, 2014). 29 Ramon Sarobe and Csaba Tóth, eds. Királylányok messzi földr˝ ol: Magyarország és Katalónia a középkorban [Princesses from Afar: Hungary and Catalonia in the Middle Ages] (Budapest and Barcelona: Hungarian National Museum & History Museum of Catalonia, 2009). 30 Volker Honemann, “A Medieval Queen and Her Stepdaughter: Agnes and Elizabeth of Hungary,” in Queens and Queenship in Medieval Europe, ed. Anne J. Duggan (Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 2002), 109–119.

1

INTRODUCTION

11

surviving materials associated with her.31 The Bosnian princess Elizabeth Kotromani´c (d. 1387), has received some attention recently as well; Dautovi´c has an article on her in Bosnian.32 A later primary source, The Memoirs of Helene Kottaner, give many specific details on the personal lives of a fifteenth-century queen, Elisabeth of Luxemburg (d. 1442).33 The magnificent catalogue assembled by Réthelyi on the Habsburg princess Mary (d. 1558) deserves mention here; though Mary, the wife of Louis II (r. 1516–1526) lived after the time frame of this present study, this research has nonetheless proved useful.34 Finally, in the twenty-first century, Zsoldos published several works based on the charter evidence of the Hungarian queens. He even reconstructed charters that no longer exist from later documents that make reference to them.35 Assembling all the charter evidence available, he

31 Eva Sniezynska-Stolot, “Queen Elizabeth as Patron of Architecture,” Acta Historiae Artium 20 (1974): 13–36; Eva Sniezynska-Stolot, “Tanulmányok Łokietek Erzsébet királyné m˝ upártolása köréb˝ ol (Ötvöstárgyak)” [Studies on the Scope of the Art Patronage of Queen Elizabeth Łokietek (Goldsmith Work)], M˝ uvészettörténeti Értesít˝o 30 (1981/4): 233–254; Eva Sniezynska-Stolot, “The Artistic Patronage of the Hungarian Angevins in Poland,” Alba Regia 22 (1985): 21–27; Marianne Sághy, “Dévotions diplomatiques: Le pèlerinage de la reine-mère Élisabeth Piast à Rome,” in La Diplomatie des États Angevins aux XIIIe et XIVe siècle, ed. Zoltán Kordé and István Petrovics (Rome and Szeged: 2010), 219–224; Brian McEntee, “The Burial Site Selection of a Hungarian Queen: Elizabeth, Queen of Hungary (1320–1380), and the Óbuda Clares’ Church,” Annual of Medieval Studies at CEU 12 (2006): 69–82; László Szende, Piast Erzsébet és udvara (1320–1380) [Elizabeth Piast and Her Court, 1320–1380] (Ph.D. diss.: ELTE, 2007). 32 Dženan Dautovi´c, “Bosansko-ugarski odnosi kroz prizmu braka Ludovika I Velikog i Elizabete k´cerke Stjepana II Kotromani´ca” [Relations Between Bosnia and Hungary Through the Prism of the Marriage Between Louis the Great and Elizabeth, the Daughter of Stjepan II Kotromani´c], Radovi XVII/3 (2014): 141–157. 33 Maya Bijvoet Williamson, trans. & ed., The Memoirs of Helene Kottaner (Cambridge: D. S. Brewer, 1998). 34 Orsolya Réthelyi, et al. Mary of Hungary: The Queen and Her Court, 1521–1531 (Budapest: Budapest History Museum, 2005); Orsolya Réthelyi, “Mary of Hungary in Court Context (1521–1531)” (Ph.D. diss.: Central European University, 2010). 35 Imre Szentpétery and Attila Zsoldos, Az Árpád-házi hercegek, hercegn˝ ok és a királynék

okleveleinek kritikai jegyzéke [The Charters of the Princes, Princesses and Queens of the Árpád House, a Critical Edition] (Budapest: Hungarian National Archive, 2008), 183– 188; Attila Zsoldos, “The Problem of Dating Queens’ Charters of the Árpádian Age Eleventh-Thirteenth Century,” in Dating Undated Medieval Charters, ed. Michael Gervers (Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 2002), 151–160.

12

C. MIELKE

has enabled us to understand the full nature of activity for Árpádianage queens. Unfortunately the picture that emerges is rather bleak; he acknowledges that the Hungarian queens had their own courts, their own staff, and their own property, but that all this was dependent on the king. They only brought in new customs with the consent of the kings.36 The relative weakness of the queens has also been noted in the art historical realm. Szakács identified three periods where the influence of the queen was felt in a much larger context outside the royal court: the Christianization period in the early eleventh century (with the marriage of King Stephen to Gisela of Bavaria), the early Gothic period (with the marriage of Béla III to Margaret of France), and finally the early Italian Renaissance (with the marriage of Matthias Corvinus to Beatrice of Aragon in 1476). Ultimately though, in his opinion, “the art of the queens is the art of the kings,” and aside from a few pieces that survive, these women as a group did not have a significant impact on medieval Hungarian art.37 Nonetheless, by taking a systematic overview, this book builds off of this research by incorporating material, written, visual, and spatial evidence to better understand the true nature of the queen’s power in medieval Hungary.

Agency Theory and Object Biography Scott advocates that history should analyze gender constructions as well as the experiences of women in tandem; the purpose is thus to expose how genders interplay and operate rather than simply listing deeds of certain well-known women.38 The combined theoretical approaches of agency theory and object biography can address these aspects mutually. The concept of agency realizes the power of individuals to act within social rules and norms as well as to reinforce and reinvent these same

36 Zsoldos, The Árpád and Their Wives, 180–186; Attila Zsoldos, “Gertrúd és a királynéi intézmény az Árpád-kori Magyar Királyságban” [Queen Gertrude and Queenship in the Kingdom of Hungary During the Arpadian Period]. Judit Majorossy, ed. Egy történelmi gyilkosság margójára: Merániai Gertrúd emlékezete, 1213–2013 [To the Margin of a Historical Murder: Commemorate Gertrude of Andechs-Meran, 1213–2013] (Szentendre, 2014), 17–24. 37 Szakács, “A királynék m˝ uvészete – a m˝ uvészettörténészek királynéi,” 217–226, 317–

318. 38 Joan Scott, Gender of Politics and History (New York: Columbia University Press, 1999), 27; Bennett, History Matters, 25.

1

INTRODUCTION

13

aspects of society.39 This process is dialectical, for societal conventions and mores are also responsible for shaping the actions of individuals.40 Queens in particular were defined by social customs of their time and place and the writings of contemporaries seem obsessed with how well queens acted according to pre-existing stereotypes. Agency theory aids in understanding constructions of gender and power that these queens had to work within, but also how individual queens had their own strategies and pursued their own agenda within these set rules, and how they sometimes broke these rules. Thus, the power associated with a study of agency is fundamentally a transformative type of power41 ; rather than society making these women and pre-determining every step of their actions, this study focuses on how queens used pre-existing gender norms to their advantage; agency is fundamentally “…not a thing but an opportunity to act ” in this scheme.42 Central to the issue of understanding how queens had potential for action, it will be necessary to better understand the relationship queens had with the material culture they employed as well as the spaces they lived in and were surrounded by. Dornan suggests an approach to agency that moves “…between an exploration of structural events and patterns of practice, between historically unique microprocesses and more macroscale, long-term processes, and between a focus on observable consequence and less obvious intentionality.”43 The lives of these queens will be examined both in terms of their own individual,

39 Matthew Johnson, “Conceptions of Agency in Archaeological Interpretation,”

Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 8 (1989): 189–211; Marcia-Anne Dobres and John Robb, eds. Agency in Archaeology (London & New York: Routledge, 2000); John C. Barrett, “Agency, the Duality of Structure, and the Problem of the Archaeological Record,” in Archaeological Theory Today, ed. Ian Hodder (Cambridge: Polity Press, 2001), 141–164; Leo Klejn, “Neither Archaeology Nor Theory: A Critique of Johnson,” Antiquity 80 (2006): 435–441; Matthew Johnson, Archaeological Theory: An Introduction (Oxford: Blackwell, 2010). 40 Johnson, Archaeological Theory, 237. 41 Barrett, “Agency, the Duality of Structure, and the Problem of the Archaeological

Record,” 155. 42 Joan M. Gero, “Troubled Travels in Agency and Feminism,” in Agency in Archaeology, ed. Marcia-Anne Dobres and John Robb (London & New York: Routledge, 2000), 37. 43 Jennifer L. Dornan, “Agency and Archaeology: Past, Present, and Future Directions,” Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 9/4 (2002): 325.

14

C. MIELKE

unique set of circumstances and experiences over a span of nearly four hundred years. In 1986, Kopytoff proposed that those studying material culture can ask the same questions of objects that one does in creating a biography.44 Rather than merely making notes about the dates of use and deposition, this kind of analysis represents a more thorough examination of an object’s life course—from its conception to its “birth,” then its use, re-use, recycling, alteration, or changing function, next its disposal, destruction, or “death,” and then finally its afterlife either in written memory, as a museum piece, or something else. One of the key advantages to this approach is that rather than appearing as a static object used once and then disposed of, object biography covers many aspects of the object’s history and how views of it changed over time.45 Central to this theoretical approach is the fundamental relationship between people and things. The life story of certain objects serves as a direct proxy in many cases for the biographies of people.46 Furthermore, comparing the data across the centuries and at different moments in their lives will allow greater depth of analysis. A small caveat should be made here in that this approach may be more successful for certain types of objects than others. For example, since coinage was so widely circulated, it would not make sense to have a particular biography for each type of coin based on its find context; it is more effective to analyze coinage as part of a larger iconographic program. Other types of objects (e.g. liturgical objects) are better suited for this approach. Religious images and objects were seen as channels to the supernatural world, and the extensive documentation on the history of certain objects donated to the church describes the intent (perceived or otherwise) of the donor as well as the object’s afterlife. This

44 Igor Kopytoff, “The Cultural Biography of Things: Commoditization as Process,”

in The Social Life of Things: Commodities in Cultural Perspective, ed. Arjun Appadurai (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986), 66–67. 45 Chris Gosden and Yvonne Marshal, “The Cultural Biography of Objects,” World Archaeology 31/2 (1999): 170. 46 One such example is Janet Hoskins, Biographical Objects: How Things Tell the Stories of People’s Lives (New York: Routledge, 1998), 7–10.

1

INTRODUCTION

15

approach also works for medieval buildings, both in terms of grand reconstruction projects as well as in minor renovations which took place over generations.47 As a coda to the concept of the biography employed here, part of the analysis will examine the life course not only of objects, but also of the women in question. One of the observations made in the study of countesses Jeanne and Marguerite of Flanders states: “[A]ny attempt to understand the experience of women in the Middle Ages must position them at the center of a matrix comprised of gender, social status, marital status, age and personality. In a society stratified sexually as well as socially, a myriad of combinations of gender and status existed to inform attitudes towards women, and influenced their relationship to power.”48

Biographies of these objects run parallel to various aspects of the queen’s life. Birth, childhood, marriage, motherhood, widowhood, death—these are all points wherein the lives of the queens varied considerably in terms of their resources, their potential to act, their symbolic power, and their extended social networks. Understanding a medieval life course means incorporating all of these different phases rather than focusing on particular episodes.49 Unmarried princesses were usually dependent on their male relatives for income and means of expressing power. Queen consorts in Hungary were usually dependent on their husbands and a combination of funding, personal interest, personal relationships, and social networks determined a queen’s potential for action. Widows acted with more independence provided they had the necessary resources. In discussing how imperial widows in eleventh and twelfth century Byzantium were better able to promote their own programs of patronage, Hill’s witty remark “Widows had much more fun,” certainly rings true in this regard.50 These intersecting theoretical frameworks shed light on how material culture

47 Roberta Gilchrist, Medieval Life: Archaeology and the Life Course (Woodbridge: Boydell, 2012), 12. 48 Erin L. Jordan, Women, Power, and Religious Patronage in the Middle Ages (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2013), 117. 49 Gilchrist, Medieval Life: Archaeology and the Life Course, 1. 50 Barbara Hill, Imperial Women in Byzantium 1025–1204 (New York: Longman,

1999), 179.

16

C. MIELKE

and structured space could express certain aspects of a queen’s potential for action.

Methodology: Reginal Objects and Spaces This project incorporates historical, archaeological, and art-historical data and, as such, there is a need for an integrated approach in understanding how they reflect the power of queens in both the private and public spheres. Choosing the objects, images, and spaces for analysis hinged on three points: first, the type of object or site undergoing analysis, second its relationship with the queen (for example, did she fund, order or donate the object herself, is it an object with her image on it, etc.), and third, how this relationship between the queen and the material or site was established in the scholarly literature. Charters, chronicles, inventories, wills, and letters have all been consulted here. This project operates from the premise that women were active agents in terms of cultural patronage, political power, religious devotion, and control of the royal household. As such, the focus will not only be on the objects themselves but the women connected to them. So far, there has been little scholarly discussion on this dialogue of materiality (i.e., the mutual relationship with objects and space in terms of display of power) that queens engaged in.51 While this relationship cannot be reconstructed in its entirety, there are enough traces to detect certain characteristic patterns while still making allowances for the personal preferences of the queens themselves. “Official” Objects—Seals, Coinage, and Heraldry In her formidable study on the Capetian queens’ seals and tombs, Nolan espouses the use of semiotics in analyzing seals. She examines what objects the queens are holding, and the sort of visual statements the queens make through associated imagery52 ; this approach will also be 51 The most helpful studies linking people with objects have been Nolan, Queens in Stone and Silver (2009); Steane, The Archaeology of the Medieval English Monarchy (1993); Therese Martin, ed., Reassessing the Roles of Women as ‘Makers’ of Medieval Art and Architecture, Vol. I & II (Leiden & Boston: Brill, 2012); Richardson, “Gender and Space in English Royal Palaces c. 1160–c.1547”: 131–165. 52 Nolan, Queens in Stone and Silver, 15.

1

INTRODUCTION

17

utilized in studying Hungarian queens on their seals, on coinage with their portraits, and many other representations. In The Archaeology of the Medieval English Monarchy, Steane uses symbols of power as a primary means of analysis.53 The presence of objects such as crowns, scepters, and orbs as well as other symbols are of utmost importance. Some aspects of power are evident like in the case of strong queens who appear consistently with a full back on their throne (for example, Elizabeth of Poland), while there are other queens who only sit on a stool who were not nearly in as strong a position, perhaps due to a strained marital relationship (for example, Isabella of Naples). How these images of power change over time are considered in terms of which part of the queen’s life course they appear in—i.e. as queen consort, as regent, as dowager queen, etc. The queen is usually depicted seated on a throne, but where she is not holding an object, iconographic analysis will aid in understanding the cultural significance of the gestures she makes (i.e., hands clasped to her chest, an arm outstretched, etc.).54 For coinage, historical sources are necessary to clarify the identity of the queen appearing on the coin.55 There are several queens who appear on coins alongside the kings, and so the analysis of the queens in this context will focus more on her image. Seals and coins are treated separately because their purposes as public and official objects is completely different, the range and type of audience was different, and the connection between a queen and the coin she is depicted on is much more difficult to establish. Brubaker and Tobler identify a few barometers reflecting the power of the Byzantine empress when she appears on coins in the Late Antique/Early Medieval period: whether the empress is on the obverse or reverse of the coin; her position in relation to her husband and/or son; and the absence of the empress in periods where it was traditional to have her depicted on the coin.56 This study will not only

53 Steane, The Archaeology of the Medieval English Monarchy, 13ff. 54 François Garnier, Le langage de l’image au Moyen Âge (Paris: Léopard d’Or, 1982–

1989), Vol. I and II. 55 László Réthy, Corpus Nummorum Hungariae: Magyar Egyetemes Éremtár, Vol I–II (Budapest: Magyar Tudományos Akadémia Kiadása, 1899–1907); Lajos Huszár, Münzkatalog Ungarn von 1000 bis heute (Budapest: Corvina, 1979). 56 Leslie Brubaker and Helen Tobler, “The Gender of Money: Byzantine Empresses on Coins (342–802),” in Gendering the Middle Ages, ed. Pauline Stafford and Anneke B. Mulder-Bakker (Oxford: Blackwell, 2001), 43–44.

18

C. MIELKE

examine queen consorts who appear on coins, but also coinage issued by Queen Mary who ruled from 1382 to 1395. Clothing and Regalia There are several crowns included in this study. While modern regalia is fairly standardized and composed of several key implements, it was more fluid in the Middle Ages. Crowns were given and exchanged at will, and often the ones that survive were either gifted to monasteries and not melted down, or ones that were kept and passed along familial lines as heirlooms. Due to their visibility from a distance and personal connection, the crown remains the most significant indicator of the status of a queen. Other regalia such as scepters and orbs were made anew as necessary; for instance, the Hungarian coronation scepter is one of the few pieces of regalia from the beginnings of the Hungarian State dating back to the eleventh century, while a new orb was made in the early fourteenth century after the earlier, Árpád-era orb was lost.57 While regalia was an important aspect of the queen in terms of public presentation and identity (for instance, at the coronation ceremony or her burial), its personal nature represents a problem in terms of the material that survives. So little is known of the queens’ coronations that it is difficult to know what her full set of regalia was. The crowns that do survive provide an excellent clue. Other reflections of queenly power, such as a scepter or an orb, will mostly be analyzed from visual sources. While the image of the queen wearing a crown and wielding a scepter and seated on a throne is a strong indicator of her own status, there is also the status of her husband, her family, and her lineage to consider as well. Clothing in the medieval period was instrumental in constructing social identity, indicating class, and expressing socio-political relationships.58 For most medieval women, clothing worn on the body was a means of controlling the body through concealment, though fashion could often

57 János Bak, “Der Reichsapfel,” in Insignia Regni Hungariae, ed. Zsuzsa Lovag, 185– 194 (Budapest: Hungarian National Museum, 1986); Éva Kovács and Zsuzsa Lovag, The Hungarian Crown and Other Regalia (Budapest: Hungarian National Museum, 1986), 82–94. 58 Eric J. Goldberg, “Regina nitens sanctissima Hemma: Queen Emma (827–876), Bishop Witgar of Ausgburg, and the Witgar-Belt,” in Representations of Power in Medieval Germany: 800–1500, ed. Björn Weiler and Simon Maclean (Turnhout: Brepols, 2006), 71.

1

INTRODUCTION

19

do the exact opposite. Most clothing from this period only survives in a few fragmentary pieces. As most clothes were made out of perishable material (linen, hemp, wool, pelts, silk, etc.), it is hardly surprising that so few clothing remnants survive to this day. Van Houts proves that often clothing that queens of France and England donated to the church was reused as liturgical vestments.59 The same is true for Árpádian and Angevin Hungary, as most clothing preserved from this period comes from ecclesiastic contexts. In one case, fragments of a veil and dress were found buried with Anna of Antioch. Written evidence can fill in some of the blanks. Steane makes use of inventories to describe the garments of the English kings, particularly footwear.60 In addition, images of the queens will also be employed to comment on clothing of the period, though many are stylistic rather than individualized portraits. Though both clothing and jewelry are worn on the body, jewelry often has a more personal connection to the individual than other items. Jewels are more durable and thus were reused or passed on in a variety of ways. They survive when they were disposed of in a similar manner to clothing: either as a donation to the church or as part of a donation to a particular shrine. Like clothing, pieces of jewelry were often altered after the death of their owner, but unlike clothing which was transformed and reused in an ecclesiastic context, jewelry was usually melted down, broken up, or destroyed entirely.61 After the Mongol Invasion, Maria Laskarina (d. 1270) melted down her own jewelry as a means of financing a castle on the top of a hill in Visegrád to provide refuge for the nuns at the Dominican convent on Margaret Island.62

59 Elizabeth Van Houts, Memory and Gender in Medieval Europe, 900–1200 (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1999), 114–118. 60 John Steane, The Archaeology of the Medieval English Monarchy, 143–145. 61 This was the case for some of the jewels of Mary, widow of Louis II (r. 1516–1526)

who stipulated in her will that a certain locket given to her by her husband be melted down and the gold given to the poor. Orsolya Réthelyi, “‘…Maria regina… nuda venerat ad Hungariam’: The Queen’s Treasures,” in Mary of Hungary: The Queen and Her Court 1521–1531, ed. Orsolya Réthelyi (Budapest: Budapest History Museum, 2005), 121. 62 Gergely Buzás, “Visegrád,” in Medium Regni: Medieval Hungarian Royal Seats, ed. Julianna Altmann, et al. (Budapest: Nap Kiadó, 1999), 118–119.

20

C. MIELKE

Religious Objects and Books Of all the different categories of material culture to be considered, objects a queen donated to a church or monastery represent the most diverse category. Such items include chasubles, reliquaries, chalices, and bells among others. Historically, it also included censors, processional crosses, ointment vessels, and candlesticks, though most of these are only known from written sources.63 Focusing on these objects, this study aims to go beyond traditional studies of patronage by addressing spiritual as well as social reasons for donating these objects. The act of a queen donating a particular item to the church often had a multiplicity of meanings and ramifications. Many of these donations were meant to address personal and political issues directly affecting the queen herself. Here the goal is to understand the manufacture and donations of these objects in their proper socio-historical context. Regarding illuminated manuscripts and books, Nolan identifies two points of interest in her study of Blanche of Castile (d. 1252): Blanche’s active role in the creation of books, and the imagery of queenship that appears in these books.64 While understanding images of queens in manuscripts can draw on traditions of art historical analysis, a suitable study of the queens’ activities in book culture will be slightly more difficult. The only Hungarian monarchs to receive a proper analysis of their book patronage are Matthias Corvinus (r. 1458–1490) in connection with his famous library and his wife, Beatrice of Aragon (d. 1508).65 To date, the literary activities of Hungarian kings are not well known, and interest in the queens’ literacy and interactions with coeval authors even sparser. Nonetheless, there are a few instances known from written sources of Hungarian queens showing individuals with an active interest in literary culture, especially in the fourteenth century.

63 László Szende, “Mitherrscherin oder einfache Königinmutter Elisabeth von Łokietek in Ungarn (1320–1380),” Majestas 13 (2005): 47–63. 64 Nolan, Queens in stone and silver, 129. 65 Ilona Berkovits, Illuminated Manuscripts from the Library of Matthias Corvinus

(Budapest: Corvina Press, 1963); Csaba Csapodi, Klára Csapodiné Gárdonyi, and Tibor Szántó, Bibliotheca Corviniana: The Library of King Matthias Corvinus (New York: Praeger, 1969), or Marcus Tanner, The Raven King: Matthias Corvinus and the Fate of His Lost Library (New Haven & London: Yale University Press, 2008). For Beatrice see Csaba Csapodi, Beatrix királyné konyvtára [The Library of Queen Beatrix] (Budapest, 1964).

1

INTRODUCTION

21

Public Monuments and Private Illustrations The image of the queen within ecclesiastic contexts shall be treated as a separate, public category. Unlike neighboring Byzantium or the German kingdom, there are no surviving paintings or mosaics of Hungarian queens, save for one example of a Kievan princess who later married the king of Hungary.66 There are a few surviving carved stone elements of crowned women with veils, some of which might represent contemporary queens. These images offer a significant glimpse into patterns of female patronage as it was rare for living laywomen to have their image incorporated directly into the decorative fabric of the church. Nolan points to the presence of symbols of power (crown, scepter) as well as personal connections identified through the historical sources as indicating a vocabulary of female statements of power in her study on statue columns erected in the lifetime of Adelaide of Maurienne (d. 1154).67 The statues presented here will be examined in terms of their visibility and position within the church. Analyzing the appearance of medieval queens in illuminated manuscripts must take into consideration the fact that she was not the one commissioning the manuscript. In this sense, it is not a method of selffashioning. Nonetheless, studying the appearance of Hungarian queens in such manuscripts can tell a great deal about social attitudes toward the queens. Garnier’s method of analyzing gestures in medieval texts allows us to decipher the “words” that are put in the mouths of these illustrated queens depending on the particular context.68 Spaces: Residences, Monasteries, Burials Archaeologically speaking, the approaches used in researching royal residences would entail the same methods used at any site.69 Many of the questions asked in this overview are similar to those recently put forward by Renoux: Were palaces and castles used to establish female authority;

66 This would be Anastasia, wife of Andrew I (r. 1046–1060). Oleska Povstenko, The Cathedral of St. Sophia in Kiev (New York: Ukrainian Academy of Arts and Sciences in the United States, 1954), 132. 67 Nolan, Queens in Stone and Silver, 72–75. 68 François Garnier, Le langage de l’image au Moyen Âge (Paris: Le Léopard d’Or,

1982–1989). 69 Graham D. Keevill, Medieval Palaces: An Archaeology (Stroud: Tempus, 2000), 40.

22

C. MIELKE

Did these women have the authority to found centers and develop palaces and castles; Did their involvement impact the form of the structure; Did they exercise any influence on the centers these sites were located in?70 To start with, royal itineraries offer some insight into which palaces the queens favored.71 This will become crucial in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, where charter evidence survives and often indicates where it was issued. While there is not enough data to do a full access analysis like Amanda Richardson’s study of English queens, it will be possible in a few instances to draw some conclusions on how the queens’ residences fit in with the context of the royal palace. Secular women who built and endowed monastic institutions have been studied from various angles by Gilchrist. She points to the distribution of certain monastic orders as being visible in the spatial record, particularly with the introduction of new orders through royal marriages, such as Henry II (r. 1154–1189) founding houses of Fontevraultine nuns at Westwood and Amesbury after his marriage to Eleanor of Aquitaine (d. 1204).72 There are several case studies on the relationship between the patron of a monastic institution and the architectural form it subsequently takes.73 The burials of lay patrons in monastic institutions also provide a key aspect in their relation to the secular world.74 There are only a few Hungarian queens who took up residence in monastic quarters in Hungary, though certain nunneries will be examined due to their time as a queen’s residence. In examining the grave monuments of Capetian queens, Nolan uses a comparative approach, identifying similar tombs and tracing a sequence

70 Annie Renoux, “Elite Women, Palaces, and Castles in Northern France (ca. 850– 1100),” in Reassessing the Roles of Women as ‘Makers’ of Medieval Art and Architecture, Therese Martin, ed. Vol. II (Leiden & Boston: Brill, 2012), 741. 71 Károly Ráth, A Magyar Királyok és erdély fejedelmek hadjárati, utazási és tarózkodási helyei (Gy˝ or: Sauervein, 1866). 72 Gilchrist, Gender and Material Culture, 51. 73 Ibid., 51–52; there is also the example of monastic lands donated to the Dominican

convent of Margaret Island from the estate of Queen Maria Laskarina and Gábor Klaniczay, Holy Rulers and Blesses Princesses: Dynastic Cults in Medieval Central Europe (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002), 261. 74 Gilchrist, Gender and Material Culture, 56–61.

1

INTRODUCTION

23

based on stylistic elements.75 This comparative approach will be useful in cases where there is little information or only fragments of the tombs are known. With the exception of the grave monument of Gertrude of Meran (d. 1213), most tombs of Hungarian queens are only found outside Hungary. In the Árpádian era it was more common for Hungarian queens to be buried outside the Kingdom. This custom of the queen dying beyond the borders of her kingdom and being buried there is unique compared to elsewhere in Europe. Considering the relative importance and rank of the queen, the place of her grave marker in a church offers some insights as to her prominence at the time, even in cases where the location is only known from written evidence. In many cases, the grave of the queen was altered or renovated in the course of the centuries. Some institutions even used the person of a Hungarian queen to strengthen their own image (see, for existence, the burials at Walderbach and Suben). In addition, placing the queen’s grave in its original context will offer valuable clues as to its proximity to particular saints’ relics, how near the church was to major roads, and how active the site was for pilgrimage. Objects from the Written Record In some cases, items known only from the written record simply do not fall into any of the previous categories of analysis. One example is a carriage mentioned in the will of Elizabeth of Poland that was drawn by six horses.76 There are also objects which leave trace elements elsewhere. The chemical analysis of Anna of Antioch’s skeleton revealed elevated levels of lead and antimony in her bones which researchers attributed to cosmetic usage.77 For several years, Anna had lived at the Byzantine court where the standard of “natural beauty” for imperial women required them

75 See, for example, the comparison of Bertrade de Montfort’s tomb with that of Matilda of Flanders at Caen, or the comparison between Adelaide of Maurienne and Fredegonde. Nolan, Queens in Stone and Silver, 34–44, 54–64. 76 Ern˝ o Marosi, “A 14. századi Magyarország udvari m˝ uvészettörténetírásban” [The Fourteenth Century Hungarian Court in the Art Historical Literature], in M˝ uvészet I: Lajos király korában 1342–1382, ed. Ern˝ o Marosi, Melinda Tóth, and Lívia Varga (Budapest: MTA M˝ uvészettörténeti Kutató Csoport, 1982), 73, n. 32. 77 Kinga Éry, ed. A Székesfehérvári királyi bazilika embertani leletei 1848–2002 (Budapest: Balassi Kiadó, 2008), 574.

24

C. MIELKE

to regularly use cosmetics.78 Two perfume vials from the fifteenth century found in a cesspool near the northwestern part of the royal palace in Visegrád attest to later cosmetic usage at the Hungarian court.79 Finally, there are a category of items that queens owned, though no information on them survives. Most of what is known about furniture at the Hungarian courts is only available from fifteenth and sixteenth-century inventories.80 While Hungarian queens had furnishings in their quarters, none linked to them survive today.

A Note on Names and the Scope of This Study Many of the place names in this work go by names in different languages (Hungarian, German, Latin, Slovak, and Romanian, etc.). In general, I use the modern place name with a note on how else it appears in written sources. For personal names, I have opted for anglicized versions in order to be consistent. Initially, I intended to shed light on all of the lesser-known Hungarian queens, but sadly there are a few where there is not nearly enough data available to analyze them in any significant fashion. Richeza (or Adelaide) of Poland, wife of Béla I (r. 1060–1063) is mostly known for being the mother of at least five children, including St. Ladislas I (r. 1077–1095).81 It is not even known whether Maria Komnena, wife of anti-king Stephen

78 Hill, Imperial Women in Byzantium 1025–1204, 89–91. 79 Gergely Buzás, Edit Kocsis, and József Laszlovszky, “Catalogue of Objects and

Finds,” in The Medieval Royal Palace at Visegrád, ed. Gergely Buzás and József Laszlovszky (Budapest: Archaeolingua, 2013), 366–367. 80 Krisztina Orosz, “Mozgó udvar – mozgó háztartás. Állandó vagy ideiglenes berendezés a kés˝ o középkori király és nemesi otthonokban?” [Itinerant Courts—Itinerant Households: Permanent or Temporary Furnishings in Royal and Noble Homes in the Late Middle Ages?], in In medio regni Hungariae. Régészeti, M˝ uvészettörténeti és történeti kutatások ‘az ország közepén’: Archaeological, Art Historical, and Historical Researches ‘in the Middle of the Kingdom’, ed. Elek Benk˝ o and Krisztina Orosz (Budapest: Magyar Tudományos Akadémia, 2015), 121–128. 81 Wertner, Az Arp ´ adok ´ csaladi ´ T¨ort´enete, 142–144; Jen˝ o Horváth, Szent László anyja [The Mother of St. Ladislas] (Budapest: Stephaneum Nyomda, 1943); Zsoldos, The Árpáds and Their Wives, 191.

1

INTRODUCTION

25

IV (r. 1163–1165), ever set foot in Hungary during her husband’s turbulent reign.82 Beatrice of Este (d. 1245), the third wife of Andrew II (r. 1205–1235) is mostly known for being married to him for sixteen months before fleeing Hungary dressed as a stable boy after her step-son accused her of getting pregnant by the Palatine. She gave birth in exile and then died the monastery of St. John the Baptist in Gemola (in Baone), near her canonized female relatives. There is no material culture to consult from her life.83 Beatrice of Luxemburg (d. 1319), the second wife of Charles I Robert (r. 1308–1342) died soon after her marriage, and the only archaeological information known about her is that she was buried near the altar of St. Vincent in the Cathedral of Oradea (in Romania, also known as Nagyvárad).84 Margaret of Luxemburg (d. 1349), the young first wife of Louis I (r. 1342–1382) was at one time linked with the Florian Psalter, but this is no longer thought to be the case.85 Most of these queens have received little attention outside of Hungary, and the starting point of each part of this study is an explanation of who these women were and what their importance was to the Hungarian kingdom throughout their careers. As stated in earlier sections, the historical sources yield their own picture of the women and a closer look at all the available evidence should call for a re-evaluation of the queen’s

82 At one point she had been courted by Holy Roman Emperor Frederick I Barbarossa, but she married Stephen around 1156–1157. She probably died in Constantinople. ´ adok Wertner, Az Arp ´ csaladi ´ T¨ort´enete, 337–339; John Kinnamos, trans Charles M. Brand, Deeds of John and Manuel Comnenus (New York: Columbia University Press, 1976), Book IV, 106; Kerbl, “Byzantinische Prinzessinnen in Ungarn,” 110–112; Vajay, “Byzantinische ´ ads Prinzessinnen in Ungarn,” 22; Makk, The Arp ´ and the Comneni, 64; Konstantinos Varzos, E genealogia ton Komnenon (Thessaloniki: Kentron Vyzantin¯on Ereun¯on, 1984), Vol. 2, 314–326; Hankó, A magyar királysírok sorsa, 134; Paul Magdalino, The Empire of Manuel I Komnenos, 1143–1180 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), 58, 62, 79. 83 Wertner, Az Árpádok családi történeti, 424–435; Zsoldos, The Árpáds and Their Wives, 197; Kosztolnyik, Hungary in the Thirteenth Century, 113–114, 122, 342. 84 Her primary act as queen was a renewal of privileges to the Dominican nunnery on Margaret Island. Hungarian National Archives (Henceforth MNL), OL DF 1955; Klaniczay, Holy Rulers and Blessed Princesses, 326; Jolán Balogh, Varadinum: Várad Vára (Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 1982), Vol. II, 276–278, 283. 85 Stanislaw Dunin-Borkowski, Psałterz Królowéj Małgorzaty pierwszej małzonki ˙ Ludwika I. Króla Polskiego I wegierskiego corki Króla czeskiego I Cesarza Karola IV [Psalter of Queen Margaret, First Wife of Louis I King of Poland and Hungary, Daughter of Emperor Charles IV] (Vienna: Strauss, 1834), vi–viii.

26

C. MIELKE

role and activity at the Hungarian court. This book ultimately shows the multiplicity of material tools available for queens to display their private and public power as well as the many objects that conferred status on queens when they came into their possession or gained control over them. The meaning of such pieces of material culture would have been instantly recognizable to contemporaries, and for this reason was omitted from the written record. The methodology used here thus seeks to combine a multi- and trans-disciplinary approach based on the specific questions each type of object articulates.

CHAPTER 2

The Beginnings of the Hungarian ‘Queendom’ (c. 1000–1090)

Sarolta of Transylvania Sarolta of Transylvania is depicted in the written chronicles as a fierce, independent woman. The daughter of Gyula, Prince of Transylvania, she married Géza (r. 975–997), Prince of the Hungarians and the pair had one son, St. Stephen I of Hungary (r. 997–1038) and four daughters.1 Originally baptized in the Byzantine faith, Sarolta is lambasted by two Catholic chronicles; Thietmar of Merseburg states that she rode her horse like a soldier, was a dypsomaniac, and that she even murdered a man in a fit of rage.2 Bruno of Querfurt writes that she “had been holding the whole country in her power with a hand of a man, and who had been governing everything owned by her husband.”3 This depiction of 1 Her name in Slavic is recorded as Beleknegini (“white lady”) in Thietmar of Merse-

´ adok burg and Sar-aldy in Bulgarian-Turkish (literally “white weasel”). Wertner, Az Arp ´ csaladi ´ T¨ort´enete, 25–27; György Györffy, King Saint Stephen of Hungary (Boulder: Social Science Monographs, 1994), 45. 2 R. Holtzmann, ed., Thietmari Merseburgensis episcopi Chronicon, viii 4 MGH SRG, NS, ix (Berlin, 1935), 497–498; Györffy, King Saint Stephen of Hungary, 45; Bak, “Queens as Scapegoats in Medieval Hungary,” 223–224. 3 Bruno of Querfurt, “Brunonis Vita S. Alberti,” ed. Georg Heinrich Pertz MGH SS 4 iii (Hanover, 1891), 607; Györffy, King Saint Stephen of Hungary, 45.

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 C. Mielke, The Archaeology and Material Culture of Queenship in Medieval Hungary, 1000–1395, Queenship and Power, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-66511-1_2

27

28

C. MIELKE

Sarolta is in direct contrast with the fictitious Adelaide of Poland, a princess created by Polish chroniclers as a pious foil who marries Géza and converts him to Christianity.4 In 997, Prince Géza died and was interred at the chapel of SS Peter and Paul in Székesfehérvár.5 While Stephen succeeded his father as prince, a rival named Koppány, the duke of Somogy, claimed his right to the throne as a senior member and took steps to besiege Sarolta’s residence in Veszprém with the intention to marry her; Koppány was defeated by Stephen soon after.6 Sarolta is mentioned again in 1003 when Stephen defeated her brother, Gyula of Transylvania. After Gyula surrendered to Stephen, the prince was given a residence in the county of Heves, where his sister lived.7 While little is known of her outside of these events, there are two pieces of archaeological evidence that shed more light on her character: the room of the queen in the royal palace of Esztergom and the Greek nunnery at Veszprémvölgy (Fig. 2.1). The medieval palace of Esztergom has a long and tangled history. On the southern end of Esztergom’s castle hill, a room was identified as the birthplace of St. Stephen when it was discovered in the 1930s; it has now been dated to the twelfth century instead.8 Sometime in the tenth century, Prince Géza erected a residence on the northern part of the castle hill.9 A canonical visitation from 1397 states that the traditional

4 Wertner, Az Arp ´ adok ´ csaladi ´ T¨ort´enete, 25–31; C. A. Macartney, The Medieval Hungarian Historians (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1953), 173, 179; Györffy, King Saint Stephen of Hungary, 45–47; Jan Długosz, The Annals of Jan Długosz (Chichester: IM Publications, 1997), 1–6. 5 Györffy, King Saint Stephen of Hungary, 163; Ildikó Hankó, A magyar királysírok sorsa: Géza fejedelemt˝ol Szapolyai Jánosig (Budapest: Magyar Ház, 1987), 131. 6 Dercsényi, ed., The Hungarian Illuminated Chronicle, 105; Györffy, King Saint Stephen of Hungary, 83. 7 The generally accepted date of Sarolta’s death is 1008. Györffy, King Saint Stephen of Hungary, 99; Klaniczay, Holy Rulers and Blessed Princesses, 435. 8 Gerevich, “The Rise of Hungarian Towns Along the Danube,” 31. 9 Gergely Buzás, “Az Esztergomi vár románkori és gotikus épülétei” [The Build-

ings of Esztergom Castle in Romanesque and Gothic], in Az Esztergomi Vármúzeum k˝otárának katalógusa [The Esztergom Castle Museum Lapidary catalog], ed. Gergely Buzás and Gergely Tolnai (Esztergom: Esztergom Castle Museum, 2004), 7; István Horváth, “Esztergom,” in Medium Regni: Medieval Hungarian Royal Seats, ed. Julianna Atlmann et al. (Budapest: Nap Kiadó, 1999), 11.

2

THE BEGINNINGS OF THE HUNGARIAN ‘QUEENDOM’ (C. 1000–1090)

Fig. 2.1 The Árpád dynasty in the eleventh century

29

30

C. MIELKE

birthplace of Hungary’s first king was in the entry of the chapel dedicated to St. Stephen the protomartyr.10 While the church of St. Stephen the protomartyr is mostly known for its thirteenth-century form, there are eleventh-century elements present. One hypothesis is that it originally served as the royal chapel attached to the palace and served by the archbishop of Esztergom.11 Little has been said about the queen’s residence in the palace of Esztergom. If St. Stephen had been born in the quarters of his mother, Sarolta of Transylvania, it is most likely that her rooms were close to the church (assuming the chapel of St. Stephen the protomartyr was indeed the royal chapel in the tenth century). While it is possible that remnants of this palace still existed in a plan from the eighteenth century, the leveling of the site for the construction of the cathedral has destroyed any possibility of archaeological research.12 The quarters of the queen are shown in an illumination depicting the Birth of St. Stephen on folio 19 of the fourteenth century Hungarian Illuminated Chronicle (Fig. 2.2). His mother Sarolta appears in full court regalia, crowned and wearing a wimple and mantle, while the naked infant rests on her lap. St. Stephen, the first martyr, offers her a golden crown on behalf of her son which she accepts.13 While this illustration reflects more fourteenth-century ideals than tenth-century reality, it nonetheless offers an idea of how the queens’ rooms appeared in the early years of the Hungarian principality. The Greek nunnery at Veszprémvölgy was founded in the time of St. Stephen I. On the one hand, this nunnery could have been founded by St. Stephen I (r. 997–1038) himself upon the marriage of his son St. Emeric (1007–1031) with a Byzantine princess; she was placed in the

10 Emese Nagy, “Reconstitution de la Topographie de la colline d’Esztergom a l’haute epoque arpadienne,” Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 34 (1982): 52–53; Buzás, “Az Esztergomi vár,” 9. 11 Analogies to this setup can be seen in contemporary Paderborn, Magdeburg, and Speyer. Buzás, “Az Esztergomi vár,” 9, 28; László Gerevich, “The Rise of Hungarian Towns Along the Danube,” in Towns in Medieval Hungary, ed. László Gerevich (Boulder: East European Monographs, 1990), 31; István Horváth, “Esztergom,” in Medium Regni: Medieval Hungarian Royal Seats, ed. Julianna Atlmann et al. (Budapest: Nap Kiadó, 1999), 11, 16. 12 István Horváth, Marta Kelemen, and István Torma, Komárom megye régészeti topográfiája: Esztergom és a dorogi járás [Komárom County Archaeological Topography: Esztergom and Dorog Tourism] (Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 1979), 91. 13 Gárdonyi-Csapodi, “Description and Interpretation of the Illustrations in the Illuminated Chronicle,” 74.

2

THE BEGINNINGS OF THE HUNGARIAN ‘QUEENDOM’ (C. 1000–1090)

31

Fig. 2.2 The Birth of St. Stephen The Hungarian Illuminated Chronicle, National Széchényi Library, Budapest, Cod. Lat. 404

care of his wife, Gisela of Bavaria (d. 1065), while the nunnery served her entourage.14 Another theory ascribes the foundation of this nunnery to Sarolta. Pointing to the language of King Coloman’s confirmation of privileges in 1109, earlier scholarship entertained the idea that this convent

14 Györffy, King Saint Stephen of Hungary, 151; Miklós Komjáthy, “Quelques prob-

lèmes relatifs à la charte de fondation du couvent des religieuses de Veszprémvölgy,” in Mélanges offerts à Szabolcs de Vajay à l’occasion de son 50e anniversaire (1971), 371–372, 379–380; Nora Berend, “Przemysław Urbanczyk, ´ Przemysław Wiszewski,” in Central Europe in the High Middle Ages: Bohemia, Hungary and Poland, c. 900-c. 1300 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013), 357.

32

C. MIELKE

was founded by a member of St. Stephen’s family. Sarolta is identified as a potential founder due to the fact that she had been baptized in the Byzantine rite. Archaeological finds (particularly the burials) at the nunnery were associated with the Eastern Orthodox Church. While the nunnery itself was not part of a network of proselytization, it suggests Sarolta could be associated with this site, possibly as founder.15 Other suggestions as to the identity of the founder have pointed to Stephen’s wife, Gisela of Bavaria, or even his sister, the repudiated wife of Gabriel Radomir, Tsar of Bulgaria (r. 1014–1015).16 While it is not the place here to ascribe this foundation to any member of St. Stephen’s family, the salient point is how this foundation could have been founded by the king’s mother, wife, or sister. While there is little certainty about the archaeological evidence and the buildings related to Sarolta of Transylvania, one aspect is certain. The buildings and imagery associated with her appear to be traditional and religious in nature—the palace quarters are directly adjacent to the chapel in Esztergom and the Greek nunnery at Veszprémvölgy was possibly founded by her, her son St. Stephen or another close female relative. In this case, the woman associated with these archaeological sites shows no resemblance to the violent harridan in the Catholic chronicles written by German monks. While the particulars of Sarolta’s exact relationship with these sites may never be known, they still nonetheless provide an alternate glimpse of a woman who has been severely maligned in the written record.

Gisela of Bavaria As the first queen of Hungary, Gisela of Bavaria (d. 1065) set many important precedents; some of them would last for centuries while others would only continue for a few generations. The daughter of Duke Henry II of Bavaria (d. 995) and Gisela of Burgundy (d. 1006), the younger Gisela was raised in a religious environment where one brother became a saint (Emperor Henry II, r. 1002–1024), another (Bruno) was ordained 15 Éva Révész, “A keleti kereszténység: szerep, hatás vagy jelenlét?: A veszprémvölgyi monostor” [Eastern Christianity: Role, Impact or Presence?: The Veszprémvölgy Monastery], Belvedere 21 (2009): 52–56. 16 Gyula Moravcsik, “The Role of the Byzantine Church in Medieval Hungary,” The American Slavic and East European Review 6 (1947), 143–144.

2

THE BEGINNINGS OF THE HUNGARIAN ‘QUEENDOM’ (C. 1000–1090)

33

as a priest, and her sister Birgitta became a nun.17 She married St. Stephen (r. 997–1038) in 997 and the two had several children together, though only Otto and St. Emeric (d. 1031) are known by name.18 Sadly, her son and the heir St. Emeric would die in a hunting accident in 1031, sparking a succession crisis.19 Chroniclers of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries would blame Gisela for blinding Stephen’s cousin Vazul and for installing “her relative” Peter Orseolo (r. 1038–1041, 1044–1046) as heir.20 This is particularly evident on folio 22 of the Hungarian Illuminated Chronicle where Gisela watches her envoy blinding Vazul at the funeral of her son St. Emeric (Fig. 1.1).21 In all actuality, Stephen was the one who blinded Vazul for plotting against him, and Peter was chosen as heir because he was the son of Stephen’s sister, not a relative of Gisela’s.22 After Stephen’s death in 1045,23 Gisela remained in Hungary for nine years, though she was mistreated by both Peter and his rival, Samuel Aba (r. 1041–1044). Unhappy with her generous almsgiving, Peter placed the widowed Gisela under house arrest, confiscated her possessions, and was forced to submit any charitable act to his approval first.24 In 1045, she returned to Bavaria and Emperor Henry III (r. 1039–1056) provided a residence for her at the Abbey of Niedernburg in Passau. Eventually, she became the abbess there and was buried at Niedernburg after her death.25

17 Gisela’s sister-in-law Kunigunde was also canonized. Györffy, King Saint Stephen of Hungary, 80. 18 Zsoldos, The Árpáds and Their Wives, 189. 19 Györffy, King Saint Stephen of Hungary, 168–169; Kosztolnyik, Hungary Under the

Early Árpáds, 297–298. 20 Simon of Kéza, Gesta Hungarorum, 105–107; Dercsényi, ed., The Hungarian

Illuminated Chronicle, 107. 21 Gárdonyi-Csapodi, “Description and Interpretation of the Illustrations in the Illuminated Chronicle,” 75; Z. J. Kosztolnyik, Hungary Under the Early Árpáds, 890s to 1063 (Boulder: East European Monographs, 2006), 301; Marosi “Das Frontspiz der Ungarischen Bilderchronik,” 370. 22 P. Scheffer-Boichorst, ed. “Chronica Alberici monachi Trium Fontium,” Monumenta Germaniae historica, Scriptores, XXIII, 779; Bak, “Queens as Scapegoats in Medieval Hungary,” 225–226. 23 Gárdonyi-Csapodi, “Description and Interpretation of the Illustrations in the Illuminated Chronicle,” 76. 24 Kosztolnyik, Hungary Under the Early Arp ´ ads, ´ 332–333. 25 Bak, “Queens as Scapegoats in Medieval Hungary,” 226.

34

C. MIELKE

Considering her long presence in Hungary, it is no surprise that even at this early date there is a great deal of evidence for Gisela’s activity as queen. Though none of the originals survive, fifteenth-century sources describe two of Queen Gisela’s charters donating land to the Monastery of Bakonybél, as well as two (possibly three) other charters which refer to her donations to the Cathedral of Veszprém and the Abbey of Pannonhalma.26 It is unknown whether or not Gisela used a seal of her own on these charters, but her sister-in-law St. Kunigunde (d. 1040) is one of the earliest German queens to have employed a seal.27 The focus here will be on her lost crown, the Metz Chasuble, the Gisela Cross, the Hungarian Coronational Mantle, her other donations to the church, her building activity in Veszprém, and finally her burial at Niedernburg Abbey in Passau. The Crown of Queen Gisela Little is known of Gisela’s coronation as queen. The only mention of her coronation is in the Legenda Maior of St. Stephen, where the author noted that Gisela of Bavaria was anointed though it does not state explicitly that she was crowned like her husband.28 A curious story from the thirteenth century details the history of Gisela’s crown. On his way to the Fifth Crusade, Andrew II (r. 1205–1235) took the crown of Gisela from its vault in Veszprém along with other crown jewels and treasures from Tihány Abbey.29 Two of his charters refer to this diadem, one in 1217 and another in 1222. Both contain the same information; the crown of 26 The land the queen donated to Bakonybél included fishponds, vineyards, and mills. Of the five charters attributed to Gisela, the one which refers to her donations to Pannonhalma is only known from a forged charter of King Ladislas I (r. 1077–1095). Imre Szentpétery and Attila Zsoldos, Az Árpád-házi hercegek, hercegn˝ok és királynék okleveleinek kritikai jegyzéke (Budapest: Magyar Országos Levéltár, 2008), 44–45, 183. 27 Kunigunde appears crowned and with the same regalia as her husband, holding a scepter and an orb. Kathleen Nolan, Queens in Stone and Silver: The Creation of a Visual Imagery of Queenship in Capetian France (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2009), 26. 28 Emma Bartoniek, “Legenda St. Stephani regis maior et minor,” 384; Zsoldos, The Árpáds and Their Wives, 21. 29 Z. J. Kosztolnyik, Hungary in the Thirteenth Century (Boulder: East European Monographs, 1996), 68; Arnold Ipolyi, Imre Nagy, and Dezs˝ o Véghely, Hazai Okmanytár, Vol. V (Gy˝ or, 1873), 8–9.

2

THE BEGINNINGS OF THE HUNGARIAN ‘QUEENDOM’ (C. 1000–1090)

35

Queen Gisela was worth twelve gold marks (not including the precious stones). It was sold in the Holy Land for 140 silver marks.30 As to this crown’s appearance, two eleventh-century crowns of German queens are open circlets; one is a band adorned with gems while the other is topped with crosses and bearing the woman’s name.31 The Gisela Cross and her image on the Coronation Mantle show the queen wearing a crown in the form of a circlet topped with lilies. The crown sold by Andrew II in the thirteenth century was identified as Gisela’s by oral tradition, its association with the cathedral of Veszprém (she was the founder), or a possible inscription on the crown itself. While the appearance of Queen Gisela’s crown can only be conjecture at this point, it was likely used for the next two centuries by all of the queens up until the time of Gertrude of Andechs-Meran (d. 1213) or Yolanda of Courtenay (d. 1233). The Metz Chasuble A drawing from the eighteenth century records a chasuble that had been donated by Pope Leo IX to the Treasury of the Benedictine Abbey of St. Arnulf at Metz around 1049. The inscription near the top read “Stephen, King of Hungary, and his dear wife Gisela sent this gift to the Apostolic Lord John.”32 While unfortunately this chasuble was destroyed in 1792 during the French Revolution, the drawing and description made decades earlier provide some insight into this vestment that St. Stephen I and Gisela of Bavaria had originally sent as a gift to Pope John XVIII (XIX) (r. 1003–1009) around the year 1004.33

30 “scilicet coronam beate memorie Regine Gysele, duodecim marcas purissimi auri continentem. preter lapides preciosos. quam in ultra marinis partibus pro C. xl. marcis argenti expendimus,” “scilicet coronam beate memorie Regine Gysle XII Marcas purissimi auri continentem preter lapides. quam in ultramarinis partibus pro c xl Marcis argenti expendimus.” Ipoly, Nagy and Véghely, Hazai Okmanytár, Vol. V, 8–9. 31 These are the reliquary crown of St. Kunigunde and the burial crown of Gisela of Swabia. Herbert Brunner, “The Treasury of the Residenz Palace Munich,” in Royal Treasures, ed. Erich Steingräber (New York: Macmillan, 1968), 52–54; Twining, European Regalia, 303. 32 “S(tephanus) Ungrorum rex et Gisla dilecta sibi coniux mittunt haec munera Domino apostolico Johanni.” Béla Kövér, “Szent István és Gizella metzi miseruhája,” Archaeológiai Értesít˝o 10 (1890): 332–333. 33 Kövér, “Szent István és Gizella metzi miseruhája,” 332–333.

36

C. MIELKE

The chasuble was in the shape of a bell (an oval when laid flat) with a red silk background which had faded to yellow by the eighteenth century. A tree topped with two birds facing each other was the pattern that embellished this garment. The embroidery was done in gold and red/purple silk. The chasuble was decorated with the figure of Christ and ten saints as well as Adam and Eve and several regal animals (lions, deer, dragons, and eagles) within medallions.34 While it was thought in 1890 that the fabric was Arabic in origin, the work appears more similar to Byzantine embroidery; the chasuble could have been under Gisela’s leadership at the abbey of the Greek nuns in Veszprémvölgy.35 As pope, John XVIII approved of Holy Roman Emperor Henry II’s (r. 1002–1024) elevation of the city of Bamberg to a bishopric primarily as a base for the conversion of Eastern Slavs.36 Considering the delicate balance of power between the Papacy, the Holy Roman Empire, and the new kingdom of Hungary, this diplomatic gift from both the king and the queen shows not only the pair as a Christian couple, but the rich material also reflects their power, wealth, and status. Gisela in this instance was not only a link between the West and the new kingdoms to the East, but she also displays her status and authority with her husband in this gift to the Pope. The Gisela Cross When Gisela’s mother (Gisela of Burgundy) died, the Hungarian Queen commissioned a gold cross holding a piece of the True Cross to mark the site of her mother’s grave (Fig. 2.3). This is the earliest known instance of a sole donation by a Hungarian queen to the church, as well as the earliest surviving item of a Hungarian queen. The cross is decorated with rubies, sapphires, emeralds, pearls, and a large topaz. Jesus Christ is shown crucified with two women in miniature at his feet. One of the women represents a crowned queen, and the other a nun; the queen would be

34 Béla Czobor, “A metzi kazula” [The chasuble of Metz], in Gizella királyné (985

k.-1060), ed. János Géczi (Veszprém, 2000), 188–189. 35 Kövér, “Szent István és Gizella metzi miseruhája,” 332–333; Antal Szmik, “Gizella királyné magyar hímz˝ oiskolája” [The Embroidery School of Queen Gisela], in Gizella királyné (985 k.-1060), ed. János Géczi (Veszprém, 2000), 195–196. 36 Horace K. Mann, The Lives of the Popes in the Early Middle Ages, Vol. V (St. Louis: B. Herder, 1910), 138–141.

2

THE BEGINNINGS OF THE HUNGARIAN ‘QUEENDOM’ (C. 1000–1090)

Fig. 2.3 The Gisela Cross, ca. 1006. Schatzkammer, Munich Residenz

37

38

C. MIELKE

Gisela of Bavaria, and the nun is most likely Gisela of Burgundy.37 The two women both wear a loose-fitting gown cinched at the waist. The main difference between them is that the queen is wearing a crown topped with three lilies and facing the viewer, while her mother has a nun’s veil and her gaze is directed to Christ.38 The inscription on the cross makes it clear that this was meant to be both a memorial for her mother as well as an item of liturgical use.39 Several contemporary reliquary crosses survive from German nobles such as Emperor Otto III (r. 996–1002), Abbess Matilda of Essen (d. 1011), and Conrad II (r. 1027–1039). The Gisela Cross is similar in size to those commissioned by contemporary royal women while those commissioned by Holy Roman Emperors are considerably taller.40 The form of the Gisela Cross is similar to many of these reliquaries, but the association with her mother and its purpose as a pro anima donation make it unique. Gisela made a personal memorial to her mother into a statement not only of her own religious convictions but also her awareness of contemporary forms of crux gemmata and their frequently political overtones. The Hungarian Coronation Mantle Since the twelfth century, one garment has been known as the coronation mantle of the Hungarian kings. Originally it was a chasuble Stephen I and 37 Éva Kovács, “Gizella királyné keresztje” [The Cross of Queen Gisela], in Gizella királyne, 985 k.-1060 (Veszprém, 2000), 158; Béla Czobor, “A Gizella-kereszt leírása” [Writing on the Gisela Cross], Századok 35 (1901), 1018–1020. 38 Éva Kovács, “Gizella királyné keresztje” [The Cross of Queen Gisela], in Gizella királyne, 985 k.-1060 (Veszprém, 2000), 158; Ottó Trogmayer and Lilla Visy, Ecce Salus Vitae: íme az élet üdve; a Gizella-Kereszt [Ecce salus vitae: Here is the Salvation of the Living; the Gisela Cross] (Szeged: Agapé, 2000), 23. 39 Czobor, “A Gizella-kereszt leírása,” 1018–1020. 40 The Gisela Cross is 45 cm high while the Matilda Crosses and the Theophanu

Cross are between 44 and 46 cm. Robert Calkins, Monuments of Medieval Art (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1979), 115; Patrick De Winter, The Sacral Treasure of the Guelphs (Cleveland: Cleveland Museum of Art, 1985), 8, 44–45; Hermann Fillitz, “Das AdelheidKreuz aus St. Blasien,” in Schatzhaus Kärntens: Landesausstellung St. Paul 1991: 900 Jahr Benediktinerstift, ed. Hartwig Pucker, Johannes Grabmayer, Günther Hödl, and the Benediktinerstist St. Paul (Klagenfurt: Universitätsverlag Carinthia, 1991), 670; Hermann Schnitzler, “Die Regensburger Goldschmiedekunst,” in Wandlungen christlicher Kunst im Mittelalter, ed. Johannes Hempel (Baden-Baden: Verlag f¨ur Kunst und Wissenschaft, 1953), 181.

2

THE BEGINNINGS OF THE HUNGARIAN ‘QUEENDOM’ (C. 1000–1090)

39

Gisela donated to the collegiate church of the Virgin Mary in Székesfehérvár in 1031. It was originally worn by priests for special occasions.41 This mantle was made with Byzantine silk but it incorporates embroidery and design elements used in Southern Germany, particularly at the court of Gisela’s brother, Emperor Henry II. It has been proposed that it was either embroidered at the Queen’s court or by the Greek nuns at Veszprémvölgy.42 Whether or not Gisela’s needle was applied to the chasuble, the phrase “operata et data” on the vestment clearly indicates that Gisela and Stephen conceptualized that their funding of this piece was akin to making it with their own hands.43 Gisela’s involvement in this chasuble is evident in the fact that she and St. Stephen I appear in a row of medallions depicting various saints. The pair appears at the bottom, flanking a center portrait of a young man who was previously thought to be their son, St. Emeric.44 Both appear to be wearing peaked crowns topped by three lilies (or possibly crosses) and seem to be wearing similar loose outer garments.45 Scholars from the eighteenth century thought that Queen Gisela was holding the model of Veszprém Cathedral. Kovács, however, proposed that the Queen holds a “lantern type” of reliquary in her hands, rather than a cathedral tower.46 The visual pairing of the king and queen together recalls images of Emperor Henry II and his wife Kunigunde who also appear side by side

41 Ern˝ o Marosi, “The Székesfehérvár Chasuble of King Saint Stephen and Queen Gisela,” in The Coronation Mantle of the Hungarian Kings, ed. István Bardoly (Budapest: Hungarian National Museum, 2005), 110–113. 42 Györffy, King Saint Stephen of Hungary, 165; Zsuzsa Lovag, “A Short Historiography of Researching the Hungarian Coronation Mantle,” in The Coronation Mantle of Hungarian Kings, ed. István Bardoly (Budapest: Hungarian National Museum, 2005), 15–19; Marosi, “The Székesfehérvár Chasuble,” 123–124. 43 Therese Martin, “Exceptions and Assumptions: Women in Medieval Art History,” in Reassessing the Roles of Women as ‘Makers’ of Medieval Art and Architecture, ed. Therese Martin, Vol. I (Leiden: Brill, 2012), 2–5. 44 Marosi, “The Székesfehérvár Chasuble,” 133; Lovag, “A Short Historiography of Researching the Hungarian Coronation Mantle,” 18–19, 22. 45 Katalin E. Nagy, Enik˝ o Sipos, Ern˝ o Marosi, “The Picture Fields of the Mantle (1–43) Fragments of the Embroidered Band,” in The Coronation Mantle of the Hungarian Kings, ed. István Bardoly (Budapest: Hungarian National Museum, 2005), Field 6 154–155, Field 8 158–159. 46 Lovag, “A Short Historiography of Researching the Hungarian Coronation Mantle,” 14, 22.

40

C. MIELKE

on donations.47 This chasuble which became the Hungarian Coronation Mantle thus shows Gisela and Stephen acting together in this donation. The technical influences on the embroidery which come from Bavaria as well as the imagery borrowed Gisela’s brother and sister-in-law show that the queen’s influence on this piece is indisputable. Gisela’s Other Donations to the Church One of the expectations of medieval queens is that they would generously provide for the church. The Legend of St. Stephen mentions many crosses, vessels, and woven paraments that Queen Gisela donated to the churches of the newly-Christianized realm.48 The book list of Bakonybél from 1508 listed an evangeliary which Queen Gisela donated to the Abbey.49 Among the many objects the Legend of St. Stephen mentions Queen Gisela donating to the Church, books are not mentioned. This could simply reflect a different attitude toward book ownership and donation in the eleventh century. One of the law codes from the reign of St. Stephen indicates that it was the king’s duty to provide furnishings for the church, but that it was the duty of the bishop to provide priests and books.50 Her rich endowment of the church is immortalized on folio 21 of the Hungarian Illuminated Chronicle which depicts her and her husband founding the Cathedral of SS Peter and Paul in Óbuda (Fig. 2.4).51

47 Eliza Garrison, Ottonian Imperial Art and Portraiture: The Artistic Patronage of Otto III and Henry II (Farnham: Ashgate, 2012), 131. 48 “Que qualis erga dei cultum ornandum extiterit, quam frequens et benefica circa deo servientium congregationes apparuerit, multarum ecclesiarum cruces et vasa vel paramenta opere mirifico facta vel contexta usque hodie testantur.” Imre Szentpétery, Scriptores Rerum Huncaricarum II (Budapest: Academia Litter. Hungarica, 1939), 415. 49 Attila Zsoldos, The Árpáds and Their Wives: Queenship in Early Medieval Hungary,

1000-1301 (Rome: Viella, 2019), 27. 50 El˝ od Nemerkenyi, “Latin Classics in Medieval Libraries: Hungary in the Eleventh Century,” 246–247; János M. Bak et al., The Laws of the Medieval Kingdom of Hungary, 1000–1301, Vol. I (Idyllwild, CA: Charles Schlacks, Jr., 1999), 9–10. 51 Gárdonyi-Csapodi, “Description and Interpretation of the Illustrations in the Illuminated Chronicle,” 75.

2

THE BEGINNINGS OF THE HUNGARIAN ‘QUEENDOM’ (C. 1000–1090)

41

Fig. 2.4 St. Stephen I and Gisela founding the Cathedral of SS Peter and Paul in Óbuda. The Hungarian Illuminated Chronicle, National Széchényi Library, Budapest, Cod. Lat. 404

42

C. MIELKE

Veszprém: Cathedral and Palace Hungarian queens are connected to the city of Veszprém on at least three points: Gisela of Bavaria founded the Cathedral there in the early eleventh century, the Bishop of Veszprém had the right to crown queens at Székesfehérvár, and there was a seat reserved for the queen in the Cathedral.52 As aforementioned, two charters of Andrew II indicated the crown of queen Gisela was stored at the cathedral of Veszprém until the early thirteenth century. However, the specific role of the queen in founding the Cathedral, and the question of the queen’s residence in the royal palace are worth exploring. Györffy dated Gisela’s foundation of Veszprém Cathedral to sometime between 997 (the time of Gisela’s marriage) and 1001 (the foundation of the bishopric of Esztergom), while Kralovanszky dated the foundation to 1009.53 This is significant because Veszprém was the first permanent episcopal seat in Hungary. The church in this city of a thousand souls was originally located in the royal castle, suggesting intimate proximity with the royal court, and thus the queen.54 Gisela’s influence in church foundations in these early days of the Hungarian kingdom is also evident in a chapel near the palace at Nyitra. This building was dedicated to St. Emmeram, undoubtedly named after the patron saint of one of the princely abbeys in Regensburg, the city of Gisela’s upbringing.55 The royal palace of Veszprém was first mentioned as a site of refuge for Sarolta of Transylvania shortly after Stephen’s ascension to the throne.56 Eighteenth-century descriptions place the palace at the site of the current bishop’s palace, noting that only the “Gizella chapel” and

52 Kralovánszky, “The Settlement History of Veszprém and Székesfehérvár,” 59. 53 Alán Kralov´anszky, “The Settlement History of Veszpr´em and Sz´ekesfeh´erv´ar in the

Middle Ages,” in Towns in Medieval Hungary, ed. Laszló Gerevich, 54; Györffy, King Saint Stephen of Hungary, 104. 54 Györffy, King Saint Stephen of Hungary, 104; Tibor Lenner, “Life in Veszprém, in the ‘Town of Queens’,” Revija za geografijo - Journal for Geography 7/2 (2012): 88, 91. 55 Györffy, King Saint Stephen of Hungary, 81. 56 Jen˝ o Gutheil, Az Árpád-kori Veszprém [Veszprém in the Age of the Árpáds]

(Veszprém: Veszprém Megyei Levéltár, 1979), 67; Kralovánszky, “The Settlement History of Veszprém and Székesfehérvár,” 57; Kosztolnyik, Hungary Under the Early Árpáds, 128, 139–140, 305.

2

THE BEGINNINGS OF THE HUNGARIAN ‘QUEENDOM’ (C. 1000–1090)

43

a bakery survived.57 More recent archaeological evidence indicates that the eleventh-century royal palace was situated immediately to the west of the Chapel of St. George and the present-day St. Michael Cathedral.58 The two corners seem to indicate that the Cathedral (a twelfth-century building) was built upon the foundation of this palace, as by the twelfththirteenth centuries, a new palatial complex was built to the south of the new cathedral. The original site of the royal palace on the northern end of the fortress area was the most defensible due to the steep slope down to the River Séd.59 While this is the most likely explanation, sadly all that can be known about the site of the early Árpádian age royal palace is that it was only used until c. 1100, most of its remains are likely under St. Michael’s Cathedral and it was in a part of the city that made it naturally defensible. As Adelaide of Rheinfelden (d. 1090) was most likely buried in the city, it is possible she was one of the last queens to have made use of this palace and from the twelfth century onward the city did not serve as a royal residence in any significant capacity. Gisela’s involvement in shaping the space of the palace is only conjecture at this point, but it does seem that after her death, the site lost its status as a royal residence and never regained it. Gisela’s Grave at the Abbey of Niedernburg, Passau In 1908, a gravestone at the Abbey of Niedernburg in Passau with the inscription “Gisyla Abbatissa” was uncovered.60 While it was originally thought that the queen was buried in Hungary at the Cathedral of Veszprém which she had founded,61 it is more likely that she was 57 The “Gizella chapel” was thought to be the palace chapel, and the bakery was called the “Queen’s Kitchen”; it was destroyed sometime later. Gurtheil, Az Árpád-kori Veszprém [Veszprém in the Age of the Árpáds], 67–68. 58 Kralovánszky, “The Settlement History of Veszprém and Székesfehérvár,” 64, Fig. 7. 59 Lenner, “Life in Veszprém, in the ‘Town of Queens’,” 88. 60 András Uzsoki, “Das Passauer Gizella-grab im Spiegel der neuen Forschungen,” in Gizella és kora: felolvasóülések az Árpád-korból [Gizella and Her Time: Character Reading in the Age of the Árpáds] (Veszprém, 1993), 70–71. 61 Antonius de Bonfinius, Rerum Ungaricarum decades quator, cum dimidia (Basel: Oporinus, 1568), Dec. II, Liber IIII, 260; Antonius de Bonfinius, Rerum Ungaricarum Decades (Lipsiae: Teubner, 1936), Decas II, Liber IV, 91; András Uzsoki, “Die Echtheit des Grabes der ungarischen Königin Gisela in Passau,” in Bayern und Ungarn: Tausend Jahre enge Beziehungen, ed. Ekkehard Völkl, 14.

44

C. MIELKE

buried in Passau. From 1038 to 1045, Gisela remained in Hungary under the stifling attention of her husband’s successors who greatly restricted her liberty.62 In May 1045, Emperor Henry III visited King Peter at Székesfehérvár after helping Peter regain the throne. Not only did the emperor take the crown of St. Stephen and the Holy Lance with him back to the Holy Roman Empire, but Queen Gisela followed as well. Her brother, Henry II, had made the Abbey of Niedernburg in Passau an Imperial foundation in 1010. Once Gisela returned to Bavaria she took up residence there and eventually became abbess.63 Gisela’s activities as abbess are mostly unknown due to two fires from the seventeenth century that destroyed many documents. She successfully petitioned Henry III to grant the abbey land in the unsettled Bavarian forests so that those who accompanied her on her flight from Hungary could settle there.64 The grave of the queen was found adjacent to the main altar, in the southern part of the nave. In 1420, a Gothic vaulted cenotaph was built over her eleventh-century gravestone.65 Beneath it lay a brick-vaulted chamber with a mostly intact skeleton (bits of the spine, the arms, and the legs were missing). The skeleton of the woman was roughly 170 cm tall and the age estimated to be roughly 60–70 years old. The gravestone from the fifteenth century mentions that her date of death is May 7, 1095; as 985 is usually given as the date of her birth, most would doubt that she lived to be 110. 1065 is usually given as the date of her death by the current literature.66 It is possible that there is a similar situation with Tuta of Formbach (see below) where 1136 is given as Tuta’s date of death when in reality it seems to be the date the monument was erected; 1095 could be the date that the grave monument for Gisela was created (Fig. 2.5). 62 Kosztolnyik, Hungary Under the Early Arp ´ ads, ´ 332–336. 63 Wolfherius Wilhelm von Giselbrecht and Edmund von Oefele, Annales Altahenses

Maiores (Hanover: Impensis Bibliopolii Hahniai, 1891), 33; Richard Faas, Kloster Niedernburg, Passau: Die Geschichte von 888 bis zur Gegenwart (Oberhaching: Mogenroth Media, 2014), 245–246; Uzsoki, “Das Passauer Gizella-grab im Spiegel der neuen Forschungen,” 73. 64 Faas, Kloster Niedernburg, Passau, 245–247. 65 András Uzsoki, “Az els˝ o magyar királyné, Gizella sírja,” A Veszprém Megyei Múzeumok

Közleményei XVI (1982): 160. 66 Uzsoki, “Das Passauer Gizella-grab im Spiegel der neuen Forschungen,” 74–75.

2

THE BEGINNINGS OF THE HUNGARIAN ‘QUEENDOM’ (C. 1000–1090)

45

Fig. 2.5 Modern monument to Gisela based on her eleventh-century tombstone

The eleventh-century gravestone is made of limestone and adorned with a processional cross with a spiral handle flanked by two eagles with stretched wings. The phrase “CRVX XP[ist]I” appears at the four points of the cross and on top of the stone is inscribed with the abbreviation NON[is] MAI[i], indicating the queen died on the seventh of May. The phrase “GISYLA ABBATISSA” (i.e., Abbess Gisela) is written vertically. One historian believes that under the two eagles sat the letters R E, which would have composed the first two letters of the word “Regina,” i.e., “Queen,” as further proof that this is the resting place of Gisela.67 This grave is also similar to one found in the crypt of Tihány Abbey which has been identified as that of King Andrew I (r. 1046–1060), who died around the same time as Gisela.

67 Uzsoki, “Das Passauer Gizella-grab im Spiegel der neuen Forschungen,” 76.

46

C. MIELKE

Gisela of Bavaria was extremely active during the reign of her husband as evidenced by the chasubles she and Stephen I gave to the pope and the basilica at Székesfehérvár and the reliquary known as the Gisela Cross. She was instrumental in founding the Cathedral at Veszprém and even after her retirement to the Abbey of Niedernburg in Passau, the nuns made sure that her grave monument was not only preserved but given an update in the fifteenth century. She was active both with her husband and also on her own during his lifetime and the objects associated with her are both religious and political in nature. Fewer items survive from her widowhood when she was deprived of her resources. Nonetheless, Gisela’s behavior towards material culture and space set the stage for queenly behavior in the eleventh century and her immediate successors followed her example.

Tuta of Formbach After the death of St. Stephen I in 1038, his nephew, Peter Orseolo (r. 1038–1041, 1044–1046) succeeded him. Peter’s reign was turbulent, as evidenced by Samuel Aba, the husband of St. Stephen’s sister, taking the throne away from Peter from 1041 until 1044. The first (and only) mention of Peter’s wife comes from references to his defeat by Andrew, the son of duke Vazul in 1046. The account of Jan Długosz states that Peter was blinded and later killed while the widowed queen was “turned out of her home.”68 While the Chronicle of Cosmas of Prague stated that Judith of Schweinfurt (d. 1058), widow of Bˇretislav I of Bohemia (r. 1035–1055), was Peter’s wife this is a chronological impossibility given that Peter died shortly after his blinding while Cosmas states that the couple married in 1055.69 In the quest for the identity of Peter’s true wife, archaeological evidence points to one potential connection.

68 Długosz, The Annals of Jan Długosz, 38; Kosztolnyik, Hungary Under the Early ´ ads, Arp ´ 343. 69 Cosmas of Prague, The Chronicle of the Czechs (Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America, 2009), Book II, 135.

2

THE BEGINNINGS OF THE HUNGARIAN ‘QUEENDOM’ (C. 1000–1090)

47

Gravestone at the Abbey of Suben The Abbey of Suben on the Austrian-German border has a fifteenthcentury red marble tombstone of an eleventh-century woman named Tuta, featuring her in full royal regalia and referring to her having once lived in Hungary. The inscription reads: “Here lies the highborn of royal descent / in Hungary called Tuta / donator of this present house of God / died here in Suben in 1136, month of May.”70 It mentions her descent as being royal (“königliche”), and that she spent some time in Hungary and then came back, but it is unclear whether Tuta married a king or a prince related to the early Árpáds; Vajay believes that King Peter is the only viable candidate to be her husband (Fig. 2.6).71 What is known of her is that Tuta was the daughter of Henry of Formbach and that she had a sister named Himiltrud.72 Tuta most likely lived around the years 1020–1080.73 The fifteenth-century tombstone mentions that she died in 1136, but this was disputed in later sources— considering the second foundation of the Abbey was around this time, the date of 1136 probably refers to the date that the original tombstone was erected.74 Secondary sources have referred to either 1046 or 1055 as possible dates for Tuta’s death.75 The fact of the matter is the monks considered her tombstone there to be important enough to create a separate version with many parallels to the Gothic-era tombstone of Queen

70 “Hye leyt die hochgeporen / chünichleychis geschlechtes czu ungern genant Tuta / stifterin decz gegenwertigen / gotshaus hie czu Suben gestorben MCXXXVI Kls Maÿ.” Franz Engl, “Grabstein der Stifterin Tuta (Abguß),” in 900 Jahre Stift Reichersberg Augustiner Chorherren zwischen Passau und Salzburg: Ausstellung des Landes Ober¨osterreich, 26. April bis 28. Oktober 1984 im Stift Reichersberg am Inned. Dietmar Straub (Linz, 1984), 329. 71 Kerbl thought that she was the wife of Béla I (r. 1060–1063), but this is pure conjecture. Kerbl, “Byzantinische Prinzessinnen in Ungarn,” 12–13; Vajay, “Byzantinishe Prinzessinnen in Ungarn,” 16. 72 Wertner knew that the sisters were connected with the Árpád dynasty but not how they were connected. Bernhard Schütz, Stift Suben am Inn (Munich: Schnell & Steiner, ´ adok 1970), 3; Wertner, Az Arp ´ csaladi ´ T¨ort´enete, 586–588. 73 Fritz Dworschak, “Neunhundert Jahre Stift Suben am Inn,” Oberösterreichische Heimatblätter 6/3 (1952): 298. 74 Dworschak, “Neunhundert Jahre Stift Suben am Inn,” 304; Schütz, Stift Suben am Inn, (Munich: Schnell & Steiner, 1970), 3. 75 Bak, “Roles and Functions of Queens in Arp´ ´ adian and Angevin Hungary,” 23.

48

C. MIELKE

Fig. 2.6 Gravestone of Tuta of Formbach, Abbey of Suben

Gisela of Bavaria. The precious material it was made from is also a testament to the importance the brothers placed on having such a connection with their founder. However, her presence in Suben also indicates that—regardless of her exact affiliation with the Árpád dynasty—it seems that she left Hungary after the death of Peter Orseolo. With the ascension of Andrew I in 1046, the presence of Tuta of Formbach would have likely been unwelcome. Since Peter had no known sons, there was little to keep her in

2

THE BEGINNINGS OF THE HUNGARIAN ‘QUEENDOM’ (C. 1000–1090)

49

Hungary following his death. It is also interesting to compare the inferred experience of Tuta with that of her predecessor, Gisela of Bavaria. As a widow, Gisela was mistreated by her husband’s successor to the point that after some time in Hungary, she fled to her homeland and sought refuge in a nunnery. Tuta followed a similar path, even if the particulars are unknown at present. Both women had some sort of kin to rely on after their departure from Hungary—Tuta had her sister Himiltrud while Gisela found refuge under Emperor Henry III. This pattern of the queen leaving Hungary as a widow would continue well until the end of the eleventh century.

Anastasia of Kiev Andrew I (r. 1046–1060) married Anastasia, daughter of Yaroslav I “the Wise” of Kiev (r. 1019–1054) and Ingegerd of Sweden. It is possible that a fresco in the Hagia Sophia Cathedral in Kiev represents Anastasia along with her parents and siblings, though this fresco will not be discussed here since it is impossible to identify her among the five princesses.76 Vajay makes the argument that Andrew I had previously been married to a princess named Adelaide of Brunswick (d. 1048/1049) around 1039, and after her death Andrew married Anastasia around 1050.77 In 1053, Anastasia gave birth to twin sons, Salomon and David.78 Anastasia is remembered for three particular issues related to material culture and space: her involvement in monasteries and land management, her gift of the ‘Sword of Attila’ to Otto of Nordheim, and finally the question of her burial at Admont Abbey in Styria.

76 Andrzej Poppe, “Building of the Church of St Sophia in Kiev,” Journal of Medieval History 7 (1981): 15–66; Viktor Lazarev, “New Data on the Mosaics and Frescoes of the Cathedral of St. Sophia in Kiev: The Group Portrait of Yaroslav’s Family,” in Studies in Early Russian Art, ed. Viktor Lazarev (London: The Pindar Press, 2000), 386–426; Elena Boeck, “Believing Is Seeing: Princess Spotting in St. Sophia of Kiev,” in Dubitando: Studies in History and Culture in Honor of Donald Ostrowski, ed. Brian J. Boeck, Russell E. Martin and Daniel Rowland (Bloomington: Slavica Publishers, 2012), 167–179; Szabolcs de Vajay, “Még egy királynénk…? I. Endre els˝ o felesége” [Another of Our Queens…? The First Wife of Andrew I], Turul 72 (1999): 18. 77 Vajay, “Még egy királynénk…? I. Endre els˝ o felesége” [Another of Our Queens…? The First Wife of Andrew I]: 18. 78 Dercsényi, ed., The Hungarian Illuminated Chronicle, 113; Zsoldos, The Árpáds and Their Wives, 191.

50

C. MIELKE

Greek-Rite Monasteries and the Forest of Patak The reign of Andrew I saw the foundation of several Latin and Greekrite monasteries; Anastasia may have had some influence behind this. In 1055, Andrew founded the Benedictine monastery at Tihany as well as a monastery at Visegrád dedicated to St. Andrew.79 The Greek monastery at Visegrád is usually attributed to the king’s desire to please the queen while the monastery at Tihany, dedicated to the Frankish St. Anian, is attributed to the connection of Anastasia’s sister Anna, the wife of King Henry I of France.80 An elaborate network of caves near Visegrád (at Zebegény) and near Tihany (at Óvár) are explained by the presence of Russian monks who used them as individual cells when they arrived in the region in the mid-eleventh century.81 Andrew had previously lived at the court of Kiev and was undoubtedly familiar with such monastic traditions.82 If Andrew married Anastasia in 1050, it is likely that several Russian eremitic monks accompanied her in her entourage, as there were several cave-type monastic settlements in Kiev, Pskov, and Zymne.83 The anonymous author of the Gesta Hungarorum remarked that one of the reasons Andrew I bought the forest of Patak was because his wife Anastasia liked it because it was reminiscent of her homeland in Kiev.84 All of this evidence indicates that Anastasia’s presence at the Hungarian court influenced certain decisions made by Andrew I in monastic patronage and royal land use. Andrew’s will is present, and he undoubtedly knew the monastic traditions from the Orthodox world that he sponsored in

79 There is a precedent for Greek and Latin monks sharing space, like the monastery of St. Hippolytus at Zobor. Catherine Keene, Saint Margaret, Queen of the Scots: A Life in Perspective (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2013), 20; Marina Miladinov, Margins of Solitude: Eremitism in Central Europe Between East and West (Zagreb: Leykam International, 2008), 158. 80 Kosztolnyik, Hungary Under the Early Árpáds, 398, 400. 81 Keene, Saint Margaret, Queen of the Scots, 20–21. 82 Kosztolnyik, Hungary Under the Early Árpáds, 339–340. 83 Vajay, “Még egy királynénk…? I. Endre els˝ o felesége” [Still One More Queen…?

The First Wife of Andrew I]: 18; Miladinov, Margins of Solitude, 181–161. 84 Anonymous and Master Roger, Gesta Hungarorum and Epistle to the Sorrowful Lament Upon the Destruction of the Kingdom of Hungary by the Tatars, trans. János M. Bak and Martyn Rady (Budapest: Central European University Press, 2010), 43–45; Péter Szabó, Woodland and Forests in Medieval Hungary (Oxford: Archaeopress, 2005), 88, 92.

2

THE BEGINNINGS OF THE HUNGARIAN ‘QUEENDOM’ (C. 1000–1090)

51

Hungary. Nonetheless, the possibility can be raised that royal support for such institutions was either joint donations from the king and queen, or done with the queen’s encouragement and support. The ‘Sword of Attila’ The eleventh-century chronicler Lambert of Aschaffenburg (also known as Lambert of Hersefeld) recounts a genealogy of ownership for the so-called Sword of Attila. While Salomon’s father Andrew I had taken measures to secure his young son’s succession, Andrew’s brother Béla I (r. 1060–1063) had taken the throne, causing Anastasia, Salomon, and Salomon’s wife Judith to seek protection from Ernst, margrave of Austria (r. 1055–1075).85 Since Otto of Nordheim, Duke of Bavaria, was so instrumental in seeking aid from the German emperor to restore King Salamon to the Hungarian throne, Salamon’s mother, Anastasia of Kiev, presented him with a certain sword as thanks in 1063.86 Lampert identified this as the sword of Attila the Hun described by the Greek historian Priscus.87 Otto of Bavaria then gave the sword to Dedus; after his death and his possessions divided up, Henry IV then gave the sword to Leopold of Merseburg who, in 1071, fell off his horse and was impaled upon his own sword.88 Eventually, the sword made its way to the Habsburg treasury and then into the Imperial Treasury in Vienna, where it took on its own history.89

85 Wertner, Az Árpádok családi története, 120; A. W. Leeper, History of Medieval Austria, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1941), 183. 86 Johann Pistorius, et al., Illustrium veterum scriptorum qui rerum a Germanis per multas aetas gestarum historias vel annales posteris reliquerunt, Vol. I (Frankfurt, 1613), 185; P.E. Schramm, “‘Atillas Schwert’, ein ungarischer Säbel des 9/10 Jahrhunderts, zum Kaiserschatz seit der Salischen Zeit gehörend”, in Herrschaftszeichen und Staatsymbolik: Beitr¨age zu ihrer Geschichte vom dritten bis zum sechzehnten Jahrhundert II (Stuttgart: Hiersemann, 1955), 489; Zsoldos, The Árpáds and Their Wives, 139. 87 Patrick J. Geary, Living with the Dead in the Middle Ages (Ithaca, NY and London: Cornell University Press, 1994), 63. 88 Pistorius, Illustrium Veterum Scriptorum, 185–186; Z. J. Kosztolnyik, The Dynastic Policy of the Árpáds, Géza I to Emery (1074-1204) (Boulder: East European Monographs, 2006), 12. 89 Talia Zajac, “Remembrance and Erasure of Objects Belonging to Rus’ Princesses in Medieval Western Sources: The Cases of Anastasia Iaroslavna’s ‘Saber of Charlemagne’

52

C. MIELKE

While some legends link this sword with Attila the Hun, other legends link it to Charlemagne. One legend says that Otto III found it in Charlemagne’s grave when he opened it in 1000; another suggests he used it against the Avars in 796 CE, while a third suggestion was that it was a gift from Harun al Rashid (r. 786–809), the Abbasid Caliph.90 Based on similar typologies, the sword likely dates to the second half of the ninth century or first half of the tenth century; its most likely provenience is from the steppes.91 Schramm believed there was no possibility the sword in Vienna was the sword Anastasia passed on to Otto of Bavaria.92 Whether or not this was the sword that Anastasia gave, it shows that the queen understood the power behind giving a relic with such a history to a valuable ally who helped her son regain his position of power. Burial at Admont Abbey? After the death of Andrew I in 1060, Anastasia’s life took several different twists and turns. As aforementioned, in 1060 she fled the country to seek support for her son Salomon after his uncle Béla I claimed the throne. Salomon and his wife Judith were kept at the Imperial court in Germany while the then Empress-regent Agnes of Poitou (d. 1077) provided Anastasia with accommodation in Austria.93 During the years her son Salomon regained the Hungarian throne (1063–1074), Anastasia was living in Hungary again. The fourteenth-century Hungarian Illuminated Chronicle relates how in 1074, after Salomon’s rivals for the throne, Géza and Ladislas (kings from 1074–1077 and 1077–1095, respectively), defeated him, Salamon fled to his mother who was staying in Moson. Anastasia chastised her son for never seeking her advice and

and Anna Iaroslavna’s Red Gem,” in Moving Women Moving Objects (400-1500), ed. Tracy Chapman Hamilton and Mariah Proctor-Tiffany (Leiden: Brill, 2019), 42–46. 90 David Alexander, “Swords and Sabers During the Early Islamic Period,” Gladius XXI (2001): 212. 91 Hermann Fillitz, Kunsthistorisches Museum Schatzkammer (The Crown Jewels and

the Ecclesiastical Treasure Chamber) (Vienna: Kunsthistorisches Museum, 1963), 38; Luc Duerloo, “Sabre d’Attila ou de Charlemagne (copie),” in Hungaria regia (1000-1800): Fastes et défis (Brussels: Brepols, 1999), 113. 92 Geary, Living with the Dead in the Middle Ages, 63; Schramm, “Attilas Schwert,”

489. 93 Kosztolnyik, Hungary Under the Early Arp ´ ads, ´ 376.

2

THE BEGINNINGS OF THE HUNGARIAN ‘QUEENDOM’ (C. 1000–1090)

53

this so enraged Salomon that he raised his hand against her; he was only stopped because his wife Judith intervened.94 The Chronicle continues that Anastasia and Judith eventually retired to the Abbey of Admont in Styria where they were buried.95 There are several issues related to Anastasia’s possible burial in Admont. The first is that while the Abbey of Admont was founded in 1074—the year she and her son and daughter-in-law had to flee Hungary—Admont did not have a nunnery until around 1116–1120.96 The date of Anastasia’s death is not known but was most likely sometime in the 1090s.97 Since Anastasia died several decades before there was a community of religious women, it is unlikely that she spent her final years at Admont as a nun. Kosztolnyik hints that Anastasia married Count Potho, a German noble who supported Salomon’s claim.98 The earliest association of the family of Andrew I and Salomon comes from the thirteenth-century Gesta Hungarorum of Simon of Kéza,99 though there is the possibility that certain names and places had been confused in this instance, particularly as it relates to Judith of Swabia. While the specifics of Anastasia’s death and burial may never be known, it nonetheless fits in with the pattern of eleventh-century queens who leave Hungary as widows because of either rival factions taking power or civil unrest. Aside from the gift of “Attila’s Sword,” Anastasia’s interaction with objects and space is more ephemeral. Yet reading between the lines, shows that she was a queen who understood the nature of diplomatic gifts. The Greek rite monastic foundations during Andrew’s reign might also 94 Dercsényi, ed., The Hungarian Illuminated Chronicle, 124–125. 95 Ibid., 129. 96 Jonathan R. Lyon, “The Letters of Princess Sophia of Hungary, a Nun at Admont,” in Writing Medieval Women’s Lives, ed. Charlotte Newman Goldy and Amy Livingstone (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2012), 58; Rodney Thomson, “Scribes and Scriptoria,” in The European Book in the Twelfth Century, ed. Erik Kwakkel and Rodney Thomson (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2018), 76. 97 Wertner, Az Arp ´ adok ´ csaladi ´ T¨ort´enete, 121; Bak, “Roles and Functions of Queens ´ adian and Angevin Hungary,” 23; Zsoldos, The Árpáds and Their Wives, 191. in Arp´ 98 There are several problems with this line of enquiry, since Kosztolnyik’s primary sources for this claim are silent and the Hungarian Illuminated Chronicle offers contradictory stories on Count Potho’s fate. Dercsényi, ed., The Hungarian Illuminated Chronicle, ´ ads, 116, 125; Kosztolnyik, Hungary Under the Early Arp ´ 361–362. 99 “In fear of his brothers, Solomon moved his household to Styria and left them in the monastery at Admont.” Simon of Kéza, Gesta Hungarorum, 135.

54

C. MIELKE

be attributed to Anastasia’s influence. While the details of her burial are unknown, it seems likely that in her widowhood she forged her own path rather than returning to her homeland.

Judith of Swabia Following a war between Germany and the Hungarians, in June of 1058 Andrew I made overtures to the Imperial court for a marriage alliance with his son, Salomon. Agnes of Poitou, the Empress-Regent, accepted the proposal and Salomon was engaged to Judith, her daughter by Emperor Henry III.100 While Salomon was crowned as junior king in 1058 and his engagement with Judith was announced, the pair was not married until 1063, after Salomon had been restored to the throne with German aid.101 Little is known about her time as Hungarian queen, and the chroniclers do not mention her until 1074, when she restrained Salomon from hitting his mother after he was defeated by his cousin (Géza I, r. 1074–1077). Judith likely had a hand in certain coinage policies during Salomon’s reign.102 Salomon and Judith separated while the deposed king was looking for military aid. In 1083, Salomon tried to visit Judith at her residence in Regensburg, but she refused to see him.103 After Salomon died in 1087, Judith remarried a widower, Władysław I Herman, Duke of Poland (r. 1079–1102); the two of them had three

100 Simon of Kéza states that Judith was engaged to Prince Philip, son of Henry I

´ adok of France. Wertner, Az Arp ´ csaladi ´ T¨ort´enete, 130; Mechthild Black, “Die Töchter Kaiser Heinrichs III und der Kaiserin Agnes,” Vinculum Societatis: Joachim Wollasch zum 60 Geburtstag, ed. Franz Neiske, et al. (Sigmaringendorf: Glock and Lutz, 1991), 37– 40; Simon of Kéza, László Veszprémy, and Frank Schaer, Gesta Hungarorum (Budapest: Central European University Press, 1999), 127–129. 101 The chronicles justify Salomon’s coronation as a five-year old on the excuse that the Imperial court had dictated that no princess could wed an uncrowned king. Dercsényi, ed., The Hungarian Illuminated Chronicle, 115; Black, “Die Töchter Kaiser Heinrichs III und der Kaiserin Agnes,” 39; Zsoldos, The Árpáds and Their Wives, 191; Kosztolnyik, ´ ads, Hungary Under the Early Arp ´ 363. 102 Dercsényi, ed., The Hungarian Illuminated Chronicle, 125; Zsoldos, The Árpáds and Their Wives, 139, 141. 103 Kosztolnyik, Hungary Under the Early Arp ´ ads, ´ 385.

2

THE BEGINNINGS OF THE HUNGARIAN ‘QUEENDOM’ (C. 1000–1090)

55

daughters together.104 Like her mother-in-law Anastasia, it was thought that Judith was buried at Admont Abbey, though this is even less likely as the evidence overwhelmingly suggests that she died in Poland sometime between 1092 and 1102.105 As queen of Hungary and duchess of Poland, Judith’s influence on the creation, transmission, and deposition of items can be seen primarily in her literary patronage and the possibility of her bringing the Monomachos crown to Hungary. Letter from Pope Gregory VII and the Liber Evangelorum A letter Pope Gregory VII wrote to Judith of Swabia reveals a few noteworthy things. Written on January 10, 1075, this letter is a response to one Judith had written to the Pope requesting him to write to her mother about her situation considering her husband’s cousin Géza had taken the throne and she was no longer queen. The Pope says that her mother has been notified of her current distress and that he will advise and persuade the Empress to act on Judith’s behalf. He spends most of the letter of consolation cautioning her on her behavior, reminding her that even in her current state she is meant to keep imperial dignity.106 While the fact that Judith sent a letter to the pope indicates that she was familiar with the basics of such diplomatic activities, it also hints at the possibility that she was involved in other literary activities. In Cracow, the cathedral chapter libraries contain several German books from the late eleventh century. The most likely explanation for their presence there is that Judith of Swabia brought them over when she married Władysław I Hermann.107 It is possible that a similar 104 Black, “Die Töchter Kaiser Heinrichs III und der Kaiserin Agnes,” 39, 57; Gallus Anonymous, Gesta Principum Polonorum, 117. 105 She died on March 14 according to the Necrologium Weltenburgense. Wertner, Az ´ adok Arp ´ csaladi ´ t¨ort´enete, 134; Black, “Die Töchter Kaiser Heinrichs III und der Kaiserin Agnes,” 37, 57; Hankó, A magyar királysírok sorsa, 132; Zsoldos, The Árpáds and Their Wives, 191; Jonathan R. Lyon, “The Letters of Princess Sophia of Hungary, a Nun at Admont,” in Writing Medieval Women’s Lives, ed. Charlotte Newman Goldy and Amy Livingstone (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2012), 58. 106 H. E. J. Cowdrey, The Register of Pope Gregory VII 1073-1085: An English Translation (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002), 133–134. 107 Oscar Halecki, W. F. Reddaway, J. H. Benson, The Cambridge History of Poland, from the origins to Sobieski (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1950), 71.

56

C. MIELKE

phenomenon took place in her first marriage. One of these books might have been the Liber Evangelorum or St. Emmeram’s Gospel Book.108 The late eleventh century Pontificale Romano-Germanicum contains three prayers (the benedictio principis ) showing elements taken over from the Anglo-Saxon coronation ordo. Since these elements were likely used in the coronation liturgy of the Hungarian kings, it has been proposed that Judith was a mediating figure in establishing this tradition at the court of Władysław I.109 The Monomachos Crown The so-called Monomachos crown is a set of mid-eleventh century Byzantine plates found in Ivánka pri Nitre, Slovakia (in Hungarian, Nyitra-Ivánka) in 1860.110 The seven plaques depict Constantine IX (r. 1042–1055), Empress Zoe (r. 1028–1050), and Empress Theodora (r. 1042–1056), as well as two dancing girls, followed by two allegorical figures depicting Humility and Truth; these figures date this object to 1042–1050.111 While there are many explanations for this crown’s

108 Archives of the Cracow Cathedral Chapter, MS 208. Jerzy Strzelzcik, “EmmeramerEvangeliar,” in Europas Mitte um 1000, Vol. 3, Katalog ed. Alfried Wieczorek and HansMartin Hinz (Stuttgart: Theiss, 2000), 526. 109 József Laszlovszky, “Angolszász koronázási Ordo Magyarországon” [Anglo-Saxon Coronation Ordo in Hungary], in Angol-Magyar Kapcsolatok a középkorban, ed. Attila Bárány, József Laszlovszky and Zsuzsanna Papp, I (Máriabesny˝ o: Attraktor, 2008), 91– 113; Zbigniew Dalewski, “Vivat Princeps in Eternum: Sacrality of Ducal Power in Poland in the Earlier Middle Ages,” in Monotheistic Kingship: The Medieval Variants, ed. Aziz Al-Azmeh and János M. Bak (Budapest: CEU Medievalia, 2004), 217–219, 223–224. 110 Magda Bárány-Oberschall, Konstantinos Monomachos császár koronája—The Crown of the Emperor Constantine Monomachos (Budapest: Magyar Történeti Múzeum, 1937), 49; Etele Kiss, “The State of Research on the Monomachos Crown and Some Further Thoughts,” in Perceptions of Byzantium and Its Neighbors (843-1261), ed. Olenka Z. Pevny (New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art, 2001), 62–64. 111 Bárány-Oberschall, Konstantinos Monomachos császár koronája, 56, 94–95; Nicolas Oikonomides, “La Couronne dite de Constantin Monomaque,” Travaux et Mémoires, Centre de Recherche d’Histoire et Civilisation de Byzance 12 (1994), 246–262; Kiss, “The State of Research on the Monomachos Crown,” 65–76.

2

THE BEGINNINGS OF THE HUNGARIAN ‘QUEENDOM’ (C. 1000–1090)

57

appearance in Hungary and how it was originally worn,112 the Monomachos crown was likely an armilla made for the court eunuch Stephen Pergamenos in 1043.113 It was most likely deposited in Hungary toward the end of the eleventh century.114 While it is difficult to tell if this crown was ever worn by a queen, Kiss suggests that it came into the possession of the kings of Hungary either through Andrew I or his daughter-in-law, Judith of Swabia.115 Constantine IX gave several such gifts to Judith’s father Henry III in 1049. Since Ivánka pri Nitre lies between Nitra (Nyitra) and Komárno (Komárom), the armilla could have been buried by an army approaching from the west. The camp here was protected by the cover of the forest, bypassing certain strongholds. Had troops from Komárno or Nitra been alerted, however, this crown could have been buried during retreat with the intention of recovering it later. The unsuccessful siege of Nitra by Salomon and Emperor Henry IV against Géza I in 1074 is a possible point in time for this deposition.116 If this is the case, there seems to be a definite link between the Monomachos crown and Salomon’s army; Judith and Salomon’s mother Anastasia were in Moson during this time.117

112 The crown had a circumference of just 32 cm while the circumference for an average woman’s head is somewhere around 54 cm. Bárány-Oberschall, Konstantinos Monomachos császár koronája, 81; Kiss, “The State of Research on the Monomachos Crown,” 65; Timothy Dawson, “The Monomachos Crown: Towards a Resolution,” BYZANTINA ΣYMMEIKTA 19 (2009): 184–186. 113 Dawson, “The Monomachos Crown,” 187–190. 114 Bárány-Oberschall, Konstantinos Monomachos császár koronája, 54–56; Kiss, “The

State of Research on the Monomachos Crown,” 64. 115 A third possibility is that the crown came to Hungary through Anastasia of Kiev, wife of Andrew I. Vajay, “Még egy királynénk…? I. Endre els˝ o felesége” [Still One More Queen…? The First Wife of Andrew I], Turul 72 (1999), 18; Wertner, Az Árpádok családi története, 120; Kosztolnyik, Hungary Under the Early Árpáds, 890s-1063, 344; Długosz, The Annals of Jan Długosz, 39. 116 Kiss, “The State of Research on the Monomachos Crown,” 64–65. 117 Dercsényi, ed., The Hungarian Illuminated Chronicle, 124–125; Wertner, Az

Árpádok családi története, 120.

58

C. MIELKE

Synadene Synadenos Géza I (r. 1074–1077) defeated his cousin Salomon (r. 1063–1074) in 1074 and as a result he became king of Hungary. While it is likely that he had been married to Sophia of Looz in 1062, she was probably dead by 1065.118 When Géza ascended to the Hungarian throne, he sought a bride from the Byzantine Empire; he later married the niece of Nikephoros Botaneiates; since she was the daughter of Theodolus Synadenos, she is usually called Synadene, since her first name is not known. Botaneiates would eventually become Emperor Nikephoros III (r. 1078–1081) one year after the death of Géza I. Synadene was queen for only three years, and there is little known about her action at court. The material evidence offers two interesting insights into her activities and role as queen. In the first case, she likely had some hand in the lower part of the holy crown of Hungary, and in the second there is the matter of her death and burial back in Byzantium. The “Corona Graeca” of the Holy Crown of Hungary Nowadays, it is understood that the holy crown of Hungary was never worn by Saint Stephen and that the lower and upper parts have two different proveniences.119 Bárány-Oberschall and Deér argued that the lower part of the Holy Crown (the “corona graeca”) was originally a woman’s crown that came to Hungary as a gift from the Byzantine court upon the marriage of Géza I and Synadene.120 The hypothesis that it is a woman’s crown stems from its larger size as well as the pinnacles on the top of the crown that only appear on the crowns of Byzantine women. Hilsdale also points out that the images of the emperors were worn by

118 Tuzson states that they were married around 1070. Szabolcs de Vajay, “Byzantinische Prinzessinnen in Ungarn,” 16–17; Bak “Roles and Functions of Queens in ´ adian and Angevin Hungary,” 23; John Tuzson, István II , 43. Arp´ 119 The enamels on the lower part are in Greek while those on the upper part are in Latin. Endre Tóth, “A magyar koronázási jelvényekr˝ ol” [About the Hungarian Coronation Insignia], in Koronák, koronázási jelvények: Crowns, Coronation Insignia, ed. Lívia Bende and Gábor L˝ orinczy (Ópusztaszer: Nemzeti Történeti Emlékpark, 2001), 41; Bak, “Holy Lance, Holy Crown, Holy Dexter,” 59. 120 Magda Bárány-Oberschall, Die Sankt Stephans-Krone und die Insigniien des Königreichs Ungarn (Vienna: Herold, 1961), 43–44, 63–76; Josef Deér, Die Heilige Krone Ungarns (Vienna: Hermann Böhlaus, 1966), 62, 79.

2

THE BEGINNINGS OF THE HUNGARIAN ‘QUEENDOM’ (C. 1000–1090)

59

other Byzantine women as a means of suggesting allegiance.121 This has not stopped critics from attempting to argue against this tradition, even going so far as to suggest that the (in their opinion male) crown was worn by St. Stephen himself.122 Andrew III (r. 1290–1301) is the first king who associated the Holy Crown of Hungary with St. Stephen. He specifically requested that crown, though other sources speak of regalia connected to St. Stephen in the 1240s (Fig. 2.7).123 Ultimately, in spite of efforts to disconnect the lower part of the crown from Synadene, none of the arguments made against it thus far have been particularly convincing; this crown was sent with Synadene as a diplomatic gift.124 Indeed, while she returned to Byzantium, she left the crown behind in Hungary.125 During the time she returned to Byzantium, her uncle became Byzantine Emperor as Nikephoros III. As the enamels are not the best quality, it could be that Synadene neither needed the crown nor cared to keep it. The bands with the Latin enamels were added later, either during the time of Béla III (r. 1173–1196) or sometime after the death his grandson, Béla IV (r. 1235–1270).126 In bringing this crown to Hungary, Synadene was bringing with her a dazzling artifact reflecting the splendor of the Byzantine Empire that also carries its own obvious 121 The images of secular rulers on this crown are Michael VII Doukas, Constantine Doukas, and Géza I of Hungary. Cecily Hilsdale, “The Social Life of the Byzantine Gift: The Royal Crown of Hungary Re-invented,” Art History 31/5 (2008): 614–615, 617–618. 122 These claims allege that the pinnacles and some enamels were added at different times. Vajay, “Corona Regia,” 47–48, 56. 123 Erik Fügedi, “Coronation in Medieval Hungary,” Studies in Medieval and Renaissance History III (1980): 179; János M. Bak, “Holy Lance, Holy Crown, Holy Dexter: Sanctity of Insignia in Medieval East Central Europe,” in Studying Medieval Rulers and Their Subjects: Central Europe and Beyond, ed. Balázs Nagy and Gábor Klaniczay (Burlington: Ashgate, 2010), 60. 124 Bak, “Holy Lance, Holy Crown, Holy Dexter,” 58. 125 Hilsdale, “The Social Life of the Byzantine Gift,” 621–622. 126 The diameter of the corona graeca of Synadene and the funeral crown of Béla III are similar (20.9 cm for the former, 20.7–21.2 cm for the latter). Béla Czobor, “III. Béla és hitvese halotti ékszerei” [The Funerary Jewels of Béla III and His Wife], in III. Béla magyar király emlékezete, ed. Gyula Forster (Budapest: V. Hornyánszky, 1900), 208; Endre Tóth, “A magyar koronázási jelvényekr˝ ol” [About the Hungarian coronation insignia] in Koronák, koronázási jelvények: Crowns, Coronation Insignia, ed. Lívia Bende and Gábor L˝ orinczy (Ópusztaszer: Nemzeti Történeti Emlékpark, 2001), 39; Bak, “Holy Lance, Holy Crown, Holy Dexter,” 59–60.

60

C. MIELKE

Fig. 2.7 The Holy Crown of Hungary, eleventh-century to twelfth century

2

THE BEGINNINGS OF THE HUNGARIAN ‘QUEENDOM’ (C. 1000–1090)

61

message about the relationship between the Greeks and the Hungarians. While Synadene and the other eleventh-century queens brought other items with them as part of their marital property, the corona graeca remains an exceptional example of survival. Return to Byzantium: Burial at the Monastery of St. Mary Peribleptos? Shortly after the death of Géza I in 1077, Synadene returned to Byzantium in the month of October, either in 1079 or 1080. Nothing is known of her fate after that.127 This is all the more remarkable considering that she likely left her son, Prince Álmos, at the Hungarian court.128 When Synadene returned to Constantinople, her uncle was still Emperor and her brother, Nikephoros Synadenos was his designated heir129 ; returning to Byzantium would have been the most advantageous action for the recently widowed queen. However, the high position of Synadene’s family did not last long. In the spring of 1081, Nikephoros III abdicated in favor of Alexios I Komnenos, and her brother (the former designated heir) died in October of the same year fighting against Roger Guiscard of Apulia.130 The most likely explanation for Synadene’s eventual fate is that she ended her final days at a convent. This was the usual pattern for Byzantine imperial women in the eleventh century who had outlived their usefulness.131 This was also the case for Nikephoros III and his wife, Maria of Alania who spent her final years in a convent on the Prince’s Islands,132 127 Makk, The Arp ´ ads ´ and the Comneni, 125, n. 1; Kerbl, “Byzantinische Prinzessinnen in Ungarn,” 55. 128 Géza I had two sons, Coloman ‘the Book-Lover’ (r. 1095–1116) and Prince Álmos, though it is not exactly clear who their mother was. The most likely explanation based on the discrepancy in ages between the two is that Coloman was the son of Géza’s first wife, Sophia of Looz, while Álmos was the son of Synadene. Font, Koloman the Learned, King of Hungary, 13; Tuzson, Istvan ´ II , 44. 129 Raimund Kerbl, “Byzantinische Prinzessinnen in Ungarn,” 25. 130 John Julius Norwich, A Short History of Byzantium (New York: Vintage Books,

1997), 244–248. 131 In particular the cases of Eudokia Makrembolitissa and Anna Dalassene, mother of Alexios I. Lynda Garland, Byzantine Empresses: Women and Power in Byzantium, AD 527 -1204 (London and New York: Routledge, 1999), 177, 192. 132 Garland, Byzantine Empresses, 186.

62

C. MIELKE

but Nikephoros III retired to the monastery of St. Mary Peribleptos in Constantinople before his death.133 St. Mary Peribleptos allowed both male and female members, so it is possible Synadene retired there and eventually was buried there. While little can be known for sure, given what little evidence is actually known about this family, it is most likely that in returning to Constantinople, Synadene shared the fate of her closest family.

Adelaide of Rheinfelden In many respects, Adelaide of Rheinfelden represents the ultimate reason why an archaeological approach to queenship is necessary. The wife of St. Ladislas I (r. 1077–1095), one of the most important Hungarian medieval saints, she is not only absent from any of the contemporary chronicles, but even from the hagiography of St. Ladislas himself.134 Wertner mistakenly identified her father as Berthold of Zähringen while Macartney was only aware of her name from an inscription.135 In reality, Adelaide was the daughter of Rudolf of Rheinfelden, the Duke of Swabia and the German anti-king (r. 1077–1080).136 Adelaide of Rheinfelden was likely born around 1061; she married St. Ladislas in 1078.137 Ladislas and Adelaide had at least one daughter who was born with the name Piroska (d. 1134), but who would become Empress of Byzantium as Irene, wife of John II

133 Ken Dark, “The Byzantine Church and Monastery of St Mary Peribleptos in Istanbul,” in The Burlington Magazine 141/1160 (November, 1999): 656. 134 Imre Szentpétery, ed. “Legenda Ladislai,” Scriptores Rerum Hungaricarum ii (Budapest, 1938), 507–527. 135 Wertner, Az Arp ´ adok ´ csaladi ´ T¨ort´enete, 203; Carlisle A. Macartney, The Medieval Hungarian Historians (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1953), 179, 182. 136 Adelaide’s mother was the sister to Bertha of Savoy, wife of Emperor Henry IV. Ian S. Robinson, Henry IV of Germany, 1056-1106 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), 34. 137 Ladislas also was married before Adelaide, but nothing is known about her. Wertner, ´ adok Az Arp ´ csaladi ´ T¨ort´enete, 203; Zsoldos, The Árpáds and Their Wives, 192–193.

2

THE BEGINNINGS OF THE HUNGARIAN ‘QUEENDOM’ (C. 1000–1090)

63

Komnenos (r. 1118–1143).138 Adelaide of Rheinfelden died sometime in May 1090.139 While it has been easier for earlier scholars to dismiss Adelaide as a mere cipher, there are plenty of instances that show the queen’s involvement in court matters. Charters from the eleventh and thirteenth centuries mention a donation that Adelaide made to the bishopric of Veszprém, though the earliest charter that mentions it seems to be a forgery.140 Adelaide of Rheinfelden also wrote to Pope Gregory VII, like her predecessor Judith of Swabia. This letter was written in 1081, just after the death of her father. Gregory VII exhorts the queen to follow the example of the Virgin Mary, to ensure that her husband follows the tenets of the Church, and to care for those in need.141 Ladislas had married Adelaide because her family was allied with the Pope against the Emperor; in essence, the Pope is telling the queen that even though her father had died and her own status was likely threatened by her family’s defeat, that she should nonetheless encourage the king’s obedience to the papacy. This letter ascribed personal influence and power to the queen in a manner that has not been examined all that closely. Furthering the case for Adelaide exercising her power and agency are two elements of material culture: the Adelaide Cross and the question of her burial at Veszprém Cathedral.

138 Wertner, Az Arp ´ adok ´ csaladi ´ T¨ort´enete, 190–191, 210–214; Gyula Moravcsik, Szent László leánya és a bizánci Pantokrator-Monostor [The Daughter of Saint Ladislas and the Byzantine Pantokrator Monastery] (Budapest and Constantinople, 1923), 7–8; Christopher Mielke, “The Many faces of Eirene-Piroska in the Visual and Material Culture,” in Piroska and the Pantokrator: Dynastic Memory, Healing and Salvation in Komnenian Constantinople, ed. Marianne Sághy and Robert Ousterhout (Budapest: Central European University Press, 2019), 153–170. 139 The Liber constructionis says 3 May 1090 while the Bertholdi Chronicon states that she died the same month as her brother Berthold. “Soror quoque praefati ducis, regina Ungarorum, eodem mense obit.” G. H. Pertz, ed., “Bertholdi Chronicon,” Monumenta Germaniae historica, Scriptores, Vol. 5 (Hanover, 1854), 450; Franz Josef Mone, “Liber constructionis monasterii ad S. Blasium,” in Quellensammlung der badischen landesgeschichte, Vol. 4 (Karlsruhe: G. Macklot, 1867), 136. 140 The charter states that the queen donated the village of Merenye as well as several plots of arable land and forests to Veszprém. A charter of Ladislas I from 1082 mentioning this transaction has been proven to be a forgery, but a later charter of Imre from 1203 confirming this donation seems to be genuine. Szentpétery and Zsoldos, Az Árpád-házi hercegek, hercegn˝ok és királynék okleveleinek, 184. 141 Cowdrey, The Register of Pope Gregory VII 1073-1085: An English Translation, 396.

64

C. MIELKE

The Adelaide Cross After Adelaide’s mother (Adelaide of Savoy) died in 1079, her daughter and namesake donated a large reliquary cross along with 70 gold pieces to the Abbey of St. Blaise in the Black Forest. The cross was a memorial for her mother, though the Abbey was also the burial place for Adelaide’s brothers, Berthold and Otto.142 The Adelaide Cross surpasses its contemporaries in height and was originally studded with 170 gemstones, including 38 reused antique gems.143 This reliquary has a history as rich as the gemstones adorning it, and the only way to understand Adelaide’s agency behind its creation is to understand the history of the object itself (Fig. 2.8). Two primary sources detail the history of the Adelaide Cross: the twelfth-century Liber constructionis monasterii ad St. Blasiem and the sixteenth-century Liber Originum. A source from the eighteenth century even documents all but one of the antique gemstones present on the Cross.144 Unfortunately, this cross was left unfinished (possibly due to the queen’s death in 1090) and it was not until much later that Abbot Gunther (d. 1170) completed the Cross; his image is the one that appears as the founder on the back of it, not Adelaide’s.145 The importance of this object is attested to in the fact two copies were later made of it after it had fallen into disrepair.146 Since the history of this cross is recorded elsewhere and the only inscriptions on the back were done under the leadership of Abbot Gunther, it initially seems that Adelaide’s presence and agency on this 142 Mone, “Liber constructionis,” ch. 18, 94; Ginhart, “Reliquienkreuz der Königin Adelheid,” 220. 143 At present, there are only 147 stones that survive, including 24 antique gems

and 3 Egyptian scarabs. Gerbert, Historia Nigrae Silvae I, 386–387; Karl Ginhart, “Reliquienkreuz der Königin Adelheid,” in Die Kunstdenkmäler des Benediktinerstiftes St. Paul im Lavanttal und seiner Filialkirchen, ed. Karl Ginhart et al. (Vienna: Schroll, 1969), 217. 144 Franz Josef Mone, “Liber constructionis monasterii ad S. Blasium,” in Quellensammlung der badischen landesgeschichte, Vol. 4 (Karlsruhe: G. Macklot, 1867), 94–95, 136; Martin Gerbert, Historia Nigrae Silvae ordinis Sancti Benedicti Coloniae, Vol. I (St. Blasien: Typis San Blasianis, 1783), 385–387. 145 Mone, Liber constructionis, 94–95; Fillitz, “Das Adelheid-Kreuz aus St. Blasien,” 665–668. 146 One copy was made in 1688, the other in 1810. Fillitz, “Das Adelheid-Kreuz aus St. Blasien,” 668–669; Ginhart, “Reliquienkreuz der Königin Adelheid,” 220.

2

THE BEGINNINGS OF THE HUNGARIAN ‘QUEENDOM’ (C. 1000–1090)

65

Fig. 2.8 The Adelaide Cross, front, ca. 1080s (Source Stift Sankt Paul am Lavanttal. © Foto Stift St. Paul, Gerfried Sitar)

66

C. MIELKE

cross are minimal at best. However, examining the jewels on the cross shows a distinct pattern unique to this artifact. While it was popular to have some antique gemstones reused on contemporary reliquaries, none of them match the sheer number of ancient intaglios present on the Adelaide Cross.147 In some medieval cases, ancient gemstones were given a Christian theme,148 but this is not what happens here. On the Adelaide Cross, the figures of Jupiter, Apollo, Heracles, Mars, Pallas Athena, Venus, Victory, and even Domitian and his wife are all depicted in full Roman glory.149 Considering that this was a memorial monument for her mother, the explanation for so much pagan imagery on a Christian object is simple. Adelaide’s father, the anti-king Rudolf of Swabia, made a bid for the title of Holy Roman Emperor that was ultimately unsuccessful. By encoding an object with a primarily religious, pro anima purpose, Adelaide was not only making a statement about her own wealth and status as queen of Hungary, but she was also proclaiming her natal family’s “Roman-ness” at a site that would function in some capacity as a family mausoleum for her mother and her brothers.150 In this case, Adelaide’s agency in creating this object is clear, as she more or less told a family history that is not quite reflected in the reality of historical events. If we think about the possible reasons the queen wrote to the pope shortly after her father’s death, this would confirm her interest in ties to Rome. The Reliquary Cross of Queen Adelaide echoes the Gisela Cross in many ways. Both were memorials to a dearly departed mother in the queen’s homeland, and both were clearly meant to display the wealth and power of the young queen. The main difference between the two is the much larger size of the later Cross and the preponderance of antique gemstones on the later one as well. The similarities between the

147 De Winter, The Sacral Treasure of the Guelphs, 8; Calkins, Monuments of Medieval Art, 115. 148 For example, a triple-mask with a medieval identification of it as the Holy Trinity. C. W. King, Antique Gems: Their Origin, Uses, and Value (London: John Murray, 1860), 301. 149 Christopher Mielke, “Lifestyles of the Rich and (in?)Animate: Object Biography and the Reliquary Cross of Queen Adelaide of Hungary,” in Queenship, Gendered, and Reputation in the Medieval and Early Modern West, 1060-1600, ed. Lisa Benz St. John and Zita Rohr (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2016), 25–27; Gerbert, Historia Nigrae Silvae, 385–387. 150 Mielke, “Lifestyles of the Rich and (in?)Animate,” 6–11, 16–18.

2

THE BEGINNINGS OF THE HUNGARIAN ‘QUEENDOM’ (C. 1000–1090)

67

Gisela Cross and the Adelaide Cross go in tandem with other indications of Adelaide recalling the memory of Hungary’s first queen. Adelaide supported the Cathedral of Veszprém (Queen Gisela’s foundation), and it is possible that Adelaide chose the cathedral as her burial site. With regard to the reliquaries both queens commissioned, the Adelaide Cross likely recalled the Gisela Cross, but in a manner that was meant to surpass it. Funerary Monuments at Veszprém Both of Adelaide of Rheinfelden’s parents received rich funerary monuments. In addition to the Reliquary Cross meant to honor her mother, her father Rudolf was honored with a full-scale bronze tomb effigy on his death in 1080. This was the first of its kind in Europe.151 While nothing is known about the appearance of Adelaide’s gravestone in the eleventh century, gravestones of noblewomen in the later eleventh century tended to be simple in appearance. Contemporaneous queens in France and England were buried under simple black marble slabs with inscriptions.152 It is possible Adelaide of Rheinfelden had a similar type of monument. The earliest attestation to Adelaide’s burial at the Cathedral of Veszprém comes from the fifteenth-century chronicle of Antonius Bonfinius, who notes an inscription reading “Ladislai regis consortum hic ossa quiescunt.”153 A monument was created around 1510 with this information meant to honor the memory of both Gisela and Adelaide at the Cathedral. However, it never left the quarry in Makranc (now Mokrance, Slovakia).154 The text reads “Dedicated to the best and greatest God. 151 Ian Robinson, Henry IV of Germany 1056-1106 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), 204. 152 Matilda of Flanders (d. 1083), Queen of England, and Bertrade de Montfort (d. 1118), Queen of France, were buried in this manner. Bertrade’s tombstone had copper writing on the surface. Nolan, Queens in Stone and Silver, 39–41. 153 The plural is used as evidence that Ladislas was married before Adelaide. Kralovanszky words the inscription in Bonfinius differently, claiming that it reads “Ladislai sanctissimorum Pannoniae regum consortium hic ossa quiescent.” Antonius de Bonfinius, Rerum Ungaricarum Decades (Lipsiae: Teubner, 1936), Decas II, Liber IV, 91; Kralov´ansky, “The Settlement History of Veszpr´em and Sz´ekesfeh´erv´ar in the Middle Ages,” 57; Zsoldos, The Árpáds and Their Wives, 193. 154 Uzsoki, “Die Echtheit des Grabes der ungarischen Königin Gisela in Passau,” 14– 15; Árpád Mikó, “D. O. M. All’antica feliratok és a reneszánsz stílus a Jagelló-kori

68

C. MIELKE

To the founder of this holy church, Gisela and Adelaide, blessed wives of Stephen and Ladislaus, the kings of Pannonia, the excellent father, Lord Peter, titular bishop of St. Cyriacus, cardinal priest of the Roman Church, Riegynus, bishop of Veszprém. For the sake of memory and veneration.”155 This memorial stone was commissioned by Pietro Isvalies, the Bishop of Veszprém (1503–1511). Mikó argues that this monument and the earlier one mentioned in Bonfinius shared a common source.156 He also points out the innovation that this monument not only has a script which is meant to recall antique writing, but that it also begins with the formula D(eo) OP(timo) MAX(imo) S(anctificatus est). The DM (Dis manibus) inscription was common for gravestones in the antique period, and this monument to Gisela and Adelaide imitated older formulas in a style that recalls earlier gravestones. While the original architectural connection this stone had with the cathedral will unfortunately remain unknown,157 it shows how important the connection of these eleventhcentury queens was to a sixteenth-century Bishop fashioning his own self-image. While the connection between the Hungarian queens and the city of Veszprém is difficult to quantify, this promotion of Gisela and Adelaide centuries after their death shows how important their legacy was. Adelaide of Rheinfelden actively pursued a policy imitating Queen Gisela. She possibly gave land to Gisela’s foundation, the Cathedral of Veszprém, and was likely buried there herself. She also commissioned a huge reliquary cross as a memorial for her mother. Furthermore, a letter Magyarországon,” in “Nem s˝ ulyed az emberiség!”: Album amicorum Szörényi László LX. születésnapjára, ed. József Jankovics (Budapest: MTA Irodalomtudományi Intézet, 2007), 1195–1198. 155 D(eo) OP(timo) MAX(imo S(anctifi catus est)

HVIVS SACRI TEMPLI CONDIT RICI GESLAE STEFANI ET OLAY THI LADISLAI SANCTOR(um) PANNO NIAEREGVM DIVIS CONIVGIBVS AMPLISS(imus) PATER D(omi)N(u)S PETRVS T(iT(ularis) SAN(c)TI CYRIACI S(anctae) R(omanae) E(cclesiae) P(res)B(ite)R CAR(dinalis) (R)IEGYNVS EP(iscopu)S VESPRIMIEN(sis) AP MEMORIAE VENER(ationi) Uzsoki, “Die Echtheit des Grabes der ungarischen Königin Gisela in Passau,” 14–15. 156 Mikó, “D. O. M. All’antica feliratok és a reneszánsz stílus a Jagelló-kori Magyarországon,” 1196. 157 Ibid., 1195–1198.

2

THE BEGINNINGS OF THE HUNGARIAN ‘QUEENDOM’ (C. 1000–1090)

69

from Gregory VII indicates that she initiated a correspondence with the papacy at a sensitive time for her natal family. This is all the more remarkable considering her relative obscurity in the written sources. Writing to the Pope and commissioning the Adelaide Cross both show her spreading her influence outside the kingdom. As a result of this, while she was relatively unknown in the nineteenth and twentieth-century historiography, her actions and her creation of material culture outside of Hungary have ensured that evidence of her own power has survived to the present day.

Conclusions Considering how so little from eleventh-century Hungary survives, it is amazing that there is a significant body of material and spatial evidence pointing to the queens exercising a significant degree of power and agency on their own. In many ways, Gisela of Bavaria set the precedent for behavior; she actively issued charters, made several donations to the Church, and was involved with monastic foundations. She also set a worrying precedent—namely that queens of Hungary would flee the country after the death of their husbands and find refuge in a cloister, such as appears to be the case with Tuta of Formbach. Other queens made their own marks on the century, usually as transmitters of property. Synadene and possibly Judith of Swabia brought Byzantine-style crowns to Hungary. Judith brought ecclesiastic books with her to Poland. Anastasia of Kiev used the Sword of Attila as a diplomatic gift in a time of crisis. Adelaide of Rheinfelden closes the century of powerful queens in Hungary. She recalled Gisela’s actions through the Adelaide Cross and her burial at Veszprém Cathedral. All of these queens in the eleventh century played some hand in establishing different material culture as a means of expressing their power. In this period, though, their power was often mediated through their husband in some manner. Gisela’s gifts of the Metz chasuble and the Hungarian Coronation mantle (in its original form) were jointly done with Stephen I. Anastasia’s monastic patronage and involvement with the Patak Forest happened through Andrew I rather than herself. Synadene’s crown which became the lower part of the Holy Crown of Hungary was a diplomatic gift left in her husband’s homeland which expressed Byzantium’s power hierarchy to the court of Géza I rather than expressing any individual message of her own. Since Adelaide of Rheinfelden’s correspondence with the Pope and the construction of the Adelaide Cross took

70

C. MIELKE

place independently of her husband, it explains a good deal of why she is so conspicuously absent in sources related to St. Ladislas I. It would only be nearly a century after her death that there would be any significant material and archaeological evidence for similarly powerful queens in Hungary.

CHAPTER 3

Stones and Bones and the Queens of the Twelfth Century (1097–1193)

After the death of Adelaide of Rheinfelden in 1090, there was over ninety years where the queens of Hungary left virtually no material trace. Of the seven queens included in this chapter, two of them essentially wielded de facto power in Hungary. Helen of Serbia (d. 1146) and her brother, the ban Belos, took charge of the administration during her husband’s reign while Euphrosyne of Kiev (d. 1193) did the same after the death of her husband in 1161. In spite of the fact that Helen (and her brother Belos) undoubtedly made many administrative decisions on behalf of her blind husband, and Euphrosyne held a similar role during the minority of her oldest son Stephen III, there are no objects that can be traced directly to them. A great part of this owes to the twelfth century being an intense period of dynastic struggle. After the death of Ladislas I in 1095, his nephew Coloman took over power. Wishing to secure the throne for his own son, he blinded his brother and nephew. As the genealogical chart in Fig. 3.1 illustrates, the succession for the throne in this period was hotly contested. Every single reign in the period from 1095 to 1173 was fraught with some sort of conflict—rival claimants to the throne, antikings, and pretenders, successors from collateral branches. There were certain successes in this period—King Coloman’s legal reforms and Géza II’s expansion of the borders comes to mind. But for the most part, this © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 C. Mielke, The Archaeology and Material Culture of Queenship in Medieval Hungary, 1000–1395, Queenship and Power, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-66511-1_3

71

72

C. MIELKE

Fig. 3.1 The Árpád dynasty in the twelfth century

unstable period left its mark in terms of an absence of artifacts directly related to the members of the royal family. For most of these women, the only material remnants of their lives come in the form of what is known of their burial arrangements. Even though this is incredibly little to go on, it offers a great deal of insight about the final days and religious sentiments of these queens. While in some cases their choice of final burial place was influenced by external factors, it nonetheless shows some choice and agency on their own part.

3

STONES AND BONES AND THE QUEENS …

73

Tied to the issue of burial place is the question of the queens’ involvement in building projects. Helen of Serbia and Euphrosyne of Kiev both seem to be involved with significant monastic foundations, indicating that while they created objects of some kind like their predecessors, a building project was something more lasting and perhaps even more of a priority during the twelfth century.

Felicia of Sicily The first wife of King Coloman “the Bookish” (r. 1095–1116) is still something of a mystery. In the literature of the nineteenth century she was known as “Busila,” the daughter of Roger I, Count of Sicily (r. 1071–1101).1 The problem with her name began when the fourteenth century Simon da Lentini was using a quote from the eleventh century Goffredo Malaterra and the later chronicler turns the word “puella” (i.e., “girl”) into “Busilla.” Holtzmann points to a Greek document listing the children of Roger I and makes note of a princess by the name of Elateria who is not mentioned again later; he equates this Elateria with the Hungarian queen “Busilla.”2 A Latinized version of Elateria would be the name “Felicia”, which is how most scholars refer to her today; Vajay notes that she shares this name with a contemporary Aragonese queen, Felicia of Roucy (d. 1123).3 Felicia of Sicily landed in Hungary at Biograd na Moru in May 1097 before making her way to Székesfehérvár, where she and Coloman were married outside under several tents.4 Since Coloman had been trained as a man of the cloth, there had been no reason for him to get married prior to his ascension to the Hungarian throne. In 1101, Felicia gave birth to

1 Wertner, Az Árpádok családi története, 219. 2 Goffredo Malaterra, Ernesto Pontieri, ed., De rebus gestis Rogerii Calabriae et Siciliae

comitis et Roberti Guiscardi Ducis fratis eius (Bologna: Zanichelli, 1928), 103; Gusztáv Wenzel, Codex diplomaticus Arpadianus Continuatus: Árpádkori új okmánytár, Vol. 11 (Budapest: Ferdinand Eggenberg, 1873), 34–35; Walther Holtzmann, “Maximilla regina, soror Rogerii regis,” Deutsches Archiv für Erforschung des Mittelalters 19 (1963): 157– 159. 3 Vajay, “Byzantinische Prinzessinnen in Ungarn,” 21. 4 Wertner, Az Árpádok családi története, 221; Z. J. Kosztolnyik, From Coloman the

Learned to Béla III (1095–1196) (Boulder: East European Monographs, 1987), 28.

74

C. MIELKE

twin boys, Stephen and Ladislas.5 While the exact date of her death is not certain, Felicia died at some point after the birth of her sons and before her husband’s second marriage to Euphemia of Kiev in 1112.6 The confusion over the queen’s name in the secondary literature does not end there. No material remains of Queen Felicia are identified beyond a shadow of a doubt at present; however, there is the matter of her place of burial. In the eighteenth century, Schier misread a quote from Bonfini regarding the burial of the queens at Veszprém, thinking that “Gesla” was a mistake for “Busila,” a name which refers to Felicia in the older literature.7 The only evidence that Felicia was buried at Veszprém comes from this misunderstanding, making it highly unlikely. However, in the nineteenth-century excavations of the royal basilica at Székesfehérvár, Henszlmann identified a double burial in the southeastern corner as that of Coloman and Felicia. His logic was predicated not only on the sandstone base and red marble top, but also from the question of how the historians perceived Coloman’s regulation against intramural burials at the time of this burial, even though he only prohibited malefactors from being buried on church property.8 In addition to the circumstantial evidence for Henszlmann arguing that this is the grave of Coloman and Felicia, Tóth proposed that two skeletons usually

5 The queen also had a daughter named Sophia whose son Saul was designated heir to Stephen II during his war with Byzantium. Dercsényi, ed., The Hungarian Illuminated ´ ads Chronicle, 132; Kosztolnyik, The Dynastic Policy of the Arp ´ Geza I to Emery, 108, 116; ´ ads Makk, The Arp ´ and the Comneni, 24. 6 Kosztolnyik says first 1108 then 1101 in a later publication, Font says 1110, and Tuzson says 1112. Kosztolnyik, From Coloman the Learned to Béla III (1095–1196), 33; ´ ads Kosztolnyik, The Dynastic Policy of the Arp ´ Geza I to Emery, 66, 86, n. 59; Márta Font, Koloman the Learned, King of Hungary (Szeged: Szegedi K¨oz´epkor´asz M˝ uhely, 2001), 79; John Tuzson, Istvan ´ II (1116–1131) A Chapter in Medieval Hungarian History (Boulder, East European Monographs, 2002), 79. 7 Schier, Reginae Hungariae primae stirpis, 88–89; Hankó, A magyar királysírok sorsa, 133. 8 “Si quis pro facinore commisso iniunctam penitentiam negligens ab episcopo excommunicates in eadem perversitate obierit, in cimiterio non sepeliatur, nec a presbiteris.” Henszlmann, A sz´ekes-feh´ervari ´ asat ´ asok ´ eredm´enye [The Excavation Results of Székesfehérvár] (Pest: Heckenast Guszt´av Bizom´anya, 1864), 204–205; Dezs˝ o Dercsényi, A székesfehérvári királyi bazilika [The Székesfehérvár Royal Basilica] (Budapest: M˝ uemlékek Országos Bizottsága, 1943), 5. János Bak, György Bónis, and James Ross Sweeney, The Laws of the Medieval Kingdom of Hungary, 1000–1301, Vol. I (Bakersfield, CA: Charles Schlacks, Jr., 1989), 62.

3

STONES AND BONES AND THE QUEENS …

75

ascribed to Béla III and Anna of Antioch could be that of Coloman and Felicia. He argues that the ring found buried with the queen imitates the style at the Sicilian court, thus indicating that the golden ring with the almandine stone featuring a winged siren playing a harp would be Felicia’s, not Anna’s.9 There are many issues with this argument since it ignores not only the wide range of mobility of artifacts in the twelfth century10 but also questions of original ownership; that is, even if the ring was originally Felicia’s, that does not necessarily mean that she was buried with it or that if the ring was passed on as an heirloom, it does not automatically identify the skeleton as hers. While the skeleton of a twelfthcentury man was found in one of the twelve tombs at Székesfehérvár, it is by no means conclusive that it was Coloman’s.11 If Felicia was buried in Székesfehérvár, it would show how King Coloman understood her importance as queen since she would have been the first member of the Árpád dynasty buried at the basilica since the death of St. Stephen. Coloman continued the work of his predecessor St. Ladislas I (r. 1077–1095) in promoting the cult of St. Stephen through not only naming his two sons after the two royal Árpádian saints, but also through sponsoring Hartvic’s Life of St. Stephen.12 This would fit in the pattern of Coloman’s known patronage as well as throwing new light onto the importance of the queen’s body as a tool of dynastic and religious propaganda.

9 Endre Tóth, “III. Béla vagy Kálmán? A székesfehérvári királysír azonosításáról” [Béla

III or Coloman? The Identification of the Royal Graves from Székesfehérvár], Folia Archaeologica LII (2005–2006): 154–155. 10 For instance, many Islamic artifacts were found in medieval Hungary, such as the ring of Béla III (or Coloman, as Tóth claims) and the Hungarian coronation scepter. Péter T. Nagy, “‘Islamic’ Artifacts in Hungary from the Reign of Béla III (1172–1196): Two Case Studies,” Annual of Medieval Studies at CEU 22 (2016): 50–53. 11 The skeleton was younger than Coloman, showing signs of extensive arthritis. Kinga Éry, Antónia Marcsik and Ferenc Szalai, “A földsírok csontvázleletei (II-IX. Csoport)” [Skeletal Findings of the Graves (Groups II–IX)], in A Székesfehérvári királyi bazilika embertani leletei 1848–2002, ed. Kinga Éry, et al. (Budapest: Balassi Kiadó, 2008), 88–90. 12 Macartney, The Medieval Hungarian Historians, 166; Klaniczay, Holy Rulers and Blessed Princesses, 176, 343.

76

C. MIELKE

Euphemia of Kiev When [Euphemia] was taken in the sin of adultery, [Coloman] put her away, but not in headstrong anger. For he knew that it is written: What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. That is, without law and reason. He did not separate himself from her, but the law separated him from her, whom he, having suffered wrong, accused; it condemned her for her fault and judged her for her evil act. The law sent her away into her own country. As the fruit of her adultery she bore a son, named Borich. Borich begot Calaman.13

After the death of Felicia of Sicily and the death of her son Ladislas in 1112, the widowed King Coloman married Euphemia, the teenaged daughter of Vladimir II Monomakh of Kiev.14 Since Coloman’s contentious brother Álmos had married Predslava, the daughter of Vladimir’s rival Sviatopolk II of Kiev, it seemed a natural diplomatic move for the aging king to create a new alliance to counterbalance his brother’s. It also aligned with Coloman’s plans to defend his borders against the invading Cumans who the King had fought in 1110–1111.15 However, the year after her marriage, Euphemia was accused of adultery, divorced, and then sent back to Kiev where she gave birth to a son named Boris in 1113.16 The details of the allegations are mostly unknown, leading authors like Tuzson to question the motives of the Norman-Sicilian lords

13 Dercsényi, ed., The Hungarian Illuminated Chronicle, 132. 14 “In the year of our Lord 1112, N., King Coloman’s son died, and the King married

a second wife from Russia”, Dercsényi, ed., The Hungarian Illuminated Chronicle, 132, 169, n. 445. Font estimates she was about 15–16 years old. Font, Koloman the Learned: King of Hungary, 79. 15 Kosztolnyik even accused Predslava of goading Álmos to seek protection from the German emperor. Álmos and Predslava eventually fled to Poland, where her sister Zbyslava ´ ads was the wife of Boleslaw III. Makk, The Arp ´ and the Comneni, 14; Dercsényi, ed., The ´ ads Hungarian Illuminated Chronicle, 132; Kosztolnyik, The Dynastic Policy of the Arp ´ from Geza I to Emery, 101–102; Font, Koloman the Learned: King of Hungary, 80. 16 Dercsényi, ed., The Hungarian Illuminated Chronicle, 132.

3

STONES AND BONES AND THE QUEENS …

77

who benefitted from eliminating a potential rival to their kinsman, Coloman’s son Stephen II (r. 1116–1131).17 The next time Euphemia is heard from again in the historical record is twenty-five years after her return to Kiev, when the chronicles note her death on April 4, 1138. She was subsequently buried at the Church of the Holy Savior in Berestovo, now in present-day Kiev.18 In the case of Euphemia’s burial there is both historical and archaeological evidence that gives a better insight into the divorced queen’s actions and agency. In the first case, the historical evidence confirms that Berestovo was not only a residence for the Kievan princes, but also an important center of power for Euphemia’s father, Vladimir II Monomakh. In addition to Berestovo being an important residence for her father, there was also the presence of a monastic community at the Church of the Holy Savior; this is important in light of the fact that Euphemia spent her remaining years in Kiev as a nun. Euphemia’s sister Maritsa (d. 1146) was also a nun and Dimnik argues that Maritsa lived and died at the Church of the Holy Savior in Berestovo. While Euphemia is the first known member of her family buried in Berestovo, her half brother, Yuri Dolgoruki, Yuri’s son Gleb, and Gleb’s wife were also buried there as well; it also seems highly likely that Euphemia’s stepmother and her sister Maritsa were buried at the same location as well, indicating the importance of this site as a family mausoleum for the immediate relations of Vladimir II Monomakh.19 While the historical evidence for Euphemia’s burial is intriguing, the archaeological evidence from the Church of the Holy Savior in Berestovo is downright tantalizing. Excavations of the church grounds uncovered 78 burials from the twelfth to seventeenth centuries, including three sarcophagi outside the church proper. One of the sarcophagi to the 17 Font also sees three different authors behind the text in the Hungarian Illuminated Chronicle concerning Euphemia: one emphasizing the legality of the divorce, another the illegitimacy of Boris, and a third trying to blend the two. Tuzson, Istvan ´ II , 79; Font, Koloman the Learned: King of Hungary, 80; Bak, “Queens as Scapegoats in Medieval Hungary,” 226. 18 Martin Dimnik, “Dynastic Burials in Kiev Before 1240,” Ruthenica VIII (2008): 83; G. Ivakin, “Nekropol cerkvi Spasa na Berestove v Kievse i ‘pogrebenieri Dolgorukogo’” [The Necopolis of the Kiev Church of the Savior on Berestovo and the ‘Grave of Yuri Dolgorukiy’], Rossiska arheologi 2 (2008): 108. 19 Dimnik, “Dynastic Burials in Kiev Before 1240”: 84, 92; Ivakin, “Nekropol cerkvi Spasa na Berestove”: 109.

78

C. MIELKE

north contained a woman’s skeleton, aged 35–40 years old and roughly 1.55 m tall. The position of her hands (resting on her abdomen) and a depression in the sarcophagus for her head indicate that this woman had been a nun. Because of this, her age, and the presence of a veil, her skeleton was initially identified as Euphemia’s.20 However, like most burial evidence, there are several problems with identifying the remains of a historic personage. The first issue is that the three sarcophagi were found in the churchyard, not inside the church itself. High-status burials (such as those of a royal dynasty or the founders of a monastery) usually had central positions inside the monastery church—these sort of tombs were destroyed during the renovations that took place in the seventeenth through the nineteenth centuries. Only concrete DNA evidence could definitively prove that these are the remains of Euphemia and her family.21 Nevertheless, Euphemia’s burial here in such a central position shows that while she returned to Kiev, it was not necessarily a return she made in total disgrace. After her divorce, she retained her family connections and a fairly high-status rank. A comparison can be made here with her aunt, Evpraksia-Adelaide (d. 1109), the second wife of Holy Roman Emperor Henry IV (r. 1056–1106). After publicly denouncing her husband for coercing her into all sorts of orgiastic, licentious behavior, Evpraksia returned to Kiev and spent the last three years of her life there as a nun before being buried at the Caves Monastery in Kiev.22 While scandal was attached to both women, they were nonetheless able to maintain a highstatus position upon returning to Kiev, indicated by their place of burial and their proximity to the court of the Rus’ princes.

Adelaide of Riedenburg Stephen II (r. 1116–1131) was married to a daughter of Robert of Capua (d. 1120) sometime in the early 1120s, though Stephen had at first initially refused to marry and kept several mistresses. Nothing else is 20 The bodies in the other two sarcophagi were also initially identified as Yuri Dolgoruki

and his son Gleb who was buried with his wife. Ivakin, “Nekropol cerkvi Spasa na Berestove,” 112–114. 21 Ivakin, “Nekropol cerkvi Spasa na Berestove,” 116–117. 22 Christian Raffensperger, “The Missing Russian Women: The Case of Evpraksia

Vsevolodovna,” in Writing Medieval Women’s Lives, ed. Charlotte Newman Goldy and Amy Livingstone (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2012), 76–80.

3

STONES AND BONES AND THE QUEENS …

79

known about her—not even her name.23 The story would end there if not for a curious epitaph that has confused historians for centuries. The Cistercian Abbey of Walderbach records an epitaph related to the family of the founder, Otto of Riedenburg, Landgrave of Stefling and burgrave of Regensburg. Two lines in the epitaph refer to “The noble queen of Hungary who was the sister of who lies here, having returned to the land of her people.”24 As the rest of the epitaph suggests, she was buried in the crypt with her family. She has been identified as Adelaide, daughter of Stephen of Riedenburg, though the identity of her husband has been a matter of serious dispute. Wertner concluded that the only chronological argument that makes sense is that she was Stephen II’s second wife, but Tuzson points out many holes in this argument; he even doubts whether or not Stephen II married her in the first place.25 His main argument is that Adelaide, the daughter of a minor Bavarian prince, would not have had the rank or family connections to marry Stephen II.26 This is not a complete argument to make, however, since the full extent of Adelaide’s relations are unknown; Wertner thought that her mother was related to Leopold III of Austria, which would make a match seem more

23 She occasionally appears as “Christiana of Capua,” though the name Christiana likely refers to a noblewoman who Stephen had burned alive. Dercsényi, ed., The Hungarian ´ ads Illuminated Chronicle, 134–135; Makk, The Arp ´ and the Comneni, 20; Bak, “Roles and Functions of Queens in Árpádian and Angevin Hungary (1000–1386 A.D.),” 23; ´ ads, Kosztolnyik, The Dynastic Policy of the Arp ´ 101–102. 24 “Hoc in sarcophago pausat generosa propago

De Steffning comitum tegit hos marmorque politum. Quorum progenitor fuit Lantgravius Otto Fit genitus genitor genitis Fridericus in octo. Otto comes victu monachos sectans et amictu Mundum cum flore sprevit virtutis amore. Nobilis Vngariae regina fuit soror horum Reddita quae patriae iacet hic in sorte suorum. Stirps dicta haec pia condidit atria, sint quibus aeque Turba monastica cantica mistica nocte dieque.” This epitaph is first recorded in 1488 by Hartmann Schedel, though it has not survived to present day. Georg Hager, Die Kunstdenkmäler von Oberfpfalz & Regensburg (Munich and Vienna: R. Oldenbourg Verlag, 1981), 199–200. 25 John Tuzson for instance doubts that Stephen II ever married her in the first place. John Tuzson, István II (1116–1131): A Chapter in Medieval Hungarian History (Boulder: Eastern European Monographs, 2002), 67. 26 Tuzson, István II , 87–88.

80

C. MIELKE

plausible considering Stephen II’s bellicose relationship with his neighbors.27 However, even Wertner (the biggest proponent of this theory) makes several concessions to certain oddities of the match, such as the fact that she was older than her husband, that nothing is known of her natal family’s action during the wars and that presumably she returned to Walderbach after Stephen died in 1131.28 Ultimately, the only thing that makes sense in this case is to return to the inscription at Walderbach. Archaeologically speaking, all that is known about it is the mention of it from 1488 where it tells us that a sister of Otto was been a queen of Hungary who had returned home. She is not mentioned in any way connected to the Hungarian chroniclers, and the evidence for her time in Hungary is similar to that of Tuta of Formbach. It is also important to remember what an alliance like this meant for the abbey; many years after the death of Adelaide, the Hungarian double-barred cross was utilized in Walderbach’s decorative program. Promoting Adelaide’s Hungarian connection was something that benefitted the Abbey. If the epitaph is only attested from the fifteenth century onward, it is difficult to tell whether it was original or if it was replaced; after all, the epitaphs for Gisela, Tuta, and Adelaide of Rheinfelden were all replaced sometime in the fourteenth or fifteenth century. This tombstone for Adelaide of Riedenburg shows the potential that archaeological information can have about the identity of Hungarian queens but also the logical pitfalls that attend to interpreting the data at face value.

Helen of Serbia While an infant, Béla II (r. 1131–1141) and his father Prince Álmos (d. 1127) had been blinded at the orders of King Coloman (r. 1095–1116) in order to secure the succession for his son, Stephen II (r. 1116–1131). However, Stephen II had no children of his own, and after initially naming his nephew Saul as his successor, he eventually found out that Béla was still alive and made him his successor around 1128–1129.29 Shortly after this, Béla was married to Helen of Serbia, the daughter of Uroš I of

27 Adelaide’s mother could also be related to the counts of Oettingen. Wertner, Az ´ Arpadok ´ csaladi ´ T¨ort´enete, 240, 242. 28 Ibid., 241–242. 29 Tuzson, István II , 144–145; Kosztolnyik, The Dynastic Policy of the Arp ´ ads, ´ 109.

3

STONES AND BONES AND THE QUEENS …

81

Raška.30 Helen’s dowry was presumably part of northeastern Bosnia and Maˇcva (Macsó in Hungarian), a part of the Serbian principality bordering Hungary.31 Since Helen’s husband was blinded, most of the day-to-day administrative work came down to her and her brother, the ban Belos.32 Unfortunately, this has muddled up what her actual activities were, and made it nearly impossible to separate her own actions compared to that of her husband and brother. Nonetheless, there are two items that showcase Helen’s importance as queen. One is a fourteenth-century manuscript depiction of her and the other is a monastery that has been identified as her own foundation. The fourteenth-century Hungarian Illuminated Chronicle illustrates the events of the Council of Arad on folio 57r. Soon after Béla ascended the Hungarian throne, Queen Helen called a meeting of the nobles in Arad in order discover who had ordered the blinding of her husband as an infant. 68 people in attendance were summarily executed and their lands confiscated and given to the church.33 The image in the Chronicle depicts Béla II, blinded and sitting on a throne, to the far left while Helen of Serbia is seated in a central position to the composition. She is wearing a fourteenth-century style veil under a crown and ordering the deaths of the nobles who blinded her husband; three of them are shown in the act of being decapitated.34 This is a striking image for 30 Kerbl, “Byzantinische Prinzessinnen in Ungarn,” 103; Makk, The Árpáds and the Comneni, 134. 31 John Fine, The Early Medieval Balkans: A Critical Survey from the Sixth to the Late

Twelfth Century (Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press, 1991), 236. 32 She is mentioned with Béla II as giving her permission for the Bishop of Veszprém to issue a charter concerning the Abbey of St. Martin. Gusztáv Wenzel, Codex diplomaticus Arpadianus Continuatus: Árpádkori új okmánytár, Vol. 1 (Budapest: Ferdinand Eggenberg, 1860), 55; John V. A. Fine, The Early Medieval Balkans: A Critical Survey from the Sixth to the Late Twelfth Century (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1983), 236; Kosztolnyik, From Coloman the Learned to Béla III , 99–107; Zsoldos, The Árpáds and Their Wives, 137. 33 Kosztolnyik, The Dynastic Policy of the Arp ´ ads, ´ 117–118. 34 Gárdonyi-Csapodi, “Description and Interpretation of the Illustrations in the Illuminated Chronicle,” 80; John Tuzson, István II (1116–1131): A Chapter in Medieval Hungarian Historiography (Boulder: East European Monographs, 2002), 143–145; For her costume, see Annamária Kovács, “Courtly Costumes in Fourteenth-Century Hungary,” in “Quasi Liber et Pictura”: Studies in Honour of András Kubinyi on His Seventieth Birthday, ed. Gyöngyi Kovács (Budapest: ELTE Institute of Archaeological Sciences, 2004), 307.

82

C. MIELKE

many reasons. While the other queens in the Illuminated Chronicle are depicted on the sidelines and engaging in more passive posture, Helen is central to the image and her gestures are incredibly aggressive. Closed fists are seldom depicted in medieval manuscripts, perhaps because of their violent, martial nature; they are usually associated with holding weapons. Closed fists in medieval art usually point to either episodes of violence or the assertion of authority; in this scene, it seems to mean both.35 The Council of Arad remains the event that Helen is most associated with in the historiographic record, and the illustration in this fourteenth-century chronicle is certainly proof of not only its significance but also of how she was viewed in later centuries (Fig. 3.2). However, Helen is not only associated with this violent meeting. Serbian historiography has identified Helen as the founder of an Orthodox monastery at Ráckeve on Csepel Island (part of present-day Budapest),36 though the known buildings only date to the thirteenth century. A reference from 1211 indicates that it was a royal foundation dedicated to St. Abraham.37 That said, the Serbian community in Ráckeve did not arrive until the fifteenth century, so the identification of this monastery with Helen of Serbia in the twelfth century is not certain.38 In the Árpádian era, Csepel Island was an important part of the royal demesne. Helen’s grandson Béla III and his second wife Margaret of France would entertain the Holy Roman Emperor Frederick I Barbarossa (r. 1155–1190) while he was on his way to the Holy Land during the Third Crusade.39 A royal manor house stood on the northern part of

35 Garnier, Le Langage de l’Image au Moyen Âge I, 161–164. 36 Glasnik Srpskoga uqenog druxtva [Gazette of the Serbian Learned Society] 67

(1887), ix. 37 Two of its towers even survived until the end of the nineteenth century. Beatrix Romhányi, Kolostorok és társaskáptalanok a középkori Magyarországon: katalógus [Monasteries and Collegiate Chapters in Medieval Hungary: A Catalog] (Pytheas, 2000), 62. 38 Marija Ili´c, Discourse and Ethnic Identity: The Case of the Serbs from Hungary (Munich: Verlag Otto Sagner, 2014), 291; Edit Tari, Pest megye középkori templomai (Szentendre: Studia Comitatensia, 2000), 120. 39 The royal party is known to have hunted there; Kosztolnyik describes Csepel Island as the summer home of the queen though it is unclear where this evidence comes from. Kosztolnyik, From Coloman the Learned to Béla III , 215.

3

STONES AND BONES AND THE QUEENS …

83

Fig. 3.2 The Council of Arad. The Hungarian Illuminated Chronicle, National Széchényi Library, Budapest, Cod. Lat. 404

Csepel Island, though it has not been investigated archaeologically.40 If Csepel Island was part of the royal estate, then the possibility that the 40 György

Terei, “Régészeti adatok a Csepel-sziget északi részének középkori történetéhez” [Archaeological Data on the History of the Northern Part of Csepel Island in the Middle Ages], in In medio regni Hungariae: Régészeti, M˝ uvészettörténeti és történeti kutatások ‘az ország közepén’: Archaeological, Art Historical, and Historical Researches ‘in the Middle of the Kingdom’, ed. Elek Benk˝ o and Krisztina Orosz (Budapest: Magyar Tudományos Akadémia, 2015), 577–578.

84

C. MIELKE

monastery of St. Abraham was founded in some capacity by the queen herself increases, though this is not definitive proof. Lastly, there is the question of Helen’s burial place. Her husband was buried at the royal basilica of Székesfehérvár and he had taken pains to bury his father’s body there as well. During excavations from the mid1800s, Henszlmann found a skeleton which was identified as a woman about thirty years old. He believed that this was likely to be Helen since she was under the belief that she had died in 1139, but evidence that Helen was still alive in 1146 complicates the matter.41 Considering the problematic identifications in Henszlmann’s report, there is little concrete proof that the skeleton he found was Helen’s, and for that matter there is little proof outside of conjecture that she was buried at Székesfehérvár. It was rare for medieval kings and queens to be buried in the same foundation in medieval Hungary; in the three centuries of Árpádian rule, only Anna of Antioch, Yolanda of Courtenay, and Maria Laskarina are definitively known to be buried with their husbands. It is possible that Helen, Felicia of Sicily, and the thirteenth century Elizabeth the Cuman were buried with their husbands, but until further proof comes to light, it is best to treat these assumptions with caution.

Euphrosyne of Kiev In 1146, Géza II of Hungary (r. 1141–1162) married Euphrosyne, the daughter of Msitislav I of Kiev when Hungary was seeking allies against claims from the pretender Boris (the son of Euphemia of Kiev). Their first son was born in the summer of 1147 and Louis VII of France (passing through on the second Crusade) was his godfather.42 During Géza’s reign, her influence explains Géza’s support for her brother, Iziaslav, as well as the marriage of Géza’s cousin to her younger brother, Vladimir.43 After the death of her husband in 1162, Euphrosyne was a significant actor during the reign of her son Stephen III, finding military 41 Henszlmann, A sz´ekes-feh´ervari ´ adok ´ asat ´ asok ´ eredm´enye, 211; Wertner, Az Arp ´ csaladi ´ T¨ort´enete, 302; Engel, “Temetkezések a középkori székesfehérvári bazilikában”: 619–620. 42 Wertner places the date of her birth at around 1130, making her Mstislav’s youngest

´ adok daughter and around sixteen at the time of her marriage. Wertner, Az Arp ´ csaladi ´ T¨ort´enete, 311–312; Makk, The Árpáds and the Comneni, 41, 139, n. 105. 43 Wertner, Az Arp ´ adok ´ csaladi ´ T¨ort´enete, 313; Kosztolnyik, The Dynastic Policy of the ´ ads, Arp ´ 142–143.

3

STONES AND BONES AND THE QUEENS …

85

support from Bohemia through a marriage between her daughter, Elizabeth, and Frederick, Duke of Bohemia (d. 1189).44 However, her most significant actions come from her foundation of a convent dedicated to the Hospitallers in Székesfehérvár (the first in Hungary) and the question of her burial there. The earliest charter related to the foundation is a confirmation of Béla III of earlier privileges issued in 1193, shortly after the death of Euphrosyne. This foundation was started by Archbishop Martirius of Esztergom, but after his death in 1157 it was then completed by the Queen; she finished the construction of the buildings and donated fiftyfive of her own properties to this foundation.45 There were likely two motives of the queen in founding this institution. First, the queen likely meant for it to be a charitable foundation for the poor. Hunyadi remarks that the text of the 1193 charter gives no indication as to the original intent of Martirius to donate it to the Hospitallers. Since the Order did not completely take on its militaristic character until after the Third Crusade, it is most likely that Euphrosyne meant this to be a charitable foundation to serve the poor, (pilgrims in particular) since Székesfehérvár was the burial place of St. Stephen I and St. Emeric.46 It is also possible that the queen intended this convent to be the site of her burial. The Russian dynasties were in the habit of erecting churches they would be buried in; her father did so for St. Fedor in Kiev, an abbey he founded in 1129 and was buried in three years later.47 A document

44 Makk, The Árpáds and the Comneni, 89; Kosztolnyik, From Coloman the Learned to Bela III , 186. 45 Earlier it was assumed that this Hospitaller convent was founded by members of the Order travelling with Louis VII of France and Emperor Conrad III of Germany who were passing through Hungary on the Second Crusade, but this argument has been disproven. Zsolt Hunyadi, The Hospitallers in the Medieval Kingdom of Hungary c. 1150– 1387 (Budapest: CEU Press, 2010), 23–24; Szentpétery and Zsoldos, Az Árpád-házi hercegek, hercegn˝ok és királynék okleveleinek, 184. 46 Euphrosyne’s son Béla III and her daughters Elizabeth and Margaret would also financially support the Hospitallers. Hunyadi, The Hospitallers in the Medieval Kingdom of Hungary, 24–27; Zsolt Hunyadi, “The Hospitallers in the Kingdom of Hungary: Commanderies, Personnel, and a Particular Activity Up to c. 1400,” in The Crusades and the Military Orders: Expanding the Frontiers of Medieval Latin Christianity, ed. Zsolt Hunyadi and József Laszlovszky (Budapest: CEU Medievalia, 2001), 253–255. 47 Martin Dimnik, “Dynastic Burials in Kiev Before 1240,” Ruthenica VIII (2008): 82–83, 99–100.

86

C. MIELKE

from 1272 confirms that she was buried there,48 but the question of her intent to be buried there is a tricky one, particularly in the final years of her life. While Euphrosyne was active during the reign of her oldest son, Stephen III, after his death in 1173, a succession crisis developed. The rightful heir to the throne was Béla, her second son who had been living at the Byzantine court for years as the expected successor of Manuel I Komnenos. Euphrosyne chose to back her younger son, Géza, and would continue to do so for years after Béla was victorious and crowned king. In 1186, she was exiled to Braniˇcevo (now in modern-day Serbia) for supporting Géza once again.49 It seems that in 1187 she was exiled further to Byzantium, but then the chroniclers say that she ends up in Jerusalem, taking the veil with the Hospitaller Orders and staying at a Greek monastery of St. Sabbas, the Hospitaller Convent in Jerusalem, before a final burial at the Theotokos church of St. Theodosius havra in Jerusalem.50 Hunyadi points out that parts of Euphrosyne’s story are confused with another Russian princess known as St. Euphrosyne of Polotsk who had journeyed to Constantinople and then Jerusalem.51 Pringle argues that there was no church of St. Theodosius in Jerusalem and it is a misreading of the text.52 It is much more likely that she was buried at the Hospitaller Foundation in Székesfehérvár that she was so instrumental in creating. This foundation would branch off and form their own separate preceptories, meaning that this is the beginning of the Hospitaller network in Hungary.53 Her children would also support the order as well. From a logistic point of view, this was a rich endowment in a part of the country which was not only a center of royal power but also

48 Hunyadi, The Hospitallers in the Medieval Kingdom of Hungary, 25. 49 Makk, The Arp ´ ads ´ and the Comneni, 109. 50 Moravcsik says that “according to tradition,” her remains were taken back to Russia, ´ ads but this does not seem to be the case. Makk, The Arp ´ and the Comneni, 177, n. 149; Gyula Moravcsik, Byzantium and the Magyars (Amsterdam: Adolf M. Hakkert, 1970), 91. 51 Zsolt Hunyadi, The Hospitallers in the Medieval Kingdom of Hungary c. 1150–1387

(Budapest: CEU Medievalia, 2010), 24–26. 52 Denys Pringle, The Chruches of the Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem: A Corpus, Vol. III The City of Jerusalem (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007), 386. 53 Estates at Csurgó, Aracsa, Újudvar and Gyánt in particular splintered off to form their own foundations. Hunyadi, The Hospitallers in the Medieval Kingdom of Hungary, 29, 115, 117, 121, 128.

3

STONES AND BONES AND THE QUEENS …

87

the site of many pilgrims. Read this way, Euphrosyne’s foundation in the mid-twelfth century is a visible statement of her own power to a wide, international audience.

Agnes of Babenberg While Stephen III (r. 1162–1173) had originally been betrothed to a daughter of Yaroslav of Halich and the princess had even been sent to the Hungarian court, that engagement was dissolved during peace negotiations brokered by Stephen’s neighbor, Henry II “Jasomirgott” of Austria (r. 1141–1177). The Russian princess was sent back home as part of the peace deal between Hungary and Byzantium and Stephen instead married Henry’s daughter, Agnes, sometime near the end of 1166. The following year the young queen gave birth to a son, Béla, who died soon after.54 In 1172, her father and Henry the Lion, Duke of Saxony, were passing through Hungary on their way to the Holy Land, but by the time they had reached Esztergom to call upon a pregnant Agnes and Stephen, they were informed that the king had died on March 4.55 Agnes returned to Austria with her father and in 1173 she married Herman I of Carinthia.56 Herman and Agnes had two sons together, but after the former’s death in 1181, Agnes returned to Vienna. She died the following year and was buried in the Schottenstift Abbey where her parents were buried.57 The Schottenstift Abbey had been the only monastic foundation of her father. Henry II had invited Irish monks from Regensburg in 1150 to settle in the outskirts of Vienna; while the first stone had been laid in 1161, the

54 Agnes had been born in 1154 to Henry and his second wife, Theodora Komnena. Karl Lechner, Die Babenberger: Markgrafen und Herzoge von Österreich 976–1246 (Vienna: ´ ads Böhlau Verlag, 1996), 480; Kosztolnyik, The Dynastic Policy of the Arp ´ from Geza I to ´ ads Emery (1074–1204), 205; Makk, The Arp ´ and the Comneni, 99, 167, n. 31. 55 Kosztolnyik, The Dynastic Policy of the Arp ´ ads ´ from Geza I to Emery (1074–1204), 208–210. 56 Wertner, Az Arp ´ adok ´ csaladi ´ T¨ort´enete, 331; Franz Gall, “The ‘Schottenkloster’ in Vienna,” in Die Babenberger, und was von ihnen bleib (The Babenbergs, and What They Left ¨ to Us), ed. Christine Wessely (Vienna: Verb. d. Wissenschaftl. Gesellschaften Osterreichs, 1975), 85–88. 57 A. W. Leeper, History of Medieval Austria (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1941),

´ adok 262; Wertner, Az Arp ´ csaladi ´ T¨ort´enete, 331. Lechner, Die Babenberger, 480; Hankó, A magyar királysírok sorsa, 134.

88

C. MIELKE

Abbey had not been finalized until 1200.58 At present, Agnes and her parents are buried in a neo-Romanesque sarcophagus from the first half of the nineteenth century in the Schottenstift crypt. Henry II of Austria is the only one mentioned on the grave (Fig. 3.3).59 The fundamental problem with interpreting the burial of the Babenberg princess Agnes is the question of her own agency. Her return to Vienna following the death of her first and second husbands and her burial with her parents at first glance hints at a total dependence on her father and a total lack of individual will. Nevertheless, this closeness with her parents is something that could represent a choice of her own. Her move to Vienna after death of Stephen III when she was still young and after the death of her young sons becomes sensible in light of her husband’s turbulent reign and the brief succession conflict between her husband’s mother and his surviving brothers.60 Her return to Vienna after her time in Carinthia is even more interesting. After the death of Herman I of Carinthia, he was succeeded by Agnes’ young son Ulrich who was around five or six years old under the tutelage of Agnes’ brother, Leopold V of Austria.61 Agnes might have imitated other German royal mothers and insisted upon her share in the government on behalf of her young son, but her move back to Vienna and death the following year makes one wonder if the state of her health contributed to her stepping away from public life in Carinthia. In any case, her burial in Vienna reflects her attachment to her natal family that lasted longer than either of her marriages.

58 A. W. Leeper, History of Medieval Austria, 263; Fraz Gall, “The Schottenkloster in Vienna,” 87. 59 Heinrich Ferenczy and Christoph Merth, Das Schottenstift und seine kunstwerke (Vienna: Orac, 1980), 26. 60 Kosztolnyik, The Dynastic Policy of the Arp ´ ads, ´ 206–210, 222–223. 61 Leeper, History of Medieval Austria, 356–357; Wertner, Az Arp ´ adok ´ csaladi ´ T¨ort´enete, 332.

3

STONES AND BONES AND THE QUEENS …

89

Fig. 3.3 Agnes of Babenberg in the Babenberger Stammbaum at the Stiftsmuseum Klosterneuburg (Photograph by IMAREAL Krems)

90

C. MIELKE

Conclusions Interpreting the stories of these seven women in the twelfth century is incredibly difficult. The main discernable pattern here is that the majority of them left Hungary after the death of their husbands. Euphemia of Kiev left because she was accused of adultery and divorced, Adelaide of Riedenburg left for unknown reasons and returned to her birth family, Euphrosyne of Kiev was exiled following a battle for the throne wherein she backed the losing son, and Agnes of Babenberg returned to Vienna and then remarried. Felicia of Sicily and Helen of Serbia do not fit this pattern, but the material culture they left behind is very scant. What is fascinating is that it tells a great deal about the difficulty of linking archaeological material with historic people. While queens like Gisela of Bavaria are remembered due to their long-standing position within the kingdom and held as a standard, these queens sat on the throne during an intense period of back-and-forth conflict. Helen of Serbia’s memorable presence at the Council of Arad confirms just how unruly the twelfth century was. With a constantly changing roster of dynastic players, it must also be remembered that there is very little material culture that survives from the kings of this period either. Between the struggles evident in the reign of Coloman and Stephen II to the infighting during the reign of Stephen III, monasteries that had been endowed by one monarch might wish to hide that fact after the balance of power had shifted. The reigns of Géza II and Béla II stand out as periods of relative stability—and here is where we see that monastic foundations associated with their respective queens have some connection. While the queens of the eleventh century were connected with objects donated to the church, lavish fabrics, crowns, and possibly even books, only the two most powerful queens of this part of the twelfth century might have had some hand in monastic construction. This is worth pointing out since it is clear that before and after the period from 1090 to 1173, the royal women of this period most likely continued the activities of their predecessors and successors. Between the entropy that came from the struggles for the crown and the Mongol Invasions, most of those artifacts from this period were likely lost to time. Since the purpose of this study is to better understand more of queens who are otherwise passed over in the written record, it is safe to say that from this period, the choice of the burial site and involvement with larger scale construction projects is the best indications for power and agency in a period where so much is missing.

CHAPTER 4

The “Office” of the Queen Begins (1172–1233)

After the ascension of Béla III (r. 1172–1196) to the Hungarian throne, several important changes took place at the royal court. Béla III led several wars which expanded the borders of the kingdom. He was also a significant founder of several important monasteries, he renovated the palace of Esztergom after a fire, and his reign is when the Hungarian court became more structured and hierarchical.1 The reigns of Béla III and his sons Emeric (r. 1196–1204) and Andrew II (r. 1205–1235) are a pivotal period of growth in this respect. Andrew II was briefly a leader of the Fifth Crusade, as well as the monarch who signed the Golden Bull, a document similar to England’s Magna Carta. For the queens from this period (1172–1235), this was a crucial moment that saw not only the development of the “office” of the queen, but also the beginnings of several new changes: the first known seals with the queens’ image, queens appearing on coinage, the development of the queen’s heraldry, along with continuing eleventh century practices like the patronage of monastic foundations and books. The end of the twelfth and beginning of the thirteenth century is when there is proof that the queen had her own personal

1 Pál Engel, The Realm of St Stephen: History of Medieval Hungary 985–1526, (New York: I.B. Tauris, 2001), 52–54.

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 C. Mielke, The Archaeology and Material Culture of Queenship in Medieval Hungary, 1000–1395, Queenship and Power, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-66511-1_4

91

92

C. MIELKE

officials, employed her own seal, and became known as an intercessor and agent on behalf of others (Fig. 4.1).2

Agnes/Anna of Antioch Béla III originally came to the Byzantine court in order to marry Maria, the oldest daughter of Manuel I Komnenos (r. 1143–1180); as part of his betrothal, Béla was sent to the Byzantine court as a child and his name changed to Alexios. However, Manuel’s second wife, Maria of Antioch, gave birth to a son, prompting Béla/Alexios to be removed as heir-presumptive.3 Rather than marrying Maria, Béla was married to the empress’ younger step-sister, Agnes. Agnes was born around 1154 to Constance of Antioch and Reynald of Châtillon. Béla and Agnes were married in Constantinople around 1169–1170. They had at least six children together.4 While in Byzantium, Agnes changed her name to Anna, a permanent change as most contemporary documents refer to her as Anna.5 As queen, Anna was known to have founded a public bath (balnea communia) in the city of Esztergom which her grandson later gifted to the Hospitaller Order in 1238.6 This is the earliest known bathhouse of

2 Bak, “Roles and Functions of Queens in Árpádian and Angevin Hungary (1000–1386

A. D.),” 19. 3 Niketas Choniates, Harry Magoulias, trans, O City of Byzantium, Annals of Niketas Choniates (Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1984), 96; Paul Magdalino, The Empire of Manuel I Komnenos, 1143–1180 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), 92. 4 Emeric (r. 1196–1204), Margaret (d. after 1229), Andrew II (r. 1205–1235) and Constance (d. 1240) lived to adulthood while two boys (Salamon and Stephen) presumably died as infants. Wertner, Az Árpádok családi történeti, 357, 360–361; Choniates, O City of Byzantium, Annals of Niketas Choniates, 96; Zsoldos, The Árpáds and Their Wives, 195. 5 Makk, The Arp ´ ads ´ and the Comneni, 106, 170. 6 The bathhouse was in a part of the city known as Toplica or Tapolca, between the castle hill and the royal town. Gy˝ orgy Fejer, Codex diplomaticus Hungariae ecclesiasticus et civilis IV/1 (Buda: 1829), 109; Gy˝ orgy Fejer, Codex diplomaticus Hungariae ecclesiasticus et civilis IX/5 (Buda: 1834), 155; Zsolt Hunyadi, “Hospitaller Commanderies in the Kingdom of Hungary (c. 1150–1330),” in The Military Orders: History and Heritage, ed. Victoria Mallia-Milanes (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2008), 263 n. 38; Horváth, Kelemen and Torma, Komárom megye régészeti topográfiája, 159–160; Zsolt Hunyadi, The Hospitallers in the Medieval Kingdom of Hungary c. 1150–1387 (Budapest: CEU Medievalia, 2010), 37, 119.

4

THE “OFFICE” OF THE QUEEN BEGINS (1172–1233)

Fig. 4.1 The Árpád dynasty in the thirteenth century

93

94

C. MIELKE

any kind from the Árpádian period in Hungary, dating from 1173–1184.7 It is not known when Anna died, but 1184 is the generally accepted date of her death.8 In spite of this unique and significant foundation, archaeologically speaking Anna of Antioch is remembered more for her burial rather than for material culture associated with her life. In December 1848, the graves of Béla III and Anna of Antioch were discovered at the royal basilica of Székesfehérvár. The two were buried side-by-side with similar grave assemblages. Both were buried with silver crowns on their heads, but Béla was also entombed with a pilgrim staff, a sword, a pair of spurs, an enameled pectoral, and a gold ring with an almandine stone bearing an Arabic inscription. The only remnants found in the queen’s tomb, aside from her crown, were several scraps of fabric from her dress and a gold ring with an almandine stone in it.9 While the queen’s grave had fewer items, the crown, dress, and ring all point to significant statements of not only her own power, but also to questions of her identity and self-representation. Crown The first observation to be made about the queen’s crown is its high quality (Fig. 4.2). This simple band with four crosses was made with over 98% silver, about 1–1.5% copper, and traces of lead and arsenic. The chemical makeup of Béla’s crown was remarkably similar (98% silver, 2% copper) and both were largely intact with minimal deteriorations into silver-chloride. Both crowns were originally covered with a thin layer of

7 Christopher Mielke, “Rub-a-dub-dub, Three Maids in a Tub: Secondary Sites of the Sex Trade in Medieval Hungarian Towns,” in Same Bodies, Different Women: ‘Other’ Women in the Middle Ages and the Early Modern Period, ed. Christopher Mielke and Andrea-Bianka Znorovsky (Budapest: Trivent Publications, 2019), 118–120. 8 Wertner, Az Árpádok családi történeti, 361; Makk, The Arp ´ ads ´ and the Comneni, 118. 9 János Varsányi made the drawings in the nineteenth century. The pair were buried in wooden coffins. Henszlmann, A székes-fehérvári ásatások eredmény, 205–206; Béla Czobor, “III. Béla és hitvese ékszerei,” [Jewels of Béla III and His Wife] in III. Béla magyar király emlékezete, [The Memory of the Hungarian king Béla III], Gyula Forster, ed. (Budapest: Hornyánszky V, 1900), 216–8; Gábor Hutai, “III. Béla király és Antiochiai Anna sírleleteinek restaurálásairól,” [The Restoration of the Findings From the Graves of King Béla III and Anna of Antioch] in 150 éve történt… III. Béla és Antiochiai Anna sírjának fellelése, ed. Vajk Cserményi (Székesfehérvár: Szent István Király Múzeum, 1999), 36–40.

4

THE “OFFICE” OF THE QUEEN BEGINS (1172–1233)

95

Fig. 4.2 Crown of Anna of Antioch. Hungarian National Museum

gold, which has not survived.10 Comparing the two crowns, the only difference between them is the diameter. Béla was around 186 cm tall while Anna was about 161 cm, which accounts for this difference.11 In addition to the fact that the crowns of the king and queen are more or less the same, the high quality of these grave goods is worth noting. Usually, objects placed in medieval royal tombs tended to be made of inferior quality material, such as copper gilt or even gilded wood.12 The high

10 Czobor, “III. Béla és hitvese halotti ékszerei,” [The Funerary Jewels of Béla III and his Wife], 208, 217; Hutai, “III. Béla király és Antiochiai Anna sírleleteinek restaurálásairól,” 42–44. 11 The diameter of her crown measures 180–195 mm due to restoration work which rendered the crown into an oval, rather than a circle. Czobor, “III. Béla és hitvese halotti ékszerei,” [The Funerary jewels of Béla III and his wife] 216–217; Hutai, “III. Béla király és Antiochiai Anna sírleleteinek restaurálásairól,” 54–58; Kinga Éry, et al. “Summary,” in A Székesfehérvári királyi bazilika embertani leletei 1848–2002, [The Human Remains of the Royal Basilica of Székesfehérvár, 1848–2002] (Budapest: Balassi Kiadó, 2008), 573–574. 12 For instance, Jeanne de Bourbon (d. 1378), wife of Charles V of France was buried with a gilded wooden spindle. Twining, European Regalia, 291, 303–307.

96

C. MIELKE

percentage of silver could explain why this crown survived in such good condition.13 It is also worth noting that the crowns of the king and queen had much more similarity in appearance to those from the medieval West rather than Byzantium. Another hypothesis connects her with the upper part of the Holy Crown of Hungary (the “corona latina”). This upper part is composed of two enameled bands depicting the apostles that, according to Vajay, came from a book cover or the top of a reliquary shrine. The Latin, Byzantine, and Arabic elements present on this part of the crown possibly originated from an object Queen Anna owned or was given during her time in the Holy Land.14 Deér takes this notion further stating that since the whole crown has a female form it originally was created for Anna herself, in contrast to Vajay’s opinion that this hybrid Greek and Latin crown was created for Béla III as heir to both the Hungarian and Byzantine thrones.15 Here, the possibility of the queen’s connection with the original upper part of the crown can be raised within the context of the queen’s role in not only bringing new objects to foreign lands, but also being involved in a process of cultural transfer that included all sorts of objects.

13 Initially, the crowns of Béla and Agnes/Anna were displayed in the Hungarian National Museum from 1848 until 1898, when the originals were re-buried with the king and queen at the Matthias Church in Budapest. Initially, the queen’s crown was found in better condition than Béla’s, but by the time of Henszlmann’s excavations at Székesfehérvár, it was clear that the crown was heavily damaged; the queen’s crown was restored first in 1967 and then in 1998. Twining, European Regalia, 58; Éva Kovács, “III. Béla és Antiochiai Anna halotti jelvényei,” [The Death Insignia of Béla III & Anna of Antioch] M˝ uvészettörténeti Ertésít˝o XXI (1972): 3; Hutai, “III. Béla király és Antiochiai Anna sírleleteinek restaurálásairól,” 36–40; 54–58. 14 Unconvinced that the lower part of the crown was styled for a woman, he suggests that the pinnae adorning the top came from a crown of hers that were added to the Holy Crown. Vajay, “Corona Regia,” 56. 15 Deér, Die Heilige Krone Ungarns, 67–68; It has also been proposed that this crown was a covering for the head reliquary of St. Stephen or even an asterisk meant to cover the Eucharist. Kovács and Lovag even hypothesize that it was made in Hungary rather than in Byzantium. Kovács and Lovag, The Hungarian Crown and Other Regalia, 55–58.

4

THE “OFFICE” OF THE QUEEN BEGINS (1172–1233)

97

Clothing Fragments While only a few of the textiles found from Anna of Antioch’s grave have survived, photographs taken of them in 1900 show that they can be divided into three groups: golden silk in the form of a net, pieces of woven blue silk, and two elaborate gold lace rosettes.16 The most likely explanation for the gold silk net is that it covered the queen’s hair.17 The blue silk was worn under the queen’s crown accompanying the net, though it is impossible to determine whether the blue silk covered just the queen’s hair or her face as well. The two gold lace rosettes embellished the queen’s dress (Fig. 4.3).18 The fabric remnants tell a great deal about the queen’s burial dress. First, the silk her outfit was made from was an incredibly expensive and highly controlled commodity. Anna had been raised in the Eastern Mediterranean, and was familiar with Byzantine laws restricting those who were allowed to wear silk, purple, or gemstones; the presence of such objects would immediately indicate someone’s rank.19 The silk in Anna’s dress was either brought to Hungary by Béla or the queen herself or sent over as a diplomatic gift. The Byzantine Empire had frequently used silk as a diplomatic gift to the Holy Roman Empire and realms in the Italian peninsula.20 In addition to the fact that the clothing in the 16 Béla Czobor, “III. Béla és hitvese ékszerei,” [Jewels of Béla III and his Wife] in III. Béla magyar király emlékezete, ed. Gyula Forster (Budapest: Hornyánszky V, 1900), 218; Enik˝ o Sipos, “Textilöredékek Antiochiai Anna sírjából” [Textile Fragments from the Grave of Anna of Antioch] in150 Éve történet: III. Béla és Antiochiai Anna sírjának fellelése [150 Years Ago: Finding the Tomb of Béla III and Anna of Antioch], ed. Gyula Fülöp (Székesfehérvár: A Szent István Király Múzeum, 1999), 60–61. 17 It was gilded on only one side. Czobor, “III. Béla és hitvese ékszerei,” 218. 18 Sipos, “Textilöredékek Antiochiai Anna sírjából,” [Textile Fragments from the Grave

of Anna of Antioch] 64–68. 19 Alicia Walker, “Adornment: Enhancing the Body, Neglecting the Soul?” in Byzantine Women and Their World, ed. Ioli Kalavrezou (Cambridge, MA: Harvard Art Museums; New Haven & London: Yale University Press, 2003), 236. 20 In the thirteenth century, silk came to the Hungarian court through Sicily and Naples. Cloth from Flanders and Italian silk were gifts to Prince Stephen (later Stephen V of Hungary, r. 1270–1272) in 1264. D. Jacoby, “Silk in Western Byzantium before the Fourth Crusade,” Byzantinische Zeitschrift 2, 84–85 (1992): 490; Anna Muthesius, “Silk in the Medieval World,” in The Cambridge History of Western Textiles, ed. David Jenkins (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), 326; Nora Berend, At the Gate of Christendom: Jews, Muslims and ‘Pagans’ in Medieval Hungary c. 1000-c.1300 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001), 115.

98

C. MIELKE

Fig. 4.3 Clothing fragments from the tomb of Anna of Antioch. From Gyula Forster, III. Béla magyar király emlékezete (1900)

queen’s grave was made from the finest material, the color is also worth mentioning. Though a dress made from red fabric indicated a more costly dye, blue was a popular medieval color due to its association with the Virgin Mary.21 The pale blue silk indicated a fine, costly garment; it also could have signified Marian devotion on the part of the queen. While the clothing was undoubtedly owned by the queen, her exact relationship with it (particularly the question of whether or not she chose to be buried in such an outfit) is open to interpretation.

21 Roberta Gilchrist, Medieval Life: Archaeology and the Life Course (Woodbridge: The Boydell Press, 2012), 73.

4

THE “OFFICE” OF THE QUEEN BEGINS (1172–1233)

99

The Ring In addition to the aforementioned crown and clothing, excavations of the mid-nineteenth-century uncovered a gold ring with an almandine stone in the shape of an oval bezel. The face of the stone bears a bas-relief carved image of a figure with the head and torso of a woman with wings and the tail of a fish holding a harp in her hands.22 The central figure appears to be a siren.23 Anna’s husband Béla III was also buried with a gold ring set with an almandine bearing an Arabic inscription “Abd All¯ ah ibn Muhammad” [Muhammad son of Abdullah] found on his right index finger.24 When uncovering her grave, the archaeologists could not determine the finger the queen wore her ring on, or whether she originally wore it on her right or left hand.25 The image on the queen’s ring begs two questions: is this the first evidence for a queen’s signet ring in Hungary, and is it a re-used Antique gemstone (Fig. 4.4).

22 Henszlmann, A székes-fehérvári ásatások eredménye, 206; Kiss, “Anneau d’Anne d’Antioche,” 118–19; Éva Kovács, “III. Béla és Antiochiai Anna halotti jelvényei,” [The Death Insignia of Béla III and Anna of Antioch] M˝ uvészettörténeti Ertésít˝o XXI (1972): 3; Támas Gesztelyi and György Rácz, Antik gemmapecsétek a középkori Magyarországon [Antique Gem Seals in Medieval Hungary] (Debrecen: Kossuth Lajos Egyetem, 2006), 12. 23 While others have suggested that the figure is a sphinx, a harpy, or a naiad, the presence of the harp ultimately indicates that this figure is meant to be a siren. Kiss, “Anneau d’Anne d’Antiochem,” 118–19; Duffield Osborne, Engraved Gems, Signets, Talismans and Ornamental Intaglios, Ancient and Modern (New York: H. Holt and Co., 1912), 227, 250–251; Gesztelyi and Rácz, Antik gemmapecsétek a középkori Magyarországon, 12; Nicholas J. Richardson, “Sirens,” in The Oxford Classical Dictionary, ed. Simon Hornblower, Anthony Spawforth, and Esther Eidinow (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012), 1372; Endre Tóth, “III. Béla vagy Kálmán?: A székesfehérvári királysír azonosításáról,” [Béla III or Coloman? The Identification of the Royal Graves from Székesfehérvár] Folia Archaeologica LII (2005–2006): 154–155. 24 The Arabic name indicates that the stone was originally a seal. Gesztelyi and Rácz, Antik gemmapecsétek a középkori Magyarországon, 12; Péter T. Nagy, “‘Islamic’ Artifacts in Hungary from the Reign of Béla III (1172–1196): Two Case Studies,” Annual of Medieval Studies at CEU 22 (2016): 51–52. 25 Béla Czobor, “III. Béla és hitvese halotti ékszerei,” in III. Béla magyar király

emlékezete, ed. Gyula Forster (Budapest: Hornyánszky V., 1900), 217.

100

C. MIELKE

Fig. 4.4 Ring of Anna of Antioch. Hungarian National Museum

4

THE “OFFICE” OF THE QUEEN BEGINS (1172–1233)

101

While other queens were buried with items explicitly known to be seals or seal-rings,26 it is doubtful that the ring buried with Agnes/Anna was a signet ring. There is no inscription indicating it was used that way and the oval, cabochon shape of the almandine stone makes it highly doubtful that it was used in this manner. Signet rings from early medieval Byzantium all seem to have flat surfaces.27 There are signet rings impressed on the seals of Stephen III (r. 1161–1173), Béla III (r. 1173–1196), and Emeric (r. 1196–1204), which in theory matches the shape of the queen’s ring, but imagery on the ring is distinctive. The figure on these impressions depict a knight on a horse; furthermore, it is slightly larger than the ring buried with Anna.28 If the queen’s ring really was a seal, there is no evidence that she used it as such. Nonetheless, evidence of Anna owning such a ring in the first place corroborates with the popularity of antique gemstones at the Hungarian court seen in the case of her husband, brother-in-law, and son. There is also the question of its geographic and temporal origin. Stylistically it appears to come from ancient Greece.29 Ultimately, what it boils down to is the fact that the ring can only be dated stylistically on features such as the wings, the tail, the hair, the lyre, the fact that the subject is facing the viewer, and the stone itself. The wings have three large feathers carved by hatching squares into the stone. The tail is segmented and the hair is made up of eight curved lines. The lyre is large, with three strings and a square soundbox. Anna’s ring is stylistically similar to a Roman-era sard showing a siren playing a lyre.30 The stone in the queen’s ring is almandine, a variety of garnet used by the Romans and Persians.31 There could be a connection between Persia and the ring of Anna as her husband

26 For example, the French queens Constance of Castile and Isabelle of Hainaut. Nolan, Queens in Stone and Silver, 88–98. 27 O. M. Dalton, Byzantine Art and Archaeology (Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1911),

537–541; Imre Takács, Az Árpád-házi királyok pecsétjei: Royal Seals of the Árpád Dynasty (Budapest: Hungarian National Archive, 2012), 62. 28 Takács, Az Árpád-házi királyok pecsétjei: Royal Seals of the Árpád Dynasty, 164; Czobor, “III. Béla és hitvese halotti ékszerei,” 218. 29 Czobor, “III. Béla és hitvese halotti ékszerei,” 217–218; Gesztelyi and Rácz, Antik gemmapecsétek a középkori Magyarországon, 12. 30 C. W. King, Handbook of Engraved Gems (London: G. Bell, 1885), 228. 31 C. W. King, Antique Gems: Their Origin, Uses, and Value as Interpreters of Ancient

History (London: J. Murray, 1860), 20–21.

102

C. MIELKE

was buried with a ring from Persia dated to the eighth-tenth centuries on his right index finger.32 Tóth argued that the queen’s ring was a medieval fabrication from Sicily, a crucial piece of evidence in his argument that the tomb of Agnes and Béla is actually that of King Coloman and his first wife, Felicia of Sicily instead.33 However, stylistic comparisons of the ring show that it is probably a Roman-era piece which came to Hungary through Byzantium, or possibly even Persia. While it is incredibly difficult to divine what this artifact tells us about the queen or her personality, it nonetheless indicates a connection with the Eastern Mediterranean, possession of a high-status symbol of power, and a remarkable similarity with the jewelry in the tomb of her husband. Skeleton and Tomb In the Árpádian Age, joint burials are extremely rare in a royal context. While it is possible that Felicia of Sicily or Helen of Serbia were buried with their husbands, the burial of Béla III and Anna in the basilica of Székesfehérvár represents the first known case of a double burial. In spite of the twelve years of difference between the death of the king and queen there is a remarkable degree of similarity between the two. In the first case, the crowns in both tombs were of a similar appearance, structure, and metallurgical content, which would indicate a degree of planning and coordination in both burials. They were buried to the south of St. Stephen’s grave and to the west of St. Emeric’s grave. While this was not in the main nave of the church or in the choir, the proximity to the saints’ graves is still the most important aspect.34 The osteological report estimates that Queen Anna was about 161 cm tall and around 49.3 kg in life. The skeleton in question is estimated to be around 37–41 years of age, though the queen only lived 28–31 years. The apparent discrepancy has been attributed not only to conditions within the tomb itself, but also the absence of lesions on the joints 32 This stone originally was a seal that was later put into a re-sized ring for the king.

Nagy, “‘Islamic’ Artifacts in Hungary from the Reign of Béla III,” 51–53. 33 Tóth is only aware of sirens with snake tails from a western medieval context, not from an ancient context, however. Endre Tóth, “III. Béla vagy Kálmán?: A székesfehérvári királysír azonosításáról” [Béla III or Coloman? The identification of the royal graves from Székesfehérvár]. Folia Archaeologica LII (2005–2006): 154–155. 34 Henszlmann, A székes-fehérvári ásatások eredménye, Table VII.

4

THE “OFFICE” OF THE QUEEN BEGINS (1172–1233)

103

point to the skeleton being younger than the analysis suggests.35 Furthermore, the chemical analysis of Anna’s skeleton showed elevated levels of arsenic and mercury in her bones, which the authors attribute to cosmetic usage.36 At the Byzantine court where the queen was raised, cosmetic usage was employed with regularity in order to achieve a standard of “natural beauty” required of imperial women.37 On the one hand, Anna founded the earliest known bathhouse in a Hungarian royal center, and she was buried in full finery featuring exotic imported material from the East (the silk, her ring) as well as items with a strong Western influence (her crown). Since the queen predeceased her husband, he could have chosen what she was buried with (even if the items were her own), and his assemblage of grave goods has a lot more variety and prestige. Nonetheless, an archaeological understanding of the first wife of Béla III has shown her as more than simply his wife and the mother of his children. It has shown how her power was displayed and represented on both a large and small scale.

Margaret of France In many ways, the history of Margaret of France (d. 1197), the second wife of Béla III is already well known and covered in the historical record. There is an excellent study about her life and her role in supporting Cistercian foundations in Hungary in Laszlovszky’s work on English and Hungarian contacts in the Middle Ages.38 While most of the Cistercian foundations of Béla III took place a few years before Margaret’s arrival in Hungary, the Queen is credited with fostering these abbeys in their early

35 Kinga Éry, Antónia Marcsik, János Nemeskéri, and Ferenc Szalai, “Az épített sírok csontvázleletei (I. csoport),” in A Székesfehérvári királyi bazilika embertani leletei 1848– 2002, ed. Kinga Éry (Budapest: Balassi Kiadó, 2008), 83–86. 36 Kinga Éry, ed., A Székesfehérvári királyi bazilika embertani leletei 1848–2002 (Budapest: Balassi Kiadó, 2008), 574. 37 Barbara Hill, Imperial Women in Byzantium 1025–1204: Power, Patronage and Ideology (New York: Longman, 1999), 89–91. 38 József Laszlovszky, “Angol-Magyar kapcsolatok a 12 század második felében,” [English-Hungarian relations in the Second Half of the Twelfth Century] Angol-Magyar kapcsolatok a középkorban [English-Hungarian Contacts in the Middle Ages] I, ed. Attila Bárány, József Laszlovszky, and Zsuzsanna Papp (Máriabesny˝ o: Attraktor, 2008), 153–165.

104

C. MIELKE

years, becoming their chief supporter.39 Szakács states that the marriage of Béla with Margaret represents the second of three times that marriage with a foreign queen resulted in foreign artistic styles being adopted at the Hungarian court.40 As important and necessary as these studies have been to understanding her role and power, new insight into her character, influence, and strategy of rule can come from examining her role as an issuer of charters, a diplomatic gift-giver, and a pilgrim to the Holy Land. There is a great deal of information on Margaret’s life from the written record. Born in 1157 or 1158 to Louis VII of France and his second wife, Constance of Castile (d. 1160) she was engaged almost from infancy to Henry “the Young King,” the eldest son of Henry II of England and Eleanor of Aquitaine. They were married on August 21, 1172, and Margaret was crowned queen on the 27th in Winchester Cathedral. Five years later, Margaret gave birth to a young son, William, who sadly died three days after his birth.41 In 1182, she was accused of having an affair with William Marshal, Earl of Pembroke.42 In 1183, Margaret’s husband Henry died and the young widow returned to French territory. Meanwhile in Hungary, after the death of Queen Anna of Antioch, the widowed Béla III sought a bride, first a granddaughter of Manuel I Komnenos, then Matilda of Saxony, the eight-year-old daughter of Henry the Lion. Matilda’s grandfather, Henry II of England, did not approve of the match.43 At long last, Béla’s choice fell on the recently widowed 39 Elek Benk˝ o, “The Cistercians in Medieval Hungary,” in The Cistercian Arts: From the 12th to the 21st Century, ed. By Terryl N. Kinder and Roberto Cassanelli (Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2014), 165; József Laszlovszky, “Local Tradition or European Patterns? The Grave of Queen Gertrude in the Pilis Cistercian Abbey,” in Medieval East Central Europe in a Comparative Perspective: from Frontier Zones to Lands in Focus, ed. Gerhard Jaritz and Katalin Szende (New York: Routledge, 2016), 90. 40 The first is St. Stephen’s marriage with Gisela of Bavaria, the third is Matthias Corvinus marrying Beatrice of Aragon in 1476. Béla Zsolt Szakács, “A királynék m˝ uvészete—a m˝ uvészettörténészek királynéi,” [The Art of the Queens—the Queens of the Art Historians] in Judit Majorossy, ed. Egy történelmi gyilkosság margójára: Merániai Gertrúd emlékezete, 1213–2013 [To the Margin of a Historical Murder: Commemorate Gertrude of Andechs-Meran, 1213–2013] (Szentendre, 2014), 217–226, 317–318. 41 Margaret was in Paris when she gave birth. Wertner Mór, Az Arp ´ adok ´ csaladi ´ T¨ort´enete, 362–363. 42 David Crouch, William Marshal: Knighthood, War and Chivalry, 1147 –1219 (London: Longman, 2002), 48–50. 43 Makk, The Arp ´ ads ´ and the Comneni, 119–120; Kosztolnyik, From Coloman the Learned to Bela III , 212.

4

THE “OFFICE” OF THE QUEEN BEGINS (1172–1233)

105

Margaret. With approval granted, Margaret left instructions with Rouen Cathedral, asking that the Abbot of Clairvaux celebrate annual memorial services for her first husband.44 Béla and Margaret were married in the summer of 1186.45 This marriage was important enough to be commemorated two centuries later in the fourteenth-century Grandes Chroniques de France, which shows Margaret’s brother Philip II (r. 1180–1223) grasping her hand and pointing to her (Fig. 4.5) while the inscription mentions her nuptials to the Hungarian king.46 During the ten years that Margaret was Queen of Hungary, there were several important changes at court implemented, directly or indirectly. First, Margaret brought with her not only several knights who would become landholders in Hungary,47 but also French troubadours,48 offering a rare glimpse into the musical tastes of the Hungarian queens which would not be known in more detail until the fifteenth century. Margaret’s time as queen has the earliest evidence for a household of the queen separate from and independent of the king’s household.49 While none of Margaret’s charters survive from her time as queen of Hungary, two are known from just before her marriage with Béla III; of those, one even survives in its original format. Her one surviving charter shows that she was the first queen of Hungary to have used a seal of some kind. While neither charter has a sealing clause, the back of the surviving charter had 44 László Fejérpataky, “Margit királyné két oklevele,” [Two Charters of Queen Margaret] in III. Béla magyar király emlékezete (Budapest: V. Hornyánszky, 1900), 352; József Laszlovszky, “Angol-Magyar kapcsolatok a 12 század második felében,” [English-Hungarian Relations in the Second Half of the Twelfth Century] Angol-Magyar kapcsolatok a középkorban [English-Hungarian Contacts in the Middle Ages] I, ed. Attila Bárány, József Laszlovszky, and Zsuzsanna Papp (Máriabesny˝ o: Attraktor, 2008), 159. 45 Margaret left Paris for Hungary on August 25 1186. Mór, Az Arp ´ adok ´ csaladi ´ ´ ads T¨ort´enete, 365; Makk, The Arp ´ and the Comneni, 120. 46 The illustration (one of 418) appears on folio 341 of British Library Royal 16 G VI. Anne D. Hedeman, The Royal Image: Illustrations of the Grandes Chroniques de France, 1274–1422 (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1991), 51–54, 184, 187. 47 In particular, the ancestors of the Kukenus-Renold family in Hungary, as well as a knight named Smaragdus Aynard. Bak, “ Roles and Functions of Queens in Árpádian and Angevin Hungary (1000–1386 A. D.),” 16–17. 48 It is possible that the presence of Peire Vidal and Gaucelm Faidit in Hungary is due to Margaret. Kosztolnyik, From Coloman the Learned to Béla III (1095–1196), 219; Zsoldos, The Árpáds and Their Wives, 180. 49 Bak, “Roles and Functions of Queens in Árpádian and Angevin Hungary,” 19.

106

C. MIELKE

Fig. 4.5 The betrothal of Margaret to Béla III of Hungary. Grandes Chroniques de France, British Library, Royal 16 G VI, f. 341

4

THE “OFFICE” OF THE QUEEN BEGINS (1172–1233)

107

several white silk threads attached to it, indicating that originally a seal was attached. Regrettably, it is unknown whether it was her own seal or whether she made use of someone else’s.50 The Scarlet Wool Tent Given to Frederick I Barbarossa During her time as queen, Margaret is known from one incident related to the Third Crusade that shows she clearly understood strategies related to gift giving. Emperor Frederick I Barbarossa (r. 1158–1190) was received by the King and Queen of Hungary while passing through on his way to the Holy Land. Béla and Margaret greeted the Emperor at Esztergom before proceeding to Óbuda and then going to Csepel Island for a hunting expedition.51 Arnold of Lübeck records how the King gave two silos full of flour to the Emperor and his army, while the queen gave him a lavish traveling tent. Arnold describes the tent as being lined with scarlet wool and taking up three wagons when it was dismantled. Inside the tent, there were four rooms: one contained an ivory throne and another contained a poster bed curtained with fabric covered with white hunting dogs.52 Since the ivory throne and scarlet wool were imported and incredibly costly, they would have made a fitting gift not only for the Holy Roman Emperor, but also the one of the leaders of the Third Crusade.53 However, after the Queen made the gift, she then asked the emperor for a favor in return. She asked Frederick I to release Prince Géza, the king’s brother, from captivity. Géza had been the principle instigator of

50 Though contact between the two was minimal, Margaret was raised at the court of Henry II of England, whose wife Eleanor of Aquitaine was the first French queen to employ a seal during the lifetime of her (first) husband, Louis VII of France. Nolan, Queens in Stone and Silver, 80–86; László Fejérpataky, “Margit királyné két oklevele,” [Two Charters of Queen Margaret] in III. Béla magyar király emlékezete, ed. Gyula Forster (Budapest: V. Hornyánszky, 1900), 349–351. 51 Altman, “Óbuda,” 92–93; Kosztolnyik, From Coloman the Learned to Béla III , 215. 52 Arnold of Lübeck and Georg Heinrich Pertz, ed. Arnoldi Chronica Slavorum

(Hanover: Hahn, 1868), 129–130; Kosztolnyik, From Coloman the Learned to Béla III , 215. 53 Balázs Nagy, “The Towns of Medieval Hungary in the Reports of Contemporary Travellers,” in Segregation, Integration, and Assimilation: Religious and Ethnic Groups in the Medieval Towns of Central and Eastern Europe, ed. Derek Keene, Balázs Nagy and Katalin Szende (Farnham: Ashgate, 2009), 175.

108

C. MIELKE

many plots and coups against Béla III and at this point, he had been imprisoned for eleven years. Margaret’s request may sound counterproductive, but this was actually a clever way for the Hungarian court to get rid of a troublesome, problematic rival. Unable to resist the intercession of his wife and the request of his imperial guest, Béla III gave Géza two thousand knights and charged him with the task of guiding the Emperor and the German Crusaders. The King emerged from the situation behaving like a charitable, forgiving Christian monarch while the Queen fulfilled both her role as hostess as well as intercessor.54 The Royal Palace at Esztergom Sometime in the 1180s, a fire tore through the royal palace complex in the southern part of Esztergom’s Castle Hill. This palace had dated from the time of St. Stephen I with relatively few known modifications.55 Sometime during the reign of Béla III and his son Emeric, a vast series of renovations were made to the palace.56 Margaret thus becomes the first Hungarian queen with any evidence related to her residential space. The royal residence built by Béla III was a keep situated on the southern end of Esztergom’s Castle Hill. At present, only the keep, the northwestern wing, and the eastern wing survive.57 The keep containing the royal residences—a pentagonal structure known as the “White Tower”— was a separate tower next to the main chapel and in a different space from the great hall and other public space of the palace, like the throne room. The lower floor of the tower had a large space (most likely an aula) just beyond the entrance with another interior chamber. There were two staircases leading to the upper floors, a large staircase led from the hallway and a small, winding staircase from the aula. The king’s rooms were above 54 Kosztolnyik, From Coloman the Learned to Béla III , 215. 55 Only Stephen I and Coloman seem to have made significant changes to the building.

István Horváth, “Az Esztergomi Várhegy régészeti kutatása, 1966–1969,” [Archaeological Researches on Esztergom’s Castle Hill, 1966–1999] in In medio regni Hungariae. Régészeti, M˝ uvészettörténeti és történeti kutatások ‘az ország közepén’: Archaeological, Art Historical, and Historical Researches ‘in the Middle of the Kingdom’ ed. Elek Benk˝ o and Krisztina Orosz (Budapest: Magyar Tudományos Akadémia, 2015), 245–248. 56 Horváth, “Esztergom,” 16; Horváth, “Az Esztergomi Várhegy régészeti kutatása, 1966–1969,” 245–246. 57 Ern˝ o Marosi, Die Anfänge der Gotik in Ungarn: Esztergom in der Kunst des 12–13 Jahrhunderts (Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 1984), 42–43.

4

THE “OFFICE” OF THE QUEEN BEGINS (1172–1233)

109

the ground floor and the queen’s residence on the second floor above the kings with the smaller staircase likely led up to the queen’s suite.58 While in this case the queen’s space was kept away from public spaces, it still had access to the aula via the small staircase. Since the suites for Béla and Margaret were presumably on separate floors of the same tower, practically speaking it meant that the route to get from the residential chambers to public spaces within the complex was more or less the same. It is difficult to tell much more about questions of access between the king and queen’s apartments, but aside from the queen needing to either pass by or through the king’s suite on the way to the chapel or the hall or the throne room, that appears to be the only difference in access between the two apartments. Burial in the Cathedral Church of the Holy Cross in Tyre After the death of Béla III in 1196, the queen sold all of her possessions to her stepson, King Emeric (r. 1196–1204) and took the Cross, emboldened by the hope of the Third Crusade to re-conquer Jerusalem.59 During her first marriage, Margaret and her husband Henry the Young King were close to William Marshal, Earl of Pembroke, who went on a pilgrimage to Jerusalem after Henry’s death in 1183.60 Upon Margaret’s arrival in the city of Tyre (Ptolemais), in 1197, she was visited by her nephew, Henry II of Champagne, King of Jerusalem. However, only eight days after her arrival in Tyre, Margaret suddenly became ill and 58 The tower was connected to the throne room by a double-door which led to a passageway. Underneath the throne room was a room called St. Stephen’s room, as in the 1930s it was thought to be the birthplace of St. Stephen. Gergely Buzás, “The Functional Reconstruction of the Visegrád Royal Palace,” in The Medieval Royal Palace at Visegrád, ed. Gergely Buzás and József Laszlovszky (Budapest: Archaeolingua Press, 2013), 163; István Horváth, Marta Kelemen, and István Torma, Komárom megye régészeti topográfiája: Esztergom és a dorogi járás [Komárom County Archaeological Topography: Esztergom and Dorog Tourism] (Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 1979), 97–98. 59 The main source for her time in the Holy Land is the Continuation of the Chronicle of William of Tyre. Peter W. Edbury, The Conquest of Jerusalem and the Third Crusade (Brookfield: Ashgate, 1998), 142–143. 60 In doing so, Marshal fulfilled the vow Henry the Young King had made to go on Crusade. József Laszlovszky, “Angol-Magyar kapcsolatok a 12 század második felében,” [English-Hungarian relations in the second half of the twelfth century] Angol-Magyar kapcsolatok a középkorban [English-Hungarian contacts in the Middle Ages] I, ed. Attila Bárány, József Laszlovszky, and Zsuzsanna Papp (Máriabesny˝ o: Attraktor, 2008), 156–157.

110

C. MIELKE

died. Henry II buried her in the Choir of the Cathedral in Tyre and her remaining possessions were passed on to him.61 Margaret’s place of burial was extremely prestigious in the Crusader kingdom. In the thirteenth century, the Cathedral of Tyre was the primary site for coronations and royal marriages. It was also the most important metropolitan see under the Latin patriarchate of Jerusalem.62 A few years before the death of Margaret, her former guest Frederick I Barbarossa was buried in Tyre after he drowned in 1190. While it was thought that he was buried in Tyre with Margaret, he was rather buried at a Hospitaller foundation, the Church of St. John, with the intent that he would eventually be buried in Jerusalem.63 Considering how it was possible (and common) for the bones of Crusaders who died in the Holy Land to be transported back home,64 the fact that Margaret was buried in such a high position by her natal relatives shows the importance that contemporaries felt she deserved. Of the Cathedral building itself, while it was on the southern outskirts of the town, its large size (68 × 30 meters) puts it on scale with the Cathedral of Nazareth, indicating its importance for the Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem.65 Of the twelfth-century queens, Margaret is the most internationally recognized, in part because of her actions, diplomacy, and gift giving. The material culture she interacted with all played a part in strengthening her new court and the perception of her power.

61 Henry of Champagne was the son of her half-sister, Marie; he became King of Jerusalem after marrying Isabella I. Edbury, The Conquest of Jerusalem and the Third Crusade, 142–143. 62 It was the site of several royal weddings for the monarchs of Jerusalem. Denys Pringle, “The Crusader Cathedral of Tyre,” Levant 33 (2001): 166–168. 63 Excavations of the Cathedral in Tyre from 1874 aimed at recovering the body of Frederick I Barbarossa, to no avail. Pringle, “The Crusader Cathedral of Tyre”: 171; Denys Pringle, The Churches of the Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem: A Corpus IV (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009), 184, 187, 207–208. 64 Estella Weiss-Krejci, “Restless Corpses: ‘Secondary Burial’ in the Babenberg and Habsburg Dynasties,” Antiquity 75 (2001): 770–771. 65 Pringle, “The Crusader Cathedral of Tyre,” 185–186; Pringle, The Churches of the Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem IV, 200–201.

4

THE “OFFICE” OF THE QUEEN BEGINS (1172–1233)

111

Constance of Aragon Shortly after the death of Béla III, his son and heir Emeric (r. 1196– 1204) married Constance, the daughter of Alfonso II of Aragon (r. 1164–1196) in Esztergom in 1196.66 The marriage between Emeric and Constance has been attributed to the connections of Béla’s second queen, Margaret of France67 ; her mother was a Castilian princess, a half-sister to Constance’s mother, making Margaret and Constance cousins. Around 1200, Constance gave birth to a young son who would become King Ladislas III (r. 1204-1205).68 When Emeric died in 1204, his brother Andrew (who had already tried seizing the throne once before) was named as guardian for the young Ladislas. However, in spite of a letter of warning from Pope Innocent III, Andrew refused to give money held for Constance at Pilis Abbey. Constance and Ladislas III fled to Austria to the protection of Duke Leopold VI (r. 1198–1230), but by May 1205, the young boy-king had died and Prince Andrew became the undisputed king.69 After briefly returning to Spain,70 Constance then married Frederick, the king of Sicily and later Holy Roman Emperor Frederick II (r. 1212–1250) in 1209.71 Constance eventually died in 1222.72 When her white marble sarcophagus was opened up in the late eighteenth century, a crown, several fragments of cloth, and a few rings were found. While the 66 While the marriage has been traditionally dated to 1198, Kosztolnyik points out that

Henry of Bohemia, a presumable guest of the wedding, died in June 1196. Wertner, Az ´ adok Arp ´ csaladi ´ T¨ort´enete, 370–371; Kosztolnyik, Hungary in the Thirteenth Century, 28– 29. 35 n48; Ingo Runde, “Konstanze von Aragon,” in Die Kaiserinnen des Mittelalters, ed. Amalie Fößel (Regensburg: Verlag Friedrich Pustet, 2011), 232–233. 67 Kosztolnyik, From Coloman the Learned to Béla III (1095–1196), 213. 68 Wertner, Az Arp ´ adok ´ csaladi ´ T¨ort´enete, 373; Zsoldos, The Árpáds and Their Wives,

196; Kosztolnyik, Hungary in the Thirteenth Century, 29. 69 Kosztolnyik, Hungary in the Thirteenth Century, 32. 70 Agustin Ubieto Arteta, Documentos de Sigena I (Valencia: Anubar, 1972), 86, 88,

130; E. L. Miron, The Queens of Aragon, their Lives and Times (New York: Brentano’s, 1913), 77–79; Luis García-Guijarro Ramos, “The Aragonese Hospitaller Monastery of Sigena: Its Early Stages, 1188-c.1210,” in Hospitaller Women in the Middle Ages, ed. Anthony Luttrell and Helen J. Nicholson (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2006), 125. 71 Ernst Kantorowicz, Frederick the Second 1194–1250 (New York: Frederick Ungar Publishing Co., 1957), 32–35; David Abulafia, Frederick II: A Medieval Emperor (London: Pimlico, 1988), 106; Ernst Kantorowicz, Frederick the Second 1194–1250 (New York: Frederick Ungar Publishing Co., 1957), 32–35. 72 Wertner, Az Arp ´ adok ´ csaladi ´ T¨ort´enete, 373; Runde, “Konstanze von Aragon,” 243.

112

C. MIELKE

rings or clothing could have come from anywhere (Spain, Hungary, Sicily, Byzantium), these grave goods of Constance’s reflect more her life as Queen of Sicily and Holy Roman Empress and thus will not be discussed here.73 Constance was queen of Hungary for only a few years, but there were a few things that can be gleaned about her life from the historical record. First, her marriage contract is the first one of a Hungarian queen to survive. This contract stipulated that she would receive the income of two royal counties during Emeric’s lifetime, and if she left as a widow she was entitled to twelve thousand silver marks.74 There are also records of Constance bringing a retinue with her that remained in Hungary.75 Since some Iberian influence is seen in the Golden Bull of 1222, it is presumed that other clerks who came with Constance stayed in Hungary after she left.76 Ultimately though, most of the material culture associated with Constance comes from her time at the Sicilian court. There is a description of Constance’s seal as Queen of Sicily from 1213, though the original has been lost. On the obverse side, she is sitting on a throne, crowned and holding a scepter, while on the reverse she is depicted on

73 Francesco Daniele, I Regali Sepolcri del Duomo di Palermo riconosciuti e illustrati (Naples: Nella Stamperia del re, 1784), 79–82; József Deér, Der Kaiserornat Friedrichs II (Bern: A. Francke, 1952), 26–32, 56; Percy Ernst Schramm, József Deér, and Olle Källström, Kaiser Friedrichs II. Herrschaftszeichen (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1955), 14; Percy Ernst Schramm, Herrschaftszeichen und Staatssymbolik. Beiträge zu ihrer Geschichte vom 3. bis zum 16. Jahrhundert (Stuttgart: Anton Hirsemann, 1954–1956, 1978), 3: 884–886; József Deér, Dynastic Porphyry Tombs, (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1959), 19, 79; Almut von Gladiß, “Die Grabbeigaben der Konstanze von Aragon, der ersten Gattin Friedrichs II. Palermo, Tesoro della Cattedrale,” in Kaiser Friedrich II. (1194–1250). Welt und Kultur des Mittelmeerraums, ed. Mamoun Fansa. (Mainz: Philipp von Zabern, 2008), 355–357; Christopher Mielke, “From Her Head to Her Toes: Gender-Bending Regalia in the Tomb of Constance of Aragon, Queen of Hungary and Sicily,” Royal Studies Journal 5/2 (2018): 53–61. 74 Kosztolnyik, Hungary in the Thirteenth Century, 29; Gÿorgy Szabados, “Aragóniai Konstancia magyar királyné,” [Constance of Aragon, Hungarian queen in Királylányok messzi földr˝ol: Magyarország és Katalónia a középkorban (Budapest: Hungarian National Museum, 2009), 171; Runde, “Konstanze von Aragon,” 242–243. 75 Simon of Keza, Gesta Hungarorum, 169–173; Gÿorgy Szabados, “Aragóniai Konstancia magyar királyné,” [Constance of Aragon, Hungarian queen in Királylányok messzi földr˝ol: Magyarország és Katalónia a középkorban (Budapest: Hungarian National Museum, 2009), 169–170. 76 Kosztolnyik, From Coloman the Learned to Béla III (1095–1196), 213–214.

4

THE “OFFICE” OF THE QUEEN BEGINS (1172–1233)

113

horseback and holding a harp.77 In addition to the exquisite finds from her grave in Sicily, there is one possible influence Constance may have had in Hungary during her short time as queen. The Árpád Coat of Arms The coat of arms for the Árpád dynasty (a barry of eight in red and silver) first appeared on the gold seal of King Emeric (r. 1196–1204) in a document dated 1202. There are eight horizontal stripes in total and the figures of lions can be discerned—three on the first and third rows, two on the fifth, and one on the seventh row.78 The long-held hypothesis attributes the appearance of these alternating red and silver horizontal bars to the influence of Constance of Aragon, namely, through the red and gold vertical bars that makeup the Aragonese coat of arms.79 New views have challenged the connection between the queen and the heraldic device of the Árpáds, pointing out that bars and lions are common heraldic devices. Instead, the silver horizontal bars in the Árpádian coat of arms were supposedly derived from metal bands used to strengthen shields and that the similarity to the arms of Aragon is coincidence. Furthermore, Emeric’s father Béla III (r. 1173–1196) used lions as a decoration for the palace at Esztergom in the 1180 s, so the motif of the lions on the silver and red escutcheon may have originated with Béla III rather than Emeric.80 Takács adds that since the coat of arms was

77 The inscription on the obverse read “† Constantia dei gratia regina Sicilie, ducatus Apulie et principatus Capue” while on the reverse it read “† Constantia regina filia illustris regis Aragonensium.” Otto Posse, Die Siegel der deutschen Kaiser und Könige, Vol. V (Dresden: Baensch, 1909), 29. 78 Takács, Az Árpád-házi királyok pecsétjei: Royal Seals of the Árpád Dynasty, 69, 104– 106, 166–167. 79 Engel, The Realm of St Stephen, 86; György Szabados, “Aragóniai Konstancia magyar királyné,” [Constance of Aragon, Queen of Hungary]. Királylányok messzi földr˝ol: Magyarország és Katalónia a középkorban [Princesses from Afar: Hungary and Catalonia in the Middle Ages], ed. Ramon Sarobe and Csaba Tóth (Budapest and Barcelona: Hungarian National Museum and History Museum of Catalonia, 2009), 170–171. 80 Iván Bertényi, “Az Árpád-házi királyok címere és Aragónia,” [Royal escutcheons of the Árpád house and Aragon] Királylányok messzí földról: Magyarország és Katalónia a középkorban [Princesses from Afar: Hungary and Catalonia in the Middle Ages] ed. Ramon Sarobe and Csaba Tóth (Budapest: Hungarian National Museum, 2009), 193–197.

114

C. MIELKE

used by Emeric’s brother, successor, and bitter rival, Andrew II (r. 1205– 1235), it is doubtful that Andrew continued using the device if it had originated from his sister-in-law.81 These are valid points, but this does not take into account the nature of how cultural transfer through queens worked in Hungary. Queens like Margaret of France made their presence known through supporting the Cistercians and through bringing musicians. Ascribing the development of the Hungarian coat of arms to coincidence ignores the fact that queens were in the habit of bringing new items and traditions to their marital countries. Constance of Aragon’s role as an agent of transfer should not be so easily discounted, especially considering her active political and material record in Sicily.

Gertrude of Andechs-Meran In Hungary, Gertrude of Andechs-Meran has a unique and infamous reputation. The daughter of Berthold IV of Andechs, Duke of Meran (a powerful lord in Istria), Andrew married Gertrude before the death of his brother Emeric in 1204.82 Problems immediately arose as, shortly after the marriage, Andrew began a rebellion against his older brother. Though Emeric had an infant son, Andrew claimed that he was the rightful heir to the throne. The rebellion ended when Emeric single-handedly marched into Andrew’s camp, took him by the hand and shackled him in a nearby fortress. Gertrude was sent back home.83 After the death of Emeric in 1204, Andrew became regent for the young Ladislas III and he brought Gertrude back to the Hungarian court. With the death of Ladislas III in 1205, Andrew became the undisputed king of Hungary. Andrew II and Gertrude of Andechs-Meran were both crowned at Székesfehérvár on May 29, 1205.84 As queen, Gertrude was mostly known for her ambition and incredible nepotism. She lobbied successfully for her brother Berthold to become the Archbishop of Kalocsa in spite of the fact that he was canonically too young and did not have the proper education for Hungary’s second most

81 Takács, Az Árpád-házi királyok pecsétjei: Royal Seals of the Árpád Dynasty, 69. 82 Wertner suggests before 1203. Wertner, Az Arp ´ adok ´ csaladi ´ T¨ort´enete, 417–419. 83 Kosztolnyik, Hungary in the Thirteenth Century, 29–30. 84 András Smohay, “Székesfehérvár és II. András,” in II. András és Székesfehérvár, ed. Terézia Kerny (Székesfehérvár: Székesfehérvári Egyházmegyei Múzeum, 2012), 28, 206.

4

THE “OFFICE” OF THE QUEEN BEGINS (1172–1233)

115

important ecclesiastical position. She also fostered two of her brothers at the Hungarian court who had been accused of murdering the German King Philip of Swabia in 1208.85 On September 28, 1213, while entertaining her brother, Berthold the Archbishop of Kalocsa and Leopold VI of Austria, Queen Gertrude was brutally murdered in the forests of Zemplén. While the target may have originally been the archbishop, Berthold and Leopold were both able to flee safely while the queen was butchered so badly that her arms were cut off. Only one of the murderers, Peter, son of Töre (Turoy), has been identified beyond a shadow of a doubt (though four others are mentioned in the sources). The motivation for the murder is still unknown, though usually attributed to her nepotism and fear of German influence. The queen’s body was carried to Pilis Abbey and subsequently buried there.86 The story of the queen’s ambition and careless disregard for those outside her own circle were immortalized in József Katona’s play Bánk Bán, which paints Gertrude as a power-hungry, grasping, and greedy harridan who was murdered (justifiably) by a man whose wife had been raped by the queen’s brother.87 Most of the scholarship on Gertrude has been colored by the view of this opera that portrays the queen as a scheming woman and nefarious foreigner. However, looking at the material culture related to the life of the queen offers a new perspective on her life and the power she held. In addition to mentions in the historical record of several items and images associated with the queen, there are several artifacts connected to her which survive to present day: the “Elisabethkleid,” images of her in illuminations and altar paintings, and finally her sarcophagus at Pilis Abbey.

85 Engel, The Realm of St. Stephen, 90–91. 86 Körmendi’s reasoning for the murder taking place at a forest aside from Pilis was

the burial of certain parts of her body at the Premonstratensian monastery of Lelesz. Kosztolnyik, Hungary in the Thirteenth Century, 46–49; Tamás Körmendi, “A Gertrúd királyné elleni merénylet körülményei” [The Circumstances of the Assassination of Queen Gertrude,” in Egy történelmi gyilkosság margójára: Merániai Gertrúd emlékezete, 1213– 2013, ed. Judit Majorossy (Szentendre: Ferenczy Múzeum, 2014), 101–120. 87 József Laszlovszky, “Merániai Gertrúd sírja a pilisi apátságban: Uralkodói temetkezések a ciszterci kolostorokban a Magyar Királyságban” [The Burial of Gertrude of Andechs-Meran in the Cistercian Monastery of Pilis: Royal Burials in Hungarian Cistercian Monasteries,” in Egy történelmi gyilkosság margójára: Merániai Gertrúd emlékezete, 1213–2013, ed. Judit Majorossy (Szentendre: Ferenczy Múzeum, 2014), 127.

116

C. MIELKE

Objects Known Only from the Written Record None of her charters survive and it is unknown whether she ever employed a seal of her own. But an intriguing clue as to her power in issuing and authenticating documents of the royal court can be found related to the events of her murder. A charter of Andrew II from 1216 tells how his double seal was lost during the events of Queen Gertrude’s murder. This hints at the fact that she likely held the royal seal in trust for the king who was off fighting in Halich when she was killed.88 She is also associated with other objects of royal power. The fifteenth-century chronicler Długosz mentions how Gertrude ordered one of her crowns to be donated to Wrocław Cathedral and melted down in order to be fashioned into a chalice. It had been one she wore for ceremonial occasions.89 Though written centuries after her murder, this information is plausible considering that her sister, St. Hedwig/Jadwiga, was then duchess of Silesia (d. 1243). Gertrude is also remembered for the lavish bridal trousseaux she gave her infant daughter, St. Elizabeth (1207–1231). Andrew and Gertrude sent their daughter to Thuringia in 1211 with a silver crib, a silver bathtub, jewelry, silk garments, and at least eight thousand silver marks. The queen herself had promised that she would double her gift of a thousand marks from her own purse should Elizabeth live to adolescence.90 One chronicle goes so far to say that the queen was “generous and friendly towards the Germans, wherever they came from, and tried to help them in every possible way.”91 This gift giving on the part of the queen sends several different messages. On the surface, the rich material imparts to the recipients that the King and Queen of Hungary are incredibly wealthy and powerful. On the other hand, the promise of additional money on the condition of her daughter’s safety and wellbeing sends the message that Gertrude was a powerful friend, but hidden in the statement is the threat that she can also be a wrathful enemy.

88 Takács, Az Árpád-házi királyok pecsétjei: Royal Seals of the Árpád Dynasty, 66. 89 Długosz, The Annals of Jan Długosz, 160. 90 Kosztolnyik, Hungary in the Thirteenth Century, 40; Charles Montalembert, The Life of Saint Elizabeth of Hungary, Duchess of Thuringia (New York: Sadlier, 1848), 9–10. 91 Engel, The Realm of St. Stephen, 90; Georg Heinrich Pertz, et al. “Annales Marbacenses,” in Monumenta Germaniae Historiae, Scriptores XVII (Hanover: Impensis Bibliopolii A vlici Hahniani, 1861), 173.

4

THE “OFFICE” OF THE QUEEN BEGINS (1172–1233)

117

The Elisabethkleid—The Possible Coronation Mantle of Queen Gertrude A 1457 inventory from Andechs Abbey in Bavaria lists a tunic made of twelve fragments of pale silk similar to damask (Fig. 4.6). The original ownership was attributed to St. Elizabeth of Thuringia, Gertrude’s daughter. Another inventory from 1518 elaborates that this was Elizabeth’s wedding dress, but that originally it had been the mantle Gertrude wore at her coronation.92 A psalter that St. Elizabeth gave to the Abbey

Fig. 4.6 The Elisabethkleid. Andechs Abbey

92 “Das Grabfarb Stuckh eingefast in den Gruenen Tamast ist ein thail des Rockhs, Sant Elisabethen den sy zu dem gozhaus zu einem Mesgewandt hat gegeben, Darinn auch Ir Muetter gerdrutis ein Khönigin von Hungern gekhröndt ist worden, und auch heylig ist…” Rainer Rückert, “Brautkleid der Hl. Elisabeth,” in Der Schatz vom Heiligen Berg Andechs, ed. Rainer Rückert (Andechs: Kloster Andechs, 1967), 20; S. Müller-Christensen, “Sog. Rock der hl. Elisabeth (auch sog. Krönungsmantel Gertruds),” in Sankt Elisabeth: Fürstin Dienerin Heilige, ed. Carl Graepler and Paul Gerhard Schmidt (Sigmaringen: Thorbecke, 1981), 332–334.

118

C. MIELKE

of Cividale in 1229 was given to her by a member of her mother’s family, possibly Gertrude herself, indicating St. Elizabeth was in the habit of depositing family artifacts in monasteries.93 The original shape or function of the garment cannot be determined from the remains of the stitching left on the tunic.94 The original stitching shows ribboned griffins and panthers embroidered on the fabric within circular designs. Pairs of birds are between the circles while the fields inside of them are filled with rosettes in the shape of hearts.95 This garment was likely made in the eastern Mediterranean (possibly Syria) in the eleventh century,96 so it was in existence at the time when Gertrude was queen. The three hundred years between Gertrude’s death and the mention of her ownership in the written sources should be taken with a certain grain of salt. The donation of a rich dress like this on the part of St. Elizabeth is entirely plausible, as she was known to reject fancy dress in favor of a simple, ascetic aesthetic for clothing. Twelfth-century queens in France and England often donated their clothes to monasteries either for making vestments or raising funds for the monastery. In other cases, clothes were passed on to immediate family members.97 It is possible that the “Elisabethkleid” given to Andechs Abbey was not only owned by St. Elizabeth, but she could have initially received it from her mother or another family member.

93 The Gertrude Psalter (also called the Egbert or the Trier Psalter) was made around 980 as a present for Egbert, Archbishop of Trier. In 1108, Gertrude of Poland (d. 1108), wife of Iziaslav I of Kiev (d. 1078) added new prayers and illuminations to the psalter. It returned to Poland and passed into the hands of the Andechs-Meran family, either through Elizabeth’s mother Gertrude or through her aunt, St. Hedwig of Silesia. Brygida Kürbis, “Die Gertrudanischen Gebete im Psalterium Egberti: Ein Betrag zur Geschichte der Frömmigkeit im 11 Jahrhundert,” in Europa Slavica—Europa Orientalis: Festschrift für Herbert Ludat zum 70 Geburtstag, ed. Klaus-Detlev Grothusen and Klaus Zernack (Berlin: Duncker and Humbolt, 1980), 249–253; Ioannis Spatharakis, The Portrait in Byzantine Illuminated Manuscripts (Leiden: Brill, 1976), 39–43; Katharina Bierbrauer, “Sog. Egbert Psalter,” in Sankt Elisabeth: Fürstin, Dienerin, Heilige, ed. Philips-Universität Marburg, Hessisches Landesamt für Geschichtliche Landeskunde, Elisabethskirche, (Marburg. Sigmaringen: Thorbecke, 1981), 336–338. 94 Müller-Christensen, “Sog. Rock der hl. Elisabeth,” 332. 95 Ibid., 332. 96 Ibid., 332. 97 Elizabeth Van Houts, Memory and Gender in Medieval Europe 900–1200 (Toronto:

University of Toronto Press, 1999), 115–117.

4

THE “OFFICE” OF THE QUEEN BEGINS (1172–1233)

119

Gertrude of Andechs-Meran in Illuminated Manuscripts Gertrude of Andechs-Meran is the first Hungarian queen whose image appears in a contemporary illuminated manuscript. The “Landgrafenpsalter” has been dated to 1211–1213, originating from Lower Saxony. It depicts three royal couples in quick succession: Hermann of Thuringia (d. 1217) with his wife Sophia, Andrew II of Hungary and Gertrude, and King Ottokar I of Bohemia (r. 1197–1230) and his second wife, Constance of Hungary (d. 1240). Ottokar was a cousin of Hermann of Thuringia, and Constance was Andrew II’s sister.98 All three of the women are crowned and holding books. Though all three hold books, Sophia’s hands cannot be seen, Constance is shown with one hand on the center crease of the book, and Gertrude appears with her right hand on the book and her left hand with an open palm toward the viewer. The gesture that she makes with her open palm seems to be one of acceptance, similar to the gesture made by Margaret of France in Fig. 4.5.99 Gertrude also appears with her natal family in an illustration from the fourteenthcentury Hedwig Codex (also called the Schlackenwerther Codex). She is shown with her natal family on folio 10v, crowned and holding an orb and pointing to her daughter, St. Elizabeth, indicating the holy princess’ importance (Fig. 4.7).100

98 Renate Kroos, “Sog. Landgrafen psalter,” in Sankt Elisabeth: Fürstin Dienerin Heilige, Paul Gerhard Schmidt, et al. (Sigmaringen: Thorbecke, 1981), 350–1. 99 It could also represent obedience or submission to authority. Garnier, Le langage de

l’image au Moyen Âge I: 174. 100 The manuscript is currently in Cologne, at the Schnütgen Museum, Ludwig Ms. XI 3. It most likely originates from Silesia. The manuscript has been dated to around 1353, showing the sons and daughters of Berthold VI of Andechs-Meran (d. 1204). Wilhelm Störmer, “Die Familie der Gertrud von Andechs-Meranien,” in Sankt Elisabeth: Fürstin Dienerin Heilige; Paul Gerhard Schmidt, et al. (Sigmaringen: Thorbecke, 1981), 329–332; Garnier, Le langage de l’image au Moyen Âge I: 165, 170.

120

C. MIELKE

Fig. 4.7 The Andechs family in the Hedwig Codex (Digital Image Courtesy of Getty’s Open Content Program)

Gertrude’s Sarcophagus at Pilis Abbey Considering the sensational nature of Queen Gertrude’s murder, it is no surprise that the site of her burial and tomb should be equally exciting. The discovery of her sarcophagus at the Cistercian Abbey of Pilis in 1981 is, to date, the only surviving grave monument for a Hungarian queen within the medieval Hungarian kingdom. Excavations at the site uncovered a grave featuring the disturbed skeletons of a man and a woman at the crossing of the church in Grave Number 57.101 While the man’s skeleton dates from the mid-fifteenth century, the woman’s skeleton was C-14 dated to 1030–1220. The woman’s skeleton was estimated to be 30–40 years old, indicating that this could be the body of

101 Szentpéteri, Siklódi and Laszlovszky were the ones to discover the grave which was

drawn and photographed. József Laszlovszky and József Szentpéteri, “…scripta manent. Emlékképek a pilisi úgynevezett Gertrúd-sír megtalálási körülményeir˝ ol,” [“…Scripta manent”. Memories of Excavating the So-called Gertrude Grave of Pilis] in Egy történelmi gyilkosság margójára: Merániai Gertrúd emlékezete, 1213–2013, ed. Judit Majorossy (Szentendre: Ferenczy Múzeum, 2014), 165–171.

4

THE “OFFICE” OF THE QUEEN BEGINS (1172–1233)

121

Queen Gertrude.102 Sixty-five pieces of Gertrude’s grave monument were recovered at Pilis, mostly found within a 5-meter radius of Grave 57.103 At the time of her death, this section of the church had been finished, which explains why she was not buried in the sanctuary, closer to the altar, or near the sanctuary. This part of the church was neither finished nor consecrated at that point in time.104 Also, since the monument had four sides, its location meant the sarcophagus had a high degree of visibility. Indeed, the body of the queen was such a prized possession that the monks of Pilis were loath to relinquish it and insisted on her husband being buried beside her upon his death in 1235.105 The queen’s monument depicted her lying on her back with an angel holding a pillow under her head. On the long side of the sarcophagus there were seven arcaded niches with statues of saints in the alcoves. Between the effigy of the queen and the sides of the sarcophagus there was an inscription cut into red marble; the only legible words are “ANNO” and “PERHENNIS.” The rest of the grave, including the effigy and the sides of the sarcophagus were made of limestone. The niches of the arcades had both male and female figures in bright scarlet and blue clothing with gold trim, some of them even holding regalia; the architectural features were mostly painted gold.106 The carvings on the foliage, the statue heads, and the drapery are similar to the south transept portal at Chartres, and the architecture on the tomb is reminiscent of the 102 Sadly, a piece of her skull uncovered in 1981 has not been recovered. Elek Benk˝ o, “Getrúd királyné sírja a pilisi ciszterci monostorban” [The Grave of Queen Gertrude in the Cistercian Monastery of Pilis] In Egy történelmi gyilkosság margójára: Merániai Gertrúd emlékezete, 1213–2013, ed. Judit Majorossy (Szentendre: Ferenczy Múzeum, 2014), 180– 185. 103 Imre Takács, “A Gertrúd-síremlék rekonstrukciójának kérdései,” [The Questions of

the Reconstruction of Queen Gertrude’s Funerary Monument] in Egy történelmi gyilkosság margójára: Merániai Gertrúd emlékezete, 1213–2013, ed. Judit Majorossy (Szentendre: Ferenczy Múzeum, 2014), 193. 104 Admittedly, Elek Benk˝ o is not convinced of this, stating grave 57 most likely belonged to an abbot and that the queen’s funerary monument was nearby, possibly in the apse. Imre Takács, “An Early Gothic Rib Vault in Hungary and the Question of the Cerce,” in Bonum ut Pulchrum: Essays in Art History in Honour of Ern˝o Marosi on his Seventieth Birthday (Budapest: Hungarian Academy of Sciences, 2010), 152; Benk˝ o, “Getrúd királyné sírja a pilisi ciszterci monostorban,” 185. 105 Dercsényi et al., The Hungarian Illuminated Chronicle, 171, n. 506; Kosztolnyik, Hungary in the Thirteenth Century, 116. 106 Takács, “A Gertrúd-síremlék rekonstrukciójának kérdései,” 195–198.

122

C. MIELKE

choir at Reims Cathedral.107 Due to the sudden nature of her death, the queen had no hand in designing the grave monument. which was sculpted sometime in the 1220s. Gertrude’s sarcophagus is one of the earliest tomb effigies in the medieval kingdom, a style of funerary representation that does not become fashionable until the fourteenth century. Vernei-Kronberger only documented four tombs in Hungary between the eleventh and thirteenth centuries that have an image of the deceased.108 The western influence in the monument shows the cosmopolitan nature of art at the Hungarian court. The central location of the queen’s grave monument also indicates the importance of her status. The fact that she was given such a stylish, sophisticated monument shows her importance at court in the decades after her death. The royal donations Andrew II made to Pilis suggest that the site was intended as his own burial site, though after his death, his son Béla IV opposed the idea of his father being buried next to his murdered mother. Since the queen was killed away from the Pilis forest, her burial was more part of a dynastic plan rather than being a matter of mere convenience.109 While it is unlikely Gertrude had much agency in planning her funeral arrangements considering the sudden nature of her death, Długosz’s account of her instructions for her crown indicate that she had some charitable intentions expressed after her death. The most likely scenario is that Andrew II arranged for her burial at Pilis with all of the pomp, visibility, and innovation that was deemed necessary for his wife. Her actions during her lifetime as a diplomatic gift-giver indicate that she

107 Initially it was thought that Villard de Honnecourt had designed Gertrude’s sarcophagus sometime during his visit to Hungary in the 1220s. László Gerevich, “Grabmal der Gertrud von Andechs-Meranien in Pilis,” in Sankt Elisabeth: Fürstin Dienerin Heilige, (Sigmaringen: Jan Thorbecke Verlag, 1984), 335; Gerevich, “Ausgrabungen in der Ungarischen Zisterzienserabtei Pilis,” 291–292; Crossley, “The Architecture of Queenship,” 270. 108 Emil Vernei-Kronberger, Magyar középkori siremlékek: Medieval tombstones of Hungary (Budapest: Officina, 1939), 78–79. 109 József Laszlovszky, “Merániai Gertrúd sírja a pilisi apátságban: Uralkodói temetkezések a ciszterci kolostorokban a Magyar Királyságban” [The Burial of Gertrude of Andechs-Meran in the Cistercian Monastery of Pilis: Royal Burials in Hungarian Cistercian Monasteries,” in Egy történelmi gyilkosság margójára: Merániai Gertrúd emlékezete, 1213–2013, ed. Judit Majorossy (Szentendre: Ferenczy Múzeum, 2014), 125–141.

4

THE “OFFICE” OF THE QUEEN BEGINS (1172–1233)

123

was able to express her power in numerous ways—and this ultimately cost her life.

Yolanda of Courtenay Two years after the death of Gertrude, Andrew II married Yolanda of Courtenay, the daughter of Peter II of Courtenay and Yolanda of Flanders.110 The bride’s father was a grandson of Louis VI of France, and from 1216 to 1217, held the title of Latin Emperor of Constantinople; her mother would rule as regent from 1217 until her death in 1219.111 Only one child is known from Andrew’s marriage with Yolanda; a daughter (also named Yolanda) born in 1219 who would marry Jaime I of Aragon.112 The traditional interpretation of Yolanda’s marriage has been that Andrew married her because he had hopes of being crowned Latin Emperor of Constantinople, but that ultimately this pipe dream came to nothing.113 This failed aspiration combined with Yolanda’s predecessor being the powerful and controversial Gertrude means that in most historiography, she appears to be totally inconsequential. However, there are several reasons to doubt this narrative. First, Andrew’s marriage with Yolanda took place before Andrew’s participation in the Fifth Crusade rendering the two earlier assertions that the marriage was part of a quest to gain this title thoroughly anachronistic.114 In addition to this, all contemporary evidence points to Yolanda being a significant figure at the Hungarian court. Honorius III wrote several letters to her during his time as pope.115 Yolanda was also part of a dispute 110 Wertner, Az Arp ´ adok ´ csaladi ´ T¨ort´enete, 423. 111 Filip Van Tricht, The Latin Renovatio of Byzantium: The Empire of Constantinople

(1204–1228) (Leiden & Boston: Brill, 2001), 413–419. 112 Wertner, Az Arp ´ adok ´ csaladi ´ T¨ort´enete, 444; Szabolcs Vajay, “Dominae reginae milites. Árpád-házi Jolánta magyarjai Valencia visszavétele idején,” [Dominae reginae milites. The Hungarians of Yolanda of the Árpád dynasty in the time of the return to Valencia] in Mályusz Elemér Emlékkönyv [Memorial Book of Elemér Mályusz], ed. H. Balázs Éva-Fügedi Erik-Maksay Ferenc (Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest 1984), 395–414. 113 Wertner Mór, Az Arp ´ adok ´ csaladi ´ T¨ort´enete, 423–424; Kosztolnyik, Hungary in the Thirteenth Century, 116. 114 Attila Bárány, “II. András és a latin csázárság,” [King Andrew II of Hungary and the Latin Empire of Constantinople] Hadtörténelmi Közlemények 126 (2013) 2: 461–480. 115 Augustin Theiner, Vetera monumenta historica Hungariam sacram illustrantia (Onasbrück: Zeller, 1968) Vol. I, LVIII, 35, CXXXVIII, 66.

124

C. MIELKE

between the Archbishop of Esztergom and the Bishop of Veszprém over who had the right to crown her, which was eventually decided in favor of Veszprém.116 This is the first connection between the queen and Veszprém since the days of Gisela of Bavaria and Adelaide of Rheinfelden in the eleventh century, and one that would continue with lasting impact. One of two surviving charters issued by Queen Yolanda gives the Cathedral of Veszprém exemption from tolls in her lands.117 The crown of Gisela of Bavaria had been kept in Veszprém. It is possible that Yolanda was the last queen to wear this diadem since it was melted down by 1217. Yolanda actions include granting property to a lady-in-waiting of hers named Ahalyz (Alice) who cared for Prince Andrew (the king’s youngest son by Gertrude) while Andrew II was off leading the Fifth Crusade.118 The Life of St. Salomea of Kraków (d. 1268) mentions how Yolanda of Courtenay was fond of tournaments and other chivalric pleasures; this was a point of tension between the ascetic princess and the worldly queen.119 It also reinforces the notion of the queen participating in and promoting cultural pageantry from the west, similar to Margaret of France bringing over troubadours. Ultimately though, it is the material culture and space associated with the queen that really demonstrate her important presence at the Hungarian court. Evidence of Yolanda’s power and agency can be seen in the remains of her seal, coins with her image on them, the second palace in Óbuda, and her burial at Igri¸s Abbey. The Seal of Yolanda of Courtenay While earlier queens issued charters of their own, Yolanda is the first Hungarian queen whose charters survive in their intact, original form.120 She is also the first queen whose seal survives. The queen’s seal survives on 116 Zsoldos, The Árpáds and Their Wives, 21–22. 117 Szentpétery and Zsoldos, Az Árpád-házi hercegek, hercegn˝ ok és királynék okleveleinek,

45–46. 118 János Bak, “Roles and Functions of Queens in Árpádian and Angevin Hungary,”

17; Kosztolnyik, Hungary in the Thirteenth Century, 62. 119 W. K˛etrzynski, ´ ed. “Vita sanctae Salomeae reginae Haliciensis auctore Stanislao Franciscano,” in Monumenta Poloniae historica IV. (Cracow: 1884), 778–779; Karol Hollý, “Princess Salomea and Hungarian-Polish Relations in the period 1214–1241,” Historický Capsis, 55 (2007): 27. 120 MNL OL DF 61126.

4

THE “OFFICE” OF THE QUEEN BEGINS (1172–1233)

125

a charter from 1226, though in a badly damaged state.121 The fragments of this broken seal nonetheless suggest a few tantalizing clues about its original appearance. The central figure appears seated on a throne with elements of Gothic tracery. Though similar in appearance and shape to the seals of Andrew II, there are several reasons why this appears to be the seal of Yolanda herself. While most of the inscription is missing, one fragment appears to contain “IE + .” The position of the cross indicates that this is most likely the conclusion of a formula for “REGINA UNGARIE.” All of the seals of Andrew II as king end with the word “REX+” in contrast.122 This seal also appears to be smaller than any seal employed by Andrew II.123 While the “E” in her seal looks similar to the letters used on Andrew’s second and third great seal,124 the most logical explanation is that this seal belongs to Yolanda and was used by her as Queen of Hungary (Fig. 4.8). While the lettering on the seal is not in its original place, the other three fragments in this seal are in their original position They depict what is most likely her head, her right arm and torso, and her left hand with Gothic ornamentation. Yolanda’s head is considerably worn, but a band near the top indicates that she was crowned. The portion with her body shows a loose-fitting garment and the queen’s right arm which appears positioned as if she is holding a scepter, though there is no trace of one. Yolanda holds an object in her left hand, possibly an orb with a cross. If this is an orb, its presence is remarkable because one would not appear on the seals of Hungarian queens until the 1380s–150 years after the death of Yolanda of Courtenay. Other thirteenth-century seals of the queens had similar thrones so the decoration above her hand might be an armrest or part of the throne’s back. The basic formula of Yolanda’s seal—depicting the queen seated on a throne, crowned, and with an inscription on the border—would be repeated on the seals of queens until the end of the fourteenth century. 121 Yolanda also issued a charter in 1224 and there is evidence for a third charter which has not survived. Zsoldos and Szentpétery, Az Árpád-házi hercegek, hercegn˝ok és a királynék okleveleinek kritikai jegyzéke [A Critical Edition of the Charters of the Princes, Princesses, and Queens of the Árpád house], 45–46, 184. 122 Takács, Az Árpad-házi királyok pecsétjei: Royal Seals of the Árpád dynasty, 106–117. 123 The fragments of this seal measure approximately 37 cm in diameter, while the seals

of Andrew II are 90–100 cm, except for the one he used as prince. Ibid. 124 Takács, Az Árpad-házi királyok pecsétjei: Royal Seals of the Árpád dynasty, 110–115.

126

C. MIELKE

Fig. 4.8 Seal of Yolanda of Courtenay, drawing by the author

Coins of Andrew II Featuring Yolanda There are three coins of Andrew II featuring two crowned heads believed to be Andrew and Yolanda of Courtenay.125 This would make Yolanda the first queen to appear on Hungarian coinage. One of the coins shows the two crowned monarchs portrayed at three-quarters, while in another they are in profile facing each other. The coin with the portraits of two rulers at three-quarters depicts them on the obverse, with an object (possibly a scepter) between them. Both rulers are crowned and it appears that the figure on the viewer’s left is wearing long hair or a veil as befits a

125 Lajos Huszár, Münzkatalog Ungarn von 1000 bis heute (Budapest: Corvina, 1979), 58, 61.

4

THE “OFFICE” OF THE QUEEN BEGINS (1172–1233)

127

queen. On the reverse of the coin there is a castle beneath a shield with the horizontal Árpád coat of arms flanked by two trees, all indicating the rank and descent of the king. The two coins in profile are alike although one is larger than the other as it is a higher denomination. The obverse of the denar and obolus with the king and queen in profile facing each other has them placed beneath a star and a moon, symbols of dominion over the universe.126 The figure on the right wears a veil that covers the hair and the ears, likely representing the queen rather than a junior king or royal advisor. On the reverse of the coins there is a castle turret under a star and flanked by two shields bearing the double-barred Hungarian cross, symbols of both the dynasty and royal status (Fig 4.9). Gertrude of Andechs-Meran was initially identified as the queen pictured here, and this coin was thought to commemorate the couple’s marriage.127 More recent identifications refer to the queen on this same coin as Yolanda of Courtenay, Andrew’s second wife.128 The main reason

Fig. 4.9 Coinage of Andrew II featuring Yolanda. From László Réthy, Corpus Nummorum Hungariae (1899–1907)

126 Takács, Az Árpád-házi királyok pecsétjei: Royal Seals of the Árpád Dynasty, 66 127 Menadier, Deutsche Münzen, 130. 128 Huszár, Münzkatalog Ungarn, 58, 61.

128

C. MIELKE

for this alternative identification is that the crescent and star associated with Andrew II only appear on his seal after the death of Queen Gertrude.129 While it is simple to date the image on the coins in this respect, it is much more difficult to explain Yolanda’s presence on the coin. Part of it is simply a chronological matter: with the exception of King Salomon (r. 1063–1074), Hungarian kings did not mint coins with their image on it until Andrew II. In examples from neighboring Germany, consorts often appear on coinage during a period of the husband’s absence.130 While Andrew was in the Holy Land, Yolanda was back in Hungary. A charter of Andrew II from 1219 confirming a donation of land to the Knights Templar indicates not only that the Order had helped the queen manage affairs in his absence, but also that the donation was made at the queen’s request.131 If this coin was minted during a period when Andrew II was off on the Fifth Crusade, then this would follow earlier patterns from the Holy Roman Empire. The Second Royal Residence in Óbuda While Béla III and Margaret of France entertained Frederick I Barbarossa in the first royal palace (most likely a grand building near the provostry),132 Andrew II built a second palace in Óbuda, currently at 2– 4 Kalvin köz in Budapest. This palace of Andrew’s was a square building in the southwestern corner of the town. Spekner hypothesized that the reason Andrew II built this new palace was tied either to his participation in the Fifth Crusade, or his marriage in 1215 with Yolanda of

129 In particular the seals of Andrew II used before 1216 (perhaps as early as 1214) until 1229. Takács, Az Árpád-házi királyok pecsétjei: Royal Seals of the Árpád Dynasty, 66, 169–170. 130 Jitske Jasperse, “A Coin Bearing Testimony to Duchess Matilda as Consors Regni,” Haskins Society Journal 26 (2014): 169–176. 131 Tadija Smiˇciklas, Codex diplomaticus regni Croatiae, Dalmatiae et Slavoniae, III. (Zagreb, 1905), 175; Miha Kosi,“The Age of the Crusades in the South-East of the Empire (Between the Alps and the Adriatic),” In The Crusades and the Military Orders: Expanding the Frontiers of Medieval Latin Christianity, ed. Zsolt Hunyadi and József Laszlovszky (Budapest: CEU Press, 2001), 137. 132 Altmann, “Óbuda,” 92–93.

4

THE “OFFICE” OF THE QUEEN BEGINS (1172–1233)

129

Courtenay.133 Unfortunately, not much is known of this building; it stood for only a few decades before the Mongols destroyed it along with most of Óbuda in 1241–1242. Nonetheless, if the renovations were done to this palace in anticipation of Yolanda’s arrival, it shows that the status of the queen was important enough to merit such attention. Yolanda’s Burial at Igri¸s Abbey When Yolanda of Courtenay died in 1233 she was buried at the Cistercian Abbey of Igri¸s (in Romania, Egres in Hungarian)134 ; two years later, her husband died and was buried with her. Igri¸s had been founded in 1179 by Andrew’s father Béla III as a direct filiation to Pontigny, one of the four great daughter houses of the Cistercian Abbey at Cîteaux.135 The first generation of monks at Igri¸s came directly from France and half of the members of the Abbey were French when Yolanda died.136 Whether Yolanda came to Hungary from France or from the Near East, this French connection is of critical importance in the social and familial

133 Enik˝ o Spekner, “Buda királyi székhellyé alakulásának kezdetei a 13. század els˝ o felében,” Urbs. Magyar Várostörténeti Évkönyv 7 (2012): 111; Krisztina Havasi, “A király új palotája. Megjegyzések a kora 13. századi óbudai rezidencia m˝ uvészettörténeti helyéhez,” [A New Palace for the King: Remarks on the Place in Art History of the Early 13th-Century Royal Residence at Óbuda] in In medio regni Hungariae. Régészeti, M˝ uvészettörténeti és történeti kutatások ‘az ország közepén’: Archaeological, Art Historical, and Historical Researches ‘in the Middle of the Kingdom,’ ed. Elek Benk˝ o and Krisztina Orosz (Budapest: Magyar Tudományos Akadémia, 2015), 410, 468. 134 “Regina Hoilenz de Hungaria in presentia Iacobi cardinalis et episcoporum moritur et in abbatia de Egris sepelitur. Qui cardinalis per Hungariam hoc anno concilia sua tenuit.” P. Scheffer-Boichorst, ed. “Chronica Alberici monachi Trium Fontium,” Monumenta Germaniae historica, Scriptores, XXIII, 933, lines 7–9; Dercsényi, ed., The Hungarian Illuminated Chronicle, 171, n. 506. 135 It is possible that such a close, prestigious connection was facilitated by Agnes/Anna of Antioch and her relatives from the Châtillon family. Benk˝ o, “The Cistercians in Medieval Hungary,” 165. 136 Dániel Bácsatyai, “Az egresi ciszterci monostor korai történetének kérdései,” [Problems of the Early History of the Cistercian Monastery of Igri¸s] Századok 149 (2015: 2): 263; Romhányi, “The Role of the Cistercians in Medieval Hungary: Political Activity or Internal Colonization?” Annual of Medieval Studies at the CEU I (1993–1994): 198.

130

C. MIELKE

network of the queen.137 Andrew II had a significant interest in the monastery, giving several donations from 1224 onwards, possibly with Yolanda of Courtenay’s encouragement.138 This latter point is the most important in uncovering the agency of Yolanda in her burial at Igri¸s since her widowed husband, Andrew II, was responsible for overseeing the queen’s interment.139 Yolanda’s family had made significant donations to the Cistercian Order, particularly to the Abbey of Pontigny, the motherhouse of Igri¸s.140 Yolanda’s burial was clearly important enough to merit the presence of Jacobus de Pecorara, the abbot of Trois-Fontaines Abbey among the guests of honor at her funeral.141 Andrew II ensured that the abbey was enlarged, and it has been suggested that his intent was for it to be a royal burial ground. Excavations have uncovered a Romanesque brick basilica of three aisles and apses.142 The Cistercian chronicler Alberic of Trois-Fontaines wrote that Andrew had originally intended to be buried at Oradea (Nagyvárad), near the tomb of St. Ladislas I, but the monks at Pilis demanded he be buried with his first wife, Gertrude. The compromise reached was that

137 While Takács says the queen left for Hungary from Namur, two charters mention Yolanda journeying to Hungary from Constantinople in the presence of Peter the Bishop of Gy˝ or and a man named Vruz. Imre Takács, “The French Connection: on the Courtenay Family and Villard de Honnecourt apropos of a thirteenth Century Incised slab from Pilis Abbey,” In Künstlerische Wechselwirkungen in Mitteleuropa, ed. J. Fajt and M. Hörsch. (Ostfildern, Thorbecke, 2006), 16; Bácsatyai, “Az egresi ciszterci monostor korai történetének kérdései,” 274. 138 Beatrix Romhányi, Kolostorok és társaskáptalanok a középkori Magyarországon: katalógus [Monasteries and the Collegiate Chapters of Medieval Hungary: A Catalog] (Budapest: Pytheas, 2000), 22; Bácsatyai, “Az egresi ciszterci monostor korai történetének kérdései,” 274. 139 József Laszlovszky, “Local Tradition or European Patterns? The grave of Queen Gertrude in the Pilis Cistercian Abbey,” in Medieval East Central Europe in a Comparative Perspective: from Frontier Zones to Lands in Focus, ed. Gerhard Jaritz and Katalin Szende (New York: Routledge, 2016), 87. 140 Bácsatyai, “Az egresi ciszterci monostor korai történetének kérdései,” 274; Pontingy was also the burial site of a French Queen, Adela of Champagne, the third wife of Louis VII of France. Nolan, Queens in Stone and Silver, 101. 141 Laszlovszky, “Local Tradition or European Patterns?”, 87. 142 Florin Curta, Southeastern Europe in the Middle Ages, 500–1250 (Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press, 2006), 354.

4

THE “OFFICE” OF THE QUEEN BEGINS (1172–1233)

131

the king was buried at Igri¸s with Yolanda.143 Another important factor in Andrew’s burial at Igri¸s can be explained by the relationship his son and successor, Béla IV, had with his father. Igri¸s was an acceptable compromise that would see his father buried at a suitable site, but not a site like Pilis that was near the royal centers and the site of his murdered mother’s burial.144 Aside from the burials at Oradea near the tomb shrine of St. Ladislas, most Hungarian queens were buried in the central part of the kingdom, a part of the dense clusters of settlements making up the core of the administration (the medium regni). Considering Yolanda used her own seal and appeared on coinage, the location of Igri¸s, the presence of French monks, and that it was a secondary choice for Andrew II to be buried there, it is possible that Yolanda played a greater role in the life of the Abbey and that her burial there reflects her own interest in the site. Andrew’s second wife, Yolanda of Courtenay, has been overlooked in many respects yet there is evidence that not only was she the first known queen to employ her own seal, but she also appears on some of the coinage of Andrew II. She was known to support the Cistercian Order and the Life of St. Salome indicates that she was fond of tournaments. It is likely her burial at a Cistercian foundation reflects some involvement of her own in choosing a burial site. With Yolanda of Courtenay, it is clear that in many ways the artifacts associated with the office of the queen (particularly her seal) make their first definitive appearance, even if there had been now-lost antecedents.

Conclusions From 1172 to 1235, Hungary experienced a great deal of growth under Béla III, Emeric, and Andrew II. During this time, the kings expanded the country, led a Crusading army, and guaranteed the rights and freedoms of the nobles. For the queens, this period was one of exciting action and visibility connected to the expanding power of the kings. The queen began to have a staff of her own, though many of the personnel were 143 Dercsényi, ed., The Hungarian Illuminated Chronicle, 171, n. 506; Kosztolnyik, Hungary in the Thirteenth Century, 116; Bácsatyai, “Az egresi ciszterci monostor korai történetének kérdései,” 283; Romhányi, “The Role of the Cistercians in Medieval Hungary,” 182, 201; Romhányi, Kolostorok és társaskáptalanok a középkori Magyarországon, 22. 144 Laszlovszky, “Local Tradition or European Patterns?”, 87–88.

132

C. MIELKE

part of the king’s office as well. The marriage contracts of Constance of Aragon and her successors indicate that the kings of Hungary were interested in her having an independent financial support as both wife and widow. Gertrude and Andrew II both took an active role in the marriage of their daughter Elizabeth. Gertrude is even the earliest queen whose portrait appears in a contemporary illuminated manuscript, along with her husband and her in-laws. The conclusion of this is that Yolanda’s issuing charters, taking part in chivalric cultural events, and involvement in her own burial place follows a clear progression of actions which were both shaped by their status as royal consort as well as offering a glimpse a their own personal tastes and areas of interest. This queens of this period not only begin to make their position more official, but their individual agency can be seen much more clearly in both the historical and archaeological record. Queens built public works projects (the bathhouse of Anna of Antioch), gave lavish diplomatic gifts (the tent given by Margaret of France), possibly influenced the beginnings of heraldry (Constance of Aragon and the Árpád coat of arms), they exchanged lavish clothing and gifts (Gertrude of Andechs-Meran and the items given to and from St. Elizabeth) and finally they employed their own seal and appeared on coinage of the kingdom (Yolanda of Courtenay). While each of these examples would be an argument for the agency of the queen in its own right, when taken together it indicates that the office of the queen grew and expanded here. As the court grew more hierarchical, the social rules placed on the queens became more apparent; but so did the opportunities for queens to express their own power.

CHAPTER 5

The Second Foundresses (1235–1295)

The reigns of Béla IV (r. 1235–1270), Stephen V (r. 1270–1272), Ladislas IV (r. 1272–1290), and Andrew III (r. 1290–1301) encompass a period of destruction, rebuilding, turbulence, and stability. Béla IV is often called the “Second Founder” of Hungary as a result of the massive rebuilding that took place in the aftermath of the devastating Mongol invasions that wiped out between 15% and 50% of the population of Hungary in 1241 and 1242.1 During this period of rebuilding, the Mendicant Orders became very popular, not only in Hungary but also in Central Europe in general. Both the kings and queens of Hungary favored the Dominicans and Franciscans rather than earlier foundations.2 This rebuilding was marred by several events related to domestic turmoil. In 1264, Prince Stephen (later Stephen V) rebelled against his father, provoking a brief civil war. His own death in 1272, and that of his son in 1290 plunged the country into civil wars which hampered the stability of the kingdom.3 In spite of this, there is a great deal of continuity in terms of the material culture and activities of the queens who built upon the actions of 1 Engel, The Realm of St. Stephen, 102. 2 Klaniczay, Holy Rulers and Blessed Princesses, 344. 3 Kosztolnyik, Hungary in the Thirteenth Century, 209, 255–257, 342–343.

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 C. Mielke, The Archaeology and Material Culture of Queenship in Medieval Hungary, 1000–1395, Queenship and Power, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-66511-1_5

133

134

C. MIELKE

their immediate predecessors. Not only did queens of this period continue using seals and appearing on coinage, they also engaged in significant building projects outside the realm of the church. This is also the first period in Hungarian history where a widowed queen mother took on the role of regent in an official capacity. However, the personal circumstances of the queens in this period greatly determined the sort of power they were able to wield. Queens with a stable marital relationship and many children had much more opportunity to express their power through material culture. The evidence here indicates that in spite of the struggles of this period, the role and importance of the queen were crucial to the peace and public image of the monarchy.

Maria Laskarina of Nicaea For thirty-five years, Maria Laskarina was queen consort—this is span almost as long as Gisela of Bavaria, Hungary’s first queen. Like Gisela, Maria Laskarina had a productive rule, but it was not without its own crises and moments of peril. In 1218, Andrew II of Hungary married his son Béla to Maria, the daughter of Theodore Laskaris, the Emperor of Nicaea. This marriage was conducted shortly after his visit to the Holy Land on the Fifth Crusade.4 A few years later, Andrew felt the marriage was no longer advantageous and began divorce proceedings. However, the leaders of the Hungarian church saw no legal grounds for the divorce and the pair remained married.5 After Maria was crowned with her husband in 1235,6 little is known about her life until the Mongol invasions. Like Béla IV, Maria was involved in reconstructing the country after the devastating events of 1241–1242. In her long reign as queen, Maria Laskarina’s impact on material culture is seen in her seal, the presence of her heraldry on coins of her husband, her involvement with the Dominican nunnery of Margaret Island, her burial at the Franciscan friary at Esztergom, and finally with her other construction projects.

4 Wertner, Az Arp ´ adok ´ csaladi ´ T¨ort´enete, 460; Kosztolnyik, Hungary in the Thirteenth Century, 86. 5 Béla and Maria fled to Austria together while Andrew was still pushing for a divorce but Béla wished to remain married to her. Kosztolnyik, Hungary in the Thirteenth Century, 86–87. 6 Engel, “Temetkez´esek a közepkori Sz´ekesfeh´erv´ari Bazilik´aban,” 634.

5

THE SECOND FOUNDRESSES (1235–1295)

135

The Seal of Maria Laskarina Maria Laskarina has the earliest intact seal of any Hungarian queen. Clauses indicating the use of a seal are present on Maria’s charters from 1248 until her death in 1270, but this seal could have been in use as early as 1242.7 The best-preserved seal dates from 1269. The queen sits on a throne seat with no back. This throne is considerably important since Béla IV removed the right to sit in his presence from the nobles; the royal family was the only exception.8 In her right hand she holds a scepter topped with a lily, and with her left hand she holds the clasps on her cloak. There are many meanings to this gesture (including it indicating the rich mantle the queen is allowed to wear as a high-status married woman), but a hand over the heart might also represent sincerity, acceptance, a connection to the divine, and humility.9 Bodor is of the opinion that all thirteenth-century Árpád-era queens (Maria Laskarina, Elizabeth the Cuman, Isabella of Naples, and Fenenna of Kujavia) would have also held orbs,10 but most of the seals are too worn to fully ascertain if this is true. Maria Laskarina is crowned and her hair is loose and unbound. The circular inscription on the edges of the seal refers to her as Maria, Queen of Hungary by the grace of God. The reverse of the seal is also simple, the only thing in the field is the double-barred Hungarian cross. The inscription on the reverse refers to her as Maria, daughter of “the emperor of the Greeks.” From the seal of Maria Laskarina onward, the queen’s parentage was always placed on the reverse of the seal, a formula also used by Maria’s husband and father-in-law.11 The declaration of a

7 Takács sees a lot of similarities between Maria’s seal and her husband’s second seal

which had been in use from 1241. He suggests that Maria’s seal was in use from after 1242, pointing in particular to a charter from 1243 wherein Béla ennobles her goldsmith. Kumorovitz, A magyar pecséthasználat története a középkorban, 41; Takács, Az Árpad-házi királyok pecsétjei: Royal Seals of the Árpád dynasty, 175. 8 János M. Bak and Martyn Rady, trans. Anonymous and Master Roger: The Deeds of the Hungarians and the Epistle to the Sorrowful Lament Upon the Destruction of the Kingdom of Hungary by the Tatars (Budapest: Central European University Press, 2010), 143. 9 Elizabeth Danbury, “Queens and Powerful Women: Image and Authority,” in Good Impressions: Image and Authority in Medieval Seals, ed. Noël Adams, John Cherry and James Robinson (London: British Museum Press, 2008), 18. 10 Bodor, “Árpád-kori pecsétjeink, I.”, 9–11. 11 Andrew III’s seal even refers to Andrew II as his grandfather. Takács, Az Árpad-házi

királyok pecsétjei: Royal Seals of the Árpád dynasty, 162–184.

136

C. MIELKE

Fig. 5.1 Seal of Maria Laskarina. Hungarian National Archives, OL DF 686

queen’s natal kin paired with the image of the Hungarian double-barred cross continued, almost uninterrupted, for the next 150 years, until the 1380s with the seals of Elizabeth Kotromani´c and Queen Mary (Fig. 5.1). Coinage of Béla IV Featuring Maria Laskarina The visual evidence suggests that in two coin types, Béla IV featured the portraits of two crowned rulers like his father, Andrew II. The busts of the two rulers are both rather gender-neutral, as it is very difficult to tell if a veil appears at all on one of the figures. Since Béla’s son Stephen (Stephen V, r. 1270–1272), was proclaimed junior king in 1245,12 the coins could possibly feature him and his father. Another type displays Béla’s face on the obverse and has on its reverse the heraldic devices of the queen, a rarity in Hungary (Fig. 5.2).

12 Engel, The Realm of St. Stephen, 106–107; Kosztolnyik, Hungary in the Thirteenth Century, 190, 207–210.

5

THE SECOND FOUNDRESSES (1235–1295)

137

Fig. 5.2 Coinage of Béla IV featuring Maria Laskarina. From László Réthy, Corpus Nummorum Hungariae (1899–1907)

Nevertheless, two oboli of Béla IV feature a crowned double-headed eagle on the reverse. Réthy identifies the eagle as a heraldic device of the Laskaris Dynasty on the back.13 The double-headed eagle was originally a Hittite and Sumerian symbol that was then employed by the Seljuq Turks. While eagles with both single and double heads were associated more often with the Paleologoi, the first Byzantine emperor to adopt it as a symbol was Theodore I Laskaris, the father of Maria Laskarina.14 The coins of Béla IV show an interesting mix of conservatism and innovation. He followed the example of his father by including symbols 13 Réthy, Corpus Nummorum Hungariae, Vol. I, 31, nos. 249 and 250. 14 Hubert Allcock, Heraldic Design: Its Origins, Ancient Forms and Modern Usage

(Mineola, NY: Dover Publications, 2003), 20; Antony Eastmond, Art and Identity in Thirteenth-Century Byzantium: Hagia Sophia and the Empire of Trebizond (Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2003), 148–150.

138

C. MIELKE

of Hungarian royal power (images of crowned rulers, the double-barred cross, etc.), as well as images of stable rulership and some that even mention Béla by name. Simultaneously, while it is impossible to fully ascertain whether the crowned bust on four of Béla’s coins represent Maria Laskarina, if it is her, then the queen or her heraldry appears on a total of six out of Béla’s 48 coins.15 Considering the significant efforts he put into rebuilding the kingdom in the wake of the Mongol Invasions, the devices of the queen were used to strengthen his own image within the kingdom. The coins featuring the double-headed eagle of Maria’s family are the only coins from the first four centuries of Hungarian rule to feature the heraldic device of the queen. This reference to Maria Laskarina’s natal family suggests that her heraldic devices were used to convey attitudes about dynastic legitimacy and the king’s international connections. Dominican Nunnery, Margaret Island—Maria’s Residence, the Seal, the Defenses The Dominican Nunnery on Margaret Island was founded by Béla IV and Maria Laskarina after the royal couple pledged their daughter to God if they were delivered from the devastating Mongol invasions of 1241– 1242. The nunnery was built shortly thereafter on “Rabbit’s Island,” near Buda.16 Though this nunnery was founded by Béla IV, the site of the construction was on land that was formerly owned by the queen.17 The text of the Legend of St. Margaret refers to a house on the property of the monastery where the queen would stay while visiting with her daughter, implying18 that the nunnery was built with a residence for both the king and the queen. Two charters (from 1248 to 1276) also make reference

15 i.e. 12.5% of the total coinage. Huszár, Münzkatalog Ungarn, 62–67. 16 Klaniczay, Holy Rulers and Blessed Princesses, 205–206. 17 Simon of Kéza, Gesta Hungarorum, 148–149; Klaniczay, Holy Rulers and Blessed Princesses, 261. 18 “Ez dolgok va lanak egÿ nemevnemev hazban melÿ hazban zokot vala marad nÿa kyralne azzon zent margÿt azzonnak anÿa mÿkoron ju vala ez clastromhoz es vala ez dolog zent margÿt azzonnak halala elevt evt eztendevuel.” János P. Balázs, Szent Margit élete 1510 [Life of Saint Margaret 1510] Régi Magyar kódexek 10 (Budapest, 1990), 190–191.

5

THE SECOND FOUNDRESSES (1235–1295)

139

to the queen’s house close to the nunnery.19 Thus while the Dominican nunnery was meant to be a monastic residence for the young princess, it also served as a royal residence. The queen who co-founded it was also featured in the monastery’s seal as well as in the defensive works she made for the nuns at Visegrád. Since it was an important site of royal residence in the thirteenth century, it was of immense interest to archaeologists to locate the rooms the kings and queens inhabited during their stay on Margaret Island. Earlier interpretations of the site postulated that a building on the northern side of the western courtyard of the convent complex was the queen’s rooms.20 The building in question had four rooms adjacent to each other with two points of access; the main ingress was from the western courtyard. Within the context of the monastic complex, this building manages to be close to the main church, but it is also distant from more serviceable parts of the nunnery, such as the kitchen, the refectory, or the infirmary.21 However, recent archaeological research has indicated that the royal residence could be another building near the monastery. Located to the east and north of the apse of the convent church, these buildings had a foundation which pre-dated the monastery, making it much more likely that these buildings comprised the royal court that the nunnery was built near.22 The queen’s residence here comprises four rooms which are about 33 m long total and the interior space is about 12 m wide. 19 The king’s residence was demolished in 1276. Katalin Irásné Melis, “A BudapestMargit-szigeti középkori királyi udvarhely és a domonkos apácakolostor kutatása. Régészeti, történeti adatok,” [Research on the medieval royal court of Budapest’s Margaret Island and the Dominican nunnery] in A középkor és a kora újkor régészete Magyarországon: Archaeology of the Middle Ages and the Early Modern Period in Hungary, I ed. Elek Benk˝ o and Gyöngyi Kovács (Budapest: Archaeological Institute of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, 2010), 422. 20 László Gerevich, The Art of Buda and Pest in the Middle Ages (Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 1971), 31; Rózsa Feuerné-Tóth, Margitsziget (Képz˝ om˝ uvészeti alap kiadóvállalata, 1955), 26; Irásné-Melis, “Die Margaretinsel und ihre Klöster im Mittelalter,” 413. 21 Rózsa Feuernéné-Tóth, “A margitszigeti domonkos kolostor” [The Dominican nunnery on Margaret Island], Budapest Régiségei XXII (1971): 247, 262–266. 22 This construction phase is dated to c. 1243. Katalin Irásné Melis, “A margitszigeti királyi udvarhely átépítése és a domonkos apácakolostor alapítása (1243–1255)” [The Reconstruction of the Royal Court on Margaret Island and the Foundation of the Dominican Nunnery (1243–1255)], in A tatárjárás (1241–1242), ed. Ágnes Ritoók (Budapest: Hungarian National Museum, 2007), 115–116; Eszter Kovács, “Budapest,

140

C. MIELKE

Stone elements found in debris layers indicate that this residence was decorated with acanthus and sedge leaves, much like other royal buildings from mid-thirteenth-century Buda.23 The other building which had been mentioned as a royal residence in this scheme was likely either a stone workshop or a guesthouse.24 The importance of this space as a royal residence is attested to the fact that until the end of the thirteenth century, Margaret Island was a regular seat for the Hungarian kings and queens.25 Both Béla IV and Stephen V died there in 1270 and 1272, respectively.26 A letter of Isabella of Naples from 1290 indicates that during a contentious period in her marriage, her husband confined her in the nunnery on Margaret Island.27 Her quarters in the mid-1280s were likely the same as those used by her predecessors. One unique aspect of the royal residence at Margaret Island is that the queens resided there while the king was still alive. In other words, unlike most regional monasteries, this was not a place where the queen retired to in widowhood, though perhaps that was the idea when Béla IV and Maria Laskarina founded the convent. In practice, Maria Laskarina, Elizabeth the Cuman, and Isabella of Naples spent time there as wives, not widows. Ultimately, the queen’s presence at this nunnery may be tied to their respective king’s interest; Béla IV had an interest in his daughter Margaret and his successors may have continued to pay homage to this important XIII. Margitsziget, domonkos apácakolostor,” Régészeti kutatások Magyarországon I (2005): 208. 23 Irásné Melis, “A margitszigeti királyi udvarhely átépítése,” 116–119; Irásné Melis, “A Budapest-Margit-szigeti középkori királyi udvarhely,” 435–436. 24 Irásné Melis, “A Budapest-Margit-szigeti középkori királyi udvarhely,” 437. 25 One charter was issued by Maria Laskarina, three by from Elizabeth the Cuman, three

by Isabella of Naples. Four charters were issued by Béla IV, one by Stephen V, and two by Ladislas IV. Maria Laskarina’s charter from 1248 indicates it was issued near the Premonstratensian monastery of St. Michael. Károly Ráth, A Magyar Királyok és erdély fejedelmek hadjárati, utazási és tarózkodási helyei [The Hungarian Kings and Transylvanian Princes: Their Campaigns, Travel, and Accommodation Sites] (Gy˝ or: Sauervein, 1866), 18–93, particularly 18–28; Zsoldos and Szentpétery, Az Árpád-házi hercegek, hercegn˝ok és a királynék okleveleinek, 46, 64, 69, 109, 110, 143; Katalin Irásné-Melis, “Die Margaretinsel und ihre Klöster im Mittelalter,” in Budapest im Mittelalter, ed. by Gerd Biegel (Brunswick: Braunschweigisches Landesmuseum, 1991), 410. 26 Ráth, A Magyar Királyok és erdély fejedelmek, 23, 25; Wertner, Az Árpádok családi történeti, 499; Irásné-Melis, “Die Margaretinsel und ihre Klöster im Mittelalter,” 411–412. 27 György Fejér, Codex diplomaticus Hungariae ecclesiasticus ac Civilis (Buda, 1832), VII-2, 127–129; Kosztolnyik, Hungary in the Thirteenth Century, 291–292.

5

THE SECOND FOUNDRESSES (1235–1295)

141

shrine of pilgrimage. In this respect, however, it shows how the queen’s power can be felt in very subtle ways; the size of a residence is connected to a very influential nunnery that the royal couple built together. The seal of the Dominican nunnery of Margaret Island shows Béla IV and Maria Laskarina kneeling and offering their daughter Margaret (d. 1271) to an enthroned Virgin Mary. This is no doubt a nod to the queen’s active role in providing her own land for the nunnery, as well as her being the mother of the saintly Princess Margaret. This seal survives in a charter issued by Elizabeth (d. 1313?), Maria Laskarina’s granddaughter, who used the seal of the Dominican nunnery of Margaret Island on a document in 1282.28 Elizabeth would have lived in the convent for most of her childhood until her marriage with Milutin of Serbia in 1286,29 so her use of the convent’s seal (which depicts her aunt and grandparents) shows the strong family connection to the convent. Visegrád Citadel According to a letter from Pope Urban IV, in the aftermath of the Mongol invasions, Maria was heavily involved in constructing the citadel overlooking Visegrád as a means of protecting her daughter and the Dominican nuns of Margaret Island.30 In 1259 the queen was given the citadel along with the county and the royal forest of Pilis.31 Though only two towers and a curtain wall survive of the Queen’s construction, originally there was a tower, a gatehouse with a drawbridge (a new feature in Hungarian construction), a portcullis, and a palace, as well as a cistern,

28 Klaniczay, Holy Rulers and Blessed Princesses, 159, 205–206. 29 Wertner, Az Árpádok családi története, 527–531. 30 Gergely Buzás, “Visegrád” in Medium Regni: Medieval Hungarian Royal Seats, ed. Julianna Atlmann et al. (Budapest: Nap Kiadó, 1999), 118–119; Lajos Bozóki, “A visegrádi fellegvár” [The Citadel at Visegrád], in In medio regni Hungariae. Régészeti, M˝ uvészettörténeti és történeti kutatások ‘az ország közepén’: Archaeological, Art Historical, and Historical Researches ‘in the Middle of the Kingdom’, ed. Elek Benk˝ o and Krisztina Orosz (Budapest: Magyar Tudományos Akadémia, 2015), 613. 31 Péter Szabó, “The Royal Forest of Pilis in the Middle Ages,” in Egy történelmi gyilkosság margójára: Merániai Gertrúd emlékezete, 1213–2013 [To the Margin of a Historical Murder: Commemorate Gertrude of Andechs-Meran, 1213–2013], ed. Judit Majorossy (Szentendre, 2014), 77.

142

C. MIELKE

and other unknown ancillary buildings.32 Like the nunnery the Queen constructed for her daughter; Visegrád Citadel was designed to be both grand and practical. There are two other construction projects Maria Laskarina is associated with, though her involvement is not as clear as that of the Visegrád Citadel. Maria Laskarina is the first queenly owner of the royal residence at Segesd in 1248. While this property would become associated with the queens in the following centuries, it is unknown if she or any of her successors made any alterations to the building.33 It is possible Maria Laskarina founded the Franciscan conventual cloister in Vitrovica, Croatia (Ver˝ oce) sometime after the Mongol Invasion, but the evidence is fairly circumstantial.34 Esztergom Franciscan Friary Béla IV of Hungary died on May 3, 1270 and his wife Maria Laskarina followed him to the grave two months later.35 There was a dispute between the Archbishop of Esztergom and the Franciscan friary of Esztergom after the death of Béla and Maria, as the Archbishop felt that 32 Bozóki, “A visegrádi fellegvár,” 613–615, 627; István Feld, “Királyi várak az Árpádkori medium regni területén” [Royal Castles on the Territory of the Medium Regni in the Árpádian Age], in In medio regni Hungariae. Régészeti, M˝ uvészettörténeti és történeti kutatások ‘az ország közepén’: Archaeological, Art Historical, and Historical Researches ‘in the Middle of the Kingdom’, ed. Elek Benk˝ o and Krisztina Orosz (Budapest: Magyar Tudományos Akadémia, 2015), 684. 33 Maria Laskarina fled to Segesd during the Mongol Invasions. Anonymous and Master Roger, Anonymi Bele regis notarii Gesta Hungarorum. Epistola in miserabile carmen super destructione regni Hungarie per Tartaros facta, ed. Martyn Rady, László Veszprémy, János M. Bak (Budapest: Central European University Press, 2010), 185, 195; Zsoldos, The Árpáds and Their Wives, 46; Szende, “Les châteaux de reines,” 163–164. 34 Karacsonyi notes that the convent was founded sometime before 1250 on property associated with the queen’s court. János Karácsonyi, Szt. Ferencz rendjének története Magyarországon 1711-ig [A History of the Franciscan Order in Hungary Until 1711] Vol. I (Budapest: A Magyar Tudomanyi Akadémia Kiadása, 1923), 294; Romhányi, Kolostorok és társaskáptalanok a középkori Magyarországon, 72. 35 The Necrologium Saeldentalense gives the date of her death as July 16, while

the Necrologium Althae Superioris gives it as July 24. Dercsényi, ed., The Hungarian Illuminated Chronicle, ch. 170, 140; Franz Ludwig Baumann, ed., “Necrologium Saeldentalense,” Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Antiquatates, Vol. 3 (1905), 365; “Necrologium Althae Superioris,” Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Antiquatates, Vol. 3, 231.

5

THE SECOND FOUNDRESSES (1235–1295)

143

the Cathedral should be the eternal resting place of the royal couple and their son.36 Béla IV, Maria Laskarina, and their younger son Béla were all eventually laid to rest in the crypt of the Franciscan friary in the royal town of Esztergom. The royal couple was buried next to each other, in front of the altar, and under a decorated red marble tomb. The king had founded the institution in 1235. Twentieth-century archaeological investigations believe this foundation was in the proximity of Esztergom’s present-day parish church.37 Although there is little archaeological evidence, there are several reasons that the Queen may have selected this site for her burial. Both Béla IV and Maria Laskarina were active patrons of the Mendicant Orders. Béla showed a particular devotion to the Franciscans, even becoming a Franciscan tertiary.38 Maria Laskarina on the other hand seemed to favor the Dominican Order, particularly singling out her daughter’s nunnery on Margaret Island. Nonetheless, as a widow, Maria Laskarina was buried next to her husband and her favorite son. Most thirteenthcentury Hungarian monarchs were buried next to their wives, and in this case the person responsible for organizing the queen’s burial was not her husband as he was already dead. It is thus entirely plausible that she chose to be buried with her family rather than create a separate foundation for her own burial like her earlier predecessors. While Maria Laskarina in many ways continued the activities of her predecessors, her construction projects were incredibly grand. Her intact seal and several charters still survive and her family’s emblem appears on the coinage of Béla IV. She was heavily involved in construction projects, not only of the Dominican nunnery on Margaret Island, but also selling her jewelry to build the citadel at Visegrád, a very strategic fortress. Her burial place with her husband and younger son at a Franciscan friary in Esztergom was likely one of her own choosing. Curiously enough, more personal items of the queen like books or objects donated to a particular church do not seem to survive; rather Maria preferred more official images and monuments. 36 Melina Rokai, “Poverty and the Franciscan Order in Southeast Europe,” Istraživanja

22 (2011): 147. 37 Romhányi, Kolostorok és társaskáptalanok a középkori Magyarországon, 24; István Horváth, Marta Kelemen and István Torma, Komárom megye régészeti topográfiája: Esztergom és a dorogi járás [Komárom County Archaeological Topography: Esztergom and Dorog Tourism] (Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 1979), 146. 38 Klaniczay, Holy Rulers and Blessed Princesses, 231.

144

C. MIELKE

Elizabeth the Cuman Elizabeth the Cuman occupies a unique place in medieval Hungarian history. Born a pagan, she was the first queen to officially hold the title of regent during the minority of her young son, Ladislas IV “the Cuman” (r. 1272–1290). The Cumans were a nomadic tribe pushed west by the Mongol invasions until Béla IV gave them privileges and they settled in Hungary.39 Eventually, Béla IV married his oldest son and heir, Stephen (later Stephen V, r. 1270–1272) to a daughter of one of the Cuman chieftains. At her baptism, this princess was named Elizabeth. While the primary sources say that Elizabeth was the daughter of Kuthen (Kötöny, d. 1241), it has since been proposed that she was rather the daughter of Zeyhan.40 In the 1260s, Stephen rebelled against his father and occupied his mother’s lands in eastern Hungary; this prompted Béla IV to take Elizabeth and her children captive at Patak in retaliation.41 Folio 64 depicts father and son reconciling, showing the coronation of Stephen V (r. 1270–1272) as a junior king with his mother and father (Fig. 5.3). Stephen V was only king for two years, from 1270 to 1272; after his death, Elizabeth the Cuman was officially regent for the next five years for her son Ladislas IV “the Cuman” (r. 1272–1290). It was generally regarded as a turbulent, unstable period where Elizabeth was criticized for favoring her Cuman kinsmen. The office of the palatine was held by six different men from 1272 to 1276.42 It is believed that she died around 1290; her place of burial is unknown. Objects linked with Elizabeth the Cuman consist of two seals, several coins from the reign of her son, and possibly several artifacts uncovered at the Dominican nunnery on Margaret Island.

39 Nora Berend, At the Gate of Christendom (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001), 70–72. 40 The date of the marriage between Stephen and Elizabeth is also disputed; both 1254 and 1247 are given as potential dates of the marriage, indicating that they were either teenagers or young children when they were married. Kosztolnyik, Hungary in the Thirteenth Century, 190; Berend, At the Gate of Christendom, 88 n. 56, 261 n. 197. 41 Kosztolnyik, Hungary in the Thirteenth Century, 209. 42 Kosztolnyik, Hungary in the Thirteenth Century, 255–257. For information on her

charter activity, see Zsoldos and Szentpétery, Az Árpád-házi hercegek, hercegn˝ok és a királynék okleveleinek, 62–101.

5

THE SECOND FOUNDRESSES (1235–1295)

145

Fig. 5.3 Béla IV and Maria Laskarina crowning Stephen V. The Hungarian Illuminated Chronicle, National Széchényi Library, Budapest, Cod. Lat. 404

146

C. MIELKE

Seals of Elizabeth the Cuman Elizabeth the Cuman used two seals during her lifetime. Her first seal dates from 1273, the time of her regency for her young son, Ladislas IV. The queen is crowned and her hair is unbound, like that of Maria Laskarina. The throne seat is flanked by the heads of two lions. The only other royal seal in Hungary that uses this symbolism was used by her husband Stephen V from 1270 to 1272.43 Great seals used by Charles II of Naples (r. 1285–1309) and Robert I of Naples (r. 1309–1343) also have a throne seat flanked by the heads of lions; considering the doublemarriage alliance between the children of Stephen V and the Neapolitan dynasty, it is probable that this element is a theme that has been deliberately borrowed. The seal of Charles II dates from 1289, so it is possible that the Hungarian examples preceded it.44 The inscription surrounds the queen in two rings, referring to her as “Elisabeth, Queen of Hungary by the Grace of God and daughter of the emperor of the Cumans” (Fig. 5.4).45 Like her mother-in-law, the reverse of Elizabeth’s seal depicts the Hungarian double-barred cross, but in Elizabeth’s case flowers sprout up at the base; most likely these are roses, an allusion to the myth of St. Elizabeth (d. 1231) who made roses spring up in the middle of winter.46 While some of the older literature has made reference to this seal as an example of how Elizabeth maintained her Cuman identity, Berend argues that the rank of her father as an emperor was more important than her ethnic identity. Berend explains that Elizabeth’s regency was fraught with turmoil and having a strong image with claims of such lineage would have helped project a greater image of power.47 Elizabeth the Cuman employed a seal from 1264 to 1290.48 Aside from the example from 1273, is it unknown how long this particular seal was in use, but it is possible she could have used it from 1264 to 1279. From 1264 to 1266 Béla IV and his son 43 Takács, Az Árpad-házi királyok pecsétjei: Royal Seals of the Árpád dynasty, 129–133. 44 Louis Blancard, Iconographie des Sceaux et Bulles conservés dans la partie antérieure à

1790 des Archives Departementales des Bouches-du-Rhône (Marseilles: Camon frères, 1860), 25–26, plate 8, no. 4. 45 Berend, At the Gates of Christendom, 263. 46 Klaniczay, Holy Rulers and Blessed Princesses, 369–370. 47 Berend, At the Gates of Christendom, 263. 48 L. Bernát Kumorovitz, A Magyar Pecséthasználat története a középkorban, 41.

5

THE SECOND FOUNDRESSES (1235–1295)

147

Fig. 5.4 First Seal of Elizabeth the Cuman. From Sándor Szilágyi, A Magyar Nemzet Története (1895)

Stephen were caught in an intense struggle for power.49 It is possible that Elizabeth’s first sealing practices were related to this period of instability where Stephen V was trying to assert greater authority. Elizabeth’s second seal is more traditional in form and formula (Fig. 5.5). The best-preserved example of this seal dates from 1280.50 Like in her first seal, she is seated on a throne with a scepter in her right hand and a crown over her unbound hair. Yet the obverse of the second seal lacks the drama of the first; the lions’ heads are missing on the throne, there is only one line of text, and the background is plain. The reverse preserves the traditional format of the double-barred cross with plants sprouting at the base, but this seal is unique for the queens; there is no mention of Elizabeth’s heritage on this seal at all. The inscription instead refers to her as the wife of Stephen V who is the son of the “illustrious” 49 Engel, The Realm of St. Stephen, 106–107. 50 MNL OL DF 63612.

148

C. MIELKE

Fig. 5.5 Second seal of Elizabeth the Cuman. Hungarian National Archives, OL DF 63612

Béla IV. While this seal is approximately the same size as her first seal, the design is simplified. This could be because this seal was made after Elizabeth was no longer regent and there was less of an immediate need to prove her power. Coins of Ladislas IV Featuring Elizabeth the Cuman There are six coins attributed to Ladislas IV (r. 1272–1290) that have an image of a queen on them. Considering that Huszár only lists 44 coins from the king’s reign, this indicates that of all the rulers included in this survey, Ladislas IV minted the highest percentage of coins with a

5

THE SECOND FOUNDRESSES (1235–1295)

149

queen is depicted on them.51 The obverse of one of the denars has the initials E and L, which stand for Elisabetha and Ladislas.52 During the reign of Ladislas, there were two queens with the Latin name Elizabeth at the Hungarian court: the king’s mother, Elizabeth the Cuman, and the king’s Neapolitan wife who is usually referred to as Isabella in the secondary literature to distinguish the two. Based on historical circumstances, it seems more likely that the queen depicted on the coinage was his mother. While Isabella of Naples lived at the Hungarian court from 1270 to 1299, the couple was not married until 1277 and their relationship was not always congenial; for a brief period Isabella was even imprisoned on Margaret Island.53 Examples from Poland and Thuringia show that it was not uncommon for queen mothers with the position of regent to appear on coinage of their sons.54 If Elizabeth the Cuman appeared on the coins during her regency it would not only explain the frequency of her image on coinage, but potentially even why one coin gives the impression that her initial precedes that of her son (Fig. 5.6). Dominican Nunnery on Margaret Island The Hungarian Illuminated Chronicle states very clearly that the Hungarian king Stephen V was buried at the Dominican Nunnery on Margaret Island.55 Known originally as Rabbit’s Island, it was renamed after his sister, St. Margaret (d. 1271), a royal nun who lived there.56 51 13.6%. Huszár, Münzkatalog Ungarn von 1000 bis heute, 69–73. 52 Réthy, Corpus Nummorum Hungariae, Vol. I, 35, No. 319. 53 Kosztolnyik, Hungary in the Thirteenth Century, 277–278, 287, 296. 54 Kazimierz Stronczynski, ´ Dawne monety polskie dynastyi Piast´ow i Jagiellon´ow [Old

Coins of the Piast and Jagiellon Dynasties] (Warsaw: Polskie Towarzystwo Numizmatyczne Zarz˛ad Głowny, ´ 2005) Vol. I, 45f.; Jitske Jasperse, “To Have and to Hold: Coins and Seals as Evidence for Motherly Authority,” in Royal Mothers and Their Ruling Children: Wielding Political Authority from Antiquity to the Early Modern Era, ed. Elena Woodacer and Carey Fleiner (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2015), 89–96. 55 Both Béla IV and Stephen V died at the nunnery within two years of each other. Dercsényi, ed., The Hungarian Illuminated Chronicle, 140–141; Ráth, A Magyar Királyok és erdély fejedelmek, 23, 25; Wertner, Az Árpádok családi történeti, 499; Irásné-Melis, “Die Margaretinsel und ihre Klöster im Mittelalter,” 411–412. 56 Gábor Klaniczay, “Sacred Sites in Medieval Buda,” in Medieval Buda in Context, ed. Balázs Nagy, Martyn Rady, Katalin Szende and András Vadas (Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2016), 238–241.

150

C. MIELKE

Fig. 5.6 Coinage of Ladislas featuring Elizabeth the Cuman. From László Réthy, Corpus Nummorum Hungariae (1899–1907)

Neither the date of Elizabeth the Cuman’s death nor her place of burial is mentioned in the primary sources, but it is often thought that she died around 1290, sometime after her last charter was issued. Wertner claims that even though her place of burial is unknown, she was most likely buried with her husband at Margaret Island. The main argument for this is that in general it was a trend in the thirteenth century for kings to be buried with their queens, as in the case of Stephen’s father and grandfather. Elizabeth the Cuman issued two charters from Margaret Island shortly after her husband died there.57 Considering the importance of the site as a mausoleum for immediate members of St. Margaret’s family as well as its importance as a site of pilgrimage, it has been assumed that

57 Zsoldos and Szentpétery, Az Árpád-házi hercegek, hercegn˝ ok és a királynék okleveleinek,

69.

5

THE SECOND FOUNDRESSES (1235–1295)

151

she was buried with her husband and sister-in-law at Margaret Island.58 There were more than twenty graves uncovered in the sanctuary beneath the brick pavement; about ten were paved with bricks and the rest of the dead seem to be buried in wooden coffins. Aside from the grave of St. Margaret, the most important graves were the six brick- or stone-lined graves in the main part of the church before the altar, and it is possible that Elizabeth was buried in one of them.59 While the exact burial place of Elizabeth the Cuman within the nunnery may remain unknown, the position of the five graves from the thirteenth century located in front of the altar (excluding the sixth grave containing the remains of St. Margaret) indicates that if Elizabeth and Stephen were buried there together, they were not buried side by side as the five graves were all placed up against the walls.60 Considering Elizabeth’s long widowhood and period as official regent for her young son, it is possible that rather than being buried in the same tomb as her husband, she opted to have her own place of burial, most likely a threesided tomb located along the wall between the high altar and the tomb of St. Margaret. Burial Crown from Margaret Island The question of Elizabeth’s burial on Margaret Island is of crucial importance in discussing royal artifacts found at the site in the nineteenth century. After the Great Danube Flood of 1838, a crown was found in the ruins of the nunnery. An archaeological investigation was subsequently launched, though the documentation left much to be desired. Moreover, the skeleton associated with the crown has since been lost, eliminating all possibility for an osteological study.61 The crown itself is made up of eight segments that have a band at the bottom with a six-petaled rosette, topped with an ornamental lily, and decorated at the top of the hinges 58 Hankó, A magyar királysírok sorsa, 136. 59 Nineteenth-century excavators found a fragment of a tombstone with the inscription

“Hic sepultus” near this group. Rózsa Feuerné-Tóth, “V. István király sírja a Margitszigeti domonkos apácakolostor templomában” [The Grave of King Stephen V in the Dominican nunnery of Margaret Island], Budapest Régiségei 21 (1964): 116–117. 60 Pál L˝ ovei, “The Sepulchral Monument of Saint Margaret of the Árpád Dynasty,” Acta Historiae Artium 26 (1980): 186. 61 Rózsa Feuerné-Tóth, “V. István király sírja,” 115–118.

152

C. MIELKE

Fig. 5.7 Burial Crown from Margaret Island. Hungarian National Museum. 1847.43.a

with a pattern of three grape-vine leaves. The crown itself is decorated with cabochon-cut gemstones such as amethysts, sapphires, turquoises, and pearls at the tips of the rosette petals.62 The crown uncovered on Margaret Island likely came from a French workshop near the end of the thirteenth century (Fig. 5.7).63 The crown is usually associated with Stephen V or a member of his family. His cousin Béla, Duke of Macsó (d. 1269), has been proposed as a potential owner, as well as Stephen’s wife Elizabeth the Cuman, Isabella of Naples (d. 1303), wife of Ladislas IV, Andrew III’s wife Fenenna of Kujava (d. 1295), and Andrew III’s mother Thomasina Morosini.64 The

62 Czobor, “III. Béla és hitvese halotti ékszerei” [The Funerary jewels of Béla III and his wife], 221–222; Etele Kiss, “Couronne,” Hungaria regia, 1000–1800: fastes et défis (Turnhout: Brepols, 1999), 120. 63 Erzsébet Vattai, “A margitszigeti korona,” Budapest Régiségei 18 (1958): 196–197. 64 Vattai, “A margitszigeti korona,” 200–202; Kiss, “Couronne,” 120; Feuerné-Tóth,

“V. István király sírja,” 117.

5

THE SECOND FOUNDRESSES (1235–1295)

153

presence of this crown in a high-status burial where fragments of gold lace and a chalcedony ring were also brought to light indicates that it is very likely that the crown was buried with a woman.65 Feuerné-Tóth and Vattai have argued that the few notes on the crown’s provenience indicate that it was found far from the tomb where late medieval sources say Stephen V was buried, casting further doubt on the possibility that this was his crown.66 Of the potential female candidates for the owner of the crown, three were buried elsewhere: Isabella of Naples in Naples, Thomasina Morosini in Venice,67 and Fenenna of Kujava most likely at the Franciscan friary in Buda. This leaves two potential candidates for owners of this crown whose burials are not recorded in the primary sources: Elizabeth the Cuman and Anna of Hungary (d. 1274?), daughter of Béla IV. Anna’s son Béla was killed on Margaret Island in 1272, one of the main reasons Vattai argues that he and his father were buried there and that the crown was possibly his. Anna’s daughter Margaret was a nun there as well. Anna was alive in 1274 (visiting the sick young king Ladislas IV) but after that details of her death and place of burial are unknown.68 After the death of her father in May of 1270, she fled to Bohemia with many treasures from Hungary, including the crown, the coronation swords, and many pieces of jewelry and gold objects.69 It is possible that Anna of Macsó, as the widow of the prince of Halich, could have been buried with a crown, but without knowing her place of burial, connecting her to the crown recovered at Margaret Island is speculative at best. As one of the favorite daughters of Béla IV, it is also possible 65 Vattai, “A margitszigeti korona,” 200–202; Rózsa Feuerné-Tóth, “V. István király sírja a margitszigeti domonkos apácakolostor templomában” [The Grave of King Stephen V in the Church of the Dominican Nunnery on Margaret Island], Budapest Régiségei 21 (1964), 118. 66 Feuerné-Tóth, “V. István király sírja,” 118–122–125; Erzsébet Vattai, “A Margitszigeti korona és gy˝ ur˝ u” [The Crown and the Ring from Margaret Island], Folia Archaeologica 18 (1966–1967): 126–128. 67 Martin Štefánik, “The Morosinis in Hungary Under King Andrew III and the Two ˇ Versions of the Death of the Queen of Hungary Tommasina,” Historický Casopis 56 (2008): 12–15. 68 Wertner, Az Árpádok családi története, 472–474; Vattai, “A Margitszigeti korona és gy˝ ur˝ u,” 131–134. 69 These were later returned to Hungary two months later by Ottokar II of Bohemia.

Wertner, Az Árpádok családi története, 471; Kovács and Lovag, The Hungarian Crown and Other Regalia, 9.

154

C. MIELKE

she was buried with her parents and brother at the Franciscan friary in Esztergom. This leaves Elizabeth the Cuman as the most likely owner of the crown. Feuerné-Tóth, while conceding that Elizabeth was likely buried in Margaret Island, raised the question of whether she was buried as a queen or in the robes of a nun (and thus without a crown).70 While it is possible that the queen may have taken vows like her contemporary Eleanor of Provence (d. 1291, wife of Henry III of England, r. 1216– 1272), there is no hard evidence Elizabeth the Cuman did so. If she did, it might not necessarily preclude her from being buried with a crown. The crown and the veil were important parts of the ceremony involved when a nun took her vows, and coronations of religious women are attested to from the tenth century.71 Twining mentions three cases where abbesses were known to wear crowns, and the abbesses of St. George’s convent in Prague were not only granted the title of princess but even gained the right to crown Czech queens later on.72 This crown is an important artifact for several reasons. The goldsmith’s work on the crown imitates examples from the court of St. Louis IX in France, showing a shift in Hungary’s style of decoration from Byzantine and Venetian traditions more toward western and specifically French influence.73 The other important aspect of this crown is that it represents one of the earliest known and surviving crowns topped with lilies in Hungary. The open circlet type of crown adorned with lilies lasted in popularity, as the later crowns from Zadar, Oradea (Nagyvárad), and Trogir all demonstrate, so while this crown appeared toward the end of the Árpád dynasty, its form nonetheless reveals a good deal of stylistic continuity during the dynastic transition of the early fourteenth century.

70 Feuerné-Tóth, “V. István király sírja,” 125. 71 Jan Gerchow, et al., “Early Monasteries and Foundations (500–1200): An Introduc-

tion,” in Crown and Veil: Female Monasticism from the Fifth to the Fifteenth Centuries, ed. Jeffrey Hamburger and Susan Marti (New York: Columbia University Press, 2008), 13. 72 Twining, European Regalia, 132–134; Karl Schwarzenberg, The Prague Castle and Its Treasures (New York: Vendome Press, 1994), 165. 73 Kiss, “Couronne”, 120.

5

THE SECOND FOUNDRESSES (1235–1295)

155

The Gold Ring and Fabric Remnants from the Margaret Island Grave When the Danube flooded in 1838, the crown was not the only artifact uncovered. A gold ring with a gemstone was also discovered among the graves. It was originally recorded that the ring was set with a sapphire and that the bits of fabric found with it constituted fringe-work. What ended up being recorded in the inventory of the Hungarian National Museum, however, was that the ring was set with chalcedony, and that the fabric remnants were golden lacework.74 Vattai points out that there were two rings; one of chalcedony which came from a site in Alcsút, while a sapphire ring was from Margaret Island.75 She points to an undocumented gold ring from the Hungarian National Museum that has an oval sapphire stone in a hexagonal setting. The provenience is more or less unknown, but it has been argued that it was found associated with the crown on Margaret Island. 76 It was originally argued that the ring was a man’s because it was too big to fit a woman’s finger.77 Rather than ascribing the ring to Stephen V, Vattai is not satisfied with the find circumstances of the crown and ring and their association with the king and considers the possibility that these are grave accoutrements for the king’s cousin, Béla, prince of Macsó.78 The primary problem with this argument is that the only factor used to identify the gender of the ring’s wearer is its size. Moreover, the ring is similar in size to the rings buried with Anna of Antioch and Constance of Aragon. While the owner of this ring may never be known, if it does share a provenience with the crown found at the Dominican nunnery on Margaret Island, it is definitely worth questioning whether this ring was

74 Erzsébet Vattai, “A Margitszigeti korona és gy˝ ur˝ u” [The Crown and Ring from Margaret Island], in Budapest Régiségei XVIII (1966–1967): 123–124. 75 The chalcedony ring has the inventory number 43/1847 at the Hungarian National Museum. Rózsa Feuerné-Tóth, “V. István király sírja a Margitszigeti domonkos apácakolostor templomában” [The Grave of King Stephen V in the Dominican Nunnery of Margaret Island], Budapest Régiségei 21 (1964): 117–118; Vattai, “A Margitszigeti korona és gy˝ ur˝ u”, 123–124. 76 Vattai, “A Margitszigeti korona és gy˝ ur˝ u,” 124; Feuerné-Tóth, “V. István király sírja a Margitszigeti domonkos apácakolostor templomában” [The Grave of King Stephen V in the Dominican nunnery of Margaret Island], 117, 121. 77 Feuerné-Tóth, “V. István király sírja a Margitszigeti domonkos apácakolostor templomában,” 117–118; Vattai, “A Margitszigeti korona és gy˝ ur˝ u,” 123–124. 78 Vattai, “A Margitszigeti korona és gy˝ ur˝ u,” 131–134.

156

C. MIELKE

buried with Elizabeth the Cuman. This argument is, of course, predicated on the ring being found with a crown, fragments of gold lace, and those items originating in the grave of Elizabeth the Cuman rather than Stephen V or Béla of Macsó. The tangled nature of the archaeological finds requires we take all factors into consideration. There is also the question of the gold lace recovered (possibly) from the same gravesite. A letter from 1838 documenting the results of the discoveries mentions remnants of gold fringe or tassels.79 If the gold fabric is the lace in question as suggested in the inventory, it is quite likely it could be a hairnet or ornamental bit of dress like the remnants of gold lace buried with Anna of Antioch a century prior. Such a high-status fabric may be associated with the burial of an elite woman from Hungary like Elizabeth the Cuman. An inventory of Stephen V during the time he was prince lists an entry where Elizabeth the Cuman paid her jester with silk fabric from Lucca worth one and a half marks, indicating that she definitely had access to high-quality textiles.80 The confusion over the relationship of the artifacts (the gold fabric, the crown, the ring) means that for now they have to be viewed separately, but the connection of the gold lace/tassel to Elizabeth the Cuman is nonetheless a reasonable proposition. In the historical record, Elizabeth the Cuman is mostly known for the problematic regency during the reign of her son, Ladislas IV. Yet her two surviving seals also show how the queen chose to display herself and how this self-fashioning changed rather dramatically. She also is included on coins of her son, another nod to her role as regent. With these two types of artifacts, we see a queen who is using visual imagery in two media as a means of strengthening her own position of power, even if it was ultimately unsuccessful. The question of her burial and the finds associated with a royal grave on Margaret Island are much more complicated, however. There is no way to ever know if all the finds uncovered were found in one grave or from several, but the gold lace found at the tomb likely came from a woman’s grave. The gender of the wearer of a crown or ring is very difficult to determine on the basis of size or appearance, so although the crown and sapphire ring discovered on Margaret Island 79 Feuerné-Tóth, “V. István király sírja a Margitszigeti domonkos apácakolostor templomában,” 117–118; Vattai, “A Margitszigeti korona és gy˝ ur˝ u,” 123–124. 80 László Zolnay, “István ifjabb király számadása 1264-b˝ ol” [Inventory of Stephen the Young King from 1264] Budapest Régiségi 21 (1964): 100, 102.

5

THE SECOND FOUNDRESSES (1235–1295)

157

likely come from high status, possibly royal graves, the identity of their owner(s) will remain unknown. But all of these items together tell us that burial at Margaret Island was an elite, sumptuous affair, one that was meant to be a visible spectacle and, later on, a pilgrimage site. The high likelihood that Elizabeth the Cuman was buried there with possibly some or all of the artifacts listed above indicates her importance as dowager queen, even if the details about her later life remain largely a mystery.

Isabella of Naples [Ladislas IV] spurned the marriage-bed and went with daughters of the Comans, whose names were Eydua, Cupchech and Mandula, and he took many other concubines; and through love of them his heart became depraved, and he was hated by his barons and the nobles of the kingdom.81

This one sentence from the Hungarian Illuminated Chronicle shows how historians have not only viewed Ladislas IV (r. 1272–1290) but also his relationship with his wife, Isabella of Naples (d. 1303). The reign of Ladislas was unstable due to internal and external threats, yet the contemporary chronicle of Simon of Kéza praises his military victories against the Cumans and against Ottokar II of Bohemia (r. 1253–1278).82 The marriage between Ladislas IV and Isabella began when the two were infants. After Beatrice of Provence, the Queen of Naples, died in 1268, King Charles I asked for the hand of Béla IV’s daughter Margaret (St. Margaret, d. 1271) in marriage. When Margaret refused, Charles I of Naples then proposed a double-marriage alliance; his son Charles would marry Béla’s granddaughter Mary (d. 1323), and his daughter Isabella would marry Béla’s grandson Ladislas.83 Isabella arrived at the Hungarian court as a very small child in 1270 shortly after this marriage

81 Dercsényi, ed., The Hungarian Illuminated Chronicle, 141. 82 Simon himself was a priest at the court of Ladislas IV. Simon of Kéza, Gesta

Hungarorum, xv, xx–xxii, 148–157; Macartney, The Medieval Hungarian Historians, 89–109. 83 Kosztolnyik, Hungary in the Thirteenth Century, 246–247; Dercsényi, ed., The Hungarian Illuminated Chronicle, 141–142, 172 n530, 73 n543.

158

C. MIELKE

alliance was concluded.84 Since Ladislas and Isabella were so young, they were not officially married until 1277, when the regency of his mother ended.85 1285 saw Isabella not only fending off the Mongols when they were besieging her at Buda Castle, but also after the death of her father, Ladislas IV imprisoned her in the Dominican nunnery on Margaret Island.86 While Isabella was imprisoned there for a couple of years, the Archbishop of Esztergom was able to secure her release and Ladislas begged for her forgiveness.87 After regaining her freedom, Isabella spent the second half of 1289 touring her estates in Somogy County, most likely visiting estates that had been returned to her.88 Isabella’s status did not last long though, as her husband would be assassinated in 1290 by the Cumans he associated so much with during his lifetime.89 Isabella of Naples thus represents an interesting dichotomy as queen. Her rocky relationship with her husband and her childlessness considerably weakened her position and, undoubtedly, skews the material culture and space affected by her life. Yet, aside from her two seals which show her in regal splendor, where she appears the most in the archaeological record is primarily in her relationship to monastic institutions. Her archaeological life is represented in her two seals as well as her support of the Franciscan houses in Hungary and in Naples. Two Seals of Isabella of Naples There are eighteen charters issued by Isabella of Naples which contain some surviving fragments of the queen’s two seals. Isabella’s first seal

84 She was most likely born around 1264–1265. Wertner, Az Arp ´ adok ´ csaladi ´ T¨ort´enete,

537; Zsoldos, The Árpáds and Their Wives, 198. 85 Kosztolnyik, Hungary in the Thirteenth Century, 278. 86 György Fejér, Codex diplomaticus Hungariae ecclesiasticus ac Civilis (Buda, 1832),

´ adok VII-2, 127–129; Wertner, Az Arp ´ csaladi ´ T¨ort´enete, 538; Kosztolnyik, Hungary in the Thirteenth Century, 286. 87 Kosztolnyik, Hungary in the Thirteenth Century, 291–292. 88 Zsoldos, The Árpáds and Their Wives, 100–101; Zsoldos and Szentpétery, Az Árpád-

házi hercegek, hercegn˝ok és a királynék okleveleinek kritikai jegyzéke, 107, 112, 125. 89 Kosztolnyik, Hungary in the Thirteenth Century, 295.

5

THE SECOND FOUNDRESSES (1235–1295)

159

was only used in her first two charters from 1275 and 1276.90 Her first seal is very fragmented, and not even the inscription survives. On the front she is depicted sitting on a throne (or bench), with her right arm outstretched and her left arm at her chest. The reverse has a doublebarred cross surrounded by a border decorated with small flowers and what appears to be a small flower in the field with the cross.91 No explanation has been offered thus far why Queen Isabella employed a different seal toward the end of 1276, there is one possible explanation. While she had been living at the Hungarian court since 1270, the royal couple was finally married only in 127792 ; this second seal could have been made for the queen in preparation for a change not only in her life course but also in her status at the court. Isabella’s second seal comes into use sometime after November 27, 1276, and is amended twice; first between 1279 and 1282 and the second time in 1284, or perhaps some time before. This seal was used until 1290.93 In this version, the queen sits on a throne with a back. In her right hand she holds a scepter topped with a fleur-de-lys, while her left hand seems to be clutched to her chest. Isaballa’s seal is the first instance in which Angevin features are found in a Hungarian representation of the fleur-de-lys.94 In this seal, the queen adopts the same pose as her husband with her right hand holding a scepter, not extended.95 The obverse of Isabella’s second seal has the elements present in the seals of Maria Laskarina and Elizabeth the Cuman; artistically, it is similar enough to the second majestic seal of Ladislas IV that the two might have been made at the same time (Fig. 5.8).96 The presence of the throne with a back as a symbol of power is incredibly important. One seal of Charles II of Naples (Isabella’s older brother, 90 Bodor states that her first seal was in use from 1274 to 1276 though no examples from 1274 survive to present. Imre Bodor, “Árpád-kori pecsétjeink, I” [Seals of the Árpádage], Turul 74 (2001): 10; Ádam Novak, “Izabella (Erzsébet) királyné pecsétjeir˝ ol” [The Seals of Queen Isabella (Elizabeth)], Turul LXXXVII (2014), 109–111. 91 Bodor, “Árpád-kori pecsétjeink, I.” 10. 92 Kosztolnyik, Hungary in the Thirteenth Century, 278. 93 Bodor, “Árpád-kori pecsétjeink, I.” 10; Novak, “Izabella (Erzsébet) királyné pecsét-

jeir˝ ol,” 110–111. 94 Takács, Az Árpad-házi királyok pecsétjei: Royal Seals of the Árpád dynasty, 146–147. 95 Ibid., 182–183. 96 Ibid., 182–183.

160

C. MIELKE

Fig. 5.8 Second Seal of Isabella of Naples. Hungarian National Archives, OL DF 1119

r. 1285–1309) from the early fourteenth century depicts him seated on a throne with a back, but for the most part its presence on Isabella’s seal cannot be explained simply by adopting this design, especially since her seal precedes her brother’s.97 In Isabella’s case, the back of the throne is decorated with lilies inside a diamond pattern while the top is decorated with miniature lilies and flanked by two massive fleur-de-lys on either end. The next Hungarian queen to be depicted with a back on her throne seat is Elizabeth of Poland’s seal from 1338, over fifty years later. The quality of the carving is very precise, and this is especially evident in the Gothic niches on the throne seat, as well as the pattern on the back of the throne. The reverse of the seal likewise follows that of her predecessors with a few new elements. The inscription proclaims her as the daughter of the “illustrious” King Charles of Sicily.98 The flowers on the back of the seal at

97 Blancard, Iconographie des Sceaux et Bulles, 23–24, plate 7 no. 3. 98 Imre Takács, Az Árpad-házi királyok pecsétjei: Royal Seals of the Árpád dynasty, 182.

5

THE SECOND FOUNDRESSES (1235–1295)

161

the base of the cross do not appear to resemble the roses on the back of Elizabeth’s seal; these flowers have three small, rounded petals.99 The Franciscan Friary at Segesd and Isabella’s Support of Monastic Orders The Franciscan conventual monastery in Segesd dedicated to the Virgin Mary has been associated with two queens from the later thirteenth century: Isabella of Naples and Fenenna of Kujavia (d. 1295). A seventeenth-century source writes that the monastery was founded in 1290 before the arrival of Andrew III, while in 1295 the Bishop of Veszprém consecrated the Church of the Virgin Mary at the Franciscan friary in Segesd. Since Segesd was part of the queen’s estate at this point, one explanation is that the Franciscan house was originally founded by Isabella of Naples in 1290 and then completed by Fenenna of Kujavia sometime before her death in 1295.100 None of the surviving charters of Queen Fenenna mention that she founded Segesd.101 If the most likely explanation for this foundation is that Isabella of Naples began the process while Fenenna of Kujavia finished it, suggesting some insight into the relationship between the two women. Isabella’s own family gave significant donations to both orders. Her brother, Charles II of Naples, was an active patron of the Dominican Order. Mary of Hungary, the wife of Charles II, showed special favor to the Franciscans, particularly her Poor Clares foundation at Santa Maria Donnaregina.102 Mary of Hungary was also very active with the Dominican nunnery of St. Pietro a Castello in Naples, Isabella’s eventual place of burial. While Isabella was most probably involved in the foundation of the Franciscan friary in Segesd, she also supported the Dominican Order. She issued three charters while residing at the Dominican nunnery of Margaret Island—the third one was issued

99 Bodor, “Árpád-kori pecsétjeink, I.” 10. 100 The foundation was large enough to host nearly 50 monks at the provincial meetings

in 1301 and 1305. Pál Ger˝ o Bozsoky, Királyok és királynék városa: Segesd (Segesd, 2001), 161–162; Romhányi, Kolostorok és társaskáptalanok a középkori Magyarországon, 57. 101 Zsoldos and Szentpétery, Az Árpád-házi hercegek, hercegn˝ ok és a királynék okleveleinek, 160–170. 102 Caroline Bruzelius, The Stones of Naples: Church Building in Angevin Italy, 1266– 1343 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2004), 11, 95–103.

162

C. MIELKE

during her time in captivity.103 Her devotion to the Dominican Order is important as she would retire to a Dominican convent in her final years and be buried there. Dominican Nunnery of San Pietro a Castello, Naples After the death of Ladislas IV “the Cuman” in 1290, Isabella of Naples remained in Hungary until 1299.104 Already in November 1297 Isabella borrowed a thousand ounces of gold in order to begin her journey home. In February 1299, she passed through Slavonia and returned to Naples where her brother Charles II gave her 40 oz of gold per month. She renounced income from the city of Gravina in order to begin her life as a Dominican nun.105 Others have hinted that her interest in leaving Hungary might possibly have to do with the arrival of Andrew III’s second wife, Agnes of Habsburg in 1297.106 Wertner (who states that Isabella returned to Naples only in 1300) noted that she stayed in Manfredonia in July of 1300.107 In 1301, Pope Boniface VIII gave permission to Mary of Hungary, the Queen of Naples, for an old monastery in the Castel dell’Ovo of Naples to be transformed into a Dominican community for Isabella. The monastery in question had originally been a Byzantine (i.e. Basilite) foundation, and then later a Benedictine monastery.108 Charles II granted privileges to San Pietro a Castello on February 2, 1303.109 Isabella died there in October 1303 and the nunnery was later

103 In 1276, 1277, and 1287, respectively. Zsoldos and Szentpétery, Az Árpád-házi hercegek, hercegn˝ok és a királynék okleveleinek kritikai jegyzéke, 109, 110, 143. 104 Kosztolnyik. Hungary in the Thirteenth Century, 296. 105 Camillo Minieri-Riccio, Genealogia di Carlo I. di Angiò: Prima Generazione (Naples:

Vincenzo Priggiobba, 1857), 36. 106 Pál Ger˝ o Bozsoky, Királyok és királynék városa: Segesd (Segesd, 2001), 156–157. 107 Wertner, Az Árpádok családi történeti, 539. 108 The Queen of Naples was Isabella’s sister-in-law; her brother was Ladislas IV, and her sister was Elizabeth of Hungary, Queen of Serbia. Bruzelius, The Stones of Naples, 99, 234 n124; Jürgen Krüger, S. Lorenzo Maggiore in Neapel: Eine Franziskanerkirche zwischen Ordensideal und Herrschaftsarchitektur (Werl: Dietrich-Colde Verlag, 1985), 177. 109 Minieri-Riccio, Genealogia di Carlo I. di Angiò: Prima Generazione, 36.

5

THE SECOND FOUNDRESSES (1235–1295)

163

destroyed by a fire in 1427; nothing remains of it.110 The Dominicans were a favorite order of her brother, Charles II of Naples, and a letter from him dated to November 3, 1303 requests that the Dominicans pray for the soul of his deceased sister; a sermon by Jacobus of Vitero confirms that she died sometime between the feast of St. Luke and All Saints’ Day, near the end of October 1303.111 Isabella’s sister-in-law, Elizabeth of Hungary (the Queen of Serbia) was also a nun at San Pietro a Castello.112 This Elizabeth was also known to be a big supporter of the Dominican Order, particularly the Dominican Nunnery on Margaret Island. She persuaded Ladislas IV (her brother) to give the island to the Nunnery.113 Elizabeth, the sister of the Neapolitan Queen Mary of Hungary, wife of Charles II of Naples, also arrived in Manfredonia in July 1300, indicating she most likely traveled with Isabella of Naples. There are documents from 1303 to 1306 indicating that she had issues with her income and debts, but it is not until 1305 that Elizabeth of Hungary is mentioned living as a nun at San Pietro a Castello, several years after the death of Isabella of Naples.114 Since the convent was founded in 1301 by Elizabeth’s sister, Queen Mary of Naples, it is possible that both Elizabeth of Hungary and Isabella of Naples lived there at the same time. While the interior space of this convent unfortunately cannot be reconstructed, the intersection of the lives of these three women (Isabella of Naples, Mary of Hungary, and Elizabeth of Hungary) shows a great interest in providing adequate space and resources for female family members. Understanding the power that Isabella of Naples had during her lifetime cannot be done without knowing the circumstances of her life and

110 Kosztolnyik mistakenly states that she died in 1304. Kosztolnyik. Hungary in the Thirteenth Century, 296; Caroline Bruzelius, The Stones of Naples: Church Building in Angevin Italy, 1266–1343 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2004), 99. 111 David Anderson, “‘Dominus Ludovicus’ in the Sermons of Jacobus of Viterbo (Arch. S. Pietro D. 213),” in Literature and Religion In the Later Middle Ages: Philological Studies in Honor of Siegfried Wenzel, ed. Richard G. Newhauser and John. A. Alford (Binghamton: Medieval & Renaissance Texts & Studies, 1995), 281–282. 112 Klaniczay, Holy Rulers and Blessed Princesses, 304. 113 The Franciscan and Premonstratensian Orders also had some small territory of their

own on the island. Irásné-Melis, “Die Margaretinsel und ihre Klöster im Mittelalter”, 412. 114 The last mention of her comes from 1313. Krüger, S. Lorenzo Maggiore in Neapel, 177; Wertner, Az Árpádok családi történeti, 529.

164

C. MIELKE

the problems she encountered as queen. The strong imagery of her seated on a throne with a back (as opposed to a bench) is in contrast to her real vulnerability. As queen, her power was very much subject to the good opinion of her husband who imprisoned her for several years. Very little is known about her activity as a widow in Hungary—usually this is the time when women are the most active and independent. However, considering Isabella’s interest in the Mendicant Orders and her eventual retirement to a Dominican nunnery in Naples, she most likely spent her widowhood in such an environment. None of her charters in Hungary date to this period, and this would seem to confirm something of a retirement from public life. The focus of Isabella’s power as queen was thus concentrated almost exclusively in supporting religious orders, which is significant in itself.

Fenenna of Kujavia The death of the childless Ladislas IV in 1290 triggered a small succession crisis. Andrew III (r. 1290–1301) prevailed in the short term. Andrew III was the son of Prince Stephen, the posthumous son of Andrew II (r. 1205–1235) by his third wife, Beatrice of Este.115 Andrew had been raised in Venice by his mother, Thomasina Morosini (d. 1300); she accompanied her son to Hungary and wielded considerable power and influence, even gaining the title of Duchess of Slavonia.116 In the middle of December 1290, Andrew married Fenenna, the daughter of Ziemosyl of Kujavia.117 Around the year 1292, Fenenna gave birth to Andrew’s only surviving child, a daughter named Elizabeth who would go on to be beatified as Bl. Elizabeth of Töss (d. 1336).118 The last charter that

115 Wertner, Az Arp ´ adok ´ csaladi ´ T¨ort´enete, 546–560; Dercsényi, ed., The Hungarian Illuminated Chronicle, 173 n535; Kosztolnyik, Hungary in the Thirteenth Century, 342– 343. 116 Many of her charters were issued from Slavonska Pozega (Pozsegavár) as a result of her title. Zsoldos, The Árpáds and Their Wives, 102; Kosztolnyik, Hungary in the Thirteenth Century, 359. 117 Wertner, Az Arp ´ adok ´ csaladi ´ T¨ort´enete, 571–572; Długosz, The Annals of Jan

Długosz, 212; Zsoldos, The Árpáds and Their Wives, 199. 118 Volker Honemann, “A Medieval Queen and Her Stepdaughter: Agnes and Elizabeth of Hungary,” in Queens and Queenship in Medieval Europe, ed. Ann Duggan (Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 2002), 110–111.

5

THE SECOND FOUNDRESSES (1235–1295)

165

Fenenna issued dates from September 8, 1295119 ; she died in December of 1295.120 In Fenenna’s short time as queen, she issued twenty-two charters. Most of them show her continuing the work of previous queens, granting land and privileges to the church as well as royal officials.121 Like the other queens of the later thirteenth century, Fenenna made several donations to the provost of Veszprém as well as the Bishop (who also served as her chancellor). She also supported the Dominican nunnery of Margaret Island.122 Regarding Fenenna’s contribution to material culture, there are three particular examples that stand out most prominently: her seal, her completion of the Franciscan friary at Segesd, and finally the question of her place of burial. Seal of Fenenna of Kujavia Only about half of Fenenna’s seal remains in its present state, but a drawing from the early nineteenth century contains some clues about its original appearance (Fig. 5.9).123 From the wax impression, it is clear that Fenenna is seated on a throne with no back like most of her predecessors. She wears a crown with her hair braided, rather than loose like the other queens in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. The drawing recorded in Pray’s work from 1805 shows the queen holding a scepter in her right hand and an orb in her left.124 On the original wax impression, the right hand is missing, but there are traces of the queen’s left hand, though it is very difficult to tell if she is clasping a tie at her cloak or holding an orb.

119 Zsoldos

and Szentpétery, Az Árpád-házi hercegek, hercegn˝ok és a királynék okleveleinek kritikai jegyzéke, 170. 120 Imre Szentpetery, Scriptores rerum Hungaricarum (Budapest: Academia litter. hungarica atque Societate history, 1937–1938) Vol. I, 477. 121 Attila Zsoldos, “The Problems of dating the Queens’ Charters of the Árpádian Age (Eleventh–Thirteenth Century),” in Dating Undated Medieval Charters, ed. Michael Gervers (Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 2000), 153; Zsoldos and Szentpétery, Az Árpád-házi hercegek, hercegn˝ok és a királynék okleveleinek, 160–170. 122 Szentpétery and Zsoldos, Az Árpád-házi hercegek, hercegn˝ ok és királynék okleveleinek, 160–168; Kosztolnyik, Hungary in the Thirteenth Century, 292–293. 123 Pray, Syntagma historicum de sigillis regum, et reginarum Hungariae, Tab. IX, Fig. 2. 124 Pray, Syntagma historicum de sigillis regum, et reginarum Hungariae, 153; Bodor,

“Árpád-kori pecsétjeink, I.” 10.

166

C. MIELKE

Fig. 5.9 Seal of Fenenna of Kujavia. Illustration from György Pray, Syntagma historicum de sigillis regum, et reginarum Hungariae (1805)

The fact that the queen’s hand is slightly off-center suggests that she is holding an orb, rather than clasping her cloak. Takács notes its similarity to the seal of Isabella of Naples, particularly the reverse side.125 The double-barred cross on the reverse is dotted with flowers and shows the field behind the cross unadorned. The inscription around the cross displays the typical formula as well, stating her paternal lineage. Yet one odd discrepancy when comparing the drawing to the seal occurs in the plants springing up from the base of the double-barred cross. In the drawing, it shows sheaves of wheat at the base, but in the seal attached to OL DF 1320, it seems that the plant at the base is not wheat, but rather a three-petaled flower with pointed edges. It bears a resemblance to the white lily (lilium candidum) as it appears in several Central European works of art.126 The lily with the three leaves had 125 Takács, Az Árpad-házi királyok pecsétjei: Royal Seals of the Árpád dynasty, 182. 126 Ülle Sillasoo, Plant Depictions in Late Medieval Religious Art in Southern Central

Europe: an Archaeobotanical approach (Budapest: Central European University, 2003), 143–144, figs. 73, 86, 90.

5

THE SECOND FOUNDRESSES (1235–1295)

167

strong connotations of chastity and purity and in particular is associated with the Virgin Mary.127 Coins of Andrew III Featuring a Crowned Woman There are two denars of Andrew III depicting two crowned figures facing each other. In one case, the two crowned figures are found on the obverse with a winged quadruped on the reverse,128 while the other has two busts flanking a cross on the reverse and a crowned king on the obverse. The pairs on both coins appear to be very similar; the crowned heads are facing each other, and between the two of them is an object, either a cross or a column with a crowned letter “M” underneath.129 It is extremely difficult to tell what distinguishes one crowned figure from another, though both seem to feature a figure wearing a veil under the crown. While the queen on the coin could be either Fenenna or Andrew’s second wife, Agnes of Habsburg, it is more likely that the woman represents his mother, Thomasina Morosini (d. 1300). While never queen herself, Thomasina was quite a powerful figure at the Hungarian court and Andrew III let his mother govern the lands between the Danube and the Adriatic, essentially ruling over Slavonia.130 Thomasina’s independence and good relationship with her son make her the most likely candidate to be featured on these coins. Franciscan Friary of St. John’s, Buda As mentioned above, Fenenna of Kujava likely died around December 1295. Her place of burial is unknown, but in the secondary literature it has been assumed that she was buried with her husband at the Franciscan friary in Buda which had been established by 1270.131 One reason for suggesting this is that it fits the pattern of thirteenth-century kings to be

127 Tisdall, God’s Flowers: An Iconography for Foliage Decoration, 92–93. 128 Réthy, Corpus Nummorum Hungariae, 39; Huszár, Münzkatalog Ungarn, 73. 129 Réthy proposes that a crowned letter “M” could possibly stand for Morosini, the

maiden name of Andrew’s mother Thomasina. Réthy, Corpus Nummorum Hungariae, 27, 39. 130 Kosztolnyik, Hungary in the Thirteenth Century, 359. 131 Hankó, A magyar királysírok sorsa, 137.

168

C. MIELKE

buried with their wives (Andrew II, Béla IV, and most probably Stephen V). One of Fenenna’s earliest charters is a reaffirmation of certain rights to the land of a widow for a Beguine house that happens to be near the St. John’s friary in Buda, though this appears to be the only direct connection between the queen and this church.132 Fenenna completed the Franciscan friary in Segesd which would have most likely been founded by her predecessor, Isabella of Naples.133 For Andrew, Fenenna’s death could have been used as an opportunity to strengthen his own dynastic legitimacy (like his successor Charles I Robert would do). Considering the queen’s young age, the fact that she predeceased her husband and only left behind a daughter, and the total uncertainty of her place of burial, it is most likely that Andrew III took charge of whatever burial arrangements transpired. Fenenna died young and there is little known about her from the written record. And yet by examining her actions outside of charters, an interesting picture of her emerges. Her seal shows not only a considerable degree of conservatism in its style and yet her wearing her hair in braids is unique among Hungarian queens. Her connection to Segesd is tenuous, but it confirms her pattern of continuing projects of her predecessors. The question of her burial and appearance on coinage is inconclusive, but it emphasizes the simple point about our perceptions on the activity of queens. It is not that Fenenna was totally inactive during her short time as queen but rather that historians have not been asking these types of questions or raising such possibilities in the first place.

Conclusions During the great rebuilding of Hungary that took place in the latter half of the thirteenth century, the queen held a special role in the image of public authority as well as through their construction and memorial projects. That being said, the experiences of the four women here were different throughout this period of growth and recovery. Maria Laskarina enjoyed a stable relationship with her husband and had many children. She was not only able to exercise her own power in building defensive works and supporting monasteries, but she also continued the traditions 132 Imre Szentpétery and Attila Zsoldos, Az Árpád-házi hercegek, hercegn˝ ok és a királynék okleveleinek kritikai jegyzéke (Budapest: Magyar Országos Levéltar, 2008), 160. 133 Romhányi, Kolostorok és társaskáptalanok a középkori Magyarországon, 57; Pál Ger˝ o Bozsoky, Királyok és királynék városa: Segesd (Segesd, 2001), 161–162.

5

THE SECOND FOUNDRESSES (1235–1295)

169

established by her immediate predecessors of appearing on coinage and employing her own seal. Elizabeth the Cuman is the only Árpád-era queen to take the position of regent, but this was an unstable period and her power was constantly in question. She appears on the coinage of her son but her strong first seal appears during the civil wars that her husband led in the 1260s. Her later seal and later activities state her power less overtly. Isabella of Naples used several richly decorated seals with elements from her homeland, but her troubles with her husband and lack of children meant that her avenues for expressing power were only in visual imagery and in supporting her favored monastic institutions. Fenenna of Kujavia died very young, but nonetheless there are still glimpses of her agency. While they were able to build on the works of their predecessors, these queens still had to operate within the societal rules of medieval Hungary. Their personal ties and the stage of their life course played a great role in their capacity to act. Curiously enough, this chapter demonstrates well the importance that motherhood had on the power of the queen. Maria Laskarina, mother to a large number of sons and daughters who were all married to secure Hungary’s borders, mostly acts within her capacity as mother. While the seals and coinage connected to her are in her capacity as royal consort, the construction of the Dominican nunnery on Margaret Island and her fortification of the Citadel at Visegrád were all connected to her daughter, St. Margaret. Her final resting place, before it was where she or her husband were buried, was initially where their son Béla was buried. Elizabeth the Cuman is mostly remembered as the mother of Ladislas IV “the Cuman” and regent during the first years of his reign, but first, she was the wife of Stephen V. Her first seal might even date from a period where her husband was in an uprising against her father-in-law. While her son minted coins with a queen’s face and the name “Elisabetha” on it, she is the more likely candidate rather than her son’s wife. While Ladislas IV was castigated for wearing outfits associated with the Cumans, the regalia found on Margaret Island indicates that the artistic style of the Hungarian court strongly favored the west. This is all the more interesting if the regalia from Margaret Island belonged to Elizabeth the Cuman. This contrast in maternal power is evident in the case of the first wife and mother of Andrew III. Thomasina Morosini appears on his coinage and obtains the title of Duchess of Slavonia, while Fenenna of Kujavia, as the mother of a daughter, is still able to act in her reign, but with much less independence.

170

C. MIELKE

The charter evidence, written sources, and material culture all point to the fact that queens at the end of the Árpádian dynasty were crucial in rebuilding the country after the Mongol Invasions. However, this chapter also proves that their actions took place within a serious set of social rules, wherein their gender, their foreign identity, and their status as wife and mother all played a role. The power of the queen grew in this period, but it was nonetheless reliant on these social circumstances.

CHAPTER 6

Long Widowhoods (1296–1380)

After the death of Andrew III in 1301, Hungary went through an interregnum with several factions competing for the crown. Charles I Robert, who had been the candidate of Pope Boniface VIII the whole time, finally became the undisputed king only in 1308, even though it would take three coronation ceremonies to take effect.1 After Charles’ death in 1342, his son Louis I ‘the Great’ ascended to the Hungarian throne. He would gain the crown of Poland in 1370 and rule both countries until his death in 1382. Culturally speaking, this is a period of incredible contact with western courts. Royal marriages in this period were focused on France, the Italian kingdoms, and Central Europe, particularly Bohemia and Poland. As such, this chapter focuses on Agnes of Habsburg (d. 1364), widow of Andrew III, Maria of Bytom (d. 1317), and Elizabeth of Poland (d. 1380), first and third wives of Charles I Robert respectively. There are significant changes in this period regarding the relationship between queens and their material culture. While certain artifacts remain in a similar state (for instance, their seals), others disappear by the 1350s (e.g., the queen’s face on coinage). There is also a full development of heraldic programs and public imagery in this time period. 1 Dercsényi, ed., The Hungarian Illuminated Chronicle, 142–145; Engel, The Realm of St. Stephen, 128–130.

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 C. Mielke, The Archaeology and Material Culture of Queenship in Medieval Hungary, 1000–1395, Queenship and Power, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-66511-1_6

171

172

C. MIELKE

Liturgical artifacts associated with the queens also make a resurgence here. Though undoubtedly such items of the queens existed from the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, the only ones that survive to present are from the eleventh and fourteenth centuries. Agnes of Habsburg and Elizabeth of Poland were involved in nearly every single type of artifact and building project medieval queens were associated with. The middle of the fourteenth century is not only when queens in medieval Hungary were their strongest, but also when the most archaeological and art historical evidence connected with them survives in the strongest numbers. The traditional interpretation is that Agnes and Elizabeth were so active because of their many decades as widows, meaning that they could act with greater independence. Examining evidence outside of and in addition to the written sources will provide new insight into whether or not this was the case (Fig. 6.1).

Agnes of Habsburg After the death of Fenenna of Kujavia in 1295, Andrew III married Agnes, the daughter of Holy Roman Emperor Albert I of Habsburg (r. 1298– 1308). They wed in Vienna in early 1296 when Agnes was nearly fifteen years old.2 The Königsfelden Chronicle describes Agnes as being small and modest. When she was a little girl back at the Austrian court she would simply wear the dresses cut from clothing that her sisters did not want anymore rather than wear new clothing.3 With 40,000 silver marks and the castle (and county) of Weitenegg as her dowry, Agnes came to the marriage already extremely wealthy.4 Agnes was only queen for five years and the majority of her charters reaffirm earlier donations queens

2 Agnes was born on May 18, 1281; the marriage was concluded either in February

´ adok or April of 1296. Wertner, Az Arp ´ csaladi ´ T¨ort´enete, 574–575; Attila Zsoldos, “The Problem of Dating Queens’ Charters of the Árpádian Age (Eleventh–Thirteenth Century),” in Dating Undated Medieval Charters, ed. Michael Gervers (Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 2002), 154; Zsoldos, The Árpáds and Their Wives, 199. 3 Honemann, “A Medieval Queen and Her Stepdaughter,” 112. 4 Andrew III offered the town and county of Bratislava as her dower. Wertner, Az

´ adok Arp ´ csaladi ´ T¨ort´enete, 577.

6

LONG WIDOWHOODS (1296–1380)

173

Fig. 6.1 The Hungarian Angevin Dynasty in the fourteenth century

had made to Veszprém.5 Agnes of Habsburg ordered for carpentry and masonry work to be done at the castle of Óbuda. She mentioned Óbuda castle as her permanent residence in 1296 and before she left Hungary in 1301 she gave orders about payment for the masonry and carpentry work done at the residence.6 After the death of Andrew III in 1301, Agnes’s brother met her in Buda where she negotiated returning to Habsburg 5 Szentpétery and Zsoldos, Az Árpád-házi hercegek, hercegn˝ ok és királynék okleveleinek, 171–176; Hermann and Theodor von Liebenau, Urkundliche Nachweise zu der Lebensgeschichte der verwittweten Königin Agnes von Ungarn: 1280–1364 (Aarau: Lucern, 1867), 9–10. 6 Altman, “Óbuda,” 93–94; Szende, “Les châteaux de reines,” 163; Liebenau and Liebenau, Urkundliche Nachweise zu der Lebensgeschichte der verwittweten Königin Agnes von Ungarn, 10–11.

174

C. MIELKE

lands with not only many valuables, but also her stepdaughter, Elizabeth.7 She would spend the majority of her incredibly long widowhood living at Königsfelden, a Franciscan dual house she established with her mother. Agnes’ presence in Königsfelden showcases how she was not only involved in the active construction of the monastery, but also how she viewed the monastery as presenting her own and her family’s self-image. Because of its religious context and environment, many items associated with her have now survived to present. As a creator, donor, and renovator of material culture, Agnes is remembered for her seals, her construction projects at Königsfelden, the stained glass windows featuring portraits of her family and her heraldic devices, the many objects she donated to the Abbey, her personal library, and finally her interment in her family’s crypt at the Abbey. Two Seals of Agnes of Habsburg In the nineteenth century, two were seals ascribed to Agnes of Habsburg; in actuality, however, they belong to a different “Agnes, Queen of Hungary”, namely Agnes of Głogów (d. 1361), wife of Otto of Bavaria who had been King from 1305 to 1307.8 Images of the two seals Agnes of Habsburg used survive in a nineteenth-century drawing and in Vienna at the Austrian State Archives (Fig. 6.2). The reverse of the first seal of Agnes of Habsburg is known from a drawing by Nándor Malachovsky in the massive Hungarian National History.9 It featured the Hungarian double-barred cross, surrounded by a lobed design and the inscription “Seal of Agnes, Queen of Hungary”.10 In 1895, it was listed as belonging to the Archives of the Hungarian

7 Elizabeth (the Blessed Elizabeth of Töss) was the daughter of Andrew III by Fenenna of Kujavia. She had been betrothed to Wencelsas (III) of Bohemia and Poland who was King of Hungary from 1301 to 1305, but the marriage never took place. Honemann, “A Medieval Queen and Her Stepdaughter,” 110. 8 Pray, Syntagma historicum de sigillis regum, et reginarum Hungariae, 59; Liebenau and Liebenau, Urkundliche Nachweise zu der Lebensgeschichte der verwittweten Königin Agnes von Ungarn, 9–10. 9 Sándor Szilagyi, ed. A Magyar Nemzet Története [Hungarian National History], Vol. III (Budapest: Athenaeum Irodalmi, 1895), 33. 10 Bodor, “Árpád-kori pecsétjeink, I.,” 11, 13 n 68.

6

LONG WIDOWHOODS (1296–1380)

175

Fig. 6.2 First seal of Agnes Habsburg. Drawing by Nándor Malachovsky, from Sándor Szilágyi, A Magyar Nemzet Története (1895)

National Museum,11 but its present whereabouts are currently unknown. If it was issued from a document during the time that Agnes spent in Hungary, it would date from 1296 to 1301.12 While Kumorovitz states that Agnes only used a seal from a document dated to 1295, three charters issued by her in 1299 and 1300 indicate that a seal was originally attached.13 It is also curious to note that this is the first time there are no flowers springing up at the base of the cross, a feature which would appear on Agnes’ second seal. The second seal of Agnes is a white wax impression from 1311 which depicts her on a cushioned throne without a back, wearing a crown rimmed with pearls and with her hair uncovered. She holds the tie to her cloak in her left hand and a branch with three leaves in the right. The background of the obverse has the letters A and G, while the reverse has the letters N, and ES. The back of the seal has the Hungarian doublebarred cross with flowers in the background and a bird resting on the second arm of the cross. The front of the seal proclaims her as Queen of Hungary, while the back says she is the daughter of Duke Albert.14 One document from the Archives in canton Aargau shows the reverse of

11 Szilagyi, ed. A Magyar Nemzet Története, Vol. III, 33. 12 Honemann, “A Medieval Queen and Her Stepdaughter,” 110. 13 Kumorovitz, A Magyar Pecséthasználat története a középkorban, 41; Zsoldos and

Szentpétery, Az Árpád-házi hercegek, hercegn˝ok és a királynék okleveleinek kritikai jegyzéke, 173–175. 14 Alfred Nevismal, “Königin Agnes von Ungarn: Leben und Stellung in der habsburgischen Politik ihrer Zeit” (PhD diss.: University of Vienna, 1951), 50–51.

176

C. MIELKE

Agnes’ seal which also uses the Hungarian cross but is formed from red wax.15 Though Agnes was the queen of Hungary for a short time, she continued to use the symbol of the Hungarian kingdom throughout her long widowhood. What makes her seal unique is the fact that it uses the Árpád coat of arms as well as the Hungarian cross. Even though Agnes spent the last fifty years of her life within the walls of a cloister, her many charters indicate that even within the walls of a convent the image on her seal was seen by many foundations, property-holders, and clerks beyond Königsfelden. Königsfelden Abbey After only a few years of living in Hungary as queen, Agnes of Habsburg would spend nearly fifty years living at the double monastery of Königsfelden founded by her and her mother. In 1308, Agnes and her mother Elizabeth of Görz-Tyrol founded the Abbey of Königsfelden at the site of the murder of Albert of Habsburg, not only for the glory of Christ, the Virgin Mary and all the Saints, but also for the salvation of the ancestors of Albert and Elizabeth.16 It was founded as a double monastery for Franciscan nuns and friars, and Agnes even had her own residence built into the complex on the east side of the church, between the residences of the brothers and the sisters.17 While two charters confirm that Agnes was in Vienna in 1313, in the twenty-eight documents issued by her from 1318 to 1362, all but two of them were issued at Königsfelden.18 Of all the monastic residences of Hungarian queens, this one was the most significant and with the best surviving evidence. This site is significant as Agnes’ personal residence as well as in terms of the stained glass windows 15 U.17/0276a. 16 Carola Jäggi, “Eastern Choir or Western Gallery? The Problem of the Place of the Nuns’ Choir in Königsfelden and Other Early Mendicant Nunneries,” Gesta 40 (2001): 80; Brigitte Kurmann-Schwartz, Die mittelalterlichen Glasmalereien der ehemaligen Klosterkirche K¨onigsfelden (Bern: Stämpfli, 2008), 27–30. 17 Honemann, “A Medieval Queen and Her Stepdaughter,” 110; Jäggi, “Eastern Choir or Western Gallery?” 81. 18 One visit was to Strasbourg in 1318, another to Thun in 1333. MNL OL DF 98338, 258363, 258364; Liebenau and Liebenau, Urkundliche Nachweise zu der Lebensgeschichte der verwittweten Königin Agnes von Ungarn, 31–164; Gyula Kristó, Anjou-kori oklevéltar III (Budapest and Szeged, 1994), 227, 281.

6

LONG WIDOWHOODS (1296–1380)

177

she sponsored, the gifts she gave to the Abbey, her literary patronage at the site, and finally as her place of burial. Archaeological excavations from the 1980s posited that Agnes’ residence was just outside the monastic precinct, bordering the sacristy, the cloister for the Poor Clares and south of the apse of the church.19 There was a passageway between the Queen’s apartments to the south of the church and the choir of the Abbey which featured portraits in stained glass of her family. After her death, this entrance to the choir was walled up.20 The window above the entrance to Agnes’ quarters featured the life of St. Clare and portraits of her brother Leopold I and his wife.21 Agnes herself indicated that after her death, she wished for her residence to be demolished, but there are indications that after she died in 1364 the Poor Clares requested (successfully) that the buildings be used for economic purposes.22 Illustrations of Königsfelden from the seventeenth century onwards do not show any building on this site, indicating that if it had existed at this location, it was destroyed by then. Its location within the spiritual framework and proximity to the residence of the nuns and the sacristy both speak to the central importance of her quarters. It is also worth noting that at this institution the monks have a northern cloister while the nuns have a southern cloister; nunneries were more likely to have a northern cloister.23 This indicates the special prominence the Poor Clares were given at this double monastery. Stained Glass Windows from Königsfelden During her time at Königsfelden, Agnes commissioned a series of stained glass windows in the nave and choir of the church; the earlier windows 19 Brigitte Kurmann-Schwarz, Die Mittelalterlichen Glasmalereien der ehemaligen Klosterkirche Königsfelden (Bern: Stämpfli, 2008), 44. 20 Brigitte Kurmann-Schwarz, “Seeing and Understanding Narrative and Thematic Method in the Stained Glass of the Choir of Königsfelden ca. 1330–1340,” in The Four Modes of Seeing: Approaches to Medieval Imagery in Honor of Madeline Harrison Caviness, ed. Evelyn Staudinger Lane, Elizabeth Carton Pastan, and Ellen M. Shortell (Burlington: Ashgate, 2009), 260. 21 Kurmann-Schwarz, “Seeing and Understanding Narrative and Thematic Method,”

260; Kurmann-Schwarz, Die Mittelalterlichen Glasmalereien der ehemaligen Klosterkirche Königsfelden, 362–373. 22 Tobias Hodel, “Das Kloster in der Region. Herrschaft, Verwaltung und Handeln mit Schrift,” in Königsfelden: Königsmord, Kloster, Klinik, ed. Simon Teuscher and Claudia Moddelmog (Baden: Hier und Jetzt, 2012), 111–112. 23 Gilchrist, Gender and Material Culture, 128–133.

178

C. MIELKE

in the nave feature a heraldic program of the queen while the later windows in the choir were a series of family portraits. At present, only the portraits of two of her brothers and their wives survive.24 Several illustrations survive from the sixteenth-eighteenth centuries,25 indicating that two windows featured a portrait of Agnes: one on the south side of the choir, and one in the nave. The choir of Königsfelden was built ca. 1329–1330 and the stained glass dated either contemporaneously or from around 1340. KurmannSchwarz argues that Agnes, her father, and her mother would all be depicted there. Agnes’ parents Albert I and Elizabeth of Tyrol (d. 1312) had central prominence at the bottom of the most visible window in the center of the apse, which depicted the Passion of Christ.26 St. Stephen of Hungary might have been depicted between Agnes and Andrew III. An illustration from 1773 depicts her presenting a model of the church and wearing a wimple, but unlike other earlier illustrations, the queen is shown kneeling in front of a pillow on the ground that has a crown. Since she is also shown facing to the right (i.e., to the viewer’s left), she was probably placed in the second most prominent spot of the choir after her parents (Fig. 6.3).27 In addition, the nave of the Abbey had a series of fourteen Habsburg family portraits done in stained glass from around 1360, shortly before Agnes’ death.28 Of the fourteen original windows, only those of Albert II

24 Brigitte Kurmann-Schwarz, “Die Präsenz der abwesenden Dynastie: Die Bilder und

Wappen der Habsburger im Chor und im Langhaus der ehemaligen Klosterkirche von Königsfelden,” Österreichische Zeitschrift für Kunst und Denkmalpflege LXVI (2012) 3/4: 312; Kurmann-Schwarz, Die Mittelalterlichen Glasmalereien der ehemaligen Klosterkirche Königsfelden, 279–291. 25 These are the ÖNB Codex 8614, Vienna, Ms. LM 22737 from the Zürich SLM, Ms. 124 from the Luzern ZHB, Ms. L 94 from the Zürich, ZB. These date to c. 1555, 1560, 1580, and 1628 respectively. Martin Gerbert et al., Monumenta Augustae Domus Austriacae, 3, 2 (Vienna: 1773); Kurmann-Schwarz, Die Mittelalterlichen Glasmalereien der ehemaligen Klosterkirche Königsfelden, 32, 74–75, 210–214. 26 Window I. Kurmann-Schwarz, Die Mittelalterlichen Glasmalereien der ehemaligen Klosterkirche Königsfelden, 211. 27 Ibid., 211–212; Gerbert et al., Monumenta Augustae Domus Austriacae, 2, 3, Table

18. 28 Kurmann-Schwarz, Die Mittelalterlichen Glasmalereien der ehemaligen Klosterkirche Königsfelden, 27, 30, 32, 39, 80, 230.

6

LONG WIDOWHOODS (1296–1380)

179

Fig. 6.3 Lost window of Agnes of Habsburg. From Martin Gerbert, Monumenta Augustae Domus Austriacae (1772)

(r. 1330–1358) and King Rudolf of Bohemia survive (r. 1306–1307).29 Illustrations of these windows from the Early Modern period depict what the windows featuring Agnes and her family looked like. While the colors of Agnes’ garments vary in the different illustrations, they all show Queen

29 There are also fragments for the windows of Agnes’ two brothers Henry and Leopold I as well as her husband, Andrew III. Ibid., 386–392.

180

C. MIELKE

Agnes kneeling and facing left while holding a model of the church. Agnes’ window was paired with her mother, Elizabeth of Tyrol, while Agnes’ father and husband were paired together.30 As one portrait in a set of stained glass portraits of her family, both windows depicting Agnes show her both as a humble, devoted patroness of the Abbey as well as a Queen in her own right, even if the crown was not on her head. In additions to depictions of Agnes herself, the queen’s coat of arm also worked its way into the stained glass windows. The particular device she uses in this case is the Hungarian double-barred cross. A window depicting Saint Elizabeth of Hungary (d. 1231) shows the saint holding up the Hungarian double-barred cross. Two surviving windows in the nave are also adorned with a shield of the Hungarian double-barred cross while another one is adorned with the Imperial shield.31 These windows date from the early days of the abbey, for around 1360 Agnes replaced these heraldic windows in the nave with images of her family.32 By using this device throughout Königsfelden, the queen highlighted her own status and identity; its ubiquity at the site serves as a constant reminder of this. Another survival of the Hungarian coat of arms from Königsfelden comes in the form of eight knightly banners. Made in the mid-fourteenth century, they ostensibly served as banners for the funeral of Agnes after her death in 1364. Three of the original banners had the Hungarian coat of arms, two showed the imperial eagle, two more showed the Austrian coat of arms, and one showed the Carinthian escutcheon; these clearly show a hierarchy of importance in her own heraldic self-fashioning.33 After they were used in her funeral possession it is probable that they hung above her tomb before coming into the possession of the city of

30 The locations of the windows in the nave can only be surmised. Kurmann-Schwarz, Die Mittelalterlichen Glasmalereien der ehemaligen Klosterkirche Königsfelden, 231–232. 31 Kurmann-Schwarz, Die Mittelalterlichen Glasmalereien der ehemaligen Klosterkirche Königsfelden, 179–180, 486–487. 32 Brigitte Kurmann-Schwarz, “Die Präsenz der abwesenden Dynastie: Die Bilder und Wappen der Habsburger im Chor und im Langhaus der ehemaligen Klosterkirche von Königsfelden,” Österreichische Zeitschrift für Kunst und Denkmalpflege LXVI (2012): 3/4, 310, 312. 33 Wolfgang Jahn, “Ritterfahne mit dem ungarischen Wappen,” in Bayern—Ungarn, tausend Jahre. Katalog zur Bayerischen Landesausstellung 2001, Oberhausmuseum, Passau, 8 Mai bis 28. Oktober 2001, ed. Wolfgang Jahn et al. (Passau, 2001), 125.

6

LONG WIDOWHOODS (1296–1380)

181

Berne either in 1415 or after the dissolution of the monastery in 1528.34 This hierarchy of arms is also repeated on the stained glass windows at Königsfelden, showing that while her identity as Queen of Hungary was incredibly important, Agnes saw herself also as an Imperial princess associated with Austria and Carinthia. Gifts of Agnes to Königsfelden and Engelberg An inventory from 1357 documents over two hundred items that Agnes and her family gave to the Abbey of Königsfelden. The list is impressive, including many rich gold and silver vessels, altar decorations, jewels, and vestments.35 About half of the items on this list were donated by Agnes herself; her mother contributed about one-fifth, and her siblings contributed the rest.36 Three items Agnes and her mother Elisabeth donated together: a gold and silver cross adorned with gems and two gold boxes studded with gems.37 While Agnes’ mother had supplied Königsfelden with many rich vessels to perform the mass, Agnes’ gifts consisted of church vestments, altar frontals, and relics with reliquaries.38 The list of items Agnes donated includes albs, stoles, altar cloths, chasubles among others; one of the golden chasubles was decorated with the shield of Hungary.39 She was also known to have donated a thorn from Christ’s crown of thorns and a vial of Christ’s blood in a golden reliquary.40 Most of Königsfelden’s riches were sold off during the Reformation, but two items Agnes donated survive in the Berne Museum of History: 34 Jahn, “Ritterfahne mit dem ungarischen Wappen,” 125–126. 35 Liebenau and Liebenau, Urkundliche Nachweise zu der Lebensgeschichte der verwit-

tweten Königin Agnes von Ungarn, 133–137. 36 Susan Marti, “Königin Agnes und ihre Geschenke: Zeugnisse, Zuschreibungen und Legenden,” Kunst + Architektur in der Schweiz 47 (1996): 170–171, 179 n 17, 18. 37 “Von unser Lieben frowen und Mutter Chüngin Elisabeth und von uns mit einander: einen hohen Cristallen, ufgericht nach der Lengi uf ein silbrin Fuss verguldet und verwurket mit Gestein und Berlin und oben daruf ein guldin Crützlin mit fünf gar guten Steinen, darinen ist das Sakrament, in der Frowen Chor zwo Büchsen mit geschlagem Gold mit guten Steinen Berlen, in der einen ist das Sakrament us Fronaltar, in der andern treit mann das Sakrament, so (man) die Frowen bewaret.” Liebenau and Liebenau, Hundert Urkunden, 134; Marti, “Königin Agnes und ihre Geschenke,” 179 n 18. 38 Marti, “Königin Agnes und ihre Geschenke,” 171. 39 Liebenau and Liebenau, Hundert Urkunden, 134–135. 40 Marti, “Königin Agnes und ihre Geschenke,” 171.

182

C. MIELKE

the “Königsfelden diptych” and a red altar frontal. Listed in Königsfelden’s inventory of 1357 as “a large altar with crystals and two large stones held in the center and worked with stones and pearls,”41 this diptych is divided into twenty-three frames with miniatures showing the lives of various saints and framing two large cameos showing scenes from the New Testament. Though there are no heraldic devices, the prevalence of saints particular to Hungary (Stephen, Ladislas, Emeric) and Venice (Marina, Euphemia, Theodore), indicates that most likely this diptych was originally made for Agnes’ husband, Andrew III (r. 1290–1301). This rich diptych was most likely created in Venice sometime before or shortly after his ascension to the Hungarian throne in 1290, and upon his death Agnes brought it with her to Königsfelden where it then became part of the Abbey’s property.42 Two altar frontals survive from Königsfelden as well. A red altar frontal originally featured a scene of the Crucifixion flanked by St. Catherine and John the Baptist, but later Saints Agnes, Andrew, Peter, and Paul were added. Agnes and Andrew are the first two saints under the niches and the second-closest to the scene of the Crucifixion itself, right after the Virgin Mary and John the Baptist. This corroborates remarks from the Königsfelden Chronicle that Agnes was particularly devoted to Saints John the Evangelist, Mary Magdeline, Agnes, and Elizabeth of Hungary.43 The addition of Agnes and Andrew in particular shows how the Queen’s religious devotion not only had a personal note, but also referred to her status as Queen of Hungary. While Königsfelden received the lion’s share of Agnes’ largesse, it was not the only recipient of her favor. Agnes clearly favored the Franciscan order and women’s (or double) communities, but she also supported the Benedictines of Engelberg, the Augustinians of Interlaken, the Poor Clares in Vienna and Wittichen, the Premonstratensians of Vienna and Himmelspforte, and the Dominican foundations of Töss and Katharinenthal. Engelberg possesses the so-called “Agnes Mantle,” a pluvial which has been attributed to the queen. The partial inscription on the outer border makes reference that it had once belonged to a noble lady and

41 “Ein gross tavelen mit Cristallen und mit zwein grossen Steinen an Mitteninnen, gewürket mit gestein und Berlen.” Liebenau and Liebenau, Hundert Urkunden, 134. 42 Marti, “Königin Agnes und ihre Geschenke,” 171. 43 Ibid., 175–176.

6

LONG WIDOWHOODS (1296–1380)

183

since Agnes was known for her generosity, she emerges the most likely candidate. The heraldic devices of lions and eagles within the lozengeshaped pattern also seem to indicate an association with Agnes or a member of her family. A seventeenth-eighteenth-century legend from the Abbey of St. Andrew in Sarn mentions how in 1303 or 1306 Agnes gave the foundation her wedding dress, a lace fragment with metal decoration which still survives on a figure of the Christ Child.44 The Personal Library of Agnes As a resident of the Abbey of Königsfelden for nearly half a century, Agnes of Habsburg took an active part in literary life at the monastery. For Königsfelden’s library, she not only wrote instructions about what to do with the books in the monastery’s collection, but she even ordered two books to be purchased for the institution; a thirteenth-century Franciscan commentary on John the Evangelist and a commentary on the Gospels of Luke and Matthew by a Parisian scholar.45 However, in order to understand her own personal agency, this section will focus on books directly commissioned, owned, or dedicated to Agnes. Four such books are known: a Life of Saint Walpurgis, the Book of Divine Consolation, the Prayers and Benedictions of Muri, and finally a German-language Bible.46 The Life of Saint Walpurgis in question was written by Philip of Rathsamhausen, the Bishop of Eichstatt. He was a famous Cistercian who had been present at the funeral of her father. Agnes had personally asked him for spiritual advice on overseeing Königsfelden. In the vein of asking for advice, it is hinted that she had asked about Saint Walpurgis, an eighth-century English princess who became a nun at Heidenheim. In any event, soon after he wrote a Life of Walpurgis, he dedicated the volume to Agnes and sent her the text.47 This particular Life was published

44 Ibid., 170, 176–178. 45 Martina Wehrli-Johns, “Von der Stiftung zum Alltag. Klösterliches Leben bis zur

Reformation,” in Königsfelden: Königsmord, Kloster, Klinik, ed. Simon Teuscher and Claudia Moddelmog (Baden: Hier und Jetzt, 2012), 82, 83. 46 Honemann, “A Medieval Queen and Her Stepdaughter,” 115. 47 The dedication reads “Excellentissimae Dominae suae Ungarorum Reginae, necnon

felicis recordationis Domini Alberti quondam Regis Romanorum filiae, Frater Philippus miseratione divina Eystetensis Episcopus, quidquid potest reverentie et honoris, et si quid valeant orationes peccatoris.” Hermann Holzbauer, Mittelalterliche Heiligenverehrung:

184

C. MIELKE

in the nineteenth century as part of the Acta Sanctorum series,48 and though nothing is known of the original manuscript, the text nonetheless survives from an early printing from 1616.49 Agnes is also credited with spreading the cult of Saint Walpurgis in Hungary,50 though the only known evidence for her interest in the saint comes after leaving the country, so this is rather doubtful. Master John Eckhart, one of the most important medieval German mystics, addressed his Book of Divine Consolation (Das Buch der göttlichen Trostung) to Agnes.51 The work bears a great deal of similarity to his Latin works and expounds on issues such as metaphysics (what is real and unreal), rationality, and ethics in terms of man’s relationship with God.52 Originally dated to 1308–1311, recent research puts the date of this work to 1315, seven years after her father’s death.53 It is doubtful that Eckhart ever met the queen and consolation is offered to Agnes in a general manner.54 Nonetheless, it shows that Agnes was considered an important and well-informed patroness during her early years at Königsfelden. The link between the twelfth-century Prayers and Benedictions of Muri and Agnes is a questionable one (Fig. 6.4). A nineteenth-century label on

Heilige Walpurgis (Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker, 1972), 434–435; Honemann, “A Medieval Queen and her Stepdaughter,” 115. 48 Philipp von Rathsamhausen, Acta Sanctorum, February III (Paris and Rome, 1865),

553–563. 49 My thanks to Gábor Klaniczay for pointing this out. Philip von Rathsamhausen, Commentarius de vita et rebus gestis S. Walpurgae virginis: abbastissae monasterii in Heidenheim, ed. Petrus Stevartius (Ingolstadt: Amgermaria vidua, 1616). 50 Holzbauer, Mittelalterliche Heiligenverehrung: Heilige Walpurgis, 435. 51 The original is in the Basil University Library Archives, B IX 15. G. Théry, “Le Bene-

dictus Deus de Maître Eckhart,” in Mélanges Joseph de Ghellinck, S. J. Vol. II (Gembloux: Éditions J. Duculot, 1951), 905, 908–917; an English version of the text can be found in Meister Eckhart, Edmund Colledge and Bernanrd McGinn, The Essential Sermons, Commentaries, Treatises and Defense (New York: Paulist Press, 1981), 209–239. 52 Jan Aertsen, “Meister Eckhart,” in A Companion to Philosophy in the Middle Ages, ed. Jorge Gracia and Timothy Noone (Malden: Blackwell, 2003), 440–441. 53 Théry, “Le Benedictus Deus de Maître Eckhart,” 935; Aertsen, “Meister Eckhart,”

440. 54 Kurt Ruh, Meister Eckhart: Theologe, Prediger, Mystiker (Munich: C. H. Beck, 1985), 115–117, 135; Honemann, “A Medieval Queen and Her Stepdaughter,” 115.

6

LONG WIDOWHOODS (1296–1380)

185

Fig. 6.4 Inside cover of the Prayers and Benedictions of Muri. Sarnen Benediktinerkollegium, Codex MS. 69

186

C. MIELKE

the inside cover proclaims that she had owned it.55 The content of the book is considerably varied, with blessings and invocations for morning prayers, travel blessings, and formulas to restore conjugal bliss. It also contains a strong magical element to it, with instructions for gestures, actions, and times of day that would make the prayers more potent.56 The fact that the text is in both Latin and a German has been the main argument that it was made originally made for a woman.57 Compared to other surviving codices, it is much smaller and much less decorated. There are only a few illustrations, such as a haloed woman, the Crucifixion with the Virgin Mary and John, and the head of a dog or dragon.58 However, the charms, the protective prayers, and the contents all indicate a great degree of personalization for the original commissioner of this manuscript. In the fourteenth century, elite royal women in Central Europe were privy to translations of the Bible in the vernacular. According to John Wyclif, Anne of Bohemia (d. 1394), wife of Richard II of England (r. 1377–1399), owned copies of the New Testament in Latin, German, and Czech.59 All that is known of Agnes’ German bible though only comes from an offhand remark that she owned one.60 Regarding the German Bible, the Life of St. Walburgis, and the Prayers and Benedictions of Muri, it is difficult to know when these books came into the possession of Agnes.

55 “Hoc libro precum utebatur Regina Agnes uxor Andreae III. Hungarorum regis filia Alberti I. Austriaci, SRJ Imperatoris, quae occiso patre vixit et obiit pia vidua Monasterio from ipsa fundato Konigsfelden anno 1364”. Charlotte Bretscher-Gisiger and Rudolf Gamper, Katalog der mittelalterlichen Handschriften der Klöster Muri und Hermetschwil (Dietikon-Zürich: Urs Graf, 2005), 255; an online version can be found as well: Sarnen, Benedictine College, Cod. Membr. 69, front—Prayer Book (http://www.e-codices.unifr. ch/de/list/one/bks/membr0069). 56 Bretscher-Gisiger and Gamper, Katalog der mittelalterlichen Handschriften der Klöster Muri, 255–257. 57 Achim Masser, “Gebete und Benediktionen von Muri,” in Die deutsche Literatur des Mittelalters Verfasserlexikon II , ed. Wolfgang Stammler et al. (Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1980), 1110–1111. 58 Bretscher-Gisiger and Gamper, Katalog der mittelalterlichen Handschriften der Klöster Muri, 254. 59 Alfred Thomas, Anne’s Bohemia: Czech Literature and Society, 1310–1420, 2, 12. 60 “… als die der Königin Agnes, von der uns vdHagen erzählt, sie habe eine deutsche

Bibel besessen.” Liebenau and Liebenau, Urkundliche Nachweise zu der Lebensgeschichte der verwittweten Königin Agnes von Ungarn, 137.

6

LONG WIDOWHOODS (1296–1380)

187

She could have acquired them during her brief time as queen in Hungary, or in the many decades she spent afterwards as a widow in Königsfelden.61 They nonetheless show different aspects of her intense religious devotion and an interest in the Holy Scripture, hagiography, and guides for living in a right way. Burial at Königsfelden The bodies of the Habsburgs have had a colorful afterlife. In 1770, after Habsburg influence had decreased in the Swiss territories, the body of Agnes and fourteen of her relatives were transferred to the Abbey of St. Blaise in the Black Forest.62 In 1809, the monks moved to St. Paul im Lavanttal, taking the bodies and finally laying them to rest in a crypt under the main altar in 1936.63 Martin Gerbert, the Abbot who had requested that the bodies be moved, documented this in the Monumenta Augustae Domus Austriacae, a valuable antiquarian source for the tombs of the Habsburgs at Königsfelden (Fig. 6.5).64 Agnes’ mother Elizabeth died in Vienna in 1313 and in 1316 her remains were taken to Königsfelden. She was buried in the Habsburg family vault in the nave of the church.65 Documents from 1319 and 1322 detail how this double monastery was not only intended as a burial place for the Habsburgs, but also gave detailed instructions on the prayers and services meant for the members of the family.66 The crypt in question was marked by a massive black and white marble cenotaph that to date has not yet been studied extensively from an art historical point of

61 Csaba Csapodi and Klára Gárdonyi-Csapodiné, Bibliotheca Hungarica: Kódexek és nyomtatott könyvek Magyarországon 1526 el˝ott [Bibliotheca Hungarica: Codices and Printed Books in Hungary Before 1526], Vol. III (Budapest: Magyar Tudományos adakémia Könyvtára, 1988–1994), 57 Items 321–322. 62 Brigitta Lauro, Die Grabstätten der Habsburger: Kunstdenkmäler einer europäischen Dynastie (Vienna: Brandstätter, 2007), 240, 247. 63 Estella Weiss-Krejci, “Restless Corpses’ Secondary Burial’ in the Babenberg and Habsburg Dynasties,” Antiquity, 75, 775–776. 64 The drawing was done by Salomon Kleiner. Martin Gerbert, Marquardt Herrgott, and Rusten Heer, Monumenta Augustae Domus Austriacae, Vol. IV (Vienna: 1772), p. II, Table X. 65 Jäggi, “Eastern Choir or Western Gallery?” 80. 66 Kurmann-Schwartz, Die mittelalterlichen Glasmalereien, 68.

188

C. MIELKE

Fig. 6.5 Crypt at Königsfelden. From Martin Gerbert, Monumenta Augustae Domus Austriacae (1772)

6

LONG WIDOWHOODS (1296–1380)

189

view. This monument evokes the tomb of the Salian emperors at Speyer. This connection is important as both Rudolf I and Albert I were buried there.67 Agnes, Elizabeth, and other members of the Habsburg family were commemorated in stained glass here.68 There is also the fact that the grave was occasionally adorned with precious fabric: the treasury records a yellow velvet textile adorned with three black eagles which was made from the tunic of Albert, and the most plausible explanation for its presence in the grave is that it was used in the cult of his death.69 This grave monument itself dates from around 1315–1320.70 In addition, there is a drawing by Salamon Kleiner showing both the cenotaph and the state of the crypt when it was opened in the eighteenth century. It shows the bones of the Habsburgs on shelves with their heads pointing to the west. Beneath the drawing of the inside of the crypt, there is another of what appears to be a grave slab displaying a simple cross slab with an escutcheon at the bottom of the slab showing the Hungarian doublebarred cross on a mound; this would later became the coat of arms for the abbey of Königsfelden. Kleiner indicates that this was the tomb slab for Agnes of Habsburg, though no other context is given. While living at the Abbey in her widowhood, Agnes had papal permission to wear secular clothing, but it appears that she was buried in religious garb.71 Princesses who rejected the clothing and jewels due to their status for religious reasons and who even rejected the marital bed were controversial in some aspects, but these actions allowed them some degree of independence while winning praise from the Church. As a widowed queen, Agnes was a significant creator, commissioner, designer, and preserver of not only the liturgical life at Königsfelden, but also as a means of promoting the memory and image of her natal family. Though her artistic program was confined almost exclusively to Königsfelden, Agnes nonetheless made significant use of all available means of 67 Ibid., 70–71. 68 Kurmann-Schwarz, “Die Präsenz der abwesenden Dynastie,” 317–318. 69 Kurmann-Schwartz, Die mittelalterlichen Glasmalereien, 71. 70 Kurmann-Schwartz, Die mittelalterlichen Glasmalereien, 71; Lauro, Die Grabstätten der Habsburger, 245. 71 A garment with three ropes was found in her tomb in the eighteenth century. Franz Kreuter and Martin Gerbert, Feyerliche Uebersetzung der Kaiserlich-Königlich auch Herzoglich Oesterreichischen Höchsten Leichen aus ihren Grabstädten Basel und Königsfelden in der Schweiz (St. Blaise, 1770), 21.

190

C. MIELKE

displaying her own power and authority. The imagery associated with her (in particular on her second seal and in the choir window) shows her with a crown, and the heraldic devices she employed clearly indicate her status and identity. She is one of the earliest queens from Hungary to make such explicit use of heraldic symbols outside of her seal. The objects that she donated to the Abbey as well as her own personal library show a distinctive interest in religious life as well; the mix of German and Latin books show her as a woman of high education and as a literary patron worthy of authors’ dedications.

Maria of Bytom In 1306, Charles I Robert took the city of Esztergom and was on his way to conquering Buda (which he would do the following year).72 At this time, Charles married a Polish princess named Maria, daughter of Casimir I of Bytom. Kristó argued that Charles I Robert had married two princesses of this name—Maria of Bytom and Maria of Galicia—but in actuality, it is more likely that Maria of Bytom was a granddaughter of the King of Galicia, hence this confusion.73 The earliest document issued by Maria of Bytom dates from June 23, 1306, presumably after the marriage. Of her surviving charters, one is a letter to her husband asking permission to donate land to a youth in her service while two others were gifts to men in the former service of Isabella of Naples (d. 1303).74 Examining the archaeological material connected with her offers some additional insight into her self-fashioning as well as perceptions of her in the fourteenth century. The archaeology of her life is known from her seal, her time at the royal palace in Timi¸soara, and her burial at Székesfehérvár.

72 Engel, The Realm of St. Stephen, 130. 73 Gyula Kristó, “Károly Róbert családja” [The Family of Charles Robert] Aetas 20:4

(2005): 15–17; Stanisław Sroka and Lidia Stefanowska, “A Hungarian-Galician Marriage at the Beginning of the Fourteenth Century?” Harvard Ukrainian Studies 16, nos. 3/4 (1992): 261–263. 74 MNL OL DF 76198. Gyula Kristó, Anjou-kori oklevéltar II (Budapest and Szeged, 1992), 26; Gyula Kristó, Anjou-kori oklevéltar III (Budapest and Szeged, 1994), 192, 214.

6

LONG WIDOWHOODS (1296–1380)

191

Fig. 6.6 Seal of Maria of Bytom. Hungarian National Archives, OL DF 1814

Maria of Bytom’s Seal The seal of Maria of Bytom is in a fragmented condition, so some of the details are missing (Fig. 6.6).75 Nonetheless, there are a few hints that can be gathered from the remains of her seal. Like her predecessors, Maria is seated on a throne with her hair unbound and she is probably crowned as well. While the seal of Maria of Bytom shares a lot of elements with the seals of Árpádian queens, there are a few new developments. First is the fact that she has an object in her right hand, but it appears to be some foliate form or a cross rather than a scepter. Second, the throne Maria is seated on has two rather stylistically designed curved armrests. Of her predecessors, Elizabeth the Cuman’s seat was flanked by the heads of two lions, and Isabella of Naples had a throne carpet on the back of her throne. Maria of Bytom could be the first queen to have armrests on her throne. Maria’s name is spelled out in the floating field of the background as well; on the front are the letters M A while on the back it continues

75 MNL, OL DF 1814.

192

C. MIELKE

with R I A. The inscription has the usual formula “Maria by the Grace of God Queen of Hungary.” The reverse of the seal has the double-barred Hungarian cross, but its surface is not decorated like that of her predecessors. There are two rings surrounding the edge, the outer one referring to her as “Maria daughter of Casimir [of Bytom]” while the inner one is decorated with a vine pattern. It is also clear that on the reverse there are plants sprouting up at the base of the cross, similar to the patterns found on those of her predecessors, but since only the stems of the plants are preserved it is impossible to make any further identification. This seal has been used in part to date the marriage of Maria with Charles I Robert (r. 1308– 1342), as her personal seal was first used on a charter June 23, 1306, and was most likely used until her death in 1317.76 In many ways, this seal conforms to earlier examples of queens, likely indicative of a tension regarding continuity and legitimacy. However, the addition of armrests to the seal of the queen does represent a shift, since the other fourteenthcentury seals of queens would contain a throne with a back on it (unlike Maria’s seal) but not the armrests. The spelling out of Maria’s name in the field (since there was no back on her throne seat) is also a trend bound in time and place as this can also be found on the contemporaneous second seal of Agnes of Habsburg. The Royal Palace at Timisoara In the interregnum following the death of Andrew III of Hungary in 1301, the citizens of Buda had been extremely antagonistic to Charles I Robert of Anjou, who eventually beat out all of his competition. As a result, Charles I moved the court from Buda and was faced with the decision to move either north to Lipova (Lippa), or south to Timisoara (Temesvár).77 Eventually, Timisoara won the king’s favor and from 1315 76 Maria’s charter from 1306 has a sealing clause as well as a strap where the seal was attached on the back. MNL OL DF 76198. Gyula Kristó, “Károly Róbert családja” [The Family of Charles Robert] Aetas 20:4 (2005): 15–17; Stanisław Sroka and Lidia Stefanowska, “A Hungarian-Galician Marriage at the Beginning of the Fourteenth Century?” Harvard Ukrainian Studies 16:3/4 (1992): 264–265. 77 István Petrovics, “The Fading Glory of a Former Medieval Royal Seat: The Case of Medieval Temesvár,” …The Man of Many Devices, Who Wandered Full Many Ways…: Festschrift in Honor of János M. Bak, ed. Balázs Nagy and Marcell Seb˝ ok (Budapest: Central European University Press, 1999), 529.

6

LONG WIDOWHOODS (1296–1380)

193

to 1323 the king’s court was situated there. While an earthwork fortress had existed in Timisoara in the late thirteenth century, by 1315 it had been replaced with a stone structure with walls, towers, and bastions. The castle itself was in the shape of a square, with the royal palace adjacent to its southeastern corner. Unfortunately, there is no information about the queen’s apartments available.78 Maria of Bytom died in Timisoara in 1317, most likely at this palace.79 However, only six years after Maria of Bytom’s death, it would no longer be the primary royal residence— Charles I Robert would move the capital to Visegrád. Maria’s Burial at the Royal Basilica of Székesfehérvár After Maria’s death in Timisoara, her body was then taken to Székesfehérvár where she was buried; she was around 20–22 years old at the time of her death.80 The main source for this information is the Hungarian Illuminated Chronicle which depicts the queen wearing a crown and veil and a fastened cloak (Fig. 6.7). She lies in a stone sarcophagus sitting on a pile of stones while two men in ecclesiastical garb look on.81 Considering the distance her body traveled for burial, it is likely that Charles I Robert made the necessary arrangements at Székesfehérvár deliberately. For Charles I Robert, a king who struggled with issues of legitimacy in the first years of his reign, burying his wife at Székesfehérvár when the last royal burial took place over a century prior (Ladislas III in 1205), this is a clear and deliberate use of the queen’s body to connect himself with the Árpád dynasty. While such a burial could have been Maria of Bytom’s own choice, this seems more likely to be Charles I Robert’s clever usage of the queen’s memory, especially when compared to his second wife’s burial at Oradea only two years later. Though images depicting the burial

78 Most of the medieval town was destroyed in the Ottoman wars of the sixteentheighteenth centuries. Petrovics, “The Fading Glory of a Former Medieval Royal Seat,” 529–531; László Szende, “Les châteaux de reines,” 161. 79 Dercsényi, ed. The Hungarian Illuminated Chronicle, 145. 80 Hankó, A magyar királysírok sorsa, 137; Engel, “Temetkezések a középkori székesfe-

hérvári bazilikában,” 622. 81 Dercsényi, ed., The Hungarian Illuminated Chronicle, 145, folio 139; GárdonyiCsapodi, “Description and Interpretation of the Illustrations in the Illuminated Chronicle,” 83.

194

C. MIELKE

Fig. 6.7 The burial of Maria of Bytom. The Hungarian Illuminated Chronicle, National Széchényi Library, Budapest, Cod. Lat. 404

of queens are rare, a queens’ burial was used as a tool of dynastic propaganda, displaying her lineage, connections, status, and even in some cases, references to her children.82 82 John Carmi Parsons, “‘Never Was a Body Buried with Such Solemnity and Honour’: The Burials and Posthumous Commemorations of English Queens to 1500,” in Queens

6

LONG WIDOWHOODS (1296–1380)

195

Elizabeth of Poland Elizabeth of Poland (d. 1380) had a long and colorful life at the Hungarian court. After the death of Maria of Bytom and Beatrice of Luxemburg, his first two wives, Charles I Robert married Elizabeth in 1320. She was the daughter of Władysław I Łokietek of Poland (r. 1320–1333). The Hungarian Illuminated Chronicle illustrates several important biographical moments in her life. Her betrothal announced by trumpets bearing the Hungarian Angevin coat of arms (Fig. 6.8). She also appears with her five children (the only such portrait of a queen in

Fig. 6.8 The betrothal of Elizabeth of Poland. The Hungarian Illuminated Chronicle, National Széchényi Library, Budapest, Cod. Lat. 404

and Queenship in medieval Europe, ed. Anne J. Duggan (Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 1997), 333.

196

C. MIELKE

the chronicle) and giving birth to Louis I in 1326 (Fig. 6.9).83 Elizabeth and Charles had five sons together and possibly two daughters.84 From the time of her marriage until her death 60 years later, Elizabeth led a colorful and active life. In 1330, she lost four fingers defending her husband from Felician Záh who had attacked the royal family with a sword at Visegrád (Fig. 6.10).85 After her husband died in 1342, Elizabeth’s period of activity began in earnest. One historian notes “Elizabeth of Poland had to concel her political ambitions during her husband’s lifetime, but after Charles’s death there was nothing to restrain her.”86 Looking at her life through a traditional lens, this seems to be the case; she would go on two major pilgrimages as a widow (one to Naples, Rome, and Bari and the other to holy sites in Germany, ending at Aachen) and serve as Regent of Poland from 1370 to 1375. However, looking at the material evidence, a different picture of Elizabeth emerges. Rather than becoming a political powerhouse the instant her husband died, it shows the evolution of a queen whose activities and patronage were traditional during the lifetime of her husband. This evolution can be seen in the seals she used, the coins she appeared on, the regalia and clothing associated with her, her books, items she donated to the church, public depictions of her, and in the palaces and monasteries she built. For all the queens in this study, Elizabeth of Poland has the widest and best surviving material record. Elizabeth of Poland’s Four Seals Elizabeth of Poland used four different seals as queen: the great seal she used as queen consort, one used as regent of Poland, one signet ring of her own, and (as a widow) her husband’s signet ring. While Charles I Robert was alive, Elizabeth of Poland overwhelmingly used her great seal, but after his death she used the other three more often. There are several 83 Gárdonyi-Csapodi, “Description and Interpretation of the Illustrations in the Illuminated Chronicle,” 83. 84 Dercsényi, ed., The Hungarian Illuminated Chronicle, 145–146, 148; Engel, Realm of St. Stephen, 137. 85 Dercsényi, ed., The Hungarian Illuminated Chronicle, 146; Gárdonyi-Csapodi, “Description and Interpretation of the Illustrations in the Illuminated Chronicle,” 83; Bak, “Queens as Scapegoats in Medieval Hungary,” 229. 86 Engel, Realm of St. Stephen, 171.

6

LONG WIDOWHOODS (1296–1380)

197

Fig. 6.9 3 illustrations of the life of Elizabeth of Poland. The Hungarian Illuminated Chronicle, National Széchényi Library, Budapest, Cod. Lat. 404

198

C. MIELKE

Fig. 6.10 The attempt on the life of the king and queen by Felician Záh. The Hungarian Illuminated Chronicle, National Széchényi Library, Budapest, Cod. Lat. 404

innovations present on the great seal of Elizabeth of Poland. Elizabeth of Poland was the first queen to make use of her family’s escutcheons on her seal. On the obverse of her double-seal, the shield on the left side shows the Árpádian coat of arms while the shield on the right side (to her left) shows the Polish eagle. The double-barred Hungarian cross on the back of the seal is likewise flanked by the shields of the Hungarian and Polish dynasties.87 On seals, heraldry emphasized marital links, descent, 87 Ern˝ o Marosi, “Kett˝ os pecsét,” in M˝ uvészet I. Lajos király korában, 1342–1382, ed. Ern˝ o Marosi, Melinda Tóth, and Lívia Varga (Budapest: MTA M˝ uvészettörténeti Kutató Csoport, 1982), 144.

6

LONG WIDOWHOODS (1296–1380)

199

family ties, and even social aspirations of the person wielding it.88 The inscription on the front is also the first to refer to her by titles other than that of the Hungarian queen; it includes the phrase “princess of Salerno”, a nod to Charles I Robert’s Neapolitan connections.89 It is unknown when Elizabeth started using her great seal, but two documents from 1322 reveal traces of a now-lost seal impression about 85–90 mm in diameter.90 As it is too small to be the great seal of Charles I Robert, this could be the earliest evidence for Elizabeth using her great seal.91 While she used this seal nearly exclusively while her husband was alive, she uses it much less often after his death (Fig. 6.11).92 Elizabeth’s signet ring is the biggest signet ring of the ones used by the Angevin queens; it is even a few millimeters larger than her husband’s. Elizabeth’s seal ring depicts a lozenge with the Árpád and Angevin coat of arms and an inscription reading “Seal of Queen Elizabeth”.93 It is unknown when she started using it, but a document from 1324 issued by her has a seal impression about 15 mm in diameter94 ; Elizabeth’s seal measures around 16 mm, so this could be hers. She possibly used her signet ring twice while her husband was alive, but it is not until the 1340s that she uses it regularly.95

88 Danbury, “Queens and Powerful Women: Image and Authority,” 20. 89 Ern˝ o Marosi, “II. felségi (kett˝ os) pecsét (1323–1330,” “III. felségi (kett˝ os) pecsét

(1331–1342),” and “Kett˝ os pecsét,” in M˝ uvészet I. Lajos király korában, 1342–1382, ed. Ern˝ o Marosi, Melinda Tóth, and Lívia Varga (Budapest: MTA M˝ uvészettörténeti Kutató Csoport, 1982), 142–144. 90 MNL OL DF 76300 and 2110. 91 The double seals of Charles I Robert were around 100–112 mm in diameter. Marosi,

“I. felségi (kett˝ os) pecsét (1308–1323)”, “II. felségi (kett˝ os) pecsét (1323–1330,” “III. felségi (kett˝ os) pecsét (1331–1342),” in M˝ uvészet I. Lajos király korában, 1342–1382, ed. Ern˝ o Marosi, Melinda Tóth, and Lívia Varga (Budapest: MTA M˝ uvészettörténeti Kutató Csoport, 1982), 142–143. 92 There are eleven known instances where she used the great seal as a widow, most importantly on her last will and testament. MNL OL DF 4072, 4170, 4187, 108194, 5385, 5633, 5631, 5699, 5715, 5785 and 6692. 93 “S.E.R…GINE…” Ern˝ o Marosi, “Gy˝ ur˝ us pecsét” [Ring Seal] in M˝ uvészet I. Lajos király korában, 1342–1382, ed. Ern˝ o Marosi, Melinda Tóth, and Lívia Varga (Budapest: MTA M˝ uvészettörténeti Kutató Csoport, 1982), 145. 94 MNL OL DF 4904. 95 Many of the charters issued by the queen reveal only the trace of an impression or

a strip of vellum to indicate how the document had been secured.

200

C. MIELKE

Fig. 6.11 Great seal of Elizabeth of Poland. Hungarian National Archives, OL DF 3137

Many of Elizabeth’s charters make use of a small ring with a large letter K in the center and the words “SIGILLUM SECRETUM” written on the borders.96 This indicates that she kept the signet ring of her husband Charles I Robert and used it frequently after his death. The first known instance of the queen using her husband’s seal comes from a month after his death.97 Elizabeth of Poland used this ring frequently over the next three and a half decades. Of seals that can be identified, Elizabeth used Charles’ signet rather than her own by a ratio of nearly 2:1, though considering the state of most seals it is impossible to identify many with any accuracy. This problem is further exacerbated in the period from 1370 to 1380 when both Elizabeth of Poland and Elizabeth of Bosnia (her daughter-in-law) issued charters—sometimes they use the 96 Ern˝ o Marosi, “Gy˝ ur˝ us pecsét Erzsébet királyné oklevelén” [The ring seal on the charter of Queen Elizabeth], in M˝ uvészet I. Lajos király korában, 1342–1382, ed. Ern˝ o Marosi, Melinda Tóth, and Lívia Varga (Budapest: MTA M˝ uvészettörténeti Kutató Csoport, 1982), 143. 97 MNL OL DF 237254.

6

LONG WIDOWHOODS (1296–1380)

201

phrase “Regina Senior” or “Regina Junior” in the introduction of the charter, but this does not always happen. In her long widowhood, Elizabeth used a wide variety of seals, recalling the memory of her husband and exercising both strategic as well as sentimental power. As regent of Poland, Elizabeth employs a totally different seal in some documents starting from 1372. It is a quatrefoil with the coats of arms of Hungary and Poland topped by a crown and with a lion underneath it. This seal was only used in Cracow; it could be connected to her status as regent of Poland.98 Since Elizabeth is one of the most prolific issuer of charters for medieval Hungarian queens, it should come as little surprise that she employed such a wide variety of seals during her time as queen consort, queen regent of Poland, and queen dowager. Coins of Charles I Robert Featuring Elizabeth Charles I Robert overhauled the system of minting Hungarian coinage with new regulations in 1323, resulting in a much more stable currency.99 During his reign, he issued a total of 71 coins; six of them feature the image of the queen. Most are dated from 1325 to 1326, with the exception of one which dates to 1332. 1326 was a particularly important year for the queen as she gave birth to her first son on March 5;100 the first period of coinage with her image on it thus comes from the time of her pregnancy (Fig. 6.12). In five instances the queen is depicted on the obverse together with her husband, who is also portrayed on the reverse. The coins of Charles I Robert display many traditional items of Hungarian rulership, such as the bust of the king, the lily, and the double-barred cross. There are also some new features, such as the Angevin device of an ostrich holding a horseshoe in its beak. Additionally, the so-called “Buda denar” has the crest of the city of Buda decorating one side while the busts of the king

98 Ern˝ o Marosi, “Erzsébet magyar és lengyel királyné pecsétje” [Seal of Elizabeth Queen of Hungary and Poland], in Ern˝ o Marosi, Melinda Tóth, Lívia Varga, and István Király Múzeum, M˝ uvészet I. Lajos király korában, 1342–1382: katalogus (Budapest: MTA M˝ uvészettörténeti Kutató Csoport, 1982), 144. 99 Huszár, Münzkatalog Ungarn von 1000 bis heute, 11–12. 100 Michael de Ferdinandy, “Ludwig I. von Ungarn (1342–1382),” in Louis the Great:

King of Hungary and Poland, ed. S. B. Vardy et al. (Boulder: East European Monographs, 1986), 3.

202

C. MIELKE

Fig. 6.12 Coinage of Charles I Robert featuring Elizabeth of Poland and her initials. From László Réthy, Corpus Nummorum Hungariae (1899–1907)

and queen are on the other. Two coins are notable for containing the initials of the queen, K and E. The appearance of the queen’s name or initials is a key indicator of power, as evidenced by the coins of Elizabeth the Cuman during the regency for her son in 1272–1277. Elizabeth of Poland was known to be powerful and influential during the reign of her son Louis I, even becoming Regent of Poland. The assumption has been that Elizabeth’s full power was recognized at the time of her widowhood, yet she appears on a significant portion of her husband’s coinage during his lifetime; no queens appear on coins of her son, Louis I.101 Elizabeth’s absence on coinage minted during her time as regent of Poland can be explained by the fact that her rule was troubled and that there were only a few artistic ventures the Hungarian court made into Poland.102 Elizabeth’s seal as regent of Poland could have been significant enough to express her power as regent in that region, and considering the short period of rule it may not have been necessary to issue coinage with her name or face.

101 Réthy, Corpus Nummorum Hungariae, Vol. II, 17. 102 Sniezynska-Stolot, “The Artistic Patronage of the Hungarian Angevins in Poland,”

21–22.

6

LONG WIDOWHOODS (1296–1380)

203

ˇ Crown Fragments from Trogir and Ciovo A fourteenth-century gilt silver crown comprised of fragments from the Order of the Poor Clares in Trogir as well as from a Franciscan monastery ˇ on Ciovo could be associated with the queen. The four hinged plates in the shape of fleur-de-lys with alternating red and green stones and pearls mirror a crown found at Zadar associated with Elizabeth’s daughter-inˇ law, Elizabeth of Bosnia. The crown segments from Trogir and Ciovo date from 1350 to 1370 and are attributed to a Hungarian workshop, most likely from Buda or Visegrád. One hypothesis suggests this crown was originally intended for a reliquary.103 However, a source from the 1770s mentions a crown attributed to Elizabeth of Poland. Ferenc Berchtold, Auxiliary Bishop of Esztergom, mentions a golden hinged crown decorated with pearls and jewels which had been in the possession of the Poor Clare Order from Óbuda. He attributed original ownership to Elizabeth of Poland.104 Sadly, a great fire destroyed the episcopal residence in 1782 and this crown was likely lost then; there is no further reference to it.105 There is a slim possibility that this crown found its way to Trogir and could be the current surviving piece known from the Poor Clare convent and cloister, but at present this cannot be determined. If this crown does have an affiliation with any particular queen, it is possible that this crown was affiliated with Elizabeth as her support of the Poor Clare Order is well-known. The queen was fond of rich adornment, giving her ladies clothing and jewelry in her will. Her granddaughters Mary and Jadwiga both received golden hairnets.106

103 Two more pieces of this crown were found on the hand reliquary of the Blessed John of Trogir in the Cathedral of Trogir. Imre Takács, “Bruchstück einer Krone,” Sigismundus Rex et Imperator: Kunst und Kultur zur Zeit Sigismunds von Luxemburg, 1387 –1437 , Imre Takács et al. (Mainz: Philipp von Zabern, 2006), 93–94; Ana Munk, “The Queen and Her Shrine: An Art Historical Twist on Historical Evidence Concerning the Hungarian Queen Elizabeth Kotromani´c, Donor of the Saint Simeon Shrine,” Hortus Artium Medievalium 10 (2004): 255. 104 Vattai, “A Margitszigeti Korona,” 194; László Szende, “Piast Erzsébet és udvara

(1320–1380)” [Elizabeth Piast and Her Court (1320–1380)] (PhD diss.: ELTE, 2007), 173 n1036. 105 A. Aldásy, “Neusohl, Diocese of,” in The Catholic Encyclopedia, Charles Herbermann et al. (New York: Robert Appleman Co., 1911), Vol. X, 774. 106 A “crinale aureum” for Mary and a “crinale liliis ornatum” for Jadwiga. Marosi, “A 14. századi Magyarország udvari m˝ uvészettörténetírásban,” 73–74, n. 32; László Szende,

204

C. MIELKE

Liturgical Items Donated by Elizabeth of Poland Of the many objects that Elizabeth of Poland donated to the church, only a few survived: the mantle of St. Ladislas, her shrine in the Cloisters, a reliquary from Spisska Nova Ves (in Slovakia, also Igló), the altar with her and her son Prince Andrew (d. 1345), and Nativity figurines with her initial on them. Starting chronologically, the mantle of St. Ladislas is first mentioned in an inventory of the Zagreb Cathedral from 1394 as a black pallium made by the holy King Ladislas I (r. 1077–1095).107 Charles I Robert likely gave the St. Ladislas mantle as a gift to the Bishop of Zagreb before 1322 as thanks for his negotiations with the papacy.108 The base of the mantle is black silk decorated with grape leaves. The embroidery of the figures of the king and the queen as well as the inscription on the border reading “Ladislai regis” seem to date from the thirteenthfourteenth centuries, indicating later embroidery on an earlier eleventhcentury vestment. The figures were originally thought to be St. Ladislas and his sister, Helen/Jelena/Lepa, the widow of Croatian King Zvonimir (r. 1075–1089), but this is not thought to be the case anymore.109 Marosi proposed that the figures represent Charles I Robert and either Maria of Bytom or Elizabeth of Poland.110 While the literature has spoken of this object purely in terms of a donation of either St. Ladislas or Charles Robert, the presence of the queen on the mantle indicates that this was a joint donation from a royal couple. If it does date from 1322, the queen would be Elizabeth of Poland.

“Mitherrscherin oder einfache Königinmutter Elisabeth von Lokietek in Ungarn (1320– 1380),” Majestas 13 (2005): 62. 107 Ern˝ o Marosi, “A zágrábi Szent László casula” [The Saint Ladislas Mantle from

Zagreb], in Károly Róbert és Székesfehérvár: King Charles Robert and Székesfehérvár, ed. Terézia Kerny and András Smohay (Székesfehérvár: Székesfehérvári Egyházi Múzeum, 2011), 130. 108 One theory dates the mantle to 1094, when Ladislas I founded the bishopric of Zagreb. Enik˝ o Sipos, “A Szent László palást metamorphozisa,” [The metamorphosis of the Saint Ladislas mantle], Folia Historica 18 (1993): 255. 109 Curiously enough, the secondary literature has never considered Adelaide of Rheinfelden—the wife of St. Ladislas—as the lady accompanying him when he is identified as the main figure. Sipos, “A Szent László palást metamorphozisa,” 255; Marosi, “A zágrábi Szent László casula,” 132. 110 He does not mention Beatrice of Luxemburg (d. 1319), the second wife of Charles as a possibility. Marosi, “A zágrábi Szent László casula,” 135–138.

6

LONG WIDOWHOODS (1296–1380)

205

The small, winged altar currently on display in the Cloisters features the Virgin Mary breastfeeding Jesus flanked by two angels holding reliquaries.111 Since there are no specific heraldic elements on the shrine referring directly to Elizabeth, it has been surmised that this shrine was purchased as a gift for the queen by her sister-in-law, Clémence of Hungary, Queen of France (d. 1328).112 The enamel work on this shine indicates that it is some of the highest quality work from a Parisian workshop. Though meant for a private devotion, this small altar was able to find a use in the Poor Clares nunnery when the queen passed it on, and it was recognized as being valuable enough for the nuns to take with them when they fled Hungary (Fig. 6.13).113 A reliquary cross from the parish church at Spisska Nova Ves (Igló) in Slovakia has preserved the image of Charles I Robert and Elizabeth of Poland at its base. Christ is represented crucified and the arms of the cross are decorated with the Virgin Mary, St. John, St. Helena, and St. Constantine. It dates from the second quarter of the fourteenth century, most likely from a local workshop, and is decorated with basse taille enamel.114 The association of Elizabeth of Poland with St. Helena is indicative of the former’s own self-representation. Throughout the Middle Ages, St. Helena was seen as a model for queenly behavior and religious devotion; many canonized queens were described as following in her footsteps.115 The inclusion of St. Helena and St. Constantine was likely a deliberate message on the part of Charles I Robert and Elizabeth of Poland indicating their own aspirations as Christian rulers. Elizabeth of Poland also appears on a Neapolitan altar triptych currently housed at the Lowe Art Gallery in Miami. She is identified as the queen not only because she stands next to a boy wearing the Angevin fleur-de-lys on a blue background, but also because the pair are standing 111 Their wings have been removed. Margaret Freeman, “A Shrine for a Queen,” The Metropolitan Museum of Art Bulletin 21/10 (1963): 333. 112 Proctor-Tiffany, “The Gift-giving of Clémence of Hungary,” 208–210. 113 Freeman, “A Shrine for a Queen,” 336–339. 114 Originally this piece was thought to be the work of the Sienese goldsmith Nicolaus Gallus based on the initials “NG” carved into the neck, but recent studies ascribe it to a Hungarian workshop. Eva Sniezynska-Stolot, “Die Ikonographie der Königin Elisabeth,” 18–19; László Szende, “Piast Erzsébet és udvara (1320–1380)” [Elizabeth Piast and Her Court (1320–1380)] (PhD diss.: ELTE, 2007), 32. 115 Klaniczay, Holy Rulers and Blessed Princesses, 61, 112, 236.

206

C. MIELKE

Fig. 6.13 Reliquary altar owned by Elizabeth of Poland. The Cloisters Collection, 1962. 62.96

next to St. Elizabeth of Hungary.116 It has been postulated that this altar was made during the Queen’s visit to Naples in 1343–1344 when she campaigned for her son Andrew (d. 1345) to be crowned King of Naples. This piece was possibly painted by Lippo Vanni and the presence of St. 116 Drago¸s Gheorge Nastasoiu, “Patterns of Devotion and Traces of Art During the Diplomatic Journey of Queen Elizabeth Piast to Italy in 1343–1344,” in Convivium: Exchanges and Interactions in the Arts of Medieval Europe, Byzantium, and the Mediterranean, ed. Michele Bacci and Ivan Foletti (Turnhout: Brepols, 2015), 106–107.

6

LONG WIDOWHOODS (1296–1380)

207

Dominic indicates that it was most likely for a Dominican foundation in Rome or Naples.117 One of her gifts to the basilica of St. Nicholas in Bari has survived to present day. It is a reliquary of silver gilt in the shape of a chapel; the red and silver barry of the Hungarian kings survives on the roof and only the figure of the Virgin Mary, the infant Jesus, and the apostles can be identified.118 The queen’s Italian sojourn entailed a program of elaborate gift-giving, including a silk altar cloth donated to St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome featuring the Hungarian and Angevin Saints.119 In addition to the altar cloths, Elizabeth donated a gold chalice encrusted with gems and pearls, a ciphus (i.e., a goblet or a cup), and six hundred golden florins.120 A set of nativity figurines depicting the Adoration of the Magi are known to have provenience from the Convent of the Poor Clares in Cracow. The Virgin Mary is marked with the letter “E” in tin, and the conclusion has thus been that these were a donation of Elizabeth during her Regency in Poland (1370–1375).121 The initial and the queen’s known patronage of the Poor Clare Order means that she is the most likely candidate as the donor of these figures. Only the figures of the Virgin Mary and Joseph survive, though the original scene featured the Three Kings and the baby Jesus (who originally rested in the hands of Mary).122 It has also been suggested that the Black Madonna of

117 Sniezynska-Stolot, “Die Ikonographie der Königin Elisabeth,” 19–22. 118 Imre Takács, “Kapolna alakú ereklyetartó magyar címerrel a bari San Nicola kinc-

stárában” [Chapel-shaped reliquary with the Hungarian coat-of-arms in the treasury of Saint Nicholas in Bari], Ars Hungaria XXVI/1 (1998): 66–82; Nastasoiu, “Patterns of Devotion and Traces of Art during the Diplomatic Journey of Queen Elizabeth Piast to Italy in 1343–1344,” 104–105. 119 Munk has suggested that Elizabeth of Bosnia was the donor. Klaniczay, Holy Rulers and Blessed Princesses, 337–338; Ana Munk, “The Queen and Her Shrine: An Art Historical Twist on Historical Evidence Concerning the Hungarian Queen Elizabeth Kotromani´c, Donor of the Saint Simeon Shrine,” Hortus Artium Medievalium 10 (2004): 254. 120 Szende, “Piast Erzsébet és udvara (1320–1380),” 135–136. 121 Marek Walczak “Czternastowieczne figurki jaselkowe w klasztorze Klarysek przy

kosciele Sw. Andrzeja w Krakowie: Uwagi o stylu, datowaniu, ikonografii i funkcji” [Fourteenth Century Nativity Scene Figures in the Convent of the Poor Clares at the Church of St. Andrew in Cracow. Some Remarks on Their Style, Dating, Iconography and Function], Modus. Prace z historii sztuki 2 (2001): 39. 122 Walczak “Czternastowieczne figurki jaselkowe w klasztorze,” 6, 9, 16.

208

C. MIELKE

Cz˛estochowa was originally owned by Elizabeth before being passed on to her granddaughter Jadwiga.123 Elizabeth has also been linked with several items from the Hungarian Chapel in Aachen that feature the Hungarian Angevin coat of arms as well as the Polish eagle, but her link with these pieces is less certain.124 One of the remarkable aspects of the religious donations of Elizabeth of Poland is their broad geographical and institutional diversity. Like Agnes of Habsburg, while she has a favorite institution (the Poor Clares nunnery in Óbuda), she sees fit to donate to a variety of religious institutions (Franciscan, Dominican, cathedrals, parish churches, etc.). Books Associated with Elizabeth of Poland Both Charles I Robert and his son Louis I took an interest in books, though little of their taste is known and only a few fragments of information survive about manuscripts from this era.125 Charles I Robert possessed one book, a Legend of St. Stephen.126 His son Louis I ‘the 123 Ana Munk, “The Queen and Her Shrine: An Art Historical Twist on Historical Evidence Concerning the Hungarian Queen Elizabeth Kotromani´c, Donor of the Saint Simeon Shrine,” Hortus Artium Medievalium 10 (2004): 254; Stephen Benko, The Virgin Goddess: Studies in the Pagan and Christian Roots of Mariology (Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2004), 215. 124 These items include three icons of the Virgin Mary, two monstrances, two candlesticks, two elaborate heraldic decorations, and two pairs of crests with the Hungarian and Polish coat-of-arms (a total of six heraldic badges). Éva Kovács, “I. Lajos király címerei Aachenben,” in M˝ uvészet I. Lajos Király korában, 1342–1382, 107–108; Stephan Szigeti, “Ludwig der Grosse und Aachen,” in Louis the Great: King of Hungary and Poland, ed. S. B. Vardy et al. (Boulder: East European Monographs, 1986), 272–273; Herta Lepie, “Deux écus, appartenant à un mors de chape,” in L’Europe des Anjou, 337–338; Imre Takács, “Zwei Schmuckstücke mit Wappen,” in Sigismundus Rex et Imperator: Kunst und Kultur zur Zeit Sigismunds von Luxemburg 1387 –1437 (Mainz: Philipp von Zabern, 2006), 102; Drago¸s Gheorge Nastasoiu, “Patterns of Devotion and Traces of Art: The Pilgrimage of Queen Elizabeth Piast to Marburg, Cologne, and Aachen in 1357,” Um˘ení LXIV (2016): 33–37. 125 Edit Madas and István Monok, A Könyvkultúra Magyarországon, 49–51; Tünde Wehli, “Könyvfestészet a Magyarországi Anjou-udvarban” [Book Illumination at the Hungarian-Angevin Court], in M˝ uvészet I Lajos király korában. Katalógus, ed. Ern˝ o Marosi et al. (Budapest: MTA M˝ uvészettörténeti Kutató Csoport, 1982), 119–129; Edith Hoffman, Régi magyar bibliofilek [Old Hungarian Bibliophiles] (Budapest: Magyar Bibliophil Társaság, 1992). 126 Csapodi and Gárdonyi-Csapodiné, Bibliotheca Hungarica, Vol. III, 67–68, Item

384.

6

LONG WIDOWHOODS (1296–1380)

209

Great’ is identified as the owner of at least thirteen books, three of which survive to present.127 In this environment, Elizabeth of Poland was clearly a significant book collector, donator, and commissioner at the Hungarian court; at least four religious books are linked to her. Two breviaries are listed in the will of Elizabeth of Poland from 1380. The first mentioned was given to her daughter-in-law Elizabeth Kotromani´c, along with the queen’s castle of Óbuda, a golden cup, and an image of the Virgin Mary embellished with a jeweled frame.128 Another breviary was given to one of her ladies of honor, Clara Pukur; after Clara’s death, it would revert to the nunnery of the Blessed Virgin in Óbuda.129 The content of these breviaries is not known, but both of them were given to women who were close to the queen. Furthermore, the queen owned two other books during her lifetime. In 1606, a doctor by the name of Pravotius recorded an inscription from a breviary that was in the hands of Francis Podogastri of Cyprus. The inscription refers to Elizabeth, queen of Hungary, who is in her seventy-second year, recording a recipe that a hermit gave her when her eyesight was failing; based on the queen’s age and her title, she is identified as Elizabeth of Poland, and that recipe is linked to the famous “Queen of Hungary’s water”, which was popular in the seventeenth century.130 There is also a thirteenth-century psalter that was owned by a female member of the Hungarian dynasty. A calendar included entries for Saints Stephen, Ladislas, Elizabeth, and Sigismund with additional mentions of Wenceslas II and III, Otto, Charles, Louis, and Vladislav. The original codex was probably produced in Paris in the second half of the thirteenth century, possibly around 1260. The name Ludovicus mentioned toward the end suggests that Elizabeth of Poland was a secondary owner; it could

127 The three surviving books are the Hungarian Illuminated Chronicle, a work on surgery by Albucasis, and the Secretum Secretorum by Pseudo-Aristoteles. Csapodi and Gárdonyi-Csapodiné, Bibliotheca Hungarica, Vol. I 131 Item 346; 263 Item 916; Vol. II 132 Item 2332; Vol. III 69–70, Items 391–401. 128 MNL OL DF 6692. Marosi, m˝ uvészettörténetírásban,” 73 n 32.

“A

14.

századi

Magyarország

udvari

129 Marosi, “A 14. századi Magyarország udvari m˝ uvészettörténetírásban,” 73–74, n 32. 130 Tibor Gy˝ ory, “Monumentumok a magyar orvosi rend történetéb˝ ol,” Századok

(1901): 49–50; Csapodi and Gárdonyi-Csapodiné, Bibliotheca Hungarica, Vol. II, 289 Item 3040.

210

C. MIELKE

have been a gift to her from Anna of Schweidnitz (d. 1362).131 Anna was a granddaughter of Charles I Robert who was raised at the Hungarian court at Visegrád under Elizabeth’s supervision.132 Elizabeth of Poland has been suggested as being linked with a missal and breviary from the Hungarian Chapel at Aachen, as well as playing some part in commissioning the Hungarian Angevin Legendary or even the Hungarian Illuminated Chronicle, but these links are much more tenuous.133 Public Representations of Elizabeth of Poland The stone carvings which may represent Elizabeth of Poland are unique in that they are highly individualized. The main problem of identification comes from the fact that these pieces have an ambiguous provenience. Not only are identifying features such as an inscription missing, but corroborating features such as a crown or coat of arms are often missing.134 It is thus necessary to be cautious in treating these images as direct depictions of the queen since they could be decorative, allegorical, or meant to represent someone totally different. First, a grey andesite keystone was found in 1934 in the western wing of the castle of Diósgy˝ or, 30–40 cm above the cellar. The kruseler-type headdress and elaborate neckline have dated the carving stylistically to the

131 It was sold in 1959 to the New York antiquarian H. P. Kraus for £24,000. György Szabó, “Egy újabb magyar vonatkozású kódexr˝ ol,” Új Látóhatár VI/2 (1963): 178–118; Csapodi and Gárdonyi-Csapodiné, Bibliotheca Hungarica, Vol. II, 336 Item 3322. 132 Drago¸s-Gheorge Nastasoiu, “Patterns of Devotion and Traces of Art: The Pilgrimage of Queen Elizabeth Piast to Marburg, Cologne, and Aachen in 1357,” Um˘ení LXIV (2016): 32. 133 The books from Aachen are known from two heraldic devices, the commissioner of the Legendary is unknown, and Elizabeth once employed Markus Kalti, who is thought to be the author of the Hungarian Illuminated Chronicle. Takács, “Zwei Schmuckstücke mit Wappen,” 101–102; Dezs˝ o Dercsényi, “The Illuminated Chronicle and Its Period,” in The Hungarian Illuminated Chronicle, ed. Dezs˝ o Dercsényi (Budapest: Corvina Press, 1969), 23, 42; Csapodi and Gárdonyi-Csapodiné, Bibliotheca Hungarica, Vol. I, 263 Item 916; Béla Zsolt Szakács, The Visual World of the Hungarian Angevin Legendary (Budpaest: Central European University, 2016), 9. 134 This is particularly a problem with a keystone from the Gothic Hall in the main Market Square of Cracow which depicts a woman with a large headdress. While Elizabeth of Poland has been suggested as the person depicted here, the young age of the sitter and the date (either 1375 or 1386) indicates that it is more likely Jadwiga, Queen of Poland. Sniezynska-Stolot, “Die Ikonographie der Königin Elisabeth,” 27.

6

LONG WIDOWHOODS (1296–1380)

211

second half of the fourteenth century, particularly the 1360s. It portrays the woman realistically with a wide nose and matronly appearance; the sculpture greatly resembles others executed in the Parler style.135 Either Elizabeth of Poland or Elizabeth of Bosnia have been suggested as the identity of the woman on this keystone, mostly based on stylistic comparisons of headdresses both queens wear in other depictions.136 Elizabeth of Poland owned Diósgy˝ or since 1340 and she undoubtedly had a significant role in renovating the castle. Czeglédy suggested that this sculpture embellished the dining room in the upper floor of the western wing.137 While Elizabeth does not wear a crown, considering that this castle was Elizabeth’s property it is possible this keystone was meant to represent herself, especially in such a public space. In the second case, several capitals from the Angevin period were uncovered at the St. Mary Gate of the Church of Our Lady in Buda (present-day Matthias Church). Some of the fragments were cast in plaster and identified as King Louis I and his mother, Elizabeth of Poland. The main analogy for identifying the king is his statue at Mariazell.138 In the case of the queen, the crown and veil were used as the primary means of identifying her. As with the keystone from Diósgy˝ or, the face is depicted in a realistic manner with the wide nose and matronly figure. In the vicinity of Buda and Óbuda, Elizabeth sponsored construction projects at ten different ecclesiastic institutions.139 This capital from the Church of Our Lady in Buda has been dated to around 1370–1380, close to the queen’s death.140 This capital’s presence at the St. Mary Gate of the

135 Ilona Czeglédy, “Zárók˝ o n˝ oi fejjel” [Keystone with the Head of a Woman], in M˝ uvészet I. Lajos király korában 1342–1382 (Budapest: MTA M˝ uészettörténeti Kutató Csoport, 1982), 240–241; László Gerevich, The Art of Buda and Pest in the Middle Ages (Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 1971), 71; Robert Odell Bork, The Geometry of Creation: Architectural Drawing and the Dynamics of Gothic design (Farnham: Ashgate, 2011), 231. 136 Czeglédy, “Zárók˝ o n˝ oi fejjel,” 241. 137 Ilona Czeglédy, The Castle of Diósgy˝ or (Budapest: Corvina Press, 1971), 10–11, 31. 138 József Csemegi, A budavári f˝ otemplom középkori építéstörténete [The Medieval

Building History of the Main Church of Buda Castle] (Budapest: Képz˝ om˝ uvészeti Alap Kiadóvállalata, 1955), 96–97. 139 Éva Sniezynska-Stolot, “Queen Elizabeth as a Patron of Architecture,” Acta Historiae Artium 20 (1974): 13–28. 140 Csemegi, A budavári f˝ otemplom, 97.

212

C. MIELKE

church indicates that the audience for such an image was much wider than inside a monastic church (such as Königsfelden) or in a castle’s public room (such as Diósgy˝ or) (Fig. 6.14).

Fig. 6.14 Drawing of the capital from St. Mary Gate at the Church of Our Lady in Buda featuring Elizabeth of Poland. Drawing by Josef Keintzel, 1876. From József Csemegi, A budavári f˝otemplom középkori építéstörténete (1955)

6

LONG WIDOWHOODS (1296–1380)

213

Elizabeth’s Royal Palaces: Óbuda The importance of Óbuda as a royal center would reach its peak in 1343 when Louis I endowed the castle to his mother Elizabeth of Poland.141 The inner palace occupied a space of 60 × 60 meters surrounded by a moat, with an outer wall enclosing the palace in an area of 100 × 100 meters. The main entrance to the palace was in the north wing with a bridge spanning the moat from the outer to the inner walls. The exposure of the eastern and western wings indicates that the palace was Ushaped; both wings have buttresses from the time of Elizabeth of Poland’s renovations.142 The sacristy in St. Elizabeth’s chapel and the hall in the southeastern corner of the palace are also part of her building renovations, but her major renovations likely took place on the upper floors, which have not survived. The fourteenth-century seal of Óbuda features the castle a central tower with three stories, a gateway and a defensive wall, giving a hint at their appearance.143 Szende contends that Óbuda should not be considered a fixed residence of the queen.144 The logic behind this is that Elizabeth of Poland took possession in 1343, while her first charter is not issued from Óbuda until 1365; this could be explained by the extensive renovations going on at that time.145 One possibility rests with documentation; Buda is usually listed as “Bude” and Óbuda as “Bude veteri” in these documents, but in some documents the distinction was not made clear. “Bude” could have referred to a document issued from Óbuda in some cases. Charters issued by Elizabeth of Poland and Elizabeth of Bosnia do not always distinguish which queen was issuing the document, and it can be nearly impossible to tell simply from the language. One other possibility is that if Óbuda was meant as a place of retirement, it means that the queen could have been 141 Julianna Altmann, “Neueste Forschungen der Burg der Königin in Óbuda,” Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungariae 34 (1982): 222. 142 Altmann, “Neueste Forschungen der Burg der Königin in Óbuda,” 225–230; Altman, “Óbuda,” 103. 143 The seal also features the Hungarian and Polish coats-of-arms. Altmann, “Neueste

Forschungen der Burg der Königin in Óbuda,” 230–231; Sniezynska-Stolot, “Queen Elizabeth as Patron of Architecture,” 24. 144 Szende, “Les châteaux de reines,” 163. 145 Gergely Buzás, “History of the Visegrád Royal Palace,” in The Medieval Royal

Palace at Visegrád, ed. Gergely Buzás and József Laszlovszky (Budapest: Archaeolingua Press, 2013), 30–32.

214

C. MIELKE

more active issuing charters from royal centers connected to the king’s court and this palace was more of a retreat. Buda While Buda had fallen out of royal favor after supporting Wenceslas of Bohemia and Otto of Bavaria against Charles I Robert, it would once again serve as a royal seat from 1347 to 1355.146 Elizabeth of Poland resided in two royal palaces in Buda: the “Kammerhof” in the northern part of the city, and the palace Louis I and his successors built attached to the Stephen Tower. The first written mention of the Kammerhof occurs in the Styrian Rhyming Chronicle, when Wenceslas of Bohemia (r. 1301–1305) held court there. Charters from 1354 and 1416 point to the location of this palace being on the site of No. 9 Táncsics Mihály utca. An illustration from 1598 indicates that the Kammerhof was still standing, though it was probably destroyed shortly thereafter.147 A tower with a ground plan of 13 meters by 13 meters and a courtyard were uncovered, but there is still much archaeological work to be done. Only 450 square meters out of 6000 of this palace complex has been excavated, however, so little can be said until further excavations take place.148 Two groups of buildings are definitively linked to this royal palace: a hall and gatehouse attached to the city wall in in the center, and another group next to St. Martin’s chapel.149 While precious little can be said of the residential quarters of the Kammerhof, the relationship between the queens and the palace chapel is worth exploring. The palace chapel dedicated to St. Martin was founded by Elizabeth Piast and Louis I in 1349, during the time where Louis I

146 Végh, “Buda,” 167; Szende, “Les châteaux de reines,” 161. 147 Zoltán Bencze, “A budavári Táncsics Mihály utca 7–9. rövid története” [A Short

History of No. 7–9 Táncsics Mihály Street in Buda Castle], Archaeologia—Altum Castrum Online (2014): 5–6. 148 László Zolnay, “Ásatások a budai I. Táncsics Mihály utca 9. területén. A XIII-XIV. századi budavári királyi rezidencia kérdéséhez” [Excavations Undertaken on a Plot in the 1st District of Buda, 9 Táncsics Mihály Street. Additions to the Question of the 13th– 14th Royal Residence in Buda] Archaeologiai Értesít˝o 94 (1967): 40; Bencze, “A budavári Táncsics Mihály utca 7–9. rövid története,” 7. 149 Buzás, “History of the Visegrád Royal Palace,” 25–26.

6

LONG WIDOWHOODS (1296–1380)

215

had court in Buda rather than Visegrád.150 One of the carvings found in the chapel depicts a lion with a woman’s head in between the paws, a possible connection to the queen who co-founded the chapel.151 The “Kammerhof” was most likely the residence of Elizabeth of Poland during the second half of the fourteenth century; it has even been suggested that she wrote her will here in 1380.152 In the autumn of 1381, her son Louis I gave this building to the Pauline Orders for the purpose of protecting the relic of St. Paul the Hermit.153 Visegrád During the eleventh and thirteenth centuries, Visegrád was the site of several royal construction projects, but it was not until 1323 that the site became a royal seat mostly due to its central location and strong fortifications.154 Charles I Robert built his mansion in the Hungarian part of the town, and it was here where he and his family were attacked by Felician Záh in 1330.155 The earliest phase of the palace complex at Visegrád featured two stone buildings on the north end (under the western wing of the northeastern palace). One of the buildings was a large hall while the other was a residence consisting of a two-story stone building with a hypocaust floor with a ground plan of 14 × 28 meters. The hypocausts indicate that the upper story (most likely a residential suite) was divided into several rooms. Its similarity in size and scale to the Kammerhof in Buda indicates that this was most likely the living quarters of the royal family.156 The upper floor with the residential quarters had a hall in the center flanked on either side by a suite each consisting of two rooms.157 150 Zolnay, “Ásatások a budai I. Táncsics Mihály utca 9. Területén,” 40–42. 151 Gyürky, “A Szent Márton kápolna,” 34. 152 Zolnay, “Ásatások a budai I. Táncsics Mihály utca 9. Területén,” 43; Szende, “Les châteaux de reines,” 162. 153 Végh, “Buda,” 167, 208. 154 St. Stephen constructed the bailiff’s castle by 1002 and the environs were used for

hunting. Andrew I and Salomon built churches in the town; the next phase of construction would not be until 1249 when Maria Laskarina built the citadel. Buzás, “Visegrád,” 118–119. 155 Buzás, “Visegrád,” 120. 156 Buzás, “History of the Visegrád Royal Palace,” 22–26. 157 Buzás, “The Functional Reconstruction of the Visegrád Royal Palace,” 164.

216

C. MIELKE

It is likely that two of Elizabeth of Poland’s children were born here.158 From 1339 until 1347 the royal family lived in the citadel before the court moved to Buda.159 In the time of Louis I, the royal suite was in the northeastern quarter of the palace, where the ground floor consisted of central hall with two suites of three rooms each on either side. The second floor was most likely a mirror of the first. Bonfini mentions how the three rooms consisted of first a private dining room, then a reception hall, and finally the most interior rooms were the bedchamber. Buzás postulates that the secondfloor suite was likely used by a queen or a female member of the Angevin dynasty due to the bath and access to the oratory and flower garden. The suite below was probably the apartments of the kings. The northern parts of the palace were more private spaces while the southern rooms were more accessible to the public.160 The queens also shaped the religious spaces in the palace; Elizabeth of Poland also asked the pope in 1366 for more indulgences for the chapel of the Virgin Mary that Louis I and Elizabeth Kotromani´c had built in the palace of Visegrád.161 Diósgy˝or Diósgy˝ or became a royal property in 1323, and the first reference to it as the queen’s castle dates from 1340.162 Owned by three fourteenthcentury queens (Elizabeth of Poland, Elizabeth of Bosnia, and Mary of Hungary), this palace shares many features in common with the queen’s residence at Óbuda.163 Though the castle was in Elizabeth Piast’s possession from 1340, she only began issuing charters from Diósgy˝ or in 1369.164 During the middle of the fourteenth century, the castle was renovated as a French-style donjon with four towers around a central courtyard. The

158 Szende, “Les châteaux de reines,” 161. 159 Charles I Robert died in the citadel. Buzás, “History of the Visegrád Royal Palace,”

26–27. 160 Buzás, “The Functional Reconstruction of the Visegrád Royal Palace,” 172–173. 161 Szende, “Les châteaux de reines,” 161. 162 Czeglédy, The Castle of Diósgy˝ or, 11; Szende, “Les châteaux de reines,” 164. 163 Szende, “Les châteaux de reines,” 164. 164 MNL OL DF 52140.

6

LONG WIDOWHOODS (1296–1380)

217

north wing of the palace had a great hall with two naves, while the eastern wing had two chapels, one on the upper story directly above the other.165 This phase of construction is usually attributed to Louis I ‘the Great’, but there are several indications that the queens were directly involved in shaping the castle. On one hand, a keystone with the image of an older woman believed to be Elizabeth, mother of Louis I, was found in the western wing. The royal residences were on the upper floor; a survey from 1758 shows that there were three three-room suites on the eastern and southern wings. Buzás hypothesizes that the two identical suites on the eastern wing accommodated Louis I and Elizabeth of Bosnia, the larger, more independent southern wing would have housed the dowager queen Elizabeth of Poland.166 The two eastern suites have their main entrance in the middle flanked by two smaller rooms; the two rooms near the chapel were connected to the chapel’s upper level and the rooms in the corner had a privy. The entrance to the southern suite was in the middle room, preceded by a large staircase from the courtyard. The easternmost of the three rooms was a hall which could be accessed from the corridor, and to the west was an oratory which led to a private room with a privy.167 Ecclesiastic Constructions of Elizabeth of Poland In the many decades that Elizabeth of Poland was queen, she founded, rebuilt, reconstructed, and renovated at least twenty-five monasteries and churches in Hungary; a full list can be seen in Table 6.1. In 1325–1327, Charles I Robert and Elizabeth founded the Franciscan convent of St. Louis of Toulouse in Lipova, Romania (Lippa). This scene is depicted in the Hungarian Illuminated Chronicle, a mirror image of the church in Óbuda founded by St. Stephen and Gisela (Fig. 2.4).168 Her most

165 Szende, “Les châteaux de reines,” 164. 166 Buzás, “The Functional Reconstruction of the Visegrád Royal Palace,” 169. 167 The oratory was the only entrance to the room in this corner tower. Buzás, “The

Functional Reconstruction of the Visegrád Royal Palace,” 169. 168 Sniezynska-Stolot, “Queen Elizabeth as Patron of Architecture,” 29; Klára GárdonyiCsapodi, “Description and Interpretation of the Illustrations in the Illuminated Chronicle,” in The Hungarian Illuminated Chronicle: Chronica de Gestis Hungarorum, ed. Dezs˝ o Dercsényi (Budapest: Corvina Press, 1969), 83; Brian McEntee, “Queen Elizabeth of Hungary (1320–1380) and Óbuda: Patronage, Personality and Place,” in La diplomatie

218

C. MIELKE

Table 6.1 Religious foundations and renovations of Elizabeth of Poland Foundation

Year

Location

Activity

Source

Notes

Franciscan convent of St. Louis of Toulouse Augustine cloister of St. Elizabeth

1325– 1327

Lipova, Romania (Lippa)

Co-founded

Dercsényi, ed. (1969), 145–146

with Charles I Robert

Before 1328

Founded? Spišské Podhradie, Slovenia (Szepesváralja)

Romhányi (2000), 65

Conventual Franciscan friary of the Virgin Mary Pauline Convent

1328

Satu Mare, Romania (Szatmár)

1329

Franciscan friary

1331– 1334

Nizhny Remeti, Ukraine (Remete) Margaret Island

Clarisses cloister

1334

Óbuda

SniezynskaStolot (1974), 29; Romhányi (2000), 60 Founded SniezynskaStolot (1974), 29; Romhányi (2000), 55 Built addition SniezynskaStolot (1974), 13 Founded

Either Elizabeth of Charles I Robert is the founder Possibly an earlier convent (c. 1285)

Church of Our Lady

1330– 1348

Óbuda

Founded

Premonstratensian 2nd half friary of fourteenth century 1347 Convent of the Guards of the Holy Sepulchre Corpus Christi 1347 Church Church of St. Martin

1347– 1349

Augustinian Convent of St. Anne

1349

Margaret Island

Founded or renovated

SniezynskaStolot (1974), 18 Built addition SniezynskaStolot (1974), 19–20

Rypin, Poland

Co-founded

Trebišov, Slovakia (Terebes) Buda

Built

Founded

Esztergom

Renovated

SniezynskaStolot (1974), 29 SniezynskaStolot (1974), 29 SniezynskaStolot (1974), 29 SniezynskaStolot (1974), 29

Queen’s burial place Parish church

with Ladislas of Dobrzyn´ parish church

(continued)

6

LONG WIDOWHOODS (1296–1380)

219

Table 6.1 (continued) Foundation

Year

Location

Activity

Source

Notes

St. Martin’s Church

1349

Hatvan

Founded

parish church

St. Peter Collegiate chapter Benedictine convent of St. Gerard (Gellert) Our Lady’s Church

1350– 1367

Székesfehérvár Founded

SniezynskaStolot (1974), 29 Romhányi (2000), 61

1361

Church of Our Lady

1366

Cenad, Romania (Csanád) Podvinje, Croatia (Podvinna) Buda castle

Franciscan Convent

1366

Franciscan Convent

1370s

Franciscan Convent

1370s

1363

Carmelite cloister 1372

Or˘astie, Romania (Szászváros) Virovitica, Croatia (Ver˝ oce) Koprivnica, Croatia (Kapronca) Taschental (suburb of Buda) Stradom, Poland

Templar convent

1375

Pauline convent and Corpus Christi Church Conventual Franciscan Convent of the Virgin Mary Franciscan convent of St. Nicholas

1376

Diósgy˝ or

1377

Berehovo, Ukraine (Beregszász)

1380

Araˇca, Serbia (Aracs)

Renovated

SniezynskaStolot (1974), 29 Built SniezynskaStolot (1974), 29 Co-founded SniezynskaStolot (1974), 20, 26 Renovated SniezynskaStolot (1974), 29 Reconstructed SniezynskaStolot (1974), 29 Built SniezynskaStolot (1974), 29 Co-founded Romhányi (2000), 16 Renovated

SniezynskaStolot (1974), 29

Reconstructed SniezynskaStolot (1974), 29 Renovated SniezynskaStolot (1974), 29; Romhány (2000), 12 Renovated SniezynskaStolot (1974), 29; Romhányi (2000), 9

parish church with son Louis I

with son Louis I Founded by her brother, Casimir I with son Louis I Former Hospitaller convent Included in will

220

C. MIELKE

important foundations would be the Poor Clares nunnery of Óbuda (the site of her burial after her death in 1380),169 the sepulchral monument for St. Margaret (d. 1271) at the Dominican nunnery on Margaret Island,170 the parish churches of St. Martin in Buda (1347–1349) and Our Lady in Buda Castle.171 Of her known foundations, six were Franciscan, two were Pauline, two were Augustinian, two were Templar, and there was one each of Benedictine, Premonstratensian and Carmelite Orders. Conspicuously, the queen makes no Dominican foundations. The Templar foundations were both co-foundations in Poland. The Carmelite house was a joint foundation and the Premonstratensian house was a renovation. The queen’s fondness for the Franciscan Order is quite apparent, as evidenced by her burial in a Poor Clares foundation and the six monasteries which enjoyed her favor. Contemporaries of Elizabeth, such as Sanchia Queen of Naples (d. 1343) and Elisenda de Montcada (d. 1364), Queen of Aragon, also founded Poor Clares convents.172 The other fascinating aspect of Elizabeth’s patronage is the wide geographical variety of the foundations; practically every corner of the kingdom had a cloister she had participated in building. If we compare the ecclesiastic foundations with those of her brother, Casimir III of Poland (r. 1333–1370), he built twenty-seven churches and monasteries in Lesser Poland, a figure which just surpasses

des États Angevins au XIIIe et XIVe siècles, ed. Zoltán Kordé and István Petrovics (Rome and Szeged, 2010), 211–212. 169 Herta Bertalan, “Das Klarissenkloster von Óbuda aus dem 14. Jahrhundert,” Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 34 (1982): 151–175; McEntee, “Elizabeth, Queen of Hungary and the Óbuda Clares,” 210–218; Herta Bertalan, “Óbudai Klarissza Kolostor” [The Obuda Poor Claires Cloister], Budapest Régiségei 27 (1976): 269–272. 170 Klaniczay, “Sacred Sites in Medieval Buda,” 245; Pál L˝ ovei, “The Sepulchral Monument of Saint Margaret of the Árpád Dynasty,” Acta Historiae Artium 26 (1980): 175–222. 171 St. Martin was founded with her son, Louis I. Sniezynska-Stolot, “Queen Elizabeth as Patron of Architecture,” 26. 172 Klaniczay, Holy Rulers and Blessed Princesses, 316; Eileen McKiernan-González, “Reception, Gender, and Memory: Elisenda de Montcada and Her Dual-Effigy Tomb at Santa Maria de Pedralbes,” in Reassessing the Roles of Women as ‘Makers’ of Medieval Art and Architecture, ed. Therese Martin (Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2012), 314–315.

6

LONG WIDOWHOODS (1296–1380)

221

that of his sister Elizabeth.173 Most of Elizabeth of Poland’s work in founding monasteries seem to be either renovating, reconstructing, or building additions onto already existing structures; there are only a few of these many examples she founds herself from scratch. Finally, a word should be said on the many secular construction projects of Elizabeth of Poland. A structure built in 1369 to service the Poor Clares nunnery of Óbuda was a “mansione apotecariorum”, which sold medicine, soap, wax, paper, and clothes.174 In 1367 she erected a bath complex out of stone at her palace in Óbuda. She and her son Louis ordered that a mill at Felhévíz transfer ownership from Óbuda castle to the Poor Clares convent in Óbuda.175 Burial at the Nunnery of the Poor Clares, Óbuda The earliest mention of the Clarisses convent in Óbuda comes from 1334, where Elizabeth of Poland was granted papal permission to build the convent shortly after the death of her father, Wladyslaw I Lokietek. The convent was primarily built for the salvation of the souls of herself and her parents.176 The papal letters regarding Óbuda are written exclusively to the queen. The endowment of this monastery was enormous, with about one hundred nuns in residence.177 The architectural style of the nunnery was comparable to contemporary styles in southern Germany and Austria.178 The nunnery and the queen’s palace in Óbuda were likely built in a similar manner.179 Elizabeth’s choice to be interred by herself in her own foundation is a unique case for burials in the medieval kingdom of Hungary. When Hungarian queens were buried outside the realm, it was often sole burials 173 Paul Crossley, Gothic Architecture in the Reign of Kasimir the Great (Cracow: Ministerstwo Kultury i sztuki, zarzad muzeów i ochrony zabytków, 1985), 15, 203. 174 Sniezynska-Stolot, “Queen Elizabeth as a Patron of Architecture,” 16. 175 Ibid., 28. 176 McEntee, “Queen Elizabeth of Hungary (1320–1380) and Óbuda,” 211; McEntee, “The Burial Site Selection of a Hungarian Queen,” 69–71; Sniezynska-Stolot, “Queen Elizabeth as Patron of Architecture,” 14–15. 177 Sniezynska-Stolot, “Queen Elizabeth as Patron of Architecture,” 16. 178 Bertalan, “Das Klarissenkloster von Óbuda,” 158–160; McEntee, “Elizabeth, Queen

of Hungary and the Óbuda Clares,” 39. 179 Bertalan, “Óbudai Klarissza Kolostor,” 272.

222

C. MIELKE

in institutions they had founded themselves. In Hungary only Gertrude of Andechs-Meran was buried by herself, though her death and burial are admittedly exceptional. Elizabeth stipulated in her will that she wished to be buried in the Corpus Christi chapel of the Clarisses cloister at Óbuda she had founded.180 The queen received her own chapel for burial; the nuns and other nobles were buried elsewhere in the complex.181 The chapel had a single aisle comprising three sides of an octagon. Her tomb would originally have stood along the southern wall.182 Most likely it was a three-sided monument; the tomb for her brother Casimir III ‘the Great’ of Poland (d. 1370) was originally designed with only three sides.183 Nothing is known of Elizabeth’s sepulchral monument, as it was probably destroyed when the convent was demolished during the Turkish siege of 1541.184 Most of the Corpus Christi chapel interior was destroyed when digging a well. Nonetheless, the choice of location within the church is rather unusual and deserves some attention here. Elizabeth of Poland was not buried within the walls of the church proper like her husband Charles I Robert, but access to her tomb was gained both from the interior of the convent as well as from the church itself. Her burial in the monastic precinct was possibly a testament to her desire to become part of the monastic community.185 Elizabeth of Poland is involved in some fashion with every possible category of material culture in this study, both from her time as a queen as well as from her long widowhood. Her will from 1380 is an excellent source of information on how she disposed of various possessions, yet there is so much out there that is not mentioned in it either. She is the first queen to systematically appear in individualized depictions on public monuments such as column capitals and keystones. She also 180 Szende, “Mitherrscherin oder einfach Königinmutter Elisabeth,” 61. 181 Sniezynska-Stolot, “Queen Elizabeth as Patron of Architecture,” 16–18; McEntee,

“Elizabeth, Queen of Hungary and the Óbuda Clares,” 41. 182 Bertalan, “Das Klarissenkloster von Óbuda aus dem 14. Jahrhundert,” 166; McEntee, “Elizabeth, Queen of Hungary and the Óbuda Clares,” 40. 183 Długosz is particularly critical of her regency. Długosz, The Annals of Jan Długosz, 323–331; Agnieszka Sadraei, “The Tomb of Kazimir the Great in the Wawel Cathedral of Cracow,” Acta Historiae Artium 42 (2001): 89, 107. 184 McEntee, “Queen Elizabeth of Hungary (1320–1380) and Óbuda,” 217–218; Bertalan, “Óbudai Klarissza Kolostor,” 269. 185 McEntee, “Elizabeth, Queen of Hungary and the Óbuda Clares,” 39–40, 67–68.

6

LONG WIDOWHOODS (1296–1380)

223

owned or donated the second-highest amount of books and manuscripts in fourteenth-century Hungary, only exceeded by her son Louis I. She was also an incredible builder, not only of her own palace in Óbuda, but also of many monastic communities and parish churches.

Conclusions Queens in the fourteenth century not only continued the art of selfrepresentation and displaying their own power; they perfected it. After a brief reign in Hungary, Agnes spent over fifty years as a widow living a mostly monastic life at Königsfelden. This was no ordinary retirement though—she was an active diplomatic figure, a literary patron, a builder, a benefactor to the church, and the creator of many pieces of dynastic propaganda. As queen consort, Maria of Bytom’s seal shows her keeping up with fashion and her burial at Székesfehérvár show the importance of the consort’s position for Charles Robert’s dynastic legitimization. Elizabeth of Poland’s time as consort dispels the myth that she only gained power during her widowhood—she was an active donor to the church, issue of charters, and appeared on the coinage of her husband. Her activities as a widow were amplified by her greater independence, thus she was able to construct the many palaces and church buildings, among her other activities. While the widowhoods of Agnes and Elizabeth were different (one monastic, the other secular), both women used material culture and images to promote their families and by extension themselves. The fourteenth century is also a period when queens begin utilizing new ways of displaying their power. By the middle of the century, heraldry had taken on particular importance in terms of the queen’s public presentation—both Agnes and Elizabeth made use of coats of arms from their parents as well as that of their husbands. There is also a lot more evidence for this period of significant building activity, particularly as it relates to how the queens were involved in shaping the royal palaces. This period also has the best evidence for queens as owners of books. Finally, this is the period where we see queens depicted in a number of public images, both statues and stained glass. Within medieval Hungary, the power of the queen consort reaches its zenith with Elizabeth of Poland. However, the reigns of Elizabeth’s daughter-in-law and granddaughter would prove a fascinating conclusion for the women of the Hungarian Angevin dynasty.

CHAPTER 7

Regent and Regnant (1370–1395)

The last two women in this study are an unusual mother–daughter pair: Elizabeth Kotromani´c (d. 1387), daughter of Stephen II of Bosnia, and her daughter, Mary (r. 1382–1395), Queen of Hungary in her own right. In June 1353, Louis I of Hungary (r. 1342–1382) married Elizabeth of Bosnia, gaining most of Western Hum for her dowry.1 Louis had been married earlier to Margaret, the eldest daughter of Holy Roman Emperor Charles IV of Bohemia (r. 1346–1378). Louis and Margaret were engaged in 1338 (when she was only three years old) and married in 1345 before her early death in 1349.2 Even though Louis and Elizabeth of Bosnia married in 1353, she remained in the shadow of her mother-in-law for many years after her marriage. It is not until 1370 that the first charter ascribed to her beyond all doubt is known.3 1370 (seventeen years after her marriage) is also the first time that Elizabeth is known to have become pregnant. She ended up giving birth to a total of three 1 Fine, The Late Medieval Balkans, 369. 2 Balázs Nagy and Frank Schaer, ed. Autobiography of Charles IV and His Legend of St.

Wenceslas (Budapest: Central European University Press, 2001), 102. 3 There are earlier charters with a “Queen Elizabeth,” but it is nearly impossible in some cases to identify which Elizabeth issued it. For the earliest known charter attributed to Elizabeth Kotromani´c through her seal as well as the use of the phrase “junior queen,” see MNL OL DF 77442.

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 C. Mielke, The Archaeology and Material Culture of Queenship in Medieval Hungary, 1000–1395, Queenship and Power, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-66511-1_7

225

226

C. MIELKE

daughters: Catherine (1370–1378), Mary (c. 1371–1395), and Hedwig (known in Poland as Jadwiga, 1373/1374–1399).4 It perhaps comes as no surprise that in 1370 Elizabeth of Bosnia becomes more of a figure at court since she is not only bearing surviving children, but her motherin-law was also taking on her duties as regent of Poland. After an active (if conventional) period as consort, upon the death of Louis I in 1382, Elizabeth of Bosnia assumed the regency for her eldest daughter, Mary, Hungary’s first Queen Regnant. The regency (1382–1386) was highly chaotic. While Louis had betrothed Mary to Sigismund of Luxemburg (then margrave of Brandenburg) and Hedwig to Wilhelm of Austria, Elizabeth attempted to dissolve the matches in favor of a French alliance. One of the chief complaints against the regency of Elizabeth of Bosnia was her clear support of Miklós Garai, the Palatine. Tensions erupted in 1384 when Elizabeth replaced several key offices such as the judge royal and the master of the treasury with her own supporters. Charles II of Durazzo took advantage of the chaotic situation and crowned himself king at the end of 1385. Elizabeth had him murdered only two months later.5 Elizabeth and Mary were eventually ambushed in 1386 and Miklós Garai was cut down and beheaded defending the two queens. Elizabeth and Mary would be imprisoned in Novigrad where the former was killed in 1387.6 The reign of Queen Mary can thus be divided into two periods— first where her mother was regent (1382–1386) and then when she was married to Sigismund of Luxemburg (1387–1395). In contrast with her sister Jadwiga, who is remembered as an active, saintly, and powerful queen, Mary is usually presented as a neglected wife, an overshadowed daughter, and a passive, inactive figure whose problems were bigger than her reign. However, by looking at the material culture associated with both queens, it becomes evident that not only was Elizabeth more active as a queen consort (i.e. 1370–1382), but Mary also emerges as a much stronger, more independent figure when the material evidence is consulted. For both women, the evidence from their seals, coinage, 4 Ferdinandy, “Ludwig I. von Ungarn (1342-1382),” 32. 5 Bak, “Queens as Scapegoats in Medieval Hungary,” 229–231; Engel, The Realm of

St. Stephen, 196–197. 6 János Thuróczy, Chronicle of the Hungarians (Bloomington: Indiana University, 1991), 196.

7

REGENT AND REGNANT (1370–1395)

227

objects donated to the church, building projects, and literary activities all confirm a continuation of the activities started by Elizabeth of Poland and her predecessors.

Elizabeth of Bosnia Two Seals of Elizabeth of Bosnia Elizabeth of Bosnia is a strange case study in seal use. During the lifetime of her husband and her mother-in-law, the evidence is sparse. She only used a signet ring from 1370 onward.7 There is no inscription on her signet ring, but it has the badge of the Angevins on it—an ostrich holding a horseshoe in its beak.8 Like her mother-in-law, Elizabeth of Bosnia uses red wax on documents secured by her signet ring (Fig. 7.1). It is not until after the death of Louis I of Hungary when Elizabeth of Bosnia is the regent for their young daughter Mary (r. 1382–1395) that evidence emerges of Elizabeth employing a great seal of her own. It is slightly smaller than the seals of her mother-in-law and daughter, and only the obverse is known. Like the other great seals of Hungarian queens, Elizabeth is depicted sitting on a throne, crowned, and holding a scepter and with an orb in her lap. The orb is a curious revival, as it had not been used by her predecessor and sparse evidence survives for queens depicted with it in the thirteenth century. The appearance of the orb is significant and the strong character of the seal with the orb indicates that it was not made until she became regent. This is also the first seal to make use of the queen’s full title referring to her not just as queen of Hungary, but also Dalmatia, Croatia, Rama, Serbia, Galicia, and Lodomeria. There is no reference to her Bosnian ancestry, though the shield to the right of her throne depicting a knight on horseback could

7 The earliest example is MNL OL DF 5891. 8 Ern˝ o Marosi, “Gy˝ ur˝ us pecsét” [Ring seal], in M˝ uvészet I. Lajos király korában, 1342–

1382, ed. Ern˝ o Marosi, Melinda Tóth and Lívia Varga (Budapest: MTA M˝ uvészettörténeti Kutató Csoport, 1982), 150.

228

C. MIELKE

Fig. 7.1 Great seal of Elizabeth of Bosnia. From György Pray, Syntagma historicum de sigillis regum, et reginarum Hungariae (1805)

serve that purpose.9 With both her signet ring and her majestic seal, Elizabeth preferred sealing on the parchment itself, rather than on a tassel that bound the document together. Elizabeth’s sealing practice nonetheless raises many questions about her position of power as both queen consort

9 Dženan Dautovi´c, “Bosansko-ugarski odnosi kroz prizmu braka Ludovika I Velikog i Elizabete, k´cerke Stjepana II Kotromani´ca” [Relations Between Bosnia and Hungary Through the Prism of the Marriage Between Louis the Great and Elizabeth, the Daughter of Stjepan II Kotromani´c], Okrugli Stol: žene u srednjovjekovnoj Bosni [Roundtable: Women in Medieval Bosnia], Radovi Filozofski Fakultet u Sarajevu XVII/3 (2014): 151.

7

REGENT AND REGNANT (1370–1395)

229

and as regent. While she employed some tactics to strengthen her own image during her regency (such as the appearance of the orb), she also abandons earlier tactics of legitimization, such as referring to her ancestry in the inscription. Reliquary Sarcophagus of St. Simeon, Zadar Elizabeth of Bosnia’s greatest contribution to material culture comes from her extensive devotion to the Shrine of St. Simeon at Zadar. This impressive silver reliquary sarcophagus, meant to house the body of St. Simeon at the church of St. Mary Maior in Zadar, was commissioned by Elizabeth Kotromani´c in 1377 and completed in 1380. The shrine of St. Simeon would also have originally been supported by four silver statues of angels.10 This was not the only donation the queen made on the Dalmatian coast, as she also gave a golden crown for a head reliquary of St. Christopher on the island of Rab.11 Elizabeth of Bosnia was likely inspired by her mother-in-law, Elizabeth of Poland, who donated a reliquary of St. Simeon to Aachen as well as a (now lost) silver shrine of Saint Gerard.12 The main purposes for Elizabeth of Bosnia commissioning this shrine focused on not only authenticating the body of St. Simeon held in Zadar, but also highlighting the queen’s own ambition, achievements, and her own deeply held religious beliefs (specifically denying any support her family had given to dualist heretics).13 The choice of St. Simeon had many political overtones, not only as a piece of Hungarian Angevin propaganda, but also as a deliberately anti-Venetian statement at a time when Dalmatia was contested between Hungary and Venice (Fig. 7.2).14 The sarcophagus itself tells of many scenes that led to its creation. An effigy lies on top of the sarcophagus, but the panels on the sides depict 10 Marijana Kovaˇcevi´c, “The Omnipresent Death in the Iconography of Saint Simeon’s Shrine in Zadar,” IKON 4 (2011): 214. 11 Ana Munk, “The Queen and Her Shrine: An Art Historical Twist on Historical Evidence Concerning the Hungarian Queen Elizabeth Kotromani´c, Donor of the Saint Simeon Shrine,” Hortus Artium Medievalium 10 (2004): 255. 12 Munk, “The Queen and Her Shrine,” 254. 13 Marina Vidas, “Elizabeth of Bosnia, Queen of Hungary, and the Tomb Shrine of

St. Simeon in Zadar: Power and Relics in Fourteenth-Century Dalmatia,” Studies in Iconography 29 (2008): 136–137. 14 Munk, “The Queen and her Shrine,” 255.

230

C. MIELKE

Fig. 7.2 Reliquary Sarcophagus of St. Simeon, Zadar

scenes such as the entry of Louis I of Hungary into Zadar in 1357, a scene of Queen Elizabeth stealing the relic of St. Simeon and suffering for it, a scene of an uncrowned Elizabeth mourning the death of her father, Ban Stephen II of Bosnia (r. 1322–1353), and finally a scene of Elizabeth and three of her daughters presenting the sarcophagus.15 The inscription on the panel underneath the saint’s feet reads “Simeon the Just, who in his arms held Jesus, born of the Virgin, lies peacefully in this chest, which was offered with gentle pledges by the Queen of Hungary, the mighty, glorious and exalted Elizabeth the younger, in the year 1380. This work was made by Franjo of Milan.”16 The three panels depicting the queen on such a precious object have been interpreted in a variety of different ways. The scene of the queen mourning her father devoid of insignia is the first known instance of such

15 Ivo Petricioli, St. Simeon’s Shrine in Zadar (Zagreb: Jugoslavenska akademija znanosti i umjetnosti, 1983), 12–22. 16 Petricioli, St. Simeon’s Shrine in Zadar, 17.

7

REGENT AND REGNANT (1370–1395)

231

a scene in royal imagery.17 The scene of a noblewoman stealing the finger of St. Simeon might have originally been unconnected to the queen, but during her lifetime it clearly became connected with her.18 Yet the scene of her presenting the sarcophagus with her three daughters is one of the most significant. Since the queen is known to have wanted a son, it is usually tied into this narrative. One of the explanations for the presence of the ostrich egg in the scene where Elizabeth and her three daughters are presenting the shrine was tied to the queen’s wish for a male heir.19 Yet given the heavy imagery, the several appearances of both the king and the queen together on an object she commissioned, the heraldry and initials “L. R.” (Lodovicus Rex) on the gables,20 it is possible that this was a preemptive measure on the part of the queen in the event of her daughters ascending the throne. At this point in time, betrothals had been made with Sigismund of Luxemburg and Wilhelm of Austria (d. 1406). The presentation of the queen’s three young daughters in such a context could represent Elizabeth attempting to prepare the audience for its future Queens of Hungary and Poland. Crown and Chalice at Zadar In 1932, the silver sarcophagus of St. Simeon in Zadar was opened up, revealing a treasure trove of artifacts from the Hungarian Angevin court. One of the objects linking some of the votive donations in the sarcophagus to Elizabeth Kotromani´c is a gilt silver crown dated to the Hungarian Angevin Period. The crown consists of ten plates in the shape of fleur-delys with pins connecting each plate at the hinges.21 The pins are in the shape of a human head flanked by animal heads and with leaves branching out in the shape of a tree, with pearls at the tips of the branches. The lilyshaped plates are decorated with rubies and either emeralds or sapphires. 17 Kovaˇcevi´c, “The Omnipresent Death in the Iconography of Saint Simeon’s Shrine in Zadar,” 212. 18 Petricioli, St. Simeon’s Shrine in Zadar, 20. 19 The ostrich with a horseshoe in its mouth was also a symbol heavily associated with

the Angevin dynasty. Marijana Kovaˇcevi´c, “The Omnipresent Death in the Iconography of Saint Simeon’s Shrine in Zadar,” IKON 4 (2011): 212. 20 Petricioli, St. Simeon’s Shrine in Zadar, 20. 21 Nikola Jakˇci´c, “Couronne féminine,” in L’Europe des Anjou: aventure des princes

angevins du XIIIe et XIVe siècle, ed. Guy Le Goff et al. (Paris: Somogy, 2001), 354.

232

C. MIELKE

It is estimated that there were originally 100 stones plus an additional 170 pearls adorning the crown.22 Rather than representing a donation of the kingdom’s crown, this crown appears to be a personal crown the queen wore for state occasions.23 It was possibly deposited in the reliquary during a visit Queen Mary and her mother made to Zadar in 1382–1383.24 There are thus several important moments in Elizabeth of Bosnia’s life course where she could have donated the crown, but most likely it occurred after the birth of her three daughters, possibly even after the death of her husband. It is very similar to crowns from the Hungarian Angevin court found at Oradea, Trogir (Ciovo), and Krušedol.25 Another item found deposited in the St. Simeon sarcophagus was a silver gilt and enamel chalice dating to 1371–1380. The stem is decorated with eight knobs featuring the Hungarian Angevin coats of arms, and the base is likewise decorated with the addition of an ostrich holding a horseshoe in its beak alternating with rosettes. The bottom of the cup is decorated with six saintly figures: Christ, the Virgin Mary, St. John the Baptist, St. Catherine of Alexandria, and two Hungarian saints, St. Stephen (or possibly St. Ladislas), and St. Elizabeth.26 The presence of St. Elizabeth of Hungary was a significant figure for both Elizabeth of Poland as well as Elizabeth of Bosnia, and the presence of St. Catherine most likely refers to the oldest daughter of Louis I and Elizabeth. Kerny

22 Until its restoration in the 1990s, the nine surviving crown pieces and six pins were sewn into part of a mitre. Ivo Petricioli, St. Simeon’s Shrine in Zadar (Zagreb: Jugoslavenska akademija znanosti i umjetnosti, 1983), 23–24; Imre Takács, “Krone,” in Sigismundus Rex et Imperator: Kunst und Kultur zur Zeit Sigismunds von Luxemburg, 1387 -1437 ; Imre Takács, et al. (Mainz: Philipp von Zabern, 2006), 93. 23 Petricioli, St. Simeon’s Shrine in Zadar, 23. 24 One charter from Queen Mary was issued in Zadar on October 24, 1383, and

another from her mother the Queen Regent Elizabeth was issued in Zadar on November 5, 1383. Pál Engel and C. Norbert Tóth, Itineraria Regum et Reginarum (1382-1438) (Budapest: MTA Történettudományi Intézetében, 2005), 36, 162; Takács, “Krone,” 93. 25 Takács, “Krone,” 93. 26 Nikola Jakˇci´c, “Calice avec armoiries angevines,” in L’Europe des Anjou: aventure

des princes angevins du XIIIe au XVe siècle, ed. Guy Le Goff et al. (Paris: Somogy éditions d’art, 2001), 353–354; Petricioli, St. Simeon’s Shrine in Zadar, 22–23; Terézia Kerny, “Calice,” in Sigismundus Rex et Imperator: Kunst und Kultur zur Zeit Sigismunds von Luxemburg, 1387 -1437 , ed. Imre Takács et al. (Mainz: Philipp von Zabern, 2006), 104–105.

7

REGENT AND REGNANT (1370–1395)

233

argues that the chalice dates to 1371, shortly after the princess’ birth.27 This chalice is similar in style to the objects donated to Aachen and was most likely brought from Hungary to Zadar when Elizabeth Kotromani´c commissioned the shrine.28 It was likely a donation from either Louis I or Elizabeth Kotromani´c that was originally accompanied by a paten. Kerny doubts that it had any relation to the silver sarcophagus of St. Simeon.29 Veil and Ring from the Zadar Sarcophagus Among the objects recovered from the sarcophagus of St. Simeon at Zadar is a silk veil.30 It is worked with silver and gold thread and features Gothic themes such as stylized trees and crowned figures walking dogs on leashes.31 It is probable that this was a donation of Elizabeth Kotromani´c. It should be kept in mind that Elizabeth was not the only one donating objects. The sarcophagus contained several rings put there after her death as well as an embroidered apron with an inscription in pearls written in Cyrillic characters that records George Brankovic, despot of Serbia, as its donor.32 The veil of the queen was worn with its edges loosely hanging over the ears. Elizabeth’s mother-in-law is depicted wearing the krüseler type of headdress in the Hungarian Illuminated Chronicle, and many women on the sarcophagus of St. Simeon, including Elizabeth of Bosnia are shown wearing a crimped veil; Petricioli even comments how other depictions of Elizabeth Kotromani´c show her wearing a kerchief like the one in the sarcophagus or the illumination of her on the first page of the Hungarian Illuminated Chronicle.33 The Angevin dynasty in Hungary 27 Kerny, “Calice,” 104–105. 28 Jakˇci´c, “Calice avec armoiries angevines,” 353–354. 29 Petricioli, St. Simeon’s Shrine in Zadar, 22–23; Terézia Kerny, “Calice,” 104–105. 30 Nikola Jakˇci´c, “Voile de coiffure (une moitié conservée),” in L’Europe des Anjou: aventure des princes angevins du XIII e au XV e siècle, ed. Guy Le Goff, et al. (Paris:

Somogy éditions d’art, 2001), 354; Petriolici, St. Simeon’s Shrine in Zadar, 24. 31 Petriolici, St. Simeon’s Shrine in Zadar, 24; Jakˇci´c, “Voile de coiffure,” 354. 32 Petriolici, St. Simeon’s Shrine in Zadar, 24. 33 Ibid.; Klára Gárdonyi-Csapodi, “Description and Interpretation of the Illustrations in

the Illuminated Chronicle,” in The Hungarian Illuminated Chronicle, ed. Dezs˝ o Dercsényi (Budapest: Corvina Press, 1969), 71; Ern˝ o Marosi, “Das Frontspiz der Ungarischen Bilderchronik,” Wiener Jahrbuch für Kunstgeschichte 46–47 (1994): 363.

234

C. MIELKE

also had strong connections to France and Naples, and certain elements of fashion were shared between the three regions; a “Hungarian” or Tatar type of hat became popular in the mid-fourteenth century, for instance.34 This veil shows the high quality of embroidery, the high status of the piece of fabric, the status of the krüseler it was originally worn with and the secular nature of the subject. Along with the crown and the veil, twenty-two rings were recovered from the sarcophagus. They had been offered as votive donations before the year 1409. One of the rings is a fourteenth-century posy ring with a French inscription.35 It could be connected either to the queen or one of her ladies.36 It is a large ring of gilt silver most likely from a French workshop with blue enamel composed of four rectangular segments each flanked by two seed pearls with sixteen pearls in total adorning the ring. The French inscription reads “cest – tout – mon – dezir.”37 Considering that the crown and veil are most likely connected with Elizabeth of Bosnia, it is probable that this ring is connected to her as well. Its high status and connections with France seem to be particularly important factors as the Hungarian Angevin dynasty kept up a great deal of contacts not only with the court of the Angevins in Naples but also in France. It is possible that other rings from the sarcophagus were Elizabeth’s though it would be nearly impossible to parse apart original ownership in such a context. Stone Carvings at Mariazell and Zadar There are two images in carved stone thought to feature Elizabeth of Bosnia. The best-known example can be found at the shrine of Mariazell in Austria. Louis I built a Gothic church and central tower surrounding the existing shrine after a vision from the Virgin Mary appeared to him before a victory against the Turks in 1363. The construction was continued around 1380 with a three-nave Gothic hall church, and finally 34 Newton, Fashion in the Age of the Black Prince, 92–93. 35 Petriolici, St. Simeon’s Shrine in Zadar, 22–24. 36 Nikola Jakˇci´c, “Anneau avec inscription en vieux français,” in L’Europe des Anjou: aventure des princes Angevins du XIIIe au Xve siècle, ed. Guy Le Goff, et al. (Paris: Somogy, 2001), 353. 37 Petriolici, St. Simeon’s Shrine in Zadar, 24; Jakˇci´c, “Anneau avec inscription en vieux français,” 353.

7

REGENT AND REGNANT (1370–1395)

235

around 1400, the middle tower was completed with funds from the Hungarian king.38 While in Baroque times the Gnadenkapelle (“Chapel of Grace”) was demolished and rebuilt, there are still some fourteenthcentury elements that remain. In particular, the Gnadenkapelle has an elaborately carved Gothic canopy featuring a double portrait of a king and queen traditionally identified as Louis the Great and Elizabeth Kotromani´c. It is most likely that the portraits adorned the rood screen separating the nave and choir.39 King Louis appears as a crowned old man with flowing hair, Queen Elizabeth appears as a younger crowned woman, and between them are carved grape vines and leaves. The sculpture has been attributed to the workshop of Peter Parler. Due to this stylistic association with the Prague sculptures, earlier scholars dated the stonework to 1369–1370.40 However, if this was part of the rood screen, it raises problems with dating. The rood altar was consecrated in 1369, three more altars in 1383, and the papal letter of indulgence from 1399 indicates the church was completed at this time. Marosi thus argued that this image was carved around 1383, after the king’s death indicating that he had no involvement with the creation of his image in this medium (Fig. 7.3).41 If this is the case, it raises the possibility that Elizabeth herself created this image after the death of her husband. While Elizabeth of Bosnia could have continued earlier work that her husband had requested before his death, the Queen was heavily involved at the Austrian court since her daughter Jadwiga had been betrothed to Wilhelm of Austria (d. 1406). Elizabeth had been present at Hainburg for their official betrothal.42 Even though Elizabeth did not view the match favorably, she was in no position to anger the Habsburgs, particularly while facing hostilities from

38 József Szamosi, “König Ludwig der Grosse: Bauten und Denkmäler in Mariazell,” in Louis the Great: King of Hungary and Poland, ed. S. B. Vardy et al. (Boulder: East European Monographs, 1986), 291, 294. 39 Ern˝ o Marosi, “Mariazell und die Kunst Ungarns im Mittelalter,” in Ungarn in Mariazell —Mariazell in Ungarn: Geschichte und Erinnerung, ed. Péter Farbaky and Szabolcs Serf˝ oz˝ o (Budapest: 2004), 31. 40 Szamosi, “König Ludwig der Grosse: Bauten und Denkmäler in Mariazell,” 303–304. 41 Marosi, “Mariazell und die Kunst Ungarns im Mittelalter,” 31–32. 42 Szamosi, “König Ludwig der Grosse: Bauten und Denkmäler in Mariazell,” 290.

236

C. MIELKE

Fig. 7.3 Possible former rood screen featuring Louis I of Hungary and Elizabeth of Bosnia. Drawing from Sándor Márki, Mária Magyarország királynéja 1370–1395 (1885)

the Luxemburgs and Charles of Durazzo.43 If Elizabeth did commission this rood screen, it would have enhanced her own image abroad, shown pious devotion to a shrine of international importance, and possibly mollified her Habsburg allies at a tense moment. If this rood screen depicts Louis I and Elizabeth of Bosnia, this would be the first known instance of a Hungarian king and queen appearing together as husband and wife in visibly public art. For the shrine at Mariazell, the figures of Louis and Elizabeth continued to hold importance in the coming centuries—in the seventeenth century, a pair of Baroque plaster figures of them offering up their crowns to the Mother of God were created.44 Elizabeth Kotromani´c also engaged in a program of public representation in the city of Zadar. Queen Elizabeth was shown in a stone relief kneeling before St. Simeon.45 The saint occupies the center of the relief while on the viewer’s left, two angels flank what appears to be a blank

43 Christopher Mielke, “Doubly Crowned: Private and Public Images of Queen Elizabeth the Elder and Queen Elizabeth the Younger at the Hungarian-Angevin Court,” in Ambiguous Women in Medieval Art, ed. Monica Walker-Vadillo (Budapest: Trivent Publications, 2019), 158–159. 44 Szamosi, “König Ludwig der Grosse: Bauten und Denkmäler in Mariazell,” 308. 45 Petricioli, St. Simeon’s Shrine in Zadar, 6; Ivo Petricioli, “Još o Pavlo iz Sulmone

– graditelju proˇcelja crkve u Starom Pagu” [Pavao of Sulmona—Builder of the Façade of the Church in Old Pag], Ars Adriatica 3 (2013): 111–120.

7

REGENT AND REGNANT (1370–1395)

237

escutcheon; the queen is richly dressed and kneeling on the right. Pavao from Sulmona, an artist from Zadar active from 1386 to 1405, has been suggested as the artist of this work.46 The question arises whether this relief was made and erected before or after Elizabeth’s death in 1387. If it was made while she was alive, it would be one of Pavao’s earliest attributed works. On the other hand, if it was made after her death, the person most likely responsible for commissioning the stone was her daughter, Queen Mary of Hungary. Mary was heavily involved in her mother’s sepulchral monument, so this stone panel was possibly Mary’s way of preserving her mother’s memory. While the original site for this monument is unknown, its drastic weathering indicates that it spent a great deal of time outside; perhaps this relief was on the exterior of the church and visible to all who passed by. Elizabeth’s Manual of Instruction for Her Daughters Geoffroy de la Tour-Landry’s Book of the Knight of the Tower, a book of instruction for his daughters, mentions how a Hungarian queen had written a book of deportment for her daughters. His manuscript was written sometime around 1371–1372.47 The queen he mentions was most likely Elizabeth Kotromani´c because she only had three daughters and no sons; they were all born in 1374.48 Catherine and Mary were born around the time of la Tour-Landry’s book for his own daughters, which would indicate that the book was written and known in France before 1371–1372. In the 1370s, negotiations were ongoing between the

46 He was responsible for the tomb of Archbishop of Nikola Matafur and the chapel of St. Simeon. Petricioli, St. Simeon’s Shrine in Zadar, 6; Petricioli, “Još o Pavlo iz Sulmone,” 111–120. 47 “Si les devoit l’en tout au commencement prendre à chastier courtoisement par bonnes exemples et par doctrines, si comme faisoit la Royne Prines, qui fut royne de Hongrie, qui bel et doulcement sçavoit chastier ses filles et les endoctriner, comme contenu est en son livre.” Geoffrey de la Tour-Landry and Anatole de Montaiglon, Le livre du chevalier de La Tour Landry, pour l’enseignement de ses filles (Paris: P. Jannet, 1854), 2; Jocelyn Wogan-Browne, Nicholas Watson, Andrew Taylor, and Ruth Evans, The Idea of the Vernacular: An Anthology of Middle English Literary Theory 1280-1520 (Exeter: University of Exeter Press, 1999), 201, lines 24–28, 203. 48 One Polish historian notes that a short-lived daughter might have been born to the couple in 1365. Oscar Halecki and Tadeusz Gromada, Jadwiga of Anjou and the Rise of East-Central Europe (Boulder: Social Science Monographs, 1991), 49.

238

C. MIELKE

Hungarian court and the French court for a marriage alliance between Louis (d. 1407), the son of Charles V of France and Catherine, the eldest daughter of Louis I and Elizabeth Kotromani´c. While the alliance was terminated in 1378 with the death of Princess Catherine, the intent on the part of both courts was real.49 A copy of the book was sent to Prince Louis in 1374 as part of the negotiations,50 though there seems to be no other surviving evidence for its presence in France other than the reference in the manuscript of la Tour-Landry. While the content cannot be known specifically, its presence is nonetheless extremely important for understanding the personal and familial power the queen possessed at this time. From 1370 to 1375, Elizabeth’s mother-in-law was regent of Poland, and thus the younger queen had the first opportunity to act with some independence while raising her young daughters. Authoring this book was an exceptional action that other queens apparently do not follow until the end of the fifteenth century.51 This book not only represented a way for the young queen to differentiate herself from the elder Queen Elizabeth, but also be a means of ensuring control over the upbringing of her own children in a way that recalls the Admonitions written for St. Emeric in the eleventh century. It also offers a rare insight into the unofficial power queens had over the education of their children. This book shows a different side of the younger Queen Elizabeth who is usually only remembered for her problematic regency in Hungary after the death of Louis I. Here is evidence for a queen displaying not only her own educational interests but also maternal care in a material way that impacted the next generation, earning her international praise.

49 Marianne Sághy, “Mézières Magyarországról. A kés˝ o Anjou-kori kormány francia kirtikája” [Mézières from Hungary: a Late Angevin Period Criticism of the French government], in Francia-magyar kapcsolatok a középkorban, ed. Attila Györkös and Gergely Kiss (Debrecen: Debrecen University Press, 2013), 248; Paul Rousselot, Histoire de l’éducation des femmes en France (Paris: Didier, 1883), 63; Alice Hentsch, De la Littérature didactique du moyenâge, s’adressant spécialement aux femmes (Cahors: A. Coueslant, 1903), 135; Sharon Jansen, Anne of France: Lessons for My Daughter (Woodbridge: D. S. Brewer, 2004), 13 n 43. 50 Jansen, Anne of France: Lessons for My Daughter, 13 n 43. 51 Several non-royal contemporaries of Elizabeth’s authored works on deportment, such

as de la Tour Landry and Christine de Pizan. Jansen, Anne of France, 12–13.

7

REGENT AND REGNANT (1370–1395)

239

The Building Projects of Elizabeth Kotromani´c While Elizabeth of Bosnia did try to match her mother-in-law in terms of artistic representation and literary skill, her building projects are significantly smaller. In 1378, Queen Elizabeth exchanged one stone house (with other buildings) in the German quarter of Visegrád with the Bánfi Alsólendvai family. In 1378, the queen also owned two other properties in the city.52 This demonstrates that even in royal centers queens still had town houses and properties of their own. A relief of nine Biblical figures found at Diósgy˝ or in 1960 has been attributed to Elizabeth Kotromani´c, as the closest parallels with this sort of relief can be found in the Balkans.53 Around 1385, Elizabeth Kotromani´c founded a Poor Clares cloister at Sárospatak dedicated to St. Anne; it was built adjacent to the Franciscan monastery there.54 Her mother-in-law, Elizabeth of Poland, had famously been a patron of the Poor Clares as well, so it is interesting to see the younger Elizabeth support the same Order during her time of regency and relative independence. Sárospatak as a site for such a convent is also important for the dynasty as it was described as the birthplace of St. Elizabeth.55 The dedication to St. Anne is worth noting as well. St. Anne was particularly revered by childless women, particularly older women who still wished to conceive. St. Anne was also often depicted in Western Europe in her role as teacher to the Virgin Mary, particularly in England.56 Depending on the younger Elizabeth’s involvement in this foundation, it is possible the dedication to St. Anne referred to Elizabeth

52 Szende thinks it’s Elizabeth Piast, while Mészáros thinks it’s Elizabeth of Bosnia. Szende, “Les châteaux de reines,” 161; Orsolya Mészáros, “The Reconstructed Topographical Gazetteer,” in The Medieval Royal Town at Visegrád: Royal Centre, Urban Settlement, Churches, ed. Gergely Buzás, József Laszlovszky, and Orsolya Mészáros (Budapest: Archaeolingua, 2014), 117–118. 53 Szende, “Les châteaux de reines,” 164. 54 Romhányi, Kolostorok és társaskáptalanok a középkori Magyarországon, 57; Béla

Kovács, Az egri egyházmegye története 1596-ig [The History of the Diocese of Eger Until 1596] (Eger, 1987), 113. 55 Kosztolnyik, Hungary in the Thirteenth Century, 404. 56 Roberta Gilchrist, Medieval Life: Archaeology and the Life Course (Woodbridge: The

Boydell Press, 2012), 134, 174.

240

C. MIELKE

Kotromani´c’s own education of her three daughters as evidenced by the book of instruction she wrote for them.57 Burial of Elizabeth of Bosnia Three skeletons from the northwestern part of the basilica of Székesfehérvár were identified as numbers I/5, I/6, and I/7. Significant portions of the skeletons are missing, but the remaining bones indicate that they are all roughly from the fourteenth century. I/5 is of a man aged roughly 52–58, I/6 is of a woman aged roughly 40–49, and I/7 is of a child of indeterminate gender aged 9–13 years. Considering the ages of the bodies and their dating, it was proposed that these were the bodies of Louis I “the Great” (r. 1342–1382, I/5), his first wife Margaret of Luxemburg, (d. 1349, aged fourteen, I/7) and his second wife, Elizabeth of Bosnia (d. 1387, aged forty-eight, I/6). More recent studies suggest that the male skeleton is Charles I Robert, father of Louis I.58 Both I/6 and I/7 (supposedly Elizabeth and Margaret) are missing their skulls so it is impossible to tell much more about them. The skeleton from I/6 indicates that this woman stood around 168 cm tall. The fragmentation of Elizabeth’s body could be due either to this reburial or to later graverobbing.59 Elizabeth of Bosnia was strangled while she and her daughter Queen Mary were held captive at Novigrad, and originally her body was buried at the Church of St. Chrysogonus in Zadar. Later, her body was disinterred by her daughter and buried in Székesfehérvár beneath a lifesize marble effigy.60 Unfortunately, the only artifacts recovered near the bodies were coffin nails.61 Elizabeth of Bosnia made several great and unique material contributions during her time as queen, though the known material only survives after she had surviving children. One of her most significant accomplishments is the authorship of a book of instruction written explicitly for 57 Romhányi, Kolostorok és társaskáptalanok a középkori Magyarországon, 57. 58 Charles’ first wife, Maria of Bytom was buried at Székesfehérvár.

Engel, “Temetkezések a középkori székesfehérvári bazilikában,” 622; Éry, Marcsik, Nemeskéri, Szalai, “Az épített sírok csontvázleletei (I. csoport),” 95, 98, 100–102. 59 Éry, Marcsik, Nemeskéri, Szalai, “Az épített sírok csontvázleletei (I. csoport),” 100. 60 Ibid., 100; Hankó, A magyar királysírok sorsa, 137. 61 Éry, Marcsik, Nemeskéri, Szalai, “Az épített sírok csontvázleletei (I. csoport),” 100–

102.

7

REGENT AND REGNANT (1370–1395)

241

her young daughters. Elizabeth also ordered a massive silver sarcophagus for the body of St. Simeon to be housed in Zadar; many effects of hers, including a crown, were recovered from this context. While mostly remembered for her problematic regency (which cost her her life), she utilized many of the same strategies of self-representation employed by her mother-in-law, and in some cases even tried to outdo her. Her building activities only took place on the frontiers of the kingdom (particularly Zadar and Sárospatak) and her other contributions were more at a private, courtly level.

Mary (r. 1382–1395) Six Seals of Queen Mary Queen Mary used a total of six seals; three great (or majestic) seals and three signet rings. The first great seal of Queen Mary is seen not only as a fantastic piece of art historical value, but also as a link between art at the Angevin court and art in the reign of King Sigismund (r. 1387–1437).62 The same goldsmith who made Queen Mary’s great seal could have also made liturgical objects the Hungarian court donated to the Chapel at Aachen.63 The front of the great seal depicts Mary sitting on a throne and holding a scepter and orb. She is crowned and flanked by Gothic architecture and two shields: the Hungarian Angevin coat of arms on the left, and the double-barred cross on the right. There are two rings of inscription on the front, but none refer to her father; instead she has the full royal titles listed out. At 94 mm, Mary’s seal, and that of her grandmother Elizabeth of Poland, are the two largest seals of the Hungarian queens before 1526, though it is still not as big as some of the seals of thirteenth-century kings. Over half of the charters issued by Queen Mary are from the period of sole rule, from 1382 to 1386; the period from 1387 to 1395 when she ruled with Sigismund shows regular but less intensive activity issuing documents. Mary used her great seal most often in her period of sole rulership (i.e. during the regency of her mother) and

62 György Racz and Ern˝ o Marosi, “Urkunde der ungarischen Königin Maria (13821395) für Ragusa mit dem doppelten Hoheitssiegel,” in Sigismundus Rex et Imperator, ed. Imre Takács. (Mainz: Philipp von Zabern, 2006), 59–60. 63 Ern˝ o Marosi, “Der grosse Münzsiegel der Königin Maria von Ungarn: Zum Problem der Serialität Mittelalterlicher Kunstwerke,” Acta Historiae Artium XXVIII (1982): 6.

242

C. MIELKE

Fig. 7.4 Great seal of Queen Mary. From György Pray, Syntagma historicum de sigillis regum, et reginarum Hungariae (1805)

during her marriage with Sigismund she used her third signet ring most often (Fig. 7.4). On the reverse of Queen Mary’s great seal, there are several new aspects that distinguish it from earlier seals of both queens and kings. The central element of the Hungarian cross is maintained, and flanked by two ostriches holding horseshoes. Above the cross, St. Ladislas is depicted from the waist up, holding an axe and an orb. St. Ladislas was an important figure at the Angevin court, representing the ideal of a chivalric warrior king64 ; both Queen Mary and her husband Sigismund were buried near his grave, at the cathedral in Oradea (Nagyvárad). The first evidence for Mary using this seal is from February 20, 1383, while the last time it was identifiably used was June 10, 1386, shortly before she was imprisoned.65 Three documents from 1388 have an impression

64 Klaniczay, Holy Rulers and Blessed Princesses, 183–194. 65 MNL OL DF 6987 and 7201.

7

REGENT AND REGNANT (1370–1395)

243

of a seal the size of Mary’s first majestic seal, but there is no wax remains to verify if this is the same seal.66 Four documents hint to Queen Mary using a second majestic seal between 1384 and 1386.67 This seal is about 49 mm in diameter and distinguished from the other two in a few ways, notably the pointed gable above the head of the queen, its size, and the fact that there is only one ring of text around the central field (the other two majestic seals have two lines of text). The elements present on Mary’s first majestic seal are also found here, just on a smaller scale; the Queen is enthroned, wearing a crown and holding a scepter topped by a lily, seated on a richly decorated throne, and flanked by two escutcheons which feature the Hungarian Angevin coat of arms on one side and the Hungarian double-barred cross on the other.68 Her use of this seal during this period is somewhat mysterious as she is still using the great seal on a regular basis at this time. There is a third double seal of Queen Mary which looks similar to her first great seal. Most of the elements are present in both; the crowned queen seated on a throne holding a scepter and on the back the Hungarian double-barred cross topped with the image of St. Ladislas. Her third seal is about half the size of her great seal; the latter is around 94 mm while the former is around 50 mm. The niche that Mary is sitting in on the obverse is much more pointed than in her great seal and on the reverse, St. Ladislas has his right arm extended while in her great seal, St. Ladislas’s right arm is closer to his torso. There are three charters from 1388 to 1390 which have surviving fragments of this seal, all severely fragmented.69 While the Queen starts using this seal (on the rare occasion) after her marriage with Sigismund, her last charter with a hanging seal is from 1392, indicating that she used it from 1388 to 1392.70 Szentpétery identified one great seal and three secret seals (i.e. signet rings) of Queen Mary; two signet rings featured the Hungarian Angevin coat of arms and one featured the Hungarian Angevin escutcheon

66 MNL OL DF 7309, 100227, and 100231. 67 MNL OL DF 52479, 5537, 201060, and 64840. 68 Ern˝ o Marosi, “Kisebb felségpecsét” [Smaller Majestic Seal], in M˝ uvészet I. Lajos király

korában, 1342–1382: katalogus, ed. Ern˝ o Marosi, Melinda Tóth, Lívia Varga, and István Király Múzeum (Budapest: MTA M˝ uvészettörténeti Kutató Csoport, 1982), 151. 69 MNL OL DF 65807, 7427, 7659. 70 MNL OL DF 65807, 7742.

244

C. MIELKE

crowned by a helmet with a plumed ostrich holding a feather in its mouth.71 Her first signet ring was in use from 1384 to 1386, though possibly as early as 1382.72 The inscription identifies it as her secret seal and features the Hungarian Angevin coat of arms. Shortly after the last time she used her first signet ring (June 10, 1386), Mary and her mother were imprisoned in Novigrad.73 After her release in July 1387, there was one document issued by Queen Mary of Hungary which features a singular signet impression not found anywhere else.74 This seal is practically identical to Mary’s first signet ring with one notable exception—the escutcheon featuring the Árpádian stripes and the Angevin field of lilies are reversed. A drawing from 1805 has preserved the inscription as “Seal of Mary by the grace of God Queen of Hungary etc.75 ” Considering the timing Mary used this seal, it could be a temporary replacement if her first seal had been lost in the turmoil of 1386–1387. The following year, Mary had a new replacement, her third signet ring which she employed on most documents issued until her death in 1395. One of the largest signet rings, it features several elements known to the Hungarian Angevins—a crowned helmet over the Hungarian Angevin coat of arms topped by a plumed ostrich with a horseshoe in its beak. These emblems are in an octagonal field flanked by scrollwork and with the inscription on the border. The illustration shows the inscription to be similar to her second signet ring.76 As this signet became her primary means of securing documents in the last seven years of her life, it likely had a great deal of importance to her (Fig. 7.5). The imagery and iconographic program reflect both Mary’s interest in dynastic continuity as well as her own unique status as queen regnant. Her three double seals recall the imagery and heraldic devices used on the

71 Imre Szentpétery, Magyar Oklevéltan [Hungarian Diplomatics] (Budapest: Maguar Történelmi Társulat, 1930), 199–200; Sándor Szilagyi, ed. A Magyar Nemzet Története [Hungarian National History], Vol. III (Budapest: Athenaeum Irodalmi, 1895), 365; Pray, Syntagma historicum de sigillis regum, et reginarum Hungariae, Tab. XI, 7 and 8. 72 MNL OL DF 249142, 42283, 42359. 73 Pál Engel and C. Norbert Tóth, Itineraria Regum et Reginarum (1382–1438)

(Budapest: MTA Történettudományi Intézetében, 2005), 38. 74 MNL OL DF 7304. 75 Pray, Syntagma historicum de sigillis regum, et reginarum Hungariae, Tab. XI, 7. 76 Ibid., Tab. XI, 8.

7

REGENT AND REGNANT (1370–1395)

245

Fig. 7.5 Third Signet Ring of Queen Mary. From György Pray, Syntagma historicum de sigillis regum, et reginarum Hungariae (1805)

seals of her father—the enthroned monarch on the obverse, the doublebarred cross in the shield, St. Ladislas and the ostriches with horseshoes in their mouth. Her seal is the only one wherein the double-barred cross is in a shield, rather than in a field with flowers. Coins of Queen Mary Queen Mary is the only woman who minted coins in her own right in medieval Hungary, starting with the first years of her reign which she ruled with her mother, Elizabeth Kotromani´c as regent. Contrary to Stahl’s opinion that she stopped minting coins after her marriage with Sigismund of Luxemburg in 1387, at least four of her coins were minted from 1384 until her death in 1395.77 A recent auction catalog has turned 77 Curiously enough, Stahl cites Huszár who includes coinage minted during the reign of her husband. Stahl, “Coinage in the Name of Medieval Women,” 324; Huszár,

246

C. MIELKE

up a coin of Queen Mary which was likely issued during the period of conflict with Charles II of Durazzo in 1385–1386 due to stylistic similarities with other coins and elements borrowed from the Neapolitan court.78 Coins of Mary were minted in Székesfehervár, Buda, Košice (in Slovakia, formerly Kassa), Baia Mare (in Romania, also Nagybánya), Kremnica (in Slovakia, formerly Körmöcbánya), Sremska Mitrovica (in Serbia), Timi¸soara (in Romania, formerly Temesvár), Sibiu (in Romania, also Nagyszeben), Bratislava (in Slovakia, also Pozsony or Preßburg), and Oradea (in Romania, also Nagyvárad). Comparisons of silver coins minted by Queen Mary and Sigismund from 1385 to 1400 show that Mary’s coins had significantly lower silver content. This was attributed to the instability during her minority and conflict with Austria (Fig. 7.6).79 The imagery on the coinage of Queen Mary is conservative. This is hardly surprising since coins minted by women and under their authority rarely had feminine iconography.80 The chronological development of the denars issued by Queen Mary suggests that the earliest of her coins featured St. Ladislas like the last coins minted by her father.81 This was followed by a denar with the Hungarian double-barred cross and a crowned letter “M.” During the years of joint rule with Sigismund (1387–1395), denars with a Hungarian double-barred cross tipped with pearls and a crown above the mint mark appear.82 The coins issued by Mary’s husband Sigismund in the 1380s and 1390s were similar to his wife’s, consisting of the same heraldic devices with a few of his own Münzkatalog Ungarn, 92–93; Csaba Tóth, “Mária királyn˝ o dénárjainak korrendje” [A Chronology of the Denars of Queen Mary], Az Érem 58 (2002): 7–11. 78 This recently discovered obolus has a crown of Queen Mary dated to the 1380s, but on the back there is a Latin-type cross, rather than the usual Hungarian double-barred cross. József Géza Kiss and Róbert Ujszászi, “Mária királyn˝ o obulusai” [The Obols of Queen Mary], Az Érem LXXI (2014): 1–4. 79 Sigismund also ended the practice of the coins being exchanged and melted down on a yearly basis, which might explain the relative stability of the silver content in the coins. B. Constantinescu, R. Bugoi, E. Oberländer-Târnoveau, K. Pârvan, “Medieval Silver Coins Analyses by PIXE and ED-XRF Techniques,” Romanian Journal of Physics 54/5–6: 486–487; Huszár, Münzkatalog Ungarn, 12. 80 Stahl, “Coinage in the Name of Medieval Women,” 323. 81 St. Ladislas would remain on Hungarian coinage until 1471. Huszár, Münzkatalog

Ungarn, 12. 82 Tóth, “Mária királyn˝ o dénárjainak korrendje” [A Chronology of the Denars of Queen Mary], 7–11.

7

REGENT AND REGNANT (1370–1395)

247

Fig. 7.6 Coinage issued by Queen Mary. From László Réthy, Corpus Nummorum Hungariae (1899–1907)

personal devices thrown in as well.83 This was most likely part of his strategy to legitimize his fifty-year rule in Hungary, especially after the death of Mary.84 Examining the coins issued by Mary’s younger sister, Queen Jadwiga of Poland (r. 1383–1399) offers a unique comparison of numismatic evidence issued by female rulers in medieval Central Europe. Jadwiga only minted coins in Cracow and Poznan´ during her brief period of independent rule from 1384 to 1386 before her marriage with Jogaila of Lithuania (Władysław II).85 These coins featured an eagle on one side and the Hungarian Angevin coat of arms on the other. This is a great

83 For example, the Brandenburg eagle. Huszár, Münzkatalog Ungarn, 93–95. 84 A similar observation can be seen after the husband of Joanna I of Naples (r. 1343–

1381) succeeded her as king. William Monter, “Gendered Sovereignty: Numismatics and Female Monarchs in Europe, 1300-1800,” Journal of Interdisciplinary History XLI: 4 (2011): 540–541. 85 Stronczynski, ´ Dawne monety polskie dynastyi Piast´ow i Jagiellon´ow, Vol. II, 48.

248

C. MIELKE

contrast to the continued and extensive minting activities of her overlooked sister. The denars, oboli, and florins issued by Mary were minted all over the kingdom. One came from at least seven known mints, while another was minted in at least ten different places.86 Overall, the picture that emerges is a complex one reflecting a desire for continuity in imagery, temporary instability in the metallic content, and a wide area of control in her minting activity. Crown and Orb from Oradea While digging for a well in June 1755 at the remains of the former cathedral of the city of Oradea (in Hungarian, Nagyvárad), the Fortress Commander Charles de Canon Marquis de Ville uncovered several pieces of royal regalia that were later dated to the end of the fourteenth century. He reports in two letters dated July 13, 1755 to Maria Theresa (r. 1740– 1780) that a female skeleton in a grave as well as a crown and orb were discovered. The six pieces of the crown were sent to Vienna in July 1755, as well as the orb and a small gold and enamel piece featuring the symbol of the Order of the Dragon, which has since been lost.87 However, since King Sigismund was also buried at Oradea with Queen Mary, some have pointed out that the presence of the enamel piece with the Order of the Dragon on it could only have come from the grave of Sigismund as the Order was founded in 1408, thirteen years after Mary’s death. The conclusion they reach is that all the artifacts are thus from Sigismund’s grave alone.88 However, since the archaeological context for these finds

86 Pohl, Münzzeichen und Meisterzeichen auf Ungarischen Münzen des Mittelalters 1300– 1540, Tables 30–33. 87 A gold embroidered silk vestment was also found later. There is also a gold filigree bracelet with six diamonds attributed to this grave, but its unclear archaeological context may mean that it is a nineteenth-century piece instead. Sándor Márki, Mária, Magyarország Királynéja 1370–1395 (Budapest: A Magyar tört társulat kiadása, 1885), 149 n 3; Etele Kiss, “Bracelet,” in Hungaria regia (1000-1800): fastes et défis, ed. Sandor ˝ and Luc Duerloo (Turnhout: Brepols, 1999), 124–125. Oze 88 Éva Kovács, “A gótikus ronde-bosse zománc a budai udvarban” [A Gothic ronde-bosse Enamel in the Court of Buda], M˝ uvészettörténeti Értesít˝o 31/2 (1982): 89–92; Etele Kiss, “Six éléments d’une couronne,” in L’Europe des Anjou: aventure des princes angevins du XIIIe et XIVe siècle, ed. Guy Le Goff et al. (Paris: Somogy, 2001), 338–339; Takács, “Bruchstück einer Krone,” 94–95.

7

REGENT AND REGNANT (1370–1395)

249

is so mixed up, it is worth further examination, especially in light of some evidence that the crown and/or orb could be Mary’s. In 1638, excavations revealed a tomb containing a crown, a scepter, a monstrance, and many golden ornaments and vestments. Their provenience and current whereabouts are both unknown.89 Kovács suggested that the crown found in 1755 originally adorned the head reliquary of St. Ladislas in the Cathedral, a gift from Louis the Great during his pilgrimage in 1352.90 However, the finds from 1755 were discovered while digging a well, indicating that these objects were found at greater depths than the finds from 1638. The set of objects found suggest that the finds from 1638 were a set of liturgical objects while the finds from 1755 would be more keeping in line with traditional grave goods, in which case the suggestion that the crown fragments were for liturgical use seems highly unlikely. The crown dates from the mid-fourteenth century, originating from a Hungarian workshop that was heavily influenced by the art of Venetian goldsmiths. If this was the case, the signs of wear can be explained by several decades of use.91 Stylistically, it is similar to other Hungarian crowns, like those from Zadar, Trogir, and another from Krušedol which was given to that monastery by female relatives of Barbara of Celje, second wife of King Sigismund.92 If the crown from Oradea had originally belonged to Louis (or his wife or mother!), the most logical explanation for its appearance in a tomb at Oradea is that it was buried with his daughter and heir, Mary. In her own self-imaging, she uses devices and imagery associated with her father, and in certain donations she refers to herself as the daughter of Louis, rather than the wife of Sigismund. While Sigismund was no doubt buried with all the pomp and circumstance due 89 The objects suggest an ecclesiastic rather than a royal grave. Terézia Kerny, “Begräbnis und Begräbnisstätte von König Sigismund,” in Sigismundus Rex et Imperator: Kunst und Kultur zur Zeit Sigismunds von Luxemburg, 1387 –1437 ; Imre Takács, et al. (Mainz: Philipp von Zabern, 2006), 478. 90 Kiss, “Six éléments d’une couronne,” 338–339; Éva Kovács, “Magyarországi Anjou koronák” [Hungarian Angevin Crowns], Ars Hungarica 62/1 (1976): 10. 91 Kiss suggests that the crown segments were sewn onto fabric at some point, like the crown in Zadar. Kiss, “Six éléments d’une couronne,” 338–339. 92 Kóvacs, “Magyarországi Anjou koronák,” 7, 11; Éva Kovács, “Liliomos korona egy ága Krušedol monostorból” [A Piece of a Lily Crown from the Monastery of Krušedol], in M˝ uvészet I. Lajos király korában, 1342–1382 (Budapest: MTA M˝ uvészettörténeti Kutató Csoport, 1982), 101.

250

C. MIELKE

to his rank, he was also the Holy Roman Emperor and King of Bohemia, so being buried with an open coronet nearly a century old only because of the connection it had with his father-in-law does not seem so likely. While the lost emblem of the Order of the Dragon found at the site was undoubtedly associated with him, given what is known of the piece, its context, and its history, Mary emerges as a better candidate as the original owner of this crown. The orb found with the crown is a plain silver gilt orb consisting of two halves topped with a Latin cross.93 It has also traditionally been ascribed to Sigismund, partly because orbs are usually associated with male as well as a specifically imperial rule. However, others have pointed out that Queen Mary could have been buried with the orb.94 Stylistically, many queens are depicted holding an orb in their visual sources, but there is only one queen from 1000 to 1600 who was buried with an orb. This was Mary’s sister, Jadwiga, the queen regnant of Poland. Like Yolanda of Courtenay and her mother Elizabeth Kotromani´c, Mary appears with an orb on her seal. As Mary had been crowned “king” in 1382, it is entirely plausible that she had the full set of regalia used at her coronation as well as at her burial. While the orb’s owner may never be definitively known, it is nonetheless important to evaluate earlier statements that the grave goods all belong to Sigismund based on finds with little to no archaeological context (Fig. 7.7). Items Queen Mary Donated to the Church Nineteenth-century antiquarians mention a bell that was cast by Mary to be rung in the Hospital Church in Gyöngyös; it apparently was still extant in 1828.95 While concerns about Mailáth’s reliability are warranted, this donation is plausible. Over half of the hospitals with a known foundation date in Hungary date from c. 1350 to 1450, so if Mary had taken an

93 Imre Takács, “Reichsapfel,” in Sigismundus Rex et Imperator: Kunst und Kultur zur

Zeit Sigismunds von Luxemburg, 1387 –1437 , ed. Imre Takács, et al. (Mainz: Philipp von Zabern, 2006), 95. 94 Twining, European Regalia, 201–206, 212. 95 Johann Mailáth, Geschichte der Magyaren, Vol. II (Vienna: F. Tendler, 1828), 118;

Sophia Elizabeth Higgins, Women of Europe in the Fifteenth and Sixteenth Centuries, Vol. I. (London: Hurst and Blackett, 1885), 333.

7

REGENT AND REGNANT (1370–1395)

251

Fig. 7.7 Orb found in royal tomb at Oradea. Hungarian National Museum. 1934.415.b

252

C. MIELKE

interest in a regional hospital it was at the peak of their foundations.96 The hospital was established around the turn of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, just outside the city gate.97 Like many other hospitals in Hungary, the one in Gyöngyös had St. Elizabeth of Hungary as its patron saint.98 Sadly, one year after a restoration in 1943, a bomb fell on this hospital church, causing the entire vault to collapse.99 If this bell had even still existed at this point, it was most likely destroyed then. What is unique about this donation is that, unlike the others, it was heard and not seen. This hospital bell would not only be heard in the building complex, but also in the neighboring areas as well. Queen Mary might have also commissioned a brocade chair cover. The piece features the resurrected Christ rising from the grave surrounded by six-pointed stars done in silver embroidery. The top strip depicts the Angevin coats of arms, double-barred crosses, and fleur-de-lys, while the two vertical sides are decorated with vines and floral motifs and trimmed with modern tassels.100 A recent suggestion points to an embroidery workshop mentioned in the will of Elizabeth of Poland operating at the

96 Judit Majorossy and Katalin Szende, “Hospitals in Medieval and Early Modern Hungary,” in Europäisches Spitalwesen. Institutionelle Fürsorge in Mittelalter und Früher Neuzeit: Hospitals and Institutional Care in Medieval and Early Modern Europe, ed. Martin Scheutz et al. (Vienna and Munich: R. Oldenbourg Verlag, 2008), 417–418. 97 The earliest written record of the hospital dates from 1550. Ilona Valter, “A gyöngyösi Szent Erzsébet – a volt ispotály – temploma” [The St. Elizabeth—former Hospital—Church in Gyöngyös], in Quasi Liber et Pictura: Studies in Honour of András Kubinyi on his Seventieth Birthday, ed. Gyöngyi Kovács (Budapest, 2004), 607–608. 98 Where patron saints of hospitals are known, she is the most popular, followed by the Holy Spirit. Majorossy and Szende, “Hospitals in Medieval and Early Modern Hungary,” 431–432. 99 Valter, “A gyöngyösi Szent Erzsébet – a volt ispotály – temploma,” 608–609. 100 The brocade throne cover most likely originated from the Pauline monastery of

Göncruszka, a possession of the Kornis family; it was later postulated that it was a throne carpet for a bishop’s throne. Pál Cséfalvay, “Anjou-kárpit” [The Angevin Carpet], in M˝ uvészet I. Lajos király korában 1342–1382, 117–118; Etele Kiss, “Devant d’autel ou dorsal fait du brocart de trône des Angevins,” in L’Europe des Anjou: aventure des princes angevins du XIIIe au XVe siècle, ed. Guy Le Goff et al. (Paris: Somogy éditions d’art, 2001), 339.

7

REGENT AND REGNANT (1370–1395)

253

Clarisses cloister at Óbuda.101 While the relationship between the Queen (either Elizabeth or Mary) and this brocade chair cover is still not totally clear, the presence of the royal heraldry on it points to a connection with the Angevins in some fashion. Queen Mary’s Books and the University of Óbuda Shortly after Elizabeth Kotromani´c was strangled in 1387, a Venetian delegation rescued her daughter Mary, from the Dalmatian town of Senj (now in Croatia). According to one of their chief diplomats named Lorenzo Monaci,102 the young queen asked him to write a chronicle of contemporary events pertinent to Hungary’s recent history. The result is that rather than a chronicle of Hungary, it is a 560 line poem in Latin hexameter. Instead of the focus being on the queens, it is on the murder of Charles II of Durazzo (r. 1385–1386) and the villainy of the Neapolitans; the title of the work, Carmen seu historica Carolo II cognomento Parvo Rege Hungariae is indicative of this.103 Monaci claims that the poem is meant to refute Tuscan gossip that Elizabeth and Mary invited Charles II specifically to kill him, and it manages a deliberately proVenetian interpretation of the events in Hungary. Mary serves rather as a placeholder between her father and her husband as the occupant of the Hungarian throne.104 Most historians of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries have taken this work at face value and the image of Queen Mary as a dynastic puppet caught between her mother’s regency and 101 Elizabeth’s will mentions a satin decoration which was decorated with pearls and made in the Poor Clares cloister of Óbuda. Kiss, “Devant d’autel ou dorsal fait du brocart de trône des Angevins,” 339; Marosi, “A 14. századi Magyarország udvari m˝ uvészettörténetírásban,” 74, n 32. 102 Monaci was a Venetian official who was in Hungary in 1386–1387, 1389, and 1390. None of his other poetry has survived. Serban ¸ Marin, “A Venetian Chronicler in Crete: The Case of Lorenzo de’ Monaci and His Possible Byzantine Sources,” in Italy and Europe’s Eastern Border: 1204–1669, ed. Iulian Mihai Damian et al. (Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 2012), 240–242, 247–257. 103 The original is Vat. Lat. 11507. Lorenzo de Monaci, “Laurentii de Monacis Veneti carmen seu historia Carolo II cognomento Parvo Rege Hungariae,” in Laurentii de Monacis Veneti Crete cancelarii chronicon de rebus Venetis etc., ed. Flaminius Cornelius (Venice, 1758), 321–338; Marianne Sághy, “Aspects of Female Rulership in Late Medieval Literature: The Queens’ Reign in Angevin Hungary,” East Central Europe 20–23/I (1993–1996): 77–79. 104 Sághy, “Aspects of Female Rulership,” 78–79.

254

C. MIELKE

her husband’s rulership still predominates.105 Part of the problem of the poem Mary commissioned from Monaci lies in its success; it vindicates her actions during the turbulent years of her sole reign and her mother’s regency. Blame gets placed not only on Charles II but also the regency of Elizabeth Kotromani´c and Mary emerges as a wronged martyr caught in the web of intrigues of others. Yet this pervasive view has obscured Mary’s actions in spite of the fact that her commission of this piece shows an awareness of her own importance and the power of written propaganda. János Rimai, writing over two hundred years after the death of Queen Mary, notes how she owned a Hungarian language prayer book. Considering the literary patronage of the women in her immediate family, this is highly probable.106 When the Florian Psalter was discovered at the Sankt Florian monastery in Linz in 1827, initially it was thought that this Book of Psalms in Latin, Polish, and German was owned by Margaret of Luxemburg (d. 1349), the first wife of Louis I of Hungary.107 The primary means for identification comes from folios 50v and 53v, which have two identifying features: two letters MM which intersect with each other, and the Hungarian Angevin coat of arms complete with the crest of the ostrich with a horseshoe in its beak.108 However, it is more likely that one of the daughters of Louis I of Hungary owned the psalter: either Mary of Hungary (r. 1382–1399) or Jadwiga of Poland (r. 1383– 1399).109 The interlinked letter “M”s could indicate that the Florian Psalter was first owned by Mary of Hungary before her sister Jadwiga, though others explain that the MM monogram is that it is a sign of

105 Saghy’s assessment is that “The young queen never possessed actual political power in her country: this was held first by her mother and then by her husband. In the eight remaining years of her life Mary was involved only in royal donations of property and in charitable work.” Sághy, “Aspects of Female Rulership,” 77. 106 Csapodi and Gárdonyi-Csapodiné, Bibliotheca Hungarica, Vol. III, 73 Item 427. 107 Stanislaw Dunin-Borkowski, Psałterz Królowéj Małgorzaty pierwszej małzonki ˙

Ludwika I. Króla Polskiego I wegierskiego corki Króla czeskiego I Cesarza Karola IV [Psalter of Queen Margaret, first wife of Louis I King of Poland and Hungary, daughter of Emperor Charles IV]. (Vienna: Strauss, 1834), vi–viii. 108 Sniezynska-Stolot identifies the ostrich as a Polish eagle. Éva Sniezynska-Stolot, “Psałterz Florianski ´ z punktu widzenia historyka sztuki” [The Sankt Florian Psalter from the Perspective of an Art Historian]. Rocznik Biblioteki Narodowej XLII (2011): 87–89. 109 Dunin-Borkowski, Psałterz Królowéj Małgorzaty, vi–viii; Wladislaus Nehring, ˙ Psalterii Florianensis Partem Polonicam ad Fidem codicis (Poznan: ´ J. K. Zupa nski, ´ 1883), vi–viii.

7

REGENT AND REGNANT (1370–1395)

255

Jadwiga’s devotion to the biblical figures of Mary and Martha.110 One possibility is that the Florian Psalter was a gift from Mary to Jadwiga; when the sisters met in 1395, Jadwiga gave Mary a yellow velvet saddle shortly before the latter’s death from falling off a horse while pregnant (Fig. 7.8).111 There is also the issue of the founding and refounding of the University of Óbuda, first in 1395, then again in 1410. The first charter of the university has been dated to October 6, 1395, and is usually attributed to the will of Sigismund of Luxemburg. However, several aspects point to Mary’s involvement before her death on May 17, 1395. The man appointed the Chancellor of the University of Óbuda was named Lukács Szántai, the provost of Óbuda. He appears in a document from 1392 as the provost of the Church of St. Peter in Óbuda as well as Queen Mary’s secret chancellor. Furthermore, as Queen Mary owned part of the city of Óbuda, she was in a much more advantageous position to offer space to the fledgling university than her husband.112 All this points to the possibility that Mary could have initiated this university which her husband completed after her death. Mary’s sister Jadwiga took an active interest in strengthening universities in Central Europe as well. Jadwiga is perhaps best remembered as stipulating in her will that her jewels were to be spent refounding the University of Cracow which her great-uncle Casimir III the Great (r. 1333–1370) had first established in 1364, but 110 Csapodi and Gárdonyi-Csapodiné, Bibliotheca Hungarica, Vol. II, 197 Item 2590; Sniezynska-Stolot, “Psałterz Florianski ´ z punktu widzenia historyka sztuki,” 90; Krzysztof Ozóg, ˙ “Krakowskie s´rodowisko umysłowe na przełomie XIV i XV wieku a problem powstania Psałterza florianskiego” ´ [The Intellectual Circles in Cracow at the Turn of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Centuries and the Problem of the Creation of the Sankt Florian Psalter], Rocznik Biblioteki Narodowej XLII (2011): 108–110. 111 Monica Gardner, Queen Jadwiga of Poland (Dublin: Browne and Nolan, 1944),

158. 112 László Domonkos, “The History of the Sigismundean Foundation of the University of Óbuda (Hungary),” in Studies on the University of Óbuda 1395–1995, ed. László Domonkos et al. (Budapest: Eötvös University Press, 1995), 4–6; György Székely, “Hungarian Universities in the Middle Ages: The University of Óbuda,” in Studies on the University of Óbuda 1395–1995, ed. László Domonkos et al. (Budapest: Eötvös University Press, 1995), 30–31; László Domonkos, “The Founding (1395) and Refounding (1410) of the University of Óbuda,” in Universitas Budensis 1395–1995, ed. László Szögi and Júlia Varga (Budapest: Archive of the Eötvös Loránd University, Budapest, 1997), 20, 24.

256

C. MIELKE

Fig. 7.8 The Florian Psalter, folio 53v, c. 1395–1405. National Library of Poland

7

REGENT AND REGNANT (1370–1395)

257

which had been slowly dissolved.113 Before that, she also sponsored a college at the University of Prague to aid in the conversion of her new Lithuanian subjects.114 Construction Projects—the Palace of Buda and the Carmelite Cloister in Prešov Louis I began renovating the thirteenth-century Stephen Tower in Buda, extending to form the modern palace complex off of it dating as early as the 1370s.115 This phase was completed by Sigismund and Mary in the 1390s, with additional renovations by Sigismund completed by the 1420s after he moved the capital back to Buda in 1408.116 The western wing joined onto the Stephen Tower comprised three or four rooms, possibly the royal suite. The northern wing had a great hall, and toward the end of the fourteenth century the eastern wing joined to the hall; this could have been the apartments of the queen.117 In the time of Queen Mary and King Sigismund, a second sizeable tower was built on the western palace wing, attached to the second courtyard. This rectangular tower was divided into six parts, and its huge size for such a private dwelling of a queen would have emphasized the queen regnant’s power. It was never finished, however, and was used as a prison in the fifteenth century.118 Unfortunately, Queen Mary’s impact on this building is difficult to parse apart and her involvement in construction from 1382 to 113 These jewels were mostly from a collection of the Angevin dynasty. Benedek Lang, Unlocked Books: Manuscripts of Learned Magic in the Medieval Libraries of Central Europe (University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 2008), 244; Stanislaw Dziedzic, Alma Mater Jagellonica (Cracow: Fundacja dla Uniwersytetu Jagiellonskogo, ´ 2005), 21; Karol Estreicher, The Collegium Maius of the Jagiellonian University in Cracow (Warsaw: Interpress Publishers, 1973), 12–13. 114 Václav Chaloupecký, The Caroline University of Prague, Its Foundation, Character, and Development in the Fourteenth Century (Prague: Orbis 1948), 81; Stanislaw Dziedzic, Alma Mater Jagellonica (Cracow: Fundacja dla Uniwersytetu Jagiellonskogo, ´ 2005), 21. 115 Gerevich, The Art of Buda and Pest in the Middle Ages, 84; Végh, “Buda,” 167,

188. 116 Végh, “Buda,” 192–193. 117 Károly Magyar, “Der Königspalast in Buda,” in Budapest im Mittelalter, ed. Gerd

Biegel, 202 (Brunswick: Braunschweigischen Landesmuseums, 1992), 212–219; Buzás, “The Functional Reconstruction of the Visegrád Royal Palace,” 169. 118 Buzás, “The Functional Reconstruction of the Visegrád Royal Palace,” 172.

258

C. MIELKE

1395 has remained elusive.119 Several coins of Queen Mary were found in debris layers of the southern (i.e. more public) parts of the Visegrád palace, indicating that earlier buildings had been demolished under her reign.120 The Carmelite cloister of Prešov, Slovakia (Eperjes) is attributed to Mary. Construction began in 1388, but Queen Mary did not live to see its completion as several buildings were still unfinished in 1398. This building has not been surveyed, but the nave of the church was about 40 m long and 12.5 m wide. The Carmelite Order was small in Hungary; only four houses are known, and of the other three examples, one of them was founded partially by Elizabeth of Poland.121 The Carmelites enjoyed royal favor from figures like Henry IV of England and his father John of Gaunt.122 It is possible that Mary’s (or Sigismund’s) foundation of this cloister reflects a more international interest in the order at other European courts. For the moment, this is the best explanation for the queen’s interest in the order as it does not seem she took interest either in founding other monasteries or even expressing other interest in the Carmelites in general. Burial at Oradea Queen Mary died unexpectedly on May 17, 1395 in a horse riding accident in the Vértes Mountains while expecting her first child. She was buried on June 7 in the Cathedral at Oradea, by the feet of St. Ladislas.123

119 Magyar, “Der Kónigpsalast in Buda,” 202, 204. 120 Buzás, “History of the Visegrád Royal Palace,” 63. 121 Elizabeth of Poland’s co-founded cloister was in Taschental, a suburb of Buda from 1372; the other two were in Pécs and Prievidza (Slovakia). Romhányi, Kolostorok és társaskáptalanok a középkori Magyarországon, 16, 23, 50–51, 54. 122 In Aragon, Carmelites were royal confessors for most of the fourteenth century. Frances Andrews, The Other Friars: The Carmelite, Augustinian, Sack and Pied Friars in the Middle Ages (Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 2006), 29–31. 123 C. Norbert Tóth, “Királyn˝ ob˝ ol királyné. Mária és Zsigmond viszonya a források tükrében” [From Ruling Queen to Royal Consort. Queen Mary of Anjou and Sigismund of Luxemburg in the Mirror of Historical Sources], Acta Universitatis Szegediensis. Acta Historica CXXXII (2011): 71.

7

REGENT AND REGNANT (1370–1395)

259

As her death was unexpected, it is most probable that Sigismund undertook the funeral arrangements.124 Henszlmann believed that the two of them were buried near the grave of St. Ladislas, with the Queen lying to the east and Sigismund to the west, and that a large vaulted grave uncovered during the excavations was Sigismund’s.125 In July 1755, excavators came across a skeleton of a person buried with fragments of a crown and an orb. Initially, the body was identified as that of Queen Mary, and Canon de Ville, the marquis general of the cavalry enthusiastically wrote to Maria Theresa that he was happy to send her, “the second Queen Mary,” the remains of the first Queen Mary.126 However, since then, the remains were identified as those of King Sigismund on the basis of a find from the same site of an emblem of the Order of the Dragon which was founded in 1408. There remains a drawing of the emblem of the Order of the Dragon, but since its discovery in 1755, it has been lost.127 Likewise, the current whereabouts of the skeleton are unknown; the canon of Oradea witnessed the reburial of the bones, but the only comment is that they were taken back to Vienna and buried there.128 The documented archaeological investigations at the cathedral of Nagyvárad have so far been limited. In 1881–1883, Romer examined the site, in 1884 Henszlmann attempted to find the grave of Sigismund, and then in 1911–1912, the Archaeological and Historical Society for the county of Bihar and Oradea carried out further archaeological research. The excavations from 1911 uncovered a new grave near the axis of the church and near the well fountain that was initially identified as the grave of Beatrice of Luxemburg, but a coin found in the grave from the period of Louis I “the Great” meant that the team later revised their opinion, claiming it was the burial place of Queen Mary.129

124 Terézia Kerny, “Begrabnis und Begräbnisstätte von König Sigismund,” in Sigismundus Rex et Imperator: Kunst und Kultur zur Zeit Sigismunds von Luxemburg 1387 –1437 , ed. Imre Takács (Mainz: Philipp von Zabern, 2006), 476–477. 125 Balogh, Varadinum: Várad Vára, Vol. II, 283. 126 Sándor Márki, Mária Magyarország királynéja 1370–1395 (Budapest: A Magyar

történelmi társulat kiadása, 1885), 149 n 3. 127 Ibid.; Éva Kovács, “A gótikus ronde-bosse zománc a budai udvarban” [A Gothic

ronde-bosse Enamel in the Court of Buda], M˝ uvészettörténeti Értesít˝o 31/2 (1982): 89. 128 Márki, Mária Magyarország királynéja 1370-1395, 149–151, n 3. 129 Kerny, “Begräbnis und Begräbnisstätte von König Sigismund,” 478.

260

C. MIELKE

In spite of secondary literature downplaying Mary’s role or casting her only as a victim, she understood the importance of material culture in her own unique role. She minted her own coinage, even after her marriage with Sigismund of Luxeumburg, her name appears on donations to the church, and she also took an active interest in literature, owning a Hungarian language psalter and commissioning a chronicle of her time in captivity. It is possible she was even buried with a crown and orb, though the context of these finds is much disputed. Overall, her strategies of employing material culture mimic that of the queens before her, but their public nature and wider audience suggest that she was able to push their boundaries in a more kingly direction.

Conclusions The traditional view of Elizabeth of Bosnia held that she was an incompetent woman whose eventual murder was the result of her own failures. Queen Mary, meanwhile, was seen as a passive, even ephemeral figure who was overshadowed by the fifty-year-long reign of her husband, a man who deliberately kept her from exercising her own power. Analyzing the material culture of the two queens and how they chose to display their own power through imagery and artifacts has completely turned both of these notions on their heads. Before taking on the role of regent, Elizabeth of Bosnia utilized many traditional avenues for expressing her power as queen in the period from 1370 to 1382. Her rich endowments of religious institutions along the Dalmatian coast (particularly in Zadar) fit in perfectly with other fourteenth-century queens who had a favored site of their generosity. Unique to Elizabeth of Bosnia is that so many items from this one site have survived, many of which can be linked to her court, if not directly to her. The public images of her present her in an idealized way, a direct contrast to her mother-in-law, a figure who overshadowed most of her early years as queen. The book of instruction that Elizabeth of Bosnia wrote for her daughters was also a revolutionary piece for its time, one that was not replicated until many years later. Far from overstepping her boundaries, the activity of Elizabeth of Bosnia shows both a traditional and innovative approach to the office of queen consort in Hungary. The appearance of the orb on her great seal as regent shows that she understood the importance of such insignia. Far from being a vacillating, incompetent figurehead as regent, the archaeological and art historical

7

REGENT AND REGNANT (1370–1395)

261

evidence shows the need to reevaluate Elizabeth of Bosnia as a woman who pursued her own agenda from 1382 to 1386. The written record has yet to understand her on her own terms in this respect. The material culture of Queen Mary presents an even bolder picture of a woman exercising her power. First, it must be noted that certain things did change after her marriage to Sigismund in 1387. Her seal changed, fewer varieties of coins were minted in her own name, and her charter activity seems slightly lessened. At the same time, she still minted coins in her own name throughout her reign (in contrast to her sister, Jadwiga of Poland), she still issued a significant amount of charters, she was an active patron of the church, and she was responsible not only for memorials to her mother, but also construction projects at Buda and Prešov. Mary’s literary activities include commissioning the poem of Lorenzo de Monacis; it is possible she was also connected with the Florian Psalter and the University of Óbuda. The end result of this is a crowned queen who depicted herself holding an orb—it is possible the grave regalia found at Oradea could have even come from her tomb rather than her husband’s. Again, the material culture here presents a different story than of Mary as a neglected wife and a cipher at the Hungarian court. It shows her as a capable, intelligent woman, actively involved in the diplomacy of gift giving, and understanding the power of the written word. If Mary appears as a wronged victim in the poem of Monacis, it is entirely plausible that it was her wish to appear that way in those circumstances. A closer reading of the written, material, and artistic evidence reveals a much more complex picture; one where Mary is at the center, not on the periphery.

CHAPTER 8

Conclusions

During the eleventh century, queens exerted more influence in their charitable activities toward the church, particularly in tandem with their husbands. In the twelfth century, more queens predecease their husbands or are divorced for adultery, so between the death of Adelaide of Rheinfelden in 1090 and the appearance of Agnes of Antioch in 1173, only Euphrosyne of Kiev stands out as an active queen with her building projects. By the end of the twelfth century, court hierarchy became more formalized and a separate queen’s court emerged. In the early thirteenth century, queens use their own seals, though it is possible they did so earlier. Maria Laskarina undertook a few ambitious building projects of her own, but it is not until the Angevin queens of the fourteenth century that Hungarian queens display a wide-ranging interest in selfrepresentation and display of power in means that survive to present. Examples include three queens (Agnes of Habsburg, Elizabeth of Poland, and Elizabeth of Bosnia) who exercised a great deal of power as widows, separate from their husbands. The general trend here is evident, particularly in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, for the queens to not only exercise more authority but to also display their power in many forms of media. Queens used seals in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries as a means of authenticating documents they had drawn up themselves. Though it is © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 C. Mielke, The Archaeology and Material Culture of Queenship in Medieval Hungary, 1000–1395, Queenship and Power, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-66511-1_8

263

264

C. MIELKE

difficult to tell whether Gisela of Bavaria or Margaret of France ever used seals of their own, they came from environments where women did so frequently. In the 1200s and 1300s, the queens’ seals become larger, more elaborate, and incorporate stronger imagery, reaching their apex with the many seals of Queen Mary in the 1380s and 1390s. The queen’s image appearing on coinage in the thirteenth and early fourteenth centuries also shows the strengthening of this “office” in a manner consistent with patterns seen in other Central European lands. Yolanda of Courtenay, Maria Laskarina, Elizabeth the Cuman, and Elizabeth of Poland all appear on the coinage of their husbands in spite of the fact that they could not mint coins in their own right. The heraldic devices of the queens are frequently used in conjunction with the kings. The earliest and best-known example of this is the Árpád coat of arms, which bears a great similarity to the arms of Constance of Aragon. The heraldic device of the Laskarids appears on the coinage of Béla IV, but the most convincing evidence for the queens using heraldry to enhance their own power comes in the fourteenth century. At Königsfelden Abbey, Agnes of Habsburg not only used stained glass to display her own coat of arms, but also funeral banners with her many coats of arms. Elizabeth of Poland employed the Piast Eagle in a wide variety of media, particularly her seal, and the many items she donated to the church. While the crowns of the queens vary in shape, ornamentation, and quality, the many crowns associated with queens that survive attest to the role of material culture worn on the body as evidence of how these royal women displayed their power. Many of these crowns survived by taking on a second life of their own—as liturgical adornments, votive donations, or even becoming the national symbol of the Hungarian kingdom. The importance of their survival and deposition is inherently tied to the importance of the queen. The same is true for the many votive donations the queens made. The donations of Gisela of Bavaria, Adelaide of Rheinfelden, Agnes of Habsburg, and Elizabeth of Poland became inherently tied into the stories these foundations tell about their own origins. Sites like Niedermünster Abbey, Veszprém Cathedral, St. Blaise in the Black Forest, Königsfelden Abbey, and the Poor Clares in Óbuda tied their origins to donations that these queens made. The same legitimizing device is also used at Suben with Tuta of Formbach’s grave and at Walderbach with Adelaide of Regensburg. The case of Elizabeth of Bosnia’s many donations to the

8

CONCLUSIONS

265

Shrine of St. Simeon in Zadar is probably the best example of a queen adopting a single site for her patronage. While only a fraction of a percent of the queens’ books survive, it is clear from what we know that they were high quality and religious in nature. While it is possible that queens such as Gisela of Bavaria, Judith of Swabia, Margaret of France, and Gertrude of Meran may have had literary interests that have not survived to present, Agnes of Habsburg, Elizabeth of Poland, and Queen Mary were all bibliophiles in their own right. Literary dedications to Agnes show the perception of her as a donor, while Elizabeth of Poland’s will shows how important several books in her possession were; they were passed on to the people and places closest to her. Elizabeth of Bosnia stands out for the manual of instruction she wrote for her daughters. While Queen Mary commissioned the poem from Lorenzo de Monacis and may have laid the groundwork for founding the University of Óbuda, her mother was an author in her own right and a pioneer for women’s literature. Another century would pass before a similar manual was written by another royal mother. Illuminated manuscripts, statues, and stained glass portraits all depict the queens in various public and private settings. Most of these date from the fourteenth century, but they show the queens in a variety of stereotypical poses and postures. Yet there are a few items that stand out. The active, forceful depiction of Helen of Serbia in the Hungarian Illuminated Chronicle shows how centuries after the fact her actions at the Council of Arad were not only shocking for their violence, but how the circumstances do not condemn her for them. Agnes of Habsburg’s stained glass window program showcases not only the queen, but also her entire family—fitting for Königsfelden’s site as a family memorial. Elizabeth of Poland is unique in that statues depicting her are hardly flattering. The matronly visage and wide nose are in stark contrast to her daughter-in-law’s idealized, youthful face. Finally, the grave monuments and building projects of the queens show how important site selection was for permanent features in the landscape. As a city heavily favored by both Gisela of Bavaria and Adelaide of Rheinfelden, Veszprém was able to continue on for centuries as “the queen’s city,” with exclusive rights and privileges granted to the Cathedral and through her coronation. Euphrosyne of Kiev finishing the Hospitaller convent at Székesfehérvár indicates that not only was she aware of the importance of that site as a site of dynastic burials, but also as a pilgrimage site. The grave monument of Gertrude of Andechs-Meran—while not

266

C. MIELKE

built until a decade after her death—emphasizes the importance of both her husband and the monks of Pilis Abbey placed on her interment. Maria Laskarina’s rebuilding of the citadel at Visegrád was not only important for its defensive purposes, but it was also a means of defending her daughter and the other nuns at Margaret Island. The massive campaign of construction, renovation, and rehabilitation that Elizabeth of Poland embarked on showed that no site was too small to escape her generosity, while her most favored institutions shone in their own right throughout the kingdom. Finally, Queen Mary showed great delicacy when overseeing the burial of her murdered mother’s body alongside that of her father in the royal basilica at Székesfehérvár with a life-sized white marble effigy to match. Every single type of artifact, monument, or building associated with the queen is a testament to their power in some way, shape, or form. Other authors have contended that the queens had little power, little continuous funding, and little impact on broader artistic forms. However, the material discussed here provides a more nuanced, less pessimistic view. The nature of the queen’s actual power is more complicated, but if it is understood as the capacity to act, there is a great body of evidence indicating that the queens were responsible for many actions in the period, from small donations to the church to the erection of massive buildings. Joint activities with the king (such as a donation or a burial together) suggest that the overtly expressed power of the queen is more a form of “soft power”. In moments where the queen is seen as superseding her power, disaster occurs, such as the murder of Gertrude of Andechs-Meran and Elizabeth of Bosnia. The queen’s power was also subject to the king and for Euphemia of Kiev and Isabella of Naples, the king’s disinterest could entail divorce or imprisonment. For most of the queens in this study, part of the reason their presence has been so nebulous is that they understood the roles expected of them and acted accordingly. One cannot speak about the action of the queens without considering the actions of the kings. Many joint actions between the royal couple (donations to churches, monastic foundations, etc.) are testament to the queen being tied to the king, both by her “office” as well as by her person. When viewed in this light, the picture that emerges is not of four centuries of weak, penniless queens with two or three exceptions, but rather a long-term process which fluctuates from queens in the eleventh century making a strong personal mark on Hungarian rulership to the growth of a more “official” aspect of the court which is more dependent on the king.

8

CONCLUSIONS

267

What is so important about surveying the growing power and increasing interest in Hungarian queens in their own self-representation is how after the death of Queen Mary in 1395, that interest abruptly stopped. Barbara of Celje (d. 1451) became incredibly wealthy during the lifetime of her husband, but there was no effort made on her part to sponsor items donated to the church, no direct evidence of her literary patronage, and no building projects connected with her. This continues for the most part until Matthias Corvinus (r. 1458–1490) married Beatrice of Aragon in 1476. While Beatrice had her own personal library and was influential in bringing new decorative styles to Hungary, her display of power was weaker than that of her fourteenth-(or even eleventh) century predecessors. Mary of Habsburg (d. 1558), the wife of Louis II (r. 1516–1526) tried asserting her own power during the lifetime of her husband, even claiming the right to mint coinage in her own name (which was ultimately unsuccessful). But it is not until Mary becomes regent of Netherlands that the material culture connected with her begins to showcase her own power and influence. The conclusion of this is that the second half of the fourteenth century seems to be the period when the power of the Hungarian queen was at its peak, not only in terms of resources, but also in terms of displaying power, self-fashioning, and building projects. Research related to the medieval queens of Hungary is an ongoing task. New questions need to be asked about the actions and potential for action in the material culture and spaces of the Hungarian queens. When approached from a different angle, a clearer picture emerges that moves beyond the words of the chroniclers and the few surviving charters and imparts a completely different story about how the queens were able to promote their own self-image, transfer culture among their family, and alter spaces to their will. As the Hungarian court grew more structured and hierarchical in its nature, individual queens were able to create circumstances that favored their action, direct and indirect. Examining the material culture and archaeological evidence here has proven that new stories of royal women can be uncovered that shows how integral they were to the Árpád and Angevin dynasties.

Bibliography

Abulafia, David. Frederick II: A Medieval Emperor. London: Pimlico, 1988. Aertsen, Jan. “Meister Eckhart.” In A Companion to Philosophy in the Middle Ages, edited by Jorge J. E. Gracia and Timothy B. Noone, 440–441. Malden: Blackwell, 2003. Aldásy, A. “Neusohl, Diocese of.” In The Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. X, edited by Charles Herbermann et al., 774. New York: Robert Appleman Co., 1911. Alexander, David. “Swords and Sabers during the Early Islamic Period.” Gladius XXI (2001): 193–219. Allcock, Hubert. Heraldic Design: Its Origins, Ancient Forms and Modern Usage. Mineola, NY: Dover Publications, 2003. Altmann, Julianna. “Neueste Forschungen der Burg der Königin in Óbuda.” Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungariae 34 (1982): 249–267. Altmann, Julianna. “Óbuda.” In Medium Regni: Medieval Hungarian Royal Seats, edited by Julianna Atlmann et al., 89–109. Budapest: Nap Kiadó, 1999. Anderson, David. “‘Dominus Ludovicus’ in the Sermons of Jacobus of Viterbo (Arch. S. Pietro D. 213).” In Literature and Religion in the Later Middle Ages: Philological Studies in Honor of Siegfried Wenzel, edited by Richard G. Newhauser and John A. Alford, 275–295. Binghamton: Medieval & Renaissance Texts & Studies, 1995. Andrews, Frances. The Other Friars: The Carmelite, Augustinian, Sack and Pied Friars in the Middle Ages. Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 2006. Arnold of Lübeck, and Georg Heinrich Pertz, ed. Arnoldi Chronica Slavorum. Hanover: Hahn, 1868. Arteta, Agustin Ubieto. Documentos de Sigena, Vol. I. Valencia: Anubar, 1972. © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 C. Mielke, The Archaeology and Material Culture of Queenship in Medieval Hungary, 1000–1395, Queenship and Power, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-66511-1

269

270

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Attaleiates, Michael, Anthony Kaldellis, and Dimitris Krallis, trans. The History. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2012. Bácsatyai, Dániel. “Az egresi ciszterci monostor korai történetének kérdései” [Problems of the Early History of the Cistercian Monastery of Egres]. Századok 149 (2015:2): 263–299. Bak, János M. “Der Reichsapfel.” In Insignia Regni Hungariae, edited by Zsuzsa Lovag, 185–194. Budapest: Hungarian National Museum, 1986. Bak, János M., György Bónis, and James Ross Sweeney, trans. and eds. The Laws of the Medieval Kingdom of Hungary, Vol. I. Bakersfield: Charles Schlacks, Jr., 1989. Bak, János M. “Roles and Functions of Queens in Árpádian and Angevin Hungary (1000–1386 A. D.).” In Medieval Queenship, edited by John Carmi Parsons, 13–24. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1993. Bak, János M. “Queens as Scapegoats in Medieval Hungary.” In Queens and Queenship in Medieval Europe, edited by Anne J. Duggan, 223–233. Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 2002. Bak, János M., and Martyn Rady, trans. Anonymous and Master Roger: The Deeds of the Hungarians and the Epistle to the Sorrowful Lament upon the Destruction of the Kingdom of Hungary by the Tatars. Budapest: Central European University Press, 2010. Bak, János M. “Holy Lance, Holy Crown, Holy Dexter: Sanctity of Insignia in Medieval East Central Europe.” In Studying Medieval Rulers and Their Subjects: Central Europe and Beyond, edited by Balázs Nagy and Gábor Klaniczay, 56–65. Burlington: Ashgate, 2010. Balázs, János P. Szent Margit élete 1510 [Life of Saint Margaret 1510]. Régi Magyar kódexek 10. Budapest, 1990. Balogh, Jolán. Varadinum: Várad Vára, Vol. I–II. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 1982. Bárány, Attila. “II. András és a latin csázárság” [King Andrew II of Hungary and the Latin Empire of Constantinople]. Hadtörténelmi Közlemények 126/2 (2013): 461–480. Bárány-Oberschall, Magda. Konstantinos Monomachos császár koronája—The Crown of the Emperor Constantine Monomachos. Budapest: Magyar Történeti Múzeum, 1937. Bárány-Oberschall, Magda. Die Sankt Stephans-Krone und die Insignien des Königreichs Ungarn. Vienna: Herold, 1961. Barrett, John C. “Agency, the Duality of Structure, and the Problem of the Archaeological Record.” In Archaeological Theory Today, edited by Ian Hodder, 141–164. Cambridge: Polity Press, 2001. Bartha, Annamária. “Magyarországi Klemencia kapcsolatai Magyarországgal” [Clémence of Hungary’s Relationship with Hungary]. In Francia-magyar kapcsolatok a középkorban, [French and Hungarian Contacts in the Middle

BIBLIOGRAPHY

271

Ages], edited by Attila Györkös and Gergely Kiss, 181–193. Debrecen: University of Debrecen Press, 2013. Bartha, Annamária. “Magyarországi Klemencia kegytárgyai” [Clémence of Hungary’s Objects of Devotion.” Fiatal Középkoros Régészek VI. Konferenciájának Tanulmánykötete [Study Volume of the 6th Conference of Young Medieval Archaeologists] VI (2015): 169–179. Bartoniek, Emma. “Legenda S. Stephani regis maior et minor, atque legenda ab Hartvico episcopo conscripta.” In Scriptores Rerum Hungaricarum, Vol. II, edited by Imre Szentpétery, 377–392. Budapest: Academia Litter. Hungarica, 1938. Baumann, Franz Ludwig, ed. “Necrologium Saeldentalense.” Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Antiquatates 3 (1905): 360–365. Bedos-Rezak, Brigitte Miriam. “Medieval Identity: A Sign and a Concept.” In Medieval Coins and Seals: Constructing Identity, Signifying Power, edited by Susan Solway, 23–63. Turnhout: Brepols, 2015. Bencze, Zoltán. “A budavári Táncsics Mihály utca 7–9. rövid története” [A Short History of No. 7–9 Táncsics Mihály Street in Buda Castle]. Archaeologia – Altum Castrum Online (2014): 2–9. Benk˝ o, Elek. “The Cistercians in Medieval Hungary.” In The Cistercian Arts: From the 12th to the 21st Century, edited by Terryl N. Kinder and Roberto Cassanelli. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2014. Benk˝ o, Elek. “Getrúd királyné sírja a pilisi ciszterci monostorban” [The Grave of Queen Gertrude in the Cistercian Monastery of Pilis]. In Egy történelmi gyilkosság margójára: Merániai Gertrúd emlékezete, 1213–2013, edited by Judit Majorossy, 173–188. Szentendre: Ferenczy Múzeum, 2014. Benko, Stephen. The Virgin Goddess: Studies in the Pagan and Christian Roots of Mariology. Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2004. Bennett, Judith. History Matters: Patriarchy and the Challenge of Feminism. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2010. Berend, Nora. At the Gates of Christendom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001. Berend, Nora, Przemysław Urbanczyk, ´ and Przemysław Wiszewski. Central Europe in the High Middle Ages: Bohemia, Hungary and Poland c. 900–c. 1300. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013. Berkovits, Ilona. Illuminated Manuscripts from the Library of Matthias Corvinus. Budapest: Corvina Press, 1963. Bertalan, Herta. “Óbudai Klarissza Kolostor” [The Obuda Poor Claires Cloister]. Budapest Régiségei 27 (1976): 269–278. Bertalan, Herta. “Das Klarissenkloster von Óbuda aus dem 14. Jahrhundert.” Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 34 (1982): 151–176. Bertényi, Iván. “Az Árpád-házi királyok címere és Aragónia” [Royal Escutcheons of the Árpád House and Aragon]. Királylányok messzí földról: Magyarország

272

BIBLIOGRAPHY

és Katalónia a középkorban [Princesses from Afar: Hungary and Catalonia in the Middle Ages], edited by Ramon Sarobe and Csaba Tóth, 189–200. Budapest and Barcelona: Hungarian National Museum and History Museum of Catalonia, 2009. Bianchini, Janna. The Queen’s Hand: Power and Authority in the Reign of Berenguela of Castile. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2012. Bierbrauer, Katharina. “Sog. Egbert Psalter.” In Sankt Elisabeth: Fürstin, Dienerin, Heilige, edited by Philips-Universität Marburg, Hessisches Landesamt für Geschichtliche Landeskunde, Elisabethskirche, 336–338. Marburg. Sigmaringen: Thorbecke, 1981. Bijvoet Williamson, Maya, trans. and ed. The Memoirs of Helene Kottaner. Cambridge: D. S. Brewer, 1998. Black, Mechthild. “Die Töchter Kaiser Heinrichs III und der Kaiserin Agnes.” In Vinculum Societatis: Joachim Wollasch zum 60 Geburtstag, edited by Franz Neiske et al., 37–56. Sigmaringendorf: Glock and Lutz, 1991. Blancard, Louis. Iconographie des Sceaux et Bulles conservés dans la partie antérieure à 1790 des Archives Departementales des Bouches-du-Rhône. Marseilles: Camon frères, 1860. Bodor, Imre. “Árpád-kori pecsétjeink, I.” Turul 74 (2001): 1–20. Boeck, Elena. “Believing Is Seeing: Princess Spotting in St. Sophia of Kiev.” In Dubitando: Studies in History and Culture in Honor of Donald Ostrowski, edited by Brian J. Boeck, Russell E. Martin, and Daniel Rowland, 167–179. Bloomington: Slavica Publishers, 2012. Bonfinius, Antonius. Rerum Ungaricarum decades quator, cum dimidia. Basel: Oporinus, 1568. Bonfinius, Antonius. Rerum Ungaricarum Decades. Lipsiae: Teubner, 1936. Bork, Robert Odell. The Geometry of Creation: Architectural Drawing and the Dynamics of Gothic design. Farnham: Ashgate, 2011. Bozóki, Lajos. “A visegrádi fellegvár” [The Citadel at Visegrád]. In In medio regni Hungariae. Régészeti, M˝ uvészettörténeti és történeti kutatások ‘az ország közepén’: Archaeological, Art Historical, and Historical Researches ‘in the Middle of the Kingdom’, edited by Elek Benk˝ o and Krisztina Orosz, 613–628. Budapest: Magyar Tudományos Akadémia, 2015. Bozsoky, Pál Ger˝ o. Királyok és királynék városa: Segesd [City of the kings and queens: Segesd]. Segesd, 2001. Bretscher-Gisiger, Charlotte, and Rudolf Gamper. Katalog der mittelalterlichen Handschriften der Klöster Muri und Hermetschwil. Dietikon-Zürich: Urs Graf, 2005. Brubaker, Leslie, and Helen Tobler. “The Gender of Money: Byzantine Empresses on Coins (342–802).” In Gendering the Middle Ages, edited by Pauline Stafford and Anneke B. Mulder-Bakker, 572–594. Oxford: Blackwell, 2001.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

273

Brunner, Herbert. “The Treasury of the Residenz Palace Munich.” In Royal Treasures, edited by Erich Steingräber, 43–64. New York: Macmillan, 1968. Bruno of Querfurt. “Brunonis Vita S. Alberti.” In MGH SS 4 iii, edited by Georg Heinrich Pertz, 596–612. Hanover, 1891. Bruzelius, Caroline. The Stones of Naples: Church Building in Angevin Italy, 1266–1343. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2004. Buzás, Gergely. “Visegrád.” In Medium Regni: Medieval Hungarian Royal Seats, edited by Julianna Altmann et al., 115–150. Budapest: Nap Kiadó, 1999. Buzás, Gergely. “Az Esztergomi vár románkori és gotikus épülétei” [The Buildings of Esztergom Castle in Romanesque and Gothic]. In Az Esztergomi Vármúzeum k˝otárának katalógusa [The Esztergom Castle Museum Lapidary Catalog], edited by Gergely Buzás and Gergely Tolnai, 7–44. Esztergom: Esztergom Castle Museum, 2004. Buzás, Gergely, Edit Kocsis, and József Laszlovszky. “Catalogue of Objects and Finds.” In The Medieval Royal Palace at Visegrád, edited by Gergely Buzás and József Laszlovszky, 301–368. Budapest: Archaeolingua, 2013. Buzás, Gergely. “History of the Visegrád Royal Palace.” In The Medieval Royal Palace at Visegrád, edited by Gergely Buzás and József Laszlovszky, 17–140. Budapest: Archaeolingua Press, 2013. Buzás, Gergely. “The Functional Reconstruction of the Visegrád Royal Palace.” In The Medieval Royal Palace at Visegrád, edited by Gergely Buzás and József Laszlovszky, 143–196. Budapest: Archaeolingua Press, 2013. Calkins, Robert. Monuments of Medieval Art. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1979. Campbell, Alistair, ed. Encomium Emmae Reginae. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998. Chaloupecký, Václav. The Caroline University of Prague, Its Foundation, Character and Development in the Fourteenth Century. Prague: Orbis, 1948. Choniates, Niketas, Harry Magoulias, trans. O City of Byzantium, Annals of Niketas Choniates. Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1984. Constantinescu, B., R. Bugoi, E. Oberländer-Târnoveau, and K. Pârvan. “Medieval Silver Coins Analyses by PIXE and ED-XRF Techniques.” Romanian Journal of Physics 54/5–6: 481–490. Cosmas of Prague, Lisa Wolverton, trans. The Chronicle of the Czechs. Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 2009. Cowdrey, H. E. J. The Register of Pope Gregory VII 1073–1085: An English Translation. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002. Crossley, Paul. Gothic Architecture in the Reign of Kasimir the Great. Cracow: Ministerstwo Kultury i sztuki, zarzad muzeów i ochrony zabytków, 1985. Crossley, Paul. “The Architecture of Queenship: Royal Saints, Female Dynasties and the Spread of Gothic Architecture in Central Europe.” In Queens

274

BIBLIOGRAPHY

and Queenship in Medieval Europe, edited by Anne J. Duggan, 263–289. Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 2002. Crouch, David. William Marshal: Knighthood, War and Chivalry, 1147 –1219. London: Longman, 2002. Csapodi, Csaba. Beatrix királyné konyvtára [The Library of Queen Beatrix]. Budapest, 1964. Csapodi, Csaba, Klára Csapodiné Gárdonyi, and Tibor Szántó. Bibliotheca Corviniana: The Library of King Matthias Corvinus. New York: Praeger, 1969. Csapodi, Csaba, and Klára Gárdonyi Csapodiné. Bibliotheca Hungarica: Kódexek és nyomtatott könyvek Magyarországon 1526 el˝ott [Bibliotheca Hungarica: Codices and Printed Books in Hungary before 1526], Vol. I–III. Budapest: Magyar Tudományos adakémia Könyvtára, 1988–1994. Cséfalvay, Pál. “Anjou-kárpit” [The Angevin Carpet]. In M˝ uvészet I. Lajos király korában 1342–1382, edited by Ern˝ o Marosi, Melinda Tóth, and Lívia Varga, 117–118. Budapest: MTA M˝ uészettörténeti Kutató Csoport, 1982. Csemegi, József. A budavári f˝otemplom középkori építéstörténete [The Medieval Building History of the Main Church of Buda Castle]. Budapest: Képz˝ om˝ uvészeti Alap Kiadóvállalata, 1955. Curta, Florin. Southeastern Europe in the Middle Ages, 500–1250. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006. Czeglédy, Ilona.The Castle of Diósgy˝or. Budapest: Corvina Press, 1971. Czeglédy, Ilona. “Zárók˝ o n˝ oi fejjel” [Keystone with the Head of a Woman]. In M˝ uvészet I. Lajos király korában 1342–1382, edited by Ern˝ o Marosi, Melinda Tóth, and Lívia Varga, 240–241. Budapest: MTA M˝ uészettörténeti Kutató Csoport, 1982. Czobor, Béla. “III. Béla és hitvese ékszerei” [The Funerary Jewels of Béla III and His Wife]. In III. Béla magyar király emlékezete [The Memory of the Hungarian King Béla III], edited by Gyula Forster, 207–230. Budapest: Hornyánszky V, 1900. Czobor, Béla. “A metzi kazula” [The Chasuble of Metz]. In Gizella királyné (985 k.–1060), edited by János Géczi, 188–189. Veszprém, 2000. Czobor, Béla. “A Gizella-kereszt leírása” [A Description of the Gisela Cross]. In Gizella királyne, 985 k.–1060, edited by János Géczi, 157. Veszprém, 2000. Dalewski, Zbigniew. “Vivat Princeps in Eternum: Sacrality of Ducal Power in Poland in the Earlier Middle Ages.” In Monotheistic Kingship: The Medieval Variants, edited by Aziz Al-Azmeh and János M. Bak, 215–230. Budapest: CEU Medievalia, 2004. Dalton, O. M. Byzantine Art and Archaeology. Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1911. Danbury, Elizabeth. “Queens and Powerful Women: Image and Authority.” In Good Impressions: Image and Authority in Medieval Seals, edited by Noël

BIBLIOGRAPHY

275

Adams, John Cherry, and James Robinson, 17–24. London: British Museum Press, 2008. Daniele, Francesco. I regali sepolcri del Duomo di Palermo: riconosciuti e illustrati. Naples: Nella Stamperia del re, 1784. Dark, Ken. “The Byzantine Church and Monastery of St. Mary Peribleptos in Istanbul.” The Burlington Magazine 141/1160 (Nov. 1999): 656–664. Dautovi´c, Dženan. “Bosansko-ugarski odnosi kroz prizmu braka Ludovika I Velikog i Elizabete k´cerke Stjepana II Kotromani´ca” [Relations between Bosnia and Hungary through the Prism of the Marriage between Louis the Great and Elizabeth, the Daughter of Stjepan II Kotromani´c].” Radovi XVII/3 (2014): 141–157. Dawson, Timothy. “The Monomachos Crown: Towards a Resolution.” BYZANTINA ΣYMMEIKTA 19 (2009): 183–193. Deér, József. Der Kaiserornat Friedrichs II . Bern: A. Francke, 1952. Deér, Jósef. The Dynastic Porphyry Tombs of the Norman Period in Sicily. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1959. Deér, Jozsef. Die Heilige Krone Ungarns. Vienna: Hermann Böhlaus Nachf., 1966. De Winter, Patrick. The Sacral Treasure of the Guelphs. Cleveland: Cleveland Museum of Art, 1985. Dercsényi, Dezs˝ o. A székesfehérvári királyi bazilika [The Székesfehérvár royal basilica]. Budapest: M˝ uemlékek Országos Bizottsága, 1943. Dercsényi, Dezs˝ o. The Royal Palace of Esztergom. Budapest: Corvina Press, 1965. Dercsényi, Dezs˝ o, ed. The Hungarian Illuminated Chronicle. Budapest: Corvina Kiadó, 1969. Dercsényi, Dezs˝ o. “The Illuminated Chronicle and Its Period.” In The Hungarian Illuminated Chronicle, edited by Dezs˝ o Dercsényi et al., 13–57. Budapest: Corvina Press, 1969. Dimnik, Martin. “Dynastic Burials in Kiev before 1240.” Ruthenica VIII (2008): 70–103. Długosz, Jan, and Maurice Michael, ed. The Annals of Jan Długosz. Chichester: IM Publications, 1997. Dobres, Marcia-Anne and John Robb, eds. Agency in Archaeology. London & New York: Routledge, 2000. Domonkos, László. “The History of the Sigismundean Foundation of the University of Óbuda (Hungary).” In Studies on the University of Óbuda 1395– 1995, edited by László Domonkos et al., 1–28. Budapest: Eötvös University Press, 1995. Domonkos, László. “The Founding (1395) and Refounding (1410) of the University of Óbuda.” In Universitas Budensis 1395–1995, edited by László Szögi and Júlia Varga, 19–34. Budapest: Archive of the Eötvös Loránd University, Budapest, 1997.

276

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Dornan, Jennifer L. “Agency and Archaeology: Past, Present, and Future Directions.” Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 9/4 (2002): 303–329. Duerloo, Luc. “Sabre d’Attila ou de Charlemagne (copie).” In Hungaria regia ˝ (1000–1800): Fastes et défis, edited by Sandor Oze and Luc Duerloo, 113. Brussels: Brepols, 1999. Duggan, Anne, ed. Queens and Queenship in Medieval Europe. Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 2002. Dunin-Borkowski, Stanislaw. Psałterz Królowéj Małgorzaty pierwszej małzonki ˙ Ludwika I. Króla Polskiego I wegierskiego corki Króla czeskiego I Cesarza Karola IV . [Psalter of Queen Margaret, First Wife of Louis I King of Poland and Hungary, Daughter of Emperor Charles IV]. Vienna: Strauss, 1834. Dworschak, Fritz. “Neunhundert Jahre Stift Suben am Inn.” Oberösterreichische Heimatblätter 6/3 (1952): 296–318. Dziedzic, Stanislaw. Alma Mater Jagellonica. Cracow: Fundacja dla Uniwersytetu Jagiellonskogo, ´ 2005. Earenfight, Theresa. Queenship in Medieval Europe. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2013. Eastmond, Antony. Art and Identity in Thirteenth-Century Byzantium: Hagia Sophia and the Empire of Trebizond. Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2003. Edbury, Peter W. The Conquest of Jerusalem and the Third Crusade. Brookfield: Ashgate, 1998. Engel, Pál. “Temetkezések a középkori székesfehérvári bazilikában” [Burials in the Medieval Basilica of Székesfehérvár]. Századok 121 (1987): 613–637. Engel, Pál. The Realm of St Stephen: History of Medieval Hungary 985–1526. New York: I.B. Tauris, 2001. Engel, Pál, and C. Norbert Tóth. Királyok és királynék itineráriumai, 1382– 1438 [The Itineraries of the Kings and Queens, 1382–1438]. Budapest: MTA, 2005. Engl, Franz. “Grabstein der Stifterin Tuta (Abguß).” In 900 Jahre Stift Reichersberg Augustiner Chorherren zwischen Passau und Salzburg: Ausstellung des Landes Oberösterreich, 26. April bis 28. Oktober 1984 im Stift Reichersberg am Inn, edited by Dietmar Straub, 329. Linz, 1984. Éry, Kinga, ed. A Székesfehérvári királyi bazilika embertani leletei 1848–2002. Budapest: Balassi Kiadó, 2008. Éry, Kinga. “Az embertani vizsgálatok” [Anthropological Studies]. In A Székesfehérvári királyi bazilika embertani leletei 1848–2002, edited by Kinga Éry, 15–30. Budapest: Balassi Kiadó, 2008. Éry, Kinga, Antónia Marcsik, János Nemeskéri, and Ferenc Szalai. “Az épített sírok csontvázleletei (I. csoport).” In A Székesfehérvári királyi bazilika embertani leletei 1848–2002, edited by Kinga Éry, 37–118. Budapest: Balassi Kiadó, 2008.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

277

Estreicher, Karol. The Collegium Maius of the Jagiellonian University in Cracow. Warsaw: Interpress Publishers, 1973. Faas, Richard. Kloster Niedernburg, Passau: Die Geschichte von 888 bis zur Gegenwart. Oberhaching: Mogenroth Media, 2014. Fejer, Gy˝ orgy. Codex diplomaticus Hungariae ecclesiasticus et civilis, IV and IX. Buda, 1829–1834. Fejérpataky, László. “Margit királyné két oklevele” [Two Charters of Queen Margaret]. In III. Béla magyar király emlékezete, edited by Gyula Forster, 349–351. Budapest: V. Hornyánszky, 1900. Feld, István. “Királyi várak az Árpád-kori medium regni területén” [Royal Castles on the Territory of the Medium Regni in the Árpádian Age]. In In medio regni Hungariae. Régészeti, M˝ uvészettörténeti és történeti kutatások ‘az ország közepén’: Archaeological, Art Historical, and Historical Researches ‘in the Middle of the Kingdom’, edited by Elek Benk˝ o and Krisztina Orosz, 677–704. Budapest: Magyar Tudományos Akadémia, 2015. Ferdinandy, Michael de. “Ludwig I. von Ungarn (1342–1382).” In Louis the Great: King of Hungary and Poland, edited by S. B. Vardy et al., 3–48. Boulder: East European Monographs, 1986. Ferenczy, Heinrich, and Christoph Merth. Das Schottenstift und seine kunstwerke. Vienna: Orac, 1980. Feuerné-Tóth, Rózsa. “V. István király sírja a Margitszigeti domonkos apácakolostor templomában” [The Grave of King Stephen V in the Dominican Nunnery of Margaret Island]. Budapest Régiségei 21 (1964): 115–131. Feuerné-Tóth, Rózsa. “A margitszigeti domonkos kolostor” [The Dominican Nunnery on Margaret Island]. Budapest Régiségei XXII (1971): 245–269. Fillitz, Hermann. Kunsthistorisches Museum Schatzkammer [The crown Jewels and the Ecclesiastical Treasure Chamber]. Vienna: Kunsthistorisches Museum, 1963. Fillitz, Hermann. “Das Adelheid-Kreuz aus St. Blasien.” In Schatzhaus Kärntens: Landesausstellung St. Paul 1991: 900 Jahr Benediktinerstift, edited by Hartwig Pucker, Grabmayer Johannes, Günther Hödl, and Benediktinerstist St. Paul, 665–680. Klagenfurt: Universitätsverlag Carinthia, 1991. Fine, John. The Late Medieval Balkans. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1994. Fodor, Zsuzsa V., ed. Gizella és kora: felolvasóülések az Árpád-korból [Gisela and Her Era: A Session of Readings from the Age of the Árpáds]. Veszprém, 1993. Font, Márta. Koloman the Learned, King of Hungary. Szeged, 2001. Forster, Gyula. III. Béla magyar király emlékezete. Budapest: V. Hornyánszky, 1900. Fößel, Amalie. “The Queen’s Wealth in the Middle Ages.” Majestas 13 (2005): 23–45.

278

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Freeman, Margaret. “A Shrine for a Queen.” The Metropolitan Museum of Art Bulletin 21/10 (1963): 327–339. Fügedi, Erik. “Coronation in Medieval Hungary.” Studies in Medieval and Renaissance History III (1980): 159–189. Gall, Franz. “The ‘Schottenkloster’ in Vienna.” In Die Babenberger, und was von ihnen bleib [The Babenbergs, and what they left to us], edited by Christine Wessely, 85–88. Vienna: Verb. d. Wissenschaftl. Gesellschaften Österreichs, 1975. Gardner, Monica. Queen Jadwiga of Poland. Dublin: Browne and Nolan, 1944. Garland, Lynda. Byzantine Empresses: Women and Power in Byzantium, AD 527 – 1204. New York: Routledge, 1999. Gárdonyi-Csapodi, Klára. “Description and Interpretation of the Illustrations in the Illuminated Chronicle.” In The Hungarian Illuminated Chronicle: Chronica de Gestis Hungarorum, edited by Dezs˝ o Dercsényi, 70–85. Budapest: Corvina Press, 1969. Garnier, François. Le langage de l’image au Moyen Âge. Paris: Léopard d’Or, 1982–1989. Garrison, Eliza. Ottonian Imperial Art and Portraiture: The Artistic Patronage of Otto III and Henry II . Farnham: Ashgate, 2012. Glacnik Cppckoga yqenog dpyxtva [Gazette of the Serbian Learned Society] 67 (1887). Geary, Patrick J. Living with the Dead in the Middle Ages. Ithaca, NY and London: Cornell University Press, 1994. Gécsi, János, ed. Gizella királyné 985–k. 1060 [Queen Gisella, ca. 985–1060]. Veszprém, 2000. Geoffrey de la Tour-Landry, and Anatole de Montaiglon. Le livre du chevalier de La Tour Landry, pour l’enseignement de ses filles. Paris: P. Jannet, 1854. Gerbert, Martin, Marquardt Herrgott, and Rusten Heer. Monumenta Augustae Domus Austriacae. Vienna, 1772. Gerbert, Martin. Historia Nigrae Silvae ordinis Sancti Benedicti Coloniae, Vol. I. St. Blasien: Typis San Blasianis, 1783. Gerchow, Jan, et al. “Early Monasteries and Foundations (500–1200): An Introduction.” In Crown and Veil: Female Monasticism from the Fifth to the Fifteenth Centuries, edited by Jeffrey Hamburger and Susan Marti, 13–40. New York: Columbia University Press, 2008. Gerevich, László. The Art of Buda and Pest in the Middle Ages. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 1971. Gerevich, Laszló. “Ausgrabungen in der Ungarischen Zisterzienserabtei Pilis.” Analecta Cisterciana XXXIX/39 (1983): 281–310. Gerevich, László. “Grabmal der Gertrud von Andechs-Meranien in Pilis.” In Sankt Elisabeth: Fürstin Dienerin Heilige, 334–336. Sigmaringen: Jan Thorbecke Verlag, 1984.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

279

Gerevich, László. “The Rise of Hungarian Towns along the Danube.” In Towns in Medieval Hungary, edited by László Gerevich, 26–50. Boulder: East European Monographs, 1990. Gero, Joan M. “Troubled Travels in Agency and Feminism.” In Agency in Archaeology, edited by Marcia-Anne Dobres and John Robb, 34–39. London and New York: Routledge, 2000. Gesztelyi, Tamás, and György Rácz. Antik gemmapecsétek a középkori Magyarországon: Antike Gemmensiegel im mittelalterlichen Ungarn. Debrecen: Debreceni Egyetem Kossuth Egyetemi Kiadó, 2006. Gilchrist, Roberta. Gender and Material Culture: The Archaeology of Medieval Religious Women. New York: Routledge, 1994. Gilchrist, Roberta. Medieval Life: Archaeology and the Life Course. Woodbridge: Boydell, 2012. Gilsdorf, Sean, ed. Queenship and Sanctity: The Lives of Mathilda and the Epitaph of Adelheid. Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 2004. Ginhart, Karl. “Reliquienkreuz der Königin Adelheid.” In Die Kunstdenkmäler des Benediktinerstiftes St. Paul im Lavanttal und seiner Filialkirchen, edited by Karl Ginhart and Franz Balke, 217–225. Vienna: Schroll, 1969. Giselbrecht, Wolfherius Wilhelm von, and Edmund von Oefele. Annales Altahenses Maiores. Hanover: Impensis Bibliopolii Hahniai, 1891. Gladiß, Almut von. “Die Grabbeigaben der Konstanze von Aragon, der ersten Gattin Friedrichs II. Palermo, Tesoro della Cattedrale.” In Kaiser Friedrich II. (1194–1250). Welt und Kultur des Mittelmeerraums, edited by Mamoun Fansa and Karen Ermete, 355–357. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern, 2008. Goldberg, Eric J. “Regina nitens sanctissima Hemma: Queen Emma (827–876), Bishop Witgar of Ausgburg, and the Witgar-Belt.” In Representations of Power in Medieval Germany: 800–1500, edited by Björn Weiler and Simon Maclean, 57–95. Turnhout: Brepols, 2006. Gosden, Chris, and Yvonne Marshall. “The Cultural Biography of Objects.” World Archaeology 31–32 (1999): 169–178. Gutheil, Jen˝ o. Az Árpád-kori Veszprém [Veszprém in the Age of the Árpáds]. Veszprém: Veszprém Megyei Levéltár, 1979. Györffy, György. King Saint Stephen of Hungary. Boulder: Social Science Monographs, 1994. Gy˝ ory, Tibor. “Monumentumok a magyar orvosi rend történetéb˝ ol.” Századok (1901): 45–56. Gyürky, Katalin H. “A Szent Márton kápolna régészeti maradványai Budán” [The Archaeological Remains of the St. Martin Chapel in Buda]. Archaeologiai Értesít˝o 111 (1984): 29–41. Hager, Georg. Die Kunstdenkmäler von Oberfpfalz & Regensburg. Munich and Vienna: R. Oldenbourg Verlag, 1981.

280

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Halecki, Oscar, W. F. Reddaway, and J. H. Benson. The Cambridge History of Poland, from the Origins to Sobieski. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1950. Halecki, Oscar, and Tadeusz Gromada. Jadwiga of Anjou and the Rise of East Central Europe. New York: Columbia University Press, 1991. Hankó, Ildikó. A magyar királysírok sorsa: Géza fejedelemt˝ol Szapolyai Jánosig. Budapest: Magyar Ház, 1987. Havasi, Krisztina. “A király új palotája. Megjegyzések a kora 13. századi óbudai rezidencia m˝ uvészettörténeti helyéhez” [A New Palace for the King: Remarks on the Place in Art History of the Early 13th-Century Royal Residence at Óbuda]. In In medio regni Hungariae. Régészeti, M˝ uvészettörténeti és történeti kutatások ‘az ország közepén’: Archaeological, Art Historical, and Historical Researches ‘in the Middle of the Kingdom’, edited by Elek Benk˝ o and Krisztina Orosz. Budapest: Magyar Tudományos Akadémia, 2015. Hedeman, Anne D. The Royal Image: Illustrations of the Grandes Chroniques de France, 1274–1422. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1991. Henszlmann, Imre. A székes-fehérvári ásatások eredménye [The Excavation Results of Székesfehérvár]. Pest: Heckenast Gusztáv Bizománya, 1864. Hentsch, Alice. De la Littérature didactique du moyenâge, s’adressant spécialement aux femmes. Cahors: A. Coueslant, 1903. Higgins, Sophia Elizabeth. Women of Europe in the Fifteenth and Sixteenth Centuries, Vol. I. London: Hurst and Blackett, 1885. Hill, Barbara. Imperial Women in Byzantium 1025–1204. New York: Longman, 1999. Hilsdale, Cecily. “The Social Life of the Byzantine Gift: The Royal Crown of Hungary Re-Invented.” Art History 31/5 (2008): 603–631. Hodel, Tobias. “Das Kloster in der Region. Herrschaft, Verwaltung und Handeln mit Schrift.” In Königsfelden: Königsmord, Kloster, Klinik, edited by Simon Teuscher and Claudia Moddelmog, 90–127. Baden: Hier und Jetzt, 2012. Hoffman, Edith. Régi magyar bibliofilek [Old Hungarian Bibliophiles]. Budapest: Magyar Bibliophil Társaság, 1992. Hollý, Karol. “Princess Salomea and Hungarian-Polish Relations in the period 1214–1241.” Historický Capsis 55 (2007): 5–32. Holtzmann, R., ed., Thietmari Merseburgensis episcopi Chronicon, viii 4 MGH SRG, NS, ix. Berlin, 1935. Holzbauer, Hermann. Mittelalterliche Heiligenverehrung: Heilige Walpurgis. Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker, 1972. Honneman, Volker. “A Medieval Queen and Her Stepdaughter: Agnes and Elizabeth of Hungary.” In Queens and Queenship in Medieval Europe, edited by Anne J. Duggan, 109–119. Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 2002.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

281

Horváth, István. “Esztergom.” In Medium Regni: Medieval Hungarian Royal Seats, edited by Julianna Atlmann et al., 9–37. Budapest: Nap Kiadó, 1999. Horváth, István. “Az Esztergomi Várhegy régészeti kutatása, 1966–1969.” In In medio regni Hungariae. Régészeti, M˝ uvészettörténeti és történeti kutatások ‘az ország közepén’: Archaeological, Art Historical, and Historical Researches ‘in the Middle of the Kingdom’, edited by Elek Benk˝ o and Krisztina Orosz. Budapest: Magyar Tudományos Akadémia, 2015. Horváth, István, Marta Kelemen, and István Torma. Komárom megye régészeti topográfiája: Esztergom és a dorogi járás [Komárom County Archaeological Topography: Esztergom and Dorog Tourism]. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 1979. Horváth, Jen˝ o. Szent László anyja [The Mother of St. Ladislas]. Budapest: Stephaneum Nyomda, 1943. Hoskins, Janet. Biographical Objects: How Things Tell the Stories of People’s Lives. New York: Routledge, 1998. Huneycutt, Lois L. “Intercession and the High Medieval Queen: The Esther Topos.” In Power of the Weak: Studies on Medieval Women, edited by Jennifer Carpenter and Sally-Beth MacLean et al., 126–146. Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1995. Hunyadi, Zsolt. “The Hospitallers in the Kingdom of Hungary: Commanderies, Personnel, and a Particular Activity Up to c. 1400.” In The Crusades and the Military Orders: Expanding the Frontiers of Medieval Latin Christianity, edited by Zsolt Hunyadi and József Laszlovszky, 253–268. Budapest: CEU Medievalia, 2001. Hunyadi, Zsolt. The Hospitallers in the Medieval Kingdom of Hungary c. 1150– 1387 . Budapest: CEU Press, 2010. Huszár, Lajos. “Das ungarische Wappen auf fremden Münzen im Mittelalter.” In Mélanges offerts à Szabolcs de Vajay, 331–336. Braga: Livraria Cruz, 1971. Huszár, Lajos. Münzkatalog Ungarn von 1000 bis heute. Budapest: Corvina, 1979. Hutai, Gábor. “III. Béla király és Antiochiai Anna sírleleteinek restaurálásairól” [The Restoration of the Findings from the Graves of King Béla III and Anna of Antioch]. In 150 éve történt… III. Béla és Antiochiai Anna sírjának fellelése, edited by Vajk Cserményi, 36–58. Székesfehérvár: Szent István Király Múzeum, 1999. Ili´c, Marija. Discourse and Ethnic Identity: The Case of the Serbs from Hungary. Munich: Verlag Otto Sagner, 2014. Ipolyi, Arnold, Imre Nagy, and Dezs˝ o Véghely. Hazai Okmanytár, Vol. V. Gy˝ or, 1873. Irásné-Melis, Katalin. “Die Margaretinsel und ihre Klöster im Mittelalter.” In Budapest im Mittelalter, edited by Gerd Biegel, 409–414. Brunswick: Braunschweigisches Landesmuseum, 1991.

282

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Irásné Melis, Katalin. “A margitszigeti királyi udvarhely átépítése és a domonkos apácakolostor alapítása (1243–1255)” [The Reconstruction of the Royal Court on Margaret Island and the Foundation of the Dominican Nunnery (1243–1255)]. In A tatárjárás (1241–1242), edited by Ágnes Ritoók, 115– 119. Budapest: Hungarian National Museum, 2007. Irásné Melis, Katalin. “A Budapest-Margit-szigeti középkori királyi udvarhely és a domonkos apácakolostor kutatása. Régészeti, történeti adatok” [Research on the Medieval Royal Court of Budapest’s Margaret Island and the Dominican Nunnery]. In A középkor és a kora újkor régészete Magyarországon: Archaeology of the Middle Ages and the Early Modern Period in Hungary, I–II , edited by Elek Benk˝ o and Gyöngyi Kovács, 421–437. Budapest: Archaeological Institute of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, 2010. Ivakin, G. “Hekpopol cepkvi Cpaca na Bepectove v Kievce i ‘pogpebeniepi Dolgopykogo’” [The Necopolis of the Kiev Church of the Savior on Berestovo and the ‘Grave of Yuri Dolgorukiy’]. Poccicka apxeologi 2 (2008): 107–117. Jacoby, D. “Silk in Western Byzantium before the Fourth Crusade.” Byzantinische Zeitschrift 84–85/2 (1992): 452–500. Jäggi, Carola. “Eastern Choir or Western Gallery? The Problem of the Place of the Nuns’ Choir in Königsfelden and Other Early Mendicant Nunneries.” Gesta 40 (2001): 79–93. Jahn, Wolfgang. “Ritterfahne mit dem ungarischen Wappen.” In Bayern – Ungarn, tausend Jahre. Katalog zur Bayerischen Landesausstellung 2001, Oberhausmuseum, Passau, 8 Mai bis 28. Oktober 2001, edited by Wolfgang Jahn et al., 125–126. Passau, 2001. Jakˇci´c, Nikola. “Anneau avec inscription en vieux français.” In L’Europe des Anjou: aventure des princes Angevins du XIIIe au Xve siècle, edited by Guy Le Goff et al., 353. Paris: Somogy, 2001. Jakˇci´c, Nikola. “Calice avec armoiries angevines.” In L’Europe des Anjou: aventure des princes angevins du XIIIe au XVe siècle, edited by Guy Le Goff et al., 353–354. Paris: Somogy éditions d’art, 2001. Jakˇci´c, Nikola. “Couronne féminine.” In L’Europe des Anjou: aventure des princes angevins du XIIIe et XIVe siècle, edited by Guy Le Goff et al., 354. Paris: Somogy, 2001. Jakˇci´c, Nikola. “Voile de coiffure (une moitié conservée).” In L’Europe des Anjou: aventure des princes angevins du XIII e au XV e siècle, edited by Guy Le Goff et al., 354. Paris: Somogy éditions d’art, 2001. Jansen, Sharon. Anne of France: Lessons for My Daughter. Woodbridge: D. S. Brewer, 2004. Jasperse, Jitske. “A Coin Bearing Testimony to Duchess Matilda as Consors Regni.” Haskins Society Journal 26 (2014): 169–190.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

283

Jasperse, Jitske. “To Have and to Hold: Coins and Seals as Evidence for Motherly Authority.” In Royal Mothers and Their Ruling Children: Wielding Political Authority from Antiquity to the Early Modern Era, edited by Elena Woodacer and Carey Fleiner, 83–103. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2015. Johannes de Thurocz. Chronica Hungarorum. Bavaria, c. 1490. Johnson, Matthew. “Conceptions of Agency in Archaeological Interpretation.” Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 8 (1989): 189–211. Johnson, Matthew. Archaeological Theory: An Introduction. Oxford: Blackwell, 2010. Jordan, Erin L. Women, Power, and Religious Patronage in the Middle Ages. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2013. Karácsonyi, János. Szt. Ferencz rendjének története Magyarországon 1711-ig [A History of the Franciscan Order in Hungary until 1711], Vol. I. Budapest: A Magyar Tudomanyi Akadémia Kiadása, 1923. Keene, Catherine. Saint Margaret, Queen of the Scots: A Life in Perspective. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2013. Keevill, Graham D. Medieval Palaces: An Archaeology. Stroud: Tempus, 2000. Kerbl, Raimund. “Byzantinische Prinzessinnen in Ungarn zwischen 1050–1200 und ihr Einfluss auf das Arpaden-Königreich.” PhD diss. University of Vienna, 1979. Kerny, Terézia. “Calice.” In Sigismundus Rex et Imperator: Kunst und Kultur zur Zeit Sigismunds von Luxemburg, 1387 –1437 , edited by Imre Takács et al., 104–105. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern, 2006. Kerny, Terézia. “Begrabnis und Begräbnisstätte von König Sigismund.” In Sigismundus Rex et Imperator: Kunst und Kultur zur Zeit Sigismunds von Luxemburg 1387 –1437 , edited by Imre Takács, 475–478. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern, 2006. K˛etrzynski, ´ W., ed. “Vita sanctae Salomeae reginae Haliciensis auctore Stanislao Franciscano.” In Monumenta Poloniae historica, Vol. IV, 770–796. Cracow, 1884. Kéza, Simon, László Veszprémy, and Frank Schaer. Gesta Hungarorum. Budapest: Central European University Press, 1999. King, C. W. Antique Gems: Their Origin, Uses, and Value as Interpreters of Ancient History. London: J. Murray, 1860. King, C. W. Handbook of Engraved Gems. London: G. Bell, 1885. Kinnamos, John, trans. Charles M. Brand. Deeds of John and Manuel Comnenus. New York: Columbia University Press, 1976. Kiss, Etele. “Anneau d’Anne d’Antioche.” In Hungaria regia (1000–1800): ˝ Fastes et défis, edited by Sándor Oze and Luc Duerloo, 118–119. Brussels: Brepols, 1999. Kiss, Etele. “Couronne.” In Hungaria regia (1000–1800): Fastes et défis, edited ˝ and Luc Duerloo, 120. Brussels: Brepols, 1999. by Sándor Oze

284

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Kiss, Etele. “Bracelet.” In Hungaria regia (1000–1800): fastes et défis, edited by ˝ and Luc Duerloo, 124–125. Brussels: Brepols, 1999. Sandor Oze Kiss, Etele. “The State of Research on the Monomachos Crown.” In Perceptions of Byzantium and Its Neighbors: 843–1261, edited by Olenka Z. Pevny, 60–83. New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art, 2000. Kiss, Etele. “Six éléments d’une couronne.” In L’Europe des Anjou: aventure des princes angevins du XIIIe et XIVe siècle, edited by Guy Le Goff and Francesco Aceto, 338–339. Paris: Somogy, 2001. Kiss, Etele. “Devant d’autel ou dorsal fait du brocart de trône des Angevins.” In L’Europe des Anjou: aventure des princes angevins du XIIIe au XVe siècle, edited by Guy Le Goff and Francesco Aceto, 339. Paris: Somogy éditions d’art, 2001. Kiss, József Géza, and Róbert Ujszászi. “Mária királyn˝ o obulusai” [The Obols of Queen Mary]. Az Érem LXXI (2014): 1–6. Klaniczay, Gábor. Holy Rulers and Blessed Princesses: Dynastic Cults in Medieval Central Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002. Klaniczay, Gábor. “Sacred Sites in Medieval Buda.” In Medieval Buda in Context, edited by Balázs Nagy, Martyn Rady, Katalin Szende, and András Vadas, 229– 254. Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2016. Klejn, Leo. “Neither Archaeology Nor Theory: A Critique of Johnson.” Antiquity 80 (2006): 435–441. Knoll, Paul, and Frank Schaer. Gesta Principum Polonorum: The Deeds of the Princes of the Poles. Budapest: Central European University Press, 2003. Komjáthy, Miklós. “Quelques problèmes relatifs à la charte de fondation du couvent des religieuses de Veszprémvölgy.” Mélanges offerts à Szabolcs de Vajay à l’occasion de son 50e anniversaire (1971): 369–380. Kondor, Márta. “The Ginger Fox’s Two Crowns: Central Administration and Government in Sigismund of Luxembourg’s Realms, 1410–1419.” PhD diss. Central European University, 2017. Kopytoff, Igor. “The Cultural Biography of Things: Commoditization as Process.” In The Social Life of Things: Commodities in Cultural Perspective, edited by Arjun Appadurai, 64–91. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986. Körmendi, Tamás. “A Gertrúd királyné elleni merénylet körülményei” [The Circumstances of the Assassination of Queen Gertrude.” In Egy történelmi gyilkosság margójára: Merániai Gertrúd emlékezete, 1213–2013, edited by Judit Majorossy, 95–124. Szentendre: Ferenczy Múzeum, 2014. Kosi, Miha. “The Age of the Crusades in the South-East of the Empire (Between the Alps and the Adriatic).” In The Crusades and the Military Orders: Expanding the Frontiers of Medieval Latin Christianity, edited by Zsolt Hunyadi and József Laszlovszky, 123–165. Budapest: CEU Press, 2001.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

285

Kosztolnyik, Z. J. From Coloman the Learned to Béla III (1095–1196). Boulder: East European Monographs, 1987. Kosztolnyik, Z. J. Hungary in the Thirteenth Century. Boulder: East European Monographs, 1996. Kosztolnyik, Z. J. Hungary under the Early Árpáds. Boulder: East European Monographs, 2002. Kosztolnyik, Z. J. The dynastic policy of the Árpáds, Géza I to Emery (1074–1204). Boulder: East European Monographs, 2006. Kovács, Annamária. “Courtly Costumes in Fourteenth-Century Hungary.” In“Quasi Liber et Pictura”: Studies in Honour of András Kubinyi on his Seventieth Birthday, edited by Gyöngyi Kovács, 301–310. Budapest: ELTE Institute of Archaeological Sciences, 2004. Kovács, Béla. Az egri egyházmegye története 1596-ig [The History of the Diocese of Eger until 1596]. Eger, 1987. Kovács, Eszter. “Budapest, XIII. Margitsziget, domonkos apácakolostor.” Régészeti kutatások Magyarországon I (2005): 208. Kovács, Éva. “III. Béla és Antiochiai Anna halotti jelvényei” [The Death Insignia of Béla III & Anna of Antioch]. M˝ uvészettörténeti Ertésít˝o XXI (1972): 1–14. Kovács, Éva. “Magyarországi Anjou koronák” [Hungarian Angevin Crowns]. Ars Hungarica 62/1 (1976): 7–19. Kovács, Éva. “Magyar országalma” [The Hungarian Orb]. In M˝ uvészet I. Lajos Király korában, 1342–1382 [Art in the Age of King Louis I 1342–1382], edited by Ern˝ o Marosi, Melinda Tóth, and Lívia Varga, 97–98. Budapest: MTA M˝ uvészettörténeti Kutató Csoport, 1982. Kovács, Éva. “Liliomos korona egy ága Krušedol monostorból” [A Piece of a Lily Crown from the Monastery of Krušedol]. In M˝ uvészet I. Lajos király korában, 1342–1382, edited by Ern˝ o Marosi, Melinda Tóth, and Lívia Varga, 101. Budapest: MTA M˝ uvészettörténeti Kutató Csoport, 1982. Kovács, Éva. “I. Lajos király címerei Aachenben” [The Coat-of-Arms of King Louis I in Aachen]. In M˝ uvészet I. Lajos Király korában, 1342–1382 [Art in the Age of King Louis I 1342–1382], edited by Ern˝ o Marosi, Melinda Tóth, and Lívia Varga, 107–108. Budapest: MTA M˝ uvészettörténeti Kutató Csoport, 1982. Kovács, Éva. “A gótikus ronde-bosse zománc a budai udvarban” [A Gothic rondebosse Enamel in the Court of Buda]. M˝ uvészettörténeti Értesít˝o 31/2 (1982): 89–94. Kovács, Éva, and Zsuzsa Lovag. The Hungarian Crown and Other Regalia. Budapest: Hungarian National Museum, 1986. Kovács, Éva. “Gizella királyné keresztje” [The Cross of Queen Gisela]. In Gizella királyne, 985 k.–1060, edited by János Géczi, 157–160. Veszprém, 2000.

286

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Kovács, Éva. “Gizella királyné keresztjének feliratai és ikonográfiája” [The Iconography and Inscriptions on the Cross of Queen Gisela]. In Gizella királyne, 985 k.–1060, edited by János Géczi, 160–164. Veszprém, 2000. Kovaˇcevi´c, Marijana. “The Omnipresent Death in the Iconography of Saint Simeon’s Shrine in Zadar.” IKON 4 (2011): 211–222. Kövér, Béla. “Szent István és Gizella metzi miseruhája.” Archaeológiai Értesít˝o 10 (1890): 332–333. Kralovansky, Alán. “The Settlement History of Veszprém and Székesfehérvár in the Middle Ages.” In Towns in Medieval Hungary, edited by László Gerevich, 51–95. Boulder: Social Science Monographs, 1990. Kreuter, Franz, and Martin Gerbert. Feyerliche Uebersetzung der KaiserlichKöniglich auch Herzoglich Oesterreichischen Höchsten Leichen aus ihren Grabstädten Basel und Königsfelden in der Schweiz. St. Blaise, 1770. Kristó, Gyula, et al. Anjou-kori oklevéltar, I–XL. Budapest and Szeged, 1992– 2015. Kristó, Gyula. “Károly Róbert családja” [The Family of Charles Robert]. Aetas 20/4 (2005): 14–28. Kroos, Renate. “Sog. Landgrafen psalter.” In Sankt Elisabeth: Fürstin Dienerin Heilige, edited by Paul Gerhard Schmidt et al., 350–351. Sigmaringen: Thorbecke, 1981. Krüger, Jürgen. S. Lorenzo Maggiore in Neapel: Eine Franziskanerkirche zwischen Ordensideal und Herrschaftsarchitektur. Werl: Dietrich-Colde Verlag, 1985. Kumorovitz, L. Bernát. A Magyar Pecséthasználat története a középkorban: Der Gebrauch von Sigeln in Ungarn im Mittelalter. Budapest: Hungarian National Museum, 1993. Kürbis, Brygida. “Die Gertrudanischen Gebete im Psalterium Egberti: Ein Betrag zur Geschichte der Frömmigkeit im 11 Jahrhundert.” In Europa Slavica – Europa Orientalis: Festschrift für Herbert Ludat zum 70 Geburtstag, edited by Klaus-Detlev Grothusen and Klaus Zernack, 249–261. Berlin: Duncker and Humbolt, 1980. Kurmann-Schwartz, Brigitte. Die mittelalterlichen Glasmalereien der ehemaligen Klosterkirche Königsfelden. Bern: Stämpfli, 2008. Kurmann-Schwarz, Brigitte. “Seeing and Understanding Narrative and Thematic Method in the Stained Glass of the Choir of Königsfelden ca. 1330–1340.” In The Four Modes of Seeing: Approaches to Medieval Imagery in Honor of Madeline Harrison Caviness, edited by Evelyn Staudinger Lane, Elizabeth Carton Pastan, and Ellen M. Shortell, 257–273. Burlington: Ashgate, 2009. Kurmann-Schwarz, Brigitte. “Die Präsenz der abwesenden Dynastie: Die Bilder und Wappen der Habsburger im Chor und im Langhaus der ehemaligen Klosterkirche von Königsfelden.” Österreichische Zeitschrift für Kunst und Denkmalpflege LXVI (2012): 308–319.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

287

Lang, Benedek. Unlocked Books: Manuscripts of Learned Magic in the Medieval Libraries of Central Europe. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 2008. Laszlovszky, József. “Angolszász koronázási Ordo Magyarországon” [AngloSaxon Coronation Ordo in Hungary]. In Angol-Magyar Kapcsolatok a középkorban [English-Hungarian Contacts in the Middle Ages] I, edited by Attila Bárány, József Laszlovszky, and Zsuzsanna Papp, 91–113. Máriabesny˝ o: Attraktor, 2008. Laszlovszky, József. “Angol-Magyar kapcsolatok a 12 század második felében” [English-Hungarian Relations in the Second Half of the Twelfth Century]. Angol-Magyar kapcsolatok a középkorban [English-Hungarian Contacts in the Middle Ages] I, edited by Attila Bárány, József Laszlovszky, and Zsuzsanna Papp, 143–171. Máriabesny˝ o: Attraktor, 2008. Laszlovszky, József. “Local Tradition or European Patterns? The Grave of Queen Gertrude in the Pilis Cistercian Abbey.” In Medieval East Central Europe in a Comparative Perspective: From Frontier Zones to Lands in Focus, edited by Gerhard Jaritz and Katalin Szende, 81–98. New York: Routledge, 2016. Laszlovszky, József, and József Szentpéteri. “…scripta manent. Emlékképek a pilisi úgynevezett Gertrúd-sír megtalálási körülményeir˝ ol” [“…Scripta manent”. Memories of Excavating the So-called Gertrude Grave of Pilis]. In Egy történelmi gyilkosság margójára: Merániai Gertrúd emlékezete, 1213–2013, edited by Judit Majorossy, 165–172. Szentendre: Ferenczy Múzeum, 2014. Lauro, Brigitta. Die Grabstätten der Habsburger: Kunstdenkmäler einer europäischen Dynastie. Vienna: Brandstätter, 2007. Lazarev, Viktor.“New Data on the Mosaics and Frescoes of the Cathedral of St. Sophia in Kiev: The Group Portrait of Yaroslav’s Family.” In Studies in Early Russian Art, edited by Viktor Lazarev, 386–426. London: The Pindar Press, 2000. Lechner, Karl. Die Babenberger: Markgrafen und Herzoge von Österreich 976– 1246. Vienna: Böhlau Verlag, 1996. Leeper, A. W. A. A History of Medieval Austria. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1941. Lenner, Tibor. “Life in Veszprém, in the ‘Town of Queens.’” Revija za geografijo - Journal for Geography 7/2 (2012): 87–98. Lepie, Herta. “Deux écus, appartenant à un mors de chape.” In L’Europe des Anjou: aventure des princes Angevins du Xiiie au XVEe siècle, edited by Guy Le Goff and Francesco Aceto, 337. Paris: Somogy, 2001. Liebenau, Hermann von, and Theodor von Liebenau. Hundert Urkunden zu der Geschichte der Königin Agnes, Wittwe von Ungarn, 1288–1364. Regensburg: Georg Joseph Manz, 1869. Lorenzo de Monaci. “Laurentii de Monacis Veneti carmen seu historia Carolo II cognomento Parvo Rege Hungariae.” In Laurentii de Monacis Veneti Crete

288

BIBLIOGRAPHY

cancelarii chronicon de rebus Venetis etc, edited by Flaminius Cornelius. Venice, 1758. Lovag, Zsuzsa. “A Short Historiography of Researching the Hungarian Coronation Mantle.” In The Coronation Mantle of Hungarian Kings, edited by István Bardoly, 11–28. Budapest: Hungarian National Museum, 2005. L˝ ovei, Pál. “The Sepulchral Monument of Saint Margaret of the Árpád Dynasty.”Acta Historiae Artium 26 (1980): 175–211. Lyon, Jonathan R. “The Letters of Princess Sophia of Hungary, a Nun at Admont.” In Writing Medieval Women’s Lives, edited by Charlotte Newman Goldy and Amy Livingstone, 51–68. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2012. Macartney, Carlisle A. The Medieval Hungarian Historians. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1953. Madas, Edit, and István Monok. A Könyvkultúra Magyarországon: a kezdetekt˝ol 1730-ig [Book Culture in Hungary: From the Beginning to 1730]. Budapest: Ballasi Kiadó, 1997. Magdalino, Paul. The Empire of Manuel I Komnenos, 1143–1180. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993. Magyar, Károly. “Der Königspalast in Buda.” In Budapest im Mittelalter, edited by Gerd Biegel, 201–235. Brunswick: Braunschweigischen Landesmuseums, 1992. Mailáth, Johann. Geschichte der Magyaren, Vol. II. Vienna: F. Tendler, 1828. Majorossy, Judit, and Katalin Szende. “Hospitals in Medieval and Early Modern Hungary.” In Europäisches Spitalwesen. Institutionelle Fürsorge in Mittelalter und Früher Neuzeit: Hospitals and Institutional Care in Medieval and Early Modern Europe, edited by Martin Scheutz et al., 409–454. Vienna and Munich: R. Oldenbourg Verlag, 2008. Majorossy, Judit, ed. Egy történelmi gyilkosság margójára: Merániai Gertrúd emlékezete, 1213–2013 [To the Margin of a Historical Murder: Commemorate Gertrude of Andechs-Meran, 1213–2013]. Szentendre, 2014. Makk, Ferenc. The Árpáds and the Comneni: Political Relations between Hungary and Byzantium in the 12th Century. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 1989. Malaterra, Goffredo, Ernesto Pontieri, ed. De rebus gestis Rogerii Calabriae et Siciliae comitis et Roberti Guiscardi Ducis fratis eius. Bologna: Zanichelli, 1928. Mann, Horace K. The Lives of the Popes in the Early Middle Ages, Vol. V. St. Louis: B. Herder, 1910. Marczali, Henrik. Magyarország története az Árpádok korában (1038–1301) [Hungarian History in the Age of the Árpáds (1038–1301)]. Vol. IV. Budapest: Athenaeum Irodalmi és Nyomdai Részvénytársulat, 1896. Márki, Sándor. Mária Magyarország királynéja 1370–1395. Budapest: A Magyar történelmi társulat kiadása, 1885.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

289

Marin, Serban. ¸ “A Venetian Chronicler in Crete: The Case of Lorenzo de’ Monaci and His Possible Byzantine Sources.” In Italy and Europe’s Eastern Border: 1204–1669, edited by Iulian Mihai Damian et al., 237–258. Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 2012. Marosi, Ern˝ o. “A 14. századi Magyarország udvari m˝ uvészettörténetírásban” [The Fourteenth Century Hungarian Court in the Art Historical Literature]. In M˝ uvészet I. Lajos király korában 1342–1382, edited by Ern˝ o Marosi, Melinda Tóth, and Lívia Varga, 51–77. Budapest: MTA M˝ uvészettörténeti Kutató Csoport, 1982. Marosi, Ern˝ o. “I. felségi (kett˝ os) pecsét (1308–1323).” In M˝ uvészet I. Lajos király korában, 1342–1382, edited by Ern˝ o Marosi, Melinda Tóth, and Lívia Varga, 142. Budapest: MTA M˝ uvészettörténeti Kutató Csoport, 1982. Marosi, Ern˝ o. “II. felségi (kett˝ os) pecsét (1323–1330).” In M˝ uvészet I. Lajos király korában, 1342–1382, edited by Ern˝ o Marosi, Melinda Tóth, and Lívia Varga, 142. Budapest: MTA M˝ uvészettörténeti Kutató Csoport, 1982. Marosi, Ern˝ o. “III. felségi (kett˝ os) pecsét (1331–1342).” In M˝ uvészet I. Lajos király korában, 1342–1382, edited by Ern˝ o Marosi, Melinda Tóth, and Lívia Varga, 143. Budapest: MTA M˝ uvészettörténeti Kutató Csoport, 1982. Marosi, Ern˝ o. “Gy˝ ur˝ us pecsét Erzsébet királyné oklevelén” [The Ring Seal on the Charter of Queen Elizabeth]. In M˝ uvészet I. Lajos király korában, 1342– 1382, edited by Ern˝ o Marosi, Melinda Tóth, and Lívia Varga, 143. Budapest: MTA M˝ uvészettörténeti Kutató Csoport, 1982. Marosi, Ern˝ o. “Kett˝ os pecsét.” In M˝ uvészet I. Lajos király korában, 1342–1382, edited by Ern˝ o Marosi, Melinda Tóth, and Lívia Varga, 144. Budapest: MTA M˝ uvészettörténeti Kutató Csoport, 1982. Marosi, Ern˝ o. “Erzsébet magyar és lengyel királyné pecsétje” [Seal of Elizabeth Queen of Hungary and Poland]. In Marosi, Ern˝ o, Melinda Tóth, Lívia Varga, and István Király Múzeum. M˝ uvészet I. Lajos király korában, 1342–1382: katalogus, 144. Budapest: MTA M˝ uvészettörténeti Kutató Csoport, 1982. uvészet I. Lajos király korában, Marosi, Ern˝ o. “Gy˝ ur˝ us pecsét” [Ring Seal]. In M˝ 1342–1382, edited by Ern˝ o Marosi, Melinda Tóth, and Lívia Varga, 145. Budapest: MTA M˝ uvészettörténeti Kutató Csoport, 1982. Marosi, Ern˝ o. “Címeres középpecsét” [Heraldic seal] and “Titkos pecsét” [Privy seal]. In M˝ uvészet I. Lajos Király korában, 1342–1382 [Art in the age of King Louis I 1342–1382], edited by Ern˝ o Marosi, Melinda Tóth, and Lívia Varga, 148. Budapest: MTA M˝ uvészettörténeti Kutató Csoport, 1982. Marosi, Ern˝ o. “Gy˝ ur˝ us pecsét” [Ring Seal]. In M˝ uvészet I. Lajos király korában, 1342–1382, edited by Ern˝ o Marosi, Melinda Tóth, and Lívia Varga, 150. Budapest: MTA M˝ uvészettörténeti Kutató Csoport, 1982. Marosi, Ern˝ o. “Kisebb felségpecsét” [Smaller Majestic Seal]. In M˝ uvészet I. Lajos király korában, 1342–1382: katalogus, edited by Marosi, Ern˝ o,

290

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Melinda Tóth, Lívia Varga, and István Király Múzeum, 151. Budapest: MTA M˝ uvészettörténeti Kutató Csoport, 1982. Marosi, Ern˝ o. “Der grosse Münzsiegel der Königin Maria von Ungarn: Zum Problem der Serialität Mittelalterlicher Kunstwerke.” Acta Historiae Artium XXVIII (1982): 3–22. Marosi, Ern˝ o. Die Anfänge der Gotik in Ungarn: Esztergom in der Kunst des 12–13 Jahrhunderts. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 1984. Marosi, Ern˝ o. “Das Frontspiz der Ungarischen Bilderchronik.” Wiener Jahrbuch für Kunstgeschichte 46–47 (1994): 357–373. Marosi, Ern˝ o. “Mariazell und die Kunst Ungarns im Mittelalter.” In Ungarn in Mariazell – Mariazell in Ungarn: Geschichte und Erinnerung, edited by Péter Farbaky, Szabolcs Serf˝ oz˝ o, 28–38. Budapest, 2004. Marosi, Ern˝ o. “The Székesfehérvár Chasuble of King Saint Stephen and Queen Gisela.” In The Coronation Mantle of the Hungarian Kings, edited by István Bardoly, 101–140. Budapest: Hungarian National Museum, 2005. Marosi, Ern˝ o. “A zágrábi Szent László casula” [The Saint Ladislas Mantle from Zagreb]. In Károly Róbert és Székesfehérvár: King Charles Robert and Székesfehérvár, edited by Terézia Kerny and András Smohay, 127–138. Székesfehérvár: Székesfehérvári Egyházi Múzeum, 2011. Marti, Susan. “Königin Agnes und ihre Geschenke: Zeugnisse, Zuschreibungen und Legenden.” Kunst + Architektur in der Schweiz 47 (1996): 169–180. Martin, Therese. “Exceptions and Assumptions: Women in Medieval Art History.” In Reassessing the Roles of Women as ‘Makers’ of Medieval Art and Architecture, edited by Therese Martin, 1–33. Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2012. Masser, Achim. “Gebete und Benediktionen von Muri.” In Die deutsche Literatur des Mittelalters Verfasserlexikon II , edited by Wolfgang Stammler et al., 1110– 1112. Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1980. McEntee, Brian. “The Burial Site Selection of a Hungarian Queen: Elizabeth, Queen of Hungary (1320–1380), and the Óbuda Clares’ Church.” Annual of Medieval Studies at CEU 12 (2006): 69–82. McEntee, Brian. “Queen Elizabeth of Hungary (1320–1380) and Óbuda: Patronage, Personality and Place.” In La diplomatie des États Angevins au XIIIe et XIVe siècles, edited by Zoltán Kordé and István Petrovics, 209–218. Rome and Szeged, 2010. McKiernan-González, Eileen. “Reception, Gender, and Memory: Elisenda de Montcada and Her Dual-Effigy Tomb at Santa Maria de Pedralbes.” In Reassessing the Roles of Women as ‘Makers’ of Medieval Art and Architecture, edited byTherese Martin, 309–352. Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2012. Meister Eckhart, Edmund Colledge, and Bernanrd McGinn. The Essential Sermons, Commentaries, Treatises and Defense. New York: Paulist Press, 1981. Menadier, Julius. Deutsche Münzen, Vol. I. Berlin, 1891.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

291

Mészáros, Orsolya. “The Reconstructed Topographical Gazetteer.” In The Medieval Royal Town at Visegrád: Royal Centre, Urban Settlement, Churches, edited by Gergely Buzás, József Laszlovszky, and Orsolya Mészáros. Budapest: Archaeolingua, 2014. Mielke, Christopher. “Lifestyles of the Rich and (in?)Animate: Object Biography and the Reliquary Cross of Queen Adelaide of Hungary.” In Queenship, Gendered, and Reputation in the Medieval and Early Modern West, 1060– 1600, edited by Lisa Benz St. John and Zita Rohr, 3–27. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2016. Mielke, Christopher. “From Her Head to Her Toes: Gender-Bending Regalia in the Tomb of Constance of Aragon, Queen of Hungary and Sicily.” Royal Studies Journal 5/2 (2018): 49–62. Mielke, Christopher. “The Many Faces of Eirene-Piroska in the Visual and Material Culture.” In Piroska and the Pantokrator: Dynastic Memory, Healing and Salvation in Komnenian Constantinople, edited by Marianne Sághy and Robert Ousterhout, 153–172. Budapest: Central European University Press, 2019. Mielke, Christopher. “Doubly Crowned: Private and Public Images of Queen Elizabeth the Elder and Queen Elizabeth the Younger at the HungarianAngevin Court.” In Ambiguous Women in Medieval Art, edited by Monica Walker-Vadillo, 146–167. Budapest: Trivent Publications, 2019. Mielke, Christopher. “Rub-a-dub-dub, three maids in a tub: secondary sites of the sex trade in medieval Hungarian towns.” In Same Bodies, Different Women: ‘Other’ Women in the Middle Ages and the Early Modern Period, edited by Christopher Mielke and Andrea-Bianka Znorovsky, 115–131. Budapest: Trivent Publications, 2019. Mikó, Árpád. “D. O. M. All’antica feliratok és a reneszánsz stílus a Jagelló-kori Magyarországon.” In“Nem s˝ ulyed az emberiség!”: Album amicorum Szörényi László LX. születésnapjára, edited by József Jankovics, 1195–1205. Budapest: MTA Irodalomtudományi Intézet, 2007. Mikó, Árpád, and József Hapák. The Corvinas of King Matthias in the National Széchényi Library. Budapest: Kossuth Publishing and National Széchényi Library, 2008. Miladinov, Marina. Margins of Solitude: Eremitism in Central Europe Between East and West. Zagreb: Leykam International, 2008. Miron, E. L. The Queens of Aragon: Their Lives and Times. New York: Brentano’s, 1913. Minieri-Riccio, Camillo. Genealogia di Carlo I. di Angiò: Prima Generazione. Naples: Vincenzo Priggiobba, 1857. Mone, Franz Josef. “Liber constructionis monasterii ad S. Blasium.” In Quellensammlung der badischen landesgeschichte, Vol. 4, 76–142. Karlsruhe: G. Macklot, 1867.

292

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Montalembert, Charles. The Life of Saint Elizabeth of Hungary, Duchess of Thuringia. New York: Sadlier, 1848. Monter, William. “Gendered Sovereignty: Numismatics and Female Monarchs in Europe, 1300–1800.” Journal of Interdisciplinary History XLI: 4 (2011): 533–564. Moravcsik, Gyula. Szent László leánya és a bizánci Pantokrator-monostor. Die Tochter Ladislaus des Heiligen und das Pantokrator-Kloster in Konstantinopel. Budapest and Constantinople: A konstantinápolyi Magyar Tudományos Intézet Közleményei – Mitteilungen des Ungarischen Wissenschaftlichen Institutes in Konstantinopel 7–8, 1923. Moravcsik, Gyula. “The Role of the Byzantine Church in Medieval Hungary.” The American Slavic and East European Review 6 (1947): 134–151. Moravcsik, Gyula. Byzantium and the Magyars. Amsterdam: Hakkert, 1970. Müller-Christensen, S. “Sog. Rock der hl. Elisabeth (auch sog. Krönungsmantel GertrudsI” n Sankt Elisabeth: Fürstin Dienerin Heilige, edited by Carl Graepler and Paul Gerhard Schmidt, 332–334. Sigmaringen: Thorbecke, 1981. Munk, Ana. “The Queen and Her Shrine: An Art Historical Twist on Historical Evidence Concerning the Hungarian Queen Elizabeth Kotromani´c, Donor of the Saint Simeon Shrine.” Hortus Artium Medievalium 10 (2004): 253–262. Muthesius, Anna. “Silk in the Medieval World.” In The Cambridge History of Western Textiles, edited by David Jenkins, 325–354. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003. Nagy, Balázs. “The Towns of Medieval Hungary in the Reports of Contemporary Travellers.” In Segregation, Integration, and Assimilation: Religious and Ethnic Groups in the Medieval Towns of Central and Eastern Europe, edited by Derek Keene, Balázs Nagy, and Katalin Szende, 169–178. Farnham: Ashgate, 2009. Nagy, Balázs, and Frank Schaer, ed. Autobiography of Charles IV and His Legend of St. Wenceslas. Budapest: Central European University Press, 2001. Nagy, Emese. “Reconstitution de la Topographie de la colline d’Esztergom a l’haute epoque arpadienne.” Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 34 (1982): 41–69. Nagy, Katalin E., Enik˝ o Sipos, and Ern˝ o Marosi. “The Picture Fields of the Mantle (1–43) Fragments of the Embroidered Band.” In The Coronation Mantle of the Hungarian Kings, edited by István Bardoly, 141–230. Budapest: Hungarian National Museum, 2005. Nagy, Péter T. “‘Islamic’ Artifacts in Hungary from the Reign of Béla III (1172– 1196): Two Case Studies.” Annual of Medieval Studies at CEU 22 (2016): 49–61. Nastasoiu, Drago¸s Gheorge. “Patterns of Devotion and Traces of Art during the Diplomatic Journey of Queen Elizabeth Piast to Italy in 1343–1344.”

BIBLIOGRAPHY

293

In Convivium: Exchanges and Interactions in the Arts of Medieval Europe, Byzantium, and the Mediterranean, edited by Michele Bacci and Ivan Foletti, 98–111. Turnhout: Brepols, 2015. Nastasoiu, Drago¸s Gheorge. “Patterns of Devotion and Traces of Art: The Pilgrimage of Queen Elizabeth Piast to Marburg, Cologne, and Aachen in 1357.” Um˘ení LXIV (2016): 29–43. Nehring, Wladislaus. Psalterii Florianensis Partem Polonicam ad Fidem codicis. ˙ Poznan: ´ J. K. Zupa nski, ´ 1883. Nemerkenyi, El˝ od. “Latin Classics in Medieval Libraries: Hungary in the Eleventh Century.” Acta Antiqua Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 43 (2003): 243–256. Nemerkenyi, El˝ od. Latin Classics in Medieval Hungary: Eleventh Century. Budapest: Central European University Press, 2004. Nemerkenyi, El˝ od. “The Religious Ruler in the Admonitions of Saint Stephen of Hungary.” In Monotheistic Kingship: The Medieval Variants, edited byAziz Al-Azmeh and János M. Bak, 231–247. Budapest: CEU Medievalia, 2004. Nevismal, Alfred. “Königin Agnes von Ungarn: Leben und Stellung in der habsburgischen Politik ihrer Zeit.” PhD diss. University of Vienna, 1951. Newton, Stella Mary. Fashion in the Age of the Black Prince: A Study of the Years 1340–1365. Woodbridge: The Boydell Press, 1980. Nolan, Kathleen. Queens in Stone and Silver: The Creation of a Visual Imagery of Queenship in Capetian France. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2009. Tóth, C. Norbert. “Királyn˝ ob˝ ol királyné. Mária és Zsigmond viszonya a források tükrében” [From Ruling Queen to Royal Consort: Queen Mary of Anjou and Sigismund of Luxemburg in the Mirror of Historical Sources]. Acta Universitatis Szegediensis. Acta Historica. Tom. CXXXII (2011): 59–71. Norwich, John Julius. A Short History of Byzantium. New York: Vintage Books, 1997. Novak, Ádam. “Izabella (Erzsébet) királyné pecsétjeir˝ ol” [The Seals of Queen Isabella (Elizabeth)]. Turul LXXXVII (2014): 109–111. Oikonomides, Nicolas. “La Couronne dite de Constantin Monomaque.” Travaux et Mémoires, Centre de Recherche d’Histoire et Civilisation de Byzance 12 (1994): 241–262. Orosz, Krisztina. “Mozgó udvar – mozgó háztartás. Állandó vagy ideiglenes berendezés a kés˝ o középkori király és nemesi otthonokban?” [Itinerant Courts—Itinerant Households. Permanent or Temporary Furnishings in Royal and Noble Homes in the Late Middle Ages?]. In medio regni Hungariae. Régészeti, M˝ uvészettörténeti és történeti kutatások ‘az ország közepén’: Archaeological, Art Historical, and Historical Researches ‘in the Middle of the Kingdom’, edited by Elek Benk˝ o and Krisztina Orosz, 111–144. Budapest: Magyar Tudományos Akadémia, 2015.

294

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Osborne, Duffield. Engraved Gems, Signets, Talismans and Ornamental Intaglios, Ancient and Modern. New York: H. Holt and Co., 1912. Otto of Freising, Rahewin, Charles Christopher Mierow, trans. The Deeds of Frederick Barbarossa. New York: Columbia University Press, 1953. Ozóg, ˙ Krzysztof. “Krakowskie s´rodowisko umysłowe na przełomie XIV i XV wieku a problem powstania Psałterza florianskiego” ´ [The Intellectual Circles in Cracow at the Turn of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Centuries and the Problem of the Creation of the Sankt Florian Psalter]. Rocznik Biblioteki Narodowej XLII (2011): 93–114. Parsons, John Carmi. “Introduction: Family, Sex, and Power: The Rhythms of Medieval Queenship.” In Medieval Queenship, edited by John Carmi Parsons, 1–11. Stroud: Sutton Publishing Limited, 1993. Parsons, John Carmi. “‘Never Was a Body Buried in England with Such Solemnity and Honour’: The Burials and Posthumous Commemorations of English Queens to 1500.” In Queens and Queenship in Medieval Europe, edited by Anne Duggan, 317–337. Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 1997. Parsons, John Carmi. “Queens and Empresses: The West.” In Women and Gender in Medieval Europe: An Encyclopedia, edited by Margaret Schaus, 683–690. New York: Routledge, 2006. Pertz, Georg Heinrich, et al. “Annales Marbacenses.” In Monumenta Germaniae Historiae, Scriptores XVII, 142–180. Hanover: Impensis Bibliopolii A vlici Hahniani, 1861. Péter, László. “The Holy Crown of Hungary, Visible and Invisible.” The Slavonic and East European Review 81/3 (2003): 421–510. Petricioli, Ivo. St. Simeon’s Shrine in Zadar. Zagreb: Jugoslavenska akademija znanosti i umjetnosti, 1983. Petricioli, Ivo. “Još o Pavlo iz Sulmone – graditelju proˇcelja crkve u Starom Pagu” [Pavao of Sulmona—Builder of the Façade of the Church in Old Pag]. Ars Adriatica 3 (2013): 111–122. Petrovics, István. “The Fading Glory of a Former Medieval Royal Seat: The Case of Medieval Temesvár.” In …The Man of Many Devices, Who Wandered Full Many Ways…: Festschrift in Honor of János M. Bak, edited by Balázs Nagy and Marcell Seb˝ ok, 527–538. Budapest: Central European University Press, 1999. Pistorius, Johann, et al. Illustrium veterum scriptorum qui rerum a Germanis per multas aetas gestarum historias vel annales posteris reliquerunt, Vol. I. Frankfurt, 1613. Pohl, Artur. Münzzeichen und Meisterzeichen auf Ungarischen Münzen des Mittelalters 1300–1540. Graz and Budapest: Akademische Druck u. Verlagsanstalt and Akedémiai Kiadó, 1982. Poppe, Andrzej. “Building of the Church of St Sophia in Kiev.” Journal of Medieval History 7 (1981): 15–66.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

295

Pór, Antal. “Erzsébet királyné aacheni zarándoklása 1357-ben” [The Pilgrimage of Queen Elizabeth to Aachen in 1357]. Századok 35 (1901): 1–14. Posse, Otto. Die Siegel der deutschen Kaiser und Könige, Vol. V. Dresden: Baensch, 1909. Povstenko, Oleska. The Cathedral of St. Sophia in Kiev. New York: Ukrainian Academy of Arts and Sciences in the United States, 1954. Pray, György. Syntagma historicum de sigillis regum, et reginarum Hungariae pluribusque aliis. Buda, 1805. Pringle, Denys. “The Crusader Cathedral of Tyre.” Levant 33 (2001): 165–188. Pringle, Denys. The Chruches of the Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem: A Corpus, Vol. III. The City of Jerusalem. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007. Proctor-Tiffany, Mariah. “Portrait of a Medieval Patron: The Inventory and Gift Giving of Clémence of Hungary.” PhD diss. Brown University, 2007. Rácz, György, and Ern˝ o Marosi. “Urkunde der ungarischen Königin Maria (1382–1395) für Ragusa mit dem doppelten Hoheitssiegel.” In Sigismundus Rex et Imperator, edited by Imre Takács, 59–60. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern, 2006. Rady, Martyn, and László Veszprémy. Anonymous, Notary of King Béla: The Deeds of the Hungarians. Budapest: Central European University Press, 2010. Raffensperger, Christian. “The Missing Rusian Women: The Case of Evpraksia Vsevolodovna.” In Writing Medieval Women’s Lives, edited by Charlotte Newman Goldy and Amy Livingstone, 69–84. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2012. Rainer, Pál. “Der Königinnen von Ungarn zu Zeit der Árpáden.” In Gizella és kora: Felolvasóülések az Árpád-korból, edited by Zsuzsa Fodor, 89–96. Veszprém, 1993. Ramos, Luis García-Guijarro. “The Aragonese Hospitaller Monastery of Sigena: Its Early Stages, 1188–c.1210.” In Hospitaller Women in the Middle Ages, edited by Anthony Luttrell and Helen J. Nicholson, 113–152. Aldershot: Ashgate, 2006. Ráth, Károly. A Magyar Királyok és erdély fejedelmek hadjárati, utazási és tarózkodási helyei. Gy˝ or: Sauervein, 1866. Rathsamhausen, Philip von. Commentarius de vita et rebus gestis S. Walpurgae virginis: abbastissae monasterii in Heidenheim, edited by Petrus Stevartius. Ingolstadt: Amgermaria vidua, 1616. Rathsamhausen, Philipp von. Acta Sanctorum. Paris and Rome, 1865. Renoux, Annie. “Elite Women, Palaces, and Castles in Northern France (ca. 850– 1100).” In Reassessing the Roles of Women as ‘Makers’ of Medieval Art and Architecture, Vol. II, edited by Therese Martin, 739–782. Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2012.

296

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Réthelyi, Orsolya, et al. Mary of Hungary: The Queen and Her Court, 1521–1531. Budapest: Budapest History Museum, 2005. Réthelyi, Orsolya. “‘…Maria regina… nuda venerat ad Hungariam’: The Queen’s Treasures.” In Mary of Hungary: The Queen and Her Court 1521–1531, edited by Orsolya Réthelyi et al., 121–127. Budapest: Budapest History Museum, 2005. Réthelyi, Orsolya. “Mary of Hungary in Court Context (1521–1531).” PhD diss. Central European University, 2010. Réthy, László. Corpus Nummorum Hungariae: Magyar Egyetemes Éremtár, Vol. I–II. Budapest: Magyar Tudományos Akadémia Kiadása, 1899–1907. Révész, Éva. “A keleti kereszténység: szerep, hatás vagy jelenlét?: A veszprémvölgyi monostor” [Eastern Christianity: Role, Impact or Presence?: The Veszprémvölgy Monastery]. Belvedere 21 (2009): 52–64. Richardson, Amanda. “Gender and Space in English Royal Palaces c. 1160– c.1547: A Study in Access Analysis and Imagery.” Medieval Archaeology 47 (2003): 131–165. Richardson, Nicholas J. “Sirens.” In The Oxford Classical Dictionary, edited by Simon Hornblower, Anthony Spawforth, and Esther Eidinow, 1372. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012. Robinson, Ian S. Henry IV of Germany, 1056–1106. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999. Rokai, Melina. “Poverty and the Franciscan Order in Southeast Europe.” Istraživanja 22 (2011): 145–151. Romhányi, Beatrix. “The Role of the Cistercians in Medieval Hungary: Political Activity or Internal Colonization?” Annual of Medieval Studies at the CEU I (1993–1994): 180–204. Romhányi, Beatrix. Kolostorok és társaskáptalanok a középkori Magyarországon: katalógus [Monasteries and the Collegiate Chapters of Medieval Hungary: A Catalog]. Budapest: Pytheas, 2000. Rousselot, Paul. Histoire de l’éducation des femmes en France. Paris: Didier, 1883. Rückert, Rainer. “Brautkleid der Hl. Elisabeth.” In Der Schatz vom Heiligen Berg Andechs, edited by Rainer Rückert, 10. Andechs: Kloster Andechs, 1967. Ruh, Kurt. Meister Eckhart: Theologe, Prediger, Mystiker. Munich: C. H. Beck, 1985. Runde, Ingo. “Konstanze von Aragon.” In Die Kaiserinnen des Mittelalters, edited by Amalie Fößel. Regensburg: Verlag Friedrich Pustet, 2011. Sadraei, Agnieszka. “The Tomb of Kazimir the Great in the Wawel Cathedral of Cracow.” Acta Historiae Artium 42 (2001): 83–115. Sághy, Marianne. “Aspects of Female Rulership in Late Medieval Literature: The Queens’ Reign in Angevin Hungary.” East Central Europe 20–23/I (1993– 1996): 69–86.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

297

Sághy, Marianne. “Dévotions diplomatiques: Le pèlerinage de la reine-mère Élisabeth Piast à Rome.” In La Diplomatie des États Angevins aux XIIIe et XIVe siècle, edited by Zoltán Kordé and István Petrovics, 219–224. Rome and Szeged, 2010. Sághy, Marianne. “Mézières Magyarországról. A kés˝ o Anjou-kori kormány francia kirtikája” [Mézières from Hungary: A Late Angevin Period Criticism of the French Government]. In Francia-magyar kapcsolatok a középkorban, edited by Attila Györkös and Gergely Kiss, 241–252. Debrecen: Debrecen University Press, 2013. Sághy, Marianne. “Dynastic Devotion: The Pilgrimage of Queen Elizabeth Piast to Rome.” Unpublished Paper. Scheffer-Boichorst, P., ed. “Chronica Alberici monachi Trium Fontium.” In Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Scriptores, XXIII, 631–950. Stuttgart, 1986. Schier, Xystus. Reginae Hungariae primae stirpis. Vienna, 1776. Schnitzler, Hermann. “Die Regensburger Goldschmiedekunst.” In Wandlungen christlicher Kunst im Mittelalter, edited by Johannes Hempel, 171–188. Baden-Baden: Verlag für Kunst und Wissenschaft, 1953. Schramm, Percy Ernst. Herrschaftszeichen und Staatssymbolik, Vols. I–III. Stuttgart: Anton Hirsemann, 1954–1956. Schramm, Percy Ernst, József Deér, and Olle Källström. Kaiser Friedrichs II. Herrschaftszeichen. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1955. Schramm, P. E. “‘Atillas Schwert’, ein ungarischer Säbel des 9/10 Jahrhunderts, zum Kaiserschatz seit der Salischen Zeit gehörend.” In Herrschaftszeichen und Staatsymbolik: Beiträge zu ihrer Geschichte vom dritten bis zum sechzehnten Jahrhundert II , 487–491. Stuttgart: Hiersemann, 1955. Schültz, Bernhard. Stift Suben am Inn. Munich: Schnell & Steiner, 1970. Schwarzenberg, Karl. The Prague Castle and Its Treasures. New York: Vendome Press, 1994. Scott, Joan. Gender of Politics and History. New York: Columbia University Press, 1999. Siklósi, Gyula. “Székesfehérvár.” In Medium Regni: Medieval Hungarian Royal Seats, edited by Julianna Atlmann et al., 43–64. Budapest: Nap Kiadó, 1999. Sillasoo, Ülle. Plant Depictions in Late Medieval Religious Art in Southern Central Europe: An Archaeobotanical Approach. Budapest: Central European University, 2003. Sipos, Enik˝ o. “A Szent László palást metamorphozisa” [The Metamorphosis of the Saint Ladislas Mantle]. Folia Historica 18 (1993): 255–265. Sipos, Enik˝ o. “Textilöredékek Antiochiai Anna sírjából” [Textile Fragments from the Grave of Anna of Antioch]. In 150 Éve történet: III. Béla és Antiochiai Anna sírjának fellelése [150 Years Ago: Finding the Tomb of Béla III and

298

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Anna of Antioch], edited by Gyula Fülöp, 60–68. Székesfehérvár: A Szent István Király Múzeum, 1999. Smiˇciklas, Tadija. Codex diplomaticus regni Croatiae, Dalmatiae et Slavoniae, Vol. III. Zagreb, 1905. Smohay, András. “Székesfehérvár és II. András.” In II. András és Székesfehérvár, edited by Terézia Kerny and András Smohay, 14–20. Székesfehérvár: Székesfehérvári Egyházmegyei Múzeum, 2012. Sniezynska-Stolot, Eva. “Die Ikonographie der Königin Elisabeth.”Acta Historiae Artium 17 (1971): 17–29. Sniezynska-Stolot, Eva. “Queen Elizabeth as Patron of Architecture.” Acta Historiae Artium 20 (1974): 13–36. Sniezynska-Stolot, Eva. “Tanulmányok Łokietek Erzsébet királyné m˝ upártolása köréb˝ ol (Ötvöstárgyak)” [Studies on the Scope of the Art Patronage of Queen Elizabeth Łokietek (Goldsmith work)]. M˝ uvészettörténeti Értesít˝o 30 (1981/4): 233–254. Sniezynska-Stolot, Eva. “The Artistic Patronage of the Hungarian Angevins in Poland.” Alba Regia 22 (1985): 21–28. Sniezynska-Stolot, Eva. “Psałterz Florianski ´ z punktu widzenia historyka sztuki” [The Sankt Florian Psalter from the Perspective of an Art Historian]. Rocznik Biblioteki Narodowej XLII (2011): 87–92. Sölch, Miklós. “Seal of Queen Mary.” In Mary of Hungary: Queen and Her Court, edited by Orsolya Réthelyi, 223. Budapest: Budapest History Museum, 2005. Spatharakis, Ioannis. The Portrait in Byzantine Illuminated Manuscripts. Leiden: Brill, 1976. Spekner, Enik˝ o. “Buda királyi székhellyé alakulásának kezdetei a 13. század els˝ o felében.” Urbs. Magyar Várostörténeti Évkönyv 7 (2012): 97–132. Sroka, Stanisław, and Lidia Stefanowska. “A Hungarian-Galician Marriage at the Beginning of the Fourteenth Century?” Harvard Ukrainian Studies 16:3/4 (1992): 261–268. Stahl, Alan. “Coinage in the Name of Medieval Women.” In Medieval Women and the Sources of Medieval History, edited by Joel Rosenthal, 321–341. Athens: University of Georgia Press, 1990. Steane, John. The Archaeology of the Medieval English Monarchy. London and New York: Routledge, 1999. Steane, John. The Archaeology of Power: England and Northern Europe, A.D. 800–1600. Stroud: Tempus, 2001. Štefánik, Martin. “The Morosinis in Hungary under King Andrew III and the Two Versions of the Death of the Queen of Hungary Tommasina.”Historický ˇ Casopis 56 (2008): 3–15.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

299

Störmer, Wilhelm. “Die Familie der Gertrud von Andechs-Meranien.” In Sankt Elisabeth: Fürstin Dienerin Heilige, edited by Paul Gerhard Schmidt et al., 329–332. Sigmaringen: Thorbecke, 1981. Strzelzcik, Jerzy. “Emmeramer-Evangeliar.” In Europas Mitte um 1000, Vol. 3, Katalog, edited by Alfried Wieczorek and Hans-Martin Hinz, 526. Stuttgart: Theiss, 2000. Stronczynski, ´ Kazimierz. Dawne monety polskie dynastyi Piastów i Jagiellonów [Old Coins of the Piast and Jagiellon Dynasties], Vol. I–II. Warsaw: Polskie Towarzystwo Numizmatyczne Zarz˛ad Główny, 2005. Sütt˝ o, Szilárd. Anjou-Magyarország Alkonya: Magyarország politikai története Nagy Lajostól Zsigmondig, az 1384–1387 évi belivszályok okmánytárával [The Twilight of Angevin Hungary: Hungary’s Political History from Louis the Great until Sigismund, 1384–1387 the Years of Internal Strife in the Charters], Vol. I–II. Szeged: Belvedere Meridionale, 2003. Szabados, György. “Aragóniai Konstancia magyar királyné” [Constance of Aragon, Queen of Hungary]. In Királylányok messzi földr˝ol: Magyarország és Katalónia a középkorban [Princesses from Afar: Hungary and Catalonia in the Middle Ages], edited by Ramon Sarobe and Csaba Tóth, 163–175. Budapest and Barcelona: Hungarian National Museum & History Museum of Catalonia, 2009. Szabó, György. “Egy újabb magyar vonatkozású kódexr˝ ol.” Új Látóhatár VI/2 (1963): 178–181. Szabó, Péter. Woodland and Forests in Medieval Hungary. Oxford: Archaeopress, 2005. Szabó, Péter. “The Royal Forest of Pilis in the Middle Ages.” In Egy történelmi gyilkosság margójára: Merániai Gertrúd emlékezete, 1213–2013 [To the Margin of a Historical Murder: Commemorate Gertrude of Andechs-Meran, 1213–2013], edited by Judit Majorossy, 73–84. Szentendre, 2014. Szakács, Béla Zsolt. “A királynék m˝ uvészete – a m˝ uvészettörténészek királynéi” [The Art of the Queens—The Queens of the Art Historians]. In Egy történelmi gyilkosság margójára: Merániai Gertrúd emlékezete, 1213–2013 [To the Margin of a Historical Murder: Commemorate Gertrude of AndechsMeran, 1213–2013], edited by Judit Majorossy, 217–226. Szentendre, 2014. Szakács, Béla Zsolt. The Visual World of the Hungarian Angevin Legendary. Budpaest: Central European University, 2016. Szamosi, József. “König Ludwig der Grosse: Bauten und Denkmäler in Mariazell.” In Louis the Great: King of Hungary and Poland, edited by S. B. Vardy et al., 285–324. Boulder: East European Monographs, 1986. Székely, György. “A kett˝ os kereszt útja Bizáncból a latin Európába” [The Path of the Double-Barred Cross from Byzantium to Latin Europe]. In A magyar birodalom vagy Magyarország részeink címerei [The Hungarian Empire or

300

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Parts of Heraldry of Hungary], edited by Ede Ivánfi, 107–128. Budapest: ÁKV-Maecenas, 1989. Székely, György. “Hungarian Universities in the Middle Ages: The University of Óbuda.” In Studies on the University of Óbuda 1395–1995, edited by László Domonkos et al., 29–36. Budapest: Eötvös University Press, 1995. Szende, László. “Mitherrscherin oder einfache Königinmutter Elisabeth von Łokietek in Ungarn (1320–1380).” Majestas 13 (2005): 47–63. Szende, László. Piast Erzsébet és udvara (1320–1380) [Elizabeth Piast and Her Court, 1320–1380]. PhD diss. ELTE, 2007. Szende, László. “Les châteaux de reines comme résidence dans la Hongrie des Anjoux.” In Archaeologia dei castelli nell’Europa angioina (secoli XIII–XV), edited by Paolo Peduto et al., 158–165. Borgo San Lorenzo [Florence]: All’Insegna del Gigliio, 2011. Szentpétery, Imre. Magyar Oklevéltan [Hungarian Diplomatics]. Budapest: Maguar Történelmi Társulat, 1930. Szentpetery, Imre. Scriptores rerum Hungaricarum, Vol. I–II. Budapest: Academia litter. hungarica atque Societate history, 1937–1938. Szentpétery, Imre, ed. “Legenda Ladislai.” Scriptores Rerum Hungaricarum ii, 507–527. Budapest, 1938. Szentpétery, Imre, and Attila Zsoldos. Az Árpád-házi hercegek, hercegn˝ok és a királynék okleveleinek kritikai jegyzéke [A Critical Edition of the Charters of the Princes, Princesses and Queens of the Árpád Dynasty]. Budapest: Magyar Országos Leveltár, 2008. Szigeti, Stephan. “Ludwig der Grosse und Aachen.” In Louis the Great: King of Hungary and Poland, edited by S. B. Vardy et al., 265–284. Boulder: East European Monographs, 1986. Szilágyi, Sándor. A magyar nemzet története [The Hungarian National History], Vol. 3. Budapest: Athenaeum, 1895. Szmik, Antal. “Gizella királyné magyar hímz˝ oiskolája” [The Embroidery School of Queen Gisela]. In Gizella királyné (985 k.–1060), edited by János Géczi, 189–199. Veszprém, 2000. Sz˝ ucs, Jen˝ o. “Szent István Intelmei: az els˝ o magyarországi államelméleti m˝ u” [The Exhortations of St. Stephen: The First Hungarian Work on Political Theory]. In Szent István és kora, edited by Ferenc Glatz and József Kardos, 32–53. Budapest: MTA Történettudományi Intézet, 1988. Takács, Imre. “Kapolna alakú ereklyetartó magyar címerrel a bari San Nicola kincstárában” [Chapel-Shaped Reliquary with the Hungarian Coat-of-Arms in the Treasury of Saint Nicholas in Bari]. Ars Hungaria XXVI/1 (1998): 66–82. Takács, Imre, et al. Sigismundus Rex et Imperator: Kunst und Kultur zur Zeit Sigismunds von Luxemburg, 1387 –1437 . Mainz: Phillip von Zabern, 2006.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

301

Takács, Imre. “The French Connection: on the Courtenay Family and Villard de Honnecourt Apropos of a 13th Century Incised Slab from Pilis Abbey.” In Künstlerische Wechselwirkungen in Mitteleuropa, edited by J. Fajt and M. Hörsch, 11–26. Ostfildern: Thorbecke, 2006. Takács, Imre. “Königshof und Hofkunst in Ungarn in der späten Anjouzeit.” In Sigismundus Rex et Imperator: Kunst und Kultur zur Zeit Sigismunds von Luxemburg 1387 –1437 , edited by Imre Takács et al., 68–86. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern, 2006. Takács, Imre. “Krone.” In Sigismundus Rex et Imperator: Kunst und Kultur zur Zeit Sigismunds von Luxemburg, 1387 –1437 , edited by Imre Takács et al., 93. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern, 2006. Takács, Imre. “Bruchstück einer Krone.” In Sigismundus Rex et Imperator: Kunst und Kultur zur Zeit Sigismunds von Luxemburg, 1387 –1437 , edited by Imre Takács et al., 93–94. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern, 2006. Takács, Imre. “Reichsapfel.” In Sigismundus Rex et Imperator: Kunst und Kultur zur Zeit Sigismunds von Luxemburg, 1387 –1437 , edited by Imre Takács et al., 95. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern, 2006. Takács, Imre. “Zwei Schmuckstücke mit Wappen.” In Sigismundus Rex et Imperator: Kunst und Kultur zur Zeit Sigismunds von Luxemburg 1387 –1437 , edited by Imre Takács et al., 101–102. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern, 2006. Takács, Imre. “An Early Gothic Rib Vault in Hungary and the Question of the Cerce.” In Bonum ut Pulchrum: Essays in Art History in Honour of Ern˝o Marosi on His Seventieth Birthday, edited by Lívia Varga et al., 151–164. Budapest: Hungarian Academy of Sciences, 2010. Takács, Imre. Az Árpad-házi királyok pecsétjei: Royal Seals of the Árpád Dynasty. Budapest: Hungarian National Archives, 2012. Takács, Imre. “A Gertrúd-síremlék rekonstrukciójának kérdései” [The Questions of the Reconstruction of Queen Gertrude’s Funerary Monument]. In Egy történelmi gyilkosság margójára: Merániai Gertrúd emlékezete, 1213–2013, edited by Judit Majorossy, 189–202. Szentendre: Ferenczy Múzeum, 2014. Takács, Imre. “Corona et Crux: Heraldry and Crusader Symbolism on 13th Century Hungarian Royal Seals.” Hortus Artium Medievalium 21 (2015): 54–61. Tanner, Marcus. The Raven King: Matthias Corvinus and the Fate of His Lost Library. New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2008. Tari, Edit. Pest megye középkori templomai. Szentendre: Studia Comitatensia, 2000. Terei, György. “Régészeti adatok a Csepel-sziget északi részének középkori történetéhez” [Archaeological Data on the History of the Northern Part of Csepel Island in the Middle Ages]. In In medio regni Hungariae. Régészeti, M˝ uvészettörténeti és történeti kutatások ‘az ország közepén’: Archaeological, Art Historical, and Historical Researches ‘in the Middle of the Kingdom’, edited by

302

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Elek Benk˝ o and Krisztina Orosz, 577–588. Budapest: Magyar Tudományos Akadémia, 2015. Thallóczy, Lajos. Studien zur Geschichte Bosniens und Serbiens im Mittelalter. Munich and Leipzig: Dunker and Humbolt, 1914. Theiner, Augustin. Vetera monumenta historica Hungariam sacram illustrantia. Onasbrück: Zeller, 1968. Théry, G. “Le Benedictus Deus de Maître Eckhart.” In Mélanges Joseph de Ghellinck, S. J., Vol. II, 905–935. Gembloux: Éditions J. Duculot, 1951. Thomas, Alfred. Anne’s Bohemia: Czech Literature and Society, 1310–1420. Minneapolis and London: University of Minnesota Press, 1998. Thomson, Rodney. “Scribes and Scriptoria.” In The European Book in the Twelfth Century, edited by Erik Kwakkel and Rodney Thomson, 68–84. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2018. Thuróczy, János. Chronicle of the Hungarians. Bloomington: Indiana University, 1991. Tisdall, M. W. God’s Flowers: An Iconography for Foliage Decoration. Plymouth: Charlesfort Press, 2012. Török, Gyöngyi. “King’s Head from Kalocsa.” In A Thousand Years of Christianity in Hungary: Hungariae Christinae Millennium, edited by István Zombori, Pál Cséfalvay, and Maria Antionietta De Angelis, 275. Budapest, 2001. Tóth, Csaba. “Mária királyn˝ o dénárjainak korrendje” [A Chronology of the Denars of Queen Mary]. Az Érem 58 (2002): 7–12. Tóth, Endre. “A magyar koronázási jelvényekr˝ ol” [About the Hungarian Coronation Regalia]. In Koronák, koronázási jelvények: Crowns, Coronation Insignia, edited by Lívia Bende and Gábor L˝ orinczy. Ópusztaszer: Nemzeti Történeti Emlékpark, 2001. Tóth, Endre. “III. Béla vagy Kálmán?: A székesfehérvári királysír azonosításáról” [Béla III or Coloman? The Identification of the Royal Graves from Székesfehérvár]. Folia Archaeologica LII (2005–2006): 141–161. Trogmayer, Ottó, and Lilla Visy. Ecce Salus Vitae: íme az élet üdve; a GizellaKereszt [Ecce salus vitae: Here Is the Salvation of the Living; the Gisela Cross]. Szeged: Agapé, 2000. Tuzson, John. István II (1116–1131): A Chapter in Medieval Hungarian History. Boulder: Eastern European Monographs, 2002. Twining, Edward F. European Regalia. London: Batsford, 1967. Uzsoki, András. “Az els˝ o magyar királyné, Gizella sírja.” A Veszprém Megyei Múzeumok Közleményei XVI (1982): 125–168. Uzsoki, András. “Die Echtheit des Grabes der ungarischen Königin Gisela in Passau.” In Bayern und Ungarn: Tausend Jahre enge Beziehungen, edited by Ekkehard Völkl, 13–22. Regensburg: Lassleben, 1988.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

303

Uzsoki, András. “Das Passauer Gizella-grab im Spiegel der neuen Forschungen.” In Gizella és kora: felolvasóülések az Árpád-korból [Gizella and Her Time: Character Reading in the Age of the Árpáds], edited by Zsuzsa Fodor, 70–79. Veszprém, 1993. Vajay, Szabolcs. “Großfürst Geysa von Ungarn. Familie und Verwandtschaft.” Südostforschungen XXI (1962): 88–101. Vajay, Szabolcs. “Agatha, Mother of St. Margaret, Queen of Scotland.” Duquesne Review 7/2 (1962): 71–80. Vajay, Szabolcs. “Corona Regia – Corona Regni – Sacra Corona: Königskronen und Kronensymbolik im mittelalterlichen Ungarn.” Ungarn Jahrbuch 7 (1976): 37–64. Vajay, Szabolcs. “Byzantinische Prinzessinnen in Ungarn.” Ungarn Jahrbuch 10 (1979): 15–28. Vajay, Szabolcs. “Dominae reginae milites. Árpád-házi Jolánta magyarjai Valencia visszavétele idején” [Dominae Reginae Milites: The Hungarians of Yolanda of the Árpád Dynasty in the Time of the Return to Valencia]. In Mályusz Elemér Emlékkönyv [Memorial Book of Elemér Mályusz], edited by H. Balázs Éva-Fügedi Erik-Maksay Ferenc, 395–414. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 1984. Vajay, Szabolcs. “Még egy királynénk…?: I. Endre els˝ o felesége” [Another of Our Queens…? The First Wife of Andrew I]. Turul 72 (1999): 17–23. Valter, Ilona. “A gyöngyösi Szent Erzsébet – a volt ispotály – temploma” [The St. Elizabeth—Former Hospital—Church in Gyöngyös]. In Quasi Liber et Pictura: Studies in Honour of András Kubinyi on his Seventieth Birthday, edited by Gyöngyi Kovács, 607–614. Budapest, 2004. Van Houts, Elizabeth. Memory and Gender in Medieval Europe, 900–1200. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1999. Van Tricht, Filip. The Latin Renovatio of Byzantium: The Empire of Constantinople (1204–1228). Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2001. Varzos, Konstantinos. E genealogia ton Komnenon. Thessaloniki: Kentron Vyzantin¯ on Ereun¯ on, 1984. Vattai, Erzsébet. “A margitszigeti korona.” Budapest Régiségei 18 (1958): 191– 202. Vattai, Erzsébet. “A margitszigeti korona és gy˝ ur˝ u” [The Crown and the Ring from Margaret Island]. Folia Archaeologica 18 (1966–1967): 123–135. Végh, András. “Buda.” In Medium Regni: Medieval Hungarian Royal Seats, edited by Julianna Altmann et al., 157–199. Budapest: Nap Kiadó, 1999. Vernei-Kronberger, Emil. Magyar középkori siremlékek: Medieval tombstones of Hungary. Budapest: Officina, 1939. Vidas, Marina. “Elizabeth of Bosnia, Queen of Hungary, and the Tomb Shrine of St. Simeon in Zadar: Power and Relics in Fourteenth-Century Dalmatia.” Studies in Iconography 29 (2008): 136–175.

304

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Walczak, Marek. “Czternastowieczne figurki jaselkowe w klasztorze Klarysek przy kosciele Sw. Andrzeja w Krakowie: Uwagi o stylu, datowaniu, ikonografii i funkcji” [Fourteenth Century Nativity Scene Figures in the Convent of the Poor Clares at the Church of St. Andrew in Cracow: Some Remarks on Their Style, Dating, Iconography and Function]. Modus. Prace z historii sztuki 2 (2001): 5–42. Walker, Alicia. “Adornment: Enhancing the Body, Neglecting the Soul?” In Byzantine Women and Their World, edited by Ioli Kalavrezou. Cambridge: Harvard Art Museums; New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2003. Wehli, Tünde. “Könyvfestészet a Magyarországi Anjou-udvarban” [Book Illumination at the Hungarian-Angevin Court]. In M˝ uvészet I Lajos király korában. Katalógus, edited by Ern˝ o Marosi et al., 119–136. Budapest: MTA M˝ uvészettörténeti Kutató Csoport, 1982. Wehli, Tünde. “Megjegyzések a középkori magyarországi könyvgy˝ ujt˝ okr˝ ok és könyvgy˝ ujtési szokásaikról” [Remarks on Medieval Hungarian Bibliophiles and Their Collection Habits]. Ars Hungarica 23 (1995): 3–28. Weiss-Krejci, Estella. “Restless Corpses: “Secondary Burial” in the Babenberg and Habsburg Dynasties.” Antiquity 75 (2001): 769–780. Wehrli-Johns, Martina. “Von der Stiftung zum Alltag. Klösterliches Leben bis zur Reformation.” In Königsfelden: Königsmord, Kloster, Klinik, edited by Simon Teuscher and Claudia Moddelmog, 48–89. Baden: Hier und Jetzt, 2012. Wenzel, Gusztáv. Codex diplomaticus Arpadianus Continuatus: Árpádkori új okmánytár, Vol. 11. Budapest: Ferdinand Eggenberg, 1873. Wertner, Mór. Az Árpádok családi Története [Family History of the Árpáds]. Nagybecskerek: Pleitz, 1892. Wild, Benjamin L. “The Empress’s New Clothes: A Rotulus Pannorum of Isabella, Sister of King Henry III, Bride of Emperor Frederick II.” Medieval Clothing and Textiles 7 (2011): 1–31. Wogan-Browne, Jocelyn, Nicholas Watson, Andrew Taylor, and Ruth Evans.The Idea of the Vernacular: An Anthology of Middle English Literary Theory 1280– 1520. Exeter: University of Exeter Press, 1999. Zajac, Talia. “Rememberance and Erasure of Objects Belonging to Rus’ Princesses in Medieval Western Sources: The Cases of Anastasia Iaroslavna’s ‘Saber of Charlemagne’ and Anna Iaroslavna’s Red Gem.” In Moving Women Moving Objects (400–1500), edited by Tracy Chapman Hamilton and Mariah Proctor-Tiffany, 33–58. Leiden: Brill, 2019. Zolnay, László. “István ifjabb király számadása 1264-b˝ ol” [Inventory of Stephen the Young King from 1264]. Budapest Régiségi 21 (1964): 79–114. Zolnay, László. “Ásatások a budai I. Táncsics Mihály utca 9. területén. A XIIIXIV. századi budavári királyi rezidencia kérdéséhez.” [Excavations Undertaken on a Plot in the 1st District of Buda, 9 Táncsics Mihály Street. Additions

BIBLIOGRAPHY

305

to the Question of the 13th–14th Royal Residence in Buda]. Archaeologiai Értesít˝o 94 (1967): 39–47. Zsoldos, Attila. “The Problems of Dating the Queen’s Charters of the Árpádian Age (Eleventh–Thirteenth Century).” In Dating Undated Medieval Charters, edited by Michael Gervers, 151–160. Woodbridge: The Boydell Press, 2000. Zsoldos, Attila. “Gertrúd és a királynéi intézmény az Árpád-kori Magyar Királyságban” [Queen Gertrude and Queenship in the Kingdom of Hungary during the Arpadian Period]. In Egy történelmi gyilkosság margójára: Merániai Gertrúd emlékezete, 1213–2013 [To the Margin of a Historical Murder: Commemorate Gertrude of Andechs-Meran, 1213–2013], edited by Judit Majorossy, 17–24. Szentendre, 2014. Zsoldos, Attila. The Árpáds and Their Wives: Queenship in Early Medieval Hungary, 1000–1301. Rome: Viella, 2019.

Index

A Aachen, 196 Aargau, 175 Adelaide of Brunswick (d. 1048/49), 49 Adelaide of Maurienne (d. 1154), 21 Adelaide of Poland See Richeza of Poland Adelaide of Poland (fictitious), 28 Adelaide of Rheinfelden (d. 1090), 43, 62–69, 69, 71, 124, 263–265 the Adelaide Cross, 64–67 burial at Veszprém, 67–69 Adelaide of Riedenburg, 78–80 Adelaide of Savoy (d. 1079), 64 Admont Abbey, 49, 52–54, 55 Agency theory, 12–16 Agnes of Antioch See Anna of Antioch Agnes of Babenberg, 87–88, 90 Agnes of Głogów (d. 1361), 174 Agnes of Habsburg, 9, 10, 162, 167, 171, 172–190, 192, 208, 263–265

books, 183–187 burial, 187–190 gifts to monasteries, 181–183 in stained glass, 178–181 Königsfelden Abbey, 176–190 seals, 174–176 Agnes of Poitou (d. 1077), 52, 54 Ahalyz (Alice), 124 Alberic of Trois-Fontaines, 130 Albert I of Habsburg (d. 1308), 172, 178 Albert II of Habsburg (d. 1358), 178 Alcsút, 155 Alexios I Komnenos, 61 Alfonso II of Aragon (r. 1164–1196), 111 Álmos (d. 1127), 61, 76, 80 Amesbury Abbey, 22 Anastasia of Kiev (d. 1096?), 21, 49–54, 69 Admont Abbey, 52–54 Greek-rite monasteries, 50–51 The ‘Sword of Attila’, 51–52

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 C. Mielke, The Archaeology and Material Culture of Queenship in Medieval Hungary, 1000–1395, Queenship and Power, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-66511-1

307

308

INDEX

Andechs Abbey, 117–118 Andrew I (r. 1046–1060), 45, 48, 49, 50–55, 57 Andrew II (r. 1205–1235), 25, 34, 35, 42, 91, 114, 116, 119, 122–125, 128, 130–132, 134, 136, 164 Andrew III (r. 1290–1301), 59, 133, 152, 161, 162, 164, 167–169, 171–173, 178, 182, 192 Andrew (d. 1345) son of Louis I, 202 Anna of Antioch (d. 1184), 6, 19, 23, 75, 84, 92–103, 104, 132, 155, 156 clothing fragments, 97–98 crown, 94–96 ring, 99–102 skeleton, 102–103 Anna of Kiev, 51 Anna of Macsó (d. 1274?), 153 Anna of Schweidnitz (d. 1362), 210 Anne of Bohemia, 186 Arnold of Lübeck, 107 St. Arnulf Abbey, Metz, 35 Attila the Hun, 51 Aynard, Smaragdus, 105

B Baia Mare, 246 Bak, János M., 8 Bakonybél, 34, 40 Bamberg, 36 Bárány-Oberschall, Magda, 58 Barbara of Celje (d. 1451), 249, 267 Bari, 196, 207 Bartha, Annamaria, 7 Beatrice of Aragon (d. 1508), 12, 20, 267 Beatrice of Este (d. 1245), 25, 164 Beatrice of Luxemburg (d. 1319), 25, 259

Beatrice of Provence (d. 1268), 157 Béla I (r. 1060–1063), 24, 51, 52 Béla II (r. 1131–1141), 80, 81, 90 Béla III (r. 1173–1196), 10, 12, 59, 75, 82, 85, 91, 92, 94, 96, 99, 101–105, 108, 109, 111, 113, 128, 129, 131 Béla IV (r. 1235–1270), 59, 122, 131, 133–138, 140–144, 146, 148, 153, 168, 264 Béla (d. 1167), 87 Béla of Macsó (d. 1269), 156 Béla, son of Béla IV, 143 Belos of Serbia, 71, 81 Berchtold, Ferenc, 203 Berend, Nora, 146 Berenguela of Castile (r. 1217–1246), 2 Berestovo, 77 Berne, 181 Berthold IV of Andechs-Meran, 114 Berthold, Archbishop of Kalocsa, 115 Berthold of Rheinfelden, 67 Berthold of Zähringen, 62 Bertrade de Montfort, 23, 67 Bianchini, Janna, 2 Biograd na Moru, 73 Birgitta of Bavaria, 33 Black Madonna of Cz˛estochowa, 208 St. Blaise in the Black Forest, 64 Blanche of Castile (d. 1252), 20 Bonfini, Antonio, 74, 216 Boniface VIII, Pope, 162, 171 Boris, son of Euphemia, 74, 84 Braniˇcevo, 86 Bˇretislav I of Bohemia (r. 1035–1055), 46 Bruno of Bavaria, 32 Bruno of Querfurt, 27 Buda, 153, 167, 173, 190, 192, 201, 203, 211, 213–216, 220, 246, 257, 261

INDEX

Kammerhof, 214–215 Budapest, 82 Buzás, Gergely, 216, 217

C Caen, 23 Casimir I of Bytom, 190 Casimir III of Poland (d. 1370), 220, 222 Catherine of Hungary (1370–1378), 226 Charlemagne, 52 Charles I Robert (r. 1308–1342), 25, 157, 168, 171, 190, 192, 193, 195, 196, 200, 201, 204, 205, 208, 210, 214, 215, 217, 222, 240 Charles I of Naples, 157 Charles II of Durazzo, 226, 246, 253 Charles II of Naples, 146, 159, 161, 163 Charles IV of Bohemia (d. 1378), 225 Charles V of France, 238 Chartres, 121 ˇ Ciovo, 203 Citeaux Abbey, 129 Cividale Abbey, 118 Clairvaux Abbey, 105 Clémence of Hungary (d. 1328), 7 Clothing, 18–19 Coinage, 17, 18 Coloman, son of Boris, 71 Coloman the Bookish (r. 1095–1116), 31, 71, 73–75, 102 Conrad II, HRE (r. 1027–1039), 38 Constance of Antioch, 92 Constance of Aragon (d. 1222), 10, 111–114, 132, 155 the Árpád coat-of-arms, 113–114 Constance of Castile, 101, 104 Constance of Hungary (d. 1240), 119

309

St. Constantine, 206 Constantine IX (r. 1042–1055), 56, 57 Constantinople, 92 Council of Arad, 81, 82 Cracow, 55, 201, 207, 247 Crossley, Paul, 7 Crowns See Regalia Csepel Island, 82, 83, 107 Cupchech, 157 Czeglédy, Ilona, 211 D Dautovi´c, Dženan, 11 David of Hungary, 49 Dedus, 51 Deér, Jozséf, 58, 96 Dimnik, Martin, 77 Diósgy˝ or, 210, 211, 216 palace, 213 Długosz, Jan, 116 Dornan, Jennifer, 13 E Earenfight, Theresa, 7 Eckhart, Master John, 184 Eleanor of Aquitaine (d. 1204), 22, 104 Eleanor of Provence (d. 1291), 154 Elisenda de Montcada, 220 Elizabeth of Bosnia (d. 1387), 9, 200, 203, 211, 213, 216, 217, 225–227, 229, 232–235 building projects, 239–240 burial, 240–241 crown, chalice, and clothing, 231–233 manual of instruction, 237–238 monuments, 237 reliquary sarcophagus in Zadar, 229–231

310

INDEX

seals, 227–229 Elizabeth of Görz-Tyrol, 176 St. Elizabeth of Hungary, 7, 206, 232, 252 Elizabeth of Hungary, 163 Elizabeth of Hungary (d. 1313?), 141, 176, 187 Elizabeth of Luxemburg (d. 1442), 11 Elizabeth of Poland (d. 1380), 10, 17, 23, 160, 171, 172, 197–223, 227, 229, 232, 239, 241, 252, 258, 263–266 books, 210 carriage, 23 church building, 223 coinage, 202 crowns, 203 four seals, 201 items donated to the church, 208 palaces, 213–217, 221, 223 statues, 223 Bl. Elisabeth of Töss, 10 Elizabeth the Cuman (d. 1290?), 84, 135, 140, 144–157, 159, 169, 191, 202, 264 clothing fragments from grave, 155–157 coinage, 148–149 possible burial on Margaret Island, 149–154 possible crown, 151–154 seals, 146–148 St. Emeric (d. 1031), 30, 33, 39, 85, 238 Emeric (r. 1196–1204), 91, 101, 109, 111, 113, 114 St. Emmeram’s Gospel Book See Liber Evangelorum Encomium Emmae Reginae, 3 Engelberg Abbey, 181 Ernst of Austria (d. 1075), 51

Esztergom, 28, 30, 32, 42, 85, 87, 91, 92, 107, 108, 113, 124, 134, 142, 143, 154, 158, 190, 203 franciscan fiary, 142–143 royal palace, 108–109 Euphemia of Kiev (d. 1138), 76–78, 84, 90, 266 Euphrosyne of Kiev (d. 1193), 3, 71, 73, 84–87, 90, 263, 265 Hospitaller convent at Székesfehérvár, 265 St. Euphrosyne of Polotsk, 86 Evpraksia (Adelaide) of Kiev, 78 Eydua, 157 F Faidit, Gaucelm, 105 Felhévíz, 221 Felicia of Roucy (d. 1123), 73 Felicia of Sicily, 73–75, 76, 84, 90, 102 Fenenna of Kujavia (d. 1295), 135, 161, 164–170, 172 burial in Buda, 167 seal, 165–167 Florian Psalter, 25, 254, 255, 261 Fontevrault Abbey, 22 Franjo of Milan, 230 Fredegonde, 23 Frederick I Barbarossa, 82, 107, 110, 128 Frederick II (r. 1212–1250), 111 Frederick of Bohemia, 85 G Gabriel Radomir of Bulgaria, 32 Garnier, François, 21 Gemola, Monastery of St. John the Baptist, 25 George Brankovic of Serbia, 233 Gerbert, Martin, 187

INDEX

Gertrude of Andechs-Meran, 10, 35, 114–123, 127, 132, 222, 265, 266 the Elisabethkleid, 117 in illuminated manuscripts, 119 sarcophagus at Pilis Abbey, 120–123 Gertrude Psalter, 118 Gesta Hungarorum, 50, 53 Géza (d. 997), 27 Géza I (r. 1074–1077), 54, 57, 58, 61, 69 Géza II (r. 1141–1161), 71, 84, 90 Géza of Hungary, 84 Gilchrist, Roberta, 22 Gisela of Bavaria (d. 1065), 4, 9, 12, 31, 32–46, 48, 49, 69, 90, 124, 134, 264, 265 burial at Niedernburg Abbey, 34 crown of Gisela, 34, 124 donations to the church, 34, 40 Gisela Cross, 35, 38, 46 Metz Chasuble, 34 see also Hungarian Coronation Mantle; Veszprém Gisela of Burgundy (d. 1006), 32, 36, 38 Gisela of Swabia, 35 Gleb of Kiev, 77 Goffredo Malaterra, 73 Golden Bull of 1222, 91, 112 Grandes Chroniques de France, 105 Gravina, 162 Gregory VII, Pope, 55, 63, 69 Gunther of St. Blaise, 64 Gyöngyös, 250 Gyula of Transylvania (father), 28 Gyula of Transylvania (son), 28

H Hagia Sophia Cathedral, Kiev, 49 Hainburg, 235

311

Hartvic, 75 Harun al Rashid (r. 786–809), 52 Hedwig Codex, 119 St. Hedwig of Silesia (d. 1243), 118 Heidenheim, 183 St. Helena, 205 Helen of Hungary, Queen of Croatia, 204 Helen of Serbia (d. 1146), 71, 73, 80–84, 90, 102, 265 Ráckeve monastery, 82 Henry I of France, 50 Henry II of England (r. 1154–1189), 104 Henry ‘the Young King’ of England, 104, 109 Henry III of England (d. 1272), 154 Henry IV of England, 258 Henry II, HRE (r. 1002–1024), 32, 36, 39 Henry III, HRE (r. 1039–1056), 33, 44, 49, 54, 57 Henry IV, HRE, 51, 57, 78 Henry II of Bavaria (d. 995), 32 Henry II “Jasomirgott” of Austria, 87 Henry the Lion, Duke of Saxony, 87 Henry of Formbach, 47 Henszlmann, Imre, 74, 84 Herman I of Carinthia, 87, 88 Hermann of Thuringia (d. 1217), 119 Heves county, 28 Hill, Barbara, 15 Hilsdale, Cecily, 58 Himiltrud of Formbach, 47 Himmelspforte, 182 Holtzmann, Walther, 73 Holy crown of Hungary, 58, 59, 96 Honnecourt, Villard de, 122, 130 Honneman, Volker, 10 Honorius III, Pope, 123 Hungarian Angevin Legendary, 210 Hungarian Coronation Mantle, 38–40

312

INDEX

Hungarian Illuminated Chronicle, 4, 30, 33, 40, 52, 81, 149, 157, 193, 195, 210, 217, 233, 265 Hungarian National Museum, 155 Hunyadi, Zsolt, 85

I Igri¸s (Egres) Abbey, 124 Ingegerd of Sweden, 49 Innocent III, Pope, 111 Interlaken, 182 Isabella of Naples (d. 1303), 17, 135, 140, 149, 152, 153, 157–164, 166, 168, 169, 190, 191, 266 burial in Naples, 161, 165 seal, 158–161 support of religious orders, 161–162 Isabelle of Hainaut, 101 Isvalies, Pietro, Bishop of Veszprém, 68 Ivánka pri Nitre, 56 Iziaslav of Kiev, 84

J Jacobus of Vitero, 163 Jadwiga of Poland (r. 1386–1399), 247, 254, 261 Jaime I of Aragon, 123 Jeanne of Flanders, 15 Jerusalem, 86, 109–110 Jogaila of Lithuania See Wladyslaw II John II Komnenos (r. 1118–1143), 63 John XVIII (XIX), Pope, 35 Judith of Schweinfurt (d. 1058), 46 Judith of Swabia (d. 1102?), 53, 54–57, 63, 69, 265 and the Monomachos Crown, 56–57

K Katharinenthal, 182 Katona, József, 115 Kerbl, Raimund, 9 Kiev, 50, 71, 74, 76, 85 Kleiner, Salamon, 189 Komárom (Komárno), 57 Königsfelden, 174, 176, 177, 180–183, 265 Königsfelden Chronicle, 172 Koppány, 28 Kopytoff, Igor, 14 Košice, 246 Kosztolnyik, Zoltán J., 53 Kotromani´c, Elizabeth See Elizabeth of Bosnia Kovács, Éva, 249 Kralovánszky, Alán, 42 Kristó, Gyula, 190 Krušedol, 232, 249 Kumorovitz, L. Bernát, 175 St. Kunigunde (d. 1040), 34, 35 Kuthen of the Cumans, 144

L St. Ladislas I (r. 1077–1095), 24, 34, 62, 63, 70, 71, 75, 130, 204 Ladislas (d. 1112), 76 Ladislas III (r. 1204–1205), 111, 114, 193 Ladislas IV (r. 1272–1290), 133, 144, 146, 148, 153, 157–159, 162–164, 169 Lambert of Aschaffenburg, 51 Landgrafenpsalter, 119 Laszlovszky, József, 10, 103 Legenda Maior of St. Stephen, 34 Leo IX, Pope, 35 Leopold III of Austria, 79 Leopold V of Austria, 88 Leopold VI of Austria, 115

INDEX

Leopold I of Habsburg, 177 Leopold of Merseburg, 51 Liber Evangelorum, 56 Linz, 254 Lipova, 192, 217 Liturgical objects, 14 Louis I (r. 1342–1382), 25, 171, 202, 208, 211, 213–217, 223, 226, 230, 234, 238, 254 Louis II of Hungary (r. 1516–1526), 11, 267 Louis VI of France, 123 Louis VII of France, 84, 104 St. Louis IX of France, 154 Louis X of France (d. 1316), 7

M Macartney, C.A., 62 Magna Carta, 91 Mailáth, Johann, 250 Malachovsky, Nándor, 174 Mandula, 157 Manfredonia, 162, 163 Manuel I Komnenos, 86, 92, 104 Margaret Island Dominican Nunnery, 19, 134, 138–141, 143, 144, 149–158, 161, 163, 165, 169, 220, 266 Margaret of France (d. 1197), 10, 12, 82, 103–110, 111, 114, 119, 124, 128, 132, 264, 265 burial at Tyre Cathedral, 109–110 gifts to Frederick Barbarossa, 107–108 St. Margaret of Hungary, 138, 149, 151, 157, 169, 220 Margaret of Luxemburg (d. 1349), 25, 240, 254 Marguerite of Flanders, 15 Maria Komnena, 24 Maria Komnena, Porhpyrgenita, 24

313

Maria Laskarina (d. 1270), 19, 84, 134–143, 159, 168, 169, 263, 264 and Nunnery on Margaret Island, 138–141 burial in Esztergom, 142–143 coinage, 136–138 seal, 135–136 Visegrád Citadel, 141–142 Maria of Alania, 61 Maria of Antioch, 92 Maria of Bytom, 171, 190–195, 204, 223 burial, 193–195 seal, 191–192 Mariazell, 211 Maritsa of Kiev, 77 Marosi, Ern˝ o, 235 Marquis Canon de Ville, 248, 259 Martirius of Esztergom, 85 Mary of Austria (d. 1558), 11, 267 Mary of Hungary (r. 1382–1395), 161–163, 216, 237, 244, 254 burial at Oradea, 258–260 Coinage, 245–248 construction projects, 257–258 literary activities, 253–257 liturgical donations, 250–253 regalia from Oradea, 248–250 six seals, 241–245 Mary of Hungary, Queen of Naples, 161, 162 Matilda of Essen, Abbess (d. 1011), 38 Matilda of Flanders, 23, 67 Matilda of Saxony, 104 Matthias Church, Buda, 211 Matthias Corvinus (r. 1458–1490), 12, 20, 267 Memoirs of Helene Kottaner, 11 Merenye, 63 Miami, 205

314

INDEX

Milutin of Serbia, 141 Mokrance, 67 Monaci, Lorenzo, 253 Monasteries, 18, 21 Monomachos crown, 55–57 Monuments of Queens, 22 Morosini, Thomasina, 152, 153, 164, 167, 169 Moson, 52, 57 Msitislav I of Kiev, 84 N Naples, 158, 196, 206 Nazareth, 110 Niedernburg Abbey, Passau, 33, 34, 43, 46 Nikephoros III (r. 1078–1081), 58, 59, 61 Nolan, Kathleen, 6, 16, 20–22 Novigrad, 226, 240 Nyitra, 42, 56, 57 O Object biography, 12–16 Óbuda, 40, 107, 124, 203, 208, 209, 211, 213, 217, 221 Poor Clares nunnery, 208, 218, 221 royal palace, 213 university, 253, 255 Oradea (Hung. Nagyvárad), 25, 130, 131, 154, 193, 232, 242, 246, 249, 261 Orbs See Regalia Order of the Dragon, 248, 250, 259 Otto III, HRE (r. 996–1002), 38, 52 Ottokar I of Bohemia (d. 1230), 119 Ottokar II of Bohemia (d. 1278), 157 Otto of Bavaria (r. 1305–1307), 174, 214 Otto of Hungary, 33

Otto of Nordheim, 49, 51 Otto of Rheinfelden, 64 Otto of Riedenburg, 79

P Palaces, 21, 22 Pannonhalma Abbey, 34 Paris, 209 Parler, Peter, 211, 235 Parsons, John Carmi, 8 Patak, 144 St. Paul im Lavanttal, 187 Pavao of Sulmona, 236 Pecorara, Jacobus de, 130 Peter II of Courtenay, 123 Peter Orseolo (r. 1038–1041, 1044–1046), 33, 46, 48 Peter, son of Töre, 115 Philip I of France, 54 Philip II Augustus of France, 105 Philip of Rathsamhausen, 183 Philip of Swabia (d. 1208), 115 Pilis Abbey, 111, 115 Pilis forest, 122 Piroska-Eirene of Hungary (d. 1134), 62 Podogastri, Francis, 209 Pontigny Abbey, 129 Potho, 53 Prague, 46, 154, 235, 257 Pravotius (doctor), 209 Prayers and Benedictions of Muri, 183 Pray, Gy˝ orgy, 165 Predslava of Kiev, 76 Prešov, 257 Pringle, Denys, 86 Priscus, 51 Pskov, 50 Pukur, Clara, 209

INDEX

R Rab, 229 Ráckeve, 82 Regalia, 18, 30 Regensburg, 42, 54, 79, 87 Reims Cathedral, 122 Religious objects See Liturgical Objects Renoux, Annie, 21 Réthelyi, Orsolya, 11 Réthy, László, 137 Reynald of Châtillon, 92 Richard II of England (d. 1399), 186 Richardson, Amanda, 7, 22 Richeza of Poland, 24 Rimai, János, 254 Robert of Capua, 78 Robert II of Naples (d. 1343), 146 Roger Guiscard of Apulia, 61 Roger I of Sicily (d. 1101), 73 Rome, 196, 207 Rouen, 105 Rudolf I of Habsburg, 189 Rudolf of Bohemia (d. 1307), 179 Rudolf of Rheinfelden (r. 1077–1080), 62

S St. Salomea of Cracow, 124 Salomon (r. 1063–1074), 49, 51–54, 57, 58, 128 Samuel Aba (r. 1041–1044), 9, 33, 46 Sanchia of Naples, 220 Sarn, 183 Sarolta of Transylvania (d. 1008), 27–32, 42 Sárospatak, 239 Saul of Hungary, 80 Scepters See Regalia Schier, Xystus, 9, 74 Schlackenwerther Codex See Hedwig Codex

315

Schottenstift Abbey, Vienna, 87, 88 Schramm, P.E., 52 Scott, Joan, 12 Seals, 16 Segesd, 142, 161, 165, 168 St. Sigismund, 209 Sigismund of Luxemburg (d. 1437), 203, 226, 231, 241, 245, 255, 260 Simon da Lentini, 73 Simon of Kéza, 53, 157 Sniezynska-Stolot, Eva, 11 Somogy County, 158 Sophia of Hungary, 119 Sophia of Looz (d. 1065), 58 Sophia of Thuringia, 119 Spekner, Enik˝ o, 128 Speyer, 189 Spisska Nova Ves, 204 Steane, John, 7, 17, 19 St. Stephen I (r. 1000–1038), 27, 30, 35, 39, 46, 69, 85, 108 Stephen II (r. 1116–1131), 77–80, 90 Stephen III (r. 1161–1173), 84, 86–88, 90, 101 Stephen IV (r. 1163–1165), 25 Stephen V (r. 1270–1272), 9, 133, 136, 140, 144, 146, 147, 149, 152, 155, 156, 168, 169 Stephen II of Bosnia, 225, 230 Stephen of Riedenburg, 79 Stephen Pergamenos, eunuch, 57 Stephen the posthumous, 164 Styrian Rhyming Chronicle, 214 Suben Abbey, 23, 47 Sviatopolk II of Kiev, 76 Synadene Synadenos, 58–62 burial at St. Mary Peribleptos, 61–62 holy crown of Hungary, 61 Synadenos, Nikephoros, 61 Szakács, Béla Zsolt, 2, 12, 104

316

INDEX

Szántai, Lukács, 255 Székesfehérvár, 6, 39, 42, 44, 46, 73–75, 84–86, 94, 102, 114, 190, 193, 223, 240, 266 Szende, László, 213

T Theodora (r. 1042–1056), 56 Theodore Laskaris, 134 Thietmar of Merseburg, 27 Tihány Abbey, 34, 45 Timi¸soara, 190, 246 Töss, 182 Tóth, Endre, 102 Tour-Landry, Geoffrey de la, 238 Trogir, 154, 203, 232, 249 Trois-Fontaines Abbey, 130 Tuta of Formbach, 44, 46–49, 69, 80, 264 grave at Suben Abbey, 47–49 Tyre, 109, 110

U Ulrich of Carinthia, 88 Urban IV, Pope, 141 Uroš I of Raška, 81

V Vajay, Szabolcs, 47, 49, 73, 96 Van Houts, Elizabeth, 19 Vanni, Lippo, 206 Vattai, Erzsébet, 153 Vazul (d. 1031), 4, 33, 46 Venice, 153, 164, 182, 229 Vernei-Kronberger, Emil, 122 Veszprém, 10, 28, 34, 35, 39, 42, 43, 46, 63, 67–69, 74, 124, 161, 165, 173, 264, 265 Veszprémvölgy, 28, 30, 32, 36, 39 Vidal, Peire, 105

Vienna, 51, 52, 87, 88, 90, 172, 174, 176, 182, 187, 248, 259 Visegrád, 24, 50, 139, 143, 169, 193, 196, 203, 210, 215, 216, 239, 258, 266 citadel, 141–142 Vitrovica, 142 Vladimir II Monomakh, 76, 77 Vladimir of Kiev, 76

W Walderbach Abbey, 23, 80 St. Walpurgis, 183 Weitenegg, 172 Wenceslas of Bohemia (d. 1305), 214 Wertner, Mór, 9, 62, 79, 150, 162 Westwood Abbey, 22 Wilhelm of Austria, 226, 231 William Marshal, 104, 109 William of England, 104 Winchester, 104 Władysław I Łokietek, 195 Władysław II Jagiello, 247 Władysław I of Poland (r. 1079–1102), 54, 55 Wyclif, John, 186

Y Yaroslav I of Kiev (r. 1019–1054), 49 Yaroslav of Halich, 87 Yolanda of Courtenay (d. 1233), 35, 84, 123–132, 250, 264 burial at Igri¸s Abbey, 129–131 coinage, 126–128 seal, 124–125 Yolanda of Flanders (d. 1219), 123 Yolanda of Hungary (d. 1251), 10 Yuri Dolgoruki, 77

INDEX

Z Zadar, 154, 203, 229–233, 236, 240, 241, 260 Zagreb, 204 Záh, Felician, 196, 215 Zemplén forest, 115 Zeyhan of the cumans, 144

Ziemosyl of Kujavia, 164 Zobor, 50 Zoe (r. 1028–1050), 56 Zsoldos, Attila, 2, 3, 11 Zvonimir of Croatia, 204 Zymne, 50

317