Eagles Looking East and West: Dynasty, Ritual and Representation in Habsburg Hungary and Spain (Habsburg Worlds, 4) 9782503581330, 2503581331

Citation preview

Eagles Looking East and West

Habsburg Worlds volume 4 General Editor Violet Soen, KU Leuven Editorial Board Tamar Herzog, Harvard University Yves Junot, Université Polytechnique Hauts de France Géza Pálffy, Research Centre for the Humanities, Institute of History José Javier Ruiz Ibáñez, Universidad de Murcia, Red Columnaria Barbara Stollberg-Rilinger, Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität Münster Joachim Whaley, University of Cambridge

Eagles Looking East and West Dynasty, Ritual and Representation in Habsburg Hungary and Spain

Edited by Tibor Martí Roberto Quirós Rosado

F

Cover image: Pieter Paul Rubens and Theodoor van Thulden, Pompa introitus honori serenissimi Principis Ferdinandi Austriaci (Antwerp: excudebat Ioannes Meursius Typographys Iuratus, 1641) © Biblioteca Nacional de España, Invent/15065.

© 2021, Brepols Publishers n.v., Turnhout, Belgium. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise without the prior permission of the publisher. D/2021/0095/21 ISBN 978-2-503-58133-0 E-ISBN 978-2-503-58134-7 DOI 10.1484/M.HW-EB.5.115973 ISSN 2565-8476 E-ISSN 2565-9545 Printed in the EU on acid-free paper.

Table of Contents

Preface7 List of illustrations 9 List of abbreviations 13 Introduction Dynastic links between far lands: The kingdom of Hungary and the Spanish monarchy in the early modern age15 Tibor Martí and Roberto Quirós Rosado Part I A ritualized dynasty: The ceremonies of the Habsburgs Funerals and coronations: Dynastic heraldic representation in Central Europe from the fifteenth to the early seventeenth century29 Géza Pálffy Swearing in, crowning and proclaiming the Habsburgs in the kingdoms of Spain: Continuity and innovation, 1516–9855 Alfredo Floristán Imízcoz Festivities celebrating the coronations of the Habsburgs Maximilian and Rudolf as king of Hungary in Pozsony/Bratislava, 1563 and 157277 Borbála Gulyás The funerals of the emperor Rudolf II in the Spanish monarchy, 161297 Václav Bůžek and Pavel Marek Printed political representations of the coronation of Joseph I as king of Hungary, 1687121 Nóra G. Etényi

6

ta bl e o f co n t e n t s

Archduke Charles of the House of Habsburg’s proclamation of accession to the throne of Spain and his inauguration as king of Aragon, 1703–6159 János Kalmár Political representation at the coronations of Hungarian kings in the first half of the eighteenth century167 Fanni Hende Part II One dynasty, two branches: Political interaction and self-representation of the eastern and western Habsburgs Quarrelling brothers: The fraternal relationship of Charles V and Ferdinand I and their attitudes towards Hungary181 Zoltán Korpás The king of Hungary and the cardinal of Toledo: The creation of a common dynastic image around the two Ferdinands, 1631–35197 Rubén González Cuerva The kingdom of Hungary in essays and other writings of Diego Saavedra Fajardo in the years 1630-50217 Tibor Monostori Hymenaeus in The Hague: Inaugural and dynastic celebrations of Spanish diplomats in the United Provinces, 1649231 Cristina Bravo Lozano Hungarian members of the Order of the Golden Fleece: The importance of a Habsburg chivalric order in seventeenth-century Hungary249 Tibor Martí Moribus antiquis: Dynasty, political strategy and Burgundian court ceremonial during the genesis of the Austrian Golden Fleece, 1709–13271 Roberto Quirós Rosado Court entertainment and relationship networks: Shooting competitions in Charles VI’s Viennese court as social opportunities for the noble elite, 1716–33287 Zsolt Kökényesi Notes on contributors Index of names

321 325

Preface

The present volume contains versions of papers first presented at the conference The Representations of Power and Sovereignty in the Kingdom of Hungary and the Spanish Monarchy in the 16th–18th centuries, held in Budapest on 6 and 7 April 2016. The conference was arranged by the Institute of History at the Research Centre for the Humanities of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, and supported by the HISPANEX Programme of the Ministry of Education, Culture and Sport (Government of Spain) and the ‘Lendület’ Holy Crown of Hungary Research Project of the Institute of History at the Research Centre for the Humanities of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences. The conference was based on a three-fold insight. Firstly, historical research into the representation of sovereignty in the early modern period has produced significant new results in the cases of both Spain and Hungary which have not yet been made available to an Anglophone public. Secondly, as became clear during the conference, research into the manifestation of sovereignty’s representations (for example through royal coronations, burials, or diverse events that took place in the court) can be made fruitful only through international comparison. This is especially true of research into the representation of power where the House of Habsburg is concerned, consisting as it did of two coeval branches of the same dynasty. Last but not least, ever more signs point towards the fact that, beyond symbolism and representation, the early modern Hungarian kingdom’s natural, military, economic and intellectual resources played a significantly more important part in the Habsburgs’ overall influence in sixteenth- and seventeenth-century Europe – and in their political strategy-making – than previously thought. With the present volume, we seek to stimulate research into Spanish–Hungarian relations (taking into account not only these two centuries, but also the eighteenth) – a venture which has so far been complicated considerably by geographic distance and language barriers. Our warm thanks go primarily to the participants of the conference, whose unselfish efforts were a prerequisite both for the memorably high-spirited symposium and for the volume based on research presented at the event. Special thanks go to Professor Pál Fodor, director general of the Research Centre for the Humanities of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Professor Géza Pálffy, leader of the ‘Lendület’ Holy Crown of Hungary Research Group, and to the HAS HRC Institutes of History and Musicology for hosting our event. The organization of the symposium was further supported by the Embassy of Spain in Hungary. Moreover, the present book is undertaken

8

p r e face

within the projects of the Dirección General de Investigación del Ministerio de Economía, Industria y Competitividad and Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación (Government of Spain), Sociedad cortesana y redes diplomáticas: la proyección europea de la monarquía de España (1659–1725) [HAR2015-67069-P (MINECO/FEDER, UE)], led by Antonio Álvarez-Ossorio Alvariño, Conformar la Monarquía Hispánica. Cultura política y prácticas dinásticas en los siglos XVI y XVII [HAR2016-76214-P (MINEICO/FEDER, UE)], led by Alicia Esteban Estríngana, and Práctica de gobierno y cultura política: Europa y América en la monarquía de España, 1668-1725 [PID2019-108822GB-I00], led by Antonio Álvarez-Ossorio Alvariño and Roberto Quirós Rosado. We thank Álvaro Pascual Chenel for providing with the iconic cover imaged, preserved in the Biblioteca Nacional de España, and Jason Vincz, David Govantes-Edwards, Jamie Page for revising the English texts, and Jarrik Van Der Biest of KU Leuven for his assistance in harmonizing the footnotes; all remaining errors are ours. Finally, our special thanks go to Brepols Publishers, and especially to Professor Violet Soen, for including our publication in the Habsburg Worlds series. We would also like to express our gratitude to the editors and referees at Brepols for their work, without which the book could not have been published. The Editors July 2020

List of illustrations

Fig. 2.1 Flags of Hungary, Dalmatia, Croatia and Bosnia in the Triumphzug of Emperor Maximilian I, 1512–15, manuscript © Vienna, Albertina (Inv. 25214) — p. 32 Fig. 2.2  Chronica Hungarorum of Johannes Thuróczy (1488) with coats of arms of the Lands and provinces ruled by King Matthias Corvinus of Hungary © Budapest, Országos Széchényi Könyvtár [Hungarian National Library] — p. 33 Fig. 2.3 Royal oratory in St Vitus Cathedral, Prague © Photo by the author — p. 34 Fig. 2.4 Common flag of Castile, Aragon, León, and Sicily in the funeral procession of Ferdinand I, 1565, in Bartholomaeus Hannewald, Parentalia Divo Ferdinando Caesari Avgvsto… (Augsburg, 1566) © Vienna, Vienna Museum — p. 41 Fig. 2.5 Catafalque of Emperor Ferdinand I, 1565, in Bartholomaeus Hannewald, Parentalia Divo Ferdinando Caesari Avgvsto… (Augsburg, 1566) © Vienna, Vienna Museum — p. 41 Fig. 2.6 Triumphal chariot of Liberalitas in the funeral procession of Archduke Albert of Austria, in Jacob Franquart, Pompa Funebris Alberti, (Brussels: Jan Mommaert, 1623) © Private collection, Budapest — p. 42 Fig. 2.7 Coats of arms of the Holy Roman Empire, the Lands of the Hungarian crown, and Bohemia on the Catafalque of Infanta Isabella Clara Eugenia (Brussels, 1633) © Vienna, Österreichisches Staatsarchiv — p. 43 Fig. 2.8 Coronation of Archduke Leopold I as King of Hungary in Pozsony (Bratislava), 27 June 1655 © Budapest, Magyar Nemzeti Múzeum [Hungarian National Museum] — p. 45 Fig. 2.9 Coronation flag of the Kingdom of Hungary carried by Miklós Esterházy at the coronation of Ferdinand II in Pozsony (Bratislava), 1 July 1618 © Eisenstadt, Esterházy Privatstiftung, Esterházy-Schatzkammer, Burg Forchtenstein — p. 48 Fig. 2.10 Coat of arms of Slavonia in Virgil Solis, Wappenbüchlein, 1555 © Vienna, Österreichische Nationalbibliothek — p. 51 Fig. 2.11 Coats of arms of Slavonia and Bulgaria in imperial herald Hans Francolin, Wappenbuch, ca.  1565 ©  Vienna, Österreichische Nationalbibliothek — p. 52

10

l is t o f i l lu s t r at i o n s

Fig. 2.12 Hungarian coronation medals for King Matthias II (1608), Ferdinand II (1618), and Ferdinand III (1625), featuring the coats of arms of the ten Lands of the Hungarian crown © Budapest, Magyar Nemzeti Múzeum [Hungarian National Museum] — p. 52 Fig. 2.13 The Hungarian royal double seal of Emperor Rudolph II, 1607 ©  Budapest, Magyar Nemzeti Levéltár Országos Levéltára [Hungarian National Archives, Hungarian State Archives] — p. 53 Fig. 3.1 Charles II in a printed allegory of the supposed ritual of pavés in the cathedral of Pamplona, after Dionisio de Ollo (1685), in Antonio Chavier, Fueros del Reyno de Navarra desde su creación hasta su feliz unión con el de Castilla, y Recopilación de las leyes promulgadas desde dicha unión hasta el año de 1685 (Pamplona: Martín Gregorio de Zabala, 1686) © Madrid, UCM-Biblioteca Histórica Marqués de Valdecilla, BH DER 10520 — p. 75 Fig. 4.1 Portrait of Maximilian II (I) of the House of Habsburg, engraving by Martino Rota, 1573 © Budapest, Hungarian National Museum, Hungarian Historical Gallery, 3178 — p. 81 Fig. 4.2 Ephemeral triumphal arches by Pietro Ferrabosco at Maximilian’s coronation as King of Hungary in Pozsony, 1563, detail of a woodcut attributed to Donat and Martin Hübschmann, from a broadsheet by Johannes Sambucus, bound in Gründtliche und khurtze beschreibung des alten unnd jungen Zugs […] (Vienna: Caspar Stainhofer, 1566) © Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Rar. 250, fol. 20 (http://daten. digitale-sammlungen.de/bsb00043862/image_41) — p. 84 Fig. 4.3 The tournament field and the firework fortress of the Pozsony tournament in 1563, detail of a woodcut attributed to Donat and Martin Hübschmann, from a broadsheet by Johannes Sambucus, bound in Gründtliche und khurtze beschreibung des alten unnd jungen Zugs […] (Vienna: Caspar Stainhofer, 1566) © Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Rar. 250, fol. 20 (http://daten.digitale-sammlungen. de/bsb00043862/image_41) — p. 87 Fig. 4.4 The winged ‘Cupid’ sitting on a ladder during a tilt held in front of the Hofburg at the ‘Viennese Tournament’ on 17 June 1560, detail of an engraving by Hans Sebald Lautensack, in Hans Francolin, Raerum praeclare gestarum […] (Vienna: Raphael Hofhalter, 1560) © Budapest, National Széchényi Library. Department of Old Prints, App. Hung. 2548 (1), sine folio — p. 88 Fig. 4.5 Portrait of Rudolf II (I) of the House of Habsburg, engraving by Martino Rota, after 1576 © Budapest, Hungarian National Museum, Hungarian Historical Gallery, 474 — p. 91 Fig. 4.6 Procession of costumed participants in the wedding festival of Archduke Charles and Maria Anna of Bavaria in 1571, in Heinrich

li st o f i llu st rat i o ns

Wirrich, Ordenliche Beschreibung des Christlichen, Hochlöblichen und Fürstlichen Beylags oder Hochzeit […] (Vienna: Eber, 1571) © Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Rar. 2042 (http://daten. digitale-sammlungen.de/bsb00006248/image_216) — p. 93 Fig. 6.1 Joseph in Hungarian attire, surrounded by greeting poems, portrait published by Felsecker, Nuremberg ( Johann Azelt), 1687 © Budapest, Hungarian National Museum — p. 125 Fig. 6.2 Equestrian portrait of Joseph by Leonhard Loschge 1687 © Budapest, Hungarian National Museum — p. 126 Fig. 6.3 Portrait of Joseph wearing Hungarian aristocratic attire, by J. C. Lochner Nuremberg © Budapest, Hungarian National Museum — p. 128 Fig. 6.4 Cover page from a summary of the history of the Hungarian Kingdom. Nuremberg, 1688 © Budapest, Hungarian National Museum — p. 129 Fig. 6.5 Icon with view of the recaptured Buda and the family of Leopold I © Budapest, Hungarian National Museum — p. 131 Fig. 6.6 The coronation procession in Pressburg (Bratislava) – broadsheet of Jacob Koppmayer © Budapest, Hungarian National Museum — p. 142 Fig. 6.7a Broadsheet by Johann Martin Lerch – Matthias Greischer dedicated to Palatine Esterházy 1687 © Budapest, Hungarian National Museum — p. 150 Fig. 6.7b The engravings by Johann Martin Lerch – Matthias Greischer emphasize the role of the Palatine during the coronation © Budapest, Hungarian National Museum — p. 150 Fig. 6.8 Almanach royal by Johann Heiss and Johann Ulrich Kraus (Ulm: M. Wagner, 1688) © Budapest, Hungarian National Museum — p. 153 Fig. 6.9 Romeyn de Hooghe, engraving representing Leopold and Joseph as determinant political actors of Europe, 1687 © Budapest, Hungarian National Museum — p. 156 Fig. 9.1 A modern version of the coat of arms of Charles V was published in 1530 by Lucio Marineo Siculo based on the work of De Rebus Hispania Memorabilibus. (Published by Miguel de Eguía.) https://en.wikipedia. org/wiki/Coat_of_arms_of_Charles_V,_Holy_Roman_Emperor#/ media/File:Greater_Coat_of_Arms_of_Charles_I_of_Spain,_ Charles_V_as_Holy_Roman_Emperor_(1530-1556).svg — p. 187 Fig. 10.1 The Encounter of the Two Ferdinands in Nördlingen, ephemeral triumphal arch by Pieter Paul Rubens at the entry of Cardinal-Infant Ferdinand of Austria into Antwerp, 1635, detail of a engraving by Theodoor van Thulden in Jean Gaspard Gevaerts’ Pompa introitus honori serenissimi principis Ferdinandi Austriaci […] (Antwerp: Ioannes Meursius, 1641)

11

12

l is t o f i l lu s t r at i o n s

© Madrid, Biblioteca Nacional de España, Invent/15061, estampa 9 (http://bdh-rd.bne.es/viewer.vm?id = 0000200015&page = 6http:// bdh-red.bne.es/viewer.vm?id = 0000172066&page = 2) — p. 199 Fig. 10.2 The Battle of Nördlingen, ephemeral triumphal arch by Pieter Paul Rubens at the entry of Cardinal-Infant Ferdinand of Austria into Antwerp, 1635, detail of a engraving by Theodoor van Thulden in Jean Gaspard Gevaerts’ Pompa introitus honori serenissimi principis Ferdinandi Austriaci […] (Antwerp: Ioannes Meursius, 1641) © Madrid, Biblioteca Nacional de España, ER/3347, fol. 99 (http://bdh-rd.bne.es/viewer.vm?id = 0000200015&page = 6http://bdh-red.bne.es/viewer.vm?id = 0000051898&page = 144) — p. 205 Fig. 10.3 The victory of Nördlingen, ephemeral triumphal arch at the entry of Cardinal-Infant Ferdinand of Austria into Ghent, 1635, detail of a engraving by Pieter de Jode in Guillaume van der Beke’s Serenissimi principis Ferdinandi Hispaniarum infantis S. R. E. cardinalis triumphalis introitus in Flandriae metropolim Gandauum (Antwerp: ex officina Ioannis Meursi, 1636) © Madrid, Biblioteca Nacional de España, ER/2853, fol. 10 (http://bdh-rd.bne.es/viewer.vm?id = 0000200015&page = 6) — p. 209 Fig. 10.4 Arcus triumphali Genuensium, ephemeral triumphal arch at the entry of Ernst, Archduke of Austria, into Antwerp, 1594, detail of a engraving by Pieter van der Borcht, in Joannes Bochius’ Descriptio publicae gratulationis […] (Antwerp: Ex officina Plantiniana, 1595), p. 86. © Amsterdam, Rijksmuseum, FMH 1028-A/14 (https://www. rijksmuseum.nl/nl/collectie/BI-1953-0546B-14) — p. 211 Fig. 10.5 The Meeting of Ferdinand and the Elector of Cologne, ephemeral triumphal arch at the entry of Cardinal-Infant Ferdinand of Austria into Ghent, 1635, detail of a engraving by Pieter de Jode in Guillaume van der Beke’s Serenissimi principis Ferdinandi Hispaniarum infantis S. R. E. cardinalis triumphalis introitus in Flandriae metropolim Gandauum (Antwerp: ex officina Ioannis Meursi, 1636), © Madrid, Biblioteca Nacional de España, ER/2853, fol. 11 (http://bdh-rd.bne.es/viewer.vm?id = 0000200015&page = 7) — p. 212 Fig. 13.1 Charter of Philip IV concerning the conferral of the Order of the Golden Fleece on Count Miklós Esterházy, Palatine of Hungary, Madrid, 20 July 1628 © Budapest, Magyar Nemzeti Levéltár Országos Levéltára [Hungarian National Archives], Sign.: MNL OL P 108, Rep. 2/3, Fasc. F., nr. 79. — p. 255 Fig. 13.2 Acknowledgement from Count Miklós Esterházy, Palatine of Hungary, of the reception of the insignia of the Order of the Golden Fleece; Vienna, 2 January 1629 © Budapest, Magyar Nemzeti Levéltár Országos Levéltára [Hungarian National Archives], Sign.: MNL OL P 108, Rep. 2/3, Fasc. F., nr. 60. — p. 256

List of Abbreviations

AAV Archivio Apostolico Vaticano, Vatican City ACA Archivo de la Corona de Aragón, Barcelona ADA Archivo de la Casa Ducal de Alba, Madrid ADM Archivo de la Casa Ducal de Medinaceli, Archivo Histórico, Toledo AGP Archivo General de Palacio, Madrid AGRB Archives Générales du Royaume de Belgique, Brussels AGS Archivo General de Simancas, Simancas AHN Archivo Histórico Nacional, Madrid AHNOB Archivo Histórico de la Nobleza, Toledo AOM Archivio Storico dell’Ospedale Maggiore, Milan ARGN Archivo Real y General de Navarra, Pamplona ASF Archivo di Stato di Firenze, Florence ASMa Archivio di Stato di Mantova, Mantua ASMo Archivio di Stato di Modena, Modena AST Archivio di Stato di Torino, Turin BL The British Library, London BNE Biblioteca Nacional de España, Madrid BPUG Bibliothèque Publique et Universitaire de Genève, Geneva BSW Bayerisches Staatsarchiv, Würzburg HNM HPG Hungarian National Museum, Historical Portrait Gallery, Budapest HStAM Hessisches Staatsarchiv, Marburg IVdeDJ Instituto Valencia de Don Juan, Madrid MNL OL Magyar Nemzeti Levéltár Országos Levéltára, National Archives of Hungary, Budapest MNM TKCS Magyar Nemzeti Múzeum, Történeti Képcsarnok, Budapest NADH Nationaal Archief Den Haag, The Hague NAP Národní archiv Praha, National Archive, Prague NÖLA Niederösterreichisches Landesarchiv, Sankt Pölten ÖNB Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, Vienna ÖStA Österreichisches Staatsarchiv, Vienna AVA Allgemeines Verwaltungsarchiv HHStA Haus-, Hof- und Staatsarchiv, Vienna ÄZA Ältere Zeremonialakten

14

l is t o f a b b r e vi at i o n s

FA Familienarchiv OMeA Obersthofmeisteramt RHR Reichshofrat ZA-Prot Zeremonialprotokoll OSZK Országos Széchényi Könyvtár, National Széchényi Library, Budapest App. H. Apponyi Hungarica OSZKK Országos Széchényi Könyvtár, Kézirattár RAH Real Academia de la Historia, Madrid StSTBA Stadt- und Staatsbibliothek, Augsburg Other K. Karton Leg. Legajo Mss. Manuscript/Manuscrito

TIBOR MARTÍ AND ROBERTO QUIRÓS ROSADO 

Dynastic Links between Far Lands The Kingdom of Hungary and the Spanish Monarchy in the Early Modern Age

The royal couple went over to the town hall [of Sopron, Hungary], where the emperor danced first with the empress in front of the Hungarian magnates, as is customary here. After this, the emperor asked the count of Oñate to dance with the empress escorted by the court nobles; finally, they all started to dance, and the emperor asked the most noble ladies to dance with him several times.1

Eleonora Anna Gonzaga, emperor Ferdinand II’s second wife, was crowned queen of Hungary on 26 July 1622 at the diet of Hungary in Sopron. According to old Hungarian traditions, the Holy Crown was gently pressed against the right shoulder of the queen consort, symbolising the queen’s support of her husband in the country’s governance. As was customary, the ceremony was followed by a coronation feast, which – according to the report of Íñigo Vélez de Guevara y Tassis, count of Oñate, and Spanish ambassador to Vienna from 1617 to 1624 – was followed by celebratory dancing.2 The opening





1 Report of the count of Oñate, Spanish ambassador to Vienna, Sopron, the 27th of July 1622: ‘Fueron sus Magestades a la Cassa de la Ciudad, donde el Emperador danzó con la Emperatriz la primera vez, acompañado delante de los Barones de Ungría como acá se ussa. Luego me mandó a mí danzase con su Magestad, yiendóla acompañándola los principales de la corte. Después comenzaron a danzar todos y el Emperador lo hizo algunas vezes con las señoras más principales que allí se hallavan.’, cfr. Tibor Martí, ‘Oñate gróf bécsi spanyol követ jelentései az 1622. évi soproni országgyűlésről (Forrásközlemény) [Reports of the count of Oñate, Spanish Ambassador to the Imperial Court from the 1622 Diet of Sopron. (A Source Publication)]’, in Egy új együttműködés kezdete: Az 1622. évi soproni koronázó országgyűlés. [The Beginning of a New Cooperation. The Coronation Diet of 1622.], ed. by Péter Dominkovits and Csaba Katona (Sopron-Budapest: Magyar Nemzeti Levéltár Győr-Moson-Sopron megyei Soproni Levéltára/MTA BTK Történettudományi Intézet, 2014), pp. 238–49 (Doc. Nr. 9). 2 Géza Pálffy, ‘Krönungsmähler in Ungarn im Spätmittelalter und in der Frühen Neuzeit. Weiterleben des Tafelzeremoniells des selbständigen ungarischen Königshofes und Machtrepräsentation der ungarischen politischen Elite’, Mitteilungen des Instituts für Österreichische Geschichtsforschung, 115 (2007) Heft 1–2, pp. 85–111, 116; (2008) Heft 1–2, pp. 60–91. Eagles Looking East and West: Dynasty, Ritual and Representation in Habsburg Hungary and Spain, ed. by Tibor Martí & Roberto Quirós Rosado, Habsburg Worlds 4 (Turnhout, 2021), pp. 15–26.

© FHG

DOI 10.1484/M.HW-EB.5.122793

16

ti bo r m a rt í an d ro b e rto q u i ró s ro s ad o

dance was performed by the emperor and the empress. As described in the excerpt above, this was a highly symbolic spectacle, one which saw the dance between the emperor and empress followed by one between the empress and the ambassador representing the head of the Spanish branch of the House of Habsburg, i.e., the king of Spain. A similar description exists for the coronation of Ferdinand III, the son of Ferdinand II, as king of Hungary in 1625, which also took place in Sopron, and of the feast and dancing which followed the event. In this instance, too, the first to dance with the empress was Spanish ambassador, Oñate’s successor Francisco de Moncada, count of Ossona and third marquis of Aytona, and later respected governor-general of the Spanish Low Countries.3 Royal courts of the era were meticulous about displaying hierarchic relations symbolically: the distinguished position of the Spanish ambassador was a clear sign to all guests that ambassadors representing the person of Emperor Ferdinand II’s nephew, Philip IV of Spain – the count of Oñate in 1622 and the count of Ossona in 1625 – were revered almost as family members, and that their prestige within the representation of power at the imperial court of Vienna as ambassadors of the king of Spain was, among diplomats, only comparable to that of the papal nuncio. However, the sources quoted here do not only indicate the position held by the Spanish branch’s ambassador within the symbolic order of the court. In the Spanish monarchy’s urban power centres such as Madrid, Brussels and Milan, the numerous surviving Spanish-language sources concerning the coronation of Hungarian monarchs also demonstrate an eager interest in the affairs of the Habsburg monarchy ruled by the Viennese branch, in particular regarding Hungary, which at the time had turned into a battlefield of the Ottoman wars. Archduke Ferdinand Ernest, son of Ferdinand II, was crowned king of Hungary (1625, Sopron) and king of Bohemia (1627, Prague) while his father was still alive. For members of the dynasty, the acquisition of royal titles across Central Europe were important steps towards securing the title of Holy Roman Emperor, while also serving as preconditions for dynastic marriages between the Spanish and the Austrian branches. Ferdinand Ernst’s coronation as king of Hungary in December 1625 was further supported by his father, since Philip IV had named the acquisition of at least one royal title



3 AGRB, Secrétairerie d’État et de Guerre, 525, ff. 475r–476v: ‘In the evening, there were spectacular dances by eight noble ladies and eight lords. Before that, Their Majesties danced, after which the Emperor asked the Spanish Ambassador to dance with the Empress […]’: Relación de la coronación del Rey de Hungría [8 december 1625]; Cfr. Tibor Monostori, ‘Spanyol-németalföldi beszámoló az 1625. évi soproni királykoronázásról’, in Amikor Sopronra figyelt Európa. Az 1625. évi soproni koronázó országgyűlés [When the Eyes of Europe were on Sopron: The Hungarian Coronation Diet of 1625], ed. by Péter Dominkovits–Csaba Katona–Géza Pálffy, (Annales Archivi Soproniensis No. 2.) (Sopron–Budapest: MNL Győr-Moson-Sopron Megye Soproni Levéltára – Bölcsészettudományi Kutatóközpont Történettudományi Intézet, 2020), p. 422.

dy n as t i c l i n k s b e t w e e n far land s

as a precondition for his approval of the young archduke’s planned marriage to Infanta Maria Anna, his sister.4 With Hungary among the five or six most prestigious medieval states in Europe, the Hungarian royal title – despite the heavy territorial losses inflicted by Ottoman advances – remained significant well into the seventeenth century, a clear sign of which was its place immediately behind the emperor’s own title in the royal titulature.5 Dynastic relations between the two Habsburg branches were of particular importance, and marriages between the two were the most convenient way of strengthening their ties. In other words, dynastic marriages were the cornerstone of relations between each branch: the strengthening of family ties resulted in a political construction which displayed the dynasty as a unity and the two branches as politically allied in the eyes of the European political public sphere, even if in reality the situation was not always free of conflicting interests. These marriages – just like the coronations and burial ceremonies of members of the royal house, be it in Spain, Vienna, Brussels or Prague – allowed for a versatile representation of the dynasty’s power. Relations between the Spanish and Austrian branches of the House of Habsburg have been extensively discussed in the scholarly literature, and recent years have seen a kind of renaissance of research into the topic.6 Although seemingly a wide distance apart, the two European regions were closely intertwined in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. In recent years, the interrelations between the various regions of the Central European Habsburg monarchy and the Monarquía de España have been investigated in numerous thematic volumes. These publications have focused chiefly on diplomatic relations and on various segments of cultural transfer.7 In addition, completely









4 Tibor Martí, ‘Az 1625. évi soproni országgyűlés a Habsburg dinasztia spanyol ágának szemével: Ossona gróf bécsi spanyol követ jelentései [The Diet of Sopron in 1625 As Seen by the Spanish Branch of the House of Habsburg: Reports of the Count of Ossona, Spanish Ambassador to Vienna]”, in Amikor Sopronra figyelt Európa, p. 246. 5 Géza Pálffy, The Kingdom of Hungary and the Habsburg Monarchy in the Sixteenth Century, Boulder, Colorado: Social Science Monographs/Wayne, New Jersey: Center for Hungarian Studies and Publications, Inc.–New York: Distributed by Columbia University Press, 2009 (East European Monographs, DCCXXXV.; CHSP Hungarian Studies Series, 18.), pp. 194–00, 363. 6 One of these new works is a three-volume publication based on the international conference organized by the Early Modern History Department of the Universidad Autónoma de Madrid and the IULCE research group in December 2009. La dinastía de los Austria. Las relaciones entre la Monarquía Católica y el Imperio, ed. by José Martínez Millán and Rubén González Cuerva (Madrid: Ediciones Polifemo, 2011), 3 vols. 7 An indicative list of more prominent examples: Hispania – Austria: Kunst um 1492: die katholischen Könige: Maximilian I. und die Anfänge der Casa de Austria in Spanien, ed. by Gert Amman and Lukas Madersbacher (Milano: Electa, 1992); Hispania – Austria [1]: Die katholischen Könige, Maximilian I. und die Anfänge der Casa de Austria in Spanien: Akten des Historischen Gespräches, Innsbruck, Juli 1992, ed. by Alfred Kohler and Friedrich Edelmayer (Vienna: Verlag für Geschichte und Politik; München: Oldenbourg, 1993); Hispania – Austria [2]:

17

18

ti bo r m a rt í an d ro b e rto q u i ró s ro s ad o

new dimensions and subject matters have emerged: research into the role of the royal house’s female members8 and into the female family members of diplomats has become more pronounced, along with investigations of the role of diplomacy and formal information acquisition in the operations of royal courts as power centres, the latter comprising analyses of agents, delegates, secretaries, and courtiers (that is to say, behind-the-scenes ‘grey eminences’).9 The representation of power by the rulers of the two composite monarchies is a theme which has not thus far been at the heart of research, nor has it been subjected to comparative scholarly investigation regarding the kingdom of Hungary, a substantial part of the Central European Habsburg monarchy, and the Spanish branch of the Casa de Austria. Relations between the two spaces nevertheless had deep roots. During the Middle Ages, links between the Hungarian Realm of Saint Stephen and Hispania are familiar mainly through dynastic relations that existed between rulers of the House of Árpád and members of the House of Aragon. King Emeric (1196–1204) married Constance of Aragon; one generation later, the royal houses of the two territories were linked by the marriage of James I ‘the Conqueror’, king of Aragon (1213–76), and princess Violant of Hungary. The position of the kingdom of Hungary changed during

Die Epoche Philipps II. (1556–1598), ed. by Friedrich Edelmayer (Vienna: Verlag für Geschichte und Politik, 1999); Hispania – Austria [3]: Der Spanische Erbfolgekrieg, ed. by Friedrich Edelmayer, Virginia León Sanz and José Ignacio Ruiz Rodríguez (Vienna: Verlag für Geschichte und Politik, 2008); Néhány példa a kultúr- és irodalomtörténeti megközelítésre: Centros y periferias en España y Austria: aspectos literarios y culturales, ed. by Carlos Buján López and María José Domínguez Vázquez (Bern/Vienna: Peter Lang, 2009); Las relaciones checo-españolas, ed. by Josef Opatrný (Prague: Universidad Carolina de Praga, Editorial Karolinum, 2007); Felix Austria. Lazos familiares, cultura política y mecenazgo artístico entre las cortes de los Habsburgo (Madrid: Fundación Carlos de Amberes-European Science Foundation RNP PALATIUM, 2016). A remarkable and recent volume on this historical topic is a publication by French, Austrian, German, Italian, Belgian, and Spanish scholars about the networks, political culture, financial perspectives and collaborative dynamics between the Habsburgs and their monarchies during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries: Les Habsbourg en Europe. Circulations, échanges et regards croisés, ed. by Alexandra Merle and Éric Leroy de Cardonnoy (Reims: Éditions et presses universitaires de Reims, 2018) and a comparative reappraisal La monarchie espagnole du XVIe au XVIIIe siècle: de l’anomalie au modèle, thematic issue of Histoire, Économie & Société, époques modern et contemporaine 3.2019, ed. by Bertrand Haan. 8 Early modern Habsburg women: transnational contexts, cultural conflicts, dynastic continuities, ed. by Anne J. Cruz and Maria Galli Stampino (Farnham: Ashgate, 2013). Nur die Frau des Kaisers? Kaiserinnen in der Frühen Neuzeit, ed. by Bettina Braun, Katrin Keller and Matthias Schnettger (Cologne: Böhlau, 2016). 9 Related to this subject, a new publication with a conceptual and comparative approach – and a redefinition of the concept of “factions” – has recently been printed on the power relations of early modern European royal courts. A Europe of Courts, a Europe of Factions. Political Groups at Early Modern Centres of Power, ed. by Rubén González Cuerva and Alexander Koller (Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2017).

dy n as t i c l i n k s b e t w e e n far land s

the centuries of the early modern period: a middle-ranking power before the Battle of Mohács (1526), the Regnum Hungariae was torn into three after the Ottoman conquest of Buda (1541). Following the Ottoman takeover of the medieval royal residence, the royal court was transferred to Vienna, outside the kingdom itself. Central government organs and religious governance were relocated to the western part of the country, to the cities of Pozsony and Nagyszombat (Bratislava and Trnava, in today’s Slovakia). These events defined relations between the kingdom of Hungary and the ruler of the multi-ethnic Habsburg monarchy for centuries. Hungary became a politically, militarily and economically valuable part of the Central European composite monarchy, yet one that was also under threat because of the longstanding menace posed by the Ottoman advance. On the other hand, the dynasty of the Catholic Kings unified most of the Iberian Peninsula and left a special heritage for their successors. Aragon, Castile and Navarre – the latter having joined the unified kingdom already under the rule of King Ferdinand of Aragon and Queen Isabella of Castile – were taken over by Charles V, born in distant Ghent and with aspirations for a state of Monarchia Universalis. Governance of the vast areas under his control almost inevitably required a mobile royal court. His son, Philip II, was the first to establish a permanent royal court in Madrid in 1560, following his father’s abdication of the throne of the Holy Roman Empire in 1556, which was then taken over by his brother, Ferdinand I, previously king of Hungary and Bohemia. Unlike his brother, he was born on Castilian soil, in Alcalá de Henares, and received a Spanish upbringing. Moreover, the native Spanish-speaking Infante Ferdinand established his court in Vienna upon his arrival in Austria in 1521. As a result of the 1515 Habsburg-Jagiellon marriage treaty, he married Anna, sister of Louis II, king of Hungary and Bohemia, while Louis himself – who was killed in the Battle of Mohács in 1526 – had married the sister of Ferdinand and Charles, Mary of Hungary. Ferdinand I, who was elected and crowned king of Hungary and Bohemia after the death of his brother-in-law, and who was already familiar with the court traditions of Aragon, Castile, the Low Countries and Burgundy, was forced to acquaint himself with the court practices and the political elites of his new territories. This was far from an easy task; in fact, it must have been one of the major challenges in Ferdinand’s life. After the rule of Ferdinand I, during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries the territories of the House of Habsburg in the west (the Low Countries, the Franche-Comté of Burgundy, Hispania), in the south (the Italian provinces of Lombardy, Naples and Sicily), in Central Europe (the hereditary lands) and in the east (the kingdom of Hungary and the lands of the Bohemian crown) were repeatedly intertwined, whereby political decisions and life courses often crossed one other. The Spanish Habsburg branch was continuously present between 1556 and 1700 in the imperial court via the person of a resident ambassador. The interests of the ‘Catholic King’ and his state ministers were represented by diplomats, who also maintained the Spanish client network

19

20

ti bo r m a rt í an d ro b e rto q u i ró s ro s ad o

in Europe, and, as described in modern historiography,10 acted as brokers striving for the establishment of latent Spanish factions in European power centres and royal courts in order to pursue the objectives of the Monarquía de España.11 The tasks of fending off the Ottoman Empire on sea and land, managing diplomatic cooperation across Europe, dealing with the sibling feuds of the Thirty Years’ War, engaging in military cooperation, providing material assistance and coordinating joint propaganda campaigns not only involved the much-studied Spanish, German and Austrian territories, but – directly or indirectly – the Hungarian kingdom and its representatives as well. The events that ended the Thirty Years’ War in the Holy Roman Empire, the death of Emperor Ferdinand III and the rise of Leopold I opened a new chapter of Habsburg dynastic relations.12 The exhaustion of the Spanish monarchy from the last years of Philip IV’s reign to the end of the seventeenth century made possible, gradually, the political sorpasso by the Viennese branch of the Augustissima Domus. Even though the court of Madrid continued to contribute militarily and financially to the wars of Leopold I in Central Europe and the Balkans,13 Austrian interest in the control of Reichsitalien and the succession of the Spanish throne 10 Pavel Marek, La embajada española en la corte imperial (1558–1641). Figuras de los embajadores y estrategias clientelares (Prague: Universidad Carolina de Praga, Editorial Karolinum, 2014). Étienne Bourdeu, “Le souverain, l’argent et l’ambassadeur. Représenter le Roi Catholique dans le Saint Empire (1610–1620)”, in À la place du roi. Vice-rois, gouverneurs et ambassadeurs dans les monarchies française et espagnole (XVIe-XVIIIe siècles), ed. by Daniel Aznar, Guillaume Hanotin and Niels May (Madrid: Casa de Velázquez, 2014), pp. 65–72. 11 Rubén González Cuerva and Luis Tercero Casado, ‘The Imperial Court during the Thirty Years War: A Battleground for Factions?’, in Factional Struggles Divided Elites in European Cities & Courts (1400–1750), ed. by Mathieu Caesar (Leiden: Brill, 2017), pp. 155–75; Pavel Marek, ‘La diplomacia española y la papal en la corte imperial de Fernando II’, in Studia historica. Historia Moderna, 30 (2008), 109–43. Ibid.: ‘La diplomacia española y la papal en la corte imperial de Fernando II’, Studia historica. Historia Moderna, 30 (2008), 109–43. Ibid., ‘La red clientelar en Praga’, in La monarquía de Felipe III, vol. IV, ed. by José Martínez Millán and Maria Antonietta Visceglia (Madrid: Mapfre, 2008), pp. 1349–73; Ibid.: “Klientelní strategie španělských králů na pražském císařském dvoře konce 16. a počátku 17. století”, in Český časopis historický, 105 (2007), pp. 40–89; Rostislav Šmišek, “Střední Evropa a Španělsko v polovině 17. století. Markéta Tereza Španělská a její španělský hofštát očima soudobých pozorovatelů” [Central Europe and Spain in the Mid-17th Century. Margaret Theresa of Spain and her Spanish Court in the Eyes of Contemporary Observers], in Český časopis historický, 109 (2011), 397–431. 12 Luis Tercero Casado, Infelix Austria. Relaciones entre Madrid y Viena desde la Paz de Westfalia hasta la Paz de los Pirineos (1648–1659), unpublished PhD thesis (Vienna: Universität Wien, 2017). 13 Virginia León Sanz, “Colaboración del ejército imperial con el hispánico de Carlos II”, in Guerra y sociedad en la Monarquía Hispánica: política, estrategia y cultura (1500–1700), vol. I, ed. by Enrique García Hernán, Davide Maffi and Antonio José Rodríguez Hernández (Madrid: Mapfre-Ediciones del Laberinto-CSIC, 2006), pp. 121–52, “El precio de la fidelidad dinástica. Colaboración económica y militar entre la Monarquía Hispánica y el Imperio durante el reinado de Carlos II (1665–1700)”, Studia Historica. Historia Moderna, 33 (2011), 141–76.

dy n as t i c l i n k s b e t w e e n far land s

increased, provoking family conflicts which had been unseen for decades.14 The Leopoldinian project’s failure in 1700, after the death of Charles II, caused an irremediable fracture whose consequences were felt in Europe and overseas. The War of the Spanish Succession and the establishment of the eastern Spanish monarchy by Charles of Habsburg (Charles III of Spain and VI of the Holy Roman Empire) were indicators of how dynastic relations that had been maintained during the two previous centuries began to lose their importance at the beginning of the eighteenth century.15 * * * * As is well known, research into symbolic political communication and representation in Europe has flourished in the last two decades. The aim of the present volume is to offer a prominent contribution to this leading research area, mainly through a comparative analysis of the Spanish and Hungarian territories of the Habsburg dynasty’s two branches. Each of the studies published in the volume deals with a specific aspect of sovereignty and the representation of power. The volume’s concentration on case studies allows for a comparison of propagandistic goals and the various means and shared practices by which sovereignty was represented across the two dynastic branches. The use of case studies excludes the possibility of their use as cumulative chapters in a single monograph – an approach in all likelihood beyond an individual researcher’s capabilities, due to the dispersed nature of the historical subject matter, which stretches from the Republican Court of The Hague to Bohemian Prague, from Madrid to Vienna. These challenges notwithstanding, the conference which hosted the papers that make up the present volume was intended to provide as rich and diverse an exploration of the representation of sovereignty and power in the early modern era as possible, while simultaneously offering a comparative perspective on the regions under examination. Our aim was to facilitate comparison by structuring the volume so as to let individual studies outline the shared and differing characteristics and elements of the representation of power across the two Habsburg branches. Although each study sheds light on the various themes and symbols attending the representation of power through different subject areas, in different manners, from different aspects and with the help of different sources, several

14 Il Trentino nel Settecento fra Sacro Romano Impero e antichi stati italiani, ed. by Cesare Mozzarelli and Giuseppe Olmi (Bologna: Il Mulino, 1985). Dilatar l’Impero in Italia. Asburgo e Italia nel primo Settecento, ed. by Marcello Verga, Cheiron, 21 (1994); Cinzia Cremonini, Impero e feudi italiani tra Cinque e Settecento (Roma: Bulzoni, 2004). L’Impero e l’Italia nella prima età moderna, ed. by Marcello Verga and Matthias Schnettger (Bologna-Berlin: Il Mulino-Duncker & Humblot, 2006). 15 Virginia León Sanz, El archiduque Carlos y los austracistas (San Cugat del Vallés: Editorial Arpegio, 2014). Roberto Quirós Rosado, Monarquía de Oriente. La corte de Carlos III y el gobierno de Italia durante la guerra de Sucesión española (Madrid: Marcial Pons Historia, 2017).

21

22

ti bo r m a rt í an d ro b e rto q u i ró s ro s ad o

characteristic features pertaining to the display of power recur across both branches of the imperial house. Such common threads include, for example, the markedly confessional nature of displays by both branches of the imperial house (Pietas austriaca and Pietas hispanica) and the various manifestations and portrayals of the regenerated idea of the branches’ common origin. One of the most peculiar shared symbolic expressions of the two dynastic branches can be seen in the (originally Burgundian) Order of the Golden Fleece, a phenomenon discussed in a number of the studies that follow. The first part of the volume, entitled A ritualised dynasty: The ceremonies of the Habsburgs, starts with an essay by Géza Pálffy. The chapter concentrates on a thus far neglected aspect in the field of dynastic representation: the heraldic representation of Central European dynasties (Habsburg, Hunyadi, Jagiellonian and Luxembourg) at late medieval and early modern coronations and royal funerals. There are several reasons as to why these events are worth studying. In the context of two major paradigms applied to the fifteenth to seventeenth centuries – namely, Richard Bonney’s famous classification of this period as an age of dynastic states, and John Elliott’s reference to a Europe of composite monarchies - the essay investigates the roles played by flags with coats of arms in dynastic representation during the late medieval and early modern eras. It investigates the mutual influences of heraldic representation between different dynasties, specifically at coronations and royal funerals, including instances of error. And as a more general contribution, the essay seeks also to show up the various disciplinary possibilities which exist in this field of research. Alfredo Floristán Imízcoz offers a panoramic view of the rituals of majesty in the inauguration of reigns in the various Spanish kingdoms and lordships during early modern times. Focussing on the kingdom of Navarre, comparing the latter with Castile, Aragon, Valencia or Catalonia makes clear the importance of solemnity during ceremonies of coronation and proclamation, and sheds light on the links between monarch and vassals, as well as on the treaties and propaganda linked with these royal acts. In the case of Navarre, the Castilian conquest of 1512 provoked the Spanish Habsburgs to suspend de facto these functions within the cathedral of Pamplona in spite of a promise to maintain them. Instead, the reciprocal oath recovered the central place that it had occupied previously. It was to be the heirs of the Spanish monarchy, the next Philip II and Philip III of Habsburg, who swore solemnly to uphold the laws and privileges of the kingdom before Navarre’s courts (in 1551 and 1592), as was done by Philip IV’s son, Balthasar Charles, in 1646. However, despite the changes introduced from 1700 during Bourbon rule, the ceremony was to be continued by the viceroys until 1817. Returning to the kingdom of Hungary, Borbála Gulyás focusses on court festivals including triumphal entries, feasts, banquets, mummeries, fireworks and tournaments as effective instruments for the representatio maiestatis of the princely courts of Europe in the early modern period. The essay analyses two outstanding court festivals of the late sixteenth century celebrating the

dy n as t i c l i n k s b e t w e e n far land s

most significant state event in the kingdom of Hungary, the coronation. Both festivities – the coronations of Habsburg Maximilian (1563) and Habsburg Rudolf (1572), respectively – were held in Bratislava. These spectacles are examined based on a wide range of sources such as historical works, delegates’ accounts, festival books and other archival or printed materials (for example the broadsheet by the Hungarian court humanist Johannes Sambucus, illustrated by Donat and Martin Hübschmann, of 1563). Václav Bůžek and Pavel Marek study one of the most controversial Habsburg rulers of the early modern age. They focus on the process of forming a symbolic image of the social body of the Emperor Rudolf II during his funeral ceremonies, which took place at the Spanish royal court in Madrid and at the Brussels headquarters of archdukes Albert and Isabella Clara Eugenia, lords of the obedient Low Countries. Both the allegorical decoration of sites where the last farewell to the emperor took place and the lyrics of requiems represented Rudolf II as a virtuous ruler, a Christian knight and a warrior for the Catholic faith, who with God’s grace continued the imperious efforts of his famous ancestors of the Habsburg dynasty. Creating such an image in the collective memory of viewers was desirable, even though in many ways it did not correspond to reality. In their treatment of the topic, the authors base their conclusions upon the funeral sermons themselves, surviving descriptions of funerary feasts, hymns and prints, and especially on the testimony of Habsburg family correspondence, as well as witness reports penned by foreign ambassadors, high court dignitaries and provincial officials. From the early to the late seventeenth century, Nóra G. Etényi explores the great variety of prints published on the occasion of the coronation of Joseph I as king of Hungary (1687). Full figure and equestrian portraits, carefully composed allegories, thesis sheets, old leaflets, royal almanacs, series of drawings, emblematic books, weekly news and detailed articles appeared depicting the coronation in numbers never seen previously. As it is reflected by this phenomenon, analysis of the new power relations of Central Europe after the final pushback of the Ottoman Empire provides unique opportunities to examine the representation of power at the end of the century. The effective propaganda machine that had emerged during a war fought in a federal system provided an opportunity not just for the active and legitimate involvement of several centres of power in the political public of the Empire, but also for the declaration of Hungary as a hereditary monarchy, the abrogation of noblemen’s right of resistance, and the apparition of the values of the kingdom as well as the representation of the political importance of the Hungarian estates thanks to the Palatine Pál Esterházy and his concern to develop a new balance of power. Another royal proclamation, one made at the beginning of the eighteenth century, forms the basis of János Kalmár’s essay. Since the marriage of the Catholic Kings, Isabella and Ferdinand of Trastámara, rulers had assumed office through separate inauguration ceremonies in the kingdoms of Aragon and Castile. Archduke Charles - who was the Austrian Habsburg pretender

23

24

ti bo r m a rt í an d ro b e rto q u i ró s ro s ad o

of the Spanish crown during the War of the Spanish Succession but, in 1711, became emperor as Charles VI - was inaugurated to the kingdom of Aragon three years after he was declared king in Vienna in 1703, declared by the estates in Saragossa. His rival, Philip V of Bourbon, had already been enthroned as king of Castile in Madrid in 1700 and sovereign of the lands of the Crown of Aragon in 1701–02. Based partly on unpublished sources, the essay presents the inauguration ceremony of the archduke to the Aragonese kingship and the discussion at the Viennese court concerning his declaration to be the sole ruler of Spain. The two aforementioned sovereigns, Joseph I and Charles III/VI of Habsburg, are the focus of the final chapter in the first part of the volume. Following a cultural historical approach, Fanni Hende explores the coronation of King Joseph in 1687 and Charles in 1712. Emperor Leopold I called the Hungarian diet in Bratislava after the reconquest of Buda from the Turks. At the diet of 1687, the Hungarian estates gave up their right to elect the king, and Joseph I was crowned. After Joseph’s unexpected death in 1711, Charles III of Spain (and emperor Charles VI) called the diet for his inauguration and the codification of the Treaty of Szatmár, which closed the Rákóczi movement which by that point had been dragging on for nearly ten years. The essay analyses the issuing of the diploma inaugurale, which was the result of political debate and negotiations between the future king and the estates, and which, furthermore, reflected power relations between the various parties. Finally, the essay explores the symbolic communication of both the aforementioned coronation ceremonies, emphasizing the representation of the hereditary reign codified in 1687 and the changes in ritual and ceremonies which followed. One dynasty, two branches. Political interaction and self-representation of the eastern and western Habsburgs is the title of the volume’s second section. Zoltán Korpás opens with an evaluation of the fraternal relationship between Charles V and Ferdinand of Habsburg, focussing upon their positions with regard to the dynasty’s politics in Hungary. In 1631, the wedding of the king of Hungary, Ferdinand (the future Ferdinand III) with the Spanish infanta, Maria Anna, opened a new phase of rapprochement and cooperation between the two branches of the House of Austria. Rubén González Cuerva examines the signature of the Catholic League (1632) and especially the consequences of the Battle of Nördlingen (6 September 1634) as the most important milestones in this successful period of military alliance between the emperor and the king of Spain, Philip IV. In the aforementioned battle, the Catholic army was commanded by Ferdinand of Hungary and Cardinal Infant Ferdinand, his cousin and brother-in-law. The image of the two Ferdinands embodied the dynastic union and offered a new iconography of the House of Habsburg which emphasised its division into two different, yet harmonious branches. This message was promoted in the Spanish Low Countries, where Peter Paul Rubens designed the iconographic programmes for the lavish ‘Joyous Entries’ of the cardinal infant in Antwerp, part of which also figures on the cover. The significance of these images lay in the link between the Flemish territories

dy n as t i c l i n k s b e t w e e n far land s

and the triumphant House of Habsburg, a far from unpopular message in the Spanish nation. Diego de Saavedra Fajardo developed three key words in his important theoretical works: conservación, remedios and reputación. In his contribution, Tibor Monostori focusses on the ideas that sustained and upheld the military and political power of the Spanish monarchy in the middle of the seventeenth century. Saavedra Fajardo succeeded in inventing a valid reasoning and theoretical structure to defend and justify the Spanish and Catholic cause during the Thirty Years’ War. It was aligned with actual Spanish foreign policy and aimed at convincing the imperial states and princes of the Holy Roman Empire to support Spain and the dynasty in their fight against France and the Dutch Republic, and to maintain the peaceful hegemony of the Casa de Austria in Europe. The role of the kingdom of Hungary with regard to the Spanish system, at the edge of the Holy Roman Empire and at the edge of the Universitas Christiana was a small, but important piece in the argumentation of this Castilian diplomat and political writer. The Peace of Westphalia (1648) not only brought into being a new international order but raised a range of other political questions among European monarchies and republics. After the Münster agreements, the Realpolitik of Philip IV of Spain needed to obtain new allies and friends at the European diplomatic table and during the war against Louis XIV and Mazzarino’s France. Cristina Bravo Lozano shows the importance played by etiquette in this strategic framework. The recognition of the United Provinces’ sovereignty from its older claimant was accompanied by the designation of Antoine Brun as a representative to negotiate with this new power and its elites. His reception and first audience by the estates general in The Hague were also linked to the subsequent feast organized by Brun to celebrate the royal marriage between the Spanish king and archduchess Maria Anna of Habsburg. Classical political meanings, symbolic decoration and baroque visual effects were some of the means employed by the ambassador to exalt the dynastic union of 1649 in the hearth of the Dutch capital, in order to attract the Republican authorities and the Orange family. Traditional Habsburg ideas of political representation during the early modern period would not be recognizable without the Order of the Golden Fleece. Tibor Martí begins the first of two chapters on this chivalric institution by studying five Hungarian politicians of the seventeenth century who were members of it. His essay explores the aims and motivations of the dynasty behind conferrals of membership of the Order, and shows the importance of membership in the careers of Hungarians who joined it. It can be stated clearly in all cases that conferral of the Order of the Golden Fleece was the result of a conscious, and, above all, strategic political decision. As also becomes evident, Spanish ambassadors could only become members of the Order when their political-military activity in Hungary had successfully supported the interests of the Augustissima Domus. Membership helped them to integrate effectively into the highest levels of the European political elite,

25

26

ti bo r m a rt í an d ro b e rto q u i ró s ro s ad o

allowing their relationship network in the Spanish monarchy and throughout Central Europe to widen, and their reputation in the Viennese court to grow. Roberto Quirós Rosado continues the analysis of the Burgundian Golden Fleece as the main dynastic symbol for the Spanish Habsburg sovereign during the War of the Spanish Succession. The bifurcation of the political destiny of the Monarquía de España between Philip V of Bourbon and Charles III of Habsburg saw the chain of the Golden Fleece bestowed in both Spanish courts, Madrid and Barcelona (and, later, Vienna). Prior to the Bourbon case, where it began to decline slowly, the king – and later emperor – sought to restore political capital to the insignia through its selective and conspicuous award to European elites who supported his dynastic cause. This essay explores the details and causes that underpinned these developments, as well as the physical representation of the religious-political ceremonial of the Order in Vienna from 1712 after its restoration by a monarch who re-united the destinies of the Holy Roman Empire, the Austrian lands, the Bohemian and Hungarian crowns and the Flemish and Italian territories of the Spanish monarchy. Finally, Zsolt Kökényesi focuses on the various games and entertainments that formed the basis of court life and culture in the Viennese court. Historical research of the last few decades has dealt with similar events (ranging from tobogganing to carnival balls) as part of eastern Habsburg courtly culture ever more thoroughly, though shooting competitions held under the reign of Emperor Charles VI have yet to be studied. In spite of this, the numerous competitions organized between 1716 and 1733 represented important gatherings amongst the courtly elite, and are, moreover, well documented in the sources. The essay seeks to present shooting events as a form of courtly entertainment, but also to analyse in detail the circles of the participants, introducing their carrier and relationship networks. Further to this, the essay analyses the participation of Hungarian aristocrats in the competitions, presenting an appendix with a prosopographical enumeration of the list of noblemen who took part in these events in early eighteenth-century Vienna.

Part I

A Ritualised Dynasty The Ceremonies of the Habsburgs

GÉZA PÁLFFY 

Funerals and Coronations Dynastic Heraldic Representation in Central Europe from the Fifteenth to the Early Seventeenth Century1

For the last few decades, research into symbolic communication, representations of power, and the role of ceremonies and rituals has been in the vanguard of historical investigation, as evidenced by numerous international research projects and conferences organized in various countries, as well as a number of monographs and edited volumes on the subject.2 This essay explores a largely neglected aspect of dynastic representation—the heraldic strategy of Central European dynasties (Habsburg, Hunyadi, Jagiellonian, and Luxembourg) at late medieval and early modern coronations and royal funerals. These royal events are worthy of study for from a number of perspectives, including (but not limited to) their political significance, their symbolism and representation, their importance within art history, and with regard to heraldry. According to Richard Bonney’s famous classification, the fifteenth, sixteenth, and seventeenth centuries in Europe constituted the age of dynastic states.3 John Elliott, on the other hand, has described the European monarchies of that period as





1 The study was prepared with the support of the ‘Lendület’ Holy Crown of Hungary Research Project at the Institute of History in the Research Centre for the Humanities at the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Budapest. 2 Excellent examples from recent decades include Coronations: Medieval and Early Modern Monarchic Ritual, ed. by János M. Bak (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1990); Regine Jorzick, Herrschaftssymbolik und Staat: Die Vermittlung königlicher Herrschaft im Spanien der frühen Neuzeit (1556–1598), Studien zur Geschichte und Kultur der iberischen und iberoamerikanischen Länder, 4 (Vienna/Munich: Verlag für Geschichte und Politik, 1998); Gabriel Guarino, Representing the King’s Splendour: Communication and Reception of Symbolic Forms of Power in Viceregal Naples, Studies in Early Modern European History (Manchester/ New York: Manchester University Press, 2010); Barbara Stollberg-Rilinger, Rituale, 2nd. enl. edn Historische Einführungen, 13 (Frankfurt am Main/New York: Campus-Verlag, 2019); Barbara Stollberg-Rilinger, The Emperor’s Old Clothes: Constitutional History and the Symbolic Language of the Holy Roman Empire, Spektrum, 10 (New York/Oxford: Berghahn, 2015), Alles nur symbolisch? Bilanz und Perspektiven der Erforschung symbolischer Kommunikation, ed. by Barbara Stollberg-Rilinger, Tim Neu and Christina Brauner, Symbolische Kommunikation in der Vormoderne, Studien zur Geschichte, Literatur und Kunst (Cologne/Weimar/ Vienna: Böhlau, 2013); Les funérailles princières en Europe, XVIe-XVIIIe siècle, ed. by Juliusz A. Chrościcki, Mark Hengerer and Gérard Sabatier, Aulica, 3–5, 3 vols (Rennes/Versailles: Presses Universitaires de Rennes/Centre de recherche du château de Versailles, 2012–15). 3 Richard Bonney, The European Dynastic States, 1494–1660, The Short Oxford History of the Modern World (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991; repr. 2012). Eagles Looking East and West: Dynasty, Ritual and Representation in Habsburg Hungary and Spain, ed. by Tibor Martí & Roberto Quirós Rosado, Habsburg Worlds 4 (Turnhout, 2021), pp. 29–53.

© FHG

DOI 10.1484/M.HW-EB.5.122794

30

gé za pá l ffy

composite(s).4 In the context of these interpretations, I have analysed a body of heraldic evidence in an attempt to answer the following questions: what roles did coats of arms and flags with coats of arms play in late medieval and early modern dynastic representation? On which monuments and at which ceremonies did they appear? What function(s) did they serve at coronations and royal funerals? To what extent did they represent dynastic composite monarchies or particular kingdoms? What influence did the various dynasties’ heraldic representations have on those of others? Which monuments and events were of enduring significance? Are there examples of heraldic mistakes in these representations of power? And finally, what kinds of interdisciplinary possibilities are there in this field of research?

Dynastic Heraldic Representation in Late Medieval Central Europe Starting in the fourteenth century, coats of arms (and later, heraldic flags or banners; Wappenfahnen in German) would play an increasingly significant role in the representation of power projected by the dynasties that played decisive roles in the history of late medieval Central Europe. These dynasties used such heraldry primarily to emphasize the breadth and importance of the countries and provinces in their possession—or, using Elliott’s terminology, the ‘composite states’ they ruled. This was true of every competing dynasty in the region from the fourteenth to the sixteenth century: the Luxembourgs, the Habsburgs, and the Jagiellonians, including Matthias Corvinus, king of Hungary (1458–90). Moreover, these dynasties influenced and competed with each other in the fields of dynastic representation and the establishment of identity. For these reasons, there was a proliferation of representations of various countries’ coats of arms on these dynasties’ memorials, books, and seals, and at their court celebrations, such as coronations and funerals.5 A few examples will serve to illustrate this process. Excellent examples of Luxembourg heraldic representation in Bohemia include the renowned series of fourteenth-century coats of arms on the Old Town Bridge Tower over the Charles Bridge in Prague, and the castle gate at Točník. In Hungary, the heraldic tower (Wappenturm) of Sigismund of Luxembourg, king of Hungary (1387–1437), in Buda was probably a similar treasure but was unfortunately



4 J. H. Elliott, ‘A Europe of Composite Monarchies’, Past and Present, 117 (1992), 48–71. 5 For Hungarian examples, see Szabolcs de Vajay, ‘Das „Archiregnum Hungaricum” und seine Wappensymbolik in der Ideenwelt des Mittelalters’, in Überlieferung und Auftrag: Festschrift für Michael de Ferdinandy zum sechzigsten Geburtstag 5. Oktober 1972, ed. by Josef Gerhard Farkas (Wiesbaden: Pressler, 1972), pp. 647–67; for a more recent analysis, see Géza Pálffy, ‘Kaiserbegräbnisse in der Habsburgermonarchie – Königskrönungen in Ungarn: Ungarische Herrschaftssymbole in der Herrschaftsrepräsentation der Habsburger im 16. Jahrhundert’, Frühneuzeit-Info, 19.1 (2008), 41–66.

fu n e rals and co ro nat i o ns

destroyed, most likely after the occupation of the Hungarian royal capital by the Ottomans in 1541. Outstanding instances of Habsburg heraldry are the still-standing heraldic wall (Wappenwand) of Emperor Frederick III (1440–93), on display in Wiener Neustadt; the heraldic tower of Emperor Maximilian I (1493–1519), completed in Innsbruck in 1499, and the 1495 coat-of-arms murals in the Innsbruck home of civic judge Walter Zeller.6 The woodcut manuscript of the famous ‘Triumphal Procession’ (Triumphzug, 1512–15) commissioned by Emperor Maximilian I is an equally grandiose form of dynastic representation (Fig. 2.1), as is the monumental print ‘Triumphal Arch’ (Ehrenpforte, 1526) by Albrecht Dürer.7 The dynastic and heraldic aspirations of Emperor Maximilian were continued by Charles V (1519–56) in the west and by his brother, Ferdinand I (king of Hungary and Bohemia 1526–64, German emperor 1556/58–64) in the east. Around 1565, just after the death of Ferdinand I, the founder of the Central European Habsburg monarchy,8 his imperial herald (Reichsherold), Hans Francolin (1522–80), compiled the Wappenbuch (Roll of Arms), in which he listed the coats of arms of all the lands possessed or claimed by the emperor.9 Before that, Clemens Jäger (ca 1500–61), an autodidact urban



6 Franz-Heinz von Hye, ‘Pluriumque Europae provinciarum rex et princeps potentissimus – Kaiser Maximilians I. genealogisch-heraldische Denkmäler in und um Innsbruck’, in Staaten. Wappen: Dynastien. XVIII. Internationaler Kongress für Genealogie und Heraldik in Innsbruck vom 5. bis 9. September 1988, Veröffentlichungen des Innsbrucker Stadtarchivs Neue Folge, 18 (Innsbruck: Stadtmagistrat Innsbruck, 1988), pp. 35–63; Franz-Heinz von Hye, ‘Der Wappenturm – zur Vorgeschichte einer heraldisch-künstlerischen Idee’, Veröffentlichungen des Tiroler Landesmuseum Ferdinandeum, 70 (1990), 99–109. 7 Werke für die Ewigkeit: Kaiser Maximilian I. und Erzherzog Ferdinand II. Ausstellungskatalog des Kunsthistorischen Museums, Schloss Ambras 6. Juli bis 31. Oktober 2002., ed. by Wilfried Seipel (Vienna: Kunsthistorisches Museum, 2002), pp. 120–23, no. 52; Albrecht Dürer: Ausstellungskatalog der Albertina 5. September–30. November 2003., ed. by Klaus Albrecht Schörder and Maria Luise Sternath (Vienna: Albertina, 2003), pp. 448–53, no. 154; Emperor Maximilian I and the Age of Dürer, ed. by Eva Michel, Maria Luise Sternath and Manfred Holleger (Munich: Prestel, 2012), passim. 8 Cf. Thomas Winkelbauer, ‘1526 – Die Entstehung der zusammengesetzten Monarchie der österreichischen Linie des Hauses Habsburg’, in Von Lier nach Brüssel: Schlüsseljahre österreichischer Geschichte (1496–1995), ed. by Martin Scheutz and Arno Strohmeyer, VGS Studientexte, 1 (Innsbruck/Vienna/Bozen: StudienVerlag, 2010), pp. 59–78. 9 Hans Francolin, Weyland Kaysers Ferdinandi säliger vnd hochloblichister gedäctnus / vnnd dem ganczen hochberhümbten hauß Österreich angehörig Wappen, Augsburg: Philipp Ulhart, ca. 1565 (USTC 706455; VIENNA, ÖNB, 48.W.7); cf. Egon von Berchem, Donald Lindsay Galbreath and Otto Hupp, Beiträge zur Geschichte der Heraldik, Schriftenreihe der Reichsstelle für Sippenforschung, 3 (Berlin: Bauer & Raspe, 1939), pp. 152–56; and more recently, Kees Teszelszky, ‘Wirklichkeitsgetreue Darstellungen der ungarischen Krone um 1608’, in Wiener Archivforschungen: Festschrift für den ungarischen Archivdelegierten in Wien, István Fazekas, ed. by Zsuzsanna Cziráki and others, Publikationen der ungarischen Geschichtsforschung in Wien, 10 (Vienna: Institut für Ungarische Geschichtsforschung in Wien/Balassi Institut/Collegium Hungaricum: Ungarische Archivdelegation beim Haus-, Hof- und Staatsarchiv, 2014), pp. 133–41 (pp. 137–38, 417–18, fig. 3–4).

31

32

gé za pá l ffy

Fig. 2.1.  Flags of Hungary, Dalmatia, Croatia and Bosnia in the Triumphzug of Emperor Maximilian I, 1512–15, manuscript © Vienna, Albertina (Inv. 25214)

historian and the herald of Augsburg, compiled a grandiose genealogy of the Habsburg family in 1550,10 a work which might have been the basis for the famous ‘Habsburger Pfau’ painting held in Ambras Castle near Innsbruck.11 It is worth noting that the earliest detailed, coloured depiction of the Holy Crown of Hungary, the chief symbol of the Hungarian state and nation, is attributed to this compulsive Augsburg heraldist.12 Coats of arms were also part of the dynastic representation of Matthias Corvinus and his Jagiellonian successors in Hungary and Bohemia between 1490 and 1526. Although its like have rarely been preserved on buildings, one heraldic monument to Matthias (1486) has survived in Bautzen, Upper Lusatia (now in the German federal state of Saxony).13 The Hungarian king

10 ÖNB, Handschriftensammlung Cod. 7390, fols I–II, 1–26: ‘Brevis Descriptio Genealogicae Austriacae Conscripta a Clemente Jeger’. 11 Thomas Kuster, ‘“… den Neidern und Feinden des habsburgischen Namens und Ruhmes zum Trotze und Spotte…” Der Habsburger Pfau – ein kurioser Wappenträger’, Jahrbuch des Kunsthistorischen Museums Wien, 13–14 (2011–12), 76–103. 12 Enikő Buzási and Géza Pálffy, Augsburg – Wien – München – Innsbruck: Die frühesten Darstellungen der Stephanskrone und die Entstehung der Exemplare des Ehrenspiegels des Hauses Österreich. Gelehrten- und Künstlerbeziehungen in Mitteleuropa in der zweiten Hälfte des 16. Jahrhunderts (Budapest: Institut für Geschichte des Forschungszentrums für Humanwissenschaften der Ungarischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2015). 13 Manfred Thiemann, ‘Mathias Rex anno 1486: Das Matthias–Corvinus–Denkmal in Bautzen’, Ungarn-Jahrbuch: Zeitschrift für interdisziplinäre Hungarologie, 29 (2008), 1–32; Szilárd Papp, ‘Mátyás emlékezete Bautzenben [Memories of Matthias Corvinus in Bautzen]’, in Rex invictissimus: Hadsereg és hadszervezet a Mátyás kori Magyarországon [The Armed Forces and Military Organisation in Hungary during the Reign of Matthias Corvinus], ed. by László Veszprémy (Budapest: Zrínyi, 2008), pp. 212–36.

fu n e rals and co ro nat i o ns

Fig. 2.2.  Chronica Hungarorum of Johannes Thuróczy (1488) with coats of arms of the Lands and provinces ruled by King Matthias Corvinus of Hungary © Budapest, Országos Széchényi Könyvtár [Hungarian National Library]

also incorporated heraldic representations into the volumes of his famous library, the Bibliotheca Corviniana,14 the efforts of which are recounted in Johannes Thuróczy’s Chronica Hungarorum, published in 1488 (Fig. 2.2).15

14 Csapa Csapodi and Klára Csapodi-Gárdonyi, Bibliotheca Corviniana, 1490–1990: International Corvina Exhibition on the 500th Anniversary of the Death of King Matthias: National Széchényi Library, 6 April – 6 October 1990 (Budapest: OSZK, 1990); Árpád Mikó, The Corvinas of King Matthias in the National Széchényi Library (Budapest: Kossuth/OSZK, 2008); De Bibliotheca Corviniana: Matthias Corvin, les bibliothèques princières et la genèse de l’état moderne, ed. by Jean-François Maillard, István Monok and Donatella Nebbiai (Budapest: OSZK, 2009). 15 János Thuróczy, A magyarok krónikája [Chronica Hungarorum], facsimile edition (Budapest: Helikon, 1986).

33

34

gé za pá l ffy

Fig. 2.3.  Royal oratory in St Vitus Cathedral, Prague © Photo by the author

The coats of arms of the countries King Matthias ruled were also featured on numerous seals.16 The Jagiellonians were keen on carrying on the dynastic aspirations of Matthias Corvinus and the Habsburgs, and laid claim to the lands of Hungary and Bohemia by including the Hungarian and Bohemian coats of arms on their seals and coins. The Hungarian royal double seal (Lat. sigillum duplex) of Wladislaw II of Jagiello (1490–1516), for example, one exemplar of which dates from the autumn of 1493, features the entire collection of claimed territories: the lands of the Bohemian crown on the heraldically less prominent left side, and the lands of the Hungarian crown on the right.17 These two sets of arms rarely appeared together on buildings; one outstanding example is among the most notable late Gothic relics in Central Europe, the famous royal oratory in St Vitus Cathedral in Prague (Fig. 2.3).18 Its ten coats of arms (representing the Jagiello family, Dalmatia, Croatia, Bosnia, Hungary, Bohemia, Moravia,

16 Lajos Bernát Kumorovitz, ‘Mátyás király pecsétjei [The Seals of King Matthias Corvinus]’, Turul [Budapest], 46 (1932), 5–19; Iván Bertényi, ‘I. Mátyás király címerváltozatai [The Variants of the Coats of Arms of King Matthias Corvinus]’, Levéltári Közlemények [Archival Proceedings, Budapest], 79 (2008), 77–100 (pp. 83–86). 17 MNL OL, Diplomatikai Levéltár [Diplomatic Archives], no. 19968 [28 October 1493]; cf. Zenon Piech, ‘Die Wappen der Jagiellonen als Kommunikationssystem’, in Hofkultur der Jagiellonendynastie und verwandter Fürstenhäuser, ed. by Urszula Borkowska and Markus Hörsch, Studia Jagellonica Lipsiensia, 6 (Ostfildern: Thorbecke, 2010), pp. 13–34 (pp. 25–26). 18 Ivo Hlobil, Der Prager Veitsdom (London: Opus, 2006), p. 34; Jiří Kuthan and Jan Royt, Katedrála sv. Víta, Václava a Vojtĕcha: Svatynĕ českých patronů a králů [The Cathedral of St Vitus, St Wenceslas and St Adalbert: Shrine of Bohemian Patrons and Kings] (Prague: Nakladatelství Lidové noviny, 2011), pp. 385–89.

fu n e rals and co ro nat i o ns

Silesia, Lusatia, and the Lion of Luxembourg,) illustrate the geographical breadth of the Jagiellonians’ Central European possessions.19 This conglomerate was also represented by the series of Bohemian and Hungarian coats of arms on Bohemia’s earliest map, published in 1518 in Nuremberg and edited by Mikulaš Klaudyán.20 Starting in that era, coats of arms would become regular features of printed maps, which could themselves serve as a form of dynastic representation. Hans ( Johann) Siebmacher’s 1596/57 map of the Danube,21 which would serve as the basis for many later maps and heraldic works, featured all the coats of arms of the diverse composite monarchy the Habsburgs had ruled in Central Europe since the Battle of Mohács in 1526.22

Heraldic Representation at the Funerals of Habsburg Rulers As is well known, coats of arms played an important role in a variety of court ceremonies. They were observed in their largest numbers at funerals, where they served as a form of dynastic representation, symbolizing a deceased ruler’s lands and provinces, and thus the greatness of his empire and power. An early, pictorial example can be found in the illustrations of ‘The White King’ (Der Weißkunig), the well-known ‘autobiography’ of Emperor Maximilian I; its depiction of the December 1493 funeral of Maximilian’s father, Emperor Frederick III, at St Stephen’s Cathedral in Vienna, features the coats of arms

19 For recent work on this subject, see Géza Pálffy, ‘Heraldische Repräsentation der Jagiellonen und der Habsburger: Die Wappen des königlichen Oratoriums im Prager Veitsdom im mitteleuropäischen Kontext’, Historie – Otázky – Problémy [History – Questions – Problems, Prague], 7.2 (2015), 176–90. 20 Karel Kuchař, Early Maps of Bohemia, Moravia and Silesia (Prague: Ústřední Správa Geodézie a Kartografie, 1961), pp. 11–15; Jaroslav Kolár, ‘Takzvaná mapa Čech Mikuláše Klaudiána: pokus o významovou interpretaci [Mikulaš Klaudyán’s Map of Bohemia: An Attempt at an Interpretation]’, Strahovská knihovna: Sborník Památníku národního písemnictví [Srahov Library: Journal of the National Literature Memorial], 14–15 (1978–79), 49–73; András Végh, ‘The Oldest Map of Bohemia’, in Mary of Hungary: The Queen and her Court 1521–1531. Budapest History Museum, 30 September 2005–9 January 2006. Slovenská národná galéria, 2 February – 30 April 2006, ed. by Orsolya Réthelyi and others (Budapest: Budapest History Museum, 2005), pp. 62, 207, nos iv–3. 21 Tibor Szathmáry, Descriptio Hungariae: Magyarország és Erdély nyomtatott térképei 1477–1600 [Printed Maps of Hungary and Transylvania] (Fusignano: Morandi, 1987), pp. 215–16, no. 98. 22 Robert John Weston Evans, The Making of the Habsburg Monarchy 1550–1700: An Interpretation (Oxford: Clarendon, 1979); Thomas Winkelbauer, Ständefreiheit und Fürstenmacht: Länder und Untertanen des Hauses Habsburg im konfessionellen Zeitalter, 1522–1699, Österreichische Geschichte 1522–1699 (Vienna: Ueberreuter, 2003); Géza Pálffy, The Kingdom of Hungary and the Habsburg Monarchy in the Sixteenth Century, East European Monographs, 735, CHSP Hungarian Studies Series, 18 (New York: Columbia University Press, 2009).

35

36

gé za pá l ffy

of all the countries Frederick ruled or claimed.23 Some of these are still visible on the tomb in the church; other originals have been preserved in the Vienna city museum.24 By the fifteenth century, funerary practices like these were already common among Central European rulers, regardless of their dynasty of origin. Dynastic heraldic representation has been documented at funerals as far back as October 1439, when Albert II of Habsburg, king of Germany (1438–39), Hungary, and Bohemia (1437–39) was buried in Székesfehérvár,25 though of course this practice had antecedents among Italian and other western European ruling dynasties. Thus the coats of arms presented at Frederick III’s funeral in Vienna in 1493 were almost the same as those on display at Albert II’s in Székesfehérvár in the autumn of 1439 (the only minor differences were in the actual parade order; see Table 1), which strongly suggests that a Habsburg composite monarchy was already in existence in Central Europe by the second half of the 1430s. Its royal capital and residence was Buda, and its necropolis—in keeping with Hungarian traditions dating back to the eleventh century—was Székesfehérvár, where its sovereigns also celebrated their coronations. However, with the accessions to the Hungarian throne of Wladislaw I of Jagiello in 1440 and Matthias Corvinus in 1458, the lands of the Hungarian and Bohemian crowns left the framework of the Habsburg composite state, and the Habsburg residence was transferred first to Wiener Neustadt by Frederick III, and later to Innsbruck by Maximilian I. These crown lands were governed partly by Matthias Corvinus, then in their entirety by the Jagiellonians after 1490.26 Although very little is known about the funerals the Jagiellonian dynasty held in Székesfehérvár for Wladislaw II in 1490 and Louis II in 1526, the funeral of King Matthias in April 1490 featured numerous coats of arms because they formed an organic part of his dynastic representation. Various

23 Kaiser Maximilians I. Weisskunig, ed. by Heinrich Theodor Musper and others, 2 vols (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1956), ii: Tafelband, table 211. 24 Hans Peter Zelfel, ‘Wappenschilde und Helme vom Begräbnis Kaiser Friedrichs III.: Ein Beitrag zum Begräbniszeremoniell’, Unsere Heimat: Zeitschrift des Vereins für Landeskunde von Niederösterreich und Wien, 45 (1974), 201–09; Der Kaiser und sein Grabmal 1517–2017: Neue Forschungen zum Hochgrab Friedrichs III. im Wiener Stephansdom, ed. by Renate Kohn, Sonja Dünnebeil and Gertrud Mras (Vienna/Cologne/Weimar: Böhlau, 2017); and on the coats of arms of the Habsburg lands recently: Michael Göbl, Wappen-Lexikon der habsburgischen Länder, 2nd enl. edn (Schleinbach: Winkler-Hermaden, 2017). 25 Wilhelm Hauser, ‘Der Trauerzug beim Begräbnis des deutschen Königs Albrechts II. († 1439)’, Adler: Zeitschrift für Genealogie und Heraldik, 85 (1967), 191–95. 26 For recent work on this subject, see Antonín Kalous, Matyáš Korvín (1443–1490): Uherský a český král [Matthias Corvinus (1443–1490): Hungarian and Bohemian King] (České Budějovice: Veduta, 2009); The Jagiellonians in Europe: Dynastic Diplomacy and Foreign Relations, ed. by Attila Bárány and Balázs Antal Bacsa, Memoria Hungariae, 2 (Debrecen: MTA-DE Hungary in Medieval Europe ‘Lendület’ Research Group, 2015).

fu n e rals and co ro nat i o ns Table 1:  Coats of arms of lands and provinces paraded in the funeral processions of German King Albert II and Emperor Frederick III of Habsburg

Albert II (1439, Székesfehérvár)

Frederick III (1493, Vienna)

Upper Austria

Upper Austria

Burgau

Wendish Mark

Kiburg

Pfirt

Portenau

Portenau

Pfirt

Kiburg

Habsburg

Burgau

Alsace

Alsace

Wendish Mark

Tyrol

Tyrol

Habsburg

Moravia

–

Carniola

Carniola

Carinthia

Carinthia

Styria

Styria

Lower Austria

Lower Austria

Bohemia

–

Hungary

Hungary

Holy Roman Empire

Holy Roman Empire

Sources: 1439: Hauser, ‘Der Trauerzug’; 1493: Zelfel, ‘Wappenschilde und Helme’.

sources mention that twelve heraldic flags were present at the funeral, though none offer specific details.27 Naturally, dynastic heraldic representation did not disappear from Central Europe when the Ottomans displaced the Habsburgs in 1526. Indeed, it lived on, the renewal of its vigour facilitated by several factors. Firstly, starting in 1519, Maximilian I’s successor, Charles V, would create a global empire ‘on which the sun never sets’. And thus, at the funeral ceremony organized for Charles in Brussels in December of 1558 by the Spanish King Phillip II (1556–98), all the heraldic flags of his enormous empire were lined up in long processions, a fact documented in a series of ornamented publications printed in several 27 A Magyar Nemzeti Múzeum címeres halotti emlékei [Funeral Memorials with Coats of Arms in the Hungarian National Museum], ed. by László Baják, Bibliotheca Humanitatis Historica, 19 (Budapest: MNM, 2007), pp. 10–11; Terézia Kerny, ‘Hunyadi Mátyás halála, temetése és székesfehérvári síremléke [Matthias Corvinus’ Death, Funeral, and Tomb in Székesfehérvár]’, in Mátyás király és a fehérvári reneszánsz [King Matthias Corvinus and the Renaissance in Fehérvár], ed. by Terézia Kerny and András Smohay (Székesfehérvár: Székesfehérvári Egyházmegyei Múzeum, 2010), pp. 42–66 (pp. 47–52).

37

38

gé za pá l ffy

languages.28 It is perhaps less well known that this tradition was also kept alive by the Austrian branch of the dynasty. In this manner, the dynastic heraldic representation of the emperors Frederick III and Maximilian I might first have informed the ceremonial practices of Charles V, which might then in turn have had significant influence on Central European ceremonies. Important elements—heraldic and otherwise—of this 1558 ceremony in Brussels would serve as models for the monumental funeral ceremony for Charles V held by Emperor Ferdinand I in the imperial city of Augsburg at the end of February 1559,29 a chief organizer of which was Johann Ulrich Zasius (1521–70). This future Reichsvizekanzler (1566–70) would also become one of the principal directors of Emperor Ferdinand I’s funeral processions in Vienna and Prague in the summer of 1565.30 Ferdinand’s ceremony was the template for the funerals of Maximilian II (1564–76) in 1577, and Rudolf II (1576–1612) in 1612, which were both conducted in Prague.31 And so through the pompe funébre of emperors, the fifteenth-century traditions of dynastic heraldic representation in Székesfehérvár and Vienna were renewed in sixteenth-century Innsbruck, Brussels, and Augsburg, then re-transmitted to Vienna and even to early seventeenth-century Prague. 28 Achim Aurnhammer and Friedrich Däuble, ‘Die Exequien für Kaiser Karl V. in Augsburg, Brüssel und Bologna’, Archiv für Kulturgeschichte, 62–63 (1980–81), 101–58 (pp. 116–19); Michael Brix, ‘Trauergerüste für die Habsburger in Wien’, Wiener Jahrbuch für Kunstgeschichte, 26 (1973), 208–65 (pp. 209–11); Kaiser Karl V. (1500–1558): Macht und Ohnmacht Europas. Eine Ausstellung des Kunsthistorischen Museums Wien. 16. Juni bis 10. September 2000, ed. by Wilfried Seipel (Vienna/Milan: Kunsthistorisches Museum, 2000), pp. 351–52, no. 416. 29 Beatrix Bastl and Mark Hengerer, ‘Les funérailles impériales des Habsbourg d’Autriche, XVIe – XVIIIe siècle’, in Les Funérailles princières, ed. by Chrościcki, Hengerer and Sabatier, i: Le grand théâtre de la mort, pp. 91–116 (pp. 94–96); Bruno Thomas, ‘Die Augsburger Funeralwaffen Kaiser Karls V.: Ein Beitrag zur 400. Wiederkehr des Tages seiner Totenfeier’, Waffen und Kostümkunde, 3.1 (1959), 28–47; Kaiser Karl V., ed. by Seipel, p. 352, nos 417–20. 30 ‘pompae totius rectores erant dominus Georgius Proskousky, Baro in Proskaw etc. [ Jiří Pruskovský z Proskau (Germ. Georg Proskovsky)], dominus Rudolphus Kuen a Belasi [Rudolf Khuen von Belasy], uterque a cubiculis Caesareae Maiestatis et eiusdem a secretis consiliis, dominus Ioannes Vdalricus Zasius iuris utriusque doctor, cui in exequiis Caroli V. idem onus demandatum fuerat.’ Bartholomaeus Hannewald, Parentalia Divo Ferdinando Caesari Avgvsto patri patriae etc. a Maximiliano imperatore etc., Ferdinando et Carolo serenissimis Archiducibus Austriae Fratribus singulari pietate persoluta Viennae, Anno Domini M.D.LXV. VIII. Idus Augusti. Augsburg: Wolfgang Meyerpeck ii and Joachim Sorg, 1566 (USTC 682749; VIENNA, Wien Museum, Inv. 116.845), fol. 4v; cf. Kaiser Ferdinand I. 1503– 1564: Das Werden der Habsburgermonarchie. Eine Ausstellung des Kunsthistorischen Museums Wien. 15. April bis 31. August 2003, ed. by Wilfried Seipel (Vienna/Milan: Kunsthistorisches Museum, 2003), pp. 567–69, no. XI.26. 31 Rosemarie Vocelka, ‘Die Begräbnisfeierlichkeiten für Kaiser Maximilian II. 1576/77’, Mitteilungen des Instituts für Österreichische Geschichtsforschung, 84 (1976), 105–36; Václav Bůžek, ‘Die Begräbnisfeierlichkeiten nach dem Tod Ferdinands I. und seiner Söhne’, Historie – Otázky – Problémy [History – Questions – Problems, Prague], 7.2 (2015), 260–75; Václav Bůžek and Pavel Marek, Smrt Rudolfa II. [The Death of Rudolph II] (Prague: Nakladatelství Lidové noviny, 2015), cf. also their study in this volume.

fu n e rals and co ro nat i o ns

At the funerals for Emperor Ferdinand and his successors, presentations of the heraldic flags of some twenty countries and provinces made very clear that since the Battle of Mohács in 1526, the Jagiellonians’ Hungarian-Bohemian state had been replaced by a new composite monarchy headed by the Austrian branch of the Habsburg dynasty. As Table 2 shows, this Central European dominion included the Holy Roman Empire and several other kingdoms, archduchies, duchies, margravates, and counties, with many different languages, political structures, and levels of economic development. At these funerals, the lands of the Hungarian crown were represented by five flags and the lands of the Bohemian crown by four.32 Table 2:  Flags of lands and provinces paraded in the funeral processions of Albert II, Frederick III, Ferdinand I, and Maximilian II of the House of Habsburg

Albert II (1439, Frederick III Székesfehérvár) (1493, Vienna)

Ferdinand I (1565, Vienna)

Maximilian II (1577, Prague)

–

Gorizia

Gorizia

Common flag of Pfirt, Swabia, Alsace, Tyrol, and Habsburg

Common flag of Pfirt, Swabia, Alsace, Tyrol, and Habsburg

Upper and Lower Lusatia

Upper and Lower Lusatia

Carniola

Carniola

Carinthia

Carinthia

Styria

Styria

Upper Austria

Upper Austria

Burgau

Wendish Mark

Kiburg

Pfirt

Portenau

Portenau

Pfirt

Kiburg

Habsburg

Burgau

Alsace

Alsace

Wendish Mark

Tyrol

Tyrol

Habsburg

–

–

–

–

Silesia

Silesia

Moravia

–

Moravia

Moravia

32 Géza Pálffy, ‘Ungarn in der Habsburgermonarchie: Ungarische Herrschaftszeichen an der Wiener Begräbniszeremonie Ferdinands I. 1565’, in Wien und seine WienerInnen: Ein historischer Streifzug durch Wien über Jahrhunderte. Festschrift Karl Vocelka zum 60. Geburtstag, ed. by Martin Scheutz and Vlasta Valeš (Vienna/Cologne/Weimar: Böhlau, 2008), pp. 29–46; Géza Pálffy, ‘Die Repräsentation des Königreichs Ungarn am Begräbnis Kaiser Maximilians II. in Prag 1577’, in Per saecula ad tempora nostra: Sborník prací k šedesátým narozeninám Prof. Jaroslava Pánka [Collected Studies for Prof. Jaroslav Pánek on the Occasion of his 60th Birthday], ed. by Jiří Mikulec and Miloslav Polívka, 2 vols (Prague: Historický ústav AV ČR, 2007), i, pp. 276–83.

39

40

gé za pá l ffy

Albert II (1439, Frederick III Székesfehérvár) (1493, Vienna)

Ferdinand I (1565, Vienna)

Maximilian II (1577, Prague)

–

Burgundy

Burgundy

Upper Austria

Upper Austria

Lower Austria

–

Carniola

Carniola

Carinthia

Carinthia

Styria

Styria

Lower Austria

Lower Austria

Lower Austria

–

–

Common flag of Common flag of Bosnia, Serbia, Bosnia, Serbia, Bulgaria, and Cumania Bulgaria, and Cumania

–

–

Slavonia

Slavonia

–

–

Croatia

Croatia

–

–

Dalmatia

Dalmatia

–

–

Spain = Castile, Aragon, – León and Sicily

Bohemia

–

Bohemia

Bohemia

Hungary

Hungary

Hungary

Hungary

Holy Roman Empire

Holy Roman Empire

Holy Roman Empire: 1. kleine Reichsfahne 2. große Reichsfahne

Holy Roman Empire: 1. kleine Reichsfahne 2. große Reichsfahne

Sources: 1439: Hauser, ‘Der Trauerzug’; 1493: Zelfel, ‘Wappenschilde und Helme’; 1565: Österreichisches Staatsarchiv Wien (hereafter ÖStA Vienna), Haus-, Hof- und Staatsarchiv (HHStA) Familienakten Kart. 60, Konv. 5, Tod Kaisers Ferdinand I, 5.8.1565, fol. 1–8; ibid., sine dato ‘Khay. exequien 1565’ fol. 1–3; 1577: ibid., Familienakten Kart. 61, Konv. 1, Tod des Kaisers Maximilians, fol. 425–27, fol. 438–41, and ÖStA Vienna, Hofkammerarchiv, Reichsakten Fasz. 202/A fol. 270–71, etc.

The common flag of Castile, Aragon, León, and Sicily (Fig. 2.4) was also presented at Emperor Ferdinand’s funeral in the summer of 1565 because he, unlike his successors, had also been the infans Hispaniarum, or Spanish infante (the king’s second son). Deceased rulers’ funerals also featured catafalques (Lat. castrum doloris, Germ. Trauergerüst) decorated with copies of the insignia and coats of arms of the most significant countries they had possessed or claimed.33 The catafalque erected for Ferdinand I in 1565 was adorned with a likeness of the Castilian crown (Fig. 2.5), and thus the Spanish coats of arms made their way into Central European heraldry by the mid-sixteenth century. The coats of arms of the lands of the Hungarian and Bohemian crowns sometimes appeared on Spanish soil as well. When the funeral for Archduke Albert of Austria (1559–1621), the governor of the Spanish Netherlands 33 Cf. Brix, ‘Trauergerüste für die Habsburger’, pp. 209–11.

fu n e rals and co ro nat i o ns

Fig. 2.4.  Common flag of Castile, Aragon, León, and Sicily in the funeral procession of Ferdinand I, 1565, in Bartholomaeus Hannewald, Parentalia Divo Ferdinando Caesari Avgvsto… (Augsburg, 1566) © Vienna, Vienna Museum

Fig. 2.5.  Catafalque of Emperor Ferdinand I, 1565, in Bartholomaeus Hannewald, Parentalia Divo Ferdinando Caesari Avgvsto… (Augsburg, 1566) © Vienna, Vienna Museum

41

42

gé za pá l ffy

Fig. 2.6.  Triumphal chariot of Liberalitas in the funeral procession of Archduke Albert of Austria, in Jacob Franquart, Pompa Funebris Alberti, (Brussels: Jan Mommaert, 1623) © Private collection, Budapest

(1598–1621), was conducted in Brussels in the spring of 1622, the coats of arms and banners of the lands of the Hungarian and Bohemian crowns were meticulously presented; at the very least, a famous 1623 illustration of the funeral—Pompa Funebris Alberti by Jacob Franquart (1582/83–1657), the Flemish court architect and an outstanding copper-plate engraver—displays them prominently on the triumphal chariot Liberalitas (Generosity), built specially for the funeral procession (Fig. 2.6).34 The reason for including the coats of arms of the lands of the Hungarian and Bohemian crowns was that the archduke, as the youngest brother of Emperors Rudolf II and Matthias (emperor from 1612–19), was from the Austrian branch of the dynasty and could thus be presented as a possible successor to Emperor Charles V, heir to both the Habsburgs’ composite states in east and west. Some of the coats of arms of the lands of the Hungarian and Bohemian crowns were also displayed on the catafalque at the funeral for Albert’s widow and governor-successor (1621–33), Isabella Clara Eugenie infanta (1566–1633) in Brussels in 1633, a fact attested to by a French-language depiction recently discovered in the Viennese archives of the Order of the Golden Fleece (Fig. 2.7).35

34 Tamar Cholcman, ‘Moritorum Monumentum Non Morituris Cineribus: Jacob Franquart’s Funeral Procession for Albert of Austria, 1622’, Explorations in Renaissance Culture, 33.1 (2007), 109–32 (p. 120, fig. 6, pp. 124–25); Luc Duerloo, Dynasty and Piety: Archduke Albert (1598–1621) and Habsburg Political Culture in the Age of Religious Wars (Farnham/Burlington: Ashgate, 2012), pp. 511–50, fig. 13. 35 ÖStA, HHStA Archiv des Ordens vom Goldenen Vliess Cod. 43, unfoliated; cf. Albert & Isabella, 1598–1621: Essays, ed. by Werner Thomas and Luc Duerloo (Turnhout: Brepols, 1998), passim.

fu n e rals and co ro nat i o ns

Fig. 2.7.  Coats of arms of the Holy Roman Empire, the Lands of the Hungarian crown, and Bohemia on the Catafalque of Infanta Isabella Clara Eugenia (Brussels, 1633) © Vienna, Österreichisches Staatsarchiv

43

44

gé za pá l ffy

Finally, it is worth noting that heralds also played important roles in dynastic representation at funerals and other court ceremonies. Initially four, but later five heralds served at the seventeenth-century imperial court in Vienna. They symbolized the monarchy’s chief constituents: the emperor (as a person), the Holy Roman Empire, the Hungarian crown lands, the Bohemian crown lands, and the Austrian provinces were each represented by a herald. Heralds also participated in funerals by walking in funeral processions and standing at attention around catafalques, as illustrated by an engraving of the catafalque erected in 1657 for Emperor Ferdinand III (1637–57).36

Flags of Countries at Hungarian Coronations Heralds also took part in coronations, ceremonies in which dynastic representation played an important role. An engraved illustration of the Hungarian coronation of Archduke Leopold I (emperor from 1659–1705), which took place in Pozsony (Bratislava) in the summer of 1655, depicts heralds in such a way as to define Hungary’s place within the Habsburgs’ composite monarchy in Central Europe (Fig. 2.8).37 At every Hungarian coronation, starting with Archduke Maximilian’s in Pozsony in 1563, each group of countries in the monarchy was represented by a herald who wore a cloak ornamented with the coat of arms of one of the monarchy’s chief constituents. The five figures in this engraving represent the Empire, the emperor, the Hungarian crown lands, the Bohemian crown lands, and the Austrian provinces. The Hungarian herald’s prominent position suggests that Hungary followed only the Holy Roman Empire in the Habsburg composite state; it preceded the kingdom of Bohemia not only for its royal titles and diplomatic protocol, but also in ceremonial practice.38

36 John Roger Paas, The German Political Broadsheet 1600–1700, 14 vols (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1985–2017), viii: 1649–1661 (2005), p. 184, P–2376. 37 For a recent analysis of this coronation engraving, see Friedrich Polleroß, ‘Austriacus Hungariae Rex: Zur Darstellung der Habsburger als ungarische Könige in der frühneuzeitlichen Graphik’, in ‘Ez világ, mint egy kert…Tanulmányok Galavics Géza tiszteletére’ [‘This World as a Garden…’ Studies in Honor of Géza Galavics], ed. by Orsolya Bubryák (Budapest: Gondolat, 2010), pp. 63–78 (pp. 71–72); Géza Pálffy, ‘Ponaučenia z korunovačnej rytiny z polovice 17. storočia: nový pohľad na bratislavské korunovácie v ranom novoveku [Lessons from a Coronation Engraving from the Middle of the Seventeenth Century: A New View of the Pozsony/Bratislava Coronation in the Early Modern Period]’, in Korunovácie a pohreby: Mocenské rituály a ceremónie v ranom novoveku [Coronations and Funerals: Power Rituals and Ceremonies in the Early Modern Age], ed. by Tünde Lengyelová and Géza Pálffy, Kor/ridor knihy, 2 (Budapest/Békéscsaba: Historicky ústav Filozofického výskumného centra Mad’arskej akadémie vied/Výskumný ústav Slovákov v Mad’arsku, 2016), pp. 9–46 (pp. 9–11). 38 Pálffy, The Kingdom of Hungary, pp. 193–208.

fu n e rals and co ro nat i o ns

Fig. 2.8.  Coronation of Archduke Leopold I as King of Hungary in Pozsony (Bratislava), 27 June 1655 © Budapest, Magyar Nemzeti Múzeum [Hungarian National Museum]

Coronations were the most important ceremonies in each of the countries which made up this composite state. In accordance with the interests of the Hungarian estates, Hungarian coronations were primarily projections of political power and enactments of ancient traditions which emphasized the sovereignty of the kingdom of Hungary throughout history.39 In this case, however, the political and heraldic interests of the estates and those of the dynasty did partially overlap. The Habsburg monarchy’s authority in Central Europe increased considerably when it annexed not just the country of Hungary, but with it the Realm of St Stephen40—even if that geographical entity was drastically diminished by the Ottomans’ advances into the Carpathian Basin 39 Géza Pálffy and Ferenc Tóth, ‘Les couronnements en Hongrie à l’époque moderne (1527–1792): Représentations et outils politico-diplomatiques’, Revue d’histoire diplomatique, 131.3 (2017), 253–76. 40 Pál Engel, The Realm of St Stephen: A History of Medieval Hungary, 895–1526 (London/New York: Tauris, 2001).

45

46

gé za pá l ffy

from 1521/26. Moreover, the kingdom of Hungary had been the bulwark and larder of Central Europe for some time,41 and, following the expulsion of the Ottomans between 1683 and 1699, its absorption into the later Habsburg Danube monarchy (Donaumonarchie in German) further enhanced its military and economic significance to the dynasty. All this is illustrated by the exquisitely rendered heraldic flags depicted in the aforementioned engraving of Leopold’s coronation in 1655.42 These flags represented ten countries, either de facto possessions of the Hungarian crown or ‘claimed lands’ (Anspruchsländer in German) that had at one time, nominally or partially, been attached to it in the Middle Ages: Hungary, Dalmatia, Croatia, Slavonia, Bosnia, Serbia, Galicia, Lodomeria (Volhynia), Cumania (Wallachia), and Bulgaria.43 Almost all of these entities had been listed among the royal titles of Hungary’s kings since the end of the thirteenth century;44 in this respect, they resembled the titles of other emperors, Russian tsars, Ottoman sultans, or Spanish kings. At Archduke Maximilian’s coronation as king of Hungary in 1563, only seven of the ten countries mentioned in the royal titles were represented by flags—Hungary, Dalmatia, Croatia, Slavonia, Bosnia, Serbia, and Bulgaria. At the next coronation in Pozsony, that of Archduke Rudolf in 1572, all of the traditional possessions of the Hungarian crown were represented by

41 Géza Pálffy, ‘The Bulwark and Larder of Central Europe (1526–1711)’, in On the Stage of Europe: The Millennial Contribution of Hungary to the Idea of European Community, ed. by Ernő Marosi (Budapest: Research Institute for Art History of the HAS/Balassi, 2009), pp. 100–24. 42 Géza Pálffy, Die Krönungsfahnen in der Esterházy Schatzkammer auf Burg Forchtenstein: Die Geschichte der Krönungsfahnen der Länder der Stephanskrone vom Spätmittelalter bis Anfang des 20. Jahrhunderts (Eisenstadt: Esterhazy Privatstiftung, 2018); Géza Pálffy, ‘Korunovačné zástavy krajín Uhorskej koruny od neskorého stredoveku do začiatku 20. storočia [Coronation Flags of the Lands of the Hungarian Crown from the Late Middle Ages to the Beginning of the Twentieth Century]’, Galéria: Ročenka Slovenskej národnej galérie v Bratislave [Gallery: Journal of the Slovak National Gallery in Bratislava], 12 (2011–13), 7–30. 43 Dalmatia and Slavonia are two of the four historical regions of today’s Republic of Croatia. Dalmatia is a narrow belt along the eastern shore of the Adriatic Sea. Slavonia is now the eastern part of the territory between the Sava and Drava rivers, though medieval Slavonia was part of the Kingdom of Hungary and consisted of the more westerly part of the land between the Sava and Drava rivers, including the counties of Zagreb, Körös (today Križevci), Varasd (now Varaždin), and Verőce (Virovotica). Galicia and Lodomeria (Volhynia) are now in western Ukraine and southern Poland. Cumania (Wallachia) is now mostly the southern part of Romania. 44 Among their royal titles, the kings of Hungary had used the title King of Dalmatia and Croatia since 1102; King of Slavonia since the 1540s; King of Bosnia since the 1130s; King of Serbia since 1202; King of Galicia and Lodomeria since 1205; King of Cumania since 1233/35; and King of Bulgaria since 1255/70; Lajos Bernát Kumorovitz, ‘Die Entwicklung des ungarischen Mittel- und Großwappens’, in Nouvelles études historiques publiées à l’occasion du XIIe Congrès International des Sciences Historiques par la Commission Nationale des Historiens Hongrois, ed. by Dániel Csatári, László Katus and Ágnes Rozsnyói, 2 vols (Budapest: Akadémiai, 1965), ii, pp. 319–56 (pp. 319–20); Pálffy, The Kingdom of Hungary, p. 365, fig. 2.

fu n e rals and co ro nat i o ns

separate flags. And though the Realm of St Stephen had shrunk significantly during the period in which the Ottomans took Belgrade (1521), Buda (1541), and Szigetvár (1566), Hungary’s political elites were still trying desperately to use political representation and symbolic communication to maintain a distinguished role for their once-glorious country. This tradition, invented in the sixteenth century, turned out to be quite enduring: these ten flags were presented at every coronation up until the ceremony of the last Hungarian king, Charles IV (1916–18), in Budapest at the end of 1916.45 In addition to their function as representations of the Hungarian state, coronation flags also served to demonstrate the power of the secular elite. New flags were sewn for every occasion; only Hungarian aristocrats had the right to hold them; and only they could take them home as souvenirs. A list of flag-bearers at ceremonies starting with the 1563 coronation in Pozsony and ending with that in Budapest in 1916 would include representatives of the most prominent and influential families of Hungarian aristocrats—the Andrássy, Barkóczy, Batthyány, Bánffy, Csáky, Erdődy, Esterházy, Forgách, Károlyi, Keglevics, Nádasdy, Orczy, Pálffy, Rákóczi, Szapáry, Széchényi, Széchy, Sztáray, Thurzó, Zichy, and Zrínyi families, etc. These names speak for themselves (Fig. 2.9).46

Opportunities for further Research into Dynastic Heraldic Representation I would like to conclude by elaborating on some of the possibilities for further research into the centuries-old history of dynastic heraldic representation. If one is acquainted with the histories of the coats of arms used at various ceremonies and on various monuments, one can determine the date of their creation, their iconographic precursors, and the sets of traditions to which they refer. Of the many partially and as-yet unpublished discoveries made in recent years, I would like to mention just a few:

45 Ferenc Maczó, Az utolsó magyar királykoronázás: IV. Károly király és Zita királyné koronázási ünnepsége Budapesten 1916. december végén [The Last Hungarian Coronation: the Coronation Festivities of King Charles IV and Queen Zita in Budapest at the End of December, 1916], 2nd rev. edn (Budapest: MTA Bölcsészettudományi Kutatóközpont Történettudományi Intézet, 2018), pp. 91–93. 46 For a complete list of flag-bearers, 1563–1916, see Pálffy, Die Krönungsfahnen, pp. 183–97; for the Hungarian aristocracy Peter Schimert, ‘The Hungarian Nobility in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries’, in The European Nobilities in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries, ed. by Hamish M. Scott, 2 vols (London: Longman 1995), ii: Northern, Central and Eastern Europe, pp. 144–82; Robert John Weston Evans, Austria, Hungary, and the Habsburgs: Essays on Central Europe, c. 1683–1867 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006), passim; Géza Pálffy, Hungary Between Two Empires 1526–1711 (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2021), pp. 61-67, 167-175, chapters i/6 and ii/5.

47

Fig. 2.9.  Coronation flag of the Kingdom of Hungary carried by Miklós Esterházy at the coronation of Ferdinand II in Pozsony (Bratislava), 1 July 1618 © Eisenstadt, Esterházy Privatstiftung, Esterházy-Schatzkammer, Burg Forchtenstein

48 gé za pá l ffy

fu n e rals and co ro nat i o ns

1) The twelve heraldic flags presented at the funeral of King Matthias Corvinus in 1490 have long been the subject of debate; most researchers (as those listed in footnote 27) have deemed them military flags. Based on the investigation above, I would assert that they almost certainly symbolized the Central European (Hungarian, Bohemian, Austrian etc.) components of the Hungarian king’s composite state, arranged in their customary hierarchy, as illustrated by my reconstruction in table 3. 2) Having analysed the coats of arms in the famous royal oratory of St Vitus Cathedral in Prague (Fig. 2.3), I suspect that the date generally given for this series of coats of arms is mistaken. Given its depiction of a Bosnian coat of arms (an armour-plated arm with a sword), it is very unlikely that the series was made at the beginning of the 1490s. It dates much more plausibly from the 1510s or 1520s, and presumably from around the time of the coronation of Queen Mary of Habsburg and Hungary (1505–58) in St Vitus Cathedral on 6 June 1522. In fact, this Bosnian coat of arms made it into the oratory via the heraldic dynastic representation of Emperor Maximilian I; it was incorporated into the aforementioned Wappenturm, Triumphzug, and Ehrenpforte.47 3) As unbelievable it may seem, there is a grave heraldic ‘error’ on the sarcophagus of Emperor Rudolf II in Prague:48 the coat of arms corresponding Table 3: Reconstruction of the twelve flags at the funeral of Matthias Corvinus in 1490: the Central European composite state of King Matthias.

1. Hungary: old coat of arms = four Argent (silver) and four Gules (red) stripes 2. Hungary: new coat of arms = an Argent (silver) double cross on Gules (red) base, on the middle heap of three Vert (green) hills 3. Bohemia 4. Dalmatia 5. Bosnia 6. Austria 7. Moravia 8. Silesia 9. Lusatia 10. Luxembourg (lion) 11. Hunyadi Family (corbie) 12. County of Beszterce in Transylvania (lion)

47 For this new interpretation and dating, see Pálffy, ‘Heraldische Repräsentation’, 176–90. 48 Eliška Fučíková, Beket Bukovinská and Ivan Muchka, Die Kunst am Hofe Rudolfs (Hanau: Werner Dausien, 1990), p. 26, fig. 20; Beket Bukovinská, ‘Sarg Rudolfs II.’, in Prag um 1600: Kunst und Kultur am Hofe Kaiser Rudolfs II., 2 vols (Vienna/Freren: Luca, 1988), ii, p. 572, no. 457.

49

50

gé za pá l ffy

to Bulgaria is actually a Slavonian coat of arms donated by King Wladislaw II in 1496.49 Nevertheless, this mistake answers an important question: where did the makers of this sarcophagus get the emperor’s coats of arms for the lands of the Hungarian crown? To my knowledge, this substitution of the Slavonian coat of arms for the Bulgarian originates with Conrad Grünenberg (1442–94), the German heraldist and mayor of Constance, and his famous manuscript, the Wappenbuch of the 1480s. In the sixteenth century, his error was repeated by, among others, Virgil Solis (1514–62), the renowned plate-engraver of Nuremberg, in his Wappenbüchlein, published in 1555 (Fig. 2.10); the imperial herald, Hans Francolin, later replicated this mistake in his Wappenbuch of 1565 (Fig. 2.11).50 Francolin’s work was most likely the source for the series of coats of arms on the emperor’s sarcophagus. 4) This Slavonian-Bulgarian coat of arms swap took various forms on several heraldic relics connected to the seventeenth-century Viennese court. It appears on commemorative coins minted for the Hungarian coronations of Matthias II in 1608, Ferdinand II in 1618, and Ferdinand III in 1625 (Fig. 2.12),51 and is mentioned in French sources describing the coats of arms on the sarcophagus of infanta Isabella, who died in Brussels in 1633 (Fig. 2.7). This is not surprising, given that the misidentification of this coat of arms had by then persisted at the Viennese court from the sixteenth to the eighteenth century.52 5) In light of all this, it is remarkable that depictions of the 1622 funeral of Isabella’s husband Albert of Austria, governor of the Spanish Netherlands, show the ‘correct’ Slavonian and Bulgarian coats of arms, in keeping with the traditions of the Hungarian estates. Unfortunately, however, we have not yet identified the primary source Jacob Franquart might have used as the basis for his description of this funeral.53

49 Dénes Radocsay, ‘Renaissance Letters Patent Granting Armorial Bearings in Hungary. Part II’, Acta Historiae Artium [Budapest], 12 (1966), p. 72; Mario Jareb, Hrvatski nacionalni simboli [Croatian National Symbols] (Zagreb: Alfa, Hrvatski institut za povijest, 2010), p. 26; Dubravka Peić Čaldarović and Nikša Stančić, Povijest hrvatskoga grba: Hrvatski grb u mijenama hrvatske povijesti od 14. do početka 21. stoljeća [History of the Croatian Coat of Arms: Croatian Coat of Arms in the Changes of Croatian History from the Fourteenth to the Beginning of the Twenty First Century] (Zagreb: Školska Knjiga, 2011), pp. 74–83. 50 Čaldarović and Stančić, Povijest hrvatskoga grba, pp. 77–83; Virgil Solis, Wappenbüchlein, Nuremberg: Solis, 1555 (USTC 704849; facsimile: Neustadt an der Aisch: Degener, 1974), s.p.; Francolin, Weyland Kaysers Ferdinandi, s.p. 51 Ferenc Gábor Soltész, Csaba Tóth and Géza Pálffy, Coronatio Hungarica in Nummis: Coronation Medals and Jetons from Hungarian Royal Coronations (1508–1916)], ed. by Krisztina Bertók (Budapest: Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Research Centre for the Humanities, Institute of History/Hungarian National Museum, 2019), pp. 86–87, no. 38 (1608), p. 97, no. 51 (1618), p. 109, nos 72–73 (1625). 52 Pálffy, Die Krönungsfahnen, pp. 90–110. 53 Cf. Cholcman, ‘Moritorum Monumentum’, pp. 124–25.

fu n e rals and co ro nat i o ns

Fig. 2.10.  Coat of arms of Slavonia in Virgil Solis, Wappenbüchlein, 1555 © Vienna, Österreichische Nationalbibliothek

6) Finally, the aforementioned engraving of the catafalque erected for Emperor Ferdinand III in 1657 features the coats of arms depicted on Hans Siebmacher’s 1596/97 Danube map, which was printed in multiple editions and later reproduced in his Wappenbuch.54 This is why the herald of Transylvania is portrayed standing to attention by the emperor’s catafalque, holding the Báthory family’s coat of arms. Due to the alliances established by Emperor

54 Paas, The German Political Broadsheet, viii: 1649–1661, p. 184, P–2376; Szathmáry, Descriptio Hungariae, pp. 215–16, no. 98.

51

52

gé za pá l ffy

Fig. 2.11.  Coats of arms of Slavonia and Bulgaria in imperial herald Hans Francolin, Wappenbuch, ca. 1565 © Vienna, Österreichische Nationalbibliothek

Fig. 2.12.  Hungarian coronation medals for King Matthias II (1608), Ferdinand II (1618), and Ferdinand III (1625), featuring the coats of arms of the ten Lands of the Hungarian crown © Budapest, Magyar Nemzeti Múzeum [Hungarian National Museum]

Rudolf II and Sigismund Báthory, prince of Transylvania (1588–1602),55 the heraldry of Transylvania (1595), Wallachia (1597), and Moldavia (1599) was incorporated into the representation of the Habsburg dynasty at the end of the sixteenth century; these territories’ coats of arms would also appear on 55 Roderich Gooss, Österreichische Staatsverträge: Fürstentum Siebenbürgen (1526–1690), Veröffentlichungen der Kommission für Neuere Geschichte Österreichs, 9 (Vienna: A. Holzhausen, 1911), pp. 218–64, nos 34–36.

fu n e rals and co ro nat i o ns

Fig. 2.13.  The Hungarian royal double seal of Emperor Rudolph II, 1607 © Budapest, Magyar Nemzeti Levéltár Országos Levéltára [Hungarian National Archives, Hungarian State Archives]

Rudolf ’s Hungarian royal double seal (Fig. 2.13).56 Although this tradition had no real roots in the mid-seventeenth century, for readers unacquainted with heraldry—or for those watching these funeral ceremonies—this invention was not particularly important. Dynastic heraldic propaganda was not primarily about authenticity, but rather about making an overall impression. These numerous (and sometimes erroneous) coats of arms were a clear indication that the Habsburgs of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries possessed not only an enormous and variegated composite monarchy through their Spanish branch, but a significant conglomerate of states and territories in Central Europe as well.

56 MNL OL, E 148, Neo-regestrata acta, Fasz. 828, no. 17 [Prague: 16 June 1607]; cf. Die Siegel der deutschen Kaiser und Könige von 751 bis 1806, ed. by Otto Posse, 5 vols (Dresden: Wilhelm-und-Bertha-v.-Baensch-Stiftung, 1909–13), iii: 1493–1711 (1912), p. 25, table 39.3–4.

53

ALFREDO FLORISTÁN IMÍZCOZ 

Swearing in, Crowning and Proclaiming the Habsburgs in the Kingdoms of Spain* 1

Continuity and Innovation, 1516–98

Around 1500, on the basis of a widely shared legal culture, the Spanish kingdoms and lordships of the peninsula (Portugal, Castile, Navarre, Aragon, Mallorca, Sardinia, Valencia, and Catalonia) organised royal succession ceremonies around an oath as common denominator. But between these kingdoms there were significant differences, synoptic examination of which reveals how they had precipitated, in each case, differing conceptions with regard to the constitutional interaction of monarchs and subjects. In some cases, what mattered was the swearing-in of the heir to the throne and clarifying the dynastic succession in good time, whilst in others, the most relevant aspect was the swearing-in of each new monarch upon accession to the throne, thereby ensuring a certain political continuity. The text of these oaths did not always have a specific and explicit content, and their structure reveals a second difference. The monarch’s and the kingdom’s oaths could be reciprocal, consecutive and comparable, performed in the same ceremony, like two parts of a single entity. But they could also reflect a certain asymmetry, one that became politically significant when both oaths were dissociated, or when a third actor was involved. In Aragon, for instance, the swearing of the monarch’s charters was more important than the kingdom’s oath of loyalty to king or queen, which was usually performed neither immediately nor at the same ceremony, and on occasions was even unnecessary. And the oath of confirmation of the privileges and freedoms of the city of Barcelona preceded and was no less important than the subsequent oath to the estates of the principality. Neither were the actors nor the organisation of the event the same in every case, and nor was it always a question of monarch and estates assembled in courts. In Castile, as in Portugal, what was relevant was the crown prince’s reception by the respective courts and the oath of loyalty they swore to him; nevertheless, the new monarch’s accession to the throne occurred immediately after his acclamation with the raising of banners by the urban communities of the kingdom, without need for a new oath. In the other peninsular kingdoms, however, the swearing-in of the heir did not exempt the new king from doing so a second time - in person, in assembly with the estates and within a certain time frame – before exercising his royalty in its fullness. Meanwhile,

* This essay was undertaken within the project of the Ministerio de Economía, Industria y Competitividad Conformar la Monarquía Hispánica. Cultura política y prácticas dinásticas en los siglos XVI y XVII [HAR2016-76214-P (MINEICO/FEDER, UE)]. Eagles Looking East and West: Dynasty, Ritual and Representation in Habsburg Hungary and Spain, ed. by Tibor Martí & Roberto Quirós Rosado, Habsburg Worlds 4 (Turnhout, 2021), pp. 55–75.

© FHG

DOI 10.1484/M.HW-EB.5.122795

56

a l f r e d o f lo r i s tán i m í zcoz

in Zaragoza Cathedral the monarch was sworn in before the chief justice of Aragon, accompanied by the representatives of the kingdom and the rulers of the city. In Barcelona, Valencia or Pamplona, however, the oath was taken directly before the president of the estates. Only in the latter city was the mutual oath completed, as late as the end of the fifteenth century, with other royal ceremonies (coronation, anointing, raising on the shield and enthronement) which the other Spanish kingdoms had abandoned decades earlier, or had never regularly practised, but which continued to be customary in Western Europe.1 A legal approach to all these questions has tended to enquire more into origins than into long-term evolution, and to analyse the swearing-in of royalty in relation to greater or lesser degrees of absolutism. For the most part this approach has been applied to the crowns of Castile and of Aragon.2 Meanwhile, thanks to reliable cultural and artistic studies we have sufficiently detailed knowledge of the festive, ceremonial and visual manifestations of oath-takings in the kingdoms of the Crown of Aragon and in Castile.3 It may be possible, then, though after initially having to dissect them by means of other criteria, to establish a more chronological and synoptic reconstruction of all royal oathtakings in Spain. Ultimately, successive monarchs and each of the kingdoms also addressed them as a problem, or as an opportunity to practise politics. The diversity of particular traditions was put to the test when the Spanish kingdoms converged under a single dynasty, firstly in a peaceful manner with the Habsburgs, and afterwards, with the exception of Portugal, in dramatic fashion under the Bourbons. Both dynasties arrived with different experiences and conditioning factors, and, moreover, the coexistence of the peninsular kingdoms under one sovereign stimulated mechanisms of comparison and emulation. The essence of the mutual oath established in the Charter of Navarre was drafted when the counts of Champagne acceded to that throne (1234), whilst new royal ceremonies were introduced following French models when 1 Coronations. Medieval and early modern monarchic ritual, ed. by János M. Bak (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1990). 2 Santos M. Coronas González, Los juramentos forales y constitucionales de Felipe V en los reinos de España (1700–1702) (Madrid: Agencia estatal Boletín oficial del Estado, 2017); Jaime de Salazar y Acha, ‘Proclamación del rey y juramento’, in El rey. Historia de la monarquía, ed. by José Antonio Escudero, 3 vols (Barcelona: Planeta, 2008), i, pp. 164–82; Fernando García-Mercadal, Los títulos y la heráldica de los reyes de España: estudios de derecho dinástico (Barcelona: Bosch, 1995), pp. 318–33. 3 José Manuel Nieto Soria, Ceremonias de la realeza: propaganda y legitimación en la Castilla Trastámara (Madrid: Nerea, 1993); Alfredo Chamorro Esteban, Barcelona y el Rey. Las visitas reales, de Fernando el Católico a Felipe V (Barcelona: Ediciones de La Tempestad, 2017); Inmaculada Rodríguez and Víctor Mínguez, Visiones de un Imperio en fiesta (Madrid: Carlos de Amberes, 2016); La fiesta cortesana en la época de los Austrias, ed. by María Luisa Lobato and Bernardo J. García García (Valladolid: Junta de Castilla y León, 2003); Pilar Monteagudo Robledo, El espectáculo del poder. Fiestas reales en la Valencia moderna (Valencia: Ayuntamiento de Valencia, 1995); Víctor Mínguez, Pablo González Tornel and Inmaculada Rodríguez, La fiesta barroca. El Reino de Valencia (1559–1802) (Castellón: Universitat Jaume I, 2010); Víctor Mínguez and Pablo González Tornel, Cuatro reyes para Sicilia. Proclamaciones y coronaciones en Palermo (1700–1735) (Castellón: Universitat Jaume I, 2016).

S w e a r i n g i n , C row n i n g an d P ro c l ai mi ng t he Hab sb u rgs

this kingdom separated from France as the House of Evreux (1328). And the election of a Castilian Trastámara as king of Aragon, in the Compromise of Caspe (1410), coincided with the disappearance there of royal coronations.4 In each of these cases a dynastic change provoked reactions, as occurred when a Habsburg or a Bourbon inherited the kingdoms of Spain. Charles of Habsburg’s arrival in 1516 as natural king of the peninsular states (excepting Portugal) was subject to uncertainty, but involved nothing new in this respect except in Navarre. There were tensions in the Castilian, Aragonese, Catalan and Valencian courts when Charles I encountered them for the first time, because he had not previously been sworn in as heir and because his proclamation as king along with his mother Joanna, who had been sworn in as queen, prompted legal doubts or political resistance. But these were formal difficulties, resolved quickly and without innovation. Insofar as these state ceremonies defined and expressed the constitutional relationship between monarch and kingdom, one might say that the Habsburgs accepted the commitments made by their Trastámara predecessors, though they attempted innovations that failed. In Navarre, however, there were major changes which make it possible, by contrast, to observe the possibilities of an innovative adaptation between 1516 and 1598, one which became lasting after Philip V of Bourbon implemented profound constitutional changes. A comparative vision of the Spanish situation as a whole facilitates better understanding of what is shared, what is particular, and of mutual influences.

The Eve of the Habsburgs: Oaths, Coronations, and Royal Receptions The pacts that had provided the legal basis for the swearing-in of the crown prince and the king as crucial landmarks in the succession to the throne were fully consolidated in the mid-fifteenth century in Aragon, Catalonia and Valencia. Martin I was the last monarch to be crowned in Aragon (1398) and his courts of Calatayud of 1461 specified in detail before whom and how heirs and kings should take the oath.5 That year the estates swore in Prince 4 José María Lacarra de Miguel, El juramento de los reyes de Navarra (1234–1329) (Madrid: Real Academia de la Historia, 1972); Bonifacio Palacios Martín, La coronación de los reyes de Aragón, 1204–1440. Aportación al estudio de las estructuras políticas medievales (Valencia: Universidad de Valencia, 1975); Eliseo Serrano Martín, ‘No demandamos sino el modo. Los juramentos reales en Aragón en la Edad Moderna’, Pedralbes. Revista d’Història Moderna, 28 (2008), 435–64; Nieto Soria, Ceremonias de la realeza; Montserrat Bajet, El jurament i el seu significat jurídic al Principat segons el dret general de Catalunya (segles XIII−XVIII) (Barcelona: Universitat Pompeu Fabra, 2009); Rafael García Pérez, Antes leyes que reyes. Cultura jurídica y constitución política en la Edad Moderna (Navarra 1512–1808) (Milan: Giuffrè, 2008), pp. 361–98; Carmen Pérez Aparicio, ‘El juramento de los fueros valencianos y el archiduque Carlos’, Saitabi, 60–61 (2010), 375–94. 5 Palacios, La coronación, 269–79; Fueros, observancias y actos de corte del reino de Aragón, ed. by Pascual Savall and Santiago Penén, 13 vols (Zaragoza: Francisco Castro y Bosque, 1866; repr. Zaragoza: Justicia de Aragón, 1991), i, pp. 24–25, 28–29: ‘Coram Quibus Dominus Rex & eius

57

58

a l f r e d o f lo r i s tán i m í zcoz

Ferdinand, a minor still, as successor to John II of Aragon and Navarre, but with a commitment to travel to San Salvador Cathedral in Zaragoza upon reaching the age of fourteen old to be sworn in, which he did in 1469. He returned again in 1479 to do so as king and thereby to rule as such. In Aragon, these oaths were sworn before the chief justice of the kingdom, who was flanked by members of his courts and jurors of Zaragoza, and not actually before the assembly of the estates in the person of the president, as occurred in Barcelona, Valencia or Pamplona. The text sworn by the monarchs in Aragon or in Catalonia was very explicit, because it included precise references to specifically agreed contracts, pacts, charters and laws, which were listed in detail, often at great length.6 However, the oath of loyalty with which the kingdom of Aragon corresponded was neither indispensable nor, in a strict sense, did it form part of the same ceremony, because it used to take place on another day and in another building. In fact, after taking the oath as king (1479), Ferdinand the Catholic did not ask the Aragonese to swear loyalty to him, and this ceremony never took place.7 This was unthinkable in Catalonia, Valencia or Navarre, and was the exact opposite of what occurred in Castile. Isabella I of Castile and Ferdinand II of Aragon concerned themselves with recognition of who should be the joint heir of their states, as the death of two sons and a grandson obliged them to repeat this process. Prince John was sworn in at the altar of Toledo Cathedral by a select group of Castilian nobles on 6 February 1480, replacing as heir his older sister, Isabella, herself sworn in at the courts of Madrigal of 1476 before John was born.8 This prince swore an oath of respect for the Charter of Aragon in the courts of Calatayud of 1481, promising ‘that he would not exercise jurisdiction until, being over fourteen years of age, the same prince took the oath in Zaragoza Cathedral’, which he did on 11 December 1493 before Juan de Lanuza.9 His death made it necessary to convene the courts in Toledo (1498) for the sole purpose of receiving Isabella, now married to Manuel I of Portugal. The Aragonese raised more objections in the courts of Zaragoza that same year because this was a woman – who could not reign – but did not hesitate to swear in Miguel, Isabella and Manuel’s son, who was born there and then. The Catholic Monarchs acted as tutors to this grandson, heir apparent to all of their kingdoms and that of Portugal, and took before the chief justice

Locumtenes & Primogenitus iurare tenentur’, and ‘De officium Locumtenentis generalis & Primogeniti domini Regis’. 6 Serrano Martín, ‘No demandamos sino el modo’, pp. 451–54; Bajet, El jurament, pp. 45–49. 7 Gerónimo Blancas, Coronaciones de los sereníssimos reyes de Aragón, Zaragoza: Diego Dormer, [1585], repr. 1641, p. 246. 8 Juan Manuel Carretero Zamora, Cortes, monarquía y ciudades. Las Cortes de Castilla a comienzos de la época moderna (1476–1515) (Madrid: Siglo XXI, 1988), pp. 155–57; Nieto, Ceremonias de la realeza, pp. 27–45; Juan Pérez de Guzmán y Gallo, El Principado de Asturias: bosquejo histórico-documental (Madrid: Manuel G. Hernández, 1880). 9 Blancas, Coronaciones, p. 247.

S w e a r i n g i n , C row n i n g an d P ro c l ai mi ng t he Hab sb u rgs

‘the traditional oath to respect charters and freedoms’, following which ‘the same day he was sworn heir to the kingdom’.10 From there they travelled to Ocaña, where Miguel was sworn in by the nobles in attendance, and any not present at those courts of Castile were required to submit their oath by letter. His death nevertheless created the urgent need for a third cycle of court sessions and oaths in both crowns. The courts of Toledo-Madrid (1502–03) swore as heir the third daughter of the Catholic Monarchs, Joanna, married to Philip of Habsburg, lord of the Low Countries, despite voicing doubts as to her capacity. The courts of Zaragoza (1502) raised more objections on account of this being, once again, a woman, though they accepted her subject to Ferdinand II not fathering a legitimate male child. Upon the death of Isabella I of Castile, the courts of Toro of 1505 swore allegiance to Joanna and to Philip as monarchs11. In Navarre, too, recognition and swearing-in of the heir were not particularly relevant in comparison with the ‘crowning’ of the king. When they first entered Pamplona, in January 1494, Catherine of Foix and of Navarre and John III of Albret swore and were sworn in, but were also anointed, crowned, raised on the shield and enthroned. Bearing in mind the splendour of the ceremony that took place in Pamplona, that was also similar to that of the coronation of Alfonso II of Naples that same year, little could anyone suspect that these were to be the last royal ceremonies to be held in both kingdoms, soon to be conquered by Ferdinand the Catholic.12 The monarchs summoned the Three Estates of Navarre ‘to the sacrament of the unction and to the solemnity of their blessed coronation and elevation to royal dignity’, taking as a model that of Charles III (1390). The bishop, as president of the assembly, reminded them of the prerequisite of a reciprocal oath in accordance with a text and ritual established in the thirteenth century. The Charter demanded of the monarchs, and in favour of the people of Navarre, imprecise clauses, principles that were open to discussion: 1) to respect ‘their rights’, to always improve their charters and to redress grievances; 2) to share lands and privileges ‘with the people of the land’, and if the king were ‘a man from another land or foreign place or of a foreign language’, to appoint only five ‘foreign men from another land’; 3) to make neither peace nor war ‘ni otro granado hecho’ (‘nor take any other important decisions’) without the counsel of twelve rich men or twelve ‘of the wisest elders in the land’; and 4) not to manipulate the currency to their advantage. In exchange, the people

10 Blancas, Coronaciones, p. 249. 11 Blancas, Coronaciones, p. 250. Carretero, Cortes, monarquía y ciudades, pp. 191–92, 199–200, 202–03. 12 Maria Antonietta Visceglia, ‘Napoli e la politica internazionale del papato tra la congiura dei baroni e il regno di Ferdinando il Cattolico’, in El Reino de Nápoles y la monarquía de España: entre agregación y conquista (1485–1535), ed. by Giuseppe Galasso and Carlos José Hernando Sánchez (Madrid: Sociedad Estatal de Conmemoraciones Culturales, 2004), pp. 453–83 (pp. 465, 468).

59

60

a l f r e d o f lo r i s tán i m í zcoz

of Navarre swore to their monarchs: 1) to guard and defend ‘your persons, crown and land’; and 2) ‘to maintain the charters sworn to us by you’.13 As was usually the case, however, the other ‘crowning’ ceremonies somewhat eclipsed the mutual oath. Nothing similar had occurred in Castile when Isabella was proclaimed queen in opposition to Joanna la Beltraneja, her half-sister and rival, on 13 December 1474 in Segovia. A fortnight later, upon returning from her patrimonial states, a similar ceremony was held in honour of her husband Ferdinand, already king of Sicily and heir to Aragon. Most significant, according to the chronicler Hernán Pérez del Pulgar, was the raising of royal banners to the cry of ‘Castile, Castile for King Ferdinand and for Queen Isabella!’ upon a raised open-air platform, followed by the oath of allegiance of the subjects to the king and the kissing of hands. The chroniclers Alonso de Palencia and Andrés Bernáldez highlighted, in accordance with their own particular interests, either the processional parade to the Church of San Miguel, where the queen made an offering of the banner, or the solemn reception given to Ferdinand, with scenes of nobility, clergy and people showing their reverence and respect for the monarchs.14 For a few weeks following the conquest of Navarre between July and August 1512, Ferdinand the Catholic possessed the title of mere ‘custodian’ of the kingdom, which he had held provisionally in the context of a war against France. But a month later he requested (or demanded) that the Navarrans acknowledge him as rey natural propietario (by nature king and owner of his kingdom) by virtue of a papal bull from Julius II, which was granted to him as spoils seized from kings whom he branded as schismatic. On both occasions he swore respect for particular charters and privileges common to many cities and nobles, but did not go to Pamplona Cathedral to take the reciprocal oath as stipulated by the Charter. In March 1513, Ferdinand II granted powers to his viceroy to convene the Three Estates and used this first meeting to declare a general pardon for those who had resisted the conqueror. He further took advantage of the meeting to take the reciprocal oath with a significant innovation: it was not taken by the new king in person and in Pamplona, as should have been the case, but by the viceroy by virtue of his powers. None of the other ceremonies of a traditional coronation thus took place, although the text sworn by king and queen contained the same formulae and commitments that were usually used, together with nuances which updated it.15

13 Joaquín de Elizondo, Novíssima Recopilación de las leyes del Reino de Navarra hechas en sus Cortes Generales desde el año de 1512 hasta el de 1716 inclusive, Pamplona: Diputación Foral de Navarra [1735], libro I, título I, ley I; Francisco de Alesón, Annales del Reyno de Navarra, 5 vols, Viana: Francisco Picart, 1715, v, pp. 73–75. 14 Nieto, Ceremonias de la realeza, pp. 33–35. 15 Peio Monteano, La Guerra de Navarra (1512–1529). Crónica de la conquista española (Pamplona: Pamiela, 2010), pp. 91–94; Luis Javier Fortún Pérez de Ciriza, ‘Derrumbe de la monarquía y supervivencia del reino: Navarra en torno a 1512’, in 1512. Conquista e

S w e a r i n g i n , C row n i n g an d P ro c l ai mi ng t he Hab sb u rgs

Charles I of Habsburg: Continuity and Change (1516–56) Charles I also bypassed taking the oath in person at his coronation in Pamplona but completed the customary ceremonies in Castile and the Crown of Aragon. The Charter of Navarre solely stipulated, by means of a reciprocal oath, the exaltation of the new monarch in Pamplona Cathedral and certain knightly and religious rituals, with no anointing or coronation, which were ceremonies introduced a posteriori by the French monarchs. Having been crowned king of the Romans in Aachen (1520) and king of Italy and emperor in Bologna (1530), it made no sense to organise his coronation in Pamplona just to maintain a tradition. He swore allegiance to the charters of the kingdom but did so, like Ferdinand the Catholic, whilst absent and by means of his viceroy, although in his case there were three oaths on account of two rebellions that broke out in March 1516 and between May and June 1521.16 Military and political instability in Navarre explains a temporary eclipse of royal ceremonies, though less so their total disappearance. If, when conditions became stable again, the coronation was not revived, it was because it was not in the Habsburgs’ interests, and because the incorporation of the kingdom into the Crown of Castile, formalised in 1515, created an equivocal situation. Such was the understanding of chronicler Esteban de Garibay around 1571: These monarchs [ John III and Catherine] were the last in Navarre, to the present day, to be crowned, because the monarchs who have reigned since, as they have been monarchs of Castile, have not cared to continue with the coronation, or holy unction, or elevation in the manner of past monarchs, because satisfying themselves with the oath of the Three Estates taken by natural monarchs, they have excused themselves from these other ceremonies and royal acts.17 Philip II continued to utter fine words with regard to his coronation royal oath in Pamplona, and the Navarrans continued to insist on recovering both ceremonies until 1585.

incorporación de Navarra. Historiografía, derecho y otros procesos de integración en la Europa renacentista, ed. by Alfredo Floristán Imízcoz (Barcelona: Ariel, 2012), pp. 201–98. 16 AGS, Patronato Real, leg. 10, documento 26 [Pamplona, 22 February 1516]; documento 25 [Pamplona, 22 mayo 1516] and documento 30 [Pamplona, 20 March 1522]; Recopilación de Resoluciones de las Cortes de Navarra (1503–1531), ed. by Luis Javier Fortún Pérez de Ciriza (Pamplona: Parlamento de Navarra, 2014), pp. 233–34, 273; Alfredo Floristán Imízcoz, ‘Recomponer lealtades colectivas tras una rebelión. Perdones generales en Castilla y en Navarra (1522–1524)’, in Decidir la lealtad. Leales y desleales en contexto (siglos XVI−XVII), ed. by Alicia Esteban Estríngana (Aranjuez: Ediciones Doce Calles, 2017), pp. 167–98. 17 Esteban de Garibay, Compendio historial de las chrónicas y universal historia de todos los reynos de España, 3 vols, Barcelona: Sebastián de Cormellas, 1628, iii, p. 489.

61

62

a l f r e d o f lo r i s tán i m í zcoz

The Habsburgs did not introduce changes to the succession ceremonies in Castile and in Aragon, though there were tensions arising from queen Joanna’s inability to govern on her own and by the emergence of her son Charles as an alternative. The ceremonies organised by Charles in Brussels reveal a certain ambiguity, perhaps calculated, because in the Latin version of the official acts in Sainte-Gudule (14 March 1516) he introduced himself to the whole of Europe as Hispaniarum rex without mentioning his mother, who was strictly speaking the heir to the Catholic Monarchs. However, according to the Spanish version of those same acts, the people proclaimed ‘the Catholic Monarchs, Joanna and Charles’.18 Charles was received as king along with his mother, acknowledged by all to be incapable of governing given her psychological limitations, on 17 February 1518 in Valladolid. Only the nobility accompanied the king from the palace to St Paul’s Church, where his siblings, the city prelates and prosecutors awaited him. After the service, according to the chronicler Lorenzo Vital, there was a double ceremony, first of oath-swearing and then of ‘promise and tribute’.19 Sitting before the altar, the king received, one by one, the oaths of his siblings, the prelates, the nobles and the prosecutors present, in accordance with a text read by the court secretary.20 Then, ‘in order that the prior state of affairs should become firmer and for the greater security of all of them’, those same people who had received him offered their ‘pledge and homage to the king […] and his sovereign mother’. Thus ended the ceremony and two days later the courts of Castile were formally opened with a speech from the throne. The chronicler Prudencio de Sandoval (1601) showed an interest in an incident whereby several procurators in this assembly, led by Dr Juan Zumel of Burgos, sought another solution. Their protests did not succeed in having Charles I swear to accept certain requests which they made before ‘accepting him’ as king. According to this same account, the king was the last to take the oath and did so without adhering to any particular text. The chronicler Vital specifies what was sworn by all the procurators of the Castilian courts, but does not say what Charles I swore, nor whether he promised anything specific other than what generically corresponded to him as monarch.21 18 Alfred Kohler, Carlos V, 1500–1558. Una biografía (Madrid: Marcial Pons Historia, 2000), pp. 51–52. 19 ‘Which without any doubt is a far more obligatory thing than taking the oath, since it is an oath which cannot be broken without committing an act of treason’: Laurent Vital, Relación del primer viaje de Carlos V a España (Madrid: Estades, 1958), p. 315. 20 Vital, Relación del primer viaje de Carlos V a España, p. 320. 21 AGS, Patronato Real, leg. 69, documento 54: Oath sworn by the Courts of Castile to Charles I, fol. 568r; the oath binds him to: 1º not sell crown lands and rights; 2º maintain the laws and charters of the kingdom; 3º confirm the privileges and freedoms of the cities; ‘This having been done, the King arose from his chair and placed his hand on the holy gospels and on the cross, taking the oath just as the kings, his predecessors, had done before’: Vital, Relación del primer viaje de Carlos V a España, p. 315; ‘Then the King swore to safeguard and fulfil what had been discussed and agreed upon with the procurators’ (regarding government

S w e a r i n g i n , C row n i n g an d P ro c l ai mi ng t he Hab sb u rgs

Meanwhile, the Aragonese courts attributed to Charles the government of Aragon as tutor of his disqualified mother, although on condition that he swore to maintain the local laws in Zaragoza prior to exercising any jurisdiction. Charles made his solemn entry into the city in traditional fashion on 9 May 1518 and proceeded to the cathedral, where he swore to respect the local charters exactly as Ferdinand the Catholic had done in 1479. Twenty days later, assembled in the Palace of the Diputación, the courts of Aragon swore him in as co-sovereign along with his mother, though there were tensions when the Aragonese proposed that until Charles married, they should also swear in his brother Ferdinand as heir presumptive, which led to a row between the Castilians and Aragonese.22 In Zaragoza there was a dispute over who to swear allegiance to and how to do so, but, though the Aragonese pointed to irregularities in the convening of their courts, in the end nothing unusual occurred and the ceremony took place as expected.23 After Zaragoza, Charles I headed for Barcelona. From there he considered the need to travel to Valencia. In accordance with a constitution of 1299, all new monarchs had to take the oath before the courts of Catalonia in their capacity as count of Barcelona; it was also specified that the oath would be taken in that city and that, even if they had taken it as heir, they would repeat it as monarch before exercising contentious jurisdiction in the country via their ministers (voluntary personal jurisdiction, however, corresponded to him since the death of his predecessor).24 When Ferdinand the Catholic died, as Charles I had not sworn to maintain the local charter of Catalonia, ordinary government was set in motion by means of the ‘vice regency’, exercised by the portant-veus of the governor. Before he arrived in Barcelona, the city jurors, who had come out to meet him, expressed their dissent at his taking the oath as ‘conregnant ab la serenissima reyna dona Joana sa mare’. But the cardinal of Tortosa dispelled their doubts, which arose again before disappearing in the first session of the courts.25 Charles I’s solemn entry into Barcelona on 15 February 1519 was similar in form to his entry into Zaragoza the previous May. Here, the entourage witnessed a colourful parade of the guilds in the market square before proceeding to the cathedral to take the oath of respect for the local charter,

22 23 24 25

if Joanna recovered, and their joint naming on the documents): Prudencio de Sandoval, Historia de la vida y hechos del Emperador Carlos V (Madrid: Biblioteca de Autores Españoles, 1955), chapters vii and viii (year 1518); Manuel Fernández Álvarez, Carlos V, el César y el hombre (Madrid: Espasa, 1999), pp. 91–95. Bartolomé Leonardo de Argensola, Primera parte de los Anales de Aragón que prosigue los del secretario Gerónimo Çurita, desde el año MDXVI, Zaragoza: Juan de Lanaja, 1630, chapters liv, lv, lviii and lx. Serrano Martín, ‘No demandamos sino el modo’, pp. 435–64. Víctor Ferro, El Dret Public Catalá. Les Institucions a Catalunya fins el Decret de Nova Planta (Vic: Eumo, 1987), pp. 31–34; Bajet, El jurament, pp. 29–70. Ricardo García Cárcel, ‘Las cortes de 1519 en Barcelona: una opción revolucionaria frustrada’, in Homenaje a Juan Reglá, 2 vols (Valencia: Universidad de Valencia, 1975), i, pp. 239–55.

63

64

a l f r e d o f lo r i s tán i m í zcoz

followed by hand-kissing by all those in attendance, which was the main event of the day. In Barcelona, however, the main event was the oath to uphold the city’s privileges in a meadow alongside the Franciscan convent, followed by hand-kissing only by the jurors and the parade of the guilds. Both entrances culminated at the respective cathedrals for two very different ceremonies: in Salvador, this involved swearing to maintain the laws of Aragon; and in Santa Cruz and Santa Eulalia of Barcelona, this involved only venerating the relics of their patron saints.26 The swearing of the oath to respect the Catalan charters came two months later, on Saturday, 16 April 1519. At the opening of the courts, the day after he arrived in Barcelona, Charles set forth his financial needs and his overseas commitments. But the mutual oath constituted a legal prerequisite and the Three Estates refused to continue talking because the law required that the courts should be convened by the king after the oath to maintain the local laws, and that this measure should be approved whilst in the principality. This proved easy to amend and, on the same day that he took the formal oath as king, Charles convened the courts of Catalonia again, issued a second proposal, and legal normality was resumed.27 From Barcelona, Charles I convened the courts of Valencia in order to take the oath to maintain their privileges, but was prevented from doing so by the news of his election as emperor and the urgent need to raise funds, which made it necessary to return to Castile. At the end of January 1520, on the point of leaving Barcelona, his intention was for the courts of Valencia to meet without his presence under the presidency of Cardinal Adrian of Utrecht, an unusual course of action but one which had worked well in Navarre. The immediate outbreak of a popular revolt, that of the Valencian germanías (brotherhoods), made it impossible to discover whether or not the country’s elites would have resisted and prevented such an innovation.28 In any case, the royal oath in Valencia Cathedral was delayed until 16 May 1528. Again, Charles I’s intention was to empower Ferdinand of Aragon, Duke of Calabria, and his wife, Germana de Foix, his viceroys there, to proceed with the assembly and the oath in his absence, but the resistance of the Three Estates obliged him to reconsider.29 The swearing of the oath to respect the local charter finally took place on the occasion of Charles I’s first entry into the city on 3 May 1528. As in Barcelona, the solemn entry seems to have

26 María Ángeles Pérez Samper, ‘El rey y la ciudad. La entrada real de Carlos I en Barcelona’, Studia Historica. Historia Moderna, 6 (1988), 439–48; Eliseo Serrano Martín, ‘Imágenes del rey e identidad de los reinos en los rituales y celebraciones públicas en Aragón en el siglo XVI’, Obradoiro de Historia Moderna, 20 (2011), 43–71. 27 Ubaldo de Casanova y Todolí, ‘Las primeras cortes catalanas de Carlos I (Barcelona 1519–1520)’, Mayurqua, 20 (1981–84), 243–52; García Cárcel, ‘Las cortes de 1519’. 28 Ricardo García Cárcel, Cortes del reinado de Carlos I (Valencia: Universidad de Valencia, 1972), pp. vii−viii. 29 Emilia Salvador Esteban, ‘Las Cortes de Valencia’, in Las Cortes de Castilla y León en la Edad Moderna (Valladolid: Cortes de Castilla y León, 1989), pp. 761–64.

S w e a r i n g i n , C row n i n g an d P ro c l ai mi ng t he Hab sb u rgs

been more important than the royal oath itself. The more formal meeting with the Valencian estates occurred, once again, days after the entry to the city. On 16 May, Charles I sat on a dais in the cathedral surrounded by the Three Estates for the mutual oath-swearing, in spite of the fact that Joanna as co-sovereign with Charles was not present, a breach of formality protested by the Valencians as well as the Catalans. The king swore to uphold the charters and privileges of the city and the kingdom first, after which the Valencians swore him in as king.30 The specific details of what king and kingdom mutually swore on in Barcelona or in Valencia is not as easy to discern as in Aragon or in Navarre. The chronicler Lupercio Leonardo de Argensola (1630) sought to disclose the exact content of Charles I’s oath in 1518, and incorporated its complete translation from the original Latin; the Catalan Narcís Feliu de la Penya (1709), in similar vein, dealt with the issue in cursory fashion before describing in far greater detail the festivals and other courtly ceremonies: ‘The difficulties having been overcome, the prince swore, on Saturday, 16 April, as count, to uphold the privileges in the great hall of the main palace, and he received the oath of allegiance’.31 In their original drafting, the Furs of Valencia did not even acknowledge that the monarchs were obliged to take the oath to maintain the local charter at the start of their reign, nor did they describe the content of such a ceremony, something which the Charter of Navarre specified in detail. When the Valencian magistrate Lorenzo Matheu wrote about this in 1677, with the experience of what had happened during the last meeting of the courts of Valencia in 1645, he made it clear that the king had to swear respect for the laws of the kingdom within one month, in person and in the cathedral. He was nevertheless more interested in explaining how his weighty concerns justified the delays, and that the monarch’s voluntary jurisdiction did not commence after the oath but upon the death of the previous monarch. The exact text of the oaths does not appear to have been relevant, and Matheu refers to general commitments: ‘these oaths are mutually correspective, so that via the bond of the oath the vassals ensure that their laws will be observed religiously, and that they will obey the prince as loyal vassals’.32 The Catalan Lluís de Peguera, author of a practical manual on how the courts of the principality assembled (1631), showed a similar lack of interest

30 Pérez Aparicio, ‘El juramento de los fueros valencianos’, pp. 375–94; Pilar Monteagudo, ‘La entrada y juramento de Carlos I en Valencia (1528): el lenguaje simbólico como expresión de la imagen del poder real en los albores del Estado Moderno’, in El poder real de la Corona de Aragón: (siglos XIV−XVI), 5 vols (Zaragoza: Departamento de Educación y Cultura, 1996), iii, pp. 387–400. 31 Argensola, Primera parte de los Anales de Aragón, pp. 487–504; Narcís Feliu de la Penya, Anales de Cataluña […] divididos en tres tomos, Barcelona: Juan Pablo Martí, 1709, iii, p. 162; ACA, Generalitat, Pergaminos, carpeta 45, pergamino 872. 32 Lorenzo Matheu y Sanz, Tratado de la celebración de cortes generales del reino de Valencia, Madrid: Julián de Paredes, 1677, pp. 58–70.

65

66

a l f r e d o f lo r i s tán i m í zcoz

in the specific content of the ceremony of mutual oath-swearing.33 However, the Aragonese Jerónimo Blancas (1585), Jerónimo Martel and Juan Francisco Andrés de Ustárroz (1641) reflected in detail upon coronations and royal oaths as an essential element of the meetings of the courts of Aragon. The Navarrans did something similar. Ustárroz, publishing the works of Blancas and Martel, entitled them Coronaciones de los serenísimos reyes de Aragón (1641). He yearned for the old ‘holy coronations’, grieved over the fact that certain French and Spanish authors denied the Aragonese this honour ‘assuming these glories for the monarchs of Navarre and France’, and wrote in defence ‘against the slander of emulation’ of its neighbours.34 Blancas had investigated the matter on the occasion of the preparations for the oath sworn by Prince Philip III as a minor in 1585. And, although his reflection focussed on the oaths, it is evident that he would have favoured a return to the old coronations and anointings.35 In Aragon, it is significant that the oath developed a specific content, one which is moreover deliberately long-winded and reiterative: All things considered, this is the purpose of the long and complicated form of the oaths of kings and princes, [not] the words in general, but each one, and their recital one by one, so they are more easily remembered, and thus their burden and obligation is better fixed in the memory. And in solemnly taking the oath they accepted this because, although all would be included in general words, those who ordered this did so that the kings themselves might also participate, and that some words, the most essential, be recited one by one, and even repeated several times, so that in this way they might be transmitted to the kings, and the latter agree more carefully to fulfil them and have them fulfilled by their officials and ministers36. The Aragonese took care to conserve and make public the minutes of these oaths to maintain local privileges, perhaps to a greater degree than the Catalans and Valencians. This was less true of the Navarrans, who published them with their booklets of laws and grievances redressed in the courts from 1586 to 1818, even financing extra editions. In Pamplona a royal entrance similar to that of Charles I in Zaragoza, Barcelona or Valencia would have been unthinkable. There was no tradition

33 Lluís de Peguera, Práctica, forma y estil de celebrar Corts Generals y materias incidents en aquellas, facsimile edition [1631] (Madrid: Centro de Estudios Políticos y Constitucionales, 1998). 34 Blancas, Coronaciones, s.p.: Dedicatoria to the deputees and information to readers by Juan Francisco Andrés de Ustárroz. 35 Blancas, Coronaciones, p. 261. Dedication to King Philip II: ‘and H. M. [Philip III], when he comes of age and wishes to anointed and crowned, may easily see and understand the manner and the ceremonies in which ancient kings were’. And at the end: ‘May it please our Lord God […] that Y. M. [Felipe II] might see His Majesty [Felipe III] anointed and crowned as all Christendom requires it’. 36 Blancas, Coronaciones, pp. 190–91.

S w e a r i n g i n , C row n i n g an d P ro c l ai mi ng t he Hab sb u rgs

in this regard, nor a sufficiently rich and conscious bourgeoisie, whilst circumstances rendered it inadvisable for many decades before and after the conquest of 1512. The chronicler Francisco de Alesón (1709) noted that John III and Catherine arrived for the first time at the gates of Pamplona on Saturday, December 21 [1493, and] found them closed, in accordance with the orders of the Count of Lerín, to whom the Beaumonts, who represented the bulk of the city’s population, were blindly obedient. The monarchs, with wise counsel, decided not to insist on entering, though they felt, with good reason, the disobedience. They departed and sought accommodation near Egüés, where they spent Christmas and stayed until the first days of the following year of 1494.37 Nor did Charles V make a solemn entry into Pamplona on 18 October 1523, when he came from Valladolid to lead the army that recovered the Castilian fortress of Fuenterrabía, occupied by the French with the help of a faction from Navarre. He returned on 13 May 1542, this time accompanied by Prince Philip, this time part of a military excursion to supervise the defensive preparations before the imminent war with France. There was no solemn royal entry into Pamplona until Isabella de Valois arrived as Philip II’s wife in 1560.38 Prior to the conquest, the monarchs had proposed to the Navarran courts a thorough review of the Fuero General (General Charter), but the war interrupted the process. The new viceroys resumed it (1519) in a commission of the Three Estates, which presented to Charles I in 1528 the proposal for a new Fuero Reducido (Revised Charter) to replace the old one.39 The Navarrans took advantage of the occasion to modify the content of the oath, and set down provisions for ‘What things the king must swear to before the people of Navarre before the Navarrans swear to the king’ (FR 1, 1), using terms that recall those of the Aragonese in 1461. They wanted every new king to swear to pardon those banished and incarcerated, to limit his capacity to mint new currency, and to make the military mobilisation of civilians conditional upon agreement by the courts. In the second section on ‘How the kings of Navarre should be chosen’ (FR 1, 2), however, they merely updated provisions employed in the previous charter to this end. The Council of Castile (1533, 1538, 1539) issued a negative report vis-à-vis the intention of introducing new clauses, which would have compromised the king’s capacity for action, as a

37 Alesón, Annales, v, p. 73. 38 Jesús María Usunáriz Garayoa, ‘Símbolos e identidad: la visita de Isabel de Valois a Pamplona (1560)’, in Imagen del rey, imagen de los reinos. Las ceremonias públicas en la España Moderna (1500–1814), ed. by Agustín González Enciso and Jesús María Usunáriz Garayoa (Pamplona: Eunsa, 1999), pp. 117–54. 39 Ismael Sánchez Bella, ‘El Fuero Reducido de Navarra y la publicación del Fuero General’, in El Fuero Reducido de Navarra (edición crítica y estudios), ed. by Ismael Sánchez Bella, Mercedes Galán Lorda, Carmen Saralegui and Isabel Ostolaza, 2 vols (Pamplona: Gobierno de Navarra, 1989), i, pp. 21–91.

67

68

a l f r e d o f lo r i s tán i m í zcoz

consequence of which neither Charles V nor Philip II approved it. The new element did not enter into force and so the old charter was not abolished, although the royal oath to be taken in person and in Pamplona Cathedral, with particular clauses and in a specific ceremonial context, appeared to have been transcended.40

Philip II: Assimilating and Synchronising Royal Oaths (1556–98) In 1528 Prince Philip, barely a year old, was presented before the courts of Castile to be sworn in as heir. In 1542, at the age of fifteen, he undertook alongside the emperor his first great journey to meet with the courts of Aragon in Monzón, where he swore an oath to respect the charters of those three kingdoms, and where Catalans, Valencians and Aragonese swore him in as heir. This did not exempt him from visiting Zaragoza, Barcelona and Valencia, in the same order in which his father had, to be received by these cities and to swear respect for their particular privileges in similar fashion. Years later, between 1549 and 1550, Prince Philip travelled to the north of Italy, the south of Germany and to the Netherlands, where he was solemnly received as heir and where he took over thirty oaths in different cities and provinces. Upon conclusion of his tour of the states he would receive by way of inheritance, however, he had yet to be recognised as heir in Navarre.41 Here there was no living tradition of the swearing-in of heirs and this was not required by the local charter, and so an oath-swearing might not have been contemplated until the death of Charles I. On the other hand, such an exception revealed an anomaly related to the fact that Charles I declared himself legitimate king of a Navarre that Henry II of Albret, brother-in-law of the king of France, also claimed as his own. In the 1548 Instruction, Charles V had already weighed up the advisability of marrying his son Philip to the heiress of Navarre, to bring this dispute to an end and thus draw that powerful family into his orbit. But the king of France, who could not allow this, exerted pressure on the heiress of the royaume de Navarre, Joanna of Albret-Foix, to marry Anthony of Bourbon (1549), and their first son was born in 1551. The viceroy convened the courts in Pamplona on 9 December 1550. Neither the king nor the kingdom, in any of the eighteen meetings since 1522, had considered the desirability of the heir’s swearing respect for the 40 Pilar Arregui Zamorano, ‘Capítulos del Fuero Reducido de Navarra que impidieron su confirmación’, Initium. Revista catalana d’historia del dret, 8 (2003), 85–142. 41 Francisco Javier Pizarro Gómez, Arte y espectáculo en los viajes de Felipe II (1542–1592) (Madrid: Encuentro, 1999); Juan Cristóbal Calvete de Estrella, El felicíssimo viaje d’el muy alto y muy poderoso Príncipe don Phelippe, hijo d’el Emperador don Carlos Quinto Máximo, desde España a sus tierras de la Baxa Alemaña: con la descripción de todos los estados de Brabante y Flandes, facsímile edition [1552] (La Coruña: Órbigo, 2011).

S w e a r i n g i n , C row n i n g an d P ro c l ai mi ng t he Hab sb u rgs

local charter before the courts. However, on 8 January 1551, Bernardino de Cárdenas, duke of Maqueda, proposed to the Navarrans that they participate in this common dynamic with Castile and Aragon.42 The Three Estates voted on their contribution, submitted their grievances and were dissolved at the end of January 1551, long before they could know the outcome of discussions of which we have no knowledge. From Augsburg, on 13 June of that year, the emperor wrote to the Navarrans notifying them that Prince Philip had decided to take the oath as heir in person. His imminent return to Castile provided the opportunity for a meeting with the Three Estates of Navarre in an extraordinary session, held exclusively for the ceremony, which would take place in Tudela and not in the capital, so that Philip would not have to go out of his way. The prince himself, from Igualada (4 August 1551) confirmed the notification and the Three Estates were convened for 20 August 1551. This decision must have been taken in Germany rather than in Castile, perhaps to make it clear to all in Europe that this kingdom would never be returned to Henry II of Albret, whose first grandson was born that same year. Nevertheless, if the incorporation into Castile of 1515 had meant that the kings and queens of Castile would rule Navarre ‘for ever more’, was a specific oath necessary there when, it could be interpreted, the Castilian courts of 1528 had already sworn in Philip as heir in name of the Navarrans too? Why did they improvise, so belatedly, a particular swearing-in of Philip as heir to Navarre? There was no such tradition in this respect, and neither was this required by the charter. The ceremony took place in Santa María Church (Tudela) with a solemnity which, for the first time since the conquest, recalled the coronation of 1494. In this reciprocal oath between the heir and the kingdom the same traditional consecrated formula was employed as that contained in the charter.43 What was new about the oath of 1551 was that the Navarrans could hear the prince, see him kneeling before the cross and the gospels, flanked by the prelates and surrounded by his military and city estates, and could kiss his hands. Philip II promised to make amends for what his father and grandfather had done and swore that ‘if this succession originates with me, at the time of my coronation I shall make the same vow to you’. Philip III, too, swore in 1586 to ratify in person his oath as heir ‘at the time of his coronation’. Neither of the two, when they acceded to the throne, travelled to Pamplona to take the oath as kings. If the coronation had not been celebrated in any of the Spanish kingdoms for many decades, was there any sense in reviving it in Navarre and making a costly exception that would lead to awkward emulations? Charles I renounced his peninsular states in January 1556 in favour of his son. Philip II was immediately proclaimed by the Castilian cities, as was customary, and those of Navarre were ordered to do likewise, but not the Catalan, Aragonese or Valencian cities. Nor in Navarre they were accustomed

42 Elizondo, Novíssima Recopilación, libro I, título I, ley 1. 43 ARGN, Reino: Casamientos y muertes de reyes, leg. 1, carpeta 42.

69

70

a l f r e d o f lo r i s tán i m í zcoz

to such royal ‘acclamations’, and the Navarran trustees protested at the novelty of the raising of flags and banners by the new king, which had been ordered without the intervention of their courts before the death of Charles I, and demanded that there be no undermining of the law of the kingdom.44 In the three eastern kingdoms it was necessary for each king to wait to swear in order to maintain local privileges before exercising his royalty in full. In fact, Philip II did so in the courts of each of those kingdoms assembled in Monzón in 1563, and repeated the same entrance ceremonies as his father in Zaragoza, Barcelona and Valencia during his first trip. Maybe the illness of Prince Charles, who had been received as heir in Castile (1560), frustrated a more ambitious plan to presentation the common heir successively in Navarre and in the kingdoms of the Crown of Aragon on that occasion. In June 1563, Philip II was thinking of passing through ‘the [mountains] of the kingdom of Navarre and there having my son the prince take the oath’, before continuing on to Monzón, but it was not to be.45 The tradition of the royal coronation in Navarre could be foregone without any difficulty, but the suppression of the oath-taking in person by each new king in Pamplona Cathedral and its replacement by the crown prince’s oath, taken, moreover, in absence and via powers granted to the viceroy, was not introduced without frictions, hesitation and amendments. The determined preservation of the royal oath in person in Aragon, Catalonia and Valencia represented an unavoidable point of reference. But the prevailing model in eastern Spain would be no less attractive, in the eyes of the Navarrans, than what was practised in Castile and in Portugal, where the most relevant aspect was the reception of the crown prince. The liberal stamp of our political culture has favoured a predominance in the historiography of a higher opinion of the swearing of the oath to respect the local charter of the Crown of Aragon, as a better and more modern attempt to limit monarchic absolutism. But we might ask ourselves whether, in the sixteenth century, the values of loyalty and fidelity of subjects extolled by the Castilian model of oath-taking would not also have proven to be very attractive. The courts of Sangüesa of 1561 requested authorisation from Philip II for Prince Charles to be sworn in and crowned king of Navarre and to govern as such whilst his father was alive, in order to counter the irredentist pressure being exerted from France by the other roi de Navarre, Anthony of Bourbon, husband of Joanna III of Albret. When Anthony of Bourbon died the following year, conditions returned to relative normality.46 And, although 44 ARGN, Reino: Casamientos y muertes de reyes, leg. 1, carpetas 44 y 45; There are no references about it in the actas of the Navarrese Courts during this year. 45 Serrano Martín, ‘No demandamos sino el modo’, pp. 435–64; Henry Kamen, Felipe de España (Madrid: Siglo XXI, 1997), pp. 9–10, 98–100. 46 Actas de las Cortes de Navarra, ed. by Luis Javier Fortún Pérez de Ciriza, 16 vols (Pamplona: Parlamento de Navarra, 1991–96), i, p. 329 (Sangüesa, 21 March 1561); ARGN, Reino: Casamientos y muertes de reyes, leg. 1, carpeta 46.

S w e a r i n g i n , C row n i n g an d P ro c l ai mi ng t he Hab sb u rgs

Philip II never kept his promise to reaffirm as king the oath he had taken as heir in 1551, and to do so in Pamplona ‘at the time of my coronation’, his words were not forgotten. The courts of 1576 still pondered the possibility of celebrating the coronation and royal anointing of Philip II in Pamplona Cathedral.47 In 1585 the provincial council, on the occasion of a ‘session’ of the king at the Crown of Aragon for the marriage of his daughter Catherine Micaela of Habsburg to the duke of Savoy, Charles Emmanuel I, insisted on the question once again. Philip II took advantage of this trip for the crown prince, then Philip III, to swear and be sworn in in Aragon, Catalonia and Valencia, after being received as such by the courts of Madrid in 1584. The king and the heir, like Charles I and his son before, visited Zaragoza, Barcelona and Valencia, returning directly to Madrid, again without passing through Navarre. By way of compensation for this omission, its Three Estates were offered a ceremony in absentia, something that the Navarrans would regard as a reverse and which dispelled any illusions they had in this respect. The viceroy argued that the king was tired, that Prince Philip in poor health, that ‘taking the oath in absentia would demonstrate greater love’, and that in this manner the Navarrans would surpass the other kingdoms ‘where he has taken the oath in person’. Finally, in 1586, Francisco Hurtado de Mendoza, marquis of Almazán, was granted specific powers to act as tutor to the prince for the oath, and the courts prepared a magnificent ceremony in the transept of Pamplona Cathedral which recalled the last ‘crowning’. Arguably, before a viceroy and not a monarch, without ceremonies (anointing, coronation etc.) which had so exalted royalty, the former equilibrium was recovered and the kingdom gained visibility and initiative on the basis of a mutual oath, now stripped of irritating disruptions. The minutes of the 1586 ceremony were immediately printed in a special edition and served as a model for the swearing-in of all heirs in Navarre until the nineteenth century. In order to pacify and reorganise Aragon after the rebellion of the previous year, in 1592 Philip II convened its courts in Tarazona, where he journeyed along with Prince Philip and Princess Isabella Clara Eugenia. The proximity to Navarre and the internal tensions within this kingdom caused the royal party to make a slight detour to visit Pamplona. The Three Estates were convened for just two days, once again in the cathedral, and with the sole purpose of the heir reaffirming as an adult the oath which, underage and by proxy, he had sworn in 1586. Ultimately, this saw the same procedure carried out as had happened in the courts of Aragon in Tarazona (1592): there, too, the prince swore as an adult what another had pledged in his name when he was not yet of age (1585).

47 Actas de las Cortes, i, pp. 426–27 (Pamplona, 15 June 1576).

71

72

a l f r e d o f lo r i s tán i m í zcoz

The Role of Spanish Oath-taking in the Sixteenth Century The ways in which Philip III began to reign in each of his peninsular states revealed both changes and continuity in comparison with the Spain of the Catholic Monarchs. He had been sworn in as heir by the courts of Castile and that acknowledgement (1584) was sufficient without a new meeting for the communities of the kingdom to recognise him as king when his father died (1598) via the raising of banners and popular acclamation. However, Philip III travelled to Valencia, Catalonia and Aragon in 1599 and repeated his father’s and his grandfather’s same solemn entries into the three capitals, and again proceeded to take the oath to maintain local privileges, though he had been acknowledged as heir to each of these states in the courts of Monzón of 1585. The Navarrans, like the Castilians, were satisfied with raising banners in Philip III’s name and did not demand a new ceremony. They regarded as sufficient the mutual oath taken by the crown prince in absentia (1586), then reaffirmed in person (1592). The charter stipulated that the king should present himself in Pamplona Cathedral, but the new situation in Navarre following the conquest resulted in an adaptation that proved successful: the essence was retained (the reciprocal oath in the courts in accordance with the text of the original charter) and the incidental was adapted to the new times (an oath in absentia, via powers granted to the viceroy). A solution of this nature must have been tempting for the Habsburgs in the inherited kingdoms of the Crown of Aragon, but there was resistance that made it impossible. Charles I and Philip II had little difficulty respecting two different traditions with regard to the swearing in of heirs and kings, one of which was easy and convenient for their authority, and another more problematic. In Castile the key was for the crown prince to be recognised by the courts and to receive a broad oath of loyalty and homage from the living forces of the community: his siblings and family, the high nobility (even those absent from the ceremony) and the republics with votes at court. This format was well established in the days of the Catholic Monarchs and was not modified under the Habsburgs. This was, inevitably, an early event in the lives of princes. Philip II was recognised when barely a year old (1528), whilst four sons of Philip II were successively sworn in as heirs, the first shortly after his father came to the throne and the others when they were still very small (1560, 1573, 1581 and 1584). The ceremony was also not conceived as a reciprocal act but was, on the contrary, strictly unilateral: it was more important to emphasise the loyalty of Castilians towards their king than the latter’s reciprocal commitment to his subjects. For this reason, at the moment of succession it was sufficient to proclaim the new king via the raising of banners by the political communities that formed the kingdom, which were considerably more in number than those present in the courts. Repeating the oath of loyalty to the new king would have meant, for the Castilians, acknowledging a duplicity or inconstancy that would sully their honour: if they had already sworn him in as

S w e a r i n g i n , C row n i n g an d P ro c l ai mi ng t he Hab sb u rgs

heir, they understood that they had done so once and for all. In this respect, the Castilians felt like the Portuguese.48 In Aragon, Catalonia, Valencia and Navarre, each king had to swear the oath to maintain local laws in his new status, and it was not enough to have done so as heir, even if the content were similar in both cases. It was understood that only as king was it possible to take the oath to maintain the charter and receive the oath of loyalty from one’s subjects in an act inaugurating the reign. Hence the requirement for a peremptory term (one month in Valencia), or the stipulation of a transitory situation of vice regency until this occurred (Catalonia), because the king could not exercise his royalty in fullness until that moment (Aragon). In all these cases, the oath was conceived as reciprocal, between the king and the estates of the kingdom, although not always formally assembled in court. But cities as powerful as Barcelona, Valencia and Zaragoza played a particularly prominent role, alongside the courts or independently of them, by virtue of the solemn entrances and the specific oaths relating to their privileges. There is no evidence of such duplicity in Navarre, where, in the absence of a major city, the Three Estates were the sole interlocutors for oaths whose text was notable for its originality and age. The clauses of the royal oath provided for in the Charter of Navarre since the thirteenth century constituted a relatively brief, generic and fossilised text, practically unchanged over more than five centuries. By contrast, the royal oath in Aragon or in Catalonia consisted in the accumulation of numerous agreements, privileges, charters and specific laws, which were recalled in explicit fashion and which formed an extensive and variegated whole, and which developed in crescendo with the passage of time.49 The text employed by the Navarrans was much more imprecise, and so ‘mysterious’ that it was easily associated with the origins of their royalty and the mythicised kingdom of Sobrarbe, which Navarrans and Aragonese shared and disputed.50 The Catalans lacked an original myth as powerful as the latter, and the Valencians could not invent one when James I had conquered those lands by defeating the Muslims and formed the kingdom ex novo51. This, perhaps, was why Charles I wanted to swear to uphold the laws of this kingdom outside Valencia, before a delegation of its estates (as occurred in Mallorca), or why the Valencians wished to accept that Adrian of Utrecht could take the oath in his name, though his intention was frustrated by the

48 Pedro Cardim, Cortes e cultura política no Portugal do Antigo Regime (Lisboa: Cosmos, 1998), pp. 105–15. 49 Bajet, El jurament, pp. 48–49; Serrano ‘No demandamos sino el modo’, pp. 452–57. 50 Antonio Peiró Arroyo, El árbol de Sobrarbe. Los mitos de origen del reino de Aragón (Zaragoza: Delegación del Gobierno en Aragón, 2005); Ralph E. Giesey, Si no, no: el juramento de los aragoneses y las legendarias Leyes de Sobrarbe (Madrid: Universidad Camilo José Cela, 2010). 51 Jesús Villanueva López, Política y discurso histórico en la España del siglo XVII. Las polémicas sobre los orígenes medievales de Cataluña (Alicante: Universidad de Alicante, 2004).

73

74

a l f r e d o f lo r i s tán i m í zcoz

resistance of the courts.52 It was understandable that it was convenient to take advantage of one single ‘session’ for the king to engage in the traditional inaugural entrances and oaths in Aragon, Catalonia and Valencia, although this could not always be organised as immediately as everyone might have wished. This was the method employed by Charles I (1518–19 and 1528), Philip II (1563) and Philip III (1599). But swearing in the heir simultaneously in the three kingdoms, taking advantage of the fact that the courts were assembled in the same city of Monzón, albeit separately, was convenient for the king and might be interpreted by the kingdoms as a threat. It is hard to understand otherwise why the Catalan courts of Monzón in 1585 considered that the swearing-in of the heir performed by Philip II in his son’s name, and the oath of recognition taken in response by the estates, were of no value: ‘que lo present jurament y actes de aquell sien aguts per no fets’.53 This rigidity contrasts with the flexibility with which the Three Estates of Navarre agreed to the swearing-in of the heir in absentia, represented by the viceroy. It is possible that the pressure in this instance was irresistible, but the Navarrans also knew how to make a virtue out of necessity. From 1586 they always opted for an oath in absentia, safeguarding their right ‘that taking this oath in absentia should neither prejudice the kingdom, nor act as a precedent’. And they presented it as a favour worthy of recompense, and as if it were a ‘signal and demonstration of greater trust and love’, distinguishing Navarre from the other kingdoms of the Crown of Aragon, from which it so differed by virtue of this turnaround.54 In this way the Navarrans guarded against the major change implemented by Philip V de Bourbon when he abolished the royal oaths in Aragon, Catalonia and Valencia. If success (which is never definitive) were measured by stability and duration, we might acknowledge the good fortune of the adaptive model identifiable in Navarre and which was not possible in the Crown of Aragon, though all began from similar positions in the late Middle Ages. Mutual oath-taking took place in Navarre with perfect regularity between 1598 and 1817, generating a reference to which its authorities successfully resorted in the kingdom’s conflicts with Austria and, above all, with the Bourbons from 1700. There was a predominance of swearing in of heirs in absentia (1611, 1632, 1716, 1725, 1766, 1795), though kings too were sworn in (1677, 1701, 1766). Some even repeated the swearing, first as heirs and later as kings (Ferdinand VI, Charles IV and Ferdinand VII). But even before the War of Succession completely destroyed the constitutional structure of Aragon, Valencia and Catalonia, royal oath-taking had already evinced a previous rigidity lacking 52 Pérez Aparicio, ‘El juramento de los fueros valencianos’, pp. 377–78. 53 Bajet, El jurament, p. 52. 54 Elizondo, Novíssima Recopilación, libro I, título I, ley I: ‘Juramento del príncipe del señor don Phelipe (que fue tercero de este nombre en Castilla y quinto de Navarra), siendo menor de catorce años, y en su nombre el marqués de Almazán, virrey de este reino, y el que prestaron los Tres Estados’.

S w e a r i n g i n , C row n i n g an d P ro c l ai mi ng t he Hab sb u rgs

Fig. 3.1.  Charles II in a printed allegory of the supposed ritual of pavés in the cathedral of Pamplona, after Dionisio de Ollo (1685), in Antonio Chavier, Fueros del Reyno de Navarra desde su creación hasta su feliz unión con el de Castilla, y Recopilación de las leyes promulgadas desde dicha unión hasta el año de 1685 (Pamplona: Martín Gregorio de Zabala, 1686) © Madrid, UCM-Biblioteca Histórica Marqués de Valdecilla, BH DER 10520

in functionality. Philip III did not have time to present his heir in the Crown of Aragon, but in Navarre he did. Philip IV had Prince Balthasar Charles sworn in as heir in Pamplona, Zaragoza and Valencia, but not in Catalonia because it had rebelled against him. Charles II took the oath in Zaragoza in 1677 a few days after his viceroy had done the same in Pamplona, but never in Barcelona or in Valencia [Fig. 3.1]55; Philip V was only able to take the oath in Zaragoza (but not be sworn in) and in Barcelona (1701), but not in Valencia.

55 Alfredo Floristán Imízcoz, ‘Los juramentos de los fueros de Aragón y de Navarra en 1677’, Príncipe de Viana, 262 (2015), 597–611; Coronas González, Los juramentos forales.

75

BORBÁLA GULYÁS 

Festivities Celebrating the Coronations of the Habsburgs Maximilian and Rudolf as King of Hungary in Pozsony/Bratislava, 1563 and 1572*

Festivals were effective instruments for the representatio maiestatis in the princely courts of Europe in the early modern period. Court spectacles and entertainments were regularly organized at the Hungarian royal court, especially on the occasion of the country’s most significant state ceremony, the coronation of a Hungarian king, queen, and/or queen consort. Fine examples are provided by two magnificent court festivals which took place in Pozsony (Bratislava in today’s Slovakia) in the late sixteenth century—the celebrations of the coronations of the Habsburgs Maximilian (1563) and Rudolf (1572) as king of Hungary. This essay will present these events using a wide range of sources including festival books, emissaries’ accounts, archival materials, and related images. Accounts of the coronations and weddings of two Hungarian queen consorts held around 1500 give an impression of the splendour of the court festivals with which such extraordinary events were celebrated in the kingdom of Hungary. Numerous descriptions suggest that both these ceremonies already featured entries, processions, banquets, and tournaments. Beatrice of Aragon (1457–1508), the daughter of the king of Naples, arrived in Hungary in December of 1476 to wed King Matthias Corvinus (1458–90) and become the new queen consort of Hungary.1 The Italian princess made her solemn entry into the city of Székesfehérvár (Stuhlweißenburg in German; Alba Regia in Latin), where the coronations and royal funerals of the kingdom of Hungary had traditionally been conducted since the Middle Ages. Beatrice was crowned



* I would like to express my gratitude to the Art of the Renaissance in Hungary Research Project (NKFIH K 120495) of the Institute of Art History at the Research Centre for the Humanities of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, and to the ‘Lendület’ Holy Crown of Hungary Research Project of the Institute of History at the Research Centre for the Humanities of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences for supporting the completion of this essay. 1 For a recent discussion of the 1476 festival, see Géza Pálffy, ‘Krönungsmähler in Ungarn im Spätmittelalter und in der Frühen Neuzeit: Weiterleben des Tafelzeremoniells des selbständigen ungarischen Königshofes und Machtrepräsentation der ungarischen politischen Elite: Teil 1’, Mitteilungen des Instituts für Österreichische Geschichtsforschung, 115.1–2 (2007), 85–111 (pp. 95–98); András Kubinyi, ‘Courtiers and Court Life in the Time of Matthias Corvinus’, in Matthias Corvinus, the King: Tradition and Renewal in the Hungarian Royal Court: 1458–1490: Exhibition catalogue, ed. by Péter Farbaky and others (Budapest: Budapest History Museum, 2008), 21–33 (pp. 23–28). Eagles Looking East and West: Dynasty, Ritual and Representation in Habsburg Hungary and Spain, ed. by Tibor Martí & Roberto Quirós Rosado, Habsburg Worlds 4 (Turnhout, 2021), pp. 77–95.

© FHG

DOI 10.1484/M.HW-EB.5.122796

78

bo r bá l a g u lyás

in the collegiate church of the Virgin Mary, which ceremony ended with a coronation banquet. Matthias and Beatrice then left Székesfehérvár and made their entry into the capital of the country, Buda (Ofen in German), where they attended a reception celebrated with great pomp. The royal couple’s marriage was conducted at the city’s most important place of worship, the parish church of the German citizens of Buda, the Church of Our Lady (now known as the Matthias Church). Thereafter, the royal palace hosted a splendid wedding banquet featuring various table decorations, including a miniature golden boxwood shrub covered with glittering angels and squirrels, as well as a fenced garden featuring birds and a golden myrtle tree in the middle, all of which were made out of sugar paste. Similar entremets were displayed during another banquet on New Year’s Eve, including a chessboard with golden pieces and another golden boxwood shrub, this time with a flag bearing the royal couple’s coats of arms.2 During these festivities in Székesfehérvár and Buda, all the significant ceremonial events were accompanied by one-to-one combats on horseback. Among others, King Matthias also participated in a joust in Buda. In 1490, King Matthias died and was succeeded by King Wladislaw II Jagiellon (1490–1516). One of the most spectacular court festivals under his rule was organized in 1502 as a celebration of his marriage to the French countess Anne of Foix-Candale (1484–1506) and her coronation as queen consort.3 Anne travelled to Hungary through the Republic of Venice, an important ally of the kingdom of Hungary at that time. She made solemn entries into several cities of the Republic, where she attended banquets and mummeries. Anne then crossed into Hungarian territory at Senj (Zengg in German) before travelling to Székesfehérvár. King Wladislaw II hosted a ceremonial reception for her in tents and pavilions set up outside the walls of the city to accommodate his large entourage. The king and his future spouse then made their solemn entry into Székesfehérvár. The wedding and her coronation ceremony took place a few days later, on 29 September, in the collegiate church of the Virgin Mary. The subsequent wedding banquet was accompanied by music and dancing. These festivities continued in Buda, where the royal couple made a second entry and were greeted with banquets and a series of tournaments organized in a large courtyard at the royal palace.



2 For details about these entremets, see Hans Seybold’s German account: Borsa Béla, ‘Reneszánszkori ünnepségek Budán [Renaissance-era Festivals in Buda]’, Tanulmányok Budapest múltjából [Studies of Budapest’s Past], 10 (1943), 13–53 (pp. 49 and 51). 3 For a recent discussion of the 1502 festival, see the French account by Pierre Choque, the herald of the French queen consort, Anne of Brittany (1477–1514), who was the cousin of Anne of Foix-Candale: Györkös Attila, Reneszánsz utazás: Anna királyné 1502-es fogadtatásának ünnepei Észak-Itáliában és Magyarországon [A Renaissance Journey: Festivals celebrating the reception of Queen Anne in Northern Italy and Hungary in 1502], Scriptores Rerum Hungaricarum, 9 (Máriabesnyő: Attraktor, 2016); Pálffy, ‘Krönungsmähler in Ungarn’, p. 98.

F e s tiv i ti e s C e l e b r at i n g t h e Co ro n at i ons o f t he Hab sb u rgs

Wladislaw II’s heir, King Louis II Jagiellon, reigned between 1516 and 1526. In 1521, the Ottomans, led by Sultan Süleyman I (the Magnificent, 1520–66), seized Belgrade (Nándorfehérvár in Hungarian; Alba Graeca in Latin), the most significant border fortress of Hungary’s southern defence system. Then in 1526, Ottoman troops defeated Hungary’s main army at Mohács, where the young Louis II died. Shortly thereafter, two kings were crowned in Székesfehérvár: the Hungarian magnate John Szapolyai (King John I, 1526–40) in 1526 and the Habsburg Archduke Ferdinand (King Ferdinand I, 1527–64) in 1527. As a result of the ongoing Ottoman military conquest of the central area of Hungary, the capital Buda and the coronation city Székesfehérvár, among others, were captured by the middle of the century and the country was torn into three parts: the kingdom of Hungary, which joined the composite Habsburg monarchy; the territories occupied by the Ottomans; and the principality of Transylvania. The next coronation to be celebrated in the kingdom of Hungary took place in 1563. Given that the former site of such events, Székesfehérvár, had been seized by the Ottomans in 1543, a new venue had to be chosen for this ceremony. In accordance with the recommendations of the Hungarian clerical and lay elites and with the assent of Ferdinand I, the coronation was slated for the free royal city of Pozsony. It was a reasonable choice, given its governmental role: alongside the administrative centre of the Habsburg monarchy, Vienna (the ‘second capital’ of the kingdom of Hungary), Pozsony had also been functioning as Hungary’s ‘domestic policy capital’—the site of its diets, judicial proceedings, and the Hungarian royal chamber—since the 1530s.4 In the centuries that followed, from 1563 until 1830, Hungarian kings, queens, and/or queen consorts would continue to be crowned in Pozsony, with the exception of a few seventeenth-century ceremonies that were held in Sopron (Ödenburg in German).5 Even so, the traditional elements of earlier coronations in Székesfehérvár were preserved and recreated in Pozsony: the religious portion of the coronation ceremony took place at St Martin’s Church; following this ceremony, a particular series of secular acts were completed by the recently crowned Hungarian king at other locations around the city. He would symbolically judge and confer knighthood on candidates at the Franciscan church; next to Michael’s Gate, outside the walls, he would pronounce a royal oath to uphold the Golden Bull of 1222, which guaranteed the privileges of the Hungarian estates; on the top of a

4 Pálffy, ‘Krönungsmähler in Ungarn’, pp. 101–03; Géza Pálffy, The Kingdom of Hungary and the Habsburg Monarchy in the Sixteenth Century, East European Monographs, 735, CHSP Hungarian Studies Series, 18 (Wayne: Center for Hungarian Studies and Publications; New York: Columbia University Press, 2009), pp. 68, 201–02. 5 Pálffy, The Kingdom of Hungary, p. 202; The coronations of Hungary between 1527 and 1916 are currently examined by the ‘Lendület’ Holy Crown of Hungary Research Project of the Institute of History, Research Centre for the Humanities of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences.

79

80

bo r bá l a g u lyás

coronation hill temporarily erected outside the city walls, he would swing a sword towards the four cardinal points of the compass, a symbolic vow to protect the country from enemies coming from any direction. At the end of the day, the new sovereign, Hungarian clerical and lay dignitaries, and other prominent guests would attend a coronation banquet. These rituals were the same for the Habsburg Archduke Maximilian (King Maximilian I of Hungary from 1563–76; Emperor Maximilian II from 1564–76; see Fig. 4.1), Ferdinand I’s eldest son and heir, who was crowned king of Hungary while his father was still alive, in 1563.6 A great number of written accounts and festival books that deal with the ceremony have survived,7 including an illustrated broadsheet8 featuring Latin—and on some copies,







6 For a recent discussion of the coronation of 1563, see Pálffy, ‘Krönungsmähler in Ungarn’, pp. 100–08; Géza Pálffy, ‘Kaiserbegräbnisse in der Habsburgermonarchie – Königskrönungen in Ungarn: Ungarische Herrschaftssymbole in der Herrschaftsrepräsentation der Habsburger im 16. Jahrhundert’, Frühneuzeit-Info, 19 (2008), 41–66 (pp. 50–52); Pálffy, The Kingdom of Hungary, pp. 197–98, 201–04. 7 Cf. Andreas Gugler, ‘Feiern und feiern lassen: Festkultur am Wiener Hof in der zweiten Hälfte des 16. und der ersten Hälfte des 17. Jahrhunderts’, Frühneuzeit-Info, 11 (2000), pp. 68–176 (no. 63); Helen Watanabe-O’Kelly and Anne Simon, Festivals and Ceremonies: A Bibliography of Works Relating to Court, Civic and Religious Festivals in Europe: 1500–1800 (London/New York: Mansell, 2000), nos 30–31; Pálffy Géza, ‘Koronázási lakomák a 15–17. századi Magyarországon. Az önálló magyar királyi udvar asztali ceremóniarendjének kora újkori továbbéléséről és a politikai elit hatalmi reprezentációjáról [Festive Coronation Banquets in Hungary in the Fifteenth–Seventeenth Centuries: On the Survival of the Table Ceremonial of the Independent Hungarian Court in the Early Modern Age and on the Representation of the Hungarian Political Élite]’, Századok [Centuries], 138 (2004), 1005–1101 (pp. 1065–67). 8 Max Geisberg, The German Single-Leaf Woodcut 1550–1600, ed. by Walter L. Strauss, 3 vols (New York: Abaris, 1975), i, pp. 448–49; cf. Kaiser Ferdinand I.: 1503–1564: Das Werden der Habsburgermonarchie, ed. by Wilfried Seipel (Vienna: Kunsthistorisches Museum; Milano: Skira, 2003), cat. no. VII.27 (Georg Kugler); Renesancia: Dejiny slovenského výtvarného umenia, ed. by Zuzana Ludiková (Bratislava: Slovenská národná galéria, 2009), cat. nos II.1.11–12 (Zuzana Ludiková); Zuzana Ludiková, ‘Zsámboky János röplapja Miksa magyar királlyá koronázásáról [A broadsheet by Johannes Sambucus on the coronation of Maximilian as King of Hungary]’, Századok, 143 (2009), pp. 975–80; for the broadsheet and the veduta ‘Possonia’, see Ivana Kvetánová, ‘Veduta Possonie – Bratislavy v Palazzo Vecchio vo Florencii a jej ukrytý príbeh [The Veduta of Possonia/Bratislava at the Palazzo Vecchio in Florence and its Hidden Story]’, ARS, 49.1 (2016), pp. 20–41; Michal Bada, ‘Historický kontext a obsahové súvislosti niektorých detailov veduty Bratislavy vo florentskom Palazzo Vecchio [The Historic Context of Some Details of the Veduta of Bratislava at the Palazzo Vecchio in Florence]’, ARS, 49.1 (2016), pp. 42–49; Margaréta Musilová, ‘Znovuobjavená Rybárska brána a jej gotické predbránie na freske Possonia vo Florencii [The Rediscovered Fisherman’s Gate and Gothic Fore-gate in the Possonia Mural Painting in Florence]’, ARS, 49.1 (2016), pp. 50–67; Eva Stopková, ‘Porovnanie veduty Bratislavy na freske v Palazzo Vecchio vo Florencii a jej hypotetickej predlohy pomocou priestorovej transformácie [A Comparison of the Veduta of Bratislava in the Fresco in Palazzo Vecchio (Florence) and its Hypothetical Model Using Spatial Transformation]’, ARS, 49.1 (2016), pp. 68–80; Giorgio Caselli, ‘La veduta di Bratislava nel Cortile di Michelozzo in Palazzo Vecchio’, ARS, 49.1 (2016), pp. 82–89.

F e s tiv i ti e s C e l e b r at i n g t h e Co ro n at i ons o f t he Hab sb u rgs

Fig. 4.1.  Portrait of Maximilian II (I) of the House of Habsburg, engraving by Martino Rota, 1573 © Budapest, Hungarian National Museum, Hungarian Historical Gallery

German—verses by the Hungarian humanist Johannes Sambucus (known in Hungarian as János Zsámboky, 1531–84), as well as a detailed woodcut attributed to Donat and Martin Hübschmann. These German brothers were engravers and painters active in Vienna starting in late 1550s;9 Donat (d. 1583) regularly



9 Josef Wünsch, ‘Der Wiener Maler und Formschneider Donat Hübschman und sein Holzschnittwerk’, Mitteilungen der Gesellschaft für Vervielfältigende Kunst, (1913), No. 1, pp. 1–13.

81

82

bo r bá l a g u lyás

received commissions from the court, the city, and members of the Hungarian clerical and lay elites who resided there.10 Sambucus could have chosen him for this task based on his experience as an illustrator of court festivals, given that Donat had already prepared the portrait of the Hungarian herald Hans Francolin (c. 1520–after 1580) used in the latter’s well-known festival book, the Viennese Tournament, in 1560;11 he later made the woodcuts for the festival book on Maximilian’s entry into Vienna as king of the Romans in March of 1563, published by Caspar Stainhofer in 1566.12 This presumably explains why a copy of the 1563 broadsheet was bound into the latter volume and thus preserved.13 Donat also served as a decorator at the next coronation, in 1572. In Vienna, local masters were commissioned to prepare red and white flags for the large delegation which left the city to attend the festivities in Pozsony. Among others, Donat was paid 18 forints (floreni or florins) to paint flags and other decorations for this ceremony.14 The 1563 coronation began on 31 August with a ceremonial reception for Maximilian which took place outside of Pozsony, near Köpcsény (Kopčany in Slovak; Kittsee in German).15 Maximilian arrived from Vienna accompanied by his spouse, Maria of Austria (1528–1603); his brothers, Archdukes Ferdinand (1529–95) and Charles (1540–90); and his sons, Rudolf (King Rudolf I of Hungary from 1572–1608; Emperor Rudolf II from 1576–1612) and Ernest (1553–95), among others. The future king and his large retinue of Germans, Bohemians, and Viennese citizens were welcomed by the country with an eloquent Latin speech delivered by the high chancellor and archbishop of Esztergom, Miklós Oláh (Nicolaus Olahus in Latin; 1493–1568), the head of the Hungarian clerical elite. Thousands of Hungarians followed in his train; this delegation was led by one of the country’s outstanding magnates, Captain General Miklós Zrínyi (Nikola Zrinski in Croatian; c. 1508–66),16 who would become a hero when he died defending the border fortress at Szigetvár from

10 Borbála Gulyás, ‘Previously Unknown Charters in Booklet Form by the Calligrapher George Bocskay’, Acta Historiae Artium, 57 (2016), 105–30 (p. 115). 11 Georg Winkler, ‘Das Turnierbuch Hans Francolins’, Wissenschaftliche Mitteilungen aus dem Niederösterreichischen Landesmuseum, 1 (1980), 105–20 (p. 108). 12 Gründtliche und khurtze beschreibung des alten unnd jungen Zugs […], Vienna: Caspar Stainhofer, 1566 (Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Rar. 250). 13 Gründtliche und khurtze beschreibung, fol. 20. 14 Karl Uhlirz ed., ‘Urkunden und Regesten aus dem Archive der k. k. Reichshaupt- und Residenzstadt Wien [2]’, Jahrbuch der kunsthistorischen Sammlungen des Allerhöchsten Kaiserhauses, 18 (1897), I–CC. (p. XCVI., No. 15805). 15 For this ceremonial reception see, among others: Kurtze und Warhaffte beschreybung der Röm. Kön. May. Einzug sampt der Crönung zu Hungerischem König […], Augsburg: Mattheo Francken, 1563, fols AIIIr–-BIVr. 16 Szabolcs Varga, Europe’s Leonidas: Miklós Zrínyi, Defender of Szigetvár (1508–1566) (Budapest: Research Centre for the Humanities of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, 2016); Kovács S. Tibor, Négyesi Lajos and Padányi József, ‘Zrínyi-szablyák [Zrínyi Sabres]’, Hadtörténelmi Közlemények [Military History Reports], 131 (2018), 3–27 (pp. 3–14); The Battle

F e s tiv i ti e s C e l e b r at i n g t h e Co ro n at i ons o f t he Hab sb u rgs

the Ottomans. Many of the Hungarians wore ornate Hussar attire and equipped themselves with richly decorated weapons and horse tack. It is worth noting that the characteristic uniform and equipment of the Hussars—Hungary’s light cavalry—played an important role in representing Hungary within the royal retinue of Maximilian’s father, Ferdinand I; his ‘court Hussars’ and the young Hungarian aristocrats who served at his court had appeared in his train at several significant events abroad starting in the 1520s, including Maximilian’s coronation as king of Bohemia in Prague in 1562, and at imperial diets.17 Furthermore, the seemingly permanent battle against the Ottomans in Hungary and the Hussar attire associated with it led to the emergence of a special chivalric spectacle known as a ‘Hussar tournament’, examples of which were organized at the courts of Archduke Ferdinand II of Tyrol and Maurice, elector of Saxony (1547–53).18 After the reception near Köpcsény, Maximilian made his solemn entry into Pozsony. The future king’s processional route passed two temporary triumphal arches19 which were set up at the ends of a floating bridge flanked

for Central Europe: The Siege of Szigetvár and the Death of Süleyman the Magnificent and Nicholas Zrínyi (1566), ed. by Pál Fodor (Budapest: Research Centre for the Humanities of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences; Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2019). 17 Pálffy, The Kingdom of Hungary, pp. 74–75, 205; for recent work on the Hussars, see Kovács S. Tibor, Huszárfegyverek a 15–17. században [Hussar weapons in fifteenth–seventeenth centuries] (Budapest: Martin Opitz, 2010); B. Szabó János, A honfoglalóktól a huszárokig. A középkori magyar könnyűlovasságról. [From the Hungarian conquerors to the Hussars: Light cavalry in medieval Hungary], A Hadtörténeti Intézet és Múzeum Könyvtára, (Budapest: Argumentum, 2010). 18 Veronika Sandbichler, ‘Die Inszenierung des Türkenkampfes im höfischen Fest’, in Veronika Sandbichler, Türkische Kostbarkeiten aus dem Kunsthistorischen Museum (Vienna: Kunsthistorisches Museum Schloss Ambras, 1997), pp. 27–36; Claudia Schnitzer, Höfische Maskeraden: Funktion und Ausstattung von Verkleidungsdivertissements an deutschen Höfen der Frühen Neuzeit, Frühe Neuzeit, 53 (Tübingen: Max Niemeyer, 1999), pp. 135–37; Václav Bůžek, Ferdinand von Tirol zwischen Prag und Innsbruck: Der Adel aus den böhmischen Ländern auf dem Weg zu den Höfen der ersten Habsburger (Vienna/Cologne/Weimar: Böhlau, 2009), pp. 216–18; Borbála Gulyás, ‘“gegen den Bluedthunden und Erbfeindt der Christenhait”: Thematisierung der Türkengefahr in Wort und Bild an den höfischen Festen der Habsburger in der zweiten Hälfte des 16. Jahrhunderts’, in Türkenkriege und Adelskultur in Ostmitteleuropa vom 16. bis zum 18. Jahrhundert, ed. by Robert Born and Sabine Jagodzinski, Studia Jagellonica Lipsiensia, 14 (Ostfildern: Jan Thorbecke, 2014), 217–36 (pp. 221–24); Borbála Gulyás, ‘The Fight against the Ottomans in Hungary and the Court Festivals of the Habsburgs in the Sixteenth Century’, in Identity and Culture in Ottoman Hungary, ed. by Pál Fodor and Pál Ács, Studien zur Sprache, Geschichte und Kultur der Türkvölker, 14 (Berlin: Klaus Schwarz, 2017), 277–300 (pp. 283–86); Matthias Pfaffenbichler, ‘Die Turniere an den Höfen der österreichischen Habsburger im 16. Jahrhundert’, in Turnier: 1000 Jahre Ritterspiele, ed. by Stefan Krause and Matthias Pfaffenbichler (Vienna: Kunsthistorisches Museum; München: Hirmer, 2017), 155–69 (pp. 159–60); Veronika Sandbichler, ‘“Ain […] puech darinnen ir fürstlich durchlaucht allerlei turnier”’, in Turnier, ed. by Krause and Pfaffenbichler, 203–15 (pp. 203–05). 19 Cf., among others: Heinrich Wirrich, Ein warhaftige Beschreibung von der Kron in Hungern […], Vienna: Michael Zimmermann, 1563, fol. BIIIr.

83

84

bo r bá l a g u lyás

Fig. 4.2.  Ephemeral triumphal arches by Pietro Ferrabosco at Maximilian’s coronation as King of Hungary in Pozsony, 1563, detail of a woodcut attributed to Donat and Martin Hübschmann, from a broadsheet by Johannes Sambucus, bound in Gründtliche und khurtze beschreibung des alten unnd jungen Zugs […] (Vienna: Caspar Stainhofer, 1566) © Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek

with young trees, which was built for the occasion over an island in the Danube (Fig. 4.2). Both arches’ attics bore the same decorations: the coat of arms of the present Hungarian king and emperor Ferdinand I flanked by the coats of arms of the future king and his queen consort, Maximilian and Maria. According to an Italian account, these ‘magnificent’ gates were built to look as if they were ‘made of marble’.20 The arches were designed by the Italian Pietro Ferrabosco (1511/13–88), Ferdinand I’s court architect and painter.21 His bill

20 Natale Conti, Delle historie de’ suoi tempi, Venice: Damian Zenaro, 1589, fol. 381v; cf. Géza Galavics, ‘The Hungarian royal court and late Renaissance art’, Hungarian Studies, 10 (1995), 307–32 (pp. 309, 330) [accessed 24 April 2017]; Péter Farbaky, ‘Pietro Ferrabosco in Ungheria e nell’impero asburgico’, Arte Lombarda, 139 (2003), 127–34 (p. 130). 21 Franz Kreyczi, ‘Urkunden und Regesten aus dem k. u. k. Reichs-Finanz-Archiv [2]’, Jahrbuch der kunsthistorischen Sammlungen des Allerhöchsten Kaiserhauses, 5 (1887), xxxv–cxix (p. xcv, no. 4353); Galavics, ‘The Hungarian royal court’, pp. 308–09; Farbaky, ‘Pietro Ferrabosco’, p. 130; Borbála Gulyás, ‘Triumphal Arches in the Court Festivals under the New

F e s tiv i ti e s C e l e b r at i n g t h e Co ro n at i ons o f t he Hab sb u rgs

suggests that he received a commission from Ferdinand I himself in Vienna and that the building costs for the two arches—236 forints—were covered by the Hungarian royal chamber in Pozsony.22 The construction work began on 9 August and was led by the Italian architect himself, with the assistance of other Italian and German masters. These ephemeral edifices were made of wood and covered with canvas that was then painted and gilded. At the next Hungarian coronation, celebrated in Pozsony in 1572, Ferrabosco received another payment for ‘the new city and other items’, probably temporary edifices built for the guests.23 Maximilian’s actual crowning ceremony took place on 8 September 1563, the feast day of the Nativity of the Blessed Virgin Mary.24 Maximilian was housed in the palace of the archbishop of Esztergom, Miklós Oláh. In the morning, he and his large retinue proceeded to St Martin’s Church, where a religious ceremony was conducted with great pomp in the presence of Ferdinand I, the leading clerical and lay dignitaries of Hungary, and other prominent guests. Following the coronation mass and the singing of Te Deum, Maximilian proceeded to the other locations around the city where he completed the aforementioned secular rituals of the traditional ceremony. At two of these stations, in the Franciscan church and at Michael’s Gate, ornamented wooden platforms with a golden throne and a baldachin had been erected for him. During this procession, the recently crowned king wore the Holy Crown of Hungary and the coronation mantle. Maximilian’s route across the city was covered with red baize, and gold and silver coins25 were scattered to the crowds gathered in the streets. The final traditional act of the ceremony, the coronation banquet, took place at the palace of Miklós Oláh and was attended by the new king, Hungary’s clerical and lay dignitaries, and other high-ranking guests. The Hungarian royal court of the late Middle Ages was symbolically represented at this banquet in several ways reminiscent of

22

23

24 25

Holy Roman Emperor, Habsburg Ferdinand I’, in Occasions of State: Early Modern European Festivals and the Negotiation of Power, ed. by J.R. Mulryne and others, European Festival Studies: 1450–1700 (London/New York: Routledge, 2019), 54–82 (pp. 68–70). Mikó Árpád, ‘Pietro Ferabosco számadása a Miksa magyar királlyá koronázására épített pozsonyi diadalkapukról (1563) [Pietro Ferabosco’s bill of costs concerning the triumphal arches erected for the coronation of Maximilian I of Hungary]’, Művészettörténeti Értesítő [Bulletin of History of Arts], 62 (2013), pp. 323–28. Franz Kreyczi, ‘Urkunden und Regesten aus dem k. u. k. Reichs-Finanz-Archiv [3]’, Jahrbuch der kunsthistorischen Sammlungen des Allerhöchsten Kaiserhauses, 15 (1894), i–xlviii (p. v, no. 11534); cf. Hilda Lietzmann, ‘Quellen zur ungarischen Krönung Rudolfs II. im Jahre 1572’, Mitteilungen des Österreichischen Staatsarchivs, 42 (1992), 63–101 (p. 68); Farbaky, ‘Pietro Ferrabosco’, p. 132. For the events of the day, see, among others: Nicolai Isthvanfi, Historiarum de rebus Ungaricis libri XXXIV, Cologne: Antonius Hieratus, 1622, pp. 424–25. For the coins issued to commemorate this event, see Ferenc Gábor Soltész, Csaba Tóth, and Géza Pálffy, Coronatio Hungarica in nummis: Medals and Jetons from Hungarian Royal Coronations (1508–1916) (Budapest: Institute of History, Research Centre for the Humanities of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences and Hungarian National Museum, 2019), nos 14–18.

85

86

bo r bá l a g u lyás

the previous phases of the ceremony conducted earlier that day.26 The most significant items of the royal regalia, such as the Holy Crown, the sceptre, and the orb, were exhibited on the main table, while the banners of the country and its components were displayed next to it. Young Hungarian aristocrats served the meals in the presence of the highest Hungarian royal court dignitaries, including the master seneschal, the master cupbearer, and the lord steward. On 9 September (the next day), Maximilian’s wife, Maria of Austria, was crowned queen consort of Hungary at St Martin’s Church; her ceremony ended with a similar banquet. At this feast, according to an emissary from Körmöcbánya (Kremnica in Slovak; Kremnitz in German), Maximilian accepted Miklós Zrínyi’s suggestion that he drink to the Hungarian estates from a huge gilded vessel which demanded three men to lift.27 These festivities were brought to a close with a three-day chivalric spectacle.28 A tournament field (Fig. 4.3) was set up outside the city walls beside the Hungarian delegation’s camp. Each side of this rectangular arena had four verdured gates, each bearing Ferdinand I’s imperial coat of arms. A temporary edifice that had been raised next to it was decorated with seven banners featuring the coats of arms of Hungary, Spain, Bohemia, Ferdinand I, Maximilian, and Archdukes Ferdinand and Charles. The distinguished spectators—including Ferdinand I, the new king and queen consort of Hungary, and other guests—viewed this three-day tournament from tiered seats adorned with carpets. Maximilian also commissioned the construction of a temporary ballroom in a garden in the city to provide a place for evening banquets following the combat at this tournament. The one-month ‘Viennese Tournament’29 that Maximilian himself organized in 1560 in honour of Ferdinand I and his brother-in-law Albert V, duke of Bavaria (1550–79), apparently influenced the forms of the various 26 Pálffy, ‘Krönungsmähler in Ungarn’, pp. 104–08; Pálffy, The Kingdom of Hungary, pp. 197–98, 200–03. 27 Kržko Pál, ‘Az 1563. évi koronázási ünnepély [The coronation ceremony of 1563]’, Századok [Centuries], 11 (1877), 27–48 (p. 45). 28 Thomas DaCosta Kaufmann, Variations on the Imperial Theme: Studies in Ceremonial, Art, and Collecting in the Age of Maximilian II and Rudolf II, A Garland Series, Outstanding Dissertations in the Fine Arts (New York/London: Garland, 1978), p. 28; Kiss Farkas Gábor, ‘A Ragyogó Mágus, avagy a Balassák az udvari ünnepélyeken [Il Mago rilucente, or the Balassi family at courtly festivities]’, in Balassi Bálint és a reneszánsz kultúra: Fiatal kutatók Balassi-konferenciája [Bálint Balassi and culture of the Renaissance: Young researchers’ conference on Balassi], ed. by Kiss Farkas Gábor, Traditio Renovata, 1 (Budapest: ELTE, 2004), 89–119 (pp. 92–94) [accessed 28 April 2017]; Bůžek, Ferdinand von Tirol, pp. 204–05; Borbála Gulyás, ‘Die Turniere am Hof der ungarischen Könige im 16. Jahrhundert’, in Turnier, ed. by Krause and Pfaffenbichler, 131–53 (pp. 144–45). 29 DaCosta Kaufmann, Variations, pp. 24–26; Winkler, ‘Das Turnierbuch’; Matthias Pfaffenbichler, ‘Das Turnier als Instrument der Habsburgischen Politik’, Waffen- und Kostümkunde, 34 (1992), 13–36 (pp. 23–28); Bůžek, Ferdinand von Tirol, pp. 219–23; Gulyás, ‘The Fight’, pp. 287–91; Pfaffenbichler, ‘Die Turniere’, pp. 160–65.

F e s tiv i ti e s C e l e b r at i n g t h e Co ro n at i ons o f t he Hab sb u rgs

Fig. 4.3.  The tournament field and the firework fortress of the Pozsony tournament in 1563, detail of a woodcut attributed to Donat and Martin Hübschmann, from a broadsheet by Johannes Sambucus, bound in Gründtliche und khurtze beschreibung des alten unnd jungen Zugs […] (Vienna: Caspar Stainhofer, 1566) © Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek

contests held three years later in Pozsony. The first day of the latter tourney, 12 September, was dedicated to contests (Freiturnier in German), which were attended by numerous contestants (adventuriere or venturiere in Italian), including Germans (e.g., Archdukes Ferdinand and Charles), Hungarians (e.g., András Balassa), and Bohemians.30 The equestrian contest seems to have been staged in an allegorical framework alluding to the freeing of ‘the bound Cupid’, the god of love; it resembled a tilt31 held at the ‘Viennese Tournament’ on 17 June 1560.32 The two hosts (mantenitore in Italian) were the same in both events: Maximilian’s courtiers Don Juan de Manrique and Giovanni Alfonso Castaldo. In an engraving of the 1560 contest, the winged figure of Cupid is depicted sitting on a ladder in the background (Fig. 4.4); in Pozsony, on the other hand, Cupid was standing under a pyramid in front of a firework fortress (Feuerwerksschloß in German). He was played by a young man—identified in contemporary accounts, very probably mistakenly, as a

30 This description of the 1563 tournament is based on the following sources: Die Krönungen Maximilians II. zum König von Böhmen, Römischen König und König von Ungarn (1562/63) nach der Beschreibung des Hans Habersack, ed. by Friedrich Edelmayer and others, Fontes Rerum Austriacarum Scriptores, 13 (Vienna: Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1990), pp. 202–05; Kržko, ‘Az 1563. évi’, pp. 45–48; 1504–1566: Memoria Rerum: A Magyarországon legutóbbi László király fiának legutóbbi Lajos királynak születése óta esett dolgok emlékezete (Verancsics-évkönyv) [A commemoration of the events which have happened in Hungary since the birth of the most recent King Louis, son of the most recent King Wladislaw (Verancsics-annals)], ed. by József Bessenyei, Bibliotheca Historica (Budapest: Magyar Helikon, 1981), pp. 111–12; Wirrich, Ein warhaftige Beschreibung, fols DIIIv–EIIv. 31 Winkler, ‘Das Turnierbuch’, p. 116; Wir sind Helden: Habsburgische Feste in der Renaissance, ed. by Wilfried Seipel (Vienna: Kunsthistorisches Museum, 2005), cat. no. 3.12 (Matthias Pfaffenbichler); Pfaffenbichler, ‘Die Turniere’, p. 163. 32 Kiss, ‘A Ragyogó Mágus’, pp. 93–94.

87

88

bo r bá l a g u lyás

Fig. 4.4.  The winged ‘Cupid’ sitting on a ladder during a tilt held in front of the Hofburg at the ‘Viennese Tournament’ on 17 June 1560, detail of an engraving by Hans Sebald Lautensack, in Hans Francolin, Raerum praeclare gestarum […] (Vienna: Raphael Hofhalter, 1560) © Budapest, National Széchényi Library, Department of Old Prints

‘virgin’—bound up in a mass of silver chains. If a contestant won a combat, one of the bound Cupid’s chains would be removed, while the knight would gain admission to the fortress and the hand of a suitable female dance partner for the evening banquet. If he lost, he was obliged to hang the prize he received from his lady on a dome erected next to the castle. The culmination of the tournament was the siege of the firework fortress; see Fig. 4.3. Such temporary edifices of fireworks had existed in German-speaking lands since the beginning of the sixteenth century and were regularly depicted in the firework manuals of the period. They were made of wood and generally built in the form of a castle with four towers at its corners and a fifth, higher tower in its centre.33 At the 1560 ‘Viennese Tournament’, a similar ‘marine

33 Arthur Lotz, Das Feuerwerk: Seine Geschichte und Bibliographie (Leipzig: Karl W. Hiersemann, 1941), pp. 20–23; Das Buch der Feuerwerkskunst: Farbenfeuer am Himmel Asiens und Europas, ed. by Gereon Sievernich (Nördlingen: Greno, 1987), nos 5.1–2.

F e s tiv i ti e s C e l e b r at i n g t h e Co ro n at i ons o f t he Hab sb u rgs

fortress’ was besieged next to the Danube.34 In addition, only a few months earlier, on the occasion of Maximilian’s entry into Vienna in March 1563 to celebrate his coronation as king of the Romans in Frankfurt the previous year, another firework fortress was besieged in front of the Hofburg, the imperial residence.35 It is also noteworthy that masked-puppet effigies were used during the sieges of both the aforementioned fortresses. According to written accounts, the fortress in Pozsony was made of wood and canvas and painted to look like it was made of stone. The burning of the ‘Turkish’ effigy in this fireworks display was intended to symbolize the destruction of the Ottoman enemy; other figures—including a winged ‘dragon’, a ‘rabbit-like object’, and an ornate ‘sphere’—were also filled with rockets and fixed on the towers and the ramparts, ready to be destroyed. In the woodcut illustration of this castle, a large ‘Turkish’ figure in a turban is clearly visible on its highest peak, alongside a dragon and a sphere, but the rabbit-like form is not depicted (Fig. 4.3). However, just before the spectacular siege, the Italian gunner in charge of the fireworks accidentally set them off, causing the fortress to burst into flames prematurely.36 A number of people were injured in this accident, which put an early end to the combat and led to the cancellation of that evening’s banquet. On 13 September, a running at the ring (Ringrennen in German)—an equestrian contest in which competitors attempt to spear a suspended ring with their lances—was organized on this same field; its hosts were Archduke Ferdinand and Andreas Teufel. A number of contestants participated, including the new Hungarian king Maximilian, Archduke Charles, and knights from Hungary (such as Miklós Zrínyi, György Zrínyi, and Miklós Báthori), Bohemia, and Italy (such as Ottavio Farnese, duke of Parma [1547–86]). Both the hosts and the contestants wore masks. Archduke Charles stepped onto the field in a Moorish costume; the Hungarians were dressed in Hussar uniforms. According to Hans Habersack’s account, some of the contestants participated incognito, using pseudonyms: the names ‘Ruggiero’ and ‘Bradamante’ were borrowed from the Italian epic poem ‘Orlando Furioso’ by Ludovico Ariosto (1474–1533), a popular work on the chivalric ideals of the period; ‘Lucretia’ and ‘Tarquinia’ were drawn from Livy’s history of ancient Rome. The winners of these contests received valuable silver and gold prizes. Archduke Ferdinand hosted an evening banquet afterward; that morning, he had also arranged

34 Winkler, ‘Das Turnierbuch’, pp. 118–19; Wir sind Helden, ed. by Seipel, cat. no. 3.13 (Matthias Pfaffenbichler). 35 Gründtliche und khurtze beschreibung, fol. 17r; cf. Gulyás, ‘Die Thematisierung’, p. 228. 36 A Hungarian historian misinterpreted this scene as the ‘burning of Troy’; see Forgách Ferenc Magyar históriája: 1540–1572 [Ferenc Forgách’s History of Hungary], ed. by Fidél Majer, Monumenta Hungariae Historica, 2, Scriptores, 16 (Pest: Akadémia, 1866), p. 257; a similar firework-fortress accident was documented in Ferrara in 1574; see: Alessandro Marcigliano, ‘The Development of the Fireworks Display and its Contribution to Dramatic Art in Renaissance Ferrara’, Theatre Research International, 141 (1989), 1–13 (p. 8).

89

90

bo r bá l a g u lyás

a breakfast in his tents next to the field for the German, Hungarian, and Bohemian participants. The last day of these festivities, 16 September, featured a tilt (Plankengestech in German), a form of one-to-one equestrian combat fought over a wooden barrier. The hosts were Archduke Charles and the imperial master of the stables, (probably Volkhard) Auersperg; the names of the contestants have yet to come to light. This contest was also followed by a banquet organized by one of the hosts, Archduke Charles, who also arranged for it to be accompanied by music and dancing. The farewell banquet which brought these coronation festivities to a close was hosted by Archduke Ferdinand and the archbishop of Salzburg, Johann Jakob Khuen von Belasy (1560–86), on that same evening. Maximilian II (I)’s son and heir Rudolf (Fig. 4.5) was crowned king of Hungary in Pozsony in 157237; his coronation was also performed while his father was still alive. According to written sources,38 these festivities resembled those of 1563. As before, the future king was greeted by the country outside the city before making his solemn entry into Pozsony.39 The religious portion of the coronation ceremony was conducted on 25 September in St Martin’s Church. Rudolf then performed the secular rituals of the ceremony at the same locations around the city where his predecessor had completed them nine years earlier. Gold and silver jetons were minted for the occasion and tossed to the crowds along the recently-crowned king’s processional route. The original pen-and-ink designs for these jetons—which bore the coats of arms of Hungary, Bohemia, Dalmatia, and Austria, along with an image of the Madonna, the ‘Patroness of Hungary’ (Patrona Hungariae in Latin)—have been preserved.40 The ritual of the four sword strokes symbolizing the protection of the country was truly memorable for the new king, as indicated by the iconography of the imperial crown (private crown) which Rudolf II (I) commissioned three decades later (1602). Prepared by the court goldsmith Jan Vermeyen (d. 1606), this crown’s imagery focused on Rudolf ’s victory over the Ottomans in the Long Turkish War (1593–1606).41 The first three of the four golden reliefs on its mitre—all made by the court goldsmith Paulus van Vianen (1570–1613)—commemorate Rudolf II (I)’s coronations in Pozsony (1572), 37 For a recent discussion of the 1572 coronation, see: Pálffy, ‘Krönungsmähler in Ungarn’, pp. 108–11; Pálffy, ‘Kaiserbegräbnisse in der Habsburgermonarchie’, pp. 55–56; Pálffy, The Kingdom of Hungary, pp. 199–200, 202–03. 38 Cf. Gugler, ‘Feiern und feiern lassen’, no. 82; Pálffy, ‘Koronázási lakomák’, pp. 1067–68. 39 For this entry and the coronation ceremony, see: Lietzmann, ‘Quellen zur ungarischen Krönung’, pp. 88–100; Lietzmann supposes that a lot of Hungarian participants who were dressed entirely in black were alluding to the siege of Szigetvár in 1566 (p. 75, n. 78). 40 Vienna, ÖStA FHKA SUS, Reichsakten, Fasc. 203, fol. 54r; cf. Soltész, Tóth, and Pálffy, Coronatio Hungarica in nummis, p. 73, nos 20–21. 41 Hermann Fillitz, Die Schatzkammer in Wien (Salzburg and Wien: Residenz, 1986), cat. no. 26, cf. R. J. W. Evans, Rudolf II and His World: A Study in Intellectual History 1576–1612 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1973), pp. 79–80; Karl Vocelka, Die politische Propaganda Kaiser Rudolfs II. (1576–1612), Veröffentlichungen der Kommission für die Geschichte Österreichs, 9 (Vienna:

F e s tiv i ti e s C e l e b r at i n g t h e Co ro n at i ons o f t he Hab sb u rgs

Fig. 4.5.  Portrait of Rudolf II (I) of the House of Habsburg, engraving by Martino Rota, after 1576 © Budapest, Hungarian National Museum, Hungarian Historical Gallery

91

92

bo r bá l a g u lyás

Prague (1575), and Frankfurt (1575); the scene corresponding to his Hungarian coronation depicts the sword-stroke ritual he performed that day. The fourth relief is an allegory of the imperial victory over the Ottomans. Rudolf ’s coronation banquet was held in the palace of the archbishop of Esztergom, Antal Verancsics (Antonius Verantius in Latin; 1504–73). One noteworthy event from this feast was the appearance of the young Bálint Balassi (1554–94), the most important Hungarian poet of the period, who presented a Hungarian dance ‘imitating Pans and Satyrs’ for the distinguished guests.42 These festivities also concluded with a three-day tournament.43 A field was fenced off outside the city next to the Danube. A temporary fortress was erected alongside the arena, along with a terrace for prominent spectators, including Maximilian II (I) and his wife Maria. The costumed tournaments of 1572 were staged within an allegorical framework similar to that of the chivalric spectacles of 1563, but with elements presented more emphatically all’antica. To give the reader a sense of the lavishness of these costumes, an enormous sum—2900 gulden—was spent just on the feathers for the Hungarian coronation of 1572 and the wedding festivities of Maximilian II (I)’s two daughters, Anne (1549–80) and Elisabeth (1554–92), who in 1570 married the Spanish king Philip II (1556–98) and the French king Charles IX (1560–74), respectively.44 It is worth pointing out that similarly complex chivalric performances (cavallerie in Italian) were held at that time at the ducal court of Ferrara, which had close dynastic ties to the Habsburg court in Vienna. Between 1561 and 1570, Duke Alfonso II d’Este (1559–97) organized five dramatic tournaments featuring disguised knights and other participants in a sophisticated performance all’antica.45 One of them, L’isola beata (1569), celebrated the visit of Archduke Charles—one of the hosts of the Pozsony tournaments of 1563 and 1572—to the Ferrarese court and was an influence46 on the costumed Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1981), pp. 127, 307–10; Galavics Géza, Kössünk kardot az pogány ellen: Török háborúk és képzőművészet [‘Let Us Gird Our Swords against the Heathen’: Turkish Wars and Their Art] (Budapest: Képzőművészeti, 1986), p. 42. 42 Isthvanfi, Historiarum de rebus Ungaricis, p. 531; cf. Pálffy, ‘Krönungsmähler in Ungarn’, p. 111; Kiss, ‘A Ragyogó Mágus’, p. 89. 43 DaCosta Kaufmann, Variations, pp. 41–43; Robert Lindell, ‘Hercules prodicius and the Coronation of Rudolf II as King of Hungary’, in Mito e realtá del potere nel teatro: Dall’ Antichitá classica al Rinascimento, ed. by M. Chiabó and F. Doglio (Roma: Centro Studi sul Teatro Medioevale e Rinascimentale, 1988), 335–54 (pp. 341–44); Pfaffenbichler, ‘Das Turnier’, p. 31; Kiss, ‘A Ragyogó Mágus’, pp. 96–106; Gulyás, ‘Die Turniere’, pp. 145–46. 44 Karl Köpl, ‘Urkunden, Acten und Regesten aus dem k. k. Statthalterei-Archiv in Prag [2]’, Jahrbuch der kunsthistorischen Sammlungen des Allerhöchsten Kaiserhauses, 12 (1891), i–xc (pp. xlvii–xlviii, no. 8143); cf. Vocelka, Die politische Propaganda, p. 128. 45 Marcigliano, ‘The Development of the Fireworks Display’, pp. 3–8; Alessandro Marcigliano, Chivalric Festivals at the Ferrarese Court of Alfonso II d’Este, Stage and Screen Studies, 2 (Bern: Peter Lang, 2003). 46 Otto G. Schindler, ‘Zan Tabarino “Spielmann des Kaisers”: Italienische Komödianten des Cinquecento zwischen den Höfen von Wien und Paris’, Römische Historische Mitteilungen, 43 (2001), 411–544 (p. 481); Kiss, ‘A Ragyogó Mágus’, p. 103.

F e s tiv i ti e s C e l e b r at i n g t h e Co ro n at i ons o f t he Hab sb u rgs

Fig. 4.6.  Procession of costumed participants in the wedding festival of Archduke Charles and Maria Anna of Bavaria in 1571, in Heinrich Wirrich, Ordenliche Beschreibung des Christlichen, Hochlöblichen und Fürstlichen Beylags oder Hochzeit […] (Vienna: Eber, 1571) © Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek

tournament held at the wedding celebration of the aforementioned Charles and Maria Anna of Bavaria (1551–1608) in 1571 in Vienna and Graz (Fig. 4.6).47 The elaborate inventions of the Pozsony tournament of 1572 seem to have been inspired by L’isola beata and two other cavallerie: Il tempio d’Amore (1565), which was staged at the wedding festival of Duke Alfonso II d’Este and Barbara of Austria (1539–72), Maximilian’s sister and Rudolf ’s aunt; and Il mago rilucente (1570), performed at the nuptials of Francesco Maria II della Rovere (1549–1631) and Lucrezia d’Este (1535–98). The allegorical content of the costumed tournaments of 1572 may have been composed by the aforementioned Hungarian humanist who served at the court, Johannes Sambucus, who also attended the coronation in Pozsony. He had dedicated emblems in his popular book Emblemata (Antwerp, 1564) to the Italians Giovan Battista Pigna (1530–75) and Pirro Ligorio (1512/1513–83), both of whom were among the creators of the noted cavallerie of Ferrara.48 The splendid costumes all’antica of the participants in the Pozsony tournament seem to have been designed by Maximilian II (I)’s court painter, the Italian Giuseppe Arcimboldo (1526–93). He had already designed the costumes for the aforementioned wedding festivities of Archduke Charles and Maria Anna of Bavaria in 1571,49 but very probably created more for the 1572 coronation

47 Karl Vocelka, Habsburgische Hochzeiten: 1550–1600: Kulturgeschichtliche Studien zum manieristischen Repräsentationsfest, Veröffentlichungen der Kommission für die Neuere Geschichte Österreichs, 65 (Vienna/Cologne/Graz: Hermann Böhlaus Nachf., 1976), pp. 77–85, 88–90, 68–183; DaCosta Kaufmann, Variations, pp. 33–40; Robert Lindell, ‘The Wedding of Archduke Charles and Maria of Bavaria in 1571’, Early Music, 18.2 (1990), 253–69 (pp. 261–66); Pfaffenbichler, ‘Das Turnier’, pp. 28–30; Karl Vocelka, ‘Das Wiener Turnier von 1571’, in Turnier, ed. by Krause and Pfaffenbichler, pp. 171–79. 48 Kiss, ‘A Ragyogó Mágus’, pp. 104–05. 49 Vocelka, Habsburgische Hochzeiten, pp. 78–79, 168–83; DaCosta Kaufmann, Variations, pp. 54–56; Andreas Beyer, ‘Giuseppe Arcimboldo und die Bühne der Fürsten’, in Giuseppe Arcimboldo Figurinen: Kostüme und Entwürfe für höfische Feste, ed. by Andreas Beyer, Insel Taschenbuch, 680 (Frankfurt am Main: Insel, 1983), pp. 110–17; Thomas DaCosta Kaufmann,

93

94

bo r bá l a g u lyás

as well.50 Ferdinand I and Maximilian II (I)’s court antiquarian, the Italian Jacopo Strada (1505/1515–88), was also involved in the design of the costumes for the Pozsony tournament.51 The first day of Rudolf ’s tournament, 27 September, featured a costumed running at the ring (Ringrennen).52 The ring was suspended between two pyramids decorated with various trophies and flags. The hosts, Archduke Charles and three knights disguised as ‘wanderers’, proceeded into the arena from an ephemeral edifice called the ‘Gymnasium of Minerva’. They were accompanied by the goddess herself, who was seated on a horse dressed up like a snake and flanked by eight grooms dressed in golden armour all’antica, as well as four allegorical figures on horseback—the Janus-faced ‘Wise Advice’, the armour-clad ‘Bravery’ and ‘Merit’, and ‘Honour’, wearing a laurel wreath. The entourage accompanying this procession of costumed contestants included a group of ‘slaves’, a group of ‘pirates’, and a group of ‘gypsies’, as well as a considerable number of combatants personifying antique and allegorical figures: ‘Mercury’ on ‘Pegasus’, ‘Caesar’ with a ‘lictor’, ‘Flora’, ‘Zephirus’, ‘Pomona’, and ‘Vertumnus’, embodiments of the four seasons, ‘Time’, ‘Age’, ‘Pan’, ‘Silenus’, ‘Ceres’ with a horn of plenty, ‘Castor’, and ‘Pollux’. Contestants included Ferdinand of Bavaria (1550–1608) and William, duke (from 1579–97) of Bavaria, as well as Charles, the young prince of Jülich-Cleves-Berg (1555–75), who was accompanied by his mentor, the humanist Winandus Pighius (1520–1604). The new king also entered the field. According to a Bavarian report, in order to emphasize his new sovereignty, Rudolf and his brother, Archduke Ernest, dressed ‘in Hungarian style’ and were accompanied by a hundred Hussars. Pighius reported that Rudolf and his retinue wished to represent Attila and

Arcimboldo: Visual Jokes, Natural History, and Still-Life Painting (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2010), pp. 64–66. 50 DaCosta Kaufmann, Variations, p. 41; Andreas Beyer, ‘Giuseppe Arcimboldo’, pp. 117–20; Kiss, ‘A Ragyogó Mágus’, p. 104; DaCosta Kaufmann, Arcimboldo, pp. 80, 82. 51 Thomas DaCosta Kaufmann, ‘The Festival Designs of Jacopo Strada Reconsidered’, Artibus et Historiae, 31 (2010), No. 62 (In memoriam Konrad Oberhuber, Part II), 173–87 (pp. 180– 85); Similar costume designs attributed to him are preserved in the Museum of Fine Arts, Budapest; see Zoltán Kárpáti, ‘Two Festival Designs from the Workshop of Jacopo Strada’, in Geest en gratie: Essays presented to Ildikó Ember on her Seventieth Birthday, ed. by Orsolya Radványi, Júlia Tátrai and Ágota Varga (Budapest: Museum of Fine Arts, 2012), pp. 142–47. 52 This description of the 1572 tournament is based on the following sources: Giovanbattista Leoni, Le solennissime feste, et gloriosissimi trionfi fatti nella citta di Possonio […], Venice: Christophoro Zanetti, 1572, fols Aiiir–Aivv (the author was identified by Kiss, ‘A Ragyogó Mágus’, p. 98.; ed. in: Lindell, ‘Hercules prodicius’, in Mito e realtá del potere nel teatro, ed. by Chiabó and Doglio, pp. 345–48; Kiss, ‘A Ragyogó Mágus’, pp. 273–79); Winandus Pighius, Hercules Prodicius […], Antwerpen: Plantin, 1587, pp. 184–89 (ed. in: Lindell, ‘Hercules prodicius’, in Mito e realtá del potere nel teatro, ed. by Chiabó and Doglio, pp. 349–54; Howard Louthan, ‘The Imperial court of Maximilian II: Two Excerpts from Hercules Prodicius’, Comitatus, 23.1 (1992), 101–10 [pp. 103–05]); Lietzmann, ‘Quellen zur ungarischen Krönung’, pp. 79–81; Forgách Ferenc Magyar históriája, pp. 511–12 (with marginal notes by Simon Forgách).

F e s tiv i ti e s C e l e b r at i n g t h e Co ro n at i ons o f t he Hab sb u rgs

the Huns with this ‘Pannonian armour’. A prize was also offered for the most splendid costume among the combatants. On 28 September, the second day of these contests, a foot tournament (Fußturnier in German) was organized within the allegorical framework of a fight between an old magician, ‘Negromante’, and an old sorceress. A grotto was erected on the tournament field near the ‘Temple of Bellona’, which was guarded by three participants representing the virtues of ‘Felicity’, ‘Fortitude’, and Prudence’. ‘Negromante’ occupied the grotto, while the sorceress occupied another ephemeral edifice built on the opposite side of the arena, a castle near the ‘Temple of Venus’, which was guarded by a participant costumed as ‘Grace’. Starting from the corners of the rectangular field, the enchanted knights in the service of the magician and the sorceress—including Rudolf, Archdukes Charles and Ernest, and William of Bavaria—did battle with one another. Prizes were presented to the winners during an evening banquet hosted in the royal castle. Another foot tournament and the besieging of a wooden fortress— involving many thousands of participants—took place on the last day, 30 September. This spectacular siege lasted four hours and was acted out with toy weapons including wooden swords and guns which launched wooden bullets. According to the Hungarian Simon Forgách, after the siege of the fortress, effigies—dummy heads and puppets—were hung from its ramparts; these were probably ‘Turkish’ figures similar to the effigy suspended from the firework fortress at the coronation in 1563. Finally, there was also a ‘skirmish’, or group combat (Scharmützel in German) between the German and Bohemian troops and the Hungarian hussars. In conclusion, Ferdinand I and Hungary’s clerical and lay elites cooperated in establishing a new ceremonial order for the coronations of Hungarian kings, queens, and/or queen consorts in 1561–63, which was based primarily on the medieval traditions of the kingdom of Hungary. The new order was applied for the first time at Maximilian’s coronation in Pozsony in 1563 and was followed again at Rudolf ’s ceremony in 1572. In addition to the entry of the future king and the traditional elements—the church ceremony, and secular rituals including the judgment and dubbing of knights, the royal oath, the four sword strokes, and the coronation banquet—court entertainments were also incorporated into these splendid festivities, including banquets and tournaments. These chivalric spectacles were influenced by other tournaments of the period, especially those held at the courts of Vienna and Ferrara.

95

VÁCLAV BŮŽEK & PAVEL MAREK 

The Funerals of the Emperor Rudolf II in the Spanish Monarchy, 1612*

Few representatives of the House of Habsburg called forth such contradictory reactions as Rudolf II (1552–1612).1 His own preferred self-image was that of a member of a divinely-appointed dynasty, upon whose shoulders rested the defence of Europe and the Catholic Church. To create this image, he tended to rely on extravagant celebrations and public ceremonies, accounts of many of which have come down to us in various graphic or narrative forms. Woodcuts, drawings, and other cultural artifacts, as well as songs and a wide variety of written material were all meant to impress those who were unable to attend such occasions in person. Similar means were favoured by Habsburg propagandists, who portrayed Rudolf as a Christian knight proudly waging war against the age-old enemy of the Roman faith—the Turks. Rudolf himself, especially after the recapture of Győr Castle in 1598, became increasingly fond of allegorical pictures glorifying his supposed virtues and heroism on the battlefield. And although he was never personally involved in a military campaign, he enjoyed posing for portraits in a cuirass and crowned with laurels, most conspicuously after 1598. In this way, works by famous painters, engravers, sculptors, medal-makers, and goldsmiths, including Aegidius Sadeler, Adrian de Vries, and Antonio and Alessandro Abondio—along with a plethora of pamphlets—disseminated an idealized image of the emperor throughout the Habsburg realm and beyond its borders.2 The accounts of diplomats and travellers who visited the imperial court and came into direct contact with this eccentric ruler offer a very different view of Rudolf ’s personality. While such testimonies cannot be considered impartial, the pictures they painted of him were undoubtedly less tendentious than the vision put out by his propagandists. In 1608, for example, the Spanish





* This study was supported by the Grant Agency of the Czech Republic (GA ČR – GA17– 06049S) Relational networks of Apostolic nuncios and Spanish envoys in the milieu of the imperial court at the turn of the 16th and 17th century and The House of Habsburg in the history of the Czech Lands in Early Modern Era (VC/2011/UHE). 1 Anton Gindely, Rudolf II. und seine Zeit 1600–1612, 2 vols (Prague: Bellmann, 1863–65); Jan Bedřich Novák, Rudolf II. a jeho pád (Prague: nákladem Českého zemského výboru, 1935); Robert John Weston Evans, Rudolf II and His World. A Study in Intellectual History 1576–1612 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1973); Karl Vocelka, Rudolf II. und seine Zeit (Vienna/Cologne/ Graz: Böhlau, 1985); Josef Janáček, Rudolf II. a jeho doba (Prague: Svoboda, 1987); Prag um 1600. Beiträge zur Kunst und Kultur am Hofe Rudolfs II (Essen/Freren: Luca, 1988). 2 Karl Vocelka, Die politische Propaganda Kaiser Rudolfs II. (1576–1612) (Vienna: VÖAW, 1981). Eagles Looking East and West: Dynasty, Ritual and Representation in Habsburg Hungary and Spain, ed. by Tibor Martí & Roberto Quirós Rosado, Habsburg Worlds 4 (Turnhout, 2021), pp. 97–119.

© FHG

DOI 10.1484/M.HW-EB.5.122797

98

vác l av bůž e k & pave l m ar e k

ambassador Baltasar de Zúñiga described Rudolf as a human wreck, quite incapable of carrying out his duties. Another distinguished Spanish envoy made no attempt to hide his disgust at the way the emperor managed the lands he was supposed to be ruling.3 For all his strict Catholic upbringing, Rudolf was unable to live up to the image of the most powerful Christian ruler and chief defender of the Catholic Church. Quite the opposite was true: Spanish envoys, papal nuncios, and other emissaries of the Catholic world complained of his indolence in faith-related matters, and that he was weak as a ruler, indecisive, and all too easily swayed by the opinions of his courtiers. In their writings, Rudolf comes across as a reclusive oddball with no particular interest in affairs of state, whose only real passions were late Renaissance and Mannerist art, the natural sciences, alchemy, Jewish mysticism, the occult, and hunting.4 Early seventeenth-century accounts of his sexual inclinations also suggest a conflicted personality,5 a view reinforced by frequent references to the emperor’s ever-deteriorating health and its very visible effects on his appearance—which, as a consequence of various long-term illnesses, especially syphilis, was wildly at odds with the ideal purveyed in the works of famous portrait painters. Visitors to the Prague court generally described the emperor as a man of corpulent build and florid complexion, with brown hair and beard. During audiences, the Habsburg torso was fully concealed under clothes of a fashionable Spanish cut, but







3 NAP, Sbírka přepisů z domácích a zahraničních archivů - Simancas, box 1: Baltasar de Zúñiga to King Philip III, Prague, 9 August 1608: ‘Respondiome con poquísimas palabras y con tono de habla tan débil que con ser su lenguaje muy castellano y estar yo muy cerca de Su Majestad casi no las percivía. La sustancia fue mostrar satisfacción de mi venida que el concierto se avía echo pero muy mal. No preguntó por la salud de Vuestra Majestad ni de ninguna otra cosa aunque le di la carta de la Reina Nuestra Señora. Parecióme persona tan acabada que ninguna que no esté deshauciada he visto en semejante estado y así me parece que aunque dure algún tiempo tiene manera de estar presto imposibilitado del todo para gobernar’; other comments can be found in: Roderico Alidosi, Relazione di Germania e della corte di Rodolfo II. Imperatore negli anni 1605–1607, fatta da Roderici Alidosi ambasciatore del Granduca di Toscana Ferdinando I, ed. by Cesare Campori (Modena: Cappelli, 1872), pp. 5–7; Fynes Moryson and John Tylor, Cesta do Čech, ed. by Alois Bejblík (Prague: Mladá fronta, 1977); Tři francouzští kavalíři v rudolfínské Praze. Jacques Esprinchard, Pierre Bergeron, François de Bassompierre, ed. by Eliška Fučíková (Prague: Panorama, 1989), pp. 44–59; Albert Babeau, ‘Une ambassade en Allemagne sous Henri IV,’ Revue Historique, 21 (1896), 28–49. 4 Eliška Fučíková, Beket Bukovinská and Ivan Muchka, Umění na dvoře Rudolfa II. (Prague: Aventinum, 1991); Eliška Fučíková and others, Rudolf II. a Praha. Císařský dvůr a rezidenční město jako kulturní a duchovní centrum střední Evropy (Praha/London/Milano: Správa Pražského hradu, 1997); Jaroslava Hausenblasová and Michal Šroněk, Urbs aurea. Praha císaře Rudolfa II. (Prague: Gallery, 1997); Alchymie a Rudolf II. Hledání tajemství přírody ve střední Evropě v 16. a 17. století, ed. by Ivo Purš and Vladimír Karpenko (Prague: Artefactum, 2011). 5 See, e.g.: NAP, Sbírka přepisů z domácích a zahraničních archivů – Vatican, Rome, Italy, box 223: Tomasso Roncaroli to Ranuccio Farnese, the Duke of Parma and Piacenza, Prague, 26 December 1611; box 109: Giovanni Battista Salvago to cardinal Scipio Caffarelli-Borghese, Prague, 26 December 1611.

the funerals of the emperor rudolf ii in the spanish monarchy, 1612

inquisitive observers soon discovered that it was in fact covered with ulcers. With advancing age, Rudolf ’s afflictions could no longer be overlooked.6 Recent historical research has shown that the image of Rudolf II created by his contemporaries was often far from accurate. While political decisiveness was certainly not the monarch’s strong suit, he did not shy away from his administrative duties and was much occupied with affairs of state in the labyrinthine rooms and corridors of Prague Castle—his home, practically speaking, from around 1580, though it would become the official imperial residence only in 1583.7 In his handling of religious and political tensions in the wider empire, as well as in the individual countries under Habsburg rule, he was adept at avoiding extremes and finding long-term compromises as a means of consolidating his power. This was clearly evident in his tentative search for a resolution to the Catholic-Protestant disputes throughout the Empire, which during the last quarter of the sixteenth century threatened to nullify the principles of the arduously negotiated Peace of Augsburg.8 In the kingdom of Bohemia, Rudolf ’s main political and financial power base, his ruling strategy was for many years similarly informed by compromise. Anxious to avert an outright explosion of the simmering tensions between the communities, he made a point of ensuring that Catholics and Protestants were equally involved in the running of the country, and heeded the voices not only of his staunch Catholic counsellors, but also of Lutherans, Calvinists, and even members of the proscribed Unity of the Brethren.9 Despite the many years he spent at the Spanish court, where his mother had hoped he might absorb the hard-line principles of post-Tridentine Catholicism, Rudolf ’s day-to-day politics remained far closer to the compromise solutions of Maximilian II.10 This was evident in his pragmatic relations with the Holy

6 For more on the state of Rudolf II’s health, see Václav Bůžek and Pavel Marek, Smrt Rudolfa II. (Prague: Nakladatelství Lidové noviny, 2015); Václav Bůžek and Pavel Marek, ‘Krankheiten, Sterben und der Tod Rudolfs II.’, Mitteilungen des Instituts für Österreichische Geschichtsforschung, 125.1 (2017), 40–67. 7 Jaroslav Pánek, ‘K povaze vlády Rudolfa II. v Českém království’, Folia historica bohemica, 18 (1997), 71–86; Der Hof Kaiser Rudolfs II. Eine Edition der Hofstaatsverzeichnisse 1576–1612, ed. by Jaroslava Hausenblasová, Fontes historiae artium, 9 (Prague: Artefactum, 2002). 8 Volker Press, ‘Rudolf II. 1576–1612’, in Die Kaiser der Neuzeit 1519–1918. Heiliges Römisches Reich, Österreich, Deutschland, ed. by Anton Schindling and Walter Ziegler (München: Beck, 1990), pp. 99–111, 475–77 (pp. 107–09). 9 Documented by Václav Bůžek, ‘Konfessionelle Pluralität in der kaiserlichen Leibkammer zu Beginn des 17. Jahrhunderts’, in Konfessionelle Pluralität als Herausforderung. Koexistenz und Konflikt in Spätmittelalter und Früher Neuzeit. Winfried Eberhard zum 65. Geburtstag, ed. by Joachim Bahlcke, Karen Lambrecht and Hans-Christian Maner (Leipzig: Leipziger Universitätsverlag, 2006), pp. 381–95; Václav Bůžek, ‘Heinrich Julius von BraunschweigWolfenbüttel am Prager Kaiserhof ’, in Herzog Heinrich Julius zu Braunschweig und Lüneburg (1564–1613): Politiker und Gelehrter mit europäischen Profil, ed. by Werner Arnold, Brage Bei der Wieden and Ulrike Gleixner, Quellen und Forschungen zur Braunschweigischen Landesgeschichte, 49 (Braunschweig: Appelhans Verlag, 2016), pp. 42–56. 10 Pánek, ‘K povaze vlády’, pp. 81–84.

99

1 00

vác l av bůž e k & pave l m ar e k

See, which were clearly informed by his own power interests.11 Ultimately, however, he became the victim of his own political and religious compromises, notably the 1609 Letter of Majesty which granted religious freedom. Between 1608 and 1611, he was embroiled in a power struggle with his younger brother Archduke Matthias12 that resulted not only in the loss of Moravia and Hungary, but also in the weakening of his royal authority in Bohemia itself, which the by-then sick emperor had attempted to fortify with the help of mercenaries from Passau.13 Following that adventure, Rudolf lost the last vestiges of the political credibility that came with the Bohemian crown. Though he proudly used the title of Emperor until his death, in reality the last months of his life were spent as a total recluse within the walls of Prague Castle.

A Good Death? Sick and debilitated, Rudolf II died between six and seven in the morning on 20 January 1612.14 In all probability, the dying monarch was attended by one Father Jiří from St Vitus Cathedral, who, according to some surviving accounts, was hastily summoned by his Oberstkämmerer (grand chamberlain), Ulrich Desiderius Pruskovský von Proskau, to hear his confession and administer holy communion and extreme unction. Nevertheless, there were those who doubted whether Rudolf had departed this earthly life as a truly believing Catholic.15 This and other similar surmises might have originated in the accounts of a number of foreign envoys who claimed that while the emperor

11 For a new view, see Tomáš Černušák, ‘Nunciatura u císařského dvora v prvních letech vlády Rudolfa II. a české země’, Český časopis historický, 111 (2013), 728–42 (p. 735); Tomáš Černušák and Pavel Marek, Gesandte und Klienten. Päpstliche und spanische Diplomaten im Umfeld von Kaiser Rudolf II. (Berlin/Boston: De Gryuter 2020). 12 Ein Bruderzwist im Hause Habsburg (1608–1611), ed. by Václav Bůžek, Opera historica, 14 (České Budějovice: Jihočeská univerzita, 2010); Religion und Politik im frühneuzeitlichen Böhmen. Der Majestätsbrief Kaiser Rudolfs II. von 1609, ed. by Jaroslava Hausenblasová, Jiří Mikulec and Martina Thomsen, Forschungen zur Geschichte und Kultur des östlichen Mitteleuropa, 46 (Stuttgart: Steiner, 2014). 13 Pánek, ‘K povaze vlády’, 83; Carolin Pecho, ‘Fürstbischof – Putschist – Landesherr. Erzherzog Leopold von Österreich (1586–1632) in dynastischen und militärischen Gemeinschaften’, Opera historica, 17 (2016), 155–77; Carolin Pecho, Fürstbischof, Putschist, Landesherr. Erherzog Leopolds Herrschaftsentwürfe im Zeitalter des Dreißigjährigen Krieges (Berlin: Dr W. Hopf, 2017). 14 See e.g. HHStA, Familienakten, box 65; ASMa, L´archivio dei Gonzaga di Castiglione delle Stiviere, folder 246, Rodolfo Petrocini 1611–1616: Rodolfo Petrocini to Francesco Gonzaga di Castiglione delle Stiviere, Prague, 21 January 1612; Abraham Hosmann, Lacrymae oder Klag- und Trawerschreiben wegen des tödlichen Abschiedes des Aller Durchlautigsten […] Herrn Rudolphi des Anderen […], Leipzig: Henning Grosse, 1612. 15 Hosmann, Lacrymae; Heinz Schlecker, ‘Das Prager Tagebuch des Melchior Goldast von Haiminsfeld in der Bremer Staatsbibliothek’, Abhandlungen und Vorträge Bremer Wissenschaftlichen Gesellschaft, 5 (1930), 258–72 (pp. 262–63).

the funerals of the emperor rudolf ii in the spanish monarchy, 1612

did make confession, his sudden death denied him the opportunity to take the holy sacrament.16 It is thought that the grand chamberlain Pruskovský von Proskau, whose job it was to look after the emperor, his living quarters, and his personal effects on a day-to-day basis, was the first person to see Rudolf ’s lifeless body.17 Despite his efforts to keep the emperor’s death secret until the news had reached his brother Matthias in Vienna, rumours of Rudolf ’s demise, leaked by Wilhelm Kinsky von Wchinitz und Tettau and Adam von Trauttmansdorf, were already flying around Prague Castle by ten o’clock in the morning.18 As soon as the news was out, the privy councillors ordered that a brief announcement of the emperor’s death be drawn up, then sent Secretary Jáchym Metych of Čečov to Vienna with a letter for Matthias.19 That evening, two express messengers were also dispatched to bear the sad tidings to the courts of Rudolf ’s two other living brothers, Archduke Albert in Brussels and Archduke Maximilian in Innsbruck.20 Baltasar de Zúñiga did not send his own reports of the royal death to Madrid and Brussels until the following day.21 However, we should not blame this delay on the Spanish ambassador’s laggardness—his reasons were in all likelihood economic. Dispatching couriers over long distances was a costly business, which is presumably why de Zúñiga, along with most of the envoys from the Apennine Peninsula, decided to wait for the results of the postmortem, carried out on the afternoon of 20 January by Ottaviano Rovereti and Simon Perger, before sending them on their way.22

16 NAP, Sbírka přepisů z domácích a zahraničních archivů – Vatican, Rome, Italy, box 223: Tomasso Roncaroli to Ranuccio Farnese, the Duke of Parma and Piacenza, Prague, 23 January 1612. 17 Der Hof Kaiser Rudolfs II., ed. by Hausenblasová, pp. 94–98. 18 Adam von Trauttmansdorf was a war councillor and captain of the cavalry archers who also served as a Kämmerer (chamberlain) for a time. See also Der Hof Kaiser Rudolfs II., ed. by Hausenblasová, pp. 223, 323, 398; Wilhelm Kinsky von Wchinitz und Tettau was Jägermeister; Václav Líva, ‘Spiknutí Vchynských proti Rudolfovi II.’, Věstník Královské české společnosti nauk, třída filosoficko-historicko-filologická, 1928, 1–56; for more on the part played by the two noblemen following the emperor’s death, see: ASMa, L’archivio dei Gonzaga di Castiglione delle Stiviere, folder 246, Rodolfo Petrocini (1611–1616): Rodolfo Petrocini, letter to Francesco Gonzaga di Castiglione delle Stiviere, Prague, 21 January 1612. 19 HHStA, Familienakten, box 65; Briefe und Akten zur Geschichte des Dreiβigjährigen Krieges in den Zeiten des vorwaltenden Einflusses der Wittelsbacher, ed. by Moriz Ritter, 12 vols (Munich: Rieger, 1840–1945), x: Der Ausgang der Regierung Rudolfs II. und die Anfänge des Kaisers Matthias, ed. by Anton Chroust (1906), pp. 242–48; NAP, Stará Manipulace, sign. K-1, inv. no. 1580, box 1053: Letter from senior state officials to Matthias, 31 January 1612; Der Hof Kaiser Rudolfs II., ed. by Hausenblasová, p. 397. 20 Briefe und Akten, ed. by Chroust, pp. 242–48. 21 NAP, Gindelyho sbírka, box 4, folder 21: Avisos de Praga, 21 January 1612. 22 See, e.g., Miroslav Polišenský, ‘Las Relaciones Postales Bohémico-Españolas en la Época anterior a la Montaña Blanca 1516–1612’, Ibero-americana Pragensia, 17 (1983), 233–49; Rodolfo Petrocini, agent of Francesco Gonzaga di Castiglione, adopted a course similar to Zúñiga’s: ASMa, L´archivio dei Gonzaga di Castiglione delle Stiviere, folder 246: Rodolfo

101

102

vác l av bůž e k & pave l m ar e k

The task of embalming the emperor’s body began that same day. His heart and brain were removed and placed in two gilded silver receptacles covered with patina, which were subsequently laid in his coffin and buried along with his body.23 Although burying the heart separately was normal practice among the Habsburgs, the placing of Rudolf ’s brain in a separate container was a departure from tradition undocumented in the burial of any other monarch of that dynasty in early modern times.24 The emperor’s innards (‘intestina’) were also removed, then wrapped in linen and placed in an iron-bound ebony casket which was deposited in the Saxon Chapel at St Vitus Cathedral in the presence of the highest officials in the land.25 Following the processes of postmortem, embalming, and dressing, Rudolf II’s body lay in state in the audience hall on the second floor of the south wing of Prague Castle from 21 January to 5 February 1612, at which point it was transferred to its provisional burial place in All Saints’ Church, also at the castle.26 The sad news of Rudolf ’s death did not reach distant Madrid until 1 February.27 Besides recounting the circumstances of the emperor’s passing, the brief message (first delivered to the imperial court by a courier of the papal nuncio) contained the results of the autopsy, estimates of the value of the deceased ruler’s estate, and the names of those courtiers with access to his valuables. The writer of this notice exhibited particular interest in the condition of the imperial cadaver: the sclerotic liver, ruined lungs, and whitish heart; the dark patches on the thighs and the excess fluid in the brain. Since no one from the nunciature could have seen the official postmortem report (which had not been written until 26 January), it must be assumed that the papal envoy or someone close to him was either present at the autopsy or had managed to obtain very precise information about the state of the emperor’s body from one of the physicians or some other person who was present Petrocini to Francesco Gonzaga di Castiglione, Prague, 21 January 1612; Bohdana Divišová, ‘Krátká zpráva Ottaviana Roveretiho (1556–1626), lékaře Rudolfa II.’, Dějiny věd a techniky, 48 (2015), 151–73. 23 Bůžek and Marek, Smrt, pp. 20–26. 24 For more on Habsburg funerals, see: Beatrix Bastl and Mark Hengerer, ‘Les funérailles impériales des Habsbourg d’Autriche, XVIe–XVIIIe siècle’, in Les funérailles princières en Europe, XVIe–XVIIIe siècle, ed. by Juliusz Chrościcki, Mark Hengerer and Gérard Sabatier Aulica, 3–5, 3 vols (Rennes/Versailles: Presses Universitaires de Rennes/Centre de recherche du château de Versailles, 2012–15), i: Le grand théâtre de la mort (2012), pp. 91–116; Karl Vocelka and Lynne Heller, Die Lebenswelt der Habsburger. Kultur- und Mentalitätsgeschichte einer Familie (Graz/Wien/Köln: Styria, 1997), pp. 288–97; Milena Bravermanová and Michal Lutovský, Hroby, hrobky a pohřebiště českých knížat a králů (Prague: Libri, 2001), pp. 239–41; Václav Bůžek, Smrt a pohřby Ferdinanda I. a jeho synů: Reprezentace katolické víry, politické moci a dynastické paměti Habsburků (Prague: Nakladatelství lidové noviny 2020). 25 Hosmann, Lacrymae; Vocelka, Die politische Propaganda, p. 328. 26 Bůžek and Marek, Smrt, pp. 20–26; Bůžek and Marek, Krankheiten, pp. 55–62. 27 RAH, Colección jesuitas, vol. 105, fol. 245–26: Relación de la muerte del Emperador; RAH, Colección jesuitas, vol. 88, fol. 331: Relación de la muerte del Emperador en Praga.

the funerals of the emperor rudolf ii in the spanish monarchy, 1612

for this procedure. This is because the contents of the letter sent to Madrid are strikingly similar to the conclusions contained in the court physicians’ written report.28 Nor did the Madrid letter fail to mention the lying-in-state of the emperor’s body. It was finally on display for the public, from whose sight it was thought to have been concealed in the labyrinthine depths of the castle during Rudolf ’s earthly life. In fact, to the inhabitants of the Iberian Peninsula, Rudolf—like the Spanish monarch Philip II—was something of an invisible king, a rey invisible.29 The comparison is not groundless. Rudolf II’s biographers all agree that he was deeply influenced as a young man by a lengthy sojourn at the Spanish court, which was intended to prepare him for his future role as a Christian ruler.30 One of the more obvious legacies of his Spanish training was his likely conscious effort to restrict his public appearances to a bare minimum, in accordance with Philip II’s idea of how a ruler should present himself. The ‘invisibility’ of the emperor—which, on the rare occasions that Rudolf did attend public ceremonies, was replaced by an impassive mask of despotic majesty—was intended to reinforce the impression of the abstract, ubiquitous, sacred, and immortal nature of the political power which the monarch personified. Not infrequently, Rudolf ’s refusals to participate in public life gave rise to unsubstantiated rumours that he spied on those around him from behind curtains, or used secret passages in the castle to keep tabs on his subjects, so that at any given moment not even his closest confidants could be sure he was not watching them. In extreme cases, this resulted in their behaving as if they were indeed under constant surveillance.31 After the emperor’s death, these attributes of the ‘invisible’ ruler’s power were transferred to his ‘social body’.32 Hastily duplicated, the announcement of Rudolf’s death was soon circulating all over Madrid. Two such copies can be found in the Jesuit Collection, which was incorporated into the Spanish Royal Academy archives in the late nineteenth century.33 Another document in the same collection—part of a letter sent from Rome on 28 March 1612, apparently to a senior member of the

28 HHStA, Familienakten, box 65. 29 María José del Río Barredo, Madrid. Urbs Regia. La capital ceremonial de la Monarquía Católica (Madrid: Marcial Pons Historia, 2000), pp. 44–54. 30 For Rudolf ’s time in Spain, see: Erwin Mayer-Löwenswerdt, Der Aufenthalt der Erzherzoge Rudolf und Ernst in Spanien 1564–1571 (Vienna: Hölder-Pichler-Tempsky, 1927). 31 Tři francouzští kavalíři, ed. by Fučíková, pp. 83, 99. 32 Kantorowicz draws a theoretical distinction between the monarch’s natural body, which is susceptible to disease, decrepitude, and death, and his social body, which incorporates his subjects and is impervious to illness and mortality; Ernst Hartwig Kantorowicz, The King´s Two Bodies: A Study in Medieval Political Theology (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1957); Sergio Bertelli, Il corpo del rè: sacralità del potere nell’Europa medievale e moderna (Firenze: Ponte alle Grazie, 1990), pp. 22–23. 33 RAH, Colección jesuitas, vol. 105, fol. 245–46: Relación de la muerte del Emperador; RAH, Colección jesuitas, vol. 88, fol. 331: Relación de la muerte del Emperador en Praga.

103

104

vác l av bůž e k & pave l m ar e k

Madrid province of the Society of Jesus—seems to have been intended for a very restricted readership.34 Whereas the text written in the Prague nunciature is very similar in its sober style to many other official dispatches of the period—a style marked by the court custom of cultivated dissimulation—the letter intended for Jesuit eyes is remarkable for the candour with which its writer assessed the character of the deceased emperor and described the situation at the imperial court following his death.35 The picture it conveys is one of a reclusive ruler who, instead of attending to his official duties and the salvation of his own soul, preferred hunting stags on his estates, indulged his passion for alchemy, and devised ingenious hiding places around the castle for his jewellery and cash. Foreign envoys who had the chance to inspect Rudolf ’s private rooms and collections often arrived at similarly critical conclusions. The papal nuncio Giovanni Battista Salvago, in particular, was appalled to discover scandalous pictures of nuns, priests, and even cardinals among the emperor’s collections, which confirmed his opinion that Rudolf II had not only a tendency to make bad political decisions, but also a less-than-firm grasp of the Catholic faith.36 Yet the author of this same document from the Colección jesuitas of the Real Academia de la Historia was also critical of Rudolf ’s successor, taking exception to Matthias’s greed and excessive interest in his dead brother’s valuables. The reason the new king had traveled from Vienna to Prague with such haste, he writes, was not a sense of duty or concern about the situation in the kingdom of Bohemia, but rather sheer cupidity, as he feared that the wrong people might get hold of Rudolf ’s treasure, said to be worth many millions of guilders.37 While any analysis of this account (or others similar to it) must reckon with some distortion resulting from authorial bias, it is hard to avoid the impression that Matthias’s conduct following his brother’s death did indeed encourage such judgments. Upon receiving the sad news on 24 January 1612, he immediately set off for Prague, where he, his wife Anna, and some of his court arrived barely a week later.38 Yet it was another month before he began making serious preparations for the departed emperor’s funeral. Meanwhile, Matthias dispatched letters from Prague to Brussels, Innsbruck, and Graz 34 It is quite possible, however, that the letter was initially delivered to a senior ecclesiastical or secular figure at the Spanish court, and that only the cited extract found its way into the Jesuit collection as a copy. 35 RAH, Colección jesuitas, vol. 89, fol. 180–81: Por carta de Roma de 28 de marzo de 1612. 36 NAP, Sbírka přepisů z domácích a zahraničních archivů – Vatican, Rome, Italy, box 109: Giovanni Battista Salvago to Cardinal Scipione Caffarelli-Borghese, Prague, 9 March 1612; Václav Bůžek, ‘Der Heilige Stuhl und die böhmischen Länder während des Pontifikats Pauls V.’, in Die Auβenbeziehungen der römischen Kurie unter Paul V. Borghese (1605–1621), ed. by Alexander Koller, Bibliothek des Deutschen historischen Instituts in Rom, 115 (Tübingen: Niemeyer, 2008), pp. 121–41 (pp. 135–39). 37 RAH, Colección jesuitas, vol. 89, fol. 180–81: por carta de Roma de 28 de marzo de 1612. 38 HHStA, Familienakten, box 65; Janáček, Rudolf II. a jeho doba, p. 504.

the funerals of the emperor rudolf ii in the spanish monarchy, 1612

containing important questions for—and demands for answers from—his brothers Albert and Maximilian as well as his cousin Ferdinand.39 Most of these questions concerned expenses associated with the imperial court and Rudolf ’s other liabilities. At the same time, he sought their opinions as to how extravagant an occasion the deceased emperor’s funeral should be.40

The Funeral in Madrid Throughout the spring of 1612 there was widespread disagreement in Prague about the form Rudolf II’s obsequies should take. Other European cities, however, were quicker to bid farewell to the late lamented emperor. The first funeral ceremony probably took place on 13 February in the Basilica di San Lorenzo in Florence, at the behest of the grand duke of Tuscany, Cosimo II de’Medici and his wife, Maria Maddalena of Austria, Rudolf II’s cousin and the sister of the archduke of Graz.41 A month later, on 12 and 13 March, funeral ceremonies were conducted in Antwerp, Brussels, and Madrid. The funeral in Antwerp was held at the Cathedral of Our Lady, while in Brussels, Archduke Albert and his wife Isabella Clara Eugenia chose the royal chapel at the governor’s residence.42 We may assume that the remarkable synchronicity of the three events was no accident. In the countries ruled by the Spanish branch of the Habsburg family, the timing of such ceremonies was mandated by the king of Spain himself, who was responsible for deciding the dates and locations of royal funerals. His decrees applied not only to the Iberian Peninsula, but in equal measure to Spanish possessions in Italy, Flanders, and the New World. These ceremonies were thus coordinated so as to encourage members of the Habsburg family from across Europe to attend, as well as other members of the Spanish royal court and as many subjects of the Spanish crown as possible.43

39 HHStA, Familienakten, box 65; Vocelka, Die politische Propaganda, p. 325. 40 HHStA, Familienakten, box 65; Herzog August Bibliothek Wolfenbüttel, H:L 996. 40 Helmst. (21); AST, Lettere ministri, Austria, mazzo 6, Praga 1601–1617: Secretary Gieronimo Lovencito, writing to Duke Charles Emmanuel of Savoy in Turin, Regensburg, 10 April 1612. 41 For an analysis of the funeral in Florence, see: Bůžek and Marek, Smrt, pp. 48–58. 42 Laudatio funebris Rudolphi II Imp. Augusti regis Germaniae, Hungariae, Bohemiae, Dalmatiae, Croatiae, Slavoniae, archiducis Austriae etc. Antuerpiae in Cathedrali Deiparae basilica anno MDCXII die XIII mensis Martij dicta ab Auberto Miraeo, Antwerp: Officina Plantiniana, 1612; Paul Boudot, Harangue funèbre, faicte et prononcée aux funérailles solennelles de l’Empreur Rodolphe II, devant les Sérénissimes Archiducs Albert et Isabella Clara Eugenia, infante d’Espagne, en leur chapelle royale à Bruxelles, et devant tous leurs Estats assemblez à cet effect, l’onziesme de mars l’an 1612, Arras: s.n., 1612; for the Brussels ceremony, see also: AGRB, Man. divers I 115, sign. 3287: Funerailles de feve Sa Ma.te Imp.lle Rudolphe deuxiesme. 43 María Adelaida Allo Manero and Juan Francisco Esteban Llorente, ‘El estudio de las exequias reales de la Monarquía Hispana: Siglos XVI, XVII y XVIII’, Artigrama, 19 (2004), 39–94 (p. 40).

105

1 06

vác l av bůž e k & pave l m ar e k

The dates of these funerals were not without symbolic significance. 12 March was the day after the first Sunday of Lent, Invocavit (from the Latin Invocavit me, ‘He cried unto me’), less than a week after Ash Wednesday, when Christians contemplate, repent of their sins and reflect on the transience of human life. The precise date was no doubt chosen so as not to disrupt the principal Lenten services. Throughout the territories ruled by the Spanish Habsburgs, royal funerals were seen as a unique opportunity to propagate the heroic deeds and piety of the entire family, which explains the extraordinary attention devoted to them. Perhaps the clearest indication of this care was the personal involvement of the king himself in such preparations; he would determine not only the date and venue of the funeral, but how extravagant an occasion it would be. The ceremony’s level of pomp was reflected by the number of servants dressed in mourning livery, the quantity of wax candles, the draperies used to decorate the church, the quality of the heraldic decorations, and—last but not least—the size of the castrum doloris, which in some cases might exceed thirty meters in height.44 Through his commissar, the king of Spain kept a close eye on the preparations for these ceremonies, which were otherwise the responsibility of three court bodies—the royal chamber (cámara real), the royal chapel (capilla real), and the royal works (obras reales). The first was charged with sourcing all the requisite material, especially the ornamental drapes and candles; the second decided on the spiritual content of the liturgy, including the choice of preachers, ministrants, and musicians; the third was responsible for building the castrum doloris and ensuring that the whole event ran smoothly.45 An essential part of the funeral rites of the Spanish monarchy in the early modern age was the monumental castrum doloris, also known as a túmulo—or, less commonly, as a capilla ardiente, pira, obelisco, cenotafio, pirámide, mausoleo, templo, or teatro. By itself, the number of different names suggests just how important this structure was. Primarily a symbolic element, it is first evidenced in Spanish court ceremonial in the early sixteenth century after the succession of the Habsburg dynasty, who used it very effectively as an instrument of political and religious propaganda. The chief purpose of these constructions, which were made of wood, plaster, and cardboard painted to resemble marble or jasper, was to create in the viewer not only an impression of grandiosity, pomp, and extravagance, but to remind mourners of the power, magnanimity, and profound piety of the Habsburgs. The overall effect of the castrum itself was heightened by statues and emblematic paintings, which besides their decorative effect also fulfilled a symbolic function, as most of them contained hidden allegorical or mythological meanings.46

44 Allo Manero and Esteban Llorente, ‘El estudio de las exequias reales’, p. 40. 45 Allo Manero and Esteban Llorente, ‘El estudio de las exequias reales’, p. 40. 46 Victoria Soto Caba, Catafalcos reales del Barroco español (Madrid: UNED, 1991).

the funerals of the emperor rudolf ii in the spanish monarchy, 1612

Besides the building of a castrum doloris and the decorating of the church, Spanish custom also necessitated lengthy negotiations regarding guests’ seating arrangements. On such occasions, the Spanish royal court divided the VIP seats into four categories: the prelates’ bench, for the Grand Inquisitor and other senior clergy; the bench of the Knights of the Golden Fleece; the ambassadors’ bench, reserved for the papal nuncio and other high-ranking foreign envoys to the Madrid court; and the grandees’ bench for the elite of the Spanish nobility. Since one’s position on the bench was an important indicator of social rank, the question of who should sit where became one of the most contentious issues facing funeral planners; the royal commissars in charge of organization frequently had to deal with competing requests for coveted seats from nobles, diplomats, and prelates.47 Needless to say, the location of a royal funeral also required careful consideration. In Rudolf II’s case, the chosen venue was the Franciscan convent of the Descalzas Reales near the royal palace.48 However, unlike the nearby Augustinian Real Monasterio de la Encarnación and the church of the Hieronymite monastery of San Jerónimo el Real, the convent was not normally used for funeral services. Even so, the choice of the Descalzas church was hardly surprising, as the convent of Nuestra Señora de la Consolación de las Descalzas enjoyed a very special position among the monastic institutions of Spain. Founded by Joanna of Portugal, it had always been most generously endowed by the Spanish branch of the Habsburg family. Many a Spanish princess had chosen the convent as a place of retreat, while even Philip II and his family had on occasion used it as a residence. The Descalzas convent assumed particular importance in the late sixteenth century when the dowager empress Maria, accompanied by her daughter Margaret and some of her ladies-in-waiting from Central Europe, settled there on her return to her homeland from Prague in 1582. In the years that followed, it became an important intellectual and spiritual centre for the Spanish royal court, as well as one of the main political hubs of the whole monarchy, serving as a regular meeting-place for members of the Spanish court’s imperial-papal coalition, which opposed the Castilian faction and worked for closer ties between the king of Spain, the emperor, and the pope. Indeed, the Descalzas convent came 47 Antonio Álvarez-Ossorio Alvariño, ‘La sacralización de la dinastía en el púlpito de la Capilla Real en tiempos de Carlos II’, Criticón, 84–85 (2002), 313–32 (pp. 318–19). 48 AHNOB, Frías, C.115, D.46: Relación de las honras que se hicieron en sufragio del emperador Rodolfo II.; AGP, Sección Histórica, Honras fúnebres por el Emperador Rodolfo de Alemania (1612), Caja 79, Expediente 9; for a range of accounts of the convent of Descalzas Reales, see: María Leticia Sánchez Hernández and others, Las Descalzas Reales: orígenes de una comunidad religiosa en el siglo XVI (Madrid: Patrimonio Nacional, 2010); Karen María Vilacoba Ramos and Teresa Muñoz Serrulla, ‘Las religiosas de las Descalzas Reales de Madrid en los siglos XVI–XX: Fuentes archivísticas’, Hispania Sacra, 62 (2010), 115–56; María Letizia Sánchez Hernández, Patronato Regio y órdenes religiosas femeninas en Madrid de los Austrias: Descalzas Reales, Encarnación y Santa Isabel (Madrid: Fundación Universitaria Española, 1997).

107

1 08

vác l av bůž e k & pave l m ar e k

to be a pivotal locus in the relationship between the Spanish and Austrian branches of the Habsburg dynasty and a symbol of the family’s unity.49 Yet besides such political and formal considerations, there were also purely personal reasons for holding the ceremony at Descalzas; the funeral of Maria of Austria, the deceased emperor’s mother, had taken place there in 1603.50 Moreover, despite King Philip III’s express wish that her mortal remains be buried in the royal mausoleum at the Escorial, the dowager empress had insisted on Descalzas as her final resting place.51 The choice of venue for Rudolf ’s funeral was probably also influenced by his sister Margaret, who had been living at the Descalzas convent since 1584 under the religious name Margarita de la Cruz.52 After Maria of Austria’s death, Margaret’s unstinting efforts ensured the continuity of the convent’s exceptional religious, political, and social missions—a role preordained for her by her departed mother. She was selflessly assisted in these endeavours by Luisa of Pernstein and other Central European noblewomen who also lived in the convent.53

49 Magdalena S. Sánchez, The Empress, the Queen, and the Nun. Women and Power at the Court of Philip III of Spain (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1998); Rubén González Cuerva and Pavel Marek, ‘The Dynastic Network between the Imperial and the Spanish Courts (1556–1619)’, in A Europe of Courts, a Europe of Factions Political Groups at Early Modern Centres of Power (1550–1700), ed. by Rubén González Cuerva and Alexander Koller (Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2017), pp. 130–56. 50 Jorge Sebastián Lozano, ‘Emblemas para una emperatriz muerta. Las honras madrileñas de la Compañía por María de Austria’, in Imagen y cultura. La interpretación de las imágenes como Historia cultural, ed. by Rafael García Mahíques and Vicent Francesc Zuriaga Senent, 2 vols (Valencia: Biblioteca Valenciana, 2008), Vol. ii, pp. 1453–62; Antonio Bernat Vistarini, John T. Cull and Tamas Sajo, The Book of Honors for Empress Maria of Austria - Composed by the College of the Society of Jesus of Madrid on the Occasion of Her Death (1603) (Philadelphia: Saint Joseph’s University Press 2011) ; for a concise recent view of Maria of Austria see: Alexander Koller, ‘Maria von Spanien, die katholische Königin’, in Nur die Frau des Kaisers? Kaiserinnen in der Frühen Neuzeit, ed. by Bettina Braun, Katrin Keller and Matthias Schnettger, Veröffentlichungen des Instituts für Österreichische Geschichtsforschung, 64 (Vienna: Böhlau Verlag, 2016), pp. 85–97. 51 Diario de Hans Khevenhüller, embajador imperial en la corte de Felipe II, ed. by Félix Labrador Arroyo (Madrid: Sociedad Estatal para la Conmemoración de los Centenarios de Felipe II y Carlos V, 2001), p. 552. 52 For her life and work in the convent see, e.g., Juan de Palma, Vida de la serenissima Infanta sor Margarita de la Cruz, Religiosa Descalça de S. Clara, Madrid: Imprenta Real, 1636; Sánchez, The Empress. 53 Pavel Marek, ‘Luisa de las Llagas. La abadesa de las Descalzas y el proceso de la comunicación política y cultural entre la corte real española y la imperial’, Pedralbes: revista d´història moderna, 31 (2011), 47–90; Pavel Marek, ‘“Signora di molta stima in questa corte.” La duquesa de Villahermosa Juana de Pernstein a través del epistolario conservado en el Archivo de la Casa de Alba’, in De puño y letra. Cartas personales en las redes dinásticas de la Casa de Austria, ed. by Bernardo J. García García, Katrin Keller and Andrea Sommer Matthis (Madrid: Iberoamericana Editorial Vervuert, 2019), pp. 275–98; Pavel Marek, Pernštejnské ženy. Marie Manrique de Lara a její dcery ve službách habsburské dynastie (Prague: Nakladatelství Lidové noviny) 2018; like Margaret, Rudolf II’s stepdaughter Anna Dorotea

the funerals of the emperor rudolf ii in the spanish monarchy, 1612

Inside the convent church, work on the castrum doloris, which took up twenty square feet of floor space right beside the high altar, continued throughout February and into early March. An empty coffin with symbols of his imperial majesty Rudolf II would be placed on it. The tower-like structure (túmulo torre) consisted of two separate tiers surmounted by stepped pyramids illuminated with candles. Reminiscent of the Church of Christ and the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem, this design originated in Spain, where it had been the preferred form of funeral architecture for the most important mourning rituals since the mid-sixteenth century.54 The ornate casket was placed on a raised catafalque flanked by four pedestals with pilasters and surmounted by a richly decorated cornice that supported the upper tier of the castrum. Arising from the upper tier were another four rectangular plinths, on which rested the four stepped pyramids bedecked with candles. The choice of architectural design was far from random, echoing as it did the oldest known funerary structures, such as the Halicarnassus mausoleum or the Egyptian pyramids, which symbolized in material form the eternal glory of the deceased.55 Another such symbolic element was the repeated use of the number four throughout the castrum doloris—a feature mentioned in one surviving description of the edifice. This number may refer to the four stages of life, or might indicate the four cardinal directions of the compass, or the four continents known to the Europeans of the early seventeenth century. In any case, the number four was clearly meant to express the universality of the emperor’s dominion. On the other hand, the four pilasters that formed the frame of the castrum probably represented the four evangelists of the New Testament or the four mystical creatures that hold up the throne of God as described by the prophet Ezekiel and later by St John.56 At the summit of the castrum doloris, between the pyramids, was the capilla ardiente or chapel of flame, which was composed entirely of burning candles and thus recalled the funeral pyres of the emperors of ancient Rome.57 It

54 55 56

57

was similarly active in her latter years; Vanessa de Cruz Medina, ‘An Illegitimate Habsburg: Sor Ana Dorotea de la Concepción, Marquise of Austria’, in Early Modern Habsburg Women. Transnational Contexts, Cultural Conflicts, Dynastic Continuities, ed. by Anne J. Cruz and Maria Galli Stampino (Farnham: Ashgate, 2013), pp. 97–119. AHNOB, Frías, C.115, D.46: Relación de las honras que se hicieron en sufragio del emperador Rodolfo II; Allo Manero and Esteban Llorente, ‘El estudio de las exequias’, pp. 66–68. Allo Manero and Esteban Llorente, ‘El estudio de las exequias’, pp. 66–68. The Brussels preacher François Richardot employed the same symbolism in his funeral sermon for Charles V; Gustaaf Janssens, ‘El sermón fúnebre predicado por François Richardot en Bruselas ante Felipe II con la ocasión de la muerte del emperador Carlos V’, in Carlos V y la quiebra del humanismo político en Europa (1530–1558), ed. by José Martínez Millán (Madrid: Sociedad Estatal para la Conmemoración de los Centenarios de Felipe II y Carlos V, 2001), pp. 349–62 (pp. 354, 349–62). AHNOB, Frías, C.115, D.46: Relación de las honras que se hicieron en sufragio del emperador Rodolfo II.

109

110

vác l av bůž e k & pave l m ar e k

could also be interpreted as an allegorical depiction of the Sun; although the identification of a monarch with the Sun (or Apollo) is best known in the case of Louis XIV, the practice was in fact customary throughout Europe in the early modern period. In ancient Egypt, of course, the Sun had been associated with divinity in the form of the god Ra, whose attributes included constancy, omnipresence, justice, independence, and purity. Sunset and sunrise were often used in allegorical depictions of decay and regeneration, and thus as representations of those key moments in the life of every dynasty—the passing of one monarch and the succession of another.58 The very top of the castrum doloris was decorated with motifs symbolizing imperial majesty: the emperor’s coat of arms, the imperial crown, the double-headed black eagle, and the Order of the Golden Fleece.59 The latter two emblems were more than mere reminders of the exalted rank of the deceased; they also bore a coded message. The double-headed eagle was first used as a symbol of imperial majesty after Gaius Julius Caesar’s triumph over Pompey, the colour black being an expression of grief over the loss of so many Roman lives in the civil war. In mythology, this same emblem was associated with Jupiter and represented victory. Subsequent rulers took it as a sign that they should not fear to soar into the heavenly heights and thus draw nearer to God. The Order of the Golden Fleece was primarily a symbol of purity, as well as a reminder of the heroic exploits of the Argonauts.60 If the allegorical meaning of these symbols was accessible mainly to the intellectual elite, the skulls and skeletons representing death and eternity were readily decipherable by all the mourners. Their attention would also have been caught by the costly drapes hung about the castrum and adorned with paintings commemorating the departed emperor’s most noteworthy deeds.61 Above all, however, the decoration of Rudolf ’s castrum doloris in the Descalzas convent was a celebration of the entire Habsburg family. The heraldic emblems of the emperor’s grandparents took pride of place on the main pedestals. At the end beneath the head of the casket were the coats of arms of Ferdinand I and Charles V, while the pilasters at Rudolf II’s feet bore the arms of Anna Jagiellon and Isabella of Portugal.62 The distribution of the coats of arms on the castrum followed the tradition of Burgundian ceremonial and reflected contemporary ideas about the supremacy of male succession over the female line. For this same reason, the arms of a given emperor’s

58 Encarnación de la Torre García, ‘Los Austrias y el poder: la imagen en el siglo XVII’, Historia y comunicación social, 5 (2000), pp. 13–29 (p. 16). 59 AHNOB, Frías, C.115, D.46: Relación de las honras que se hicieron en sufragio del emperador Rodolfo II. 60 Encarnación de la Torre García, ‘Los Austrias y el poder’, pp. 19–20. 61 See Allo Manero and Esteban Llorente, ‘El estudio de las exequias’, pp. 78–92. 62 AHNOB, Frías, C.115, D.46: Relación de las honras que se hicieron en sufragio del emperador Rodolfo II.

the funerals of the emperor rudolf ii in the spanish monarchy, 1612

paternal grandparents at either end of the castrum were always placed on the right, with those of the maternal grandparents to their left.63 Most parts of the castrum doloris were painted black and gold. Rudolf II’s Madrid castrum, however, also had areas of red ochre tinted to resemble jasper or marble, while other elements were made to look like bronze. The coffin itself was draped with a gleaming golden valance worked with braid of the same colour. On either side, on black velvet cushions, lay the royal regalia: the imperial sceptre was displayed by the deceased’s right hand, while mourners could admire the orb or globus cruciger on his left. At the spot where the head of the departed would normally rest stood a gilded silver crucifix. At the foot of the coffin, on a cloth-of-gold cushion, lay the chain of the Order of the Golden Fleece, and, enclosed symbolically within it, the imperial crown. Between the crucifix and the crown, running the full length of the casket, lay a sword symbolizing the Christian knight’s resolve to defend by force of arms the Catholic faith and the lands he ruled.64 In the case of Rudolf II, this meant first and foremost protecting Europe from the Turks. Even so, that was not the only reason why this sword, along with the crown itself, formed the centrepiece of these decorations: with its cross-like shape, it also conveyed a message about the justice of the deceased emperor’s rule. Moreover, as the instrument used in the crowning of a new king, it also represented the transfer of the dead sovereign’s authority and responsibility for the common good to his successor.65 Normally, royal burials in the Spanish monarchy took place between one and two months after a monarch’s death, over two consecutive days. The obsequies for Rudolf II were no exception. A vigil was held for the departed on the evening of the first day, followed by three pontifical high masses the next morning—the Mass of the Holy Spirit, the Mass of the Virgin Mary, and the Requiem. Attendance at the last of these, which was accompanied by the most pomp and circumstance, was by invitation only. This requiem service included a sermon eulogizing not only the person of the deceased, but the entire House of Habsburg.66 On the morning of 12 March 1612, King Philip III of Spain made the short journey from his palace to the convent of Descalzas Reales, where he then 63 Elisa Ruiz García, ‘Aspectos representativos en el ceremonial de unas exequias reales (a. 1504–1516)’, En la España Medieval, 26 (2003), 263–94 (p. 270); this spatial representation of family relationships had already been used in antiquity; Elisa Ruiz García, ‘Artemidoro y la arqueología del saber onirocrítico’, in Seminario sobre Historia del Monacato: Sueños, ensueños y visiones en la Antigüedad pagana y cristiana, ed. by Ramón Teja (Aguilar de Campo: Fundación Santa María la Real-Centro de Estudios del Románico, 2002), pp. 29–50. 64 AHNOB, Frías, C.115, D.46: Relación de las honras que se hicieron en sufragio del emperador Rodolfo II. 65 Ruiz García, ‘Aspectos’, pp. 275–76. 66 For the most comprehensive survey of Spanish royal funerals in the early modern period, see: Javier Varela, La muerte del Rey. El ceremonial funerario de la Monarquia Española (1500–1885) (Madrid: Turner, 1990), pp. 15–107.

111

112

vác l av bůž e k & pave l m ar e k

had lunch. At precisely four o’clock, accompanied by grandees and courtiers, he entered the church. The procession was headed by a host of knights and noblemen in long black robes and black hoods. They were followed by four officials known as ballesteros de maza who carried gilded maces and swords, as well as six royal mayordomos reales (royal stewards) bearing their staves of office. After them came the mayordomo mayor (high steward) Gómez Dávila y Toledo, marquis of Velada, holding aloft his ceremonial staff and flanked by four heralds bearing the coats of arms of the deceased emperor’s grandparents. At the side of the marquis walked the king’s nephew Emmanuel Philip II, son of the duke of Savoy and the infanta Catherine Michelle of Spain. Only after all of these did the king himself make his appearance, dressed in robes of black baize (luto de bayeta negra) with a long train, with which he was helped by Francisco de Sandoval y Rojas, duke of Lerma, the king’s valido (favourite) and sumiller de corps. On King Philip’s left came Cardinal Gaspar de Borja; some distance behind them, the procession of mourners continued with the grandees of Spain and foreign ambassadors, similarly attired in black baize. Every head, including the king’s, was covered with a black hood. One striking figure among the mourners was the imperial envoy Francesco Gonzaga di Castiglione, who, in addition to the customary black mask pinned to his hat, also wore the Order of the Golden Fleece on his breast, as did King Philip himself. The rear of this long line was brought up by the camareros reales (royal chamberlains), archers, and members of the Spanish and German Guards, who took up positions at the church door.67 The walls of the church were hung with drapes of black damask and velvet. Even the retable, newly adorned with the coats of arms of Rudolf ’s grandparents, was veiled in black. The main chapel was divided in half by a row of closely-spaced heraldic shields, above which flickered a line of candles to remind the congregation of the Light of Christ and the inextinguishable human soul. However, none of the surviving accounts of the Madrid ceremony mentions that the church decorations included any jeroglíficos—the enigmatic paintings with accompanying texts that were a common feature of early seventeenth-century funerals. Usually hung on the castrum doloris itself or displayed very close to it, their function was to extoll the virtues of the deceased and impart moral precepts to the mourners.68 At the king’s entry, the clergy in their ceremonial black-and-gold cassocks were already assembled in the choir, headed by the papal nuncio. Philip III first walked around the castrum doloris before taking his seat on the royal tribunal (also draped in black damask), where the duke of Savoy had the 67 AHNOB, Frías, C.115, D.46: Relación de las honras que se hicieron en sufragio del emperador Rodolfo II; AGP, Sección Histórica, Honras fúnebres por el Emperador Rodolfo de Alemania (1612), Caja 79, Expediente 9. 68 There are very few mentions of these emblematic paintings in published accounts of funeral ceremonies. An exception is the 1603 volume commemorating the funeral of the Empress Dowager Maria, which contains 36 such images; Sebastián Lozano, ‘Emblemas,’ pp. 1453–62.

the funerals of the emperor rudolf ii in the spanish monarchy, 1612

privilege of joining him. Opposite the king, to the left of the high altar, was a separate armchair reserved for Cardinal Gaspar de Borja, with another beside him for the mayordomo mayor (high steward), the marquis of Velada. The grandees then took their seats on the pews behind them, with the duke of Lerma in the place of honour. Then came the foreign diplomats, among them the emperor’s emissary and the ambassadors of France and Venice. The pews to the right of the altar (as seen from the congregation) were reserved for prelates, where the bishops of Pamplona and Oviedo were now seated. There were no designated seats for holders of the Order of the Golden Fleece.69 Six royal mayordomos (stewards) took their places on the altar steps, while heralds holding aloft the emperor’s grandparents’ insignia positioned themselves around the castrum doloris, one at each corner. The king’s own musicians from the capilla real were seated behind a specially erected screen. Members of the aristocracy, ladies of the court, pages, and other spectators filled up the rest of the chapel. The afternoon vigil, consisting of devotions led by the papal nuncio Antonio Caetani, the Descalzas chaplain Alonso Messia, and chaplains of the king’s household, lasted just under two hours. At its conclusion, the entire company filed out of the chapel in the same order in which they had entered.70 The funeral rites continued with a requiem mass in the Descalzas convent chapel at eight o’clock the following morning, 13 March 1612. The first part, La Misa de Espíritu Santo, was conducted in front of the now-exposed retable by Antonio Venegas y Figueroa, the archbishop of Pamplona, resplendent in a scarlet cassock that formed a striking contrast with the white candles on the altar. After an hour, during which the assembled mourners recited the Gloria and the Credo, his place was taken by his colleague from Oviedo, Archbishop Juan Álvarez de Caldas, dressed in gleaming white, who concluded the service with the Mass of Our Lady (La Misa de Nuestra Señora) accompanied by organ music. The retable remained uncovered until the start of the last part of the vigil, when it was once again hidden behind a black curtain. It was only then that King Philip made his entry from the royal apartments, followed by the same retinue as on the previous day. The final liturgy commenced at half past ten and was again conducted by the papal nuncio to the Spanish court, Antonio Caetani. The king observed the proceedings from behind a black gauze curtain, while the prelates and ambassadors returned to the places they had taken the day before. For Holy Communion, the king stepped down from the tribunal and approached the altar, surrounded by his

69 AHNOB, Frías, C.115, D.46: Relación de las honras que se hicieron en sufragio del emperador Rodolfo II. AGP, Sección Histórica, Caja 79, Expediente 9: Honras fúnebres por el Emperador Rodolfo de Alemania, 1612. 70 AGP, Sección Histórica, Caja 79, Expediente 9: Honras fúnebres por el Emperador Rodolfo de Alemania, 1612.

113

114

vác l av bůž e k & pave l m ar e k

usual retinue. There he knelt, kissed the paten, and handed a lighted candle to the nuncio before returning to the privacy of his screened seat.71 The mass came to an end and the papal nuncio returned to his pew. He was succeeded by the king’s court preacher Gregorio de Pedrosa, General of the Hieronymite Order, who presumably celebrated the virtues and deeds of the deceased emperor (the present authors have been unable to find the text of his sermon). Accounts of the funeral ceremony indicate that de Pedrosa’s oration lasted over an hour. However, despite his reputation as one of the finest preachers at the Madrid court, his appointment to this task was somewhat surprising, as it appears he had no personal experience of the late emperor and had to rely on second-hand reports.72 This was by no means the case for the clerics who preceded him at the requiem mass, at least two of whom could pride themselves on their close ties with the Central European branch of the Habsburgs. The archbishop of Pamplona, Antonio Venegas y Figueroa, was the son of Luis Venegas y Figueroa, who was in the service of Maximilian II for many years and was later appointed ambassador to the imperial court by King Philip II. Although his Vienna posting was only temporary, Luis Venegas maintained his contacts with the Austrian Habsburgs after his return to Spain, when he became the caballerizo mayor (high equerry) to Queen Anne of Austria.73 There is no documentary evidence of a similar link between the bishop of Oviedo and Central Europe. In view of his advanced age, however, it is not inconceivable that Juan Álvarez de Caldas had come into contact with the young Rudolf during the future emperor’s years at the Spanish court (1564–71). Nor was the third preacher, Antonio Caetani, a random choice. Before his appointment as papal nuncio to Madrid, he had served at the imperial court in Prague during the turbulent period of strife between Rudolf II and his brother Matthias, when the ailing emperor issued his Letter of Majesty concerning religious freedom, with which he forfeited the last vestiges of the Vatican’s trust.74 And thus, following the eulogy by Gregorio de Pedrosa, the funeral

71 AGP, Sección Histórica, Caja 79, Expediente 9: Honras fúnebres por el Emperador Rodolfo de Alemania, 1612. 72 Fernando Negredo del Cerro, ‘Servir al rey y servirse del rey. Los predicadores regios en el primer tercio del siglo XVII’, in Servir al rey en la Monarquía de los Austrias, ed. by Alicia Esteban Estríngana (Madrid: Sílex, 2012), pp. 361–82 (pp. 377–79). 73 José Bermúdez, Regalia del aposentamiento de corte: su origen y progresso, leyes, Madrid: Antonio Sanz, 1738, p. 107; for more on Luis de Venegas and his diplomatic mission, see: Pavel Marek, La embajada española en la corte imperial 1558–1641. Figuras de los embajadores y estrategias clientelares (Prague: Editorial Karolinum, 2013), pp. 56–63. 74 For an account of Antonio Caetani’s work in Prague, see Epistulae et acta Antonii Caetani 1607–1611, ed. by Tomáš Černušák, Pars IV (September 1608 – Junius 1609) (Pragae: Historický ústav, Academia 2013) (= Epistulae et acta nuntiorum apostolicorum apud imperatorem 1592–1628. Tomus IV); Idem, Epistulae et acta Antonii Caetani 1607–1611, ed. by Tomáš Černušák, Pars IV ( Julius 1609 – Februarius 1611) (Pragae: Historický ústav, Academia 2017) (= Epistulae et acta nuntiorum apostolicorum apud imperatorem 1592–1628.

the funerals of the emperor rudolf ii in the spanish monarchy, 1612

service was brought to a close with a symbolically significant short prayer in which the nuncio asked that the emperor’s sins be forgiven. On finishing his address, Caetani, accompanied by deacons, stepped up to the empty coffin and walked around it three times swinging a censer. This was considered the final act of the funeral ceremony at the convent of Descalzas Reales.

Funeral Sermons for Rudolf II in Brussels While we have been unable to ascertain the content of Gregorio de Pedrosa’s funeral sermon in Madrid, we know exactly what Paul Boudot said in his eulogy in the royal chapel in Brussels on the same day, in the presence of Archduke Albert and his wife Isabella Clara Eugenia.75 For sheer length, Boudot’s panegyric, which was published on 1 August 1612 by Robert Maudhuy in Arras, surpassed all other written tributes to Rudolf.76 For while neither the published Latin version of Aubert Le Mire’s sermon, based on the eulogy he delivered in Antwerp, nor the laudation by Cosimo Minerbetti heard by mourners at the Florence ceremony exceeded fifty pages in length, the French-language address given by Archduke Albert’s court chaplain in Antwerp ran to a hefty one hundred and fifty. To what extent the printed text tallied with the sermon as actually delivered by Boudot is of course a matter of conjecture. The four-month interval between Rudolf II’s funeral and the publication of the text, however, as well as the latter’s great length, suggest that there may have been some additions and revisions. In any event, Boudot’s sermon provides interesting evidence of just how much importance Albert attached to the funeral rites of the deceased emperor as a means of presenting and promoting his own political agenda.77 In fact, Paul Boudot hardly mentions Rudolf in his sermon. The Sorbonnetrained theologian conceived of his funeral oration primarily as a philosophical meditation on the transience of human life and the inevitability of death, liberally sprinkling his speech with quotations from the Bible and classical

Tomus V); Tomáš Černušák, ‘Die päpstliche Politik in Mitteleuropa vor und nach dem Majestätsbrief – Wandel oder Kontinuität?’ in Religion und Politik, ed. by Hausenblasová, Mikulec, and Thomsen, pp. 55–63; Černušák and Marek, Gesandte. 75 See, e.g., Biographie universelle, ancienne et moderne, ouvrage rédigé par une société de gens de lettres V., ed. by Joseph François Michaud and Louis Gabriel Michaud (Paris: Michaud Freres, 1854), p. 190. 76 To date, the authors have been able to locate the following accounts: Oratio Cosmi Minervetti habita Florentiae idibvs febrvarii in aede D. Lavrentii in funere Rvdolphi II caesaris Romanorum imperatoris semper augusti Germaniae, Hvngariae at Boemiae regis, Florence: Cosimo Giunta, 1612; Laudatio funebris Rudolphi II Imp. Augusti … ab Auberto Miraeo, Antwerp: Officina Plantiniana/widow and sons of Jan Moretus, 1612; Boudot, Harangue funèbre; Georg Bartholdo Pontano a Braitenberg, Laudatio Funebris in Obitum Sacratissimi et augustissimi Romanorum imperatoris Rudolphi II, Prague: Jiří Černý, 1612. 77 Boudot, Harangue funèbre.

115

116

vác l av bůž e k & pave l m ar e k

Greek and Roman writers, to which he appended his own commentaries. Not infrequently, his philosophical excursions took him a long way from the primary purpose of the occasion. Brief references to Rudolf II’s life and death quickly gave way to more general themes that happened to interest the speaker. He devoted several pages to the origin, growth, and fall of four great empires—Babylon, Persia, Greece, and Rome—before asking rhetorically whether the death of Rudolf II might signify the beginning of the final phase of the Holy Roman Empire. Not until halfway through his address did Boudot embark on the customary laudatio. Even this, however, he used as an opportunity to celebrate the Habsburgs in general and to champion the candidacy of Albert for the imperial throne in particular. He gave a detailed disquisition on the Habsburg lineage, fleshed out with accounts of other emperors going back to Julius Caesar. Prominence was given to the early years of Habsburg rule in the Low Countries, and praise was lavished on the family’s prudent marriage politics. But what must have caught the Brussels mourners’ attention most was Boudot’s repeated and emphatic reminders that Rudolf I, initiator of the dynasty’s glory days, had been followed on the Habsburg throne by an emperor named Albert—a clear message that Rudolf II should also be succeeded by a ruler of that name.78 In his address, Boudot urged the electors to choose a new emperor who would serve the Catholic Church above all. Such a man should have the power and resolve to tackle the many problems that had arisen in those troubled times. Boudot spoke in particular of the continuing Turkish threat, even suggesting that the new emperor, like Saint Louis and Godfrey of Bouillon, lead a crusade to recapture Constantinople and the Holy Land.79 In characterizing Rudolf, Boudot drew on the prophet Ezekiel, who, like the apostle John, had had a vision of four fantastical creatures holding up the throne of God—one resembling a man, the others a lion, a bull, and an eagle in flight.80 Modern interpreters of the Bible generally understand these as symbols of the universal power of God, though since the time of St Jerome they have also been seen as embodiments of the attributes of the four evangelists.81 Archduke Albert’s preacher-in-ordinary used the same idea to stress the divine source of imperial authority while at the same time celebrating the deceased emperor’s virtues. In the imaginary of the period, these four beings—lion, bull, man, and eagle—possessed all the qualities required by a good ruler. In addition to prudence, industry, and perseverance, the bull in Boudot’s schema symbolized devotion to God above all. None of these

78 Boudot, Harangue funèbre., p. 73. 79 Boudot, Harangue funèbre., pp. 57–58. 80 Ezekiel 1; Revelations 4. 81 Le symbolisme des Quatre Vivants. Ezéchiel, Saint Jean et la tradition, ed. by Michel Fromaget (Paris: Éditions du Félin, 1992), pp. 64–66.

the funerals of the emperor rudolf ii in the spanish monarchy, 1612

virtues was lacking in Rudolf II, whose rule, according to the French cleric, had proven that he was a prudent and industrious leader. In his efforts to serve God, the emperor had not been deterred by any of the difficulties he had encountered in his struggles against the Ottoman foe, throughout the Holy Roman Empire, or in Prague itself, which Boudot described as ‘full of Lutherans, Calvinists, Zwinglians, and other devils’.82 To his enemies, Rudolf exhibited qualities associated with the lion. While he did not shrink from meting out harsh punishment to disobedient subjects, he was also capable of clementia, the famous Habsburg clemency. His leonine strength was felt most keenly by the Turks, from whose grasp he had snatched Esztergom and Székesfehérvár. And while the preacher failed to give any specific examples of the emperor’s clemency, he deliberated at some length on whether Rudolf had been right not to take part in a military campaign himself. Pointing to historical precedents, Boudot concluded that the emperor had made a wise decision, as the alternative would have meant exposing the lands he ruled to the unnecessary risk of losing their sovereign.83 Having affirmed Rudolf ’s wisdom, Boudot moved on to the attributes of the eagle, which was seen as a symbol of perspicacity, erudition, and nobility. The deceased Central European ruler had successfully employed all these virtues in the governance of his realm, which—despite setbacks—he had managed to maintain intact. In this, the preacher claimed, the emperor had been helped by his good relations with every Christian leader in Europe, including the pope.84 The final essential quality of a good ruler was Rudolf II’s reverence for the Church and the Almighty—a quality possessed only by men with his unique awareness of the divine. For Boudot, belief in the true God and respect for His law were the most important human traits; a human being without faith could not be fully human. And this preacher affirmed in the royal chapel that he was convinced the emperor’s conduct had conformed to this ineluctable rule. Ignoring Machiavelli’s advice that European rulers should subordinate church and faith to the interests of the state, Rudolf had presented himself throughout his life as an exemplary shepherd of the Christian flock.85 Using medieval allegorical interpretations of the visions of Ezekiel and John, Boudot presented the deceased emperor as a pillar of God’s kingdom on earth, and thus offered a symbolic contribution to the contemporary debate about the divine right of kings. With its unequivocal rejection of the Renaissance idea of government based on Machiavellianism, this funeral sermon serves as an interesting link between medieval perceptions of sovereign power and ideas that became current with the rise of absolutism. This is not

82 Boudot, Harangue funèbre, pp. 104–08 (authors’ translation). 83 Boudot, Harangue funèbre, pp. 109–20. 84 Boudot, Harangue funèbre, pp. 120–31. 85 Boudot, Harangue funèbre, pp. 131–35.

117

118

vác l av bůž e k & pave l m ar e k

to say that Boudot’s thinking was original: the medieval interpretation of the four creatures envisioned by Ezekiel and John had been used by François Richardot at the funeral of Charles V, also in Brussels, in 1559.86 At the very end of his oration, Boudot described the emperor’s dying moments. If we are to believe Boudot, Rudolf II was rewarded for his exemplary conduct and sense of duty in life with a passing that conformed perfectly to the Catholic idea of a good death. Moreover, his virtues assured him of immortality. The preacher went on to compare the emperor’s journey into eternity to the endless, cyclical movement of the Sun from one hemisphere to the other. In the same way, Rudolf had now exchanged the society of men for the society of angels. His exemplary life, Boudot concluded, ensured that his memory would live on, firmly established in the minds of those he had left behind.

Conclusion Although the various funeral services held for Rudolf II in the Spanish monarchy differed from those conducted in Florence and Prague in their dates, costs, and contents, they delivered the same essential message. Each ceremony, at each stage of the Catholic burial rite, served not only to bid farewell to the mortal remains of the departed, but to fashion an image of his immortal social body. From the lying-in-state to the final requiem mass, Rudolf II was enshrined in the collective memory as a virtuous ruler, a Christian knight, and a warrior for the Catholic faith, who by the grace of God had been able to continue the work of his illustrious Habsburg forebears. The preachers at these funerals added their own verbal contributions to this image. Their chief aim was to celebrate the life and achievements of Rudolf and his family, comfort the bereaved, and hold up the emperor’s virtues as a worthy example to his successors and a sure path to salvation. The mourners were presented with an idealized picture far removed from the ruler’s reality. As our analysis of Paul Boudot’s remarks has shown, this preacher’s sermon was primarily an instrument of political propaganda and a clever attempt to manipulate the collective memory. It said nothing about how Rudolf II actually lived, but rather how a good Christian ruler should live. And let us not forget that the content of this sermon was not determined solely by the personality of the deceased, nor by the wit of its author, but also by the wishes of the patron who commissioned it. For this reason, we should take Boudot’s laudation in the royal chapel in Brussels first and foremost as support for Archduke Albert in his bid to become Holy Roman Emperor. Although the image of Rudolf ’s social body was at odds with more downto-earth assessments of his abilities as a ruler, it did lend some credibility to 86 Janssens, ‘El sermón fúnebre’, pp. 349–62.

the funerals of the emperor rudolf ii in the spanish monarchy, 1612

the magnificent celebrations that accompanied the departure of his physical body. The funeral rites in the Madrid convent of Descalzas Reales were held in the presence of the king of Spain, the papal nuncio, and the elite of the Spanish court, with the king attending not only the afternoon vigil on 12 March 1612, but also the requiem mass for the dead emperor—the culmination of the Catholic funeral ritual—in the lavishly decorated convent chapel the following morning. The centrepiece of the funerary décor was the resplendent castrum doloris, on which the casket, the imperial crown, sceptre, orb, and the Order of the Golden Fleece were symbolically displayed. The casket may have been empty, but the decorations sent out a clear message reaffirming the principles of divinely sanctioned universal power, territorial government, and Christian chivalry, which together would form the skeleton of the social body of the departed emperor Rudolf II in the collective memory.

119

NÓRA G. ETÉNYI 

Printed Political Representation of the Coronation of Joseph I as King of Hungary, 1687* 1

A great variety of high-quality prints were published on the occasion of Joseph I’s coronation as king of Hungary by the Hungarian parliament in Pozsony (Bratislava) in 1687. Full-figure and equestrian portraits, carefully composed allegories, thesis sheets, leaflets, royal almanacs, series of drawings, emblematic books, weekly news reports, and detailed articles about the coronation appeared in unprecedented numbers. An analysis of this phenomenon will shed new light on power relations in Central Europe after the final expulsion of the Ottomans in 1686 and provide unique opportunities to examine representations of power at the end of the seventeenth century. The propaganda machine built up by the Habsburgs and the electors of the Holy Roman Empire over the course of their long, federalized war provided opportunities for the active and legitimate involvement of several centres of power in the political public of the Empire. News items about the coronation were part of a Hungarian news-boom around the time of the Habsburg re-occupation of Hungary, and were thus an important element of European political discourse. Starting in the autumn of 1683, the Habsburg court began to utilize the Turkish war in ways which emphasized the role of Crown Prince Joseph. Several printing houses specialized in news of the Turkish war, and most of them published prints and broadsheets about the 1687 coronation. Changes in the legal and political relationship between the Habsburg Empire and Hungary were among the major issues of the international political discourse of the era; the Spanish Habsburg court was well informed and thus able to appreciate the effects that the political changes in Hungary might have on the European balance of power. In presenting Hungary’s public policies, especially to audiences in the Holy Roman Empire, the court of Emperor Leopold I mobilized first-rate artists, well-prepared diplomats, and talented journalists to convey modern, effective arguments through the international media. Joseph, the child heir to the Habsburg throne, symbolized the promise of peace and renewal in this new political era. Most of these newspapers, newsletters, and broadsheets reported on the declaration of Hungary as a

* This chapter is a reworked version of the earlier published ‘Die Öffentlichkeitspolitik des kaiserlichen Hofes bei der Krönung Josephs I. zum König von Ungarn’, in Die weltliche und kirchliche Elite aus dem Königreich Böhmen und Königreich Ungarn am Wiener Kaiserhof im 16–17. Jahrhundert, ed. by Anna Fundárková and István Fazekas (Vienna: Collegium Hungaricum, 2013), pp. 175–214. Eagles Looking East and West: Dynasty, Ritual and Representation in Habsburg Hungary and Spain, ed. by Tibor Martí & Roberto Quirós Rosado, Habsburg Worlds 4 (Turnhout, 2021), pp. 121–158.

© FHG

DOI 10.1484/M.HW-EB.5.122798

1 22

n ó r a g. e t é n y i

hereditary monarchy and the abrogation of nobles’ right of resistance. These publications emphasized not only the growing power of the Habsburg dynasty, but also the economic potential of the Hungarian kingdom and political influence and prestige of the Hungarian nobility.

Propaganda Featuring the Child heir Joseph Crown Prince Joseph, who was nine years old at the time of his coronation in 1687, was already a notable figure in the Habsburgs’ dynastic representation by the time of the Ottoman siege of Vienna in 1683. On 26 July of that year, the Nuremberg publisher Johann Jonathan Felsecker issued a special leaflet commemorating the fifth birthday of the royal heir1 in which he emphasized the need for imperial cohesion in facing down the menace of the Ottoman advance. Its illustration, a quality engraving, depicted Joseph surrounded by his patron saints.2 In keeping with the prevailing ideals of the age, an anonymous poem compared Joseph to a magnificent cedar, to Phoebus, to Castor, and to Alexander the Great; Hercules was a common symbol of a legitimate war in that era. The Felsecker Printing House, famous for its high-quality work,3 published a remarkable number of brochures praising Emperor Leopold and his court during the second half of the seventeenth century. Felsecker also published a poetic leaflet about the marriage of Leopold I and Eleonora Pfalz-Neuburg.4 It later published a descriptive leaflet with an engraving of the birth of the long-awaited crown prince, Joseph I, featuring recognizable portraits of the royal couple. In a poem included in this pamphlet, Germany, Hungary, the kingdom of Bohemia, Carinthia, Silesia, the Frank territories, and Nuremberg— each personified in the text—expressed their





1 Wahre und Eigentliche Abbildung Einer Österreichischen jungen Cedern-Säul und erwünschten Europäer- Heyl Des ältisten Durchläuchtigsten Erz-Herzoglichen Kaiserlichen Erb-Prinzens Josephi, Jacobi, Ignatii, Johannis, Antonii, Eustachii, Welcher Um das Heil Jahr Christi 1678 den 16 (26) July zwischen 2 und 3 Uhr… gebohren worden. Nürnberg, bey Jo. Jonathan Felsecker 1683, VIENNA Austrian National Library Picture Archive Port 00046973–01. 2 Friedrich Polleroß, ‘Architektur und Panegyrik. Eine Allegorie der Jesuiten zur Geburt von Erzherzog Leopold Joseph (1682)’, in Barock in Mitteleuropa. Werke – Phänomene – Analysen. Hellmut Lorenz zum 65. Geburtstag, ed. by Martin Engel and others (Vienna/Cologne/ Weimar: Böhlau, 2007), pp. 375–91. 3 Christoph Reske, Die Buchdrucker des 16. und 17. Jahrhunderts im deutschen Sprachgebiet. Auf der Grundlage des gleichnamigen Werkes von Josef Benzing Wiesbaden, Beiträge zum Buch- und Bibliothekwesen, 51 (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz 2007). 4 ‚Die Durchleuchtigste Prinzessin und Fräulein, Fräulein Eleonora Magdalena Theresia, Vermählte Röm. Kaiserin, 1676. Nürnberg, gedruckt und zu finden bey Felseckern’; ‘Der Allerdurchleuchtigst Glorwürdigste und unüberwindlichste Fürst und Herr, Herr Leopold der Erste dieses Nahmens Römischen Kayser […]’, ed. by John Roger Paas, The German Political Broadsheet 1600–1700, 14 vols (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1985–2014), X 1671–1682 (2010), pp. 250–51 (P-3162–3163).

Printed Political Representation of the Coronation of Joseph I

best wishes for the newborn heir.5 The Felsecker family had been publishing the weekly newspaper Der Nürnberger Friedens- und Kriegs Currier since 1663, and their printing privileges for it had been renewed continually for decades in Vienna and Nuremberg as an expression of gratitude for its service to the crown.6 The Felseckers’ informative, thoughtfully laid out leaflets were based on official military reports and featured true-to-life landscape art; their publications were often re-printed by other printing houses. Following the liberation of Vienna at the Battle of Kahlenberg on 12 September 1683, depictions of this triumph often emphasized a controlled interpretation of the relationship between the emperor and the allied princeelectors, which presented Crown Prince Joseph as being more important to dynastic interests than were the current affairs of military power. The Augsburg publisher Jakob Koppmayer (1640–1701) printed, first in leaflet form and later in the 1684 royal almanac, an engraving by Melchior Haffner which depicted important participants in the triumph over the Ottomans. The leaflet also included two columns of detailed summaries and some panegyrical poetry. In the engraving, Emperor Leopold I is seated in a baldaquined throne, with Joseph standing a couple of steps below him as they accept the trophies of their triumph over the Ottomans. Standing around the throne in their armour are Poland’s King John III, the allied prince-electors, and the victorious generals of 1683—one of whom, Ernst Rüdiger Starhemberg, the organizer of the city’s defences during the Ottoman siege, is holding up a map of Vienna. This leaflet also described the military heroics of the Bavarian prince-elector Maximilian II Emanuel, the Saxon prince-elector John George III, and Charles V, duke of Lorraine. The calendar section of the royal almanac was made in Nuremberg by Johann Christoph Wagner; six small pictures along the side of the calendar depict the horrific devastation the Ottomans wrought around Vienna, as well as the defence of the city and celebrations of thanksgiving in churches. Koppmayer published a variety of printed material on Hungarian themes, leaflets, reports, books,7 and high-quality royal almanacs.8







5 ‘Das Aeste-Reiche Oester-Reich oder der gesegnete Adler, durch höchst-erfreulicher GlückGeburt eines Kaiserlichen Prinzens. Von Leopold dem Ersten […] Wolf Eberhard und J. J. Felsecker’, ed. by Paas, The German Political Broadsheet, x, p. 287 (P-3199). 6 ÖStA HHStA RHR Impressorien 66., fol. 250; Walter Zimmermann, Entwicklungsgeschichte des Nürnberger “Friedens- und Kriegskuriers” (“Nürnberger Kurier”) von seinen ersten Anfängen bis zum Übergang an den “Fränkischen Kurier” 1663–1685. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte des deutschen Zeitungswesens (Nuremberg: W. Tümmel, 1930), pp. 138–45; Jutta Schumann, Die andere Sonne. Kaiserbild und Medienstrategien im Zeitalter Leopolds I. (Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 2003). 7 John Roger Paas, ‘Die Flugblattproduktion des Augsburger Druckers und Verlegers Jakob Koppmayer 1640–1701’, in Gestochen in Augsburg. Forschungen und Beiträge zur Geschichte der Augsburger Druckgrafik. Hommage a Wolfgang Seitz zum 90. Geburstag 2011, ed. by John Roger Paas, Josef H. Biller and Maria-Luise Hopp-Gantner (Augsburg: Wissner, 2013), pp. 79–100. 8 ‘Allmanach auff das Jahr nach der Geburt Unseres C. H. U. Seeligmachers Jesu Christi 1689’, ed. by Paas, The German Political Broadsheet, xii (2014), p. 160 (P-3639).

123

124

n ó r a g. e t é n y i

The five-year-old royal heir was represented not only in publications about defending the Hungarian kingdom from Ottoman attacks, but also in propaganda which supported further offensives against them, particularly when an effective counterattack in the autumn of 1683 seemed to foretell the success of a major Hungarian offensive. Following the raising of the siege of Vienna in 1683 and the Christian armies’ victories at Párkány (now Štúrovo, Slovakia) on ‘9 October’ and Esztergom on 27 October, they published a leaflet9 which used commonly recognized landscapes to refer to the most important of these battlegrounds. Works by the Augsburg painter Johann Zaharias Reidel and the talented engraver Johann Franck share a lot of similarities with Koppmayer’s engraving, though the latter put somewhat more emphasis on praising the Habsburg dynasty. In Koppmayer’s fictive throne room, a laureled Leopold and his third wife, Eleonora von Pfalz-Neuburg, are seated with their two surviving children, Crown Prince Joseph and Mary Elisabeth. The text of the leaflet, however, offers lengthy accounts of the roles played by King John III (Sobieski) of Poland, Maximilian II Emanuel, John George III, Charles V Duke of Lorraine, and Ernst Rüdiger Starhemberg in the Hungarian victories of the autumn of 1683. The royal heir became a central figure in Habsburg dynastic representation after the defence of the imperial city, Vienna, and especially after the reoccupation of the capital of the Hungarian kingdom, Buda. Joseph’s youth was not represented as a disadvantage, but rather as the symbol of a new era, and of opportunities for the coming generation. Though the imperial privy council did discuss Joseph’s minor status on 7 April 1687, just months before his Hungarian coronation, the legitimacy of his claim was affirmed with the examples of the Hungarian king St Ladislaus and Louis XIII of France, and, ultimately, his actual age was rarely the focus of such propaganda. The pamphlets, leaflets, and portraits which depicted the royal heir concentrated on his childish innocence and angelic beauty.10 In 1687, the Felsecker Publishing Company printed a semi-portrait of Joseph similar to its 1683 engraving; this time, the royal heir was depicted in the garments of a Hungarian noble and surrounded by poems praising the Habsburg dynasty (Fig, 6.1. and 6.2).11 The Nuremberg publisher Leonhard Loschge depicted

9 ‘Immerwaehrendes Ehren-Gedachtnuss. Der allertappfersten Helden unserer Zeit, welche sich in Hinwegtreibung dess Erb-Feinds von der Kayserlichen Residenz-Stadt Wien! […] Kupffer entworffen’, ed. by Szalai Béla, Magyar várak, városok, falvak metszeteken. I. A mai Magyarország [Hungarian castles, cities, and villages in engravings 1515–1800] (Budapest: Múzeum Antikvárium, 2006), i, p. 65. 10 Gyulai Éva, ‘Gyermekkirály a Magyar Királyság trónján – I. József koronázásának ikonográfiai reprezentációja [A child king on the Hungarian throne: Iconographic representation of King Joseph’s coronation]’, Történelem és Muzeológia: Internetes Folyóirat Miskolcon, 2 (2015), 18–46. 11 Über den neu-gekrönten grossmaechtigst und unüberwindlichsten König in Hungarn Josephum Dessen Bildnuss hier vorgestellet wird komme aller Seegen Josephs! Nürnberg gedruckt und zufinden bey Felsecker; Josephus I König in Hungarn zu finden bey Leonhard Loschge. BUDAPEST, Hungarian National Museum Graphic Collection 2230 and 11761.

Printed Political Representation of the Coronation of Joseph I

Fig. 6.1.  Joseph in Hungarian attire, surrounded by greeting poems, portrait published by Felsecker, Nuremberg ( Johann Azelt), 1687 © Budapest, Hungarian National Museum

125

1 26

n ó r a g. e t é n y i

Fig. 6.2.  Equestrian portrait of Joseph by Leonhard Loschge 1687 © Budapest, Hungarian National Museum

Joseph wearing Hungarian-style clothes, with a sceptre in his hand, riding a jumping horse through a scene from Pozsony. A poetic leaflet published in three different forms—in Nuremberg, Ulm, and Frankfurt am Main—suggested that the hand of Providence was responsible for the fact that Joseph would be ten years old when he was to be crowned the tenth Habsburg king of

Printed Political Representation of the Coronation of Joseph I

Hungary (Fig. 6.3).12 It was probably Johann Christoph Lochner who served as the model for a full-body portrait of Joseph depicting him in Hungarian ceremonial garb with the Hungarian crown on his head.13 Habsburg dynastic propaganda also bolstered the popularity of the royal heir as he prepared for the responsibilities of leadership. Christoph Riegel published a thousand-page book about the Hungarian kingdom and the coronation of Joseph I as Hungary’s king;14 the front page of this 1688 work compressed its contents into a single informative picture.15 In the background of this engraving is a map of Hungary marked with the locations and dates of triumphs over the Ottomans, such as Érsekújvár 1685 and Buda 1686. This map also features an image of the castle in Munkács (now Mukachevo, Ukraine) where Ilona Zrínyi, the wife of the rebel leader Imre Thököly, capitulated to the Habsburgs in January of 1688. On the front page of Riegel’s book, a laureled Leopold is standing and offering instruction to Joseph I.16 The image of Leopold teaching his son was published as a thesis sheet as well.17 The image on the cover page of Riegel’s book shows the royal heir learning the history of the Hungarian kingdom, its current conditions, and the economic value of its reconquered territories. In this picture, Joseph is wearing the Hungarian crown and the garments of a Hungarian noble 12 Josephus Archidux Austriae Leopoldi Caesaris Filius ex Eleonora Augusta Palatino. Neoburgia Nascitur 25. Julii Pannonniae Rex Solenni ritu Inauguratur Posonii 9. Decembris A. 1687. Nürnberg zu finden bey Johannn Christoph Lochner Buchhaendler” BUDAPEST, Hungarian National Museum Graphic Collection 2220. Various: Frankfurt zu finden bey Matthaus Schnatz. 3. Various: In Verlegung Mattheus Wagner Buchdrucker in Ulm. 13 A Batthyányak évszázadai [The Batthyánys Through the Centuries], ed. by Monika Zsámbéky (Budapest, 2005), pp. 81–82; Friedrich Polleroß, ‘Austriacus Hungariae Rex. Zur Darstellung der Habsburger als ungarische Könige in der frühneuzeitlichen Graphik’, in „Ez világ mint egy kert…” Tanulmányok Galavics Géza tiszteletére, ed. by Orsolya Bubryák (Budapest: Gondolat, 2010), p. 67. 14 Das ehmals gedrükte vom Türcken Berückte un Trefflich erquickte Königreich Hungarn samt dessen Strömen-Fürsten der Welt-berühmte Donau ausführlich vorgestellet […] Franckfurt am Mayn und Leipzig in Verlegung Christoph Riegels, 1688. MUNICH, Bavarian State Library Res Austr. 4. 946. 15 Dietmar Peil, ‘Titelkupfer/Titelblatt – ein Programm? Beobachtungen zur Funktion von Titelkupfer und Titelblatt in ausgewählten Beispielen aus dem 17. Jahrhundert’, in Die Pluralisierung des Paratextes in der Frühen Neuzeit. Theorie, Formen, Funktionen, ed. by Frieder von Ammon and Herfried Vogel (Berlin: Lit. Verlag, 2008), pp. 301–36. 16 Friedrich von Rummel, Franz Ferdinand von Rummel: Lehrer Kaiser Josephs I. und Füstbischof von Wien (1644–1716), Schriftenreihe des Instituts für Österreichkunde (Vienna: Verl. für Geschichte u. Politik, 1980); Kalmár János, ‘Kindheit und Umgebung des Kaisers Karl VI.’, in A tudomány szolgálatában [In the service of science]: Emlékkönyv Benda Kálmán 80. születésnapjára, ed. by Glatz Ferenc (Budapest: MTA Történettudományi Intézet, 1993), pp. 141–47. 17 Vajda László, ‘Jan Onghers tézislapterve. Kísérlet egy dicsőítő allegória újabb meghatározására [ Jan Onghers’ thesis-sheet design. An attempt at a new interpretation of a panegyrical allegory]’, Művészettörténeti Értesítő, 57 (2008), 287–302.

127

1 28

n ó r a g. e t é n y i

Fig. 6.3.  Portrait of Joseph wearing Hungarian aristocratic attire, by J. C. Lochner Nuremberg © Budapest, Hungarian National Museum

Printed Political Representation of the Coronation of Joseph I

Fig. 6.4.  Cover page from a summary of the history of the Hungarian Kingdom. Nuremberg, 1688 © Budapest, Hungarian National Museum

while accepting the homage of an old man representing the principality of Transylvania. This detail is a direct reference to the Treaty of Balázsfalva, which established the principality’s new status. Elsewhere on that front page, the doge of Venice, Francesco Morosini, is emphasizing the importance of the maritime theatre of war. The latter is a reference to the conflict over Dalmatian territory; Venice’s claim to the Croatian coast was based on force of arms, while the Habsburg monarch’s was based on rights associated with the Hungarian crown.18 (Fig. 4) Joseph I’s careful upbringing is illustrated in a publication entitled The Crown Prince’s Geometry Book, printed in Vienna in 1687 and 1688.19 This book was primarily a geometry textbook, but it also included depictions of 110 Hungarian castles and towns. These landscapes conveyed Hungary’s prevailing social conditions, thereby implying that the royal heir’s primary 18 Ekkehard Eickhoff, Venedig, Wien und die Osmanen. Umbruch in Südosteuropa 1645–1700 (Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta, 1988), pp. 283–91. 19 Rózsa György, ‘A trónörökös mértankönyve. [The Crown Prince’s Geometry Book]’, in A trónörökös mértankönyve, ed. by György Rózsa (Budapest: Balassi Kiadó, 2001).

129

130

n ó r a g. e t é n y i

task would not be war against the Ottomans, but rather the rebuilding and modernization of the country. This volume was compiled by Baron Anton Ernest Burckhardt von Birkenstein, a military engineer with the imperial army who participated in the siege of Buda in 1686, served as the military engineer of Győr at one time, and became a member of the Council of War in 1702. Most of the engravings were done by Justus van der Nypoort, who had actually visited Hungary and seen these landscapes with his own eyes. He produced multiple engravings depicting the 1683 and 1685 sieges of Esztergom, the capture of Érsekújvár in 1685, Joseph’s coronation, and the Battle of Nagyharsány. He was probably also responsible for a devotional picture published by the Holy Family Society in 1687. This picture, published to commemorate the anniversary of the reoccupation of Buda, shows Jesus, the Virgin Mary, and Joseph in the heavens at the top of the picture; the siege of Buda in the background of the picture, from the vantage point of the troops of Charles V, duke of Lorraine; and Emperor Leopold and his family in the foreground.20 (Fig. 6.5) In this engraving, Leopold’s two sons, Joseph and Charles (born in 1685), are kneeling in gratitude for the expulsion of the Ottomans. The Ottoman buildings in this image are being destroyed by purifying fire, while the victory of the Catholic faith and the survival of its values are represented by a reference to the Book of Daniel and the deliverance of the faithful from the fiery furnace. Such symbolic communication was not merely a representation of the Habsburgs’ growing influence in Europe;21 it was also an expression of the value of the Hungarian kingdom. News of the reconquest of Hungary was covered in weekly newspapers, broadsheets, and pamphlets, but there was also noticeable growth in the output of scholarly works, travelogues, and essays describing the history, political conditions, and economies of the kingdom of Hungary and the principality of Transylvania.22 Intellectual audiences in the Holy Roman Empire were largely familiar with the

20 Knapp Éva and Rózsa György, ‘Buda visszafoglalása (1686. szeptember 2.) [The reconquest of Buda]’, Magyar Könyvszemle, 123.2 (2007), 214–18. 21 Rostislav Smíšek, ‘Uherská korunovace Josefa I. jako prostředek symbolické komunikace [The Hungarian Coronation of Joseph I. as a Means of Symbolic Comunication]’, Český Časopis Historický: The Czech Historical Review, 112.4 (2014), 624–54; I would like to thank Géza Pálffy for drawing my attention to this study. 22 Das Ungarnbild in der deutschen Literatur der frühen Neuzeit. Der Ungarische oder Dacianische Simplicissimus im Kontext barocker Reiseerzählungen und Simpliziaden, ed. by Dieter Breuer and Gábor Tüskés (Bern: Peter Lang, 2005); Nóra G. Etényi, ‘The Genesis and Metamorphosis of Images of Hungary in the Holy Roman Empire’, in A Divided Hungary in Europe. Exchanges, Networks and Representations, 1541–1699, ed. by Gábor Almási and others, 3 vols (Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars, 2014), iii: The Making and Uses of the Image of Hungary and Transylvania, ed. by Kees Teszelszky, pp. 15–43; Orsolya Lénárt, ‘The fertilitas Pannoniae Topos in German Literature after the Second Siege of Vienna in 1683’ in A Divided Hungary in Europe, ed. by Almási and others, iii, pp. 45–60.

Printed Political Representation of the Coronation of Joseph I

Fig. 6.5.  Icon with view of the recaptured Buda and the family of Leopold I © Budapest, Hungarian National Museum

131

13 2

n ó r a g. e t é n y i

Hungarian nobles’ political agendas, the unique status of Hungary’s Holy Crown,23 portraits of Hungarian monarchs,24 and traditionally Hungarian topoi of abundance. The printed catalogue of the 1685 autumn book fair in Frankfurt25 proves that most prominent German printing houses issued numerous Hungarianthemed publications, marketing to a reading public which quickly bought up even large print runs of expensive volumes. Contemporary publications discussed the apparent changes in European power relations following the expulsion of the Ottomans from Hungary and Transylvania, and in doing so, tended to make reference to axioms of international law, balance-of-power diplomacy, and theories of state. And in the context of this international discourse, the court of Leopold I was obliged to use modern arguments in representing the Habsburgs’ policies toward Hungary.

The Importance of Imperial Publicity at the End of the Seventeenth Century Printed political representation was an effective tool for projecting power in early modern Europe, particularly in the Holy Roman Empire, where several governments could reach largely receptive audiences by legitimate means. In addition to sponsoring news items in the popular press, significant numbers of gazettes and pamphlets also offered substantive analysis of domestic- and foreign-policy issues, even discussing conflicts of interest between the imperial estates and the emperor as they came up in relation to actual crises.26 The significance of foreign-policy matters had been further intensified by the Peace of Westphalia, which had given the prince-electors

23 Enikő Buzási and Géza Pálffy, Augsburg – Wien – München – Innsbruck. Die frühesten Darstellungen der Stephanskrone und die Entstehung der Exemplare des Ehrenspiegels des Hauses Österreich. Gelehrten- und Künstlerbeziehungen in Mitteleuropa in der zweiten Hälfte des 16. Jahrhunderts (Budapest: Institut für Geschichte des Forschungszentrums für Humanwissenschaften der Ungarischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2015). 24 Nadasdy Mausoleum. Mausoleum potentissimorum ac Gloriosissimorum Regni Apostolici Regum… Michal et Joann Frideric Endter, Norimberga, BUDAPEST, National Széchényi Library, RMK III. 2254. Reprint. Published in Péter Kőszeghy, A Nádasdy Mausoleum. Introductory article by György Rózsa. Bibliotheca Hungarica Antiqua XXIV (Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 1991); Noémi Viskolcz, ‘Ungarische Königsbilder in Nürnberg im 17. Jahrhundert. Ein Rechtsstreit über die Königsbilder des „Mausoleum”’, in Ungarn Jahrbuch. Zeitschrift für interdisziplinäre Hungarologie, 28 (2005–07), pp. 361–68. 25 ÖStA HHStA Mainzer Erzkanzlei Archiv Bücherkomissariat 1. 1685 ad 9. Catalogus Universalis pronundinis Francofortensibus autumnalibus de Anno MDCLXXXV. 26 Georg Schmidt, ‘Das Reich und Europa in deutschsprachigen Flugschriften. Überlegungen zur räsonierenden Öffentlichkeit und politischen Kultur im 17. Jahrhundert’, in Europa im 17. Jahrhundert. Ein politischer Mythos und seine Bilder, ed. by Klaus Bussmann and Elke Anna Werner (Stuttgart: Franz Steiner, 2004), pp. 119–49.

Printed Political Representation of the Coronation of Joseph I

of the Holy Roman Empire the right to make independent alliances.27 Even so, the danger of external enemies, increasing French and Swedish influence, and the Ottoman offensive strengthened the empire’s sense of togetherness.28 The prince-electors, lords, and imperial cities which had played significant roles in the wars against the Ottomans by paying taxes and supplying recruits also made effective use of military propaganda in their dealings both with subjects and with their allies.29 Contemporary pamphlets accused Leopold’s court of not paying sufficient attention to political propaganda. There is certainly no way to gauge the direct impact that such political discourse might have had in the late seventeenth century, given that the imperial court had not yet institutionalized its communications with the press across the Empire. Even in the period following the triumph over the Ottomans, when the glorification of Leopold I was at its most intense, no one in the emperor’s inner circle can be shown to have purchased publicity.30 During Leopold’s lengthy reign (1658–1705), the image of the emperor shifted significantly several times as the imperial court modernized the techniques by which it exercised power. In 1657 and 1658, approximately 120 tractates and pieces of political journalism analyzed the young Leopold’s protracted imperial election process and pointed out the prince-electors’ growing political influence. It was the prince-electors who made best use of imperial publishing houses during the Austro-Turkish war fought on Hungarian soil in 1663–64; they exploited the propaganda associated with that conflict to validate their own political principles. And by 1666, the marriage of Leopold I and Margaret Theresa of Spain was accompanied by a well-organized imperial propaganda campaign. These festivities,31 which served to support Leopold’s claim to the Spanish throne as his inheritance, lasted three years and were 27 Franz Bosbach, Monarchia Universalis. Ein politischer Leitbegriff der Frühen Neuzeit (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1998); Christoph Kampmann, Arbiter und Friedensstiftung. Die Auseinandersetzung um den politischen Schiedsrichter im Europa der Frühen Neuzeit (Paderborn/Munich/Vienna/Zürich: Ferdinand Schöningh, 2001). 28 Martin Wrede, Das Reich und seine Feinde. Politische Feindbilder in der Reichspatriotischen Publizistik zwischen Westfälischem Frieden und Siebenjäghrigem Krieg (Mainz: Philipp von Zabern, 2004). 29 Meike Hollenbeck, ‘Die Türkenpublizistik im 17. Jahrhundert – Spiegel der Verhältniss im Reich?’, Mitteilungen des Instituts für Österrichische Geschichtsforschung, 107 (1999), 111–30. 30 Géza Galavics, Kössünk kardot az pogány ellen. Török háborúk és képzőművészet [Let us gird our swords against the heathen. Art and the Turkish wars] (Budapest: Képzőművészeti, 1986), p. 110. 31 Maria E. Goloubeva, The Glorification of Emperor Leopold I in Image, Spectacle and Text, Veröffentlichungen des Instituts für Europäische Geschichte Mainz, 184 (Mainz: Philipp von Zabern, 2000); Schumann, Die andere Sonne, pp. 240–62; R. Várkonyi Ágnes, ‘Tradíció és innováció a kora újkori Közép-Európa udvari kultúrájában [Tradition and Innovation in the court culture of Central Europe]’, in “Idővel paloták…” Magyar udvari kultúra a 16–17. században [“With time, the palaces…” Hungarian court culture in the 16th and 17th century], ed. by Nóra G. Etényi and Ildikó Horn (Budapest: Balassi, 2005), pp. 60–113.

133

134

n ó r a g. e t é n y i

printed up in German weekly papers and leaflets.32 Equestrian events like the rider’s ballet, theatrical performances, and special fireworks shows were all directly connected to the artists of the imperial court.33 The imperial court’s absolutist aspirations led it to intensify censorship and take firm control over printed representations of the monarch starting in 1671.34 In his three-volume biography of the emperor,35 court chronicler Galeazzo Gualdo Priorato took aim at a narrow stratum of the decision-making elite. Imperial diplomats like Franz Paul von Lisola36 and economic specialists like Joachim Becher participated in the writing of political pamphlets. Under the leadership of Johann Paul Hocher, the new bureaucratic elite37 involved the most notable publishing houses38 in Vienna and Nuremberg in informing the public about the eradication of the Hungarian baronial resistance and the execution of Ferenc Nádasdy, Péter Zrínyi, and Ferenc Frangepán in 1671–72.39 According to Christoph Gudenus, the resident of the archbishop of Mainz in Vienna, the official account of the execution of these Hungarian noblemen was not very convincing, though he did speak approvingly of the accompanying copper engravings.40

32 Schumann, Die andere Sonne, pp. 260–61. 33 Géza Galavics, ‘Netherlandish Baroque Painters and Graphic Artists in 17th-Century Central Europe’, in Baroque Art in Central-Europe Crossroads, ed. by Géza Galavics (Budapest: Szépművészeti, 1993), pp. 83–106, p. 93; Friedrich Polleroß, ‘„Pro decore Majestatis” Zur Repräsentation Kaiser Leopolds I’, Architektur, Bildender und Angewandter Kunst. Jahrbuch des Kunsthistorischen Museums Wien, 4/5 (2002–03), 190–295. 34 Helmut W. Lang, ‘Der Wiener Hof zur Zeit Leopolds I. und die öffentliche Meinung’, in Europäische Hofkultur im 16. und 17. Jahrhundert, ed. by August Buck and others (Hamburg: Hauswedell, 1981), pp. 601–07; Wolfgang Duchkowitsch, ‘In Zeitungen „unwahrhafftige Sachen ein Khommen thuen.” Zeitungskontrolle und lektüre in der kaiserlichen Residenzstad’, in Europäische Hofkultur, ed. by Buck and others, pp. 433–54. 35 Galeazzo Gualdo Priorato, Historia di Leopoldo Cesare, 3 vols, Vienna: Hacque, 1670–74; Béla Köpeczi, Staatsräson und christliche Solidarität. Die Ungarischen Aufstände und Europa in der zweiten Hälfte des 17. Jahrhunderts (Budapest: Akadémiai, 1983), pp. 219–23; Bene Sándor, ‘„Ő Császári Felségének kedve telik benne…” (Egy birodalmi história és társszerzői) [An Imperial History and Its Co-Authors]’, Filológiai Közlöny, 39 (1993), 49–56. 36 Markus Baumanns, Das publizistische Werk des kaiserlichen Diplomaten Franz Paul Freiherr von Lisola (1613–1674). Ein Beitrag zum Verhältnis von absolutischem Staat, Öffentlichkeit und Mächtepolitik in der frühen Neuzeit (Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 1994). 37 Stefan Sienell, Die geheime Konferenz unter Kaiser Leopold I.:Personelle Strukturen und Methoden zur politischen Entscheidungsfindung am Wiener Hof, Beiträge zur Neueren Geschichte Österreichs, 17 (Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 2001), pp. 214–20, 221–24. 38 ÖStA HHStA, RHR Impressoria, Fz. 112–15. 39 R. Várkonyi Ágnes, ‘A Wesselényi szervezkedés történetéhez 1664–1671 [Toward a history of the Wesselényi conspiracy, 1664–1671]’, in Tanulmányok Szakály Ferenc emlékére, ed. by Pál Fodor, Géza Pálffy and István György Tóth (Budapest: MTA TKI, 2002), pp. 424–25. 40 BSW, Korrespondenzenarchiv des Familienarchiv der Grafen von Schönborn-Wiesentheid, no. 1642: 23 August 1671.

Printed Political Representation of the Coronation of Joseph I

Starting in the 1670s, printed weeklies dedicated more and more space to increasingly important political information about European power shifts.41 Given the relationship between the Habsburg monarch and the Holy Roman Empire’s prince-electors in that period, imperial politics played the most significant role.42 The court of Leopold I had a rather negative image in the print media of the era as a result of the great harm he had done to Hungary’s Protestant congregations; nevertheless, Vienna’s bureaucratic elite, led by Johann Probst, was able to make useful propaganda of the 1681 national assembly in Sopron—at which Leopold I and the Hungarian nobles reached a compromise—and of the coronation of the queen.43 During the Ottoman wars at the end of the seventeenth century, political and military elites became an increasingly important element of popular political journalism.44 And while the imperial court could not directly modify an actual printed news report,45 the Habsburg dynasty’s connections and information networks made it possible to influence public media in accordance with their interests. A competent, new elite became more active in the imperial court’s political affairs; seemingly without any conscious intent, they used modern tools of representation in aiming information at the political, cultural, and economic elites. Accounts of the reign of Leopold I and the coronation of Joseph I were shaped by the imperial court’s carefully chosen chroniclers.46

41 Sonja Schultheiss-Heinz, Politik in der europäischen Publizistik. Eine historische Inhaltsanalyse von Zeitungen des 17. Jahrhunderts, Beiträge zur Kommunikationsgeschichte, 16 (Stuttgart: Franz Steiner, 2004). 42 Harm Klueting, ‘Das Reich und Österreich 1648–1740’, in Sacrum Imperium. Das Reich und Österreich 996–1806, ed. by Wilhelm Brauneder and Lothar Höbelt (Vienna/Munich/Berlin: Amalthea, 1996), pp. 162–287, 212–13. 43 Pálffy Géza, ‘Két elfeledett hungarikum keletkezéséről: Johann Probst munkái az 1681. évi soproni királynékoronázásról és országgyűlésről’ (Bécs, 1681) [The genesis of two forgotten ‘Hungarikuma’: Johann Probst’s Writings about the Diet of Sopron and the Coronation of the Hungarian Queen in 1681]’, in MONOKgraphia. Tanulmányok Monok István 60. születésnapjára, ed. by Judit Nyerges, Attila Verók and Edina Zvara (Budapest: Kossuth, 2016), pp. 554–61; Pálffy Géza, ‘A magyar királynék koronázása a mohácsi csatát követő évszázadokban [The Coronation of Hungarian Queens in the Early Moden Period after the Battle of Mohács, 1526]’, Veszprémi Szemle, 17.4 (2015), 10–17. 44 Jörg Jochen Berns, ‘Der nackte Monarch und die nackte Wahrheit. Ausknüfte der deutschen Zeitungs- und Zeremonialschriftem des späten 17. und frühen 18. Jahrhunderts zum Verhältnis von Hof und Öffentlichkeit’, Daphnis, 11 (1982), 335; Géza Galavics, Kössünk kardot, pp. 110–12, 116–21. 45 J. Schumann, Die andere Sonne, p. 215. 46 Anna Coreth, Österreichische Geschichtsschreibung in der Barockzeit (1620–1740) (Vienna: Holzhausen, 1950); Schumann, Die andere Sonne, pp. 220–23; Thomas Brockmann, ‘Das Bild des Hauses Habsburg in der dynastienahen Historiographie um 1700’, in Bourbon, Habsburg Oranien. Konkurrierende Modelle im dynastischen Europa um 1700, ed. by Christoph Kampmann and others (Cologne/Weimar/Vienna: Böhlau, 2008), pp. 27–58.

135

1 36

n ó r a g. e t é n y i

Starting in the 1680s, Viennese publishing houses significantly expanded their print coverage of current events, and it was primarily the ten-year licenses issued by the imperial chancellery that helped publishing houses protect their copyrights.47 Always in competition with one another, publishers in Vienna carefully built up their connections with the court in hopes of becoming the publisher for the university and possibly even the court itself. The Cosmerovius family served as court publisher for decades, and continued to play a significant role even under the leadership of the widow Susanna Christina Cosmerovius.48 According to a financial statement issued by the Hofkammer, the imperial court gave Susanna Cosmerovius a substantial sum of money in 1688; its motivation for doing so was not specified,49 though the Cosmerovius house had also been the publisher of the parliamentary laws of 1687.50 The workshop of Johann van Ghelen,51 which prospered in Vienna between 1678 and 1721, was their chief competitor. During the reconquest of Hungary, a publishing house owned by Leopold Voigt (1670–1706) was also among the dominant voices. The privileges Voigt enjoyed52 suggest a rather high level of publishing activity. Voigt published accounts of the siege of Vienna,53 as well as a military report on the re-taking of Érsekújvár as seen from the camp of Charles V, duke of Lorraine.54 Voigt also printed a piece by Johann Constantin Feige which depicts the reconquest of Hungary as the triumph of the imperial eagle. Feige took Hieronymus Ortelius’ popular account of the Ottoman wars from 1395 to 1665 and extended it to 1691.55 After graduating from the University of Vienna as a jurist, his career was boosted in the autumn of 1684 when he was

47 Die kaiserlichen Druckprivilegien im Haus-Hof- und Staatsarchiv Wien. Verzeichnis der Akten vom Anfang des 16. Jahrhunderts bis zum Ende des Deutschen Reichs 1806, ed. by Hans-Joachim Koppitz (Wiesbaden: Harrasowitz, 2008). 48 Anton Mayer, Wiens Buchdrucker-Geschichte (1482–1882), 2 vols (Vienna: Frick, 1882), ii: 1883–1887, pp. 305–11; Reske, Die Buchdrucker, pp. 978–79, 981, 983. 49 HHStA; Hofkammerarchiv Hoffinanzprotokolle, 1688, fol. 973–76; I would like to thank István Fazekas for his help with my research at the Österreichisches Staatsarchiv. 50 Fazakas József, ‘Egykorú törvénykiadványaink 1595-től 1688-ig [Period Act publications between 1595–1688] Javítások és kiegészítések Szabó Károly Régi Magyar Könyvtár II. és III. Kötetéhez’, Országos Széchényi Könyvtár Évkönyve, 1967, 158–67 (p. 164). 51 Reske, Die Buchdrucker, pp. 982–83. 52 ÖStA HHStA RHR, Wien Impressorien, 74, Vi-Vr. 53 ÖStA HHStA RHR, Wien Impressorien, 74 Vi-Vr., fol. 98: ‘Grausamen Belagerung Wien Histographus ein Diarium in Latainische beschrieben tag zu tag hinderassene Deputierten herren erlaethen ad censuram gegeben, und von ihnen censirter wider bekommen habe’. 54 ‘Diarium oder Kurze Beschreibung, Was täglich bey Belägerung der Vestung Neuhäusel, vom 7. Julii an jetzt-lauffenden 1685. Jahrs, biss auf den 19. August-Monats worden gangen, und wie solches attaquiret worden… Erstlich gedruckt zu Wien, bey Leopold Voigt, Univers. Buchdrk.’ AUGSBURG, University Library 02.IV. 13. 4. 227. 5. 55 Johann Constantin Feige:‘Wunderbahrer Adler-Schwung oder Fernere GeschichtsForsezung Ortelii Redivii et Continuati das ist Eine Ausffühlriche Historische Beschreibung Dess noch anhaltenden Türcken-Kriegs neblichen. Leopold Voigt Universitaets

Printed Political Representation of the Coronation of Joseph I

granted permission to work with Johann Probst in writing Adlers Kraft oder Europaeischer Heldenkern (Eagle’s Power or Europe’s Heroic Core), published by Kürner in Vienna in 1685.56 Feige articulated the new political realities in the form of an easily comprehensible dialogue between Vienna and Buda, the ‘imperial and royal sisters’.57 The number of leaflets issued in the imperial city increased over the final third of the seventeenth century. Leaflets bearing accurate reproductions of castles soon became popular among imperial publishers as well. Johann Martin Lerch’s cityscapes and maps with cutaway views of the Ottoman frontlines were of remarkably high quality. Martin Lerch also made spectacular engravings on the wedding of Charles V, duke of Lorraine and Eleonora Maria Josefa (the sister of Leopold I) in February 1676.58 Lerch and Nypoort collaborated on a caricature of Grand Vizier Kara Mustafa, crying as he was fleeing Vienna; this leaflet, which used an engraving by Giuseppe Maria Mitelli, was reprinted by Leopold Voigt.59 Lerch and Nypoort also collaborated in a workshop next to the cloister of the Carmelite order in Vienna in preparing a leaflet about the 1683 Battle of Párkány (now Štúrovo, Slovakia).60 This leaflet acquainted the public with the Battle of Esztergom and the siege of Érsekújvár. It included military engineers’ blueprints as well as a proper map and landscapes.61 It also provided authentic information about (and maps of) the captures of Pécs, Siklós, and Simontornya in 1686.62 The masters of the ‘black arts’ in Vienna

56

57

58 59

60 61 62

Buchdrucker 1694’, ff. 154–62, 22 April 1689. MUNICH Bavarian State Library, Eur. 914.o 1–2.; Johann Consantin Feigius: Ein Politischer Currioser II. (Mayer ‘Wiens Buchdrucker’, 1882), pp. 291–99; Reske, Die Buchdrucker, p. 981. ÖStA HHStA RHR, Imperssorien 17, 18, 173–74: 16 November 1684: ‘Adlers-Krafft Oder Europaeischer Heldenkern, Das ist Warhaffte und aussführliche Beschreibung Der hohen Tapfferkeit, … durch J. Constantinum Feigium Silesium Leorinensem J. U. Studiosum Gedruckt zu Wienn’. ‘Ein Politischer und zugleich Curioser Discurs zwischen Der Kay. Haubt- und ResidenzStatt Wien… und … Ofen Verfastt und heraussgegeben durch Johannem Constantinum Feiginum Silesium L. I.U.S. gedruckt zu Linz Johann Rädlmayr Anno 1686’, VIENNA City Library A-253934. ‘Ausführlicher Bericht von der … Herzog Lotharingischen Beilagers Festivitaet’, ed. by Paas, The German Political Broadsheet, x, P-3196. Justus van den Nypoort – Johann Martin Lerch: ‘Wer suecht, der findt. Dess Türckischen Gross-Visirs Cara Mustapha Bassa zuruck-Marsch von Wienn nacher Constantinopel Nyport fecit, Martin Lerch exc. Gedruckt zu Wienn in Oesterreich bey Leopold Voigt, Acad, Buchdrucker Im Jahr 1684’, VIENNA, Austrian National Library. F 000198-B Flu. Justus van den Nypoort – Johann Martin Lerch: Wahrer Abriss dess scharffen Treffens bey Barcan in Ungarn… Wien, 1683.’, BUDAPEST, Hungarian National Museum Graphic Collection 1270. „Abbildung wie die Vestung Neuheusel in Nider Ungarn durch die Christliche Waffen mit sturmender Hand dem Erbfeind abgedrungen und erobert…. merckwürdigen zugetragen”. BUDAPEST, Hungarian National Museum Graphic Collection T 1211. ‘Abbildung der glückliche Eroberung deren vesten Plätze, Simonthorna, Fünffkirchen und Siklos in Nider-Ungarn, mit aussführlichem Bericht was sich darbey Merckwürdigs zugetragen’ BUDAPEST HNM HPG T 6384.

137

13 8

n ó r a g. e t é n y i

were cooperating with increasing levels of coordination in order to move publication dates up as much as possible. The Viennese priest Johann Martin Hirlinger composed a series of political emblems for the coronation in Pozsony in 1687, which was later reprinted several times by Cosmerovius.63 Martin Lerch prepared a portrait of the young monarch accompanied by emblems of the glory of the Austrian dynasty, inscribed with mostly Latin and German mottos. This sizeable volume produced by Hirlinger, Lerch, and Cosmerovius depicted Hungary as a queen to be protected from the Ottoman menace by Leopold I and Joseph I, who would also provide the foundation for her prosperity. The version published in 1690 on the occasion of the election and coronation of Joseph as Holy Roman Emperor emphasized the inseparable nature of the Austrian dynasty and the Holy Roman Empire; this representation of the coronation of Joseph I as king of Hungary could be characterized as far more secular than ecclesiastical. Pamphlets also appeared in Vienna without a publisher’s mark. One such pamphlet, which appeared in December 1687, portrayed the European power structure as a dispute on Mount Parnassus, an assessment which extended to the coronation in Pozsony as well.64 A panegyric written in Latin also saluted Joseph’s Hungarian coronation.65 On 6 June 1686, Leopold I attempted to restrict and control flows of information by means of postpatents.66 However, prince-electors who had played important roles in the triumph over the Ottomans wanted to continue to trade leaflets and news reports freely.67 The Saxon prince-elector and the prince of Hannover increased the number of post offices in Lüneburg, Hannover, and Leipzig.68 The postmaster of Hamburg also expanded his capacity in order to cope with the increased volume of news.69 The princeelector of Saxony, John George III, complained that a notice reporting the capture of Buda on 2 September 1686 had arrived on only 6 September at

63 Johann Martin Hirlinger: Ad gloriam miserentis Dei Redux Prognosticus sacrae uncturae regiae stellae… Ab authore Joanne Martino Hirlinger Viennae Austriae Apud Susannam Christinam, Matthaei Cosmerovij… 1687. VIENNA, Austrian National Library 244 126-C. 64 Apollo hält Ipsis Calendis Decembris dieses Jahrs ein Consilium in Parnasso: proponirt, Wie dass Nachricht ein kommen, dass die Herrn Stände der Löbl. Cron Ungarn und Angehörige Länder Augustissimi Leopoldi Augustum Filium Josephum in Regem Haeriditarium Hungariae declarirt hätten… Helocone, 1687. NURENBERG, City Library 2 an Solg.4. 1730. 65 Casparus Franciscus Podevin: Panegyricum super gloriosissima Josephi I. Hungariae regis coronatione. Vienna Austriae, Typis apud Haeredes Viviani, Anno MDCLXXXVII. VIENNA, National Library 79.Q.77. 66 ÖStA HHStA, Reichskanzlei Principalkomission, Berichte 28 b, 1686. Jun-Dec, fol. 362–65. 67 ÖStA HHStA, Reichkanzlei Vorträge, K. 5, 1684–88: 8 March 1684: Von Goertz Kriegsconcert mit debattieren wollen, fol. 32. 68 ÖStA HHStA, Reichskanzlei Diplomatische Akten Dresden – Berichte 1687–89, K. 3c, fol. 70: Dresden, 1 April 1687. 69 ÖStA HHStA, Reichskanzlei Diplomatische Akten Dresden – Berichte 1687–89, K. 3c, fol. 68–69: 26/16 March 1687.

Printed Political Representation of the Coronation of Joseph I

2pm, a full two days after the arrival of the express report.70 In its discussions in the autumn of 1687, the imperial assembly concluded that the free flow of information was in the Empire’s most basic economic interest.71 And thus the unified action of the imperial prince-electors sabotaged the court’s attempt to restrict postal services.72 The printing houses of the Empire with significant capacity and market access were also shown preferences by the elites at the imperial court. Privileges issued by the imperial chancellery allowed the quality printing houses of Nuremberg and Augsburg access to important markets, especially in genres which were richly illustrated with engravings. Self-censorship was also at work in the printing houses of the era. A leaflet published in 168773 discussed the big publishing houses’ responsibility to make sure that cheap and unedited treatises did not see the light of day. In addition to intensely imperialist propaganda, the printed summaries, entertaining pamphlets, and mocking cartoons of the age also offered representations of plurality, diverse interests, and various points of view. Conflicts of interest between and among political allies were also openly discussed in the publications of the day.74

The Coronation Ceremony of 1687 as Represented in Contemporary Prints The national assembly in Pozsony between 18 October 1687 and 25 January 1688 was the ‘shortest, brightest and best attended’ of its kind in the early modern era.75 News of the Ottoman capitulation at Eger on the 12 December 1687 arrived during the assembly, which, together with the victory at the Battle of Nagyharsány on 12 August—sometimes called the second Battle 70 ÖStA HHStA, Reichskanzlei Diplomatische Akten Dresden – Berichte 1684–86, K. 3b, fol. 81–82. 71 ‘Fernere Gründliche und warhaffte Information und Ausführung, das Bottenwesen der gesamten Reichs-Staenden, sonderlich aber der Frey- und Reys-uch Handels- und anderer Stadten, wie nicht weniger einig andere die Post-bediente concernirende Puncten betreffend. Regenspurg, In Verlegung Johann Conrad Emerichs, Gedruckt von Johann Georg Hofmann. 1686’. AUGSBURG, State and City Library, B 4 Flugschriften, Stw 808. 72 ÖStA HHStA, Reichkanzlei Vorträge, K. 5, 1684–88, fol. 373–80: 6–11 September 1686. 73 ‘Der Teutschen Welt anschreyende Herold, wie Europa in Waffen, Teutschland auff der Hut, Franckreich auff Stats-Streich, und die Ottomannische Pforte hingegen auff Furcht und Androhungen, die ganze Welt aber in Verwunderung und erwartenden Ausgange stehet. Gedruckt im Jahr 1687.’ AUGSBURG, Univertity Library 02. IV. 13. 4. 212. 1. 74 ‘Der von dem in Ottomannischen Reich jetzt Gross Sultan in denen Ober- und Nieder Ungarn, Polen Moscau und Morea aufgestellet Glücks-Hafen. Nürnberg zu finden J. J. Felsecker’. BUDAPEST, National Széchényi Library, App. M. 355. 75 Vilmos Fraknói, A magyar királyválasztások története [The history of Hungarian royal elections], (Budapest: Athenaeum, 1921); Géza Pálffy, ‘A magyar korona először német földön (1683–1687) [The Hungarian Crown on German Soil for the first Time (1683–1687)]’,

1 39

140

n ó r a g. e t é n y i

of Mohács—changed the military balance of power. Furthermore, the Pact of Balázsfalva, signed in the autumn of 1687, put an end to the Ottoman vassalage of the principality of Transylvania. The laws of the 1687–88 national assembly included over seventy indigenatas—conferrals of Hungarian noble status—based on military and financial support given during the war against the Ottomans. Despite the celebration and the large number of participants, little about the discussions of the national assembly was ever published, nor did news reports convey any of the conceptual disagreements within the court. Printed reports do, however, make clear that the court’s compromising and cooperative approach to the Hungarian estates was the strategy of Theodor Althet Heinrich von Strattmann, then court chancellor.76 Strattmann was also supported by Queen-Consort Eleonora, who considered the Western European political sphere, and thus competition with France, to be the most important issue, an approach which was consistent with the interests of the Spanish branch of the dynasty. By the end of 1687, the Czech chancellor Franz Ulrich Kinsky and his circle—who had responded to the arguments of the Hungarian estates by asserting the right of arms—were pushed into the background. Between 1686 and 1690, a military-tribunal judge named Johan Nikolaus Flämitzer wrote sixteen pamphlets analyzing the Austrian dynasty’s new legal status with respect to the kingdom of Hungary, the principality of Transylvania, and the Holy Roman Empire. One of Flämitzer’s pamphlets, written in 1688, which argued for a circumscription of the rights of the Hungarian estates, was burned by an executioner at the national assembly.77 Antonio Caraffa, a general in Upper Hungary, argued for the rights of arms as well. In 1687, he accused citizens of Eperjes of continuing to support the rebel leaders Imre Thököly and his wife Ilona Zrínyi, who was then protecting the fortress of Munkács (now Mukachevo, Ukraine). Many printed papers reported the executions of wealthy, well-educated Protestant citizens in the spring and summer of 1687. In November, the national assembly made a decision about compensation for their widows and orphans. Pál Esterházy, the palatine of Hungary, was often featured in these in A Szent Korona hazatér. A magyar korona tizenegy külföldi útja 1205–1978 [Coming Home. The Eleven Returns of the Holy Crown of Hungary (1205–1978)], ed. by Géza Pálffy (Budapest: MTA BTK TTI, 2018), pp. 321–62. 76 Ágnes R. Várkonyi, ‘Alternatives in Hungary Recaptured from the Turks’, in Europica varietas – Hungarica varietas (Budapest: Akadémiai, 2000), pp. 165–73; Ágnes R. Várkonyi, ‘Az érdekegyeztetés stratégiái [Strategy of reconciling interests]’, in Végvár és társadalom a visszafoglaló háborúk korában (1686–1699), ed. by Sándor Bodó and Jolán Szabó, Studia Agriensia, 9 (Eger: Heves M. Múz. Ig., 1989), pp. 7–24, 12. 77 Johann Nikolaus Flämitzer, Das Durch die Oesterreichische Clemenz wiederum Erquickte Königreich Ungarn. Durch sonderbare Anmerckungen über die Dietal-Propositio de dato 31. Octobr. 1687, Nuremberg: s.n., 1687; MUNICH, Bavarian State Library Res 4 Eur 379,33. J. N. Flämitzer, Der in Böhmische Hosen ausgekleidete Ungarische Libertiner, Würzburg: Hertz, 1688. MUNICH, Bavarian State Library Res 4 Eur. 380.30.

Printed Political Representation of the Coronation of Joseph I

publications, but his political ideology and proposals for establishing a new structure for the country were not discussed.78 (Fig. 6) Descriptions of the 1687 coronation ceremony, in particular, appeared in a wider and more varied range of genres than ever before. In addition to concise, easily readable editions illustrated with quality engravings, lengthier and more precise accounts also played an important role in shaping public opinion. By the end of the seventeenth century, popular demand, the economic interests of the publishing houses, and rapid changes in the industry had made a fashion of publications which summarized the most important events of the year. Some of these synopses lined up the theatres of war from the year 1687.79 The Augsburg publishing house of Jakob Koppmayer published a longer description of the changes in the countries of the members of the Holy League in 1687.80 In 1688, he published summaries of the triumphs of the Russian Tsar Peter I, the conquests of Morea and Dalmatia by the Venetian navy, the national assembly in Pozsony, and the coronation of Joseph I.81 The Nuremberg publishing house Endter presented the successes of 1687 as the triumphs of the imperial eagle, depicting not only the struggles in Hungary, but also battles in Poland and on the seas, and using spectacular engravings to illustrate the most important turning points of the war.82 Christoph Boethius’ ten-thousand-page, eight-volume work Kriegs-Helms Christen (War-Helmed

78 Iványi Emma, ‘Esterházy Pál nádor és a magyar rendek tervezete az ország új berendezkedésével kapcsolatban [The proposal of Palatine Pál Esterházy and the Hungarian nobility for a new structure for the country]’, Levéltári Közlemények, 42 (1971), 137–62; János Kalmár and János J. Varga, Einrichtungswerk des Königreichs Ungarn (1688–1690) (Stuttgart: Franz Steiner, 2010); János J. Varga, ‘Esterházy Pál nádor politikai iratai, 1688 [The Political Documents of the Palatine Pál Esterházy, 1688]’, in Esterházy Pál, a műkedvelő mecénás, ed. by Pál Ács (Budapest: Reciti, 2015), pp. 107–14. 79 ‘Der auferweckte Christen Ruhm. Das ist ausführliche Relation alles dessen Was sich bey einem Jahr her nemlich des bis zu End lauffenden 1687. Jahrs in Hungarn, Scalvonien, … jezigem Land Tag zu Pressburg und der Glorwürdigsten Crönung Josephi in Regem Hungarische zugetragen … 1688.’ AUGSBURG University Library 02.IV. 13. 8. 45. 80 ‘Die Ohnmacht der Türckischen Monarchie, vorgestellet in Warhaffter und umbstaendlicher Erzehlung der Kriegs-geschichten dess 1687. Jahrs in Ungarn und Morea…, zu der Röm. Kayserl. Majest. Augspurg, gedruckt und zu finden bey Jacob Koppmayer, Anno 1687.’MUNICH, Bavarian State Library Re 4 Turc. 92,9. 81 ‘Die Ohnmacht der Tückischen Monarchie vorgestellet… Erzehlung der KriegsGeschichten des 1687. Jahres, Wie auch Ein genauer Bericht dessen, was auf dem Land-Tag zu Pressburg, und bey Crönung dess Kays. Erb-Prinzens Joseph zum Ungarischen Könige vorgegangen.… Augspurg… Jacob Koppmayer, A. 1688.’ MUNICH Bavarian State Library Re 4 Turc. 92,10. 82 ‘Adlerhold Martialis: Sieg-gekrönter Feld-Zug Dess Adlers und Leuens, Im 1687. Jahr Christi vorgestellet In ausführlicher und warhaffter Erzehlung der denckwürdigsten Victorien…, Durch Martialem Adlerhold. Gedruckt in… 1687sten Jahr, und zu finden In Nürnberg, bey Johann Andrea Endters Seel. Söhnen. MUNICH Bavarian State Library Res 4 Turc. 92,1’; Friedrich Oldenbourg, Die Endter. Eine Nürnberger Buchhändlerfamilie (1590–1740) (Munich: Oldenbourg, 1911).

141

142

n ó r a g. e t é n y i

Fig. 6.6.  The coronation procession in Pressburg (Bratislava) – broadsheet of Jacob Koppmayer © Budapest, Hungarian National Museum

Christ), published in Nuremberg between 1686 and 1690, also offered a complex account of the 1687 coronation in Pozsony.83 83 Christoph Boethius, ‘Ruhm-Beloerberten Triumph-leuchtender und Glantz-erhöheter KriegsHelm…’ (Nürnberg: Lochner, 1686), II. p. 439. Christoph Boethio, Kriegs-Helms 3. (1687–88) 1688, pp. 328–48, pp. 378–83. BUDAPEST, National Széchényi Library, App. H. 2241.

Printed Political Representation of the Coronation of Joseph I

Bernard Joseph Lidl, an officer of the imperial court, summarized the events of 1687 on the basis of the official information to which he had access. His two hundred page diary, ‘Ungarische und Wiennerische Kriegs und Staats Registratur [Hungarian and Viennese War and State Registry]’,84 was published in Vienna in 1688 by Johann van Ghelen. This ‘office diary’ recorded the efficiency of the state’s operations and the pomp of the imperial court’s clerical and secular ceremonies, though as a mere bureaucrat, this author was unable to look into the closed world of the decision-making elite. The novelty of his Kriegs und Staats Registratur is that it represented the workings of the bureaucracy; its information was correct and detailed, though not always particularly insightful. This document is nevertheless a useful source, insofar as it presents things in process, such as the preparations for the national assembly and a conference for Hungarian aristocrats held on 22 August.85 Lidl’s note of 27 November says that the height of the water in the Danube was delaying the preparations in Pozsony and Esztergom.86 The emperor left Vienna on 29 October and a Hungarian delegation led by György Széchényi, the archbishop of Esztergom, welcomed him at the border the next day.87 The emperor’s ceremonial procession to Pozsony—which was mentioned in a number of contemporary reports and depicted in numerous engravings—started at 4pm on 30 October. Many young Hungarian aristocrats and a sizable unit of Hungarian cavalry presented themselves for the rally. Following the imperial chief quartermaster, the two sons of Palatine Pál Esterházy led one hundred hussars wearing tiger- and cougar-skin garments. They were followed by Count Erdődy and a group of one hundred Hungarian nobles. Next came the decorated chariots of the Hungarian aristocracy, one of which carried the archbishop of Esztergom. Antal Pálffy was the seventh in line, leading two hundred nobles representing the County of Pozsony. After them, Batthyány accompanied a hundred and fifty more nobles, followed by the Hungarian palatine, Pál Esterházy, with a team of specially decorated

84 Bernard Joseph Lidl: ‘Ungarische und Wienerische Kriegs und Staats Registratur, … welche in dem Königreich Ungarn, Dalmatien, Sclavonien, und in der Kays. Haupt. Und Residenz Statt Wienn, von Tag zu Tag durch das 1687. Sten Jahr sich zugtergaen, Registriret Durch B.I. L. Caesarum Notarium Publicum, Als Joseph der Sechs und Vierzigste Pannonische König in Pressburg … gekrönet war. Gedruckt zu Wienn, bey Johann van Ghelen’ BUDAPEST, National Széchényi Library, App. H. 1308. 85 Bernard Joseph Lidl, ‘Kriegs und Staats Registratur’ Wienn, Johann van Ghelen, BUDAPEST, National Széchényi Library, App. H. 1038. pp. 107–08. 86 Bernard Joseph Lidl, ‘Kriegs und Staats Registratur’ Wienn, Johann van Ghelen, BUDAPEST, National Széchényi Library, App. H. 1038. p. 125. 87 Thaumantium Stephani, Der Neu-aufgegangene Glücks- und Majestät-Stern dess Königreichs Ungarn … Das ist Gründliche Beschreibung der gross-herrlichen Krönungs-Pracht Josephi dess Ersten, Königs in Ungarn, … Zu finden bey Joh. Andrea Endters Sel. Söhnen AN. 1688. 23. BUDAPEST, National Széchényi Library, App. H. 1362. Bernard Joseph Lidl, ‘Kriegs und Staats Registratur’ Wienn, Johann van Ghelen, BUDAPEST, National Széchényi Library, App. H. 1038.

143

144

n ó r a g. e t é n y i

horses. Next in line was Chief Justice Miklós Draskovich, riding in a decorated chariot. Near the end of the parade came the councillors of the imperial court, and finally, following Princes Ferdinand Schwarzenberg and Ferdinand Dietrichstein came the royal couple and their children in a chariot. They were then followed by maids of honour, and bringing up the rear was Károly Pálffy and his cavalry.88 The mayor of the city welcomed the king with a speech and cannon shots at the city gate. The next day, proposals were presented to the national assembly, though this author made no notes about them. Lidl gave a detailed description of the city, emphasizing the importance of the citadel which housed the crown jewels, the garden of the archbishopric, the palaces of the Hungarian magnates, the beautiful churches, and the Jesuit College.89 A bureaucrat, Lidl emphasized events based on their importance to the Habsburg dynasty, such as the nobles’ decision of 7 November 1687 to accept the hereditary rule by the Habsburgs; he goes on to describe improvements in the quality of Vienna’s public lighting, including lamps installed at 17 Dorothea Street.90 He also noted the death of Chief Justice Draskovich, but without mentioning that Draskovich was opposed to hereditary rule. In his Kriegs und Staats Registratur, Lidl mentions that István Csáky became the new judex curiae on 9 December, though he does not make any reference to the protests against the emergency tribunal in Eperjes. His also journal describes a gala held on 15 November, the monarch’s name day, with various guests including ambassadors, ministers, and magnates, with Hungarian musicians providing the aesthetic backdrop. He noted another celebration on 19 November, the name day of Elizabeth, Leopold’s elder daughter. On 27 November, when Charles V, duke of Lorraine arrived home from Transylvania, Pál Esterházy organized a ball and a rabbit hunt. And on 1 December, the Spanish ambassador, Borgomanero, hosted a banquet in honour of the members of the Order of the Golden Fleece. On 23 November, the imperial bureaucrat Lidl noted that the Hungarian estates had accepted the right of the Habsburgs’ Spanish branch to inherit the Hungarian crown if its Austrian branch were to die out. Two days later, he mentions Joseph’s confirmation ceremony in the court chapel in Pozsony, which was conducted by cardinal Francesco Buonvisi, papal nuncio to the Viennese court. On the 26 November, alongside other knights, the royal heir became a member of the Order of the Golden Fleece,91 and thereby came of age, legally and ecclesiastically. On 6 December, Lidl took note of the

88 Bernard Joseph Lidl, ‘Kriegs und Staats Registratur’ Wienn, Johann van Ghelen, BUDAPEST, National Széchényi Library, App. H. 1038, p. 147. 89 Bernard Joseph Lidl, ‘Kriegs und Staats Registratur’ Wienn, Johann van Ghelen, BUDAPEST, National Széchényi Library, App. H. 1038, p. 147. 90 Bernard Joseph Lidl, ‘Kriegs und Staats Registratur’ Wienn, Johann van Ghelen, BUDAPEST, National Széchényi Library, App. H. 1038, pp. 148–49. 91 Bernard Joseph Lidl, ‘Kriegs und Staats Registratur’ Wienn, Johann van Ghelen, BUDAPEST, National Széchényi Library, App. H. 1038, pp. 154–55.

Printed Political Representation of the Coronation of Joseph I

arrival of an ox decorated with red-white-and-green ribbons and gold paint on its horns, destined for an impending grill. Several pages of the Kriegs und Staats Registratur are dedicated to a description of Joseph’s coronation on 9 December 1687, though Lidl’s account is not as perceptive as many of his contemporaries’. Joseph’s mother Eleonora had been crowned queen of Hungary on 9 December 1681, though Lidl’s journal does not mention the political symbolism of this anniversary.92 Several surviving copies of an eight-page ‘printed German coronation report’93 describe the Holy Crown’s ceremonial preparations in a knowing tone. Three days before the ceremony, the keepers of the crown, Kristóf Erdődy and István Zichy, opened a large iron chest in the presence of the Hungarian nobles, Count Mansfeld, and General Starhemberg; they removed a smaller, golden chest containing the crown, and brought it to the emperor’s chambers.94 At 6pm on the evening of 8 December, the estates transported the Holy Crown to the coronation site in an open carriage pulled by six horses. The crown was brought into the vestry of Saint Martin’s Cathedral, where the papal nuncio Buonvisi, the Spanish ambassador Borgomanero, and the Venetian ambassador Frederico Cornaro were in attendance. This eight-page document is full of useful information which is confirmed by numerous other sources; it is likely that the variations on this dispatch could all be traced back to an original ‘official’ source. With the exception of its short introduction, Johann Constantin Feige’s report95 is identical to the ‘printed German coronation report’. One of Feige’s registries specifies that it was originally published in Vienna by Susanna Cosmerovius. Susanna Cosmerovius had also published a pamphlet by Lorenz Schaff which described the events of the period from 9 November 1686 to the end of 1687.96

92 Pintér Márta Zsuzsanna, ‘Ünnep és teatralitás. Esterházy Pál nádorrá választása [Festivity and Theatricality. Pál Esterházy’s Election as Palatine]’, in Esterházy Pál, a műkedvelő mecénás, ed. by Pál Ács (Budapest: Reciti, 2015), pp. 459–76, 460; Pálffy, A magyar királynék koronázása [The Coronation of Hungarian Queens], p. 16. 93 ‘Beschreibung Der den 9. Decembr. st. n. 1687 zu Pressburg geschehenen Ungarischen Crönung, Seiner Durchlauchtigkeit. Des Erz-Herzogs Josephi’. BUDAPEST, National Széchényi Library, App. H. 1316. 94 Géza Pálffy, ‘A Szent Korona és a koronaláda balesete 1638-ban [The Holy Crown and the 1638 Accident involving the Crown’s Case]’, in „Nem sűlyed az emberiség!” [“Mankind is not sinking…”] Album amicorum Szörényi László LX. születésnapjára, ed. by József Jankovics (Budapest: MTA Irodalomtudományi Intézet, 2007), pp. 1434–36. 95 Johann Constantin Feige:‘Verzeichnuss Deren respective Hoch und Nieder-StandsPersonen Beeder Röm. Kayserlichen Majest. Majest. Und Dero Erz-Herzoglichen Hofstaette Welche sich nacher Pressburg zu dero Crönung Dess Durchleuchtigst und Grossmaechtigsten Fürsten und Herren Herrn Josephi… Durch Joann. Constantin Feigium. J. U. C.’ Nach der Copia so zu Wien… gedrucket worden Susanna Cosmerovius Röm. Kays. May. Hoff-Buchdruckerin 1687. DRESDEN Saxon State and University Library Dresden Hist. Germ. D 211,24. 96 Lorenz Schaff: ‘Continuatio Des aufferwercken Christen-Ruhms, Das ist eine Ausfühliche Relation Alles dessen, Was sich vom 9. Novembris 1686. biss zu endlauffendem 1687.

145

146

n ó r a g. e t é n y i

A preserved coronation report known as ‘the Portuguese script’ contains highly detailed descriptions which largely match those of the printed German version.97 Several other details are confirmed by a four-column piece of text which accompanied an allegorical etching composed by Romeyn de Hooghe and Philibert Bouttats and published in Antwerp98 on the occasion of Joseph’s coronation as king of Hungary. This engraving depicts the coronation march through Pozsony; the corresponding text99 describes the coronation ceremony with an emphasis on the roles played by Hungary’s political elites. Following the same model, these printed reports all stressed the impression made by the colours, the fabrics and textiles, and the music. Readers of these newspapers and printed accounts enjoyed an insider’s view of the sophisticated details of the court’s ceremonies. The ‘printed German coronation report’, the Portuguese source, and the Antwerp leaflet all used the same sequence of descriptors in detailing the manner in which the cathedral of St Martin had been decorated for the occasion. To the left of the cathedral’s gate was a wide, bridge-like structure covered with red-white-and-green baize; a similar ‘stage’ had also been erected inside the church. Hungarian noblewomen were seated on one side of the stage and German noblewomen on the other; musicians sat a platform by the organ at the other entrance. On the opposite side of the altar sat the bishop of Esztergom. In front of the altar on the king’s platform, also decorated with red-white-and-green baize, was a seat of white gold. Cardinals Buonvisi and Leopold Kollonich sat with the ambassadors; the maids of honour were seated diagonally across from them. Knights sat opposite the ambassadors on a bench draped with Persian carpets; behind them, on benches covered with Turkish carpets, sat imperial ministers and members of the state council. The choral risers were hung with Flemish carpets. Many of the visual sources from this period depicted the coronation’s defining locations not by using traditional representations, but by including novel elements, especially those unique to the given occasion.100 One notably expert presentation of this ceremony was a 170-page summary published in

97 98 99

100

Jahr in Hungarn… biss auff Erlau inclusive… jezigem Land-Tag zu Pressburg und der Glorwürdigsten Crönung Josephi in regem Hungariae zugetragen… In Druck gegeben durch Laurentium Schaffen, Wienn bey Susanna Christina Cosmerovin, Kays, Hoff Buchdr. 1687’, MUNICH, Bavarian National Library Eur. 698. Péter Bán, ‘Egy portugál szemtanú tudósítása I. József 1687. évi koronázásáról [Portuguese Eyewitness report on the Coronation of King Joseph in 1687]’, Levéltári Szemle, 35.1 (1985), 56–62. John Landwehr, Romeyn de Hooghe, the etcher. Contemporary portrayal of Europe, 1662–1707 (Leiden: Sijthoff, 1973), p. 143. Romeyn de Hooghe – Phi Bouttats jr.: Korte beschrijvingh van de Krooningh der alderdootluchtighsten Koningh van Hongheryen, Joseph den van den Naeme, en den XIV. van het Rijck ghehouden binnen Presbourgh in Hongheryen op den 9. December 1687. Romeyn de Hooghe fecit, Phi Bouttats junior Antverpia Excudit. With Text: COBURG, Veste Coburg Artcollections VIII. 380, p. 85. Stefan Holcík, Pozsonyi koronázási ünnepségek [Coronation Celebrations in Pozsony], trans. by Judit Nagy (Bratislava: Tatran, 1986); S. Lauter Éva, ‘Pozsony város új szerepben [The City of

Printed Political Representation of the Coronation of Joseph I

Nuremberg under the name Thaumantium Stephani. Its detailed engravings demonstrated—and its text reinforced—the fact that its publishers had tried to reproduce the visual experience of these celebrations for Nuremberg readers who were ‘sensitive to spectacle’. This summary also described the symbols on the Nuremberg pfennig minted on the occasion of the 1687 coronation, and included information on locations where the coins could be obtained. Both the quality of these coins and the quantity in which they were issued were remarkable.101 Most of these commemorative tokens were reproduced in engravings; this Nuremberg publication showed both sides of six coins, including a medallion by Friedrich Kleinert, two coins by Georg Hautsch and Lazarus Gottlieb, and a piece by Martin Brenner with three crowns (the Hungarian, the Holy Roman, and the Czech) atop three Corinthian columns.102 Ludwig Christop Glotsch’s title page—in keeping with the concept of the volume—also emphasized the significance of the title and the crown of the king of Hungary. This text also mentioned Peter Révay’s discourse about the Holy Crown, published in Augsburg in 1613 and reprinted in Frankfurt in 1659.103 On its title page, the kingdom of Hungary is portrayed as a female figure entering a new era; with the expulsion of the Ottomans, her young monarch can now rule in peace, and in harmony with the local nobility. Borne aloft by cherubs, images of the cities of Munkács (site of the final rebel surrender) and Eger (site of a nearly miraculous Hungarian victory over the Ottomans in 1552) signified the ends of Hungary’s internal and external conflicts. Pál Esterhazy also made use of modern methods of symbolic political communication; he commissioned an illustrated report about Joseph I’s coronation as king of Hungary which served to represent both the hereditary rule of the Habsburg dynasty and the importance of Hungarian estates’ politics. An engraving consisting of nine images by Justus van Nypoort and Johann Jakob Hoffmann104 depicted all the events and locations of the ceremony.105 In the central image, Joseph I, dressed as a Hungarian noble, is Pozsony in a New Role]’, in Idővel paloták… Magyar udvari kultúra a 16–17. században [With time, the palaces… Hungarian court culture in the 16th and 17th century], ed. by Nóra G. Etényi and Ildikó Horn (Budapest: Balassi, 2000), pp. 144–71. 101 Ferenc Soltész and others, Coronatio Hungarica in Nummis. A magyar uralkodók koronázási érmei és zsetonjai (1508–1916) [Coronation Medals and Coins of Hungarian Kings (1508–1916)] (Budapest: MTA BTK Történettudományi Intézet, 2016), pp. 138–71. 102 Soltész and others, Coronatio Hungarica, pp. 144–48, 150–51, 153–56. 103 Kees Teszelszky, Az ismeretlen korona. Jelentések, szimbólumok és nemzeti identitás [The unknown crown. Meanings, symbols and national identity], ed. by Katalin Czibere (Pannonhalma: Bencés, 2009); Gergely Tóth, Szent István, Szent Korona, államalapítás a protestáns történetírásban (16–18. század) [Saint Stephen, the Holy Crown, and the Founding of the Hungarian State in Protestant Historiography in the 16th to 18th centuries] (Budapest: MTA BTK Történettudományi Intézet, 2016), pp. 43–64. 104 Galavics, Kössünk kardot, p. 100; Galavics, ‘Netherlandish Baroque Painters’, in Baroque Art, ed. by Galavics, pp. 299–300. 105 Géza Galavics, ‘Fürst Paul Esterházy (1653–1713) als Mäzen. Skizzen zu einer Laufbahn’, Wiener Jahrbuch für Kunstgeschichte, 45 (1992), 121–42; Galavics, ‘Netherlandish Baroque Painters’, in Baroque Art, ed. by Galavics, pp. 300–01.

147

1 48

n ó r a g. e t é n y i

being crowned by the allegorical figures Fides et Fortitudo (Faith and Strength) while Hungary, carrying a Hungarian coat of arms, bows before him; these genre figures also appeared in other mass scenes executed by Nypoort. A significant portion of the engravings selected by Thaumantium Stephani for the Nuremberg summary can be connected unambiguously to the images ordered by Pál Esterházy. The portrayals match in most of their particulars: in their presentations of the well decorated with a two-headed eagle, and the throng gathered before it; in the image of the roasting of the ox; and in their depictions of important scenery like the cityscape of Pozsony, the royal castle, and the site of the open-air oath ceremony. The differences in their presentations of Palatine Esterházy are significant. In the engraving Esterházy himself commissioned, he is standing alongside the archbishop of Esztergom as the archbishop lowers the crown onto Joseph’s head,106 while in the Nuremberg print, the archbishop of Esztergom stands alone. According to the most detailed ‘printed German coronation report’, Palatine Esterházy took the crown from the altar, then asked the people in attendance three times in Hungarian whether they wanted Archduke Joseph to be crowned king of Hungary;107 when they answered yes, the archbishop placed the crown on Joseph’s head. In describing the coronation mass, these publications highlighted the Latin homily delivered by the archbishop of Esztergom on the subject of governance, while an unsigned publication praised the emperor’s Latin oration, to which the king had responded briefly in Latin.108 The representative and symbolic role of the coronation procession was also clearly delineated by these accounts and illustrated reports. Johann Martin Lerch and Matthias Greischer also produced a spectacular summary of the coronation, consisting of ten engravings of different sizes.109 This series of images shows the procession from the castle to the cathedral of St Martin, then the route from 106 Ferenc Szakály, Hungaria eliberata. Die Rückeroberung von Buda im Jahr 1686 und Ungarns Befreiung von der Osmanenherrschaft (1683–1718) (Budapest: Corvina, 1986), p. 165; Géza Pálffy, ‘A magyar királykoronázások történetének eddig ismeretlen alapforrása: a magyar tanácsosok 1561. évi javaslata a koronázások pozsonyi szertartásrendjéről [A Previously Unknown Primary Source on Hungarian Coronations. Hungarian Councilors’ Proposals for the 1561 Coronation Ceremony in Pozsony]’, in Redite ad cor. Tanulmányok Sahin-Tóth Péter emlékére, ed. by Lilla Krász and Teréz Oborni (Budapest: ELTE Eötvös 2008), pp. 489–503. 107 Emma Bartoniek, A magyar királykoronázások története [The History of Hungarian Coronations] (Budapest: Magyar Történelmi Társulat, 1987), p. 152. 108 Relation Von Der am 9. Decembr. 1687 beschehenen Königlichen Crönung zu Pressburg. REGENSBURG, Staatliche Bibliothek. Hist. pol. 541–10. VIENNA, Austrian National Library 295.454. 109 Tilcsik György, ‘Újabb források I. József magyar királlyá koronázásáról [New Sources on the Hungarian Coronation of King Joseph I]’, Levéltári Szemle, 37.2 (1987), 70–83; Galavics, ‘Netherlandish Baroque Painters’, in Baroque Art, ed. by Galavics, p. 301; Die Fürsten Esterházy. Magnaten, Diplomaten und Mäzene, ed. by Jakob Perschy and others (Eisenstadt: Amt der Burgenländischen Landesregierung, Landesarchiv-Landesbibliothek, 1995), p. 268; Noémi Viskolcz, ‘Magyar arisztokraták I. Lipót esküvőjén 1666-ban. Egy metszet Esterházy Pál bécsi bevonulásáról [Hungarian aristocrats at the wedding ceremony of Leopold I

Printed Political Representation of the Coronation of Joseph I

St Martin’s to the Franciscan church, thence to the site of the exercise of worldly authority, each tagged with an explanatory caption. The small engravings in this leaflet were later republished alongside two large images—a half-body portrait of Joseph I and an emblem of his regal power.110 (Fig. 7a – 7b) The famous engraver Philibert Bouttats Jr. of Antwerp also published a series of twelve images depicting events associated with the coronation.111 Early in the morning on 9 December 1687, a trumpet call summoned the citizens of Pozsony to the big ceremony; they then stood in a line stretching from Michael’s Gate to the Franciscan Church to the Coronation Dome; Pálffy’s cavalry maintained public order. Led by Palatine Esterházy, the Hungarian magnates rode their horses along a wall of soldiers into the royal castle; only the aged archbishop of Esztergom sat in a parade carriage. At 11am, the procession left the castle headed for the coronation church, led by the sons of the palatine at the head of a five-hundred-man detachment of Hungarian and German soldiers. They were followed first by Palatine Esterházy and the imperial chamberlain (Kämmerer) Ferdinand Dietrichstein; then came the coronation jewels, ten riders bearing flags of territories belonging to the crown, and five heralds with the coats of arms of five countries belonging to the crown. Ádám Zrínyi, dressed in a red-and-white cloak, carried the coronation sword on horseback, followed by Joseph’s decorated coach, the imperial couple’s gilded carriage, and the imperial chamberlain, Ferdinand Carl von Waldstein. The Kriegs und Staats Registratur also recorded the bearers of the crown jewels; Zrínyi carried the sword; György Erdődy and Ádám Czobor bore the cross, followed by the ban of Croatia, Miklós Erdődy, with the globus cruciger; Lord Chief Justice István Csáky brought in the scepter, and Palatine Pál Esterházy the crown. Flag-bearers included János Esterházy, the vice general of the fort of Győr (kingdom of Hungary); László Károlyi, the captain of Szatmár (Dalmatia), Miklós Keglevich (Croatia), Imre Jakusics (Slavonia), Tamás Nádasdy (Bosnia), Miklós Miesházy, also listed as Illésházy (Serbia)112, Simon Forgács (Galicia), Miklós Bensimius (Lodomeria), Farkas Koháry

in 1666. An engraving of Pál Esterházy’s entry into Vienna]’, in „Ez világ mint egy kert…” Tanulmányok Galavics Géza tiszteletére, ed. by Orsolya Bubryák (Budapest: Gondolat, 2010), pp. 129–41. 110 ‘Vorstellung aller merckwürdigen Begebenheiten so sich den Erwehl- und Krönung des Durch Kays. Erb-Prinzen Josephi zum Ungarischen Erb-König… im Jahr Christi 1687’. BUDAPEST, Hungarian National Museum Graphic Collection 54.393, 54.394. 111 Philibert Bouttats: Couronnement des Joseph I. For the the complete series, see the BRUSSEL, Royal Library of Belgium Prints Department, SII 81420–81431. 112 The next four flags and bearers listed in this sequence disagree with the order of the official ceremonial program, which lists Adam von Kollonitsch (Serbia), Miklós Bercsényi (Galicia), Farkas Koháry (Lodomeria), and Simon Forgach (Cumania); see: Géza Pálffy, ‘A Magyar Korona országainak koronázási zászlói a 16–17. században [Coronation flags of the Lands of the Hungarian Holy Crown in the 16th and 17th Centuries]’, in Ez világ mint egy kert…” Tanulmányok Galavics Géza tiszteletére, ed. by Orsolya Bubryák (Budapest: Gondolat, 2010), p. 46.

149

1 50

n ó r a g. e t é n y i

Fig. 6.7a.  Broadsheet by Johann Martin Lerch – Matthias Greischer dedicated to Palatine Esterházy 1687© Budapest, Hungarian National Museum

Fig. 6.7b.  The engravings by Johann Martin Lerch – Matthias Greischer emphasize the role of the Palatine during the coronation © Budapest, Hungarian National Museum

Printed Political Representation of the Coronation of Joseph I

(Cumania), and Ferenc Kéry (Bulgaria).113 In the Regensburg copy of Johann Konstantin Feige’s description,114 there is a handwritten note about the order of the coronation flags.115 According to the Kriegs und Staats Registratur, Palatine Esterházy gave a speech in Hungarian, whereupon the nobles joined together in a whoop of welcome for the new ruler; according to the ‘German printed report’, this greeting united them despite their denominational differences. The attendees then sang Te Deum as trumpets sounded outside the church. Sixty young noblemen were knighted at the Franciscan church, though their names were not recorded by contemporary publications; the Kriegs und Staats Registratur does, however, list the names of the six Hungarian noblemen who were nominated as chamberlain.116 Lidl’s version of the open-air oath ceremony, conducted at Michael’s Gate, accords with other illustrated reports. In accordance with tradition, Joseph I had to ride a horse over Coronation Hill while swinging St Stephen’s sword in the four cardinal directions of the compass; the child’s efforts were hampered by the size of the sword, his heavy Hungarian robes, and an ornamented horse blanket.117 On 23 December 1687, one weekly newspaper printed a special insert summarizing the major events of the coronation, datelined 10 December in Pozsony.118 This weekly newspaper also included a report from the Battle of Nagyharsány119 and a military diary of the Turkish capitulation at Eger.120 In this supplementary news section, the weekly published further specifics about the outdoor events at the coronation, such as the route of the procession and the red-white-and-green decorations on the platforms. This supplement highlighted the young king’s Hungarian garments and described the spectacular feast at length, including details about the roasting of oxen and the two kinds of wine flowing from a fountain decorated with a Habsburg eagle, which was

113 Bernard Joseph Lidl, ‘Kriegs und Staats Registratur’ Wienn, Johann van Ghelen, BUDAPEST, National Széchényi Library, App. H. 1038, pp. 161–62. 114 Johann Constanin Feige: Verzeichnuss Deren respective Hoch und Nieder-Stands-Personen Beeder Röm. Kayserlichen Majest. Majest. Und Dero Erz-Herzoglichen Hofstaette Welche sich nacher Pressburg zu dero Crönung… Fürsten und Herren Herrn Josephi, Erz-Herzogen zu Oesterreich Herzogen … Durch Joann. Constantin Feigium. J. U. C. REGENSBURG, Regional State Library of Regensburg 4 Hist pol. 541.10. 2. 115 Pálffy, ‘A magyar korona’, in A Szent Korona hazatér, ed. by Pálffy, pp. 30, 36. 116 Bernard Joseph Lidl, ‘Kriegs und Staats Registratur’ Wienn, Johann van Ghelen, BUDAPEST, National Széchényi Library, App. H. 1038, p. 165. (Son of Palatine Esterházy, Illésházy Miklós, Draskovich, Erdődy, Kéry, Pálffy). 117 Bernard Joseph Lidl, ‘Kriegs und Staats Registratur’ Wienn, Johann van Ghelen, BUDAPEST, National Széchényi Library, App. H. 1038, p. 165; Bartoniek, A magyar koronázások. 118 Num. LXXI:‘Relation-Schreiben, Von der Königl. Crönung zu Pressburg, Gedruckt den 23. December. Anno 1687’. BUDAPEST, National Széchényi Library, App. H 1337. 119 Num. XXXIX: ‘Extract-Schreiben ausz Wien, wie auch ein auszführliche relation der Christlicher siets wider den Erbfeind bey Mohatz erhaltenen Victori Gedruckt den 4 September Anno 1687’. BUDAPEST, National Széchényi Library, App. H 1325. 120 Num. I: ‘Ausführliche Relation wie es bey der Ubergabe Erlau von Tag zu Tag hergangen. Gedruckt den 7. Januarij. Anno 1688’. BUDAPEST, National Széchényi Library, App. H. 1360.

15 1

1 52

n ó r a g. e t é n y i

also depicted by illustrated sources. The paper’s exclusive ‘insider’ information about the feast also included the seating plan for the imperial family’s table. The drawing they published emphasizes the privileged positions of the palatine and the archbishop at the imperial couple’s table with the new king, seated alongside the papal nuncio, the Spanish and Venetian ambassadors, and Cardinal Kollonich. These printed reports did not specify how many young Hungarian nobles might have attended the feast.121 Thaumantium Stephani reported that twenty-three tables of courtiers and ladies were entertained by both imperial musicians and Hungarian musicians, including singers and trumpeters, who performed many vocal and instrumental pieces. This educated, politically sensitive audience would have understood the symbolism of the carefully programmed displays of fireworks which followed the coronation in Pozsony and Vienna. In a series of engravings in Thaumantium Stephani’s account, these fireworks represent the glory of the Austrian dynasty122; they formed an emblem of Emperor Charles V, imitated a volcanic eruption, and presented the victorious generals as Hannibal. The coronation was also captured by expensive, high-quality royal almanacs in 1688 and 1690.123 (Fig. 6.8) The 1688 royal almanac, published by Matthäus Wagner, featured the work of the famous engravers Johann Ulrich Krauss and Johann Heiss. The composition indicated that Joseph, having been crowned king of Hungary, had inherited a liberated kingdom. One engraving shows a cross proclaiming the victory of the Christian world over an Ottoman Empire represented by mosques and destroyed crescent moons. Along with busts of Maximilian Emanuel and Charles V, duke of Lorraine, a spectacular battlefield scene refers to the victory at Nagyharsány on 12 August 1687. Matthäus Wagner issued another royal almanac in 1690,124 also likely the work of Johann Ulrich Krauss and Johann Heiss, which depicted the crown prince’s coronation as king of the Romans in January of that year. This almanac depicts Joseph as the king of Hungary,125 presenting him with facial expressions

121 Géza Pálffy, ‘Koronázási lakomák a 15–17. századi Magyarországon. Az önálló magyar királyi udvar asztali ceremóniarendjének kora újkori továbbéléséről és a politikai elit hatalmi reprezentációjáról [Festive Coronation Banquets in Hungary in the 15th–17th centuries. On the survival of the table ceremonial of the Independent Hungarian court in the early modern age, and on representations of Hungary’s political elite]’, Századok, 138.5 (2004), 1005–1101. 122 Thaumantium Stephani, ‘Der Neu-aufgegangene Nürnberg, Johann Andrea Endters. Sel. Söhnen, 1688. BUDAPEST, National Széchényi Library App. H. 1362’. 123 Polleroß, ‘Austriacus Hungariae Rex’, in „Ez világ mint egy kert…”, ed. by Bubryák, p. 75; László Vajda, ‘Allegória I. Lipót győzelmeire. An Allegory of Leopold I’s victories, 1688’, in A Batthyányak évszázadai [The Batthyánys Through the Centuries], ed. by Monika Zsámbéky and Szombathelyi Képtár kiállítása (Szombathely/Körmend: Önkormányzat, 2005), pp. 87–88; Galavics, Kössünk kardot, pp. 119–20. 124 Johann Ulrich Krauss - Johann Heiss: ‘Almanach auf das Jahr nach – unsers Einigen Heylandes und Seeligmachers Jesu Christi Geburth MDCLXXXX.’ Ulm, Matthäus Wagner. BUDAPEST, Hungarian National Museum Graphic Collection 9276. (75,5×50.8). 125 Polleroß, ‘Austriacus Hungariae Rex’, in „Ez világ mint egy kert…”, ed. by Bubryák, pp. 63–78.

Printed Political Representation of the Coronation of Joseph I

Fig. 6.8.  Almanach royal by Johann Heiss and Johann Ulrich Kraus (Ulm: M. Wagner, 1688) © Budapest, Hungarian National Museum

15 3

154

n ó r a g. e t é n y i

and clothing that evoke the engravings of his earlier coronation in Pozsony. This composition also emphasizes the role the Hungarian crown played in the possession of the title of emperor.126 A pantheon of Habsburg-imperial ancestors ranging from Rudolf I to Ferdinand IV was presented, along with their successes in defending the Holy Roman Empire, as legitimation of the rule of this newly-crowned minor. An engraving celebrating Leopold’s fiftieth birthday reflected on the emperor’s reign; in addition to the victory over the Ottomans, it also showed the military and political crises of the 1670s and the conflict between the emperor and the Hungarian nobility. The front page of the 1689 almanac published in Nagyszombat presented the coats of arms of ten provinces of Hungary that had been occupied by the Ottoman Empire, alongside an image of Joseph I.127 Thesis sheets prepared at the Jesuit universities in Nagyszombat, Vienna, and Graz presented Joseph I to the young Hungarian lords there as the upcoming Hungarian ruler. Palatine Pál Esterházy funded a thesis sheet for his son, Miklós (Nicolaus), who studied at the University of Vienna in 1691. This thesis sheet’s illustrations emphasized the collaboration of the coming generations by presenting Joseph I and the young Miklós Esterházy together.128 Prints from around the time of the coronation referred to a new framework of compromise between the emperor and the Hungarian nobility, including the assertion of hereditary rule, the riches of the kingdom of Hungary, and the Hungarian nobility’s political sway.129 The military events of 1688—such as the retaking of Belgrade from the Ottomans and the French offensive the against Rhine territories—radically changed the European power structure. The aggressive policies of Louis XIV changed the relationship between the allied houses of Habsburg and Orange and brought about a tremendous twist in England’s foreign policy, which led

126 Géza Galavics, ‘Die künstlerische Repräsentation der Habsburger-Könige in Ungarn bis 1848’, in Kaiser und König, Eine historische Reise: Österreich und Ungarn, 1526–1918, ed. by István Fazekas and Gábor Ujváry (Budapest/Vienna: Collegium Hungaricum, 2001), pp. 9–18; Géza Pálffy, ‘Magyar címerek, zászlók és felségjelvények a Habsburgok dinasztikushatalmi reprezentációjában a 16. században [Hungarian coats of arms, flags, and insignia in 16th-century representations of Habsburg dynastic power]’, Történelmi Szemle, 47.3–4 (2005), 241–75. 127 Galavics, Kössünk kardot, pp. 116, 119. 128 Galavics, Kössünk kardot, pp. 120–23; Géza Galavics, ‘Thesenblätter ungarischer Studenten im Wien 17. Jahrhundert. Künstlerische und pädagogische Startegien’, in Die Jesuite in Wien Zur Kunst und Kulturgeschichte der österreichischen Ordensprovinz der „Gesellschaft Jesu” im 17. und 18. Jahrhundert, ed. by Karner H. Telesko (Vienna: Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2003), pp. 113–30. 129 Ágnes R. Várkonyi, ‘Hungarian Independence and the European Balance of Power’, in Europica varietas – Hungarica varietas 1526–1762: selected studies (Budapest: Akadémiai, 2000), pp. 175–86; Joachim Bahlcke, ‘Hungaria eliberata? Zum Zusammenstoss von altständischer Libertät und monarchischer Autorität in Ungarn an der Wende vom 17. zum 18. Jahrhundert’, in Die Habsburgermonarchie 1620 bis 1740. Leistungen und Grenzen des Absolutismusparadigmas, ed. by Petr Mat’a and Thomas Winkelbauer (Stuttgart: Franz Steiner, 2006), pp. 301–16.

Printed Political Representation of the Coronation of Joseph I

to the ‘honorable revolution’. High-quality propaganda funded by the court of William III, Prince of Orange, also offered sophisticated representations of Joseph I’s coronations as king of Hungary and of the Romans. Romeyn de Hooghe’s allegories,130 originally produced to commemorate the victories of the Polish king John Sobieski against the Ottomans, were altered only slightly and reissued in celebration of Joseph in 1690. The three female figures saluting the triumphant ruler no longer symbolized the anti-Ottoman alliance of Poland, Ukraine, and Lithuania, but rather the integrated power of the kingdom of Hungary, Austria, and the Holy Roman Empire.131 (Fig. 9) Romeyn de Hooghe’s political allegories functioned as analyses of European power structures and suggest a familiarity with the period’s theories of state and systems of norms. The aforementioned engraving produced by De Hooghe and Philibert Bouttats in Antwerp presented the coronation in Pozsony and praised the Habsburg dynasty for its significant role in the war against the Ottomans. In the middle of the composition is a triumphal carriage bearing Emperor Leopold and Joseph in the attire of the German king. Across the engraving’s upper third, a series of sketches depicts fictitious battle scenes from victories over the Ottomans on land and at sea—Eszék (now Osijek, Croatia), Eger, Pozsega (now Požega, Croatia), and Patras. This ambitious, multi-figure composition immortalized the roles that the Spanish King Charles II, Pope Innocent XI, and the Republic of Venice played in the wars of reconquest. And though Romeyn de Hooghe’s work consistently dealt with the theme of Protestant religious freedom, here he presented the Catholic powers’ victory as the vanquishing of a ‘primal enemy’, thereby justifying the anti-French alliance organized by William III, Prince of Orange. The French invasion of Rhine region also transformed the political power structure of the Holy Roman Empire, which in turn affected the Hungarian nobility’s room to manoeuvre. The imperial territories’ help in the war against the Ottomans played a large role in the propaganda produced on the occasion of the coronation of Joseph I as king of the Romans in Augsburg in 1690.132 The emperor’s position in the Holy Roman Empire was much stronger at the end of the seventeenth century than it had been in 1648, the year of the Peace of Westphalia. 1690, the spectacularly victorious year in which Joseph I was elected emperor, might have been the peak of his power.133 The victor of the

130 Romeyn de Hooghe: Joanni III Regi Poloniae Magno Duci Lithuaniae, Ukrainae etc. per innumeros Triumphos ad coronationem de Turcis, Tartaris, Cosaccis Victori Ultori Reduci R. de Hooghe 1675 Veste Coburg Artcollection VIII. 446. 131 Romayn de Hooghe – Adriaan Schoonebeek: ‘Abbildung der Kronung von Josephius Koning van Hungaren tot Rooms Koning tot Augsburg den 19. 1690’ Schoomebeck. Romayn de Hooghe fecit G. van Keulen excudit cum provilegio. Amsterdam. John Landwehr, Romeyn de Hooghe, the etcher. Contemporary portrayal of Europe, 1662–1707 (Leiden: Sijthoff, 1973), p. 163 and p. 143. 132 Schumann, Die andere Sonne, pp. 334–37. 133 Klueting, ‘Das Reich’, in Sacrum Imperium, ed. by Brauneder and Höbelt, p. 251.

15 5

156

n ó r a g. e t é n y i

Fig. 6.9.  Romeyn de Hooghe, engraving representing Leopold and Joseph as determinant political actors of Europe, 1687 © Budapest, Hungarian National Museum

Printed Political Representation of the Coronation of Joseph I

Ottoman wars succeeded in reinforcing the emperor’s position by beginning to implement the Kaiserstil, the style of the imperial court, which peaked during the rule of Charles VI.134 Seventeenth-century prints were preserved as contemporary collections by the library of the ‘everlasting imperial assembly’ in Regensburg (1663–1806); these collections show that a large number of press releases on the subject of the coronation of Joseph I were issued in 1687 and 1688.135 In addition to the official Viennese publications, other German, Latin, and Italian reports indicate that many accounts of the coronation were available. The leaflet issued by Pál Esterházy does not seem to have reached Regensburg. A copy of the parliamentary propositions adopted in Pozsony, the resignation rights based on the Golden Bull of 1222, and manuscript reports have also survived among these printed newsletters. The reports of diplomats who were stationed in Regensburg also show that the imperial assembly collected a great deal of substantive information about the coronation in Pozsony. Johann Joachim d’Orville, a diplomat from Marburg, included several printed accounts of the Coronation in Pozsony in 1687 along with his own summary reports from Regensburg.136 The media representation of Joseph’s 1690 coronation as Holy Roman Emperor in Augsburg was similar in many respects to that of his 1687 coronation as king of Hungary in Pozsony; the best-known techniques of the era appear even more often. Propaganda funded by allied prince-electors,137 who often 134 Franz Matsche, ‘Die Kunst im Dienst der Staatsidee Kaiser Karls VI. Ikonographie, Ikonologie und Programmatik des “Kaiserstils”’, Beiträge zur Kunstgeschichte, 16.2 (Berlin/ New York: s.n., 1981); Friedrich Polleroß, ‘Monumenta Virtutis Austriacae. Addenda zur Kunstpolitik Kaiser Karls VI.’, in Kunst – Politik – Religion. Studien zur Kunst in Süddeutschland, Österreich, Tschechien und der Slowakei. Festschrift für Franz Matsche zum 60. Geburtstag, ed. by Markus Hörschand Elisabeth Oy-Mara (Petersberg: Michael Imhof, 2000), pp. 99–122. 135 Johann Constantin Feige: Verzeichnuss Deren respective Hoch und Nieder-StandsPersonen Beeder Röm. Kay. Majest. … Erz-Herzoglichen Hofstaette Welche sich nacher Pressburg zu dero Crönung Dess… Josephi, … Durch Joann. Constantin Feigium. J.U.C. REGENSBURG, Regional State Library of Regensburg, 4 Hist pol. 541.10., Ragguaglio Distinto Di tutte Particolarito passate nella Coronazione del Sereniss Re Gioseppe Primo, … in Possonia li 9. Decembre 1687. Raccolto da D. Gio. P. Zenarolla Prep. di S. Nic. d’ Alba Reale., Vorstellung Der Von dem … Römischen Kaeyser Leopoldo I. und Magdalena Theresia Beyden regierenden Kaeyserl. Majestaeten an dero … Josepho Primo … Crönung des hoch- und Welt berühmten Königreichs Hungarn … und unzehlichen Adles in der gewöhnliche Crönung-Stadt Pressburg glücklich geworden, den 9. Tag Dec. A. 1687. Relation Von Der am 9. Decembr. 1687. beschehenen Königlichen Crönung Pressburg REGENSBURG, Regional State Library of Regensburg 4 Hist pol. 541.10. 2. 136 HStAM, 4e 1513 Berichte aus Reichstag Regensburg 1682, Johann Joachim d’Orville (23 October 1682): 4g Nr 79: ‘Vorstellung Der Von dem Grossmächtigsten … Römischen Käyser Leopoldo I. Und Magdalena Theresia Beyden regierenden May… Josepho primo 9. Dec 1687 ad relat vom 5 Jan. 1688’. 137 Martin Wrede, ‘Türkenkrieger, Türkensieger. Leopold I. und Ludwig XIV. als Retter und Ritter der Christenheit’, in Bourbon – Habsburg – Oranien. Konkurrierende Modelle im

15 7

158

n ó r a g. e t é n y i

used the same artists and publishers, was both cooperative and competitive, and thus increased the quality of the work of these elite artists who made their living from the ‘black arts’. By 1690, the influence of certain prestigious imperial publishers had grown even further,138 and the volume of publicity associated with the imperial court continued to multiply. Military judge Johann Nicolaus Flämitzer used state theory to argue that Joseph needed to be elected king while Leopold was still alive.139 In his work Österreich über alles, Philipp Wilhelm von Hörnigk described Austria as the fulcrum of Europe’s balance of power, as it offered defence against both the French and Ottoman Empires.140 Printed representations of the coronation in Augsburg in January of 1690 suggest that the Hungarian nobility, under the leadership of Pál Esterházy, was still capable of asserting its political significance. The Hungarian aristocracy—and the relationship between the monarch and the Hungarian nobility—played an important role in the imperial election and coronation, and thus in Joseph I’s carefully crafted image. After 1690, the propaganda produced on behalf of Leopold I and Joseph I exhibited distinct differences, indicating that the circle of politicians surrounding Joseph I had already begun to develop policies for him which differed from those of his father.141 The 1687 coronation of Joseph I in Pozsony was a peak period for the production of representations of the Habsburg dynasty in the last third of the seventeenth century. The careful planning of this complex propaganda and its appearance in various genres suggests that the elite of the imperial court felt the need to reach out to an extensive and stratified audience. Increasingly widespread political publicity meant competition not only between political opponents, but also between allies. And in order to ensure that their interests were represented effectively, most influential actors in the international political sphere of the 1680s made use of high-quality artistry, sophisticated techniques, and modern state-theoretical argumentation.

138

139

140 141

dynastischen Europa um 1700, ed. by Christoph Kampmann and others (Cologne/Weimar/ Vienna: Böhlau 2008), pp. 149–65. J. F. Wieland: Das Hochbeehrte Ausgpurg, Wie solches nicht allein mit Beeder Kayserl. als auch UNgaris. Königl. Majest. ingleichem der Hochstlöbl. Churfürsten und Churfürstl. Gesandten, samt viler anderer Stände… Ausgburg, Jakob Koppmayer MUNICH Bavarian State Library Res 4. J. publ. g. 93.; Schumann, Die andere Sonne, p. 219. Johann Nicolaus Flämitzer: Praerogativa Austriacorum Meritorum: Oder eine kürtzliche adumbration in welcher so wol die hoch erheblich presenten Motive in genere, so dermalen bey Lebzeiten…: regierenden Kay. Maj. Leopoldi… die Erwählung eine Röm. Königs… Nürnberg, 1690; MUNICH Bavarian State Library 4 J. Publ. g. 449. Schumann, Die andere Sonne, pp. 193–95. Klueting, ‘Das Reich’, in Sacrum Imperium, ed. by Brauneder and Höbelt, p. 213. Karl Ottmar Aretin, ‘Kaiser Joseph I. zwischen Kaisertradition und österreichischer Grossmachtpolitik’, Historische Zeitschrift, 215 (1972), 529–606; Charles W. Ingrao, In Quest and Crisis: Emperor Joseph I. and the Habsburg Monarchy (Purdue: University Press, 1979); Schumann, Die andere Sonne, pp. 199, 203–07.

JÁNOS KALMÁR 

Archduke Charles of the House of Habsburg’s Proclamation of Accession to the Throne of Spain and his Inauguration as King of Aragon, 1703–06*

Archduke Charles of the House of Habsburg was declared king of Spain in Vienna on 12 September 1703, in the course of the second year of the War of the Spanish Succession. Although Emperor Leopold I had long-since designated Charles, his younger son, as successor to the Spanish throne, the Viennese court considered it wise to delay the moment of this declaration. This was not principally because the archduke, born in 1685, had not yet attained the age of majority, but for more practical reasons: above all, they needed to wait for England to commit to the Empire’s side before taking this step. Without the help of the English fleet, the Austrian Habsburgs would have been completely incapable of achieving their ambitions on the Iberian peninsula.1 England’s support was all the more important given the fact that Louis XIV had already declared his grandson Philip, the duke of Anjou, then only 17 years of age, the successor to the throne of the late Charles II at Versailles in 1700.2 The proclamation was carefully prepared. Some fifteen days earlier, on 27 August, Emperor Leopold had asked his chief steward, Count Ferdinand Bonaventura von Harrach, to call a ministers’ conference with the Spanish ambassador in order to discuss questions concerning various aspects of protocol related to Charles’s declaration;3 this meeting took place two days later. Archduke Charles was to leave for the Iberian Peninsula three days after his proclamation as king, and his declaration was to be presented to various bodies, including the Geheimer Rat (imperial privy council) and





* This chapter was supported by the grant NKFI K 116166: “The Political Culture of the Hungarian Estates (1526–1848)”, research project under the auspices of the “National Research, Development and Innovation Office” (NFKI) of Hungary. 1 Jean Bérenger, ‘L’empereur Léopold Ier, l’archiduc Charles et la succession d’Espagne’, in Actes del Congrés L’Aposta catalana a la Guerra de Successió (1705–1707), ed. by Mercè Morales, Mercè Renom, Mamés Cisneros (Barcelona: Museu d’Història de Catalunya, 2007), p. 83; Bernd Rill, Karl VI. Habsburg als barocke Großmacht (Graz/Vienna/Cologne: Styria, 1992), p. 47. 2 Dated 16, November 1700. Marquis de Dangeau [Philippe de Courcillon], Journales du […] avec les additions inédites du duc de Saint-Simon, ed. by Soulié, Dussieux, De Channevières, Mantz, De Montaiglon, 19 vols (Paris: Firmin Didot, 1854–60), vii (1856), pp. 418–19; Henry Kamen, Felipe V: El rey que reinó dos veces, trans. by E. Vilà Palomar, Historia (Madrid: Temas de Hoy, 2000), pp. 16–17. 3 ÖStA, AVA FA Harrach [Vienna] K. 348, s.f.: 27 August 1703. Eagles Looking East and West: Dynasty, Ritual and Representation in Habsburg Hungary and Spain, ed. by Tibor Martí & Roberto Quirós Rosado, Habsburg Worlds 4 (Turnhout, 2021), pp. 159–165.

© FHG

DOI 10.1484/M.HW-EB.5.122799

1 60

j á n o s k a l m ár

the Reichskammergericht (imperial chamber court). It was proposed that attendees wore suitable attire, namely ceremonial robes without overcoats. Certain ministers demanded the singing of Te Deum and the firing of a salute of honour so that the flash of gunfire might also inform the outside world of this solemn act. On the other hand, the participants could not come to an agreement about the manner in which Emperor Leopold and his elder son Joseph, then king of the Romans, should comport themselves in their dealings with the proclaimed king. Some insisted that no other ruler could purport to be equal to the two aforementioned sovereigns, and that in consequence, they could not offer Charles their hands—or could do so only in private. Others, however, argued that the declared king could already be considered the chosen ruler of Spain and that care should be taken not to insult that nation. It was finally decided that among the ambassadors, only the papal nuncio would join the emperor in congratulating Charles in the presence of the invited representatives of other nations. Immediately after the ceremony, it would be necessary to send notifications in the emperor’s name to every foreign power, though Archduke Charles was to wait until he arrived in Spain to announce his declaration to the Empire’s three chief allies—England, Portugal, and the Dutch Republic. Most of these advisers proposed that the king should treat the nobles of Spain with the dignity to which they were accustomed. Charles was also to offer ecclesiastical incomes to his loyalists. The imperial palace was not deemed an appropriate location for conferrals of the Order of the Golden Fleece, especially since so few people in Vienna were deserving of it. Even so, if the distinguished nobles and subjects of the Spanish crown who were present in the imperial capital were to desire it, they could be permitted to take the oath with the young claimant to the throne, even with their swords at their sides. The publication of the proclamation was considered absolutely necessary. Once the new king traveled to Spain and arrived in Portugal, he was to announce himself in Spanish to the viceroy of Naples and the governor of the Spanish Netherlands. It was preferred that he not meet with princeelectors in crossing through Germany, but if such encounters were inevitable, Charles was to treat them in accordance with their rank, especially the elector Palatine, whose assistance was essential (his niece, the sister of Empress Eleonor, was the widow of the late King Charles II).4 The new king’s comportment toward the Dutch Republic was to resemble that of the late King Charles II of Spain—which demonstrates that the dignity of the sovereign was expected to prevail over any actual sentiments of distress. The Viennese ministers considered it less probable that Charles, while on his way, would have the opportunity to meet with Queen Anne of England,



4 Ludwig Pfandl, Karl II. Das Ende der spanischen Machtstellung in Europa (München: G. Callwey, 1940), p. 288.

A rchd uk e C ha r l e s o f t h e H o u s e o f H ab s b u rg’s Pro clamat i o n

though it was assumed that such an encounter would eventually occur in any case. However, if such an occasion were to present itself (which it did), the ceremonial was to be that of ‘a king [meeting] with a queen and a lady’.5 While the king was en route, the nobles of Naples were to lead his convoy — a token of his esteem for them.6 Thanks to Johann Christian Lünig (ca. 1662–1740), the author of an elaborate manual of early eighteenth-century ceremonies, we are familiar with the delivery of the declaration itself,7 which took place at a grand gala in the conference room of the imperial pleasure palace Favorita, near Vienna (and today within the boundaries of the city itself). The officers of the court, recently chosen for the new king, were dressed in magnificent livery, particularly notable for their yellow sashes trimmed with red and silver, the national colours of Spain. When the 35 ministers of the privy council had assembled, Emperor Leopold went to the chapel to attend mass. He would later appear in the conference room in the company of his two sons, to whom he addressed himself, saying that as a result of the death of Charles II of Spain, the House of Austria would inherit the late king’s crown. However, because it would be difficult to govern all the lands of that crown jointly with those of the Habsburg monarchy, the emperor had decided to divide this inheritance between his sons. He then declared Archduke Charles king of the Spanish thrones. Charles’ elder brother, Joseph I, king of the Romans, responded by thanking the emperor for the Austrian possessions, adding that he would renounce all rights to Spain in favour of his younger brother. After Joseph spoke, the new king thanked both his father and his brother, the former for his declaration and the latter for his renunciation. The emperor then ordered Count Julius Friedrich Buccellini, chancellor of Austria, to read the text of the declaration aloud. When he had finished, Leopold and Joseph I pronounced an oath before Cardinal Leopold Kollonich, then swore on a Bible before the cross on the altar. Charles also uttered an oath, saying that he, like his predecessors, would respect the ancient laws and privileges of the Spaniards; he was then embraced by the emperor and the king of the Romans. The privy councillors could then congratulate these sovereigns and kiss the hand of the king of Spain. The imperial grand chamberlain then opened the door of the antechamber to inform the foreign diplomats in attendance of the proceedings. Meanwhile, their majesties withdrew; the new king of Spain went to visit his brother, at whose residence he received congratulations from the ambassadors of England, the Dutch Republic, Prussia, Mainz, and Modena, all of whom had attended this solemn occasion. The papal nuncio, the ambassador of Venice,



5 Virginia León, Carlos VI: El emperador que no pudo ser rey de España (Madrid: Santillana, 2003), p. 58. 6 ÖStA AVA FA Harrach, Carton 348, s.f.: 29 August 1703. 7 Johann Christian Lünig, Theatrum Ceremoniale historico-politicum, oder Historisch und Politischer Schau-Platz aller Ceremonien […], i, Leipzig: Weidmann, 1719, p. 1332.

161

1 62

j á n o s k a l m ár

and the envoys from Florence, Parma,8 Denmark, and Poland, however, all offered various reasons for excusing themselves. The papal nuncio, Giovanni Antonio Davia, for instance, left the court under the pretext of gout.9 Later, their majesties sat down for a meal with the new king of Spain.10 * * * * Archduke Charles’s on-site proclamation—that is to say, that which took place in Spain—was delivered in two parts. On 2 July 1706, a few days after Madrid was taken by an army of allies who backed the demands of the House of Austria,11 Charles was proclaimed king of Spain and the Indies12 in absentia.13 Welcome ceremonies took place a few days later in Toledo, another city occupied by the allies, where Maria Anna of Neuburg, the widow of Charles II, and the archbishop, Cardinal Luis Manuel Fernández de Portocarrero—who had had enough of the influence of the French, particularly as exercised by Philip V’s entourage—joined the Habsburg cause.14 The proclamation in Madrid was delivered in the following manner: The chief standard bearer (alférez mayor) of Castile, accompanied by a magnificent procession, visited the Hôtel de Ville of Madrid, where the



8 For the position taken by this Italian duchy, see: Leopold Auer, ‘Zur Rolle Italiens in der österreichischen Politik um das spanische Erbe’, Mitteilungen des Österreichischen Staatsarchivs, 31 (1978), 52–72 (p. 65). 9 In discussions of the Spanish succession, and in the war over it (up until 1707 at least), the Pope sided with Bourbon interests against the Habsburgs; Donato Squicciarini, Die Apostolischen Nuntien in Wien, (Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 2000), p. 195; Hans Kramer, Habsburg und Rom in den Jahren 1708–1709, Publikationen des Österreichischen Historischen Instituts in Rom, 3 (Innsbruck: F. Rauch, 1936); Albert Le Roy, La France et Rome de 1700 à 1715. Histoire diplomatique de la bulle ‘Unigenitus’ jusqu’à la mort de Louis XIV d’après des documents inédits, (Paris: Perrin, 1892; repr. Genève: Slatkine/Megariotis Reprints 1976). 10 Lünig, Theatrum Ceremoniale, i, pp. 161–62. 11 They entered the city on the 27th of June, 1706; David Francis, The First Peninsular War 1702–1713 (London/Tonbridge: E. Benn, 1975), p. 225. 12 Pedro Voltes Bou, ‘Las dos ocupaciones de Madrid por el Archiduque Carlos de Austria’, Boletin de la Real Academia de la Historia, 151.1 (1962), p. 70; León, Carlos VI, p. 87. 13 Philip V’s military forces were able to reoccupy Madrid before the Archduke was able to make his entry; Pedro Voltes, Felipe V, fundador de la España contemporánea, Biografias Espasa (Madrid: Espasa-Calpe, 1991), p. 86. 14 Marqués San Felipe [Vicente Bacallar y Sanna], Comentarios de la guerra de España, e historia de su rey Phelipe V El Animoso, desde el principio de su reynado, hasta la paz general del año de 1725, i, Genova: M. Garvizza, [1726], pp. 217–18; Marcus Landau, Geschichte Kaiser Karls VI. als König von Spanien (Stuttgart: Cotta’sche, 1889), p. 341; León, Carlos VI, p. 87; for more information about the cardinal, see: José Manuel de Bernardo Ares, El cardenal Portocarrero y su tiempo (1635–1709) (Madrid: Catalina Seco, 2013); Manuel Muñoz Rojo, ‘El cardenal Portocarrero, Regente de España, 1635–1709’, in Biografía y procesos desde las perspectivas interdisciplinares de la historia, la traductología y la literatura. Balance de una década de investigación en el contento de la Sucesión de la Monarquía Hispánica (1650–1750), ed. by Juana Salado Santos (Córdoba: Vistaalegre, 2016), pp. 115–57.

A rchd uk e C ha r l e s o f t h e H o u s e o f H ab s b u rg’s Pro clamat i o n

members of the municipal council had assembled. When he arrived, the mayor (corregidor), the king’s representative on the municipal council, gave him a royal banner (pendón real) emblazoned with the coats of arms of Castile and León. In exchange, the Chief Standard Bearer offered the Mayor a certificate attesting to his receipt of the banner and of his pledge of loyalty; the mayor then handed him the banner. At that point, the procession turned toward the centre of the capital where a platform had been erected. Guards, judicial officials, and members of the court led this retinue, followed by six sceptre-bearers, four heralds, the members of the municipal council, the mayor, and the chief standard bearer. As they passed before the platform, the entire procession arrayed itself in positions around the stage. Accompanied by the mayor and the four heralds, the chief standard bearer ascended the platform, while the six sceptre bearers took up their positions at the tops of the staircases.15 The heralds then shouted ‘Silence!’ from the four corners of the platform, and finally, ‘Listen!’. The chief standard bearer then bowed deeply before a portrait of the king positioned under a baldaquin, and shouted three times, ‘Castilla y León ha por el Rey Católico Carlos que Dios guarde’ (‘May Castile and León have Charles for their Catholic king, God save him!’), each time swinging the royal banner from top to bottom.16 After each salute, the crowd responded with the exclamation ‘Viva!’, an expression of loyalty which the secretaries and notaries present would have regarded as the equivalent of a written declaration. It is not necessary to dwell too long on the details of this ceremony, as it seems to have been fairly scattered; according to our source, the duke of Anjou had been declared King Philip V in accordance with that same procedure on 24 November 1700 in Madrid, also in absentia.17 Nevertheless, there is one particular which catches the eye: the lack of ecclesiastical participation in this ceremony. In looking for evidence of the involvement of the Church, one can find some in Archduke Charles’s proclamation of accession to the throne of Aragon, which was delivered in the Aragonese capital Zaragoza on 18 July 1706, which Charles had entered three days previously on his way to Madrid.18 The new king had intended to make his entry into Zaragoza at three in the afternoon, 15 Lünig, Theatrum Ceremoniale, i, p. 1332. 16 For an explanation of the roles played by these participants and the symbolic significance of the objects used in the course of this ceremony, see Gérard Sabatier, Edouard Sylvène, Les Monarchies de France et d’Espagne (1556–1715). Rituels et pratiques, Collection U/Histoire (Paris: A. Colin 2001), pp. 23–33; see in particular the chapter ‘L’intronisation des rois d’Espagne’, which also explains the differences between the ceremonies in Aragon and Castile. 17 Lünig, Theatrum Ceremoniale, i, pp. 1333–34. 18 Francisco Castellví, Narraciones históricas desde el año 1700 hasta el año 1725, ed. by Josep M. Mundet i Gifré and José M. Alsina Roca, 4 vols (Madrid: Fundació Francís Elías de Tejada y Erasmo Percopo, 1997–2002), ii (1998), p. 134; the archduke was recognized as King of Aragon already on the 29th of June, 1706 as a result of the allies’ occupation of Madrid on the 27th of June; Kamen, Felipe V, p. 74; Castellví, Narraciones, ii, p. 131.

163

1 64

j á n o s k a l m ár

in the company of the members of his court and the Aragonese nobility. He began at the Aljafería palace, the traditional residence of the kings of Aragon located just outside the city, which would later serve as the headquarters for the Inquisition until Philip V had it converted into a fortress. However, a long storm accompanied by thunder and lightning delayed the ceremony until five-o’clock. His entry then proceeded in the following order: fifty members of the Aragonese guard led the procession, followed by two royal trumpeters; the royal groom came next, guiding horses with a rope; the fourth rank consisted of royal trumpeters and drummers, followed by the representatives of the Aragonese nobility; then came Don Cristóbal de Alagón y Córdoba, count of Sástago, chamberlain of the kingdom of Aragon, with a drawn sabre; in the seventh position came the king under a baldaquin carried by twenty-four municipal councillors who took turns conveying it; the mayor walked before them with five councillors who led the king’s horse by a silken cord. They were followed by a unit of the royal guard, including a regiment of grenadiers; the rear of the procession was brought up by carriages, including those of the sovereign and those of the court. It was in this manner that Charles passed before the convent of Santa Inés and went past San Pablo street, then traversed the Corso, almost all the intersections of which were decorated with triumphal arches; the buildings were adorned with precious tapestries. Greeted with salutes of gunfire and the jubilation of the crowds, the precession headed for the cathedral, taking a route along the San Gil and San Pedro streets in order to arrive at the plain of Asco, where the king was received by the archbishop, the chapter of the cathedral, and the representatives of the kingdom of Aragon. After his majesty had kneeled before the altar, the archbishop recited the appropriate prayers and a profusion of benedictions. The king then took his place on the throne, near the altar. To his right stood the chamberlain of Aragon with his sabre drawn, which he passed to the king when the latter had taken his seat. The royal chief notary (prothonotarius) began to read the text of the royal covenant, at which point the chamberlain took the sabre back from his majesty. To the left of the king stood his chief steward, Prince Anton Florian von Liechtenstein, at whose side stood other representatives of the kingdom; the members of the court had taken their places on the other side. After the reading of the covenants, the king rose and promised to uphold their terms, saying ‘así yo juro’ (‘I swear it to be so’); he then kissed the cross, and with the religious ceremony having ended, returned to the palace, where he dined in public.19 It should thus be noted that representatives of the church played an essential role in this ritual, as did the gestures and accessories at the ecclesiastical ceremony (the benedictions, the cross, the Bible). However, this is far from unique; they were part of the solemnities which took place in the church of the monastery

19 Lünig, Theatrum Ceremoniale, i, p. 1334; ÖStA HHStA, Handschriften/Weiss 960, fol. 97r–98v.

A rchd uk e C ha r l e s o f t h e H o u s e o f H ab s b u rg’s Pro clamat i o n

of San Jerónimo in Madrid on 8 May 1701, in connection with a session of the general assemblies of Castile and León, where Philip V swore an oath to uphold the rights and privileges of the country and accepted a declaration of loyalty from his subjects before an assembly of the Cortes (parliament) of Castile.20 An ecclesiastical ceremony was also an indispensable element of the opening session of the Cortes of Aragon which took place in Zaragoza almost a year later, on 26 April 1702, when the young Queen Consort Maria Luisa of Savoy served in place of her husband Philip V—the absence of the latter having been occasioned by a voyage to Naples. It was thus the queen, in her role as regent, who pronounced the oath in the king’s place in this instance,21 though this act was not unprecedented; Philip V had himself sanctioned the rights of Aragon on 17 September 1701.22 An ecclesiastical ceremony was also a part of the opening session of the Cortes in Barcelona in 1705, when Archduke Charles swore to uphold the rights and privileges of Catalonia.23 The coronation ceremonies presented above suggest that when the kings of Spain were inaugurated in the ancien régime, ecclesiastical ceremonies were connected to the oath the sovereign swore, and thus to his personal presence or the presence of those who served in his stead. In the case of Philip V, these solemnities always took place in connection with an opening session of the Cortes, which made it inevitable that the monarch would recognize the rights and privileges of the country in question. From the monarch’s perspective it was thus a kind of imposition, though on the other hand, such rituals would have given these assemblies opportunities to express their loyalty to their sovereign. Formally, it was a reciprocal pledge, but in reality, it tied the monarch’s hands. How else could one explain the oath which Archduke Charles of the House of Habsburg pronounced in 1706 in Zaragoza, at a moment when the Cortes were not in session, except as evidence of this sovereign’s financial and military subjection to them?

20 Marqués de Ribas [Antonio de Ubilla y Medina], Succesion de el Rey D. Phelipe V nuestro señor en la Corona de España […], Madrid: Juan García Infanzon, 1704, libro I, capitulo X (pp. 101–28); Kamen, Felipe V, p. 20; Ricardo García Cárcel, Felipe V y los españoles, Ensayo/ Historia (Barcelona: Random House Mondadori, 2002; repr. 2003), p. 72. 21 Ribas, Succesion de el Rey D. Phelipe V, libro III, capitulo V, pp. 415–32; Kamen, Felipe V, pp. 27, 29; Jaime de Salazar y Acha, ‘Proclamación del rey y juramento’, in El Rey. Historia de la Monarquía, ed. by José Antonio Escudero, Historia y Sociedad, 3 vols (Barcelona: Planeta 2008), i, p. 175. 22 Ribas, Succesion de el Rey D. Phelipe V, libro II, capitulo IV, pp. 213–20. 23 Pedro Voltes Bou, ‘Las Cortes tenidas en Barcelona por el Archiduque Carlos de Austria en 1705–06’, Boletín de la Real Academia de Buenas Letras de Barcelona, 28 (1959–60), p. 49; Manual de novells ardits vulgarment apellat Dietari del Antich Consell Barceloní, ed. by vol. XXV, ed. by Frederich Schwartz y Luna and others, 28 vols (Barcelona: Henrich y Companyía/Ayuntamiento de Barcelona/Instituto Municipal de Historia, 1892–1972), xxv: ed. by Pedro Voltes Bou (1975), pp. 79–80.

165

FANNI HENDE 

Political Representation at the Coronations of Hungarian Kings in the First Half of the Eighteenth Century

The kingdom of Hungary was integrated into the Central European Habsburg monarchy in 1526, after the Hungarians suffered a catastrophic defeat at hands of the Ottomans at Mohács and subsequently elected as king the Habsburg infante Ferdinand I. In 1664, Leopold I signed a peace treaty with the Turks in Vasvár, the terms of which were disadvantageous for the kingdom of Hungary. Leopold’s absolutist rule, his leaving Hungarian representatives out of the negotiations preceding this treaty, his failure to call a diet which would have made it possible to elect a palatine, and his tax reform, which was a serious burden on the kingdom, all generated resistance to Habsburg rule, a resistance supported by the Turks. Leopold finally convoked a diet to resolve these conflicts in 1681. Then, in 1683, the Turkish army laid siege to Vienna, an attack which Leopold was able to beat back with Polish help; his forces then counterattacked and reconquered all the Hungarian territory north of Esztergom, including the town itself. Finally, in 1686, the Holy League liberated Buda, which the Turks had occupied since 1541, at which point the remaining anti-Habsburg movement collapsed. And it was after this military success that Leopold convoked the Hungarian diet in Pozsony (Bratislava) in order to have his son crowned and to have his dynasty’s hereditary reign accepted, meaning that the estates gave up their right to elect Hungary’s king.1 Up to the eighteenth century, Hungarian coronations took place in the so-called vivente rege form, meaning a successor would be crowned during his father’s lifetime. Joseph I was the last to be crowned according to this custom in 1687; the following coronation, that of Emperor Charles VI (King Charles III of Hungary) in 1712, can be considered a turning point. Charles VI’s accession to the Hungarian throne was preceded by the War of the Spanish Succession and the Hungarian anti-Habsburg movement started by Francis II Rákóczi in 1703. When Leopold I died in 1705, his successor Joseph I tried to make peace with the rebels, but in 1707, Rákóczi called an assembly in Ónod (a village in northern Hungary) at which the rebels declared their independence from the Habsburg dynasty and delayed the election of the new king until the next diet. After some unsuccessful attempts to negotiate, Joseph I tried to counteract the effect of this assembly



1 Jean Bérenger and Charles Kecskeméti, Parlement et vie parlementaire en Hongrie 1608–1918 (Paris: Champion, 2005), pp. 119–33. Eagles Looking East and West: Dynasty, Ritual and Representation in Habsburg Hungary and Spain, ed. by Tibor Martí & Roberto Quirós Rosado, Habsburg Worlds 4 (Turnhout, 2021), pp. 167–177.

© FHG

DOI 10.1484/M.HW-EB.5.122800

1 68

fa n n i he n d e

by convoking the Hungarian diet, but he did not manage to solve this internal crisis. He finally dissolved the diet in 1709 on the pretext of the Black Death, while the fighting between imperial-royal troops and the rebels continued.2 After lengthy negotiations, the text of a peace treaty was finalized on 27 April 1711, but Joseph I died before the end of these discussions. His death was concealed from the Hungarians, which made it possible for the Treaty of Szatmár to be signed shortly afterwards. After the death of Joseph I, Charles VI, who was fighting for the Spanish throne at that time, inherited the Habsburgs’ Central European territories. However, Great Britain did not support their unification with the Spanish domains out of concern over the European balance of power.3 In the first part of this paper, I will analyze the political communication associated with the coronation ceremonies of Joseph I and Charles VI, which represented the hereditary reign of the Habsburg dynasty. I will also present the so-called diploma inaugurale of both monarchs; this diploma, as its name suggests, was issued before the coronation, though its ratification took place at the beginning of the king’s reign. The process of reaching compromises and establishing a balance of power between the ruler and the estates can be reconstructed on the basis of the wording and the circumstances of the issuing of the diploma inaugurale. In the second part of this piece, I will focus on the self-representation of the Hungarian estates. The ceremony in which the Order of the Golden Spur was conferred on new knights and the coronation banquets at which palatine-appointed nobles served the food gave these participants opportunities to demonstrate their political power.

Diploma inaugurale In 1687, Leopold I wanted to add new content to the diploma and coronation oath of Joseph I, given that military events had changed the political situation. He wished to abolish article 31 of the first point of his diploma, which contained the oath that the king would respect the estates’ prerogatives and uphold their laws. This article originated with the so-called Golden Bull issued by King Andrew II of Hungary in 1222 and allowed the estates to disobey the king when he did not adhere to the law. This right was first exercised at the





2 János Kalmár, ‘Adalékok az 1708. évi pozsonyi országgyűlés megnyitásának körülményeihez’ [Additions to circumstances of the 1708 Diet’s opening in Pozsony], in Rendiség és parlamentarizmus Magyarországon a kezdetektől 1918-ig [Estates and Parliamentarism in Hungary from the Beginnings until 1918], ed. by Tamás Dobszay and others (Budapest: Országgyűlés Hivatala, 2013), pp. 210–16; Mihály Zsilinszky, Az 1708-ki pozsonyi országgyűlés történetéhez [On the history of the 1708 Diet in Pozsony], Értekezések a történelmi tudományok köréből, 13 (Budapest: Magyar Tudományos Akadémia, 1888), pp. 3–62. 3 Péter Hahner, Régi rend alkonya. Egyetemes történet 1648–1815 [The waning of the old order. Universal history 1648–1815] (Budapest: Panem, 2006), pp. 111–26.

Political Representation at the Coronations of Hungarian Kings

beginning of the seventeenth century, when Stephen Bocskai invoked this article as a justification for his uprising.4 Despite the fact that Habsburg rulers had never acknowledged this right, they repealed it so as to deny the estates a legal basis for disobeying the king. Even so, Leopold also wanted to insert a clause into the texts of the diploma and the oath which asserted that the king—not just the estates—had the right to interpret the prerogatives and rights in diets. The fifth point of his son’s revised diploma extended the order of succession to the Spanish line of the Habsburg dynasty; thus the Hungarian estates would have recovered the right to free royal elections only if both the Austrian and the Spanish Habsburgs’ male lines were to die out. Leopold conducted these negotiations so that the estates did not have any opportunity to discuss the text before the coronation, since he knew that the Hungarians would not accept these revisions. Although the estates got their wish that the diploma be published before the coronation, no discussion of it ever took place. Joseph I actually signed it in 1688, after the coronation, but he specified its date of publication as 8 December 1687.5 Joseph’s Diploma inaugurale never took effect, however, because he began his reign in 1705 and convoked the Hungarian diet in 1708, but died before it was entered into law.6 His successor, Charles VI, extended this diet and in 1715 signed articles which contained his diploma and not his predecessor’s. In the spring of 1712, a debate emerged among the members of the estates about the composition of Charles VI’s diploma. They held different views about which predecessor’s version should be followed as a model: Leopold I’s 1657 text or Joseph I’s 1687 variant. The Hungarian estates had had no opportunity to discuss the 1687 version, which had been released without the consent of the Hungarian diet. The estates wanted to redress this grievance, but as they knew that the Viennese Court would not revert to Leopold’s version, they voted in favour of Joseph’s text on the condition that the aforementioned supplement be omitted. The diet did not have enough time to prepare a diploma before the 1712 coronation either, and thus in order to come to an agreement with the king, they had to accept this diploma without changes as well. It shows the benevolence of the new king that he assured the estates in article 3 of 1715 that he was not going to abuse the terms of this supplement.7

4 Bérenger and Kecskeméti, Parlement, p. 64. 5 Vilmos Fraknói, A Habsburg-ház trónöröklési jogának megállapítása az 1687/8-ik évi országgyűlésen. [Determining the right of succession of the House of Habsburg at the Diet of 1687–1688] (Budapest: Athenaeum, 1922), pp. 20–33; István M. Szijártó, A diéta. A magyar rendek és az országgyűlés 1708–1792 [The Diet. The Estates and Parliament of Hungary 1708–1792] (Keszthely: Balaton Akad., 2010), pp. 201–04. 6 Szijártó, A diéta, p. 204. 7 András Forgó, ‘Az egyházi rend a szatmári megegyezés utáni országos politikában’ [The clergy in national politics after the Treaty of Szatmár], in Az 1712. évi pozsonyi diéta egy ciszterci szerzetes szemével [The 1712 Diet in Pozsony through the eyes of a Cistercian], ed. by

169

1 70

fa n n i he n d e

Coronation Ceremonies

Before discussing the symbolic communication of these ceremonies, I will briefly describe the procedure of a Hungarian king’s coronation, which had two parts, ecclesiastical and secular. The ecclesiastical elements were the following: the declaration of the candidate’s aptness, the enumeration of the king’s duties, the ecclesiastical oath, the consecration, the anointing with oil of catechumens, the enrobing of the king in royal vestments, the girding of the king with the royal sword and his drawing it, the acclamation, the crowning by the archbishop of Esztergom and the Hungarian palatine, the handing over of the sceptre and the orb, and the enthronement, followed by the singing of the hymn Te Deum. These all happened as part of a mass at St Martin’s Cathedral, while the following secular events took place in different locations around Pozsony. The king received knights into the Order of the Golden Spur at the Franciscan Church, recited the coronation oath, and made the four traditional sword strokes towards the four cardinal points of the compass. Finally, the celebration ended with a banquet at the royal palace. In 1687, Archduke Joseph was nine years old, which complicated this ceremony insofar as minors were not allowed to swear oaths, issue diplomas of inauguration, or confer knighthood. This problem was solved by having the papal nuncio Buonvisi confirm the archduke on 25 November, thus making him an adult according to canon law. On the following day, Leopold I inducted him into the Order of the Golden Fleece, entitling him to grant knighthoods.8 Joseph I’s coronation ceremony took place on 9 December. Hungarian and German nobles participated in the coronation march from the royal palace to St Martin’s Cathedral, including the Hungarian herald, the palatine, the master of the horse bearing a drawn sword, and Archduke Joseph. Emperor Leopold I and Empress Eleonor Magdalene of Neuburg were preceded by two heralds of the Holy Roman Empire and the imperial marshal. Armed citizens lined up from Michael’s Gate to the cemetery of the cathedral. The archbishop of Esztergom sprinkled the emperor and empress with holy water at the gate of the church, then both went into the so-called Jesuit sacristy, where they changed into imperial robes. They then went out to the thrones

András Forgó, Fontes ex Archivo Sancti Martini editi, 1, A Veszprém Megyei Levéltár kiadványai, 32 (Pannonhalma/Veszprém: Pannonhalmi Főapátsági Levéltár/A Magyar Nemzeti Levéltár Veszprém Megyei Levéltára, 2013), pp. 15–19; András Forgó, ‘Zu den Möglichkeiten und Grenzen ständisch-politischer Handlungsfähigkeit. Das Beispiel des Herrschaftsantritts Karls VI. im Königreich Ungarn’, in Wiener Archivforschungen. Festschrift für den ungarischen Archivdelegierten in Wien, István Fazekas, ed. by Zsuzsanna Cziráki and others (Vienna: Inst. für Ungarische Geschichtsforschung in Wien/Balassi Inst./Collegium Hungaricum: Ungarische Archivdelegation beim Haus-, Hof- und Staatsarchiv, 2014), pp. 265–66; Szijártó, A diéta, pp. 201–05. 8 Fraknói, A Habsburg-ház trónöröklési joga, p. 32.

Political Representation at the Coronations of Hungarian Kings

prepared for them at the high altar.9 The ten banners of the countries that figured in Joseph I’s royal title were carried out before him in reverse order: Bulgaria, Cumania, Lodomeria, Galicia, Serbia, Bosnia, Slavonia, Croatia, Dalmatia, and Hungary.10 They were followed by the herald of Hungary; György Erdődy, the groom of the stool, with a golden cross, and by Ádám Czobor with the so-called pacem cross. Then came the regalia: the orb, carried by Nicolaus Erdődy, the ban of Croatia; the sceptre, carried by István Csáky, the judge royal; St Stephen’s sword, carried by Kristóf Erdődy, the second crown guard; the royal mantle, carried by István Zichy, the first crown guard; the Holy Crown, carried by Palatine Pál Esterházy; and finally, the royal sword, drawn and borne aloft by Ádám Zrínyi, the master of the horse. Then came Joseph I dressed in Hungarian garb.11 During the procession to the high altar, music was played on the organ, as well as drums and trumpets. The thrones of the emperor and empress were placed on the so-called evangelic side (the heraldic right), along with the seats of dames and ambassadors. On the epistle side (the heraldic left side) sat the knights of the Order of the Golden Fleece and the privy councillors.12 At beginning of the coronation mass, György Széchényi, the archbishop of Esztergom, made a speech about good governance, then Joseph took an ecclesiastic oath. He was later anointed with oil of catechumens, after which

9 ÖStA HHStA OMeA ÄZA, K. 15, fol. 46r–v. (in German); fol. 58r (in Latin): Krönung von Josef I zum König von Ungarn in Preßburg und Ungarischer Landtag; OSZKK, Fol. Lat. 540, fol. 46r. 10 Nóra G. Etényi, ‘A császári udvar nyilvánosságpolitikája I. József magyar királlyá koronázásakor’ [The Public Policies of the Imperial Court at the Coronation of Joseph I as King of Hungary], Történelmi Szemle, 54.4 (2012), p. 569; ÖStA HHStA OMeA ZA-Prot, Bd. 4, fol. 253v; András Forgó, ‘Acta et observata penes diaetam Hungaricam Posonii celebratam item coronationem Domini Caroli VI. ibidem peractam anno 1712’, in Az 1712. évi pozsonyi diéta egy ciszterci szerzetes szemével, ed. by András Forgó (Pannonhalma: Pannonhalmi Főapátsági Levéltár; Veszprém: Magyar Nemzeti Levéltár Veszprém Megyei Levéltára, 2013), p. 206; Sámuel Decsy, A’ magyar szent koronának és az ahoz tartozó tárgyaknak historiája [History of the Holy Crown and Other Coronation Regalia of Hungary] (Vienna: Alberti Ignátz, 1792), p. 539; these banners were displayed at several stages of the ceremony: during the coronation processions from the royal palace, the sacristy, or the cathedral; near the king in the cathedral; and on the steps of the hill of the oath; Géza Pálffy, ‘A Magyar Korona országainak koronázási zászlói a 16–17. században’ [The coronation banners of the countries of the Hungarian Crown in the sixteenth and seventeenth century], in „Ez világ mint egy kert…” Tanulmányok Galavics Géza tiszteletére [‘This world like a garden…’ Essays in Honour of Géza Galavics], ed. by Orsolya Bubryák (Budapest: Gondolat/MTA Művészettörténeti Kutatóintézet, 2010), p. 31; it was an honor to carry these banners, and their bearers were allowed to keep them as keepsakes; for instance, the Hungarian banner from the 1618 ceremony, which was carried by Nicolaus Esterházy, has been preserved by his heirs in Fraknó (now Forchtenstein, Austria). 11 ÖStA HHStA OMeA ZA-Prot, Bd. 4, fols. 253r–54v. 12 ÖStA HHStA OMeA ÄZA, K. 15, fol. 78r: Krönung von Josef I. zum König von Ungarn in Preßburg und Ungarischer Landtag; there is a sketch of the interior of the cathedral in this document.

17 1

172

fa n n i he n d e

he put on the royal vestments, which were traditionally thought to have been worn by St Stephen. After these rituals, the archbishop of Esztergom handed Joseph the royal insignia. When Hungary had no palatine, only the archbishop was authorized to place the crown onto the king’s head, an indication of the palatine’s significant political power. In 1687, Palatine Pál Esterházy managed to assert his right to participate in this portion of the coronation. Thus Archbishop Széchényi and Palatine Esterházy together put the Holy Crown onto Joseph’s head.13 Before doing so, the palatine asked the people in the church—three times in Hungarian—whether they wanted the candidate to be crowned, and they answered three times in Hungarian: ‘we do.’ The liturgical book Pontificale Romanum does not contain this element, but such late medieval traditions were prescribed by the estates in the so-called Directorium for the ceremony. After he was crowned, Joseph took possession of the sceptre and orb before being led to his throne for the enthronement. Following the coronation mass, Joseph I marched from St Martin’s Cathedral to the Franciscan Church wearing Hungarian clothes. During this procession, the president of the royal chamber threw coronation coins to the gathered populace, on which the new king’s motto (Amore et Timore) was inscribed.14 The investiture of the new Knights of the Golden Spur took place in the Franciscan Church, where the palatine read the names of the forty-seven candidates one by one. Each man knelt down, whereupon the king touched his right shoulder three times with the sword of St Stephen.15 The Directorium details this accolade ceremony; another preserved description of such conferrals dates back to 1608. According to this source, the king prayed at the high altar, after which a passage from the Gospels was read. There was a throne built for the king on a dais, where he dubbed the knights.16 The next element was the oath; line prompts were read out by the archbishop of

13 Géza Pálffy, ‘Küzdelem a király- és a királyné-koronázás jogáért a kora újkori Magyarországon’ [Struggle for the right of coronation of kings and queen consorts in early modern Hungary], in Egyház és reprezentáció a régi Magyarországon [Church and representation in old Hungary], ed. by Orsolya Báthory and Franciska Kónya (Budapest: MTA–PPKE Barokk Irodalom és Lelkiség Kutatócsoport, 2016), pp. 303–08. 14 Péter Bán, ‘Egy portugál szemtanú tudósítása I. József 1687. évi koronázásáról’ [A Portuguese witness’ report about Joseph I’s coronation in 1687], Levéltári Szemle, 35.1 (1985), pp. 60–61; for more about Joseph I’s coronation coins, see: Ferenc Soltész, Csaba Tóth and Géza Pálffy, Coronatio Hungarica in nummis. A magyar uralkodók koronázási érmei és zsetonjai (1508–1916) [Coronatio Hungarica in Nummis. Hungarian Coronation Medals and Jetons (1508–1916)] (Budapest: MTA BTK TTI; MNM, 2016), pp. 139–75; ÖStA HHStA OMeA ZA-Prot, Bd. 4, fol. 259v–60r. 15 Márton György Kovachich, Solennia inauguralia serenissimorum ac potentissimorum principum utriusque sexus, qui ex augusta stirpe Habspurgo-Austriaca sacra corona apostolica in reges Hungarorum, reginasque periodo tertia redimiti sunt, Pest, Matthias Trattner, 1790, p. 151. 16 Emma Bartoniek, A magyar királykoronázások története [The history of Hungarian royal coronations] (Budapest: Magyar Történelmi Társulat, 1939; cop. Akadémiai, 1987), p. 139.

Political Representation at the Coronations of Hungarian Kings

Esztergom. Joseph I swore to uphold the laws of the kingdom of Hungary, then made the four traditional sword strokes.17 Leopold I and Eleonor Magdalene of Neuburg did not participate in the secular part of the ceremony, so this time the imperial regalia did not appear. They returned to the royal palace after the coronation mass, and rejoined the other guests only at the banquet. The emperor sat at the head of the table with Joseph I seated at his right hand. Next to him were the papal nuncio Francesco Buonvisi, Cardinal Leopold Karl von Kollonitsch, Spanish ambassador Don Imanuel d’Este, and the Venetian ambassador Frederico Cornaro. Archduchess Maria Elisabeth of Austria, the archbishop of Esztergom György Széchényi, and Palatine Pál Esterházy sat opposite them on the other side of the royal table.18 The king appeared in the great hall wearing the Holy Crown and the mantel of St Stephen. The palatine poured water onto the monarch’s hands before he dined; the archbishop of Esztergom held his towel. Noblemen appointed by the palatine waited on the imperial couple, the king, and the other guests at their table. As was customary, an ox was roasted in the marketplace and its meat was portioned out among those present. This ox, decorated with red, white, and green ribbons, had been delivered to Pozsony on 6 December. There were also fountains flowing with red and white wine, and bread being baked throughout the banquet.19 Emblems representing imperial authority had been a part of the symbolic communication of such vivente rege coronation ceremonies since 1563.20 The imperial regalia—namely the drawn sword, the sceptre, the orb, and the imperial crown—were carried in and held aloft before Leopold and his wife in St Martin’s Cathedral. The Hungarian regalia, including the sword purported to be King St Stephen’s, the sceptre, the orb, and the crown, were carried in by the Hungarian dignitaries who preceded Joseph. The clothing of the royal and imperial couples was also part of this symbolic communication; Leopold and his wife wore imperial garments, while Joseph donned Hungarian royal garb for the ceremony.

17 OSZKK Fol. Lat. 540, fol. 46v. 18 Géza Pálffy, ‘Koronázási lakomák a 15–17. századi Magyarországon. Az önálló magyar királyi udvar asztali ceremóniarendjének kora újkori továbbéléséről és a politikai elit hatalmi reprezentációjáról’ [Festive coronation banquets in Hungary in the fifteenth–seventeenth Centuries. On the survival of the table ceremonial of the independent Hungarian court in the early modern age and on the representation of the Hungarian political élite], Századok, 138.5 (2004), p. 1092; Magyar Katolikus Lexikon [Hungarian Catholic Lexicon], 17 vols (Budapest: Szent István Társulat, 1993–2014), i (1993), p. 936; the archbishop of Kalocsa appeared on the list of dinner guests in the works of Kovachich and of a Portuguese delegate; however, Márton Borkovics, the archbishop of Kalocsa, died 31 October 1687, and this vacancy was not filled until 1691. 19 G. Etényi, ‘A császári udvar nyilvánosságpolitikája’, pp. 564, 567. 20 Géza Pálffy, The Kingdom of Hungary and the Habsburg Monarchy in the Sixteenth Century, East European Monographs, 735, CHSP Hungarian Studies Series, 18 (New York: Columbia University Press, 2009), p. 202.

17 3

1 74

fa n n i he n d e

Charles VI’s coronation took place on 22 May 1712. His ceremony followed the rites of the Pontificale Romanum and Hungarian customs as well. Among others, the participants in the procession from the palace to St Martin’s Cathedral included the knights of the Order of the Golden Fleece in their ceremonial robes, the palatine, the herald of the kingdom of Hungary, the master of the horse with the drawn sword, and Charles VI, who wore Hungarian clothes and the chain of the Order of the Golden Fleece. The knights marched in procession from the sacristy to the high altar as well. The Hungarian regalia were carried in before Charles VI; the cross was borne by the master of chamberlains János Draskovich; the sword of St Stephen by Ferenc Batthyány, the master cup-bearer; the so-called pacem was carried by Zsigmond Csáky, master of the treasury; the orb by János Pálffy, the ban of Croatia; the sceptre by György Erdődy, the judge royal; and the crown by Palatine Esterházy. They were followed by the Hungarian herald, the master of the horse, the archbishop of Kalocsa, and the bishop of Eger. After them came the king.21 The master of the horse stood on the right side of the throne with five people holding five of Hungary’s ten banners, while the palatine stood on the left side of the throne with another five people holding Hungary’s other five banners.22 Charles VI’s ceremony was similar to Joseph’s coronation; only the acclamation was omitted. After the mass, there was a procession from St Martin’s Cathedral to the Franciscan Church, during which coronation coins bearing Charles VI’s motto (Constantia et Fortitudine) were thrown to the crowd.23 In the Franciscan Church, the king conferred knighthood on thirty-nine men. The oath and the four traditional sword strokes were followed by the banquet in the royal palace. Charles VI sat at the head of the table, the archbishop of Esztergom seated to his right; next to him sat the papal nuncio and the Venetian ambassador. The palatine occupied the place to the king’s left, opposite the nuncio; next to him sat the archbishop of Kalocsa.24 A Cistercian monk who witnessed the ceremony wrote in his diary that Christian August of Saxe-Zeitz, the archbishop of Esztergom, stood up at the beginning of the banquet and exclaimed: ‘Long live our king, for whom we have always wished and of whom we have always been fond.’25 21 Forgó, ‘Acta et observata’, in Az 1712. évi pozsonyi diéta egy ciszterci szerzetes szemével, ed. by Forgó, pp. 202–03; Esztergom, Primatial Archive of Esztergom, Archivum Ecclesiasticum Vetus 371/5, pp. 19–22. 22 Forgó, ‘Acta et observata’, in Az 1712. évi pozsonyi diéta egy ciszterci szerzetes szemével, ed. by Forgó, p. 203; Esztergom, Primatial Archive of Esztergom, Archivum Ecclesiasticum Vetus 371/5, p. 22. 23 ‘Lányi Pál gömöri alispán naplója az 1712. évi országgyűlésről’ [The Diary of Pál Lányi, Gömör county’s Vice-Lieutenant, about the Diet of 1712], ed. by Etele Thury, Történelmi Tár, 5 (1904), p. 10–11; Kovachich, Solennia, p. 151; Soltész, Tóth and Pálffy, Coronatio Hungarica, nos 170–74. 24 Pálffy, ‘Koronázási lakomák’, p. 1040. 25 Forgó, ‘Acta et observata’, in Az 1712. évi pozsonyi diéta egy ciszterci szerzetes szemével, ed. by Forgó, p. 239.

Political Representation at the Coronations of Hungarian Kings

Other elements of Charles VI’s inauguration were new. In 1712, during the preparations for his coronation, the Viennese Court decided to abolish the acclamation solicited by the palatine. According to article 2 of 1687, the kingdom of Hungary was to be ruled by the male line of the Habsburg dynasty, and thus Court Chancellor Friedrich Seilern disapproved of the fact that the palatine’s question reflected the ancient practice of free royal election instead of the laws then in effect. This question had not been relevant since Ferdinand I acceded to the Hungarian throne in 1526. Although he had tried unsuccessfully to make the Hungarian estates officially accept male primogeniture, he had managed to talk them into legally approving the possibility of succession within the dynasty.26 In accordance with the decision of the preparatory conference, the palatine’s question was omitted from the ceremony in 1712, and did not ever appear again. This essential element of the estates’ political self-representation had endured as part of the ceremony even in the period between 1562 and 1608, when no palatine was elected in Hungary.27 On one occasion, the Hungarian estates themselves had omitted this acclamation for political reasons: they did not risk it at the coronation of Wladislav II in 1490 because the new king was unpopular among the lesser nobles.28 It is worth noting that the palatine continued to participate in Hungarian coronations until the last such ceremony in 1916, an element which could also be interpreted as a representation of the estates’ consent. Other symbolically communicative elements also changed. Joseph’s sudden death and the changed order of succession made 1712 the last of the so-called vivente rege coronations. During this ceremony, only the Hungarian regalia were carried in before Charles VI; the imperial regalia did not appear, even though his imperial coronation had taken place in the autumn of 1711. Representation of the Estates

In this section, I will focus on the representation of the estates in these coronations, including the dubbing of the new knights of the Order of the Golden Spur and the service nobles rendered in other elements of these ceremonies, such as coronation banquets and the carrying of the regalia. These roles provided them with opportunities to demonstrate their political power. Members of both these honoured groups—knights and noble attendants—were appointed by the palatine, but I have as yet found no sources detailing the reasons 26 Corpus Iuris Hungarici – Magyar Törvénytár 1526–1608, ed. by Dezső Márkus (Budapest: Franklin, 1899), p. 193. 27 Géza Pálffy, ‘Návrh uhorských radcov na bratislavský korunovačný ceremoniál z roku 1561: Doteraz neznámy zásadný prameň k uhorským kráľovským korunováciám’, Historický Časopis, 54.2 (2006), pp. 210–11. 28 Ludovicus Cervarius Tubero, Commentaria suorum temporum, Ragusa: Typ. Occh, 1784, pp. 84–85.

17 5

176

fa n n i he n d e

behind their nominations. My aim is to reveal some possible considerations by analyzing and comparing the registries of appointed persons. Historians have generally believed that before Charles VI’s coronation, knights were selected on the basis of military merit, and that nominees had to be noblemen. Charles VI, in contrast with the earlier practice, honoured office-holders instead of soldiers. Historians have interpreted this decision as a sign of his intention to encourage peaceful cooperation at the beginning of his reign. According to this interpretation, knighting office-holders allowed the king to avoid conferring such honours on Rákóczi’s rebels and on the soldiers who fought against Rákóczi—that is, on anyone who participated on either side of the recently concluded insurrection.29 This theory, generally accepted by historians, might originate from Kovachich’s work, Solennia Inauguralia. He named only six candidates without mentioning the source of this information, but the Zeremonialprotokoll preserved in the Haus-, Hofund Staatsarchiv listed thirty-nine knights (twenty-two peers and seventeen lesser nobles).30 It should be noted that Kovachich’s six knights were listed in the aforementioned Austrian document. This roll suggests that they were faithful to king, as ten of the twenty-two peers were mentioned as being loyal in Pál Esterházy’s 1707 registry.31 In addition to these, knighthood was conferred on four peers whose names were not included on this list; only their families were mentioned. This means that 38% of the knights of the Order of the Golden Spur remained loyal to the king during the movement. There is another indication that persons faithful to the king were selected for this honour: the palatine nominated his secretaries, associates of the royal judicial court, and counsellors of the chancellor—that is, officials who were loyal to the ‘governing party’. The political power and importance of the lower house of the Hungarian diet increased in the eighteenth century,32 which is reflected by the choice of knights and noble attendants at this coronation banquet. In 1687, Joseph I had appointed forty-two peers and five lesser nobles to the Order of the Golden Spur in the ceremony at the Franciscan Church.33 In 1712, Charles VI dubbed twenty-two peers and seventeen lesser nobles.34 Maria Theresa knighted twenty-five peers and twenty-two lesser nobles in 1741.35 Hence the proportion

29 Bartoniek, A magyar királykoronázások, p. 158. 30 ÖStA HHStA OMeA ZA-Prot, Bd. 7, fol. 146r–v. 31 Sándor Gebei, ‘A Rákóczi-szabadságharc országos gyűlései’ [The national assemblies of Rákóczi’s War of Independence], in Rendiség és parlamentarizmus Magyarországon, ed. by Tamás Dobszay and others (Budapest: Országgyűlés Hivatala, 2013), pp. 173–80. 32 Szijártó, A diéta, pp. 320–30. 33 ÖStA HHStA OMeA ZA-Prot., Bd. 4, fols 277v–78v. 34 ÖStA HHStA OMeA ZA-Prot., Bd. 7, fol. 146r–v. 35 OSZKK, Fol. Lat. 596, fol. 186v; Kovachich, Solennia, p. 224.

Political Representation at the Coronations of Hungarian Kings

of lesser nobles among these knights grew from 11% to 46%, which suggests the increasing importance of the lower house. * * * * In this analysis, I have described the political representation of the Hungarian nobility at coronation ceremonies. They represented their families, their political circles, and the kingdom of Hungary itself. Nobles’ duties were part of the political communication of such events; on the one hand, they preserved the status of the Hungarian royal court (which was actually part of the Habsburg court at that time); on the other hand, they made visible the monarch’s intentions and wishes. Their presence symbolized his respect for the laws of Hungary.

17 7

Part II

One Dynasty, Two Branches Political Interaction and Self-representation of the Eastern and Western Habsburgs

ZOLTÁN KOR PÁS 

Quarrelling Brothers The Fraternal Relationship of Charles V and Ferdinand I and their Attitudes towards Hungary

This study is an evaluation and analysis of the relationship between the Habsburg brothers Charles V and Ferdinand I, with a focus on their approaches to—and concerns regarding—the dynasty’s policies toward Hungary. It will also serve as an introduction to the division of the Habsburg inheritance between Emperor Charles V and his younger brother Ferdinand, and highlight the younger brother’s initially limited level of political empowerment during Charles’ reign as emperor. The death of King Louis II of Hungary and Bohemia and Ferdinand’s subsequent inheritance of those two countries’ crowns caused a monumental shift not just in the history of East Central Europe, but also in the dynastic hierarchy within the House of Austria. In this context, the present study focuses on Charles’s position regarding the inheritance of the Hungarian crown, including his potential claim on it. Based on imperial correspondence, it seems that the emperor briefly mulled whether he or his younger brother was entitled to inherit St Stephen’s crown. Interestingly, Charles V’s official coat of arms included the titles of king of Hungary (Hungariae, Dalmatiae, Croatiae rex), followed by the titles of king of Navarre, Granada, Toledo, and Valencia, etc., a tradition which continued until Charles II, the last Habsburg ruler of Spain, died in 1700. A review of the dynastic hierarchy will also serve as an evaluation of the relationship between these two brothers. In this context, we should ask the following questions: what were the dynastic limitations on Ferdinand’s power and how did those limits oscillate during the decades in which he reigned? It seems that Ferdinand’s role in ‘imperial high politics’ was circumscribed: he made frequent use of his brother’s diplomatic network and its members; he was in constant contact with his older brother, asking for support, affirmation, and empowerment as he made decisions that would impact not just the Empire, but Hungary as well. He frequently received financial and military aid; diplomats in Charles’s service also worked for Ferdinand on several occasions. However, we can also find many examples of Ferdinand’s having subordinated his own personal interests to his elder brother’s broader political aims, such as sending troops and money to Italy or to the Empire when the Ottoman expansion in Hungary was putting him under enormous pressure, especially in 1550–52, when the Holy Roman Empire was undergoing a major crisis. Eagles Looking East and West: Dynasty, Ritual and Representation in Habsburg Hungary and Spain, ed. by Tibor Martí & Roberto Quirós Rosado, Habsburg Worlds 4 (Turnhout, 2021), pp. 181–195.

© FHG

DOI 10.1484/M.HW-EB.5.122801

1 82

zo ltá n ko r pás

The in-house diplomatic system also reflects Charles’s dominance over Ferdinand. Charles never sent permanent diplomats to Ferdinand’s court; he used only ad-hoc envoys. Meanwhile, Ferdinand maintained permanent representatives at the Imperial Court for decades (Martin de Salinas from 1522–39 and Juan Alonso de Gámiz from 1539–56). In the second part of this study, I will evaluate the Hungarian-related topics discussed in Juan Alonso de Gámiz’s correspondence and analyze them within the dynastic context, i.e., how the imperial court interpreted and reacted to Ottoman expansion in Hungary. I will conclude by discussing the very complex situation of 1550–52, when disputes over succession to the imperial throne, conflicts between the princes of the Empire, and attacks by Henry II of France were compounding the effects of the Ottomans’ attacks on Hungary. Gámiz’s correspondence offers special insights into the very tense clash between the two brothers, which caused Ferdinand to worry about his political future as king of Hungary. Overall, we can say that Ferdinand’s sovereignty within the dynasty was quite limited in the 1520s and 1530s. However, the brothers’ in-house conflict was much less obvious to contemporary external observers. The limits on Ferdinand’s power were more conspicuous in dynastic politics and less so on the local level. Ferdinand’s policies in Hungary—one of the theatres of the anti-Ottoman war in East Central Europe and the Mediterranean, and as such an important element of Emperor Charles V’s ‘dynastic high politics’—were also limited by his subordinate position. Nevertheless, Ferdinand’s power within the dynasty was constantly evolving, from the initial phase of complete dependence (the 1520s), to his first independent steps as the sovereign king of Hungary and Bohemia, to the open conflict of the 1540s and 1550s. * * * * It is a widely known fact that the two young brothers, Charles V and Ferdinand I, met for the first time in Mojados, Castile on 12 November 1517, when they were 17 and 14 respectively. There are numerous studies about these brothers’ first interactions, when Charles was the future head of the dynasty and Ferdinand was the potential heir to the thrones of Castile and Aragon. There is no space here to enter into a discussion of the details; more relevant to the topic of this essay is the outcome of the brothers’ discussions about sharing their inheritance. On 25 March 1518, Ferdinand left Castile for Santander, having recognized his brother’s claim, as primogenitus, to the Spanish crowns. He himself received nothing but a one-time payment of 50,000 ducats from the kingdom of Naples. Ferdinand ‘the Lackland’1 then spent almost three



1 Raymond Fagel, ‘Don Fernando en Flandes (1518–1521): un príncipe sin tierra’, in Fernando I, 1503–1564: socialización, vida privada y actividad pública de un Emperador del Renacimiento, ed. by Friedrich Edelmayer and Alfredo Alvar Ezquerra (Madrid: Sociedad Estatal de Conmemoraciones Culturales, 2004), pp. 253–72.

quarre lli ng b rot he rs

years in the Netherlands before arriving in his future kingdoms in Central Europe. Nevertheless, step by step, Ferdinand gathered up his share of the dynastic lands. First, as part of their first family treaty, signed in Worms on 23 April 1521, he received Upper Austria, Lower Austria, Styria, Carinthia, and Carniola as part of the Habsburg heritage. Almost a year later, on 7 February 1522, at another treaty ceremony in Brussels, Ferdinand’s holdings expanded to include Görz, Trieste, Tyrol, Upper Alsace, and Württemberg. As a result of these two familiar agreements, Ferdinand ‘the Lackland’ became Archduke Ferdinand, lord of the Habsburgs’ Central European territories.2 Even having acquired all those lands, however, Ferdinand’s political space was still defined by an important external factor: during the first decades of his reign over Central Europe, he continued to be financially and politically dependent on his elder brother, Charles V. The young prince’s sovereignty was limited and his decision-making processes were, to some extent, ‘supervised’ by his brother. Charles appointed Ferdinand regent of the Holy Roman Empire in 1521; Ferdinand gained further authority when he was crowned king of the Romans in 1531. Even so, these important titles still involved significant limitations on his authority, as demonstrated by the Sommaire Mémoire Charles V issued in 1531, which controlled Ferdinand’s political activities in the Empire; the younger brother had no right to convoke any diets without Charles’s permission.3 The real change in the brothers’ political relationship came just after the death of Louis II, king of Hungary and Bohemia, at the Battle of Mohács (29 August 1526). When Ferdinand became king of Hungary, he acquired something very important: a sovereign royal title, the authority of which was not subordinated to the emperor’s. As Ferdinand’s power gradually increased in this long process of achieving ‘dynastic independence’, one of the most important steps was his acquisition of the crown of St Stephen of Hungary. In general, we can say that from the financial, political, and military points of view, Ferdinand would continue to face constant limitations on his power within the House of Austria; however, on a case-by-case basis, he would still have options for taking political action against the will of his elder brother. Nevertheless, on important issues related to high politics, there were very few occasions when Ferdinand allowed himself to act in deliberate opposition to his brother’s political aims. One of those special arenas in which the younger brother exhibited political independence was the fight for dominion over Hungary, including defending it against Ottoman expansion. It was in this

2 Fagel, Don Fernando, passim; Peer Schmidt, ‘Infans sum Hispaniarum. La dificil germanización de Fernando I’, in Fernando I, 1503–1564: socialización, vida privada y actividad pública de un Emperador del Renacimiento, ed. by Friedrich Edelmayer and Alfredo Alvar Ezquerra (Madrid: Sociedad Estatal de Conmemoraciones Culturales, 2004), pp. 273–86; Alfred Kohler, Ferdinand I, 1503–1564: Fürst, König und Kaiser (München: C. H. Beck, 2003). 3 Alfred Kohler, Carlos V. 1500–1558. Una biografía (Madrid: Marcial Pons, 2000), pp. 87–89; Karl Brandi, Carlos V. Vida y fortuna de una personalidad y de un imperio (Mexico City: Fondo de Cultura Económica, 1993).

183

1 84

zo ltá n ko r pás

area that Ferdinand showed his political talent, establishing a long-lasting institutional, economic, and military system which would determine the history of Hungary not just up to the expulsion of the Ottomans in 1699, but would continue to be influential even up to the 1918 collapse of the Habsburg Empire in East Central Europe.4 Control over Hungary was an essential element of Ferdinand’s royal vision; he was very energetic and persistent in establishing his authority in his territories. He founded his first institutions there in 1527 and 1528 (the Consilium Aulicum or Hofrat, the Camera Bohemica, and the Camera Aulica in 1527, and the Camera Hungarica in 1528), which were followed by further innovations, like the Consilium Bellicum or Hofkriegsrat in 1556. He also made consistent use of every available financial, diplomatic, and military resource in stabilizing his reign in Hungary—a difficult task given the ongoing Ottoman invasion and his rivalry with King John I (Szapolyai), who had also been crowned king of Hungary in 1526.5 More important from the perspective of this essay is that Ferdinand functioned as the sovereign ruler of the kingdom of Hungary, despite the fact that he constantly felt the need to inform his older brother about the minor details of political life in Hungary. In this way, local Hungarian issues were always incorporated into the dynasty’s high politics and were evaluated for their impact on Charles’s strategies for confronting the Ottomans and other enemies of the Empire, especially within the Holy Roman Empire and Italy. Incidents in Hungary—usually news of Ottoman assaults on Christendom—were constantly the subject of dynastic correspondence. Even so, Ferdinand’s theoretical sovereignty over Hungary was also circumscribed by the fact that the dynasty’s resources were limited and had to be divided along enormous frontiers in Europe, where Hungary was just one of many important strategic challenges. Charles and Ferdinand certainly allocated considerable resources to protecting the dynasty’s interests in Hungary: in addition to supporting local Hungarian military forces, they sent numerous imperial troops—German, Spanish, and Italian mercenaries—and financial aid (from Spain, Naples, and many other sources within the Empire) hoping to preserve the Hungarian 4 Ottomans, Hungarians and Habsburgs in Central Europe. The military confines in the Era of Ottoman conquest, ed. by Géza Dávid and Pál Fodor, The Ottoman Empire and its Heritage, 20 (Leiden/Boston/Cologne: Brill, 2000.); Géza Pálffy, The Kingdom of Hungary and the Habsburg Monarchy in the Sixteenth Century, East European Monographs, 745, CHSP Hungarian Studies Series, 18 (Boulder, Colo.: Social Science Monographs, 2009). 5 In addition to the references listed above, see also: Géza Pálffy, ‘Der Adel aus den Ungarischen Ländern am Kaiserhof 1526–1612’, in Kaiser, Hof un Reich in der Frühen Neuzeit, ed. by Grete Walter Klingenstein and Jan Paul Neiderkorn (Vienna/Mainz: AÖG, 2010), pp. 37–76; István Kenyeres, ‘Die Finanzen des Königreichs Ungarn in der Zweiten Hälfte des 16. Jahrhunderts’, in Finanzen und Herrschaft. Materielle Grundlagen fürstlicher Politik in den habsburgischen Ländern und im Heiligen Römischen Reich im 16. Jahrhundert, ed. by Friedrich Edelmayer, Maximilian Lanzinner and Peter Rauscher (Munich/Vienna: Oldenbourg, 2003), pp. 84–122.

quarre lli ng b rot he rs

territories. And here I would raise the following questions: are such topics merely Hungarian concerns? Or should we approach Hungary’s issues as part of a broader, strategic context in which Charles’s impact on Ferdinand should also be taken into consideration? In addition to the military and financial support coming from the Holy Roman Empire and the territories Ferdinand ruled, there were further sources of aid over which the younger Habsburg brother had no control: those of the Habsburgs’ Italian and Spanish territories. The only member of the dynasty who had access to those resources was Charles V. Even so, the complexity of the dynasty’s policies towards Hungary during Ferdinand’s reign is reflected by the presence of Spanish and Italian mercenaries and maestres de campo on the battlefields of Hungary, Charles’s diplomats’ being sent to work for Ferdinand,6 and Spanish and Italian ducats sent to Ferdinand’s court in order to fortify Vienna or pay royal troops in Hungary.7 We should also ask whether Charles V exhibited any interest in claiming the Hungarian crown after the Battle of Mohács. Dynastic correspondence suggests that he did; however, we do not know how serious he was about doing so. According to the Habsburg-Jagiellon treaties of 1506 and 1515, Charles, the eldest uncle of Emperor Maximilian, retained his right to be appointed successor if the Jagiellons of Bohemia and Hungary were to die out. Some very interesting correspondence after the death of Louis II shows that Charles was in fact weighing up whether he had the right to claim the crowns of Hungary and Bohemia and keep his younger brother in the shadow, under his own control. On 7 January 1527, Ferdinand’s permanent envoy to Charles’s court, Martin de Salinas, wrote that the emperor and his councillors had agreed that Ferdinand could use the Hungarian royal title: El Emperador…que recibiese el parecer del Chanciller y Mons. De Praet y suyo, si sería bien titular a Vuestra Alteza rey de Hungría, lo cual a todos ellos de un acuerdo pareció que si’.8





6 Miguel Ángel Ochoa Brun, Historia de la Diplomacia Española, 12 vols (Madrid: Ministerio de Asuntos Exteriores, 1991–2006), v: La Diplomacia de Carlos V (1999), passim. 7 Zoltán Korpás, V. Károly és Magyarország (1526–1538) (Budapest: Századvég, 2008); Zoltán Korpás, ‘Álvaro de Sande hadjárata Trencsén vármegyében, 1545’, in Redite ad Cor. Tanulmányok Sahin-Tóth Péter emlékére, ed. by Lilla Krász and Teréz Oborni (Budapest: Eötvös, 2008), pp. 199–210; Zoltán Korpás, ‘La correspondencia de un soldado español de las guerras de Hungría a mediados del siglo XVI. Comentarios al diario de Bernardo de Aldana (1548–1552)’, Hispania, 60.3 (2000), 881–910; Zoltán Korpás, ‘Las luchas antiturcas en Hungría y la política oriental de los Austrias’, in Fernando I, 1503–1564: socialización, vida privada y actividad pública de un Emperador del Renacimiento, ed. by Friedrich Edelmayer and Alfredo Alvar Ezquerra (Madrid: Sociedad Estatal de Conmemoraciones Culturales, 2004), pp. 335–70. 8 Martin de Salinas to Ferdinand I (Valladolid, 7 January 1527), in: Antonio Rodriguez Villa, El emperador Carlos V y su corte según las cartas de don Martin de Salinas; embajador del Infante don Fernando (1522–1539) (Madrid: Fortanet, 1903), p. 347.

185

1 86

zo ltá n ko r pás

Another of Salinas’s letters suggests that in order to clarify the right of succession, the treaty of Wiener Neustadt (1506) had been sought and finally found in Flanders: La escriptura y contrato que Vuestra Alteza demanda que hizo el emperador Maximiliano con Hungría y Polonia y la Casa de Austria se ha buscado aquí y hallan que está en Flandes.9 On 30 November 1527, Charles wrote a letter to his brother highlighting his concerns about Ferdinand’s right to claim the crowns of St Stephen and St Wenceslaus; even so, he promised to concede them to his younger brother. Je ne faiz nulle doubte, quant a ce que depend desd. Royaulmes d’Hongrie, pour austant qui pourroit toucher entre voust et moi, car encoires qu’il fut besong de vous aider de chose que en ce me pourroit appartenir. Je vous advertiz que, si purement et plainement lesd. Royaulmes estoient a moi, je vous en fervie tres voluntiers le don et dez maintenan, si quelque chose je y puis ou pourroie pretendre pour la succession de feu nostre grandpere, que dieu absoille, je le vous donne de tres bon cueur, car je scai bien que en ce monde ne le scauroie aultrepart mieulx mi si bein empoyer que a vous que j’aime et extime comme ung aultre moi-mesmes.10 Despite the fact that Charles transferred his rights to the kingdoms of Hungary and Bohemia to Ferdinand, symbolic ownership of the two crowns nevertheless survived in the Monarquía Católica, the Spanish branch of the Habsburg dynasty. In the deed of donation in which Charles V assigned Malta to the Knights of St John, we find the following: ‘Carolus Quintus divina favente clementia Romanorum Imperator semper Augustus ac Germaniae, Castellae, Aragonum, utriusque Siciliae, Hierusalem, Hungariae, Dalmatiae, Croatiae, Navarrae, Granatae, Toleti, Valenciae, Galliciae etc. Rex…’ The order in which the kingdoms are listed is also intriguing: the territories of the kingdom of Hungary—Hungary, Dalmatia, and Croatia—follow the kingdom of the two Sicilies and Jerusalem, while preceding the important Spanish kingdoms of Navarra, Toledo, Valencia, and Galicia.11

9 Salinas to Ferdinand I (Valladolid, 11 March, 1527), in: Antonio Rodriguez Villa, El emperador Carlos V, p. 351. 10 Charles to Ferdinand I (Granada, 30 November 1526), in: Karl Lanz, Correspondenz des Kaisers Karl, 3 vols (Leipzig: Brockhaus, 1844–46), i: 1513–1532 (1844), pp. 224–28. 11 We should note that in Ferdinand’s era, the titles of the King of Hungary were listed as follows: Ferdinandus divina favente clementia Romanorum Hungariae, Bohemiae, Dalmatiae, Croatiae, Sclavoniae, Ramae, Serviae, Gallitiae, Lodomeriae, Comaniae, Bulgariaeq(ue) rex semper augustus, infans Hispaniarum, archidux Austriae, dux Burgundiae, Brabantiae, Styriae, Carinthiae, Carniolae, Marchio Moraviae, dux Luxemburgae ac Superioris et Inferioris Silesiae, Wirtembergae et Thekae, Princeps Sveviae,

quarre lli ng b rot he rs

Fig. 9.1.  A modern version of the coat of arms of Charles V published in 1530 by Lucio Marineo Siculo based on the work of De Rebus Hispania Memorabilibus. (Published by Miguel de Eguía.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coat_of_arms_of_Charles_V,_Holy_Roman_Emperor#/ media/File:Greater_Coat_of_Arms_of_Charles_I_of_Spain,_Charles_V_as_Holy_ Roman_Emperor_(1530-1556).svg

In addition, Charles V’s coats of arms feature Hungary’s horizontal stripes of gules and argent, just to the right of the golden cross of the kingdom of Jerusalem. (Fig. 9.1.) However, taken together, these two coats of arms—Hungary’s and Jerusalem’s—also form the coat of arms of the kingdom of Naples. The latter was included in all the heraldry of the Habsburgs’ Monarquía Católica until its end in 1700. At this stage, it is uncertain whether the apparent inclusion Comes Habspurgi, Tirolis, Ferretis, Kiburgi et Goritiae, la(n)tgravi(us) Alsatiae, marchio sacri Romani imperii supra Anasum, Burgoviae, ac Superioris et Inferioris Lusatiae Dominus Marchiae, Sclavonicae Portus Naonis, et Salinarum etc.

187

1 88

zo ltá n ko r pás

of Hungary’s coat of arms within the coats of arms of the Habsburg kings of Spain is merely a reference to the kingdom of Naples or in fact an allusion to Maximilian I’s claim on Hungary, exercised both by force of arms and through diplomatic means. Either way, Charles and his successors in Spain used the title of king of Hungary despite the fact that his brother Ferdinand and the latter’s descendants actually fulfilled this role. At the same time, we cannot find any reference to the kingdom of Bohemia among the titles of the kings of Spain, a fact which reflects the prestige of the Crown of St Stephen. Conversely, it is worth mentioning that neither Ferdinand nor his successors used any of the titles of the territories of the Monarquía Católica apart from referring to themselves as Infans Hispaniarum and Dux Burgundiae. How were the aforementioned dynastic relationships reflected in ‘in-house’ diplomacy? An evaluation of the flow of information between the two brothers reveals some crucial differences. Charles’s representation at Ferdinand’s court was characterized by ad-hoc envoys and emissaries; none of Charles’s diplomats stayed in East Central Europe for any extended period. Ferdinand used a different method: he relied more on permanent representatives at Charles’s court, such as Martín de Salinas (1522–39) and Juan Alonso de Gámiz (1539–56), and used ad-hoc envoys when negotiating with his brother over particular issues.12 Besides their divergent uses of permanent and ad-hoc diplomats, there were other informative differences: Charles’s representatives at Ferdinand’s court tended to be ‘Nordic’ (from the Netherlands, Burgundy, Denmark, and the Holy Roman Empire), such as Jean de Fruyes, Jacques Fevrier, Guillaume de Montfort, Baltasar Merklin von Waldkirch, Johannnes Weeze, Jean d’Andelot, and Cornelius Schepper; they were less likely to be southerners like Pedro de la Cueva or Antonio de Mendoza, the future viceroy of Mexico and later of Peru. We find more ‘southerners’ among Ferdinand’s diplomats, such as Alonso González de Meneses, Pedro de Córdoba, Francisco de Salamanca, and Juan de Hoyos (also known as Hans von Hoyos), as well as certain ‘Nordics’ like the Burgundians Henri Henricourt, Guillaume Basin, Jean Masson, and Leonard Nogarola, along with others from the Holy Roman Empire, such as Niklas Graf zu Salm. The two brothers also dispatched mutual envoys to certain courts, like Cornelius Schepper (1533) and Gerhard Veltwyck (1545–47), who served both rulers at the Sublime Porte.13 We also find records of ab utroque envoys sent to the courts of Sigismund of Poland ( Jan Hannart) and Moscovy 12 Ochoa Brun, Historia de la Diplomacia Española, v, pp. 521–56. 13 About Cornelius Schepper: János Barta, Két tárgyalás Sztambulban. Hieronymus Laski tárgyalása a töröknél János király nevében (Budapest: Balassi, 1996); Kenneth Meyer Setton, The Papacy and the Levant (1204–1571), Sixteenth Century, 4 vols (Philadelphia: The American Philosophical Society, 1976–84), iii: The Sixteenth Century to the Reign of Julius III (1984), pp. 370–91; on the negotiations of Gerhard Veltwyck also: Meyer Setton, The Papacy, pp. 479–502.

quarre lli ng b rot he rs

(Antonio de Conti de Padua, Sigismundus von Heberstein, and Leonard Nogarola).14 The power differential in this fraternal relationship also shows up among the military officials who fought against the Ottomans in Hungary; Ferdinand’s dynastic subordination was thus reflected even in policies related to Hungary. For instance, large numbers of Italian and Spanish mercenaries were deployed to Hungary during those decades; they represented a crucial proportion of the royal army stationed in Hungarian fortresses and camps.15 And though they formed a vital part of Ferdinand’s military power, those troops’ maestres de campo—like Giovanni Battista Castaldo, Sforza Pallavicini, Bernardo de Aldana, and Álvaro de Sande—nevertheless considered themselves Charles’s subordinates, not Ferdinand’s. Pallavicini, for example, signed his letters ‘sacratissimae caesareae maestatis campi magister’. Bernardo de Aldana’s destiny is also highly interesting in this regard: having been convicted of lèsemajesté for abandoning the castle of Lippa (now Lipova, Romania) during the Ottoman siege of 1552, he was imprisoned by Ferdinand. However, he was not executed; the subsequent intervention of Don Juan de Austria and Philipp II led to his release and he returned to the service of the Monarquía Católica. His infamy in Central Europe had no impact on his later military career, as he was promoted to the rank of captain general of the artillery in Lombardy and later served in that same capacity in Naples. He died serving in Gian Andrea Doria’s armada at the battle of Djerba against the Ottomans in 1560. One of the best sources for evaluating this fraternal relationship is the correspondence between the diplomats Martín de Salinas and Juan Alonso de Gámiz and their sovereign, Ferdinand I. Salinas’s letters are well known to Western historians, having been published by Rodriguez Villa in 1903. Even so, despite the relevance of this documentation to Hungarian studies, it remains largely unknown in Hungary. Gámiz’s letters are not well known in Spain, despite the dedicated work done by the archivist of Simancas, Isabel de Aguirre Landa, and by José Ramón Cuesta Astobiza, who have shared a great deal of knowledge about Gámiz.16 This documentation

14 Ochoa Brun, Historia de la Diplomacia Española, v, pp. 407–24; Amada López de Meneses, ‘Las primeras embajadas rusas en España 1523, 1525, 1527’, Bolletin Hispanique, 48.3 (1946), 111–28; Antonio Fontán and Jeryz Axer, Españoles y polacos en la corte de Carlos V. Cartas del embajador Juan Dantisco (Madrid: Alianza, 1994). 15 Korpás, ‘La correspondencia’, pp. 881–910; Korpás, ‘Álvaro de Sande’, pp. 199–210; Korpás, V. Károly és Magyarország (1526–1538) (Budapest: Századvég, 2008). 16 Isabel Aguirre Landa, ‘La correspondencia de Fernando de Austria conservada en el Archivo General de Simancas’, in Fernando I, 1503–1564: socialización, vida privada y actividad pública de un Emperador del Renacimiento, ed. by Friedrich Edelmayer and Alfredo Alvar Ezquerra (Madrid: Sociedad Estatal de Conmemoraciones Culturales, 2004), pp. 287–308; José Ramón Cuesta Astobiza, Epistolario político de Juan Alonso de Gámiz secretario destacado a la corte del Emperador Carlos V, en el Archivo Histórico Provincial de Álava (Vitoria: Diputación Foral de Álava, 2002); Zoltán Korpás, ‘I. Ferdinánd levelezése V. Károly melletti követével, Juan Alonso de Gámizzal (1542–1556)’, Fons, 16 (2009), 249–372.

189

1 90

zo ltá n ko r pás

includes almost 190 letters from Simancas (AGS, leg. 642bis) and 53 of Gámiz’s letters from the Archivo Histórico Provincial de Álava, published by Cuesta Astobiza, as well as a few more from private collections. Gámiz, a doctor of law and Charles V’s chaplain, was also Martín de Salinas’s cousin. He never visited Hungary or Ferdinand’s court, and was considered Charles’s servant, having had a much less confidential relationship with Ferdinand than Salinas did. Gámiz’s letters suggest that Ferdinand was tough, sometimes impatient, sincere, and less than diplomatic with him; he did not hesitate to express to Gámiz his dissatisfaction with Charles’s political initiatives. Ferdinand’s demanding attitude was less conspicuous in the letters he had sent to Salinas.17 What were the most important Hungarian topics dealt with in Salinas’s and Gámiz’s letters? Obviously, the first and most crucial subject was the battle of Mohács in 1526, including Ferdinand’s deepest fear— that the seemingly invincible Ottoman troops would soon destroy Vienna (and himself).18 This dread slowly gave way to the conflict over the right to the Hungarian crown and its impact on Charles V’s overall anti-Ottoman strategy. This topic would define the entire period from 1526–56. Here I would highlight some of the developments that reflect Charles’s deep involvement in diplomatic issues related to Hungary, including his support for Ferdinand and the limits he placed on Ferdinand’s ability to manoeuvre politically in that space. One crucial Hungary-related milestone in their fraternal relationship was their sending of a joint envoy to the Sublime Porte. It was a very delicate moment; according to tradition, the emperor of Christendom could not rightfully initiate negotiations with the head of the hostis naturalis, regardless of his dynastic interests. Charles V’s chief challenge was safeguarding Ferdinand’s claim to the Hungarian crown by negotiating peace on both Ottoman fronts—Hungary as well as Algiers and the Maghreb—without simultaneously losing prestige for having sent an imperial envoy to the Sublime Porte. In 1533, Cornelius Schepper was charged with navigating this complex situation as Ferdinand’s official envoy and Charles’s secret representative; he negotiated these issues as if they were ‘mera hungarica’ though he also tried to convince the Sublime Porte to reduce its support for Hayreddin Barbarossa in Algiers—with less success.19 Another complex ‘intrafraternal’ situation in which Charles interfered directly in issues related to Hungary was the peace treaty signed in Nagyvárad (now Oradea, Romania) on 24 February 1538 (Charles’s birthday), which for some reason was ratified by the emperor in Toledo. The conflict—and this specific agreement—between the rival Hungarian kings, Ferdinand I

17 Korpás, ‘I. Ferdinánd levelezése’, passim. 18 Korpás, V. Károly és Magyarország (1526–1538), pp. 53–80; Korpás, ‘A spanyol Államtanács a mohácsi csatavesztésről’, Lymbus. Magyarságtudományi Forrásközlemények, 2 (2004), 5–17. 19 Barta, Két tárgyalás; Meyer Setton, The Papacy, pp. 370–91.

quarre lli ng b rot he rs

and John I, cannot be considered a merely local diplomatic affair. The two kings were allied to the largest empires of the era, the Habsburg and the Ottoman, respectively; the treaty of Nagyvárad divided Hungary between them and regulated the passing of the Hungarian crown after the death of John I. Nevertheless, this treaty was negotiated and signed under Charles’s direct supervision—one of the chief negotiators on the Habsburg side was Charles’s diplomatic servant Johannes Weeze, the archbishop of Lund—and was part of his anti-Ottoman political strategy. That same year, Charles, the Holy See, and Venice formed the Holy League of 1538, the declared aim of which was to launch a combined landand-sea attack against the Ottomans through Croatia and the Adriatic.20 It was assumed that this attack could not be initiated without first bringing the war with France to an end, which was achieved with the Treaty of Nice, signed on 18 June 1538. This truce also obligated King Francis I of France to support the Holy League and to end his cooperation with King John I of Hungary.21 The diplomatic correspondence between Charles and the Pope also shows that the original strategy of attacking the Ottomans by land through Hungary would have been impossible without Ferdinand’s involvement, especially since King John I was still an active enemy allied with the Turks. Furthermore, the peace of Nagyvárad was important not just because it put an end to Hungary’s twelve-year civil war—of which the Ottomans had taken advantage—but also because Charles’s imperial strategy was predicated on a peaceful Hungary, which would preclude the possibility of Habsburg forces’ being attacked on the flank. This is the dynastic context which explains why Charles interfered in apparently local peace negotiations like those at Nagyvárad. Thus in 1538, the Habsburg brothers signed a sophisticated system of correlated agreements including the Truce of Nice with France, the establishment of the Holy League with Venice and Pope Clement VII, and the Treaty of Nagyvárad with King John I (Szapolyai) of Hungary. On the other hand, the Holy League’s military activities never approached the scale and complexity of their original plans. The battle of Preveza and the siege of Castelnuovo were executed at a radically reduced scale.22 Even so, many decades later, Don Juan de Austria would use the Holy League of 1538

20 On the Holy League of 1538: Korpás, V. Károly és Magyarország (1526–1538), pp. 169–204; Emmanuelle Pujeau, ‘Préveza 1538. Un affrontement naval à surprises’, lecture (Université de Poitiers, 2014) [accessed 28 June 2019]. 21 Korpás, V. Károly és Magyarország (1526–1538), p. 185; also: AGS, Estado, Leg. K. 1642, fol. 21: ‘[…] Sy se ha de meter al delante y persistir que el dicho rey de Francia se declare abiertamente enemigo del Bayboda y que dé alguna asistencia al rey de romanos contra él, tanto por ser el dicho vayvoda aliado y adherente al turco […]’. 22 Korpás, V. Károly és Magyarország (1526–1538), pp. 169–204; Pujeau, Préveza 1538.

191

1 92

zo ltá n ko r pás

as an important historical model when he was coordinating the Holy League of 1571 in the lead-up to the Battle of Lepanto. Another subject of the family’s letters is the presence of Spanish soldiers on Hungarian soil. Ferdinand had relatively little to say about Bernardo de Aldana and his ‘old tercio’ (1549–52);23 he merely described some episodes of Spanish military action in Hungary and the outcomes of Ottoman sieges where Aldana had acted as captain, including Lippa and Temesvár (now Timișoara, Romania). He did not even mention that 400 Spanish soldiers had rioted and looted some villages between Pozsony (Bratislava) and Vienna, which was considered a disgrace to the Spanish nation both in Vienna and in Hungary.24 Their correspondence becomes far more informative, however, in 1545, when Ferdinand and Charles began to debate certain financial issues related to the other Spanish ‘old tercio’ fighting in Hungary, led by the maestre de campo Álvaro de Sande starting in 1545.25 It is widely acknowledged that pecunia nervus belli (‘money is the sinew of war’), and in this specific case, the two brothers had very different ideas about the responsibility for funding Sande’s tercio in Hungary. Ferdinand wrote to request a 50–50 cost-sharing agreement for maintaining Sande’s imperial tercio while it was serving him in Hungary, and also asked to be compensated for damages caused by unpaid Spanish soldiers, against whom many claims had been made. Charles, on the other hand, asserted that he had covered the costs of transferring the tercio from the Netherlands to Hungary and that his brother should take responsibility for all other expenses incurred while these soldiers were stationed on Ferdinand’s territory. The victims of the brothers’ financial dispute included the Spanish soldiers who fought in northwest Hungary for a year without pay, but also the Hungarian population of Trencsén county (now Trencin, Slovakia), whose communities the Spaniards sacked. It is not a coincidence that the Hungarian diet passed a law requiring compensation for damages caused by Spanish soldiers in that same year, 1545; this is the only law in the corpus Iuris Hungarici of the sixteenth century which mentions the nationality of marauding troops.26 The fraternal dispute with the greatest impact on the dynasty was the question of splitting the imperial heritage between the two branches of the House of Austria. The period of that quarrel—especially the years

23 Korpás, ‘La correspondencia’; Korpás, ‘Bernardo de Aldana y su tercio en los asedios de Csábrág y Murány (1549)’, presentation held at ‘Armamento y equipo para la guerra’: III Congreso Internacional de la Cátedra Extraordinaria de Historia Militar de la Universidad Complutense de Madrid (Madrid, 17–19 October, 2017). 24 For the revolt of 400 members of Aldana’s tercio, see: Zoltán Korpás, ‘Ami a magyarországi hadjárat után történt. Bernardo de Aldana és a spanyol zsoldosok sorsa 1552 után’, Fons, 12.3 (2005), 379–98. 25 For Álvaro de Sande’s expedition in Hungary, see: Korpás, ‘Álvaro de Sande’. 26 Corpus Iuris Hungarici – Magyar Törvénytár 1526–1608, ed. by Dezső Márkus (Budapest: Franklin, 1899), 1546: art. 7; 1554: art. 2; Korpás, V. Károly és Magyarország (1526–1538), p. 255.

quarre lli ng b rot he rs

1551–52—was also a crucial stage in the history of Hungary, the predicament of which reflected the overall situation of the Habsburg dynasty. The Ottomans launched a massive attack against the kingdom of Hungary in 1552, conquering the largest swathe territory they had taken since the incursions of 1526 and 1543. They took large stretches of territory north of Buda, as well as most of the Great Plain between Buda and Transylvania, including important fortresses at Szolnok, Temesvár, and Lippa. At the same time, both Charles and Ferdinand faced multiple challenges and suffered numerous attacks, which led to radical changes within the Habsburg empire.27 The brothers’ problems included their dispute over their imperial heritage; the alliance which Henry II of France established with a group of Protestant prince-electors led by Maurice of Saxony at Chambord in January of 1552; the ensuing Princes’ War; and even Ferdinand’s settling of that conflict with the Peace of Passau in August of 1552, which created tensions between the brothers. It was also in 1552 that the Pasha of Buda wrote to Henry II and the Protestant princes led by Maurice of Saxony to encourage them to synchronize their attacks against the Habsburgs within the Empire and in Hungary as well. Under these circumstances, the two brothers’ correspondence became tense.28 In some of these letters, Charles accused Ferdinand of conspiring with their enemies, referring to Ferdinand’s negotiations with Maurice of Saxony, whom he eventually convinced to return to the Habsburg camp. Ferdinand was also indignant, saying that he had contributed a large portion of his revenue to the imperial cause when he was also suffering from the Ottomans’ attacks in Hungary and the loss of large territories there. He also stressed the importance of sending Maurice of Saxony and his troops to Hungary in order to show the Ottomans that a former enemy of the Habsburgs had returned to the service of Christendom, a gambit by which he hoped to limit further attacks from the East.29 Interestingly, between 1550 and 1552, a time of crisis when the Habsburg Empire faced attacks on multiple fronts, Ferdinand managed to recruit three royal divisions (roughly 30,000 soldiers) to Hungary—the first led by Giovanni Battista Castaldo, the second by Sforza Pallavicini and Erasmus Teuffel, and the last by Maurice of Saxony.30 27 Maria José Rodriguez-Salgado, The Changing Face of Empire. Charles V, Philip II and Habsburg Authority (1551–1559) (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988) and János B. Szabó – Zoltán Korpás: “If they came as a Legation, they are many, if they are soldiers, they are few” – The military background of the 1551 attempt to unite Hungary.” In: Isabella Jagiellon, Queen of Hungary (1539-1559), ed. by Ágnes Máté, Teréz Oborni. Research Centre for the Humanities, Budapest, 2020, pp. 147–162. 28 Ferdinand’s long letter to Juan Alonso de Gámiz, written from Graz on March 4th, 1553, was full of emotional reactions; AGS, Estado, leg. 641bis, fol. 147. 29 AGS, Estado, leg. 641bis, fol. 147. 30 For a recent study reevaluating the critical years from 1550–52, see: János B. Szabó and Zoltán Korpás: ‘Ha követségbe jöttek, sokan vannak, de ha katonának, kevesen. Az 1551-es országegyesítési kísérlet katonai hátteréhez: 16. századi Habsburg haderők és stratégiák Európában’ [‘If they are coming as Emissaries, they are too many, if as antagonists, they

193

1 94

zo ltá n ko r pás

Other topics show up in the family correspondence as thematic motifs rather than chronological developments. The most fraught of these subjects was obviously the brothers’ wrangling over the financing of the wars in Hungary. Ferdinand was extremely well informed about the Spanish Empire and the imperial court; even so, his dynastic correspondence does not reveal any systematic approach to seeking sources of financing; Ferdinand asked for support without regard for its source. In one of his letters, he implored Gámiz to talk to Charles about the revenues coming through the treasury fleet from the Americas; on another occasion, he asked that Charles assign 100,000 ducats’ worth of Venice’s debt to him. He also made similar requests for the debts of Naples (20,000 ducats) and England (40,000 ducats). Another huge financial dispute was sparked by Cardinal Granvelle; while inquiring after 311,000 ducats’ worth of so-called Turkish aid (Türkenhilfe), Ferdinand expressed his irritation that Granvelle, Charles’s confidant and aide, had blocked his access to that sum.31 Furthermore, Ferdinand also had his eye on the revenues attached to certain important Spanish titles; for instance, one of his letters mentions that he was considering nominating his five-year-old son Karl (the future Charles II, archduke of Austria) to be archbishop of Toledo in the hope of accessing the financial resources of the richest ecclesiastical seat of the Spanish kingdoms.32 Both the dispute over the Türkenhilfe and the vague idea of nominating Karl to be an archbishop in Spain were related to the same critical military challenge: fortifying Vienna against potential Ottoman attacks. Further letters to Gámiz also included detailed accounts of sieges in Hungary involving Spaniards or Italians, such as his very thorough 1543 description of the losses of Tata castle (abandoned by captain Annibale Tasso and his mixed troop of Italian and German soldiers) and the seat of the archdiocese of Esztergom (Estrigonia in Spanish sources), which had been defended by approximately 1500 Spanish, Italian, German, and Hungarian soldiers and their captains, Martin de Lazcano and Francisco de Salamanca. * * * * The fraternal relationship between Charles V and Ferdinand I reflected the dynastic hierarchy, according to which Ferdinand had very limited sovereignty

are very few’. To the background of the 1550 Unification Attempt: 16th Century Habsburg forces and strategies in Europe], in Mozgó frontvonalak. Háború és diplomácia a várháborúk időszakában (1552–1568), ed. by Györgyi Bujdosné Pap and Ingrid Fejér, Studia Agriensia, 35 (Eger: Dobó István Vármúzeum, 2017), pp. 89–116. 31 AGS, Estado, leg. 641bis, fol. 36: Ferdinand I on the Türkenhilfe to Juan Alonso de Gámiz and Pedro Lasso de Castilla, Vienna, 29 October, 1544); AGS, Estado, leg. 641bis, fol. 37: To the same envoys from Nürnberg, 8 March 1544. 32 AGS, Estado, leg. 641bis, fol. 45: Ferdinand I to Juan Alonso de Gámiz and Pedro Lasso de Castilla, Prague, 11 September, 1545.

quarre lli ng b rot he rs

in the 1520s. This limitation was especially conspicuous in so-called high politics, especially on issues related to the Holy Roman Empire. To some extent, Ferdinand’s local power and authority were also circumscribed by the effects of local issues on high politics, namely the Ottoman expansion into Hungary and the Holy Roman Empire’s wars with France and the forces of Protestantism. Ferdinand’s power within the dynasty was constantly evolving, from the initial phase of complete dependence, to his first independent activities as royal sovereign, to the open conflicts of the late 1540s and early 1550s. Naturally, his political maturity increased as he acquired more experience, though the crucial milestone was his becoming a sovereign king in 1526 when he acquired the crowns of St Stephen and of St Wenceslaus, which were important markers of authority within Christendom. The key terms to describe the early phase of the relationship between Charles and Ferdinand might be subordination, harmonization, and negotiation, while the later phase was marked by conflicts over independence and sovereignty. The two brothers only rarely put their conflicts on display for external observers, especially other political players with Christendom; the most famous instance of a public quarrel was their dispute over the imperial heritage around 1548–52.

195

RUBÉN GONZÁLEZ CUERVA 

The King of Hungary and the Cardinal of Toledo The Creation of a Common Dynastic Image around the Two Ferdinands, 1631–35*

Introduction Among early modern dynasties, the House of Austria probably embodied better than any other a well-defined identity and a strong ideological image.1 There are plenty of works on the image of the Habsburgs as the leading dynasty in the early modern world, for both the Spanish and German branches.2 Nevertheless, the key question of how the division of the dynasty into (at least) two branches was represented has not been thoroughly researched in iconographical studies.3 The Spanish and German branches shared a dynastic piety, a severe form of dress, and a rigid ceremonial. However, individual kings







* This research was made possible thanks to the project La herencia de los reales sitios: Madrid, de corte a capital (historia, patrimonio y turismo) [H2015/HUM-3415]. 1 For dynasties as an organisational feature of early modern politics in a global sense, see: Jeroen Duindam, Dynasties. A Global History of Power, 1300–1800 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2016), pp. 14–20, 156–59, 255–72; a more theoretical vision of dynastic identity and continuity in: Liesbeth Geevers and Mirella Marini, ‘Aristocracy, Dynasty and Identity in Early Modern Europe, 1520–1700’, in Dynastic Identity in Early Modern Europe: Rulers, Aristocrats and the Formation of Identities, ed. by Liesbeth Geevers and Mirella Marini (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2015), pp. 1–24 (pp. 7–11, 16–17); Geevers and Marini depart from Wolfgang Weber’s definition of dynasty as ‘an optimal manifestation of the family, that marks itself through a heightened sense of identity and definition to the outside world; a collection of assets that form an expressly collective possession, such as territories, rank, rights and offices; marriages and inheritance practices that are intended to pass on the patrimony undiminished or enhanced; and an increased sense of historical continuity. Both the formation and the consolidation should be seen as the result of conscious actions, according to certain elements and patterns’ (pp. 10–11). 2 Sylvène Édouard, L’empire imaginaire de Philippe II : Pouvoir des images et discours du pouvoir sous les Habsbourg d’Espagne au XVIe siècle (Paris: Honoré Champion, 2005); Víctor Mínguez ‘Sine Fine: Dios, los Habsburgo y el traspaso de las insignias de poder en el Quinientos’, Libros de la Corte.es Monográfico, 1 (2014), 163–85. 3 The unified image of the House of Austria beyond two branches barely appears in genealogical texts and portrait series. Víctor Mínguez, ‘Domus Austriae. Iconografía de un linaje imperial’, in Los Habsburgo: arte y propaganda en la colección de grabados de la Biblioteca Casanatense de Roma, ed. by Pablo González Tornel (Castelló de la Plana: Universitat Jaume I, 2013), pp. 97–99. Eagles Looking East and West: Dynasty, Ritual and Representation in Habsburg Hungary and Spain, ed. by Tibor Martí & Roberto Quirós Rosado, Habsburg Worlds 4 (Turnhout, 2021), pp. 197–215.

© FHG

DOI 10.1484/M.HW-EB.5.122802

1 98

r ubé n go n z ál e z cu e rva

of Spain and German emperors tended to figure as undisputed leaders and heads of the dynasty, without explicit reference to the other branch. It is true that a discourse of familial unity can easily be found at the frequent occasions of intra-dynastic marriages,4 but testimonies of male princes’ encounters are very scarce. As Michel de Montaigne recommended in his Essays (Book I, ch. 13), it was not a good idea for princes to meet personally. The protocol problems were not a minor issue: even between such close relatives, correspondence reveals the existence of discreet quarrels about correct conduct.5 This issue notwithstanding, the chief issue was the maintenance of balance between familiarity and claims of superiority. Almost every encounter between male Habsburgs from different branches carefully avoided questions of rank; for this reason, no king of Spain ever met an emperor after Charles V’s abdication in 1556. For their part, the several Austrian archdukes who visited the court of Madrid humbly submitted to the Spanish monarch’s authority.6 The case analysed here looks exceptional, both for the public acknowledgement of the harmony between two roughly equal princes of the House of Austria and for the high quality of the pictorial representations conserved. Three main representations survive showing the encounter of the ‘two Ferdinands’, painted by Rubens and his collaborators Cornelis Schut and Jan van der Hoecke.7 [Fig. 10.1] These canvases were produced in early 1635 to celebrate the recent success of the joint imperial-Spanish army against the Swedes and their German allies at the Battle of Nördlingen (6 September 1634). The leaders of the Catholic side were Cardinal-Infante Ferdinand, brother of Philip IV of Spain, and the king of Hungary, Ferdinand, son of Emperor Ferdinand II. The ‘two Ferdinands’ were at the same time cousins







4 Inmaculada Rodríguez Moya and Víctor Mínguez, Himeneo en la Corte: poder, representación y ceremonial nupcial en el arte y la cultura simbólica (Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas, 2013), pp. 108–27, 174–77, 191–202. 5 When Rudolf II became emperor in 1576, he abandoned the familiar and obedient language in the correspondence with his uncle Philip II, who Rudolf called ‘His Majesty’ thereafter; AGS, Estado, leg. 679, documento 82: The Count of Monteagudo to Philip II, Prague, 20 January 1577. 6 There are plenty of examples: Charles, son of Emperor Ferdinand I; Rudolf, Ernest, Albert, Wenceslaus, and Maximilian, sons of Emperor Maximilian II; Charles, brother of Emperor Ferdinand II…; for the better known stay of Maximilian II’s sons, see: Erwin Mayer-Löwenschwerdt, ‘Der Aufenthalt der Erzherzoge Rudolf und Ernst in Spanien’, Sitzungsberichte der philosophisch-historischen Klasse der Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, 206 (1927), 1–64. 7 Peter Paul Rubens, The Encounter of the Two Ferdinands in Nördlingen, 1635, oil on canvas, 328 × 388 cm, Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna [accessed 13 December 2017]; Jan van der Hoecke, The Battle of Nördlingen. 1635, oil on canvas, 242 × 340 cm, Windsor Castle, Windsor [accessed 13 December 2017]; Cornelis Schut, The victory of Nördlingen, 1635, oil on canvas, 226 × 160 cm, Stadsmuseum, Ghent [accessed 13 December 2017].

th e ki n g o f h u n g ary an d t h e card i nal o f  to le d o

Fig. 10.1.  The Encounter of the Two Ferdinands in Nördlingen, ephemeral triumphal arch by Pieter Paul Rubens at the entry of Cardinal-Infant Ferdinand of Austria into Antwerp, 1635, detail of a engraving by Theodoor van Thulden in Jean Gaspard Gevaerts’ Pompa introitus honori serenissimi principis Ferdinandi Austriaci […] (Antwerp: Ioannes Meursius, 1641) © Madrid, Biblioteca Nacional de España, Invent/15061, estampa 9 (http://bdh-rd.bne.es/viewer.vm?id = 0000200015&page = 6http://bdhred.bne.es/viewer.vm?id = 0000172066&page = 2)

and brothers-in-law.8 Their encounter before the Battle of Nördlingen marked the peak of the dynastic cooperation during the Thirty Years’ War (1618–48). The Defenestration of Prague (23 May 1618) marked the outbreak of the war as a challenge to the authority of the Habsburgs over the kingdom of Bohemia. Soon thereafter, the Spanish branch of the dynasty began to



8 For the biography of Ferdinand III, see: Lothar Höbelt, Ferdinand III. Friedenskaiser wider Willen (Vienna: Ares, 2008); Mark Hengerer, Kaiser Ferdinand III. (1608–1657): eine Biographie (Vienna: Böhlau, 2012); for the Cardinal-Infante, we should still rely on the classic by Alfred van der Essen, Le cardinal-infant et la politique européenne de L’Espagne 1609–1641 (Bruxelles: Éditions Universitaires, 1944); and the newer source edition: Cartas y Memoriales del Conde Duque de Olivares. II. La política exterior. Correspondencia con el Cardenal Infante, ed. by John H. Elliott, Fernando Negredo del Cerro and Alicia Esteban Estríngana (Madrid: Marcial Pons Historia-Centro de Estudios Europa Hispánica, 2018).

199

200

r ubé n go n z ál e z cu e rva

assist its German relatives against the Bohemian rebels. However, after the end of this Bohemian-Palatinate phase in 1623, coordination between the Spanish king and the German emperor declined, as did their shared goals. The military alliance between Madrid and Vienna gained track again during the War of the Mantuan Succession (1629–30) and found its key milestones in the marriage of the aforementioned Ferdinand III with the Spanish infanta Maria Anna (1631) and the signature of the Perpetual League of 1632.9 This reinforcement was initiated in the Italian theatre, where the Spanish interests were more immediate. Once that front was closed, the most peremptory menace to the Habsburgs’ position came from Sweden. King Gustav II Adolphus of Sweden invaded the Empire in June 1630 and won a string of victories until arriving in Bavaria, southern Germany. However, the Spanish authorities were at the time more concerned for the Dutch theatre of war, where their position was on the verge of collapse by 1632. The death of Gustav II Adolphus in the battle of Lützen (6 November 1632) and the 1633 campaign of Gómez Suárez de Figueroa, duke of Feria, between the Alps and southern Germany, paved the way for a renewed Habsburg offensive. This new phase implied that the Spanish monarchy had to fight again in German soil, as eliminating the Swedish presence was essential for securing lines of communication between the traditional Italian and Flemish theatres. For these reasons, in 1634 the cardinal-infante headed a strong Spanish army able to make its way from Milan through the western German territories to Flanders. In this context, he diverted his journey to join his relative Ferdinand, the king of Hungary, in a decisive battle against the remaining Swedish forces and their German allies. Paradoxically, the resonant triumph of Nördlingen marked the end of this positive phase for the Habsburgs, because Louis XIII of France feared the threat of dynastic imposition and in May 1635 finally decided to enter the war against the Spaniards. This action implied another key novelty: the Habsburgs could no longer legitimate their actions as a defence of the Catholic faith to the same extent, as the French king was also a fervent Catholic.10

9 España y Europa en el siglo XVII. Correspondencia de Saavedra Fajardo, ed. by Quintín Aldea Vaquero, 3 vols (Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Históricas, 1986–2008); Andrea Sommer-Mathis, ‘María Ana de Austria: spanische Infantin – Königin von Ungarn und Böhmen – römisch-deutsche Kaiserin (1606–1646)’, in Nur die Frau des Kaisers? Kaiserinnen in der Frühen Neuzeit, ed. by Bettina Braun, Katrin Keller and Mathias Schnettger (Vienna: Böhlau, 2016), pp. 141–56; Tibor Martí, ‘Los antecedentes del viaje a Roma del cardenal Péter Pázmány en 1632’, in La dinastía de los Austria: las relaciones entre la Monarquía Católica y el Imperio, ed. by José Martínez Millán and Rubén González Cuerva, 3 vols (Madrid: Polifemo, 2011), i, pp. 175–205. 10 Francisco de Quevedo, Carta al sereníssimo muy alto, y muy poderoso Luis XIII, Rey christianíssimo de Francia, Zaragoza: Hospital Real y General de Nuestra Señora de Gracia, 1635; to understand the implications of this generational turn, it is still useful to consult: José M. Jover Zamora, 1635, Historia de una polémica y semblanza de una generación (Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas. Instituto Jerónimo Zurita, 1949).

th e ki n g o f h u n g ary an d t h e card i nal o f  to le d o

Until that moment, optimism and celebration had spread among the Habsburg following victory at Nördlingen. Taken as a ‘place of memory’, Nördlingen can be seen as an excellent testing ground for both dynastic strategies and national historiographies. In other words, was it a triumph by a nation (Spain or Austria/Germany) or by a dynasty (the joint House of Austria)? In the Spanish case, where the incorporation of Habsburg politics within national history proved to be particularly problematic, a paradigmatic version is offered in the History of the Decadence of Spain (1854), by the conservative political leader Antonio Cánovas del Castillo. Cánovas tried to demonstrate that Nördlingen was a triumph of the brave Spanish army while their imperial allies demonstrated themselves to be weak and cowardly. According to Cánovas, Spain saved the Holy Empire, while the Spaniards had little to thank to the German side of the House of Austria: ‘the German dynasty was morally dead’ and their bad government ‘made the German name hateful to every Spaniard’.11 As such, he counterpoised the dynastic interest, which pointed to German affairs, and the national interest of Spain, which was not taken into consideration by the kings, thus leading Spain into political decadence. This clear-cut duality between dynasty and nation remains implicit in much current historiography and hinders understanding of Baroque politics on their own terms.12 Turning to the actual events of the battle, the two Ferdinands’ correspondence reflected different interpretations of what happened: while Ferdinand III claimed to be the main protagonist and defined his Spanish cousin an ‘assistant’, the other gave the victory’s merit to the Spanish troops. At the same time, the cardinal-infante was very careful in maintaining dynastic friendship and harmony, but emphasising Spanish predominance within the dynasty.13 Cánovas’s praise of the Spanish troops’ braveness was a commonplace among Spanish witnesses in the Empire: apart from the cardinal-infante himself, the diplomat and writer Saavedra Fajardo’s correspondence and Diego de Aedo’s chronicle of the cardinal-infante’s journey from Spain to Flanders

11 ‘La dinastía alemana estaba moralmente muerta […]. El mal gobierno de Felipe III y de Felipe IV, las liviandades de la regente, la nulidad de Carlos II y la avaricia de su mujer doña Mariana, habían hecho odioso a todos los españoles el nombre alemán’; Antonio Cánovas del Castillo, Historia de la decadencia de España desde el advenimiento de Felipe III al trono hasta la muerte de Carlos II (Madrid: Oficina y Establecimiento Tipográfico del Semanario Pintoresco Español y de la Ilustración, 1854), p. 113; for Nördlingen, see p. 36. 12 In the German case, for an updated overview on the risks of applying modern national categories to the plural levels of allegiance in the Holy Empire, see: Robert Von Friedeburg: ‘“Lands” and “Fatherlands”: Changes in the Plurality of Allegiances in the Sixteenth Century Holy Roman Empire’, in Networks, Regions and Nations: Shaping Identities in the Low Countries, 1300–1650, ed. by Robert Stein and Judith Pollmann (Leiden: Brill, 2009), pp. 263–82. 13 Hengerer, Ferdinand III, 102–07; the Cardinal-Infante Ferdinand to Philip IV (Nördlingen, 7 September 1634), in: Aldea Vaquero, España y Europa, ii, p. 646.

201

202

r ubé n go n z ál e z cu e rva

repeated this image.14 Aedo’s work is especially remarkable as an immediate and ‘official’ version, and it was quickly edited in order to satisfy high demand for detailed information on the campaign.15 This text was fruitfully used as a source for the iconographic programmes of Rubens (who designed the frontispiece of Aedo’s first edition in Antwerp), Calderón de la Barca’s play El primer blasón de Austria (The first blazon of Austria), and the numerous pamphlets published throughout the Spanish monarchy. Aedo’s text offers a measured and balanced vision between dynastic and national discourses. On the one hand, he insists on the shared leadership of the two Ferdinands –always together and near to the battle– and stated that the only goal of these princes of the House of Austria was the restoration of the true faith. On the other hand, imperial soldiers are depicted greeting the contribution of the Spanish army, constituted by Spaniards and Italians, and it is acknowledged that the Empire would be lost without Spanish support.16

Spain: Pamphlets and Theatre The news about the battle spread rapidly throughout the Iberian Peninsula thanks to the production of a quantity of pamphlets unparalleled for any other event of the Thirty Years’ War. The decisive character of the victory and the leadership of a Spanish prince offer reasons for the level of popular interest, though López Poza has sought to demonstrate that a propagandistic initiative from the cardinal-infante’s retinue in fact played a major role.17 Apart from glorifying him as a military leader, we might ask who deserves the credit for the victory: Spain, the House of Austria, or Catholicism? Five variant tales are recorded from a first pamphlet published in Brussels with an uncommon emblem that shows the bond that existed between the House of Austria (the crowned double-headed eagle) and Catholicism (the crucifix). The most detailed pamphlet is that edited in the Madrid press of the widow of Madrigal in 1634. This pamphlet conveys a clear dynastic message: the narrator places the participation of the Spanish and German Ferdinands on equal terms and demonstrates that victory is the shared result of the two nations virtu 14 Saavedra’s version was discussed in: AGS, Estado, leg. 2335, s.f.: Council of State’s consulta, Madrid, 31 October 1634; for Aedo’s reconstruction, see: Diego de Aedo y Gallart, El memorable y glorioso viaje del infante cardenal don Fernando de Austria, Antwerp: Jan Cnobbaert, 1635, chapters xii–xiv. 15 The author defined himself as a hechura (minion) of the Count-Duke of Olivares, not of the Cardinal-Infante; Aedo, El memorable y glorioso viaje, ‘dedicatoria’. 16 ‘¡Viva España, que nos ha dado la victoria, y el Imperio! ¡Viva la valentía de los españoles e italianos!’; Aedo, El memorable y glorioso viaje, ch. XIV. 17 Sagrario López Poza, ‘Relaciones impresas (años 1632–1642) sobre el Cardenal Infante don Fernando de Austria’, in Las relaciones de sucesos en los cambios políticos y sociales de la Europa Moderna, ed. by Jorge García López and Sònia Boadas Cabarrocas (Bellaterra-Barcelona: Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, 2015), pp. 141–61 (pp. 159–60).

th e ki n g o f h u n g ary an d t h e card i nal o f  to le d o

ously governed by the House of Austria. By contrast, the Relacion de varias cosas (1634) disdains the imperial contribution and presents the battle as a redoubtable triumph of the brave Spanish nation.18 The victory celebrations in Madrid showed the same uncertainty regarding the message to be emphasised. King Philip IV – brother of the cardinal-infante– and his favourite Olivares acknowledged the importance of the battle,19 but the court festivities were rather discreet: the king simply headed a cavalcade of courtiers to the sanctuary of Atocha to dedicate a Te Deum office. During the procession they met the viaticum, and the king found the perfect opportunity to crown a pious spectacle by performing one of the main symbols of the Pietas Austriaca: he humbly escorted the Eucharist to the house of a poor woman who was sick and close to death.20 The ceremony appears to have been of a lower profile in comparison with the magnum festivals of February 1637 in Buen Retiro Palace to celebrate the election of Ferdinand III as king of Romans, festivities that were replicated even more richly in Rome.21 If the 1637 dynastic celebration deserved the full concentration of the monarchy, the same evidently could not be said of the cardinal-infante successes: was this due to a lack of time, or to mistrust towards the royal brother and his ambitions? After the battle, the cardinal-infante entered the Spanish Netherlands and began his duties as governor in early 1635.22 In these circumstances he supposedly commissioned a proper celebration of his victory in his archiepiscopal see of Toledo, and not in the court of Madrid. The highlight of the event was the release of Pedro Calderón de la Barca’s El primer blasón de Austria, a mixture of comedy and an auto sacramental (a dramatic representation of the mystery of the Eucharist).23 Between the exaltation of the Eucharist and

18 Didier Rault, ‘Genealogía de las relaciones dedicadas a la batalla de Nördlingen (1634)’, in Las relaciones de sucesos, relatos fácticos, oficiales y extraordinarios, ed. by Patrick Bégrand (Besançon: Presses Universitaires de Franche-Comté, 2006), pp. 204–12; Jesús M. Usunáriz, España en Alemania: la guerra de los Treinta Años en crónicas y relaciones de sucesos (New York: Instituto de Estudios Auriseculares, 2016), pp. 147–76. 19 John H. Elliott, El Conde-Duque de Olivares (Barcelona: Crítica, 1990), p. 535. 20 BNE, Mss., 11764, fol. 258v–59v: Diego de Soto y Aguilar, Historia universal del mundo; Anna Coreth, Pietas Austriaca (West Lafayette: Purdue University Press, 2001), pp. 23–36; according to a pamphlet, a festival was also celebrated in the monastery of La Encarnación in Madrid; José Simón Díaz, Relaciones brevesde actos públicos celebrados en Madrid de 1541 a 1650 (Madrid: Instituto de Estudios Madrileños, 1982), p. 437. 21 John E. Varey, ‘Calderón, Cosme Lotti, Velázquez, and the Madrid Festivities of 1636–1637’, Renaissance Drama, 1 (1968), 253–82. 22 Alicia Esteban Estríngana, ‘Los estados de Flandes en el futuro político de los infantes: la designación del cardenal infante don Fernando para la lugartenencia real de Bruselas’, in La corte de Felipe IV: reconfiguración de la Monarquía católica, ed. by José Martínez Millán and José Eloy Hortal Muñoz, 3 vols (Madrid: Polifemo, 2015) III, pp. 1615–1678. 23 Enrique Rull Fernández, Calderón y Nördlingen. El auto “El primer blasón del Austria” de don Pedro Calderón de la Barca (Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas, 1981), pp. 88–94; Victoriano Roncero follows this same interpretation on the origin of the play

203

2 04

r ubé n go n z ál e z cu e rva

allegories of the Church and St Michael, the play delivers a clear political message: God’s plan is based on the unbreakable tie between the House of Austria and the defence of Catholicism.24 That scheme obscured the role of the Spanish nation and heralded a dynastic political project far from the sixteenth-century tradition and in line with the novelties developed since the beginning of the Thirty Years’ War. Calderón scrupulously balanced the contribution of both Ferdinands: using the metaphoric image of the imperial double-headed eagle, the two men were equally rewarded and praiseworthy. They treated each other as brother and friend, and courteously attributed success to one another in the victory at Nördlingen. As a result, the play praises the heroism of the Spaniards, but also of Italians, Burgundians and ‘good’ Germans. While only Sweden was an evil nation, Germans were divided between those who were and those who were heretics and rebels, as not every heretic was necessary a rebel. God had not chosen a nation but a dynasty, the House of Austria.25 Even the pícaro Estebanillo González (who recorded his participation in the battle in his fictional memoirs) was infected with this dynastic fervour.26 Meanwhile, the two other Spanish plays composed to celebrate this battle do not follow this trend: Antonio Coello’s Los dos Fernandos de Austria and Alonso de Castillo Solórzano’s Victoria de Nördlingen y el Infante en Alemania.27 [Fig. 10.2] In both plays, Spanish leadership is clearly depicted.

24

25

26

27

in his edition: Pedro Calderón de la Barca, El primer blasón del Austria, ed. by Victoriano Roncero (Pamplona/Kassel: Universidad de Navarra-Reichenberger, 1997), 88 and 94. See also Germán Vega García-Luengos, ‘Presencias de Europa en el teatro español del siglo XVII’, in Europa (historia y mito) en la comedia española, ed. by Felipe B. Pedraza, Rafael González Cañal and Elena E. Marcello (Cuenca: Ediciones de la Universidad de Castilla-La Mancha, 2012), pp. 33–52 (pp. 43–45). The engraving Ut pupillam oculi, created in 1603 for the obsequies of the Empress Mary of Austria, advanced this message, citing Psalms 17.8: ‘Custodi me ut pupillam oculi, sub umbra alarum tuarum proteges me [Keep me as the apple of the eye, hide me under the shadow of thy wings]’; see Libro de las honras que hizo el Colegio de la Co[m]pañia de Iesus, a la M. C. de la Emperatriz doña María de Austria … que se celebraron a 21 de abril de 1603, Madrid: Luis Sánchez, 1603, p. 58. ‘Austria’ cannot be identified with the current Austrian state: their inhabitants were considered Germans, and ‘Austrian’ meant the loyal servant of the dynasty; AGS, Estado, leg. 2332, documento 66, fol. 11v and documento 78, fol. 13r: Votes of the Count Duke of Olivares in the consultas of the Council of State, Madrid, 7 and 10 September 1631. During the battle, Estebanillo harangued the Habsburgs troops: ‘¡Viva la Casa de Austria!, ¡Imperio, Imperio!, ¡avanza, avanza! [Long live the House of Austria! Empire, Empire! Advance, advance!]’; La vida y hechos de Estebanillo González: hombre de buen humor. Compuesto por el mesmo, ed. by Antonio Carreira and Jesús Antonio Cid (Madrid: Cátedra, 1990), p. 310; see also: Victoriano Roncero, ‘Visiones de la batalla: “El primer blasón del Austria de Calderón” y el “Estebanillo González”’, in Divinas y humanas letras, doctrina y poesía en los autos sacramentales de Calderón, ed. by Ignacio Arellano Ayuso and others (Pamplona: Universidad de Navarra, 1997), pp. 417–33. In both plays, the historical narration is secondary to the benefit of an amorous plot. Coello’s version counterpoised the Spanish and Swedish nations (see Marina’s jacarandina song,

th e ki n g o f h u n g ary an d t h e card i nal o f  to le d o

Fig. 10.2.  The Battle of Nördlingen, ephemeral triumphal arch by Pieter Paul Rubens at the entry of Cardinal-Infant Ferdinand of Austria into Antwerp, 1635, detail of a engraving by Theodoor van Thulden in Jean Gaspard Gevaerts’ Pompa introitus honori serenissimi principis Ferdinandi Austriaci […] (Antwerp: Ioannes Meursius, 1641) © Madrid, Biblioteca Nacional de España, ER/3347, fol. 99 (http://bdh-rd. bne.es/viewer.vm?id = 0000200015&page = 6http://bdh-red.bne.es/viewer.vm?id = 0000051898&page = 144)

Castillo Solórzano, who has been described as a ‘systematic adulator’, seemed to ride the wave of patriotic exaltation derived from the victory at Nördlingen

Third Act). Meanwhile, Castillo Solórzano’s play has a confuse plot in which the Duke of Lorraine is also a leading role, presented as a victim of Richelieu’s manoeuvres. Moreover, the Cardinal-Infante declares in Castillo Solórzano’s play that his only will was emulating his grand-grandfather Charles V; Rull Fernández, Calderón y Nördlingen, pp. 96–106.

205

206

r ubé n go n z ál e z cu e rva

and the declaration of war declaration by France in the spring of 1635.28 By contrast, Calderón’s play also marked a vivid contrast with the traditional view of Spanish involvement in German affairs, the latter represented in Félix Lope de Vega’s El cerco de Viena [The Siege of Vienna], written around 1598–1603. Lope’s play describes Charles V’s defence of Vienna against the Turks in 1531 and labels Charles V as ‘emperor of Spain’. Accordingly, his legitimacy does not proceed from the imperial tradition of Charlemagne, but from Spain: the fight for Vienna is justified by the Spanish secular mission against infidels, and not to dynastic obligations.29

Austria: Image and Music The celebrations organised in the court of Vienna had several traits in common with those of Madrid: a discreet character and festivities not led by the sovereign, but by another member of the dynasty. In this case, the main role was the Spanish infanta Maria Anna of Austria, wife of Ferdinand III and sister of the cardinal-infante. Due to the menace of plague in Vienna, the imperial court had retired to Wiener Neustadt in the autumn of 1634. There, Emperor Ferdinand II received to his triumphant son Ferdinand III in familiar and affectionate fashion as he returned from the campaign in December 1634.30 No court festivity is recorded other than the release, during Carnival 1635, of a Spanish play, as happened in Toledo: Emulación de los Elementos y aplauso de los Dioses [Emulation of the Elements and Applause of the Gods] by an unknown author and now sadly lost. The spectacle was commissioned by Infanta Maria Anna, who was struggling to introduce her beloved Spanish theatre at the imperial court, and was played by ten of her ladies-in-waiting, five Germans and five Spaniards. As such, it may have offered a corporeal metaphor of the equality between the two branches of the dynasty.31 28 Soledad Arredondo, ‘Castillo Solórzano y la mixtura barroca: poesía, narrativa y teatro en La niña de los embustes, Teresa de Manzanares’, in El Siglo de Oro en escena: homenaje a Marc Vitse, ed. by Odette Gorsse (Toulouse: Université de Toulouse II/Le Mirail. Presses Universitaires du Mirail, 2006), pp. 38–51 (pp. 38–40). 29 ‘Por ella [la Fe] salgo de España / por ella vengo a Viena, contra el mayor enemigo / que conozco contra ella / (…) ¡Al arma contra el Gran Turco! / ¡Guerra, aquí de España, guerra!’; Christopher Laferl, ‘La justificación del imperio universal de los Habsburgo en el teatro español’, in Barroco español y austríaco. Fiesta y Teatro en la Corte de los Habsburgo y los Austrias, ed. by José M. Díez Borque and Karl F. Rudolf (Madrid: Embajada de Austria en España/Museo Municipal, 1994), pp. 67–72 (pp. 71–72). 30 Ferdinand III arrived on 9 December 1634 ‘all improvviso sul hora di pranzo, con gran giubilo di queste maesta’; nuncio Baglioni to cardinal Barberini (Wiener Neustadt, 9 December 1634), in: Nuntiaturen des Malatesta Baglioni, des Ciriaco Rocci und des Mario Filonardi. Sendung des P. Alessandro D’Ales (1634–1635), ed. by Rotraud Becker (Tübingen: Max Niemeyer, 2004), p. 65; see also Hengerer, Ferdinand III., pp. 102–07. 31 Emulación de los Elementos y aplauso de los Dioses, con que solemnizaron las Damas de la S.R.M. de la Reyna de Ungría, los felices sucessos de la Cesárea Mag. del Invictíssimo Emperador

th e ki n g o f h u n g ary an d t h e card i nal o f  to le d o

In any case, several different initiatives, ostensibly both uncoordinated and opportunistic, departed from the entourage of Ferdinand III to build a virtuous image of the future emperor during subsequent years. As his most important accomplishment, Nördlingen played a major role in these: in treatises, medals, engravings and Frans Luyckx’s official portrait (1639), Ferdinand III appeared in the conventional role of victor, adorned with piety and justice.32 As key cultural milestone, Claudio Monteverdi adapted and dedicated his atypical Madrigali guerrieri et amorosi (1638) to Ferdinand III and his triumphs.33 The Spanish branch, however, received no mention in these works: the narrative of the restoration of imperial authority obscured the dynastic contribution. The progress of the Spanish Black Legend had been consolidated in Germany during the Thirty Years’ War, not only among hostile Protestants but also among potential Catholic allies who feared the Spanish monarchy’s ambition and its occupations of lands in the Rhineland.34 Since the times of Philip II, the Spanish authorities had disdained to engage in a struggle for public opinion, whilst the German branch of the dynasty carefully avoided the Spanish associations emphasised by its Protestant, French and Venetian enemies. According to this negative version, the dynastic alliance was not an entente among peers, but some form of protectorate in which the Spanish ambassador in Vienna acted more as a dictator than as a foreign diplomat.35 Furthermore, Spaniards were almost omnipotent in Vienna and controlled

32 33

34

35

Ferdinando Segundo, alcançados por la S.R. Mag. Del Rey de Ungría, con occasión (diferida asta las carnestolendas) de su Victoriosa venida a esta corte, Vienna: Matthäus Rickhes, 1635; the only known copy, at the Berliner Staatsbibliothek, disappeared during the Second World War; Andrea Sommer-Mathis, ‘Las relaciones teatrales entre las dos ramas de la Casa de Austria en el Barroco’, in Barroco español y austríaco. Fiesta y Teatro en la Corte de los Habsburgo y los Austrias, ed. by José M. Díez Borque and Karl F. Rudolf (Madrid: Embajada de Austria en España/Museo Municipal, 1994), pp. 41–57 (pp. 43–44). Andrew H. Weaver, Sacred Music as Public Image for Holy Roman Emperor Ferdinand III: Representing the Counter-Reformation Monarch at the End of the Thirty Years’ War (London: Ashgate, 2012), pp. 20–28. Steven Saunders, ‘New Light on the Genesis of Monteverdi’s Eighth Book of Madrigals’, Music & Letters, 77.2 (1996), 183–93; Andrew H. Weaver, ‘Divine Wisdom and Dolorous Mysteries: Habsburg Marian Devotion in Two Motets from Monteverdi’s Selva morale et spirituale’, The Journal of Musicology, 24.2 (2007), 237–71 (pp. 243–26). Xavier Sellés-Ferrando, Spanisches Österreich (Vienna: Böhlau, 2004), pp. 224–32; Peer Schmidt, La monarquía universal española y América. La imagen del Imperio español en la Guerra de los Treinta Años (1618–1648) (México: Fondo de Cultura Económica, 2012), pp. 344–51; Étienne Bourdeu, “Le premier prince de l’Empire”. Les archevêques de Mayence et la présence espagnole dans le Saint Empire (milieu du XVIe siècle – milieu du XVIIe siècle) (Madrid: Casa de Velázquez, 2015), pp. 192–220. ‘Il Conte d’Ognat Ambasciatore di quel Re fa conoscere, che in Hiermania possegga più tosto il titolo di Dittatore, che d’Ambasciatore’; ‘Relazione di Germania de Sier Francesco Erizzo et Sier Simon Contarini’ (1620), edited in: Die Relationen der Botschafter Venedigs über Deutschland und Österreich im siebzehnten Jahrhundert, ed. by Joseph Fiedler, 2 vols (Vienna: Kaiserlich-königlichen Hof- und Staatsdruckerei, 1866–67), i (1866), p. 117.

207

208

r ubé n go n z ál e z cu e rva

the decision-making process because imperial ministers depended on money and honours granted by the king of Spain.36

Flanders: Rubens and Painting The memory of Nördlingen did not represent a major event in Spain and Austria and in any case lacked a coherent discourse. By contrast, the Low Countries offered the most refined and thorough celebration of this battle. The local context was decisive: the Habsburg Netherlands were experiencing a generational change after three decades of rule by the Archdukes Albert and Isabella. After Isabella’s death in 1633, Cardinal-Infante Ferdinand was appointed the new general governor. He arrived in Brussels shortly after Nördlingen carrying the aura of victory aroused major hopes among the Flemish population for their own fortunes.37 Could Ferdinand finally defeat the Dutch and restore the lost mercantile prosperity of the southern provinces? Ferdinand’s ‘Joyous Entry’ (or Blijde Inkomst) in Ghent and Antwerp was the decisive event in establishing a link between both cities and the new governor. The triumphal arches, stages and decorations all constituted a pact of fidelity amongst the population in return for the exercise of good government. As such, they offered a rhetorical opportunity to pose demands and to make claims. This was especially clear in Antwerp’s pompous reception, where the local authorities took the opportunity to demonstrate the poor state of the country, drawing attention to the problem of the blockade of the Scheldt River and to demand a share of American wealth.38 The painter Peter Paul Rubens and his friend Caspar Gevaerts, conceived and designed most of Antwerp’s decorations, later recorded in a sumptuous volume, the Pompa Introitus Ferdinandi (Antwerp, 1641). [Fig. 10.3] Following a rhetorical structure, its key elements give praise to Ferdinand, depicting the 36 ‘Tuttavia pare a Sua Maestà, che questa tanta adherenza de Spagnoli habbia più della sopra intendenza, et del dominio, che della colleganza, o congiontione, che doveria esser tra Prencipi liberi, et se mai potesse liberarsene, lo faria volontieri, poichè ben si avvede, essersi Spagnoli tanto impossessati sopra di lei, sopra i Ministri, et sopra tutte le deliberationi, che si fanno à quella corte, che si può dire siano loro gli arbitri, et più patroni, che non è la stessa Maestà Sua. Tutti li Ministri di corte, et li più principali, anzi il favorito medesimo sono stipendiati da Spagnoli, et legati, chi con commende, chi con tesori, et chi con Grandato. Li capitani tutti da loro dipendono, da loro ricconoscono le cariche, da loro ricevono li stipendij’; ‘Relatione di S. Renier Zen Cav. Pro. [et] S. Anzolo Contarini Cav. ritornati ambasciadori estraordinari all’Imperatore’ (Venice, 18 February 1637), edited in: Die Relationen, ed. by Fiedler, i, p. 198. 37 René Vermeir, En estado de guerra: Felipe IV y Flandes (Córdoba: Universidad de Córdoba, 2006), pp. 112–13. 38 John Rupert Martin, The Decorations for the Pompa Introitus Ferdinandi (Brussels: Phaidon, 1972), p. 27; Anna C. Knaap, ‘Introduction’, in Art, Music and Spectacle in the Age of Rubens: The Pompa Introitus Ferdinandi, ed. By Anna C. Knaap and Michael C. J. Putnam (London: Harvey Miller, 2013), pp. 3–4.

th e ki n g o f h u n g ary an d t h e card i nal o f  to le d o

Fig. 10.3.  The victory of Nördlingen, ephemeral triumphal arch at the entry of CardinalInfant Ferdinand of Austria into Ghent, 1635, detail of a engraving by Pieter de Jode in Guillaume van der Beke’s Serenissimi principis Ferdinandi Hispaniarum infantis S. R. E. cardinalis triumphalis introitus in Flandriae metropolim Gandauum (Antwerp: ex officina Ioannis Meursi, 1636) © Madrid, Biblioteca Nacional de España, ER/2853, fol. 10 (http://bdh-rd.bne.es/viewer.vm?id = 0000200015&page = 6)

209

21 0

r ubé n go n z ál e z cu e rva

theatrical stage of welcome that narrated his long journey from Barcelona to Brussels (where Rubens’ painting of the two Ferdinands in Nördlingen was hung), the Portico of the Emperors and the two arches of Ferdinand and Philip IV. What is striking about the elements chosen is the absolute absence of Spanish references: everything transcending the individual of Ferdinand refers to an Austrian dynasty, obscuring his Spanish background. This setting marks an evident contrast with the direct antecedents of this welcome, the ‘Joyous Entries’ of the previous two governors from the House of Austria, the Archdukes Ernest (1594) and Albert (1599) [Fig. 10.4]. In both cases, an Arch of the Spaniards with representations of the local cults of the Immaculate Virgin and St James the Moor-slayer appeared, while in 1635 only the Portuguese community of Antwerp decided to build an arch.39 More symbolically, the key image in the entries of Ernest and Albert was composed by three national allegories along a length of string: The Netherlands rendered up her provinces to Austria, who left them under the administration of Spain. In each instance, the building of a portico with twelve emperors hid a notorious difference: in 1594 the emperors depicted were four Romans, four Greeks (Byzantine) and four Germans, while in 1635 the twelve emperors consisted of the German Kaiser of the House of Austria following its founder, Rudolf I, between flags and coats of arms of Austria and without mentions of Spanish kings. Ferdinand thus envisaged a self-referential world rooted in the imperial tradition of the House of Austria.40 The Arch of Philip, intended to glorify the Spanish king Philip IV, limited the message to remembrance of the dynastic weddings which made possible the link between the Burgundian and Spanish heritages. Furthermore, while the flags of Austria and Burgundy were displayed on its front, the Spanish arms were confined to the rear of the arch, where an allegory of the monarchy refers to the ‘Austrian Monarchy’. Finally, the leading role in the Arch of Ferdinand was shared between the cardinal-infante and his cousin Ferdinand III, equally portrayed in the intercolumniations under the blazon of Austria. The central canvas – by Jan van der Hoecke – depicted them leading the battle of Nördlingen. Although Rubens’ designs showed them occupying the same rank, in actuality the cardinal-infante always appears either a little higher or in the foreground. Ghent’s ‘Joyous Entry’ was prepared in parallel with that of Antwerp and replicated, in a humbler way, its structure and iconography: here there is another apparition of the two Ferdinands in Nördlingen (painted by Cornelis Schut) while the structure of Rubens’ The Meeting of the Two Ferdinands at

39 Martin, The Decorations, 24. 40 Jan Boch, Descriptio publicae gratulationis… in adventu… Ernesti Archiducis Austriae, Antwerp: Officina Plantiniana/widow of Jan Moretus, 1595, pp. 61, 63, 86 (engraver: Peter van der Borcht); Jan Boch, Historica narratio profectionis et inaugurationis Serenissimorum Belgii Principum Alberti et Isabellae, Antwerp: Officina Plantiniana/Jan Moretus, 1602, pp. 198–99.

th e ki n g o f h u n g ary an d t h e card i nal o f  to le d o

Fig. 10.4.  Arcus triumphali Genuensium, ephemeral triumphal arch at the entry of Ernst, Archduke of Austria, into Antwerp, 1594, detail of a engraving by Pieter van der Borcht, in Joannes Bochius’ Descriptio publicae gratulationis […] (Antwerp: Ex officina Plantiniana, 1595), p. 86. © Amsterdam, Rijksmuseum, FMH 1028-A/14 (https://www. rijksmuseum.nl/nl/collectie/BI-1953-0546B-14)

Nördlingen is copied in other image, The Meeting of Ferdinand and the Elector of Cologne.41 [Fig. 10.5] Why this reiteration of Ferdinand’s images meeting other princes and hiding his Spanish roots? One immediate conclusion would be that the designers of these ‘Joyous Entries’ emphasised the legitimizing reference to the Holy Empire, of which they were part, and continuity with the regime of Archdukes Albert and Isabella, as the new governor was not a Castilian aristocrat but a prince of the cosmopolitan House of Austria. Without the strong representation of a Spanish community in Antwerp, the urban authorities felt no need to recall the attributes of that nation. Furthermore, vis-à-vis the

41 The images are engraved in: Guillaume van der Beke and others, Serenissimi principis Ferdinandi Hispaniarum infantis S. R. E. cardinalis triumphalis introitus in Flandriae metropolim Gandauum, Antwerp: Johannes van Meurs, 1636, fol. 5, 10, 11.

211

21 2

r ubé n go n z ál e z cu e rva

Fig. 10.5.  The Meeting of Ferdinand and the Elector of Cologne, ephemeral triumphal arch at the entry of Cardinal-Infant Ferdinand of Austria into Ghent, 1635, detail of a engraving by Pieter de Jode in Guillaume van der Beke’s Serenissimi principis Ferdinandi Hispaniarum infantis S. R. E. cardinalis triumphalis introitus in Flandriae metropolim Gandauum (Antwerp: ex officina Ioannis Meursi, 1636), © Madrid, Biblioteca Nacional de España, ER/2853, fol. 11 (http://bdh-rd.bne.es/viewer.vm?id = 0000200015&page = 7)

th e ki n g o f h u n g ary an d t h e card i nal o f  to le d o

resilient Dutch enemies and their supporters, it was shown that the Spanish monarchy had powerful allies in the region (the emperor and Cologne). Finally, the court of Brussels had been on the verge of an aristocratic Fronde between 1629 and 1632, and obedience was still precarious.42 Consequently, the Netherlands self-fashioned not as a Spanish dominion but as a state under the legitimate dynasty of Austria, which derived from the Burgundians, to whom allegiance was due.43

A Dynastic Turn? In a broader sense, Calderón’s play and Antwerp’s festivities are the symbols of a more complex ‘dynastic turn’ in the Spanish (or better Catholic) monarchy. The Flemish intellectual milieu, from where the creators of the Antwerp spectacle originated, ambiguously moved between a classic language of political tacitism and providentialism. This change can also be appreciated in other areas of the Spanish monarchy around the generational mark of 1635, as a deep ideological and geopolitical shift was taking place. The underlying problem was a crisis of political justification: the project of a Catholic monarchy with universalist scope as the armed wing of the Church had been eroded during the pontificate of Urban VIII (1623–44). The pontiff had bitterly opposed Spanish policy in Mantua and encouraged Louis XIII of France to act as an alternative leader of the Catholic world, despite allying with Protestant rulers.44 Facing a crisis of confessional logic in policy-making, the renewed dynastic discourse of the House of Austria was actually a proof of impotence. The recourse to a newly familiar legitimacy and spiritual protection showed that the Spanish nation and the virtue of the Iberian branch were not enough to both sustain the war effort and justify service to a Church which turned its back on Spanish policy.45

42 Alicia Esteban Estríngana, Madrid y Bruselas. Relaciones de gobierno en la etapa postarchiducal, 1621–1634 (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2005), pp. 180–85, 193–99, 207–26, 284–99; Alicia Esteban Estríngana, ‘¿Leal o desleal? El duque de Aarschot y su encarcelamiento en un contexto crítico (1629–1634)’, in Decidir la lealtad. Leales y desleales en contexto (siglos XVIXVII), ed. by Alicia Esteban Estríngana (Aranjuez: Doce Calles, 2017), pp. 239–80. 43 For the creation and negotiation of civic and ‘national’ identities through theatrical performances in the Habsburg Netherlands, see: Anne-Laure Van Bruaene, ‘The Habsburg Theatre State. Court, City and the Performance of Identity in the Early Modern Southern Low Countries’, in Networks, Regions and Nations: Shaping Identities in the Low Countries, 1300–1650, ed. by Robert Stein and Judith Pollmann (Leiden: Brill, 2009), pp. 131–50. 44 Silvano Giordano, ‘Urbano VIII, la Casa d’Austria e la libertà d’Italia’, in Papato e impero nel pontificato di Urbano VIII (1623-1644), ed. by Irene Fosi and Alexander Koller (Vatican City: Archivio Segreto Vaticano, 2013), pp. 63–82. 45 This process of sacralising the Spanish Monarchy was completed in these decades with the development of a local current of royal thaumaturgy; Roberto Quirós Rosado and Cristina Bravo Lozano, ‘Sanador, mesías y exorcista: taumaturgia regia en el pensamiento barroco

213

214

r ubé n go n z ál e z cu e rva

The famous Pietas Austriaca was an alien element for Spanish traditions, but also a part of a conscious political process based on the desperate alliance between the courts of Vienna and Madrid. The dynastic discourse spreading in the Spanish monarchy around 1635 meant an interlude that challenged the image of the progressive creation of national identities in the early modern age. The notion of ‘God’s elected nation’ played a key role in these national constructions, but we witness a shift in the Spanish providential tradition in this context. For several contemporary authors, the subject chosen by God was no more the Spanish nation but a dynasty, the House of Austria. That discourse proved to be more cosmopolitan, inclusive and adaptable to the whole Habsburg world (as seen in Flanders), lacking the impression of a Spanish imposition. Moreover, dynastic providentialism meant a middle way between the national path and papal universalism, and fitted better with the tight alliance between Madrid and Vienna that had followed since the beginning of the Thirty Years’ War. In contrast with Philip II’s disdain and duke of Lerma’s mistrust towards the German branch of the dynasty, the statesmen around Olivares held the dynastic tie in the highest esteem and insisted that the survival of the Spanish monarchy depended on its conservation.46 Not surprisingly, among the first promulgators of this new programme were the more northern vassals of Philip IV, such as the Flemish Puteanus, the Burgundian Claude Clement and the Castilian-German Juan Eusebio Niéremberg, as well as the Castilian-Italian Hortensio Félix Paravicino and the Spaniards Aguado, Pellicer, Valle, and Jarque.47 In this context, Jerónimo de Ormaechea’s written discourse on the Spanish victory of Fuenterrabía ranked the importance of the Spanish monarchy’s assets: faith, dynasty, king, and, finally, nation.48 A traditional Spanish providential discourse coexisted with innovations that are easy to identify: in lieu of rooting monarchical legitimacy in the Visigoth kingdom of Toledo, these authors insisted on the Habsburg hispánico’, Circé. Histoires, Cultures & Sociétés, 2 (2013) [accessed 18 December 2017]. 46 For Olivares, Germany was the ‘biggest wheel, which tracks the motion to the others.’ [‘como rueda mayor es la que da ley a las otras’]; Council of State’s consulta (Madrid, 13 April 1634), in: Aldea Vaquero, España y Europa, vol. III/2, p. 570; In general, see: Rubén González Cuerva, Baltasar de Zúñiga: una encrucijada de la Monarquía hispana (Madrid: Polifemo, 2012), pp. 232–40, 264–70, 365–94, 505–20. 47 The appearance, around 1635, of a renewed political culture defined as austracismo was first established in the classic book of Jover Zamora, 1635, pp. 166–83; for an updated version, see: José Martínez Millán, ‘The Habsburg Dynasty during the Seventeenth Century: The Ideological Construction of a Universal Political Entity’, in The House of Vasa and the House of Austria: Correspondence from the Years 1587 to 1688, ed. by Ryszard Skowron (Katowice: Wydawnictwo Univwersytety Slaskiego, 2016), pp. 37–68. 48 Jerónimo de Ormaechea Guerrero, Discurso apologético de la Virgen vencedora, de la fe triunfante, de la heregia vencida, de la Casa de Austria exaltada, del Católico Rey Felipe IIII sublimado, de España vengada, de Francia castigada en el sitio de Fuenterabía, el año de 1638, Logroño: Pedro de Mon Gastón Fox, 1639.

th e ki n g o f h u n g ary an d t h e card i nal o f  to le d o

legend of Rudolf I and his Eucharistic devotion; instead of stressing the protector role of St James, they promoted the candidacy of the dynastic cult of St Michael (who also holds one of the leading roles in Calderón’s play49) as new patron of Spain50; in place of presenting the warrior and pragmatic Ferdinand the Catholic as ideal king, they opted for the pious German Emperor Ferdinand II.51 Joseph Pellicer labelled the ‘Spanish-Austrian Empire’ in 1641 as a symbol of this new global order.52 Although the Treaty of Westphalia converted these projects into fantasies, this providential-dynastic discourse was still powerful enough within Spanish political culture to compensate for the loss of European hegemony during the second half of the seventeenth century.53

49 In Calderón’s play, the two Ferdinands are the ‘columns of his [Saint Michael’s] honour [los dos Fernandos, que / son columnas de su honra]’; Calderón de la Barca, El primer blasón del Austria, ed. by Roncero, vv. 634–35; on the central role of Saint Michael and the angels in Calderón’s autos sacramentales, see: Catalina Buezo, ‘La función del ángel en la puesta en escena del auto sacramental calderoniano’, in Teatro Calderoniano sobre el tablado: Calderón y su puesta en escena a través de los siglos, ed. by Manfred Tietz (Stuttgart: Franz Steiner, 2003), pp. 27–42 (pp. 35–37). 50 Juan Eusebio Niéremberg, Devoción y patrocinio de san Miguel, Madrid: María de Quiñones, 1643; Juan Eusebio Niéremberg, Recuerdo para remedio de los tiempos presentes, s.l.: s.n., s.d. [1642], pp. 14–15; this proposition of Saint Michael was not easily accepted; a few years after, Antonio Calderón, tutor of Infanta María Teresa and chaplain of the royal convent of La Encarnación, refuted Saint Michael’s patronage to the benefit of Saint James. Antonio Calderón dedicated his treatise to King Philip IV: Antonio Calderón, Excellencias y primacías del apóstol Santiago el Major único patrón de España, Madrid: Gregorio Rodríguez, 1658, pp. 242–45. 51 According to Baltasar Gracián, the biggest hit of his acclaimed Ferdinand the Catholic was ‘the divine election of the most Catholic House of Austria […] as the august successor of his Catholic zeal. [El último rey de los godos por línea de varón; pero el primero del mundo por sus prendas; cuyo mayor acierto, entre tantos, fue haber escogido, digo haber ejecutado la ya superior, divina elección de la catolicísima Casa de Austria. (…) Ésta, pues, escogió el católico y sabio rey para sucesora augusta de su católico celo, para heredera de su gran potencia, para conservadora de su prudente gobierno, para dilatadora de su felicísima monarquía, que el Cielo haga universal.]’; Baltasar Gracián, ‘El político D. Fernando el Cathólico’, in Obras de Lorenzo Gracián, divididas en dos tomos, 2 vols, Antwerp: Hieronymus Verdussen and Jean Baptiste Verdussen, 1669), i, p. 530; see also: Xavier Gil Pujol, ‘Baltasar Gracián: política de El Político’, Pedralbes, 24 (2004), 117–82 (pp. 147, 182). 52 José Pellicer de Tovar, La fama austriaca, Barcelona: Sebastián Matevad and Jaime Matevad, 1641, p. 104; Pellicer refers to a new order transcending the traditional Spanish Monarchy, for which he proposes different labels: Hispano-Austriacos (pp. 109, 145–46), Austriaco-Hispanos (pp. 105, 109), and Habsburgi-Austriaco-Hispana (pp. 113, 115v, 140v). 53 Rubén González Cuerva, ‘La última cruzada: España en la guerra de la Liga Santa (1683– 1699)’, in Tiempo de cambios: Guerra, diplomacia y política internacional de la Monarquía Hispánica (1648–1700), ed. by Porfirio Sanz Camañes (Madrid: Actas, 2012), pp. 221–48.

215

TIBOR MONOSTOR I 

The Kingdom of Hungary in Essays and Other Writings of Diego Saavedra Fajardo in the Years 1630–50

A number of unpublished essays and discourses written by the Spanish diplomat and political thinker Diego Saavedra Fajardo (1584–1648) are stored at the Archives Générales du Royaume (Algemeen Rijksarchief) in Brussels and the British Library in London. These texts, written in 1640, before and during the Diet of Regensburg, provide valuable insights into Don Diego’s mindset regarding some of the key themes that occupied him throughout his career, one of his primary priorities being the unity of the two branches of the House of Austria: the Spanish monarchy and the Habsburg monarchy in Central Europe.1 These discourses reflect the diplomat’s mature thought; they were produced in the same year that his political masterpiece, The Idea of a Politico-Christian Prince Represented in One Hundred Emblems (the Empresas Políticas), was first published in Munich, Germany, the preface of which he signed that same year in Vienna, the headquarters of the Austrian division of the Habsburg dynasty.2 The Brussels and London documents serve as a magnifying glass for the historian, zooming in on some of the principal political and rhetorical weapons the Madrid-based Spanish government and its diplomatic corps used during the Thirty Years’ War. Madrid’s considerations were global in the early modern era, as were Saavedra’s, and thus it is not a coincidence that his writings include a surprisingly large number of references to Hungary—and the parts into which it was fragmented during the Ottoman occupation of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries (the kingdom of Hungary, Ottoman Hungary, and the principality of Transylvania). The special geography and status of the kingdom of Hungary (which was simultaneously part of the Central European Habsburg monarchy, on the periphery of the Spanish system, and along the borders of both the Holy Roman Empire and the Universitas Christiana) turned out to be a trump card for Spanish propagandists and diplomats.





1 See: Tibor Monostori, ‘La Actividad Diplomática de Saavedra Fajardo en la Política Centroeuropea en el Espejo de Tres Discursos Desconocidos’, in La Dinastía de los Austria. Las Relaciones entre la Monarquía Católica y el Imperio, ed. by José Martínez Millán and Rubén González Cuerva (Madrid: Polifemo, 2011), pp. 1333–40; the author published these essays: Tibor Monostori, Saavedra Fajardo and the Myth of Ingenious Habsburg Diplomacy: A New Political Biography and Sourcebook (A Coruña: SIELAE, 2019), pp. 156–82. 2 The edition used here: Diego Saveedra Fayardo, Empresas políticas, ed. by Sagrario López Poza (Madrid: Cátedra, 1999). Eagles Looking East and West: Dynasty, Ritual and Representation in Habsburg Hungary and Spain, ed. by Tibor Martí & Roberto Quirós Rosado, Habsburg Worlds 4 (Turnhout, 2021), pp. 217–230.

© FHG

DOI 10.1484/M.HW-EB.5.122803

21 8

ti bo r m o n o s to r i

A Crossroads for the Spanish Monarchy Saavedra Fajardo spent fifteen years in the Holy Roman Empire, wandering from the Netherlands to Italy, from the Franche-Comté to Vienna, thus becoming one of the Spanish monarchy’s best-informed professionals on all matters related to Germany and its emperor during this period.3 There is no doubt that if such a thing had existed, this Spanish writer would have earned the citizenship of the Central European Habsburg monarchy. He visited Vienna multiple times, where the Spanish embassy developed into a financial and logistical centre for this world empire. He earned most of his salary and other income there.4 While constantly sending letters to Madrid and Brussels,5 he attended several imperial diets and was actively involved in strategic missions, such as the journey of Cardinal-Infante Ferdinand of Austria—the governor of the Spanish Netherlands (1634–41) and the brother of Philip IV, king of Spain (1621–65)—from Italy to Brussels in 1634, and the delivery of military and logistical supplies to the Franche-Comté. He spent years in Italy, the Swiss Confederation, Bavaria, the Spanish Netherlands, and Vienna. By the time of the 1640–41 Diet of Regensburg, he could hardly have been surprised by any political developments in Germany. Throughout his séjour in Central Europe, Saavedra kept abreast of most imperial affairs. He met Emperor Ferdinand III (1637–57) several times, as well as his family and the members of his councils; he described them at length in his correspondence. As part of his relentless effort to convert them and the German princes into closer friends and supporters of the Spanish cause in the Empire, he wrote pamphlets, letters, and essays and presented many of them to the emperor and his council members.6 On top of that, the months of July, August, September and October witnessed, by a rare coincidence (the absence of Spanish ambassadors at the imperial court), several peak moments in his



3 For a general introduction to his diplomatic missions, political philosophy, the concept of the ‘reason of state’, and his influences, see: Manuel Fraga Iribarne, Don Diego de Saavedra y Fajardo y la Diplomacia de su Época (Madrid: Centro de Estudios Políticos y Constitucionales, 1955; repr. 1998); Belén Rosa de Gea, ‘Res Pública’ y Poder. Saavedra Fajardo y los Dilemas del Mundo Hispánico (Madrid: Biblioteca Nueva, 2010); Sagrario López, Introduction to Empresas Políticas; Monostori, Saavedra Fajardo and the Myth of Ingenious Habsburg Diplomacy; for the imperial diet in Regensburg and for the edition of one of the essays see also: Quintín Aldea Vaquero, ‘Un consejero de Indias en la Dieta imperial de Ratisbona (1640–1641): Don Diego Saavedra Fajardo’, in Homenaje a Don Agustín Millares Carlo, 2 vols (Las Palmas de Gran Canaria: Confederación Española de Cajas de Ahorros, 1975), i, pp. 567–90. 4 See in the accounts (Descargo y Data) of the Spanish Embassy at Vienna from 1634 and 1635: ÖStA, HHStA, Spanien Varia, K. 7a, fol. 42r–45v; another source from 1644 confirms the same: Fraga Iribarne, Don Diego de Saavedra y Fajardo, p. 336. 5 The 16 volumes of these letters have been collected in Brussels at the National Archives: AGRB, Secrétairerie d’État et de Guerre, 342–45, 385–96. 6 The best recent edition of the diplomat’s shorter writings is: Rariora et Minora, ed. by José Luis Villacañas (Murcia: Tres Fronteras, 2008).

T he K i n g d o m o f H u n g ary i n E s s ays and Ot he r Wri t i ngs

career: he became the foremost diplomat of Spain at the court of the most important international ally of the Spanish monarchy. The first of the 1640 essays is titled ‘If the emperor should assist the Spanish Netherlands on the present occasion’ (against the Dutch7); he concluded that the emperor should. The second essay took its original title—‘The Discourse of Don Diego de Saavedra on the circumstances of the cancellation of the imperial diet’8—from the Spanish Netherlands’ secretary of state in Brussels. In reality, the content is about the state of the Empire in 1640 in detail. The extended version found in the British Library (a copy of an original text in Spain that has not yet been found) is titled in this way.9 The third essay, which was requested by one of the members of the emperor’s privy council (and was meant to be translated to German and printed), also has an informal title: ‘It is not Spain that creates enemies for the Empire’.10 The British Library version has an alternative title in this case, too, mentioning the divine providence and specifically the necessity of the union of the House of Austria.11 Of the three, the first and third include direct references to Hungary, though the themes of the second are closely related to those of the others. The Spanish diplomat was in a deep crisis of faith at the beginning of the regular constitutional assembly of the Holy Roman Empire in Regensburg in 1640. Over the preceding decades, he had served in many European courts as a representative of the most powerful kingdom in the world. For a Spanish Catholic statesman in the first half of the seventeenth century, it would have been obvious that divine providence had given the Habsburg dynasty its power, and that providence wished to hold its two branches (the Spanish and the Austrian) together. The Spanish state and the Catholic princes of the Holy Roman Empire (the latter governed by the Austrian Habsburgs) were meant to be one, and this unity was an essential condition of European peace. As part



7 AGRB, Secrétairerie d’État et de Guerre, 342, fol. 244r–45v, fol. 250r–52v: Saavedra Fajardo to the Cardinal-Infante Ferdinand, Regensburg, 26 August 1640: ‘Si el Emperador debe socorrer los Países Bajos en la ocasión presente’. 8 AGRB, Secrétairerie d’État et de Guerre, 342, fol. 254r–59v, ed. Aldea Vaquero, ‘Un consejero de Indias’, in Homenaje a Don Agustín Millares Carlo, i, pp. 567–90. 9 BL, Add. 14.004, fol. 290r–94r.: Paper on the state of affairs of the Empire in the year 1640 and the means that could be applied for its remedy. 10 AGRB, Secrétairerie d’État et de Guerre, 343, fol. 11r–11v: Saavedra Fajardo to Philip IV, Regensburg, 12 September 1640: ‘…un ministro cesáreo me propuso que convendría hacer un papel desengañando a los de esta dieta, de que no es España quien causa enemigos al Imperio, he hecho ese y lo he dado al Emperador, para que si le pareciese bien, se imprima en alemán’; For the essay, see: fol. 13r–16r. 11 BL, Add. 14.004, fols. 296r–299v: Demostración de la Providencia divina que a un tiempo cría los remedios y los males. Asistencias de España al Imperio y la conveniencia de entrambos príncipes en su unión [Demonstration of the Divine Providence, which Offers the Remedies and All Evil at the Same Time. Spain’s Assistance to the Empire, and the Convenience of the Union of Both Princes].

219

220

ti bo r m o n o s to r i

of this divine plan, the Spanish kingdom lent enormous financial, military, and political support to the Holy Roman Empire in its battles against Protestant princes and monarchies like those of the Netherlands and Sweden, and against the chief enemy of Christian Europe, the Ottoman Empire. By 1640, however, the Habsburg axis’ century-old hegemony was undoubtedly coming to an end. A growing number of military defeats, the revolt of Catalonia, and the coldness of the Austrian branch towards Madrid made it seem to Saavedra as if everything were fragile and disintegrating. And he had seen a lot, having worked in all the key Habsburg territories and met dozens of princes and military leaders. Spain’s decline was inevitable, and religious affiliation was no longer a crucial determinant of the alliances that made up the new political balance of power. Moreover, the sustainability of a possible European peace could not have been guaranteed even if it had been established by Habsburg control; the peace negotiations in Westphalia (1643–48) and their outcome proved that to be the case. A devout Christian, Saavedra believed in providence, i.e., God’s direct intervention into worldly affairs. In the Empresas Políticas, a collection of maxims, symbols, and allegorical illustrations, he outlined many similar ideas. In Emblem 95, specifically, he suggested that God had intentionally selected France as a competitor for Spain so that the latter would become more conscious of justice, peace, and the people—especially the weak—in its own territories.12 Toward the end of Spain’s hegemony over Europe, Saavedra expended an enormous amount of intellectual energy in trying to convince his audiences—including the emperor and the German princes—of the reasons which necessitated sustaining and upholding the military and political power of the House of Austria within the Empire. As a result of his outstanding erudition, comparable to that of the best writers of the Spanish Golden Age, and of his first-hand, in-the-field experience with imperial matters, Saavedra managed to develop logical rationales and theoretical structures with which to defend and justify the Spanish and Catholic causes during the Thirty Years’ War. He did not intend to strengthen the Spanish presence in Germany, since it was already well established there; given the weakening of the Pax Austriaca and its corrosive effects on Spain’s global power and the underlying concept of the monarchia universalis, he simply wanted the Spanish presence in Germany to be accepted and respected. His reasoning was compatible with actual Spanish foreign policy; he aimed to convince the imperial estates and princes of Germany to support Spain (and the dynasty in general) in its conflicts with France and the Dutch, so that the House of Austria’s peaceful hegemony over Europe could be restored and maintained.13

12 Saveedra Fayardo, Empresas políticas, ed. by López Poza, p. 984. 13 The literature on Spain’s hegemony over Europe, the vast network of the Spanish System, the history of the Spanish Road, the stipends and orders it bestowed on German (and Hungarian) princes and nobles, its family ties, and its military cooperation is extensive;

T he K i n g d o m o f H u n g ary i n E s s ays and Ot he r Wri t i ngs

Theory and Practice Conservación (conservation), remedios (remedies), and reputación (reputation) were key terms for Saavedra and many others of his generation. His chief concerns were selecting the appropriate reasons of state with which to argue for the preservation of the Habsburg dynasty’s authority, according to the status quo; offering advice on methods for restoring the economic health and military power Spain had lost; and strengthening what remained of the prestige of—and respect for—the Spanish monarchy. The nucleus of Madrid’s foreign policy was the defence of Catholicism, the protection of the heritage of Charles V, and guarding its commercial monopolies in the New World. The first step in satisfying these objectives was to defeat the Dutch United Provinces—once part of the hereditary lands of the Spanish kings—and reincorporate them into the monarchy, though they at least hoped to reach a beneficial peace with them. In order to make this happen, the count-duke of Olivares, Philip IV’s prime minister (1621–43), strove to create an alliance between the emperor, the Spanish king and the Catholic princes of the empire, a coalition which was to be both defensive and offensive. This alliance seemed feasible even up to the late 1630s; the future Emperor Ferdinand III and Cardinal-Infante Ferdinand’s victory at Nördlingen in 1634,14 the subsequent reopening of the Spanish Road, and the signature of the alliance between Madrid and Vienna on 31 October 1634 were followed by years of record Spanish subsidies to Vienna, though these were offset by the fact that Louis XIII of France (1610–43) declared war on Spain in May 1635.

for a start, see: J. H. Elliott, ‘A Question of Reputation? Spanish Foreign Policy in the Seventeeth Century’, Journal of Modern History, 55 (1983), 475–83; Friedrich Edelmayer, Söldner und Pensionäre. Das Netzwerk Philipps II. im Heiligen Römischen Reich (Vienna/ Munich: Oldenbourg, 2002); Franz Bosbach, ‘Die Habsburger und die Entstehung des Dreißigjährigen Krieges. Die “Monarchia Universalis”’, in Krieg und Politik 1618–1648. Europäische Probleme und Perspektiven, ed. by Konrad Repgen (Munich: Oldenbourg, 1988), pp. 157–68; Quintín Aldea Vaquero, ‘España y Europa en la Guerra de los Treinta Años’, Cuenta y Razón del Pensamiento Actual, 115 (2000), 65–74; Hildegard Ernst, Madrid und Wien 1632–1637. Politik und Finanzen in den Beziehungen zwischen Philipp IV. und Ferdinand II. (Münster: Aschendorff, 1991); Geoffrey Parker: The Thirty Years’ War (New York: Routledge, 1988); Peer Schmidt, Spanische Universalmonarchie oder „teutsche Libertet“. Das spanische Imperium in der propaganda des Dreißigjährigen Krieges (Stuttgart: Franz Steiner, 2001); for a general overview of Spain’s influence on the Kingdom of Hungary and the Principality of Transylvania, see: Zoltán Korpás, ‘Las Luchas Antiturcas en Hungría y la Política Oriental de los Austrias 1532–1541’, in Fernando I, 1503–1564. Socialización, Vida Privada y Actividad Pública de un Emperador del Renacimiento, ed. by Alfredo Alvar and Friedrich Edelmayer (Madrid: Sociedad estatal de conmemoraciones culturales, 2004), pp. 335–70; Tibor Monostori, ‘A Magyar Királyság helye az Ausztriai Ház országai között az európai spanyol hegemónia korában (1558–1648)’, Századok, 143 (2009), 1023–42. 14 On 6 September 1634, the allied forces of Catholic League, the Emperor, and Spain defeated Swedish and Protestant imperial forces at the battle of Nördlingen. Troops financed by Spain made up the largest proportion of the Catholic army.

221

222

ti bo r m o n o s to r i

Saavedra’s distinctive reasoning in his 1640 essays took all of these developments and their backgrounds into account. He believed the two branches of the dynasty had to move forward in the same direction and with common objectives, as their unity was the only guarantee of European peace and stability, as well as the well-being of the Holy Roman Empire, for the following reasons: (1) Divine providence had established the dynasty’s power, and wished them to hold together (transcendence and Catholicism). (2) The history of the dynasty clearly demonstrated that in the sixteenth century, Spain had lent enormous financial, military, and political support to the Empire and the Viennese court in their shared fights against Protestants, France, and the Ottoman Empire (history). (3) At that time, Spain was still providing troops and money to the common cause (finance). (4) Spain would do so even if such assistance threatened its own political integrity and peaceful development (emotion and sacrificial love). (5) The principal interest of the Holy Roman Empire and the Habsburg monarchy is to have stronger ties with Spain (political philosophy). (6) The two branches of the dynasty were bound by the strongest possible link: they shared the same blood (family ties). (7) The Spanish monarch was the leader of the Burgundian Circle of the Empire (which included the Free County of Burgundy, the Low Countries, and other territories in present-day France) and was thus a German prince. The emperor was also a German prince, and therefore both were obliged to help the other in any case of need (law). The weaknesses of such argumentation (which was used not just on paper, but also in face-to-face diplomatic negotiations, as Saavedra used the same arguments at meetings or juntas with the Emperor and his counselors) are by now obvious: the man could not see—or accept—that in Europe, religious frameworks were no longer crucial to the dynamic new balance of political power. In addition, the diplomat’s practical reasoning was often violated by strictly theoretical considerations and by the doctrines and codes of Spain. Finally, the sustainability of a possible European peace (the ultimate objective of the Empire and Spain) could not have been guaranteed if it had been established under Habsburg control, guidance, and principles. The points mentioned above are the Spanish diplomat’s principal arguments in his 1640 discursos. Hungary appears directly or indirectly under five of these headings: the wars against the Ottoman empire and the multiple diplomatic and financial connections they created between Hungary and Spain; France’s alliances with Protestant principalities, including Transylvania; the hereditary nature of the kingdom; raising armies, including Hungarian troops, with Spanish cash; and the analogy between the kingdom of Hungary and the Burgundian Circle of the Holy Roman Empire.

T he K i n g d o m o f H u n g ary i n E s s ays and Ot he r Wri t i ngs

The Ottoman Card Spain played an instrumental part in the wars against the Ottoman Empire. The kings of Spain had a twofold responsibility towards the emperor: he was their family member, and—from 1548 onward—they were the head of the Burgundian Circle, which included the Netherlands and Franche-Comté.15 As such, like other members of the Circle, Spain was obliged to pay the emperor fixed sums of money (known as Reichstürkenhilfe) during his wars against the Turks. Though Philip II suspended these payments in 1566, and offered only partial aid thereafter—which led to a long period of resentment between the two branches, closely related to their differing views of the situation in the Netherlands—money continued to flow toward Vienna through numerous channels. One recurrent issue was whether the Türkenhilfe was to be extended to the Viennese sovereign in his capacity as emperor or in his role as the king of Hungary.16 On the other hand, Spain’s frequent invasions and plundering of imperial lands made the imperial estates reluctant to vote for such subsidies on a number of occasions. These conflicts were interconnected, if loosely, through the various theatres of war, principally the Mediterranean and continental Europe (mostly in the former medieval state of Hungary), as demonstrated by the siege, occupation, and liberation of the island of Malta in 1565.17 The Spanish embassy in Vienna seems to have played an influential role in forming the Austrian Habsburgs’ foreign policy toward Constantinople, where not only the emperor’s emissaries, but also those of the Italian kingdoms (Naples and Sicily) conducted negotiations. Conversely, the emperor’s representatives in Madrid turned regularly to the Consejo de Estado, the Spanish monarchy’s council of state.18

15 Peter Rauscher, ‘Kaisertum und hegemoniales Königtum: Die kaiserliche Reaktion auf die niederländische Politik Philipps II. von Spanien’, in Die Epoche Philipps II. (1556–1598), ed. by Friedrich Edelmayer (Vienna/Munich: Oldenbourg, 1999), pp. 57–88. 16 Jan-Paul Niederkorn, Die europäischen Mächte und der „Lange Türkenkrieg“Kaiser Rudolfs II (1593–1606) (Vienna: Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1993), pp. 183–255. 17 Der Briefwechsel zwischen Ferdinand I., Maximilian II. und Adam von Dietrichstein 1563–1565, ed. by Arno Strohmeyer (Vienna/Munich: Oldenbourg, 1997). 18 See Philip IV’s letter sent from Madrid to the Duke of Guastalla, dated 11 February 1632, on the measures to be taken to prevent the Ottoman Empire from becoming more active at a stage in the Thirty Years’ War when France was getting more and more involved in European politics; it was urging the Kingdoms of Naples and Sicily to send representatives to Constantinople, negotiations with which were supposed to be coordinated with the Emperor’s envoys. The duke was instructed to discuss this issue with the most powerful member of the Spanish faction in Vienna, Prince Hans Ulrich von Eggenberg, the president of the Privy Council of the Emperor Ferdinand II; ÖStA, HHStA, Spanien Hofkorrespondenz, K. 4., Map. 26., fol. 37r–38v; another copy of this letter, stored in the Simancas State Archives in Spain, was published in: Heinrich Günter, Die Habsburger-Liga 1625–1635. Briefe und Akten aus dem General-Archiv zu Simancas (Berlin: Ebering, 1908), doc. 68 (pp. 330–31); an example of the Austrian presence in Madrid is the diplomat Franz Christoph Khevenhüller, whose petitions were frequently discussed and decided upon

223

224

ti bo r m o n o s to r i

Spain’s interest in the battlefields of the east decreased after the naval victory over the Ottomans at Lepanto in 1571, but was renewed during the Long Turkish War (1593–1606), though it would never again equal the intensity it reached during the reign of Emperor Charles V (1519–56), when the number of Spanish mercenaries in Hungary rose to a record level.19 By the end of the sixteenth century, troops had been replaced by money, both cash and metal (sometimes including silver coming directly from America20), which reached a total of 2.5 million escudos during the Long War. This balance changed again at the beginning of the Thirty Years’ War, by which time the long-standing peace with the Ottomans allowed the Habsburgs to keep soldiers in the Holy Roman Empire and use them against the Protestant princes and France. Saavedra was well aware that Spanish subsidies to the Austrian territories had helped defend royal Hungary from the Turkish Empire since the age of Charles V.21 The Spanish diplomat also highlighted another case in which Spanish troops had helped defeat Constantinople and its allies. At the battle of White Mountain in 1620, soldiers from Italy under the command of Girolamo Caraffa, the marquis of Montenegro, played an important role in routing the allied Protestant forces; Saavedra specifically mentions Gabriel Bethlen, the prince of Transylvania (1613–29) whose long history of military campaigns against the emperor had been supported by the Ottomans.22

Anti-Austrian Alliances and Transylvania Saavedra’s comment on Bethlen was only one of many references in his works to a long list of anti-Habsburg forces. These groups were centred primarily in the Dutch United Provinces, France, and the Ottoman Empire;23 in Saavedra’s propagandistic writings, these three states were the main actors

19 20 21 22

23

during the meetings of the State Council in Madrid. See his letter from Madrid to the Emperor, dated 8 June 1621, which included the Spanish state secretary’s reply to his petition. It stated that the Council had decided to support his request to send Spain’s Italian marine force to confront the Ottomans: ÖStA, HHStA, Spanien Diplomatische Korrespondenz, K. 16, Map. 318, fol. 126–36v, especially fol. 127r. Zoltán Korpás, V. Károly és Magyarország (Budapest: Századvég, 2008). One document explains how the Türkenhilfe of 1595, sent in the form of precious metal, travelled from Sevilla through Barcelona and Genova to Tirol: ÖStA, HHStA, Spanien Varia, K. 3, fol. 121r–121v. AGRB, Secrétairerie d’État et de Guerre, 343, fol. 13v: It is not Spain that creates enemies. AGRB, Secrétairerie d’État et de Guerre, 343, fol. 13v: It is not Spain that creates enemies: ‘El conde [sic] de Montenegro con gente y dinero de España asistió a la defensa del Imperio contra el Turco, unido con el Gabor.’; Caraffa stayed in the Empire after the battle of White Mountain; for the foreign policy of the princes of Transylvania, see: Ágnes R. Várkonyi, ‘The European Balance of Power and the Hungarian National Independence’, in The Fabric of Modern Europe: Studies in Social and Diplomatic History, ed. by Attila Pók (Nottingham: Astra Press, 1999), pp. 1–12. AGRB, Secrétairerie d’État et de Guerre, 343, fol. 14r: It is not Spain that creates enemies.

T he K i n g d o m o f H u n g ary i n E s s ays and Ot he r Wri t i ngs

against the status quo. The United Provinces were the Spanish monarchy’s primary enemy, while France represented the greatest threat to Madrid’s political investments in Germany and Italy. The Spanish diplomat experienced this in the field. He spent the longest period of his diplomatic career in Munich, the capital of Bavaria; the primary reason for his stay there was to keep that state’s prince-elector, Maximilian I (1597–1651), on the side of the Casa de Austria. Losing Bavaria to France might have triggered a series of similar defections throughout the Empire.24 Since France was Catholic, it was not always easy to find arguments against its political agenda. Nevertheless, in addition to the fact that Paris had allied itself with the Ottoman Empire and many Protestant princes, Saavedra used two of his written discourses to discuss the 1544 imperial diet of Speyer, where France was declared an enemy of the Empire (Reichsfeind) because of its alliance with Constantinople.25 After 1640, Saavedra twice more shifted his focus to the principality of Transylvania and its alliance with France—a demonstration of the careful attention he paid to developments in the kingdom of Hungary (and beyond). In 1644, while attending the peace negotiations in Westphalia as a representative of Madrid, he sent a treatise to Brussels about all the alliances France had signed with Protestant principalities, including Transylvania, to which he attached a series of intercepted messages between France’s ambassador to Constantinople and George I Rákóczi, prince of Transylvania (1630–48), who had signed an alliance with Sweden in 1643 and would sign another with France in 1645.26

24 Saavedra Fajardo to the Cardinal-Infante Ferdinand (Braunau, 24 August 1633), in: España y Europa en el siglo XVII. Correspondencia de Saavedra Fajardo, ed. by Quintín Aldea Vaquero, 3 vols (Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Históricas, 1986–2008), i (1986), pp. 102–03. 25 AGRB, Secrétairerie d’État et de Guerre, 343, fol. 14r: It is not Spain that creates enemies: ‘Y si para socorrer a Hungría contra el Turco se une todo el Imperio, porque si bien no es miembro de él, conviene guardar aquel antemural, mayor razón hay para socorrer y conservar los dos antemurales, el estado de Milan y de los Países Bajos, cuyas invasiones no le son menos peligrosas que las de Hungría, siendo el Turco y el Rey de Francia declarados enemigos hereditarios del Imperio en la Dieta de Spira el año 1544.’; AGRB, Secrétairerie d’État et de Guerre, 342, fol. 244r–45v, fol. 250v: If the Emperor should assist the Spanish Netherlands: ‘Si para defender a Hungría contra el Turco junta siempre el Imperio sus fuerzas, aunque aquel reino no es parte del Imperio, movido de la razón de estado de no tener vecino a un enemigo tan grande, la misma y mucho mayor debe moverle a asistir a los Países Bajos, parte del Imperio, contra Francia, pues en la dieta de Spira el año de 1544 fueron declarados enemigos hereditarios del Imperio el Turco y el Rey de Francia’. 26 ‘También me manda Vuestra Majestad que esparza algunos tratadillos que puedan inducir a la paz, deshacer los designios de Francia […] otro tratado que he enviado a imprimir a Bruselas, sin autor ni lugar, en el cual están todos los Tratados de Ligas y confederaciones de Francia con holandeses y sueceses, y la que últimamente han hecho con Suecia y el Príncipe de Transilvania a daño del Imperio y de la cristiandad, poniendo algunas cartas interceptas del Embajador de Francia, residente en Constantinopla, escritas al transilvano,

225

226

ti bo r m o n o s to r i

One year later, Saavedra faced another unexpected twist. Rákóczi’s diplomats wanted official passports so as to be able to participate in peace talks in Münster and Osnabrück. France supported their request, the approval of which would have been a significant blow to the delegates of the Spanish king and the emperor. What made the situation even more difficult for them was that France supported two other mini-states on the European chessboard— Catalonia and Portugal—both of which might have been inspired to ask for the same rights Transylvania had requested.27

Hungarian Troops Raised on Spanish Cash In 1635, a few months after the signing of a formal but secret alliance between Madrid and Vienna in October 1634, Saavedra was sent to Stuttgart to negotiate with imperial authorities. Spain obtained the right to raise troops in the Holy Roman Empire, including the hereditary lands of the emperor. Tensions immediately developed between imperial and Spanish officials. Imperial authorities rightfully claimed that troops raised on Spanish money were no longer imperial forces, and therefore could not be garrisoned in free imperial cities (freie Reichsstädte). As a consequence, Madrid had to spend more money on them than originally expected. Saavedra tried to argue with Spain’s magnanimity: they could have raised soldiers outside of Germany much more easily.28 Paying for troops—either directly recruiting them or bearing the costs of recruitment conducted by the emperor—was cheaper outside the Holy

en que le avisa las diligencias que hacía con el Turco para que le diese licencia de entrar con sus armas en Hungría […] Y tengo por cierto que será este tratado muy importante para turbar a Francia […].’; his letter to Philip IV, Münster, 6 May 1644: Obras completas de Diego Saavedra Fajardo, ed. by A. González Palencia (Madrid: M. Aguilar, 1946), p. 1383. 27 ‘También remito un papel que el Embajador de Venecia de parte de los franceses ha dado a los cesareanos, declarando que por el título 14 de su proposición se debe dar pasaporte a los Diputados de Ragozi para venir a concluir la paz […], cuyo fin es embarazar con eso los tratados y perturbar las cosas de Hungría, trayéndolas aquí, e impedir que no se confirmen las capitulaciones ya hechas entre el Emperador y Ragozi, poniéndole en consideración que las podrá aventajar aquí, y que lo ajustare quedará más firme con la autoridad de todo el Imperio; […] y si concediere estos pasaportes (de que no dudo), luego los pedirán franceses para portugueses y catalanes, …’; Saavedra to Philip IV, Münster 20 June 1645: Obras completas, ed. by González Palencia, pp. 1426–27; for further details, see: Tibor Monostori, ‘Transilvania en el Horizonte Político-Ideológico de Saavedra Fajardo,’ Res Publica, 19 (2008), 351–66. 28 Saavedra Fajardo to the count of Oñate, extraordinary envoy of Spain in Vienna (Stuttgart, 23 March 1635): Tibor Monostori, ‘Tres Cartas Inéditas en el Archivo de Estado de Viena (1635–1644)’, in Rariora et minora, ed. by Villacañas, pp. 311–12; cf. the letter of the count of Oñate to Matthias Gallas, lieutenant-general in the imperial army 1 month before, informing him about the mission of Saavedra: Documenta Bohemica Bellum Tricennale Illustrantia, ed. by Toegel Miroslav and others, 7 vols (Prague: Academia, 1971–81), v (1977), p. 362.

T he K i n g d o m o f H u n g ary i n E s s ays and Ot he r Wri t i ngs

Roman Empire. Thousands of mercenaries were hired in Poland29 and from the kingdom of Hungary; these were sometimes called croatos or ungaros, often interchangeably. Some of these units (all of which were cavalry) were intended for (and were probably deployed in) the 1636 campaign against France.30 The chancellor of Bohemia, Vilém Slavata, sent regular letters about them,31 as did Francesco del Carretto, the marquis of Grana and a general of the imperial army,32 and Péter Pázmány, archbishop of Esztergom and primate of Hungary.33 Saavedra was fully aware of and familiar with the capabilities of cavalry troops raised in the East.34 Scholars have yet to conduct any thorough explorations of the roles these units played in the Spanish military strategy and their significance to it, the careers such soldiers made for themselves, or how they were integrated into Madrid’s overall foreign policy.

Family Ties and the Hereditary Kingdom of Hungary French propaganda and diplomacy of the 1610s highlighted Spain’s efforts to acquire the kingdoms of Hungary and Bohemia, and, perhaps eventually, the imperial title.35 France’s fears of Spanish expansionism were particularly acute from 1612 until 1619, when Ferdinand II was elected Holy Roman Emperor. Philip III (king of Spain from 1598–1621) and his counselors were indeed interested in the possibility of nominating him to be king of Hungary and Bohemia. Since Philip came directly from the line of Charles V, while the Austrian line descended from Emperor Ferdinand I (1558–64), the Spanish seriously considered this an option. In the end, this possibility was nullified by the secret Oñate treaty (named after the count of Oñate, Madrid’s ambassador to Vienna), signed in 1617, according to which the Spanish king renounced

29 AGRB, Secrétairerie d’État et de Guerre, 343, fol. 14v: It is not Spain that creates enemies. 30 In 1635, the count of Oñate gave money to the Emperor to contract 3 thousand soldiers from Hungary; ÖStA, HHStA, Spanien Varia, K. 7a, Descargo y Datta…, passim. 31 For his letters to A. P. Slavata, sent from Vienna on 30 June and 28 July 1635, see: Documenta Bohemica, vi (1979), p. 37. 32 For his letter to Matthias Gallas, lieutenant-general in the imperial army, sent from Vienna on 22 March 1634, see: Documenta Bohemica, v, p. 266. 33 For his letter to George I Rákóczi, Prince of Transylvania, sent from Pressburg on 7 March 1635, see: Pázmány Péter Összegyűjtött Levelei [The Collected Letters of Péter Pázmány], ed. by Ferencz Hanuy, 2 vols (Budapest, Budapesti m. kir. tudományegyetem tanácsa, 1910–11), ii (1911), p. 556. 34 Saavedra Fajardo to the count of Oñate (Braunau, 10 March 1634): Correspondencia, ed. by Aldea Vaquero, ii, p. 62. 35 For a letter by Cardinal Richelieu (later chief minister to the King of France, at that time foreign secretary) sent to the count of Schomberg from Paris on 29 December 1616, see: Lettres, instructions diplomatiques et papiers d’État du Cardinal de Richelieu, ed. by M. Avenel, 8 vols (Paris: Impr. Impériale, 1853–77), i (1853), p. 223.

227

228

ti bo r m o n o s to r i

his claims to the thrones of Hungary and Bohemia. In return, Spain expected to acquire other territories in the Holy Roman Empire.36 In his essays, Saavedra used this treaty as important evidence for his argument that Spain had sacrificed land, material wealth, and some of its best people in securing peace and stability for the territories of the Empire. Since the king of Spain had renounced his rights to the above-mentioned lands, it was obvious that he had no interest in increasing his power in Germany.37 Saavedra felt that these subsidies should not have flowed in only one direction, and sometimes they did not: given that the emperor was the closest relative of the king of Spain, and that Spain was technically a vassal to the emperor because of some of the the Empire’s Italian, Burgundian, and French territories, Spain considered the two realms mutually obliged to assist to each other.38 For Saavedra, the family ties between the two branches of the dynasty served as the divine reason and transcendent justification for repelling any enemy of the Casa de Austria in Europe.39

A Comparison of the Burgundian Circle and Hungary A Rhetorical Analogy Saavedra asserted that the king of Spain was the leader of the Burgundian Circle in the Empire, and thus a German prince. To Saavedra, it was obvious that the estates of the Empire were obligated to fight against the Dutch rebels in the Netherlands.40 The next step was to demonstrate the following logical imperative: if the Empire was continually recruiting forces to defend the kingdom of Hungary against the Ottomans, even though Hungary was not part of the Empire, then why not defend the Netherlands—part of the Burgundian Circle of the Empire—against the Dutch rebels and France?

36 Magdalena S. Sánchez, ‘A House Divided: Spain, Austria and the Bohemian and Hungarian Successions’, Sixteenth Century Journal, 25 (1994), 887–903. 37 AGRB, Secrétairerie d’État et de Guerre, 343, fol. 14r: It is not Spain that creates enemies. 38 AGRB, Secrétairerie d’État et de Guerre, 343, fol. 14v: It is not Spain that creates enemies: ‘… asistencias recíprocas entre el Emperador y la corona de España, las cuales no como Emperador, sino como Rey de Hungría y Bohemia, y como Archiduque de Austria, cuñado y primo del rey de Espana, está obligado por razón natural y política’. 39 AGRB, Secrétairerie d’État et de Guerre, 343, fol. 14r: It is not Spain that creates enemies: ‘El que se opone a esta unión y quiere separar la línea de la casa de Austria de Alemania de la de España con pretexto de excusar enemigos, se opone a los designios de la divina providencia que las unió para mantener con ellas el Imperio y es enemigo declarado del o imprudente, pues le quiere quitar los medios de su defensa’. 40 AGRB, Secrétairerie d’État et de Guerre, 342, fol. 244r–45v, fol. 250r–v: If the Emperor should assist the Spanish Netherlands.

T he K i n g d o m o f H u n g ary i n E s s ays and Ot he r Wri t i ngs

The Spanish diplomat enjoyed the use of comparisons in his work, bolstering his arguments with long lists of analogies and examples from all parts of the European system of states. During the negotiations in Westphalia he once again became more involved in the affairs of the Austrian branch of the dynasty, and he compared Transylvania, Catalonia and Portugal, all of which were French allies by the end of the Thirty Years’ War.41

Spain and Hungary in Saavedra’s Writings A Direct Connection Saavedra was personally acquainted with a number of Hungarians. He dedicated a few lines of his Empresas políticas to them, and suggested on the basis of first-hand experience that they were proud, and conservative regarding their privileges; they maintained many customs of the nations that had fought against them or with them.42 He respected Péter Pázmány, archbishop of Esztergom and primate of Hungary.43 Saavedra had multiple opportunities to meet nobles, soldiers, and others from Hungary: at imperial diets, on battlefields, at the Viennese court, or when he ordered Hungarian horses to be delivered to Bavaria. Historians have come across new pieces of similar information, such as the story of the intercepted communication between France’s ambassador to Constantinople and George I Rákóczi, prince of Transylvania.44 One source points out that it was probably George Lippay, archbishop of Esztergom (1642–66), who obtained these letters and showed them to Spanish diplomats in Vienna, who later forwarded them to Saavedra.45 In a previously unknown, lengthy manuscript of the Spanish writer, the Antineutralidad, written in 1640, and held in Brussels and Madrid, he covered the aforementioned topics as well. There he also liked to quote books of

41 See Tibor Monostori, ‘Francia gyalogok az európai sakktáblán. Az erdélyi, katalán és portugál érdekérvényesítés a vesztfáliai béketárgyalásokon (1643–48)’, in Tavaszi Szél Konferenciakiadvány. Társadalomtudományok, ed. by Tamás Mankovits and others (Budapest: Doktoranduszok Országos Szövetsége, 2007), pp. 117–22. 42 Saveedra Fayardo, Empresas políticas, ed. by López Poza, p. 885 (emblem 81). 43 Saavedra to the count of Oñate (Braunau, 8 March 1634): Correspondencia, ed. by Aldea Vaquero, ii, p. 38. 44 See note 26. 45 ‘Estos días ha venido aquí el Arzobispo de Estrigonia [George Lippay] con algunos otros caballeros húngaros sin el Palatino [Miklós Esterházy, palatine of Hungary, 1625–45] por su poca salud, haciendo gran ruido de que Ragozi armaba y se entendía con Torstenson, comprobándose esto con cartas interceptas de este en que ofrecía facilitar la licencia del Turco para acometer los estados del Emperador por medio de los ministros de Francia que están en aquella corte.’; the Marquis of Castel Rodrigo, the Spanish ambassador to Vienna to Philip IV, Vienna 24 January 1644: AGS, Estado, leg. 2345, s.f.

229

23 0

ti bo r m o n o s to r i

medieval and early modern historians, sometimes very extensively, such as the Rerum Ungaricarum Decades of Antonio de Bonfini about Hungary.46 The many links and shared contexts exhibited in this paper are not coincidental: there was a single system of states in Europe, and Hungary was an important element of the Spanish Habsburgs’ foreign-policy strategies within the Empire, as is made clear by Diego Saavedra Fajardo’s essays, diplomatic correspondence and other texts. Diego Saavedra Fajardo, a diplomat and political thinker of the Spanish Golden Age, composed pamphlets, essays, treatises, and discourses throughout his career. While executing and accommodating the agenda of the Madridbased government during the second half of the Thirty Years’ War, he focused on convincing decision-makers and the public within the Holy Roman Empire—including the Emperor, his counselors, and the nobility—of the need for an alliance between the Austrian and Spanish branches of the Habsburg dynasty and the Catholic princes. Saavedra defended and justified the Spanish cause by combining a wide range of historical, political, financial, and legal arguments into a logical rationale, thereby developing a theoretical structure for upholding the military and political power of the Casa de Austria in Germany. This diplomat’s three major arguments involved Spain’s continuous financial and military subsidies to Vienna in its conflicts with Protestant princes, the Ottoman Empire, and France; the legal status of the Spanish king and the former territories of the Spanish monarchy within the Holy Roman Empire; and the international alliances against the House of Habsburg. According to published documents, and unpublished material from the archives in Vienna, Brussels, London, Simancas and Madrid that were written by Saavedra, the kingdom of Hungary was a lively rhetorical weapon in such arguments. Its importance was highlighted by its wars against the Ottoman Empire, which created multiple diplomatic and financial connections between Hungary and Spain; by the alliance between France and the Protestant principality of Transylvania; by Hungary’s status as a hereditary land of the Austrian branch of the dynasty; by the troops raised there on Spanish cash; and by the analogy between Hungary and the Burgundian Circle of the Empire. Given that Saavedra’s reasoning was in harmony with Spain’s foreign policy, the foregoing evidence underscores the view that in many areas Hungary played an important role in Madrid’s strategies for pursuing their European agenda and their interests within the Holy Roman Empire.

46 Monostori Tibor, ‘Antineutralidad: An Unknown and Unpublished Book of Diego de Saavedra Fajardo’, Janus, 7 (2018), 1–18 (p. 12).

CRISTINA BRAVO LOZANO 

Hymenaeus in The Hague Inaugural and Dynastic Celebrations of Spanish Diplomats in the United Provinces, 1649*

‘For the ancients referred to the time of war as the Iron Age and to the time of peace as the Golden Age, God will wish our age to be as solid as that rich metal, and the forthcoming glow will announce the beginning of a universal age, with the union of both Crowns’.1

This alchemical metaphor was used by the Franc-Comtois diplomat Antoine Brun to emphasise the conciliatory attitude of the Spanish king during his first mission to the deputies of the States General of the United Provinces in June 1649. The audience took place shortly after the signature of the Treaty of Münster, by virtue of which Philip IV recognised the sovereignty of his former vassals, bringing to an end the Eighty Years’ War.2 It was a long-desired peace: various attempts at negotiation had ended in nothing, and at first most people took this new treaty as the beginning of another temporary truce, rather than a long-lasting agreement. Despite the numerous concessions made by the Spanish monarchy, it was only a partial agreement.3 The beginning of the war between Spain and France in 1635 had shifted Philip IV’s attention away from the Low Countries and the overseas territories.







* This study has been undertaken within the framework of the programme Tomás y Valiente (MIAS-UAM), and the project funded by the Dirección General de Investigación del Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad Sociedad cortesana y redes diplomáticas: la proyección europea de la monarquía de España (1659–1725) (HAR2015–67069–P, MINECO/ FEDER, UE). I must thank David Govantes-Edwards for the translation of this text. 1 AGS, Estado, leg. 2070, document 85: Discourse of Antoine Brun (S. l., June 1649). Informed of the ambassador’s actions, Philip IV endorsed the treatment given by Antoine Brun to the States General, and compelled him to ‘continue that way, which is the right way’. AGS, Estado, leg. 2258: Philip IV to Antoine Brun (Madrid, 31 August 1649). 2 Jorge Castel, España y el tratado de Munster (1644–1648) (Madrid: s. n., 1956); Maurits Ebben, ‘Partidarios y detractores de la paz en la república de las Provincias Unidas’, in El final de la guerra de Flandes (1621–1648), ed. by Catherine Geens (Madrid: Fundación Carlos de Amberes, 1998), pp. 39–50 (pp. 47–50). 3 Ebben, ‘Partidarios y detractores’, in El final de la guerra, ed. by Geens, p. 45; Quintín Aldea Vaquero, ‘La Paz de Westfalia’, in 350 años de la Paz de Westfalia. Del antagonismo a la integración en Europa, ed. by Bernardo José García García (Madrid: Biblioteca Nacional de España/Fundación Carlos de Amberes, 1999), pp. 15–20 (p. 17). Eagles Looking East and West: Dynasty, Ritual and Representation in Habsburg Hungary and Spain, ed. by Tibor Martí & Roberto Quirós Rosado, Habsburg Worlds 4 (Turnhout, 2021), pp. 231–248.

© FHG

DOI 10.1484/M.HW-EB.5.122804

23 2

c r i s ti n a b r avo loz an o

After a long period of conflict, interrupted by the Twelve Years’ Truce (1609–21), the confrontation with the seven rebel provinces had reached a stalemate, and the Spanish king needed to redeploy his forces to face the French threat to Flanders’ southern border.4 In the 1640s, the situation became critical, with revolts in Catalonia and Portugal, aristocratic unrest in Andalusia and Aragon, popular movements in Sicily and Naples, and a new episode of plague that decimated the city of Seville, which was the main commercial link with the American dominions. All of these factors threatened the stability of the Spanish monarchy, whose weakness made an understanding with the States General an absolute necessity.5 At this crucial juncture, Philip IV and his counsellors considered their first priority to be the consolidation of the legitimacy of Spanish position in the continent. In order to preserve the status quo that preceded the Thirty Years’ War, they went about gathering support from other European powers, which necessarily involved a change of strategy. The material and spiritual reconquest of the now-independent provinces was unattainable. The Republic, for its part, also favoured peace in order to halt the economic drain of the war and take full advantage of the commercial possibilities that a rapprochement with the Spanish monarchy created.6 In addition to these factors, both powers had to keep an eye on the French threat, despite the momentary weakness of the Bourbon monarchy, which was under the regency of Anne of Habsburg and still suffering the repercussions of the first Fronde.7 These shared concerns led to an intensification of diplomatic efforts in 1646, within the framework created by the Peace of Westphalia.8 The Spanish



4 Ebben, ‘Partidarios y detractores’, in El final de la guerra, ed. by Geens, pp. 46–47. 5 Manuel Herrero Sánchez, El acercamiento hispano-neerlandés (1648–1678) (Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas, 2000), pp. 36–37. 6 Jonathan I. Israel, ‘El final de la guerra de Flandes’, in El final de la guerra de Flandes (1621– 1648), ed. by Catherine Geens (Madrid: Fundación Carlos de Amberes, 1998), pp. 27–38 (p. 35); Ebben, ‘Partidarios y detractores’, in El final de la guerra, ed. by Geens, pp. 45–47. 7 For the impact of the Fronde in the peace negotiations, see: Paul Sonnino, ‘Prelude to the Fronde. The French Delegation at the Peace of Westphalia’, in Der Westfälische Friede, ed. by Heinz Duchhardt (Munich: Oldenbourg, 1998), pp. 217–33; Lucien Bély, ‘The Peace Treaties of Westphalia and the French Domestic Crisis’, in Der Westfälische Friede, ed. by Heinz Duchhardt (Munich: Oldenbourg, 1998), pp. 235–52; Paul Sonino, Mazarin’s Quest. The Congress of Westphalia and the Coming of the Fronde (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2008). 8 On the Peace of Westphalia, see: Le diplomate au travail. Entscheidungsprozesse, Information und Kommunikation im Umkreis des Westfälischen Friedenskongresses, ed. by Rainer Babel (Munich: Oldenbourg, 2005); Arnaud Blin, 1648, la paix de Westphalie, ou, La Naissance de l’Europe politique moderne (Brussels: Complexe, 2006); Dexter Croxton, Westphalia. The Last Christian Peace (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2013). In this context, the negotiations between the Spanish monarchy with the United Provinces were analyzed in Jonathan Israel, The Dutch Republic and the Hispanic World, 1606–1661 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1982), pp. 347–374; Manuel Herrero Sánchez, ‘El congreso de Westfalia y la paz bilateral de Münster entre la Monarquía Hispánica y las Provincias Unidas’, in Monarquías en conflicto. Linajes y noblezas en la articulación de la Monarquía Hispánica, coord. by José Ignacio Fortea Pérez, Juan Eloy Gelabert González, Roberto López Vela and Elena Postigo Castellanos (Santander: Universidad de Cantabria-Fundación Española de Historia Moderna, 2018), vol. 1, pp. 87-128.

h y me nae u s i n t he hagu e

representatives in Münster were Gaspar de Bracamonte, count of Peñaranda, Antoine Brun, and Diego de Saavedra Fajardo.9 The ministers’ negotiating stance was informed by the urgency of reaching an honourable agreement with the States General.10 In order to facilitate this outcome, a ceremonial was established that, de facto, gave Spanish and Dutch representatives the same rank. The eight Dutch agents were treated as though they were the plenipotentiaries of a prince or a sovereign republic.11 On 8 January 1647, despite the schemes of Cardinal Giulio Mazzarino and the French ambassadors, who had tried to place obstacles in the way of peace, the negotiators reached a preliminary agreement, which included seventy clauses. The first one recognised the former rebels as ‘Sovereign and free States, provinces and countries’, which was in-keeping with the chosen ceremonial.12 The main purpose was the preservation of the body politic of the Spanish monarchy, and thus the loss of these territories was considered necessary in order to close down one of the most dangerous foreign fronts and gain stability in its global imperium. Immediately before these negotiations and the signing of the Treaty of Münster, Philip IV had dealt with the deaths of the Queen Elisabeth of Bourbon (1644) and his heir, Balthasar Charles (1646). Four days before the final agreement was announced, forced by these circumstances, the Spanish king made public his decision to marry his niece, the Archduchess Maria Anna of Habsburg, former betrothed of his late son.13

9 On the diplomatic performance of Saavedra Fajardo, see: Manuel Fraga Iribarne, Don Diego de Saavedra Fajardo y la diplomacia de su época (Madrid: Ministerio de Asuntos Exteriores, 1955); the services rendered by Antoine Brun before this mission, as well as his relationship with Saavedra Fajardo, are analyzed in: Annonciade de Cambolas, ‘El servicio al conde de Borgoña como objeto trasnacional en la Monarquía de Felipe IV: Antoine Brun vs. Pierre Roose’, in Servir al rey en la Monarquía de los Austrias. Medios, fines y logros del servicio al soberano en los siglos XVI y XVII, ed. by Alicia Esteban Estríngana (Madrid: Sílex, 2012), pp. 489–518. 10 María Victoria López-Cordón, ‘La paz oculta: propaganda, información y política en torno a Westfalia’, Pedralbes, 19 (1999), 71–95 (pp. 71–72); Miguel Ángel Ochoa Brun, Historia de la diplomacia española, 12 vols (Madrid: Ministerio de Asuntos Exteriores, 1991–2018), viii (2006), p. 22; in his work Locuras de Europa, Saavedra Fajardo stated that ‘the mouths talk peace but the hearts and the quills are full of war. Hypocrisy reigns supreme’: Diego de Saavedra Fajardo, ‘Locuras de Europa’, in Obras completas, ed. by Ángel González Palencia (Madrid: Aguilar, 1946), p. 1200. 11 Hans Bots, ‘La paix de Münster etles ambassadeurs des Provinces-Unies : Les liens avec la République des Lettres’, in L’Europe des traités de Westphalie. Esprit de la diplomatie et diplomatie de l’esprit, dir. by Lucien Bély (Paris: PUF, 2000), pp. 431–38. 12 José Alcalá-Zamora y Queipo de Llano, ‘La Monarquía Hispánica y Westfalia’, in 350 años de la Paz de Westfalia. Del antagonismo a la integración en Europa, ed. by Bernardo José García García (Madrid: Biblioteca Nacional de España/Fundación Carlos de Amberes, 1999), pp. 21–31 (p. 29); the full text of the Treaty of Münster is published in: Colección De Los tratados De Paz, Alianza, Neutralidad, Garantía […] Reynado del Sr. Rey D. Phelipe IV, ed. by José Antonio Abreu y Bertodano, 7 vols (Madrid: Antonio Marín, Juan de Zuñiga, y la Viuda de Peralta, 1746–50), v (1750), p. 12. 13 BNE, Mss. 11027, ff. 336r-339v: Copy of the order of Philip IV. Madrid, 4 January 1647; Teresa Zapata Fernández de la Hoz, La corte de Felipe IV se viste de fiesta. La entrada de Mariana de Austria (Valencia: Universitat de València, 2016), p. 14.

233

23 4

c r i s ti n a b r avo loz an o

This succession of events forced the hand of the Spanish monarchy even further, making it yet more amenable to displaying signs of appeasement towards the Dutch, and to forming an agreement with its enemies at short notice.

A conciliatory embassy: Antoine Brun’s reception at The Hague After the formal signature of the Treaty of Münster on 30 January 1648 – ratified by Philip IV on 15 May – the practical recognition of the Dutch Republic was embodied by the exchange of ambassadors from both signatory powers.14 The person elected by the Spanish king to represent him to his new friends was Antoine Brun, former plenipotentiary at Münster and member of the council of Flanders. He was chosen because of his prestige among the Republic’s leadership and his experience as a negotiator, along with his language skills, his familiarity with Dutch customs, and his favourable disposition towards the Dutch political and mercantile oligarchies. The political aim of his mission was to preserve the recent peace agreements.15 After eight decades of war, it was necessary to begin a new period and create a climate of trust, mutual understanding, and full cooperation. It was the turn of diplomacy, after the political and legal nature of the new sovereign state had been established, to conciliate the interests of two contradictory political entities: a freed vassal and his former master. Philip IV’s conciliatory policies crystallised visibly in the institutional profile of the embassy and its associated ceremonial practices. In this uncertain setting, the first moves by the embassy pursued the consolidation of the Spanish diplomatic presence at the heart of the States General: The Hague. In the Baroque culture of the elites, where appearances were everything, Antoine Brun’s legacy had to consider such things as a diplomatic residence capable of representing Philip IV with all the dignity due to his monarchy, without breaking the Calvinist discretion of the environment. As a representative of the Catholic King, the embassy also had to include a place for prayer, which was to remain open to local Catholics, and would eventually become a centre of political power and focus for the king’s coreligionists. A series of Flemish funds were set up to cover the costs of the house as well as the ambassador’s salary and travel expenses, and it was declared that ‘shortfalls will be covered by the army budget’.16 In terms of both organisation and funding, the Spanish 14 Thomas Weller, ‘Las repúblicas europeas y la Paz de Westfalia: la representación republicana en las negociaciones de Münster y Osnabrück’, in Repúblicas y republicanismo en la Europa moderna (siglos XVI-XVIII), ed. by Manuel Herrero Sánchez (Madrid: Fondo de Cultura Económica, 2017), pp. 329–48 (p. 333). 15 NADH, Staten Generaal, exp. 7042: Philip IV to the General States (Madrid, 13 December 1648). Ochoa Brun, Historia de la diplomacia, viii, p. 30. 16 AGS, Estado, leg. 2070, document 57: Consulta of the council of State (Madrid, 17 June 1649); and AGS, Estado, leg. 2258. Philip IV to the Count of Peñaranda and to the Archduke Leopold William (Madrid, 22 June 1649).

h y me nae u s i n t he hagu e

embassy in The Hague mirrored that in London, whose oratory, created a few years earlier, was funded in a similar way.17 After receiving his instructions and credentials, and once his material sustenance had been procured, Antoine Brun left Brussels for his new diplomatic mission in mid-June 1649; during his trip he had the chance to stop in Breda and visit the exiled legitimate English king, Charles II. The ambassador departed as soon as he could, for Holland was assuming the presidency of the week of the States General, and the Spanish monarchy considered this province to be their ally. As head of the Republican party, ‘they have always been on our side’.18 The arrival of the Spanish diplomat was announced for 24 June. He was received with the same pomp and ceremony as other European ambassadors – a treatment which legitimised the establishment of new diplomatic links.19 The Republic decided to send a welcome party to the nearby town of Roeremond, the last Spanish town before the border. Brun was officially welcomed in the Dutch jurisdiction by the baron Johan van Gent and the grand pensionary of Holland, Jacob Cats, who received him in Rotterdam. The Spanish minister’s retinue included a butler and several servants to assist him during the trip to The Hague and the first three days after his arrival.20 This delegation was important insofar as it was a public display of welcome on the part of the States General towards Brun. A parade of thirty carriages, arranged according to a hierarchical model used in other European courts, was sent to collect him at the Hoornbrug in Rijswijk, the place, just outside The Hague, where foreign dignitaries were traditionally received.21 The first two carriages were sent by the main deputies to the States General. The subsequent three carriages were the property of the Spanish ambassador, and the next belonged to the commis des Domaines et Finances du Roy, Philippe le Roy, lord of Broechem, who escorted Brun.22 The rest of the parade was formed by important people who wished to give an official greeting to the representative of the newly friendly Spain, including the Danish ambassador, Count Corfitz Ulfeldt. William II of Orange-Nassau, Stadtholder of Holland and head of

17 AGS, Estado, leg. 2258. Philip IV to the Count of Peñaranda and to the Archduke Leopold William (Madrid, 22 June 1649): AGS, Estado, leg. 2070, document 57. Antoine Brun to Philip IV (S. l., 30 April 1649); and Consulta of the council of State (Madrid, 17 June 1649). 18 AGS, Estado, leg. 2070: Count of Peñaranda to Philip IV (Brussels, 30 July 1649). Cf. Herrero Sánchez, El acercamiento, p. 89. 19 P. G. Bongaerts, De St Teresia-Kerk, (The Hague: T.C.B. Ten Hagen, 1866), p. 21; AlbéricJean-Stanislas de Truchis de Varennes, Antoine Brun, 1599–1654 (Besançon: Jacques et Demontrond, 1932), p. 392. 20 AGS, Estado, leg. 2070, document 83: Report of Antoine Brun’s arrival (The Hague, 29 June 1649). 21 Albert Waddington, La république des Provinces-Unies: la France et les Pays-Bas espagnols de 1630 à 1650 (Paris: Annals de la Université de Lyon, 1895), p. 282; Truchis de Varannes, Antoine Brun, p. 392. 22 Le theatre de la noblesse du Brabant (Liège: Jean François Broncaert, 1705), s. p.

235

2 36

c r i s ti n a b r avo loz an o

the Dutch aristocracy, honoured the Spanish diplomat by dispatching two carriages, although not ‘on his own behalf ’.23 In such a manner, the leader of the States or Orangist party was playing a game of political balance, trying to appease the pro-French party, which advocated for the continuation of the conflict with Spain as a way to counteract the effects of the Fronde, at the beginning of 1649; meanwhile, William extended his friendship to the Spaniards, which was the only way to recover debts and confiscated property, as agreed two years earlier in Münster with the plenipotentiaries of Philip IV, among whom Antoine Brun was included.24 Finally, the Spanish minister was also visited by the representatives of various lesser aristocrats and private Dutch citizens: for instance, the agent of Wolfgang Wilhelm of Neuburg and the children of Adriaen Pauw, first Dutch delegate at Münster.25 Peace, after the long years of war, was to be consummated with the establishment of a permanent embassy. Political pragmatism mandated that the traditional enemies of the Republic be seen in a different light. As etiquette demanded, Brun was accommodated in the residence of the extraordinary ambassadors, and no special or different protocol was observed. The situation was, however, exceptional. The arrival of a representative of Philip IV caused a great public stir. So many people turned up to see the ambassador that the ‘road was blocked’, and the Burgundian diplomat found it difficult to enter the house. Brun’s account continues with a reception, in which six deputies of the States General made official representations, as was customary. The Prince of Orange, for his part, sent his chamberlain to apologise for not being able to come in person, as he was in Breda, meeting the exiled English king, Charles II Stuart, and setting up an appointment on his return.26 The ambassador’s first steps in the Dutch capital were defined by ceremony and reciprocity. During the first three days, the States General covered all his expenses, while his luggage reached Delft through the fluvial canals.27 In this time, the Spanish ambassador was assisted by over twenty officials.28 Brun had to live according to precise ceremonial parameters. Lunching and dining in public, in the presence of deputies, who would remain standing and bareheaded, was an implicit obligation of his office. Every such occasion was accompanied by toasts to Philip IV’s health, the participants in these 23 AGS, Estado, leg. 2070, document 83: Report of Antoine Brun’s arrival (The Hague, 29 June 1649). 24 Herrero Sánchez, El acercamiento, p. 88; the agreement sealed between the Spanish plenipotentiaries and William II, dated on 8 January and 27 December 1647, can be found in: AHN, Estado, leg. 2880, document 30. 25 AGS, Estado, leg. 2070, document 83: Report of Antoine Brun’s arrival (The Hague, 29 June 1649). 26 Ibid. 27 Ibid. 28 In thanks, Antoine Brun presented butler Mortagne with a golden chain worth 200 escudos and a medal of Philip IV. The remaining servants were also rewarded ‘according to their station’.

h y me nae u s i n t he hagu e

toasts also standing and bareheaded. Underlying these ceremonies was the symbolic presence of the Spanish king through that of his diplomat. Brun acted accordingly as a representative of Philip IV, and thus whilst bareheaded and seated, he raised his glass to the States.29 The first solemn audience of the Spanish ambassador in the presence of all the city’s elite took place on 26 June. During this function, every gesture was measured and codified as befitted an event of such political momentum. Advised by an expert in ceremonial practices, Brun was cognisant of the convenience of having his official reception during the presidency of the pro-Spanish province of Holland, which came to an end on this day.30 Other provinces, such as Zeeland and Utrecht, were not as well-disposed towards the Spanish, as they had already made clear in Münster. These provinces did not trust Brun, whom they compared to the ‘Greek horse that defeated Troy’. These arguments had the support of the French ambassador.31 The province of Zeeland warned repeatedly against ‘reconciled friends’, and made this distrust notorious by withholding the presence of its delegate, Johan de Knuyt, from official visits and public meals.32 The province of Utrecht, for its part, also expressed its doubts, but not as assertively as Zeeland, as its representative followed the established protocol. When Antoine Brun entered the council hall of Binnenhof, vestu à la française, deputies stood up and remained bareheaded and on their feet until the minister covered himself and took his place in front of the president, Amelis van den Bouckhorst, lord of Wimmenum.33 After handing over the customary letter of credentials, the diplomat addressed the States General as Hautes et Puissants Seigneurs – the same title used by the French ambassador. The Spanish representative’s advisers considered using the same formula as the Bourbon ministers to be a necessary formality that did not undermine the dignity of Philip IV.34 In the ceremonial dispute being waged by both powers, Brun was trying to gain the sympathy of the Republic and to ‘shift

29 AGS, Estado, leg. 2070, document 83: Report of Antoine Brun’s arrival (The Hague, 29 June 1649). 30 AGS, Estado, leg. 8375: Antoine Brun to Philip IV (The Hague, 29 June 1649). 31 Ibid. Antoine Brun to Philip IV: The Hague, 29 June 1649. Waddington, La république, p. 282. 32 AGS, Estado, leg. 2070, document 83: Report of Antoine Brun’s arrival (The Hague, 29 June 1649). 33 Notices (The Hague, 29 June 1649), in Recueil des gazettes nouvelles ordinaires et extraordinaires, relations et récits des choses avenues toute l’année mil six cens quarante-neuf, ed. by Théophraste Renaudot (Paris: du Bureau d’Adresse, 1650), 448; the Binnenhof hall, where this audience was celebrated, may have been that depicted by Bartholomeus van Bassen as the scene of an assembly in 1651; the hall displayed the Spanish colours captured by the Dutch during the Eighty Years’ War. 34 On the rivalry between the French and the Spanish ambassadors, see: M.G. Spiertz, ‘Jean Jacques de Thou en de Hollandse Zending’, Archief voor de geschiedenis van de katholieke kerk in Nederland, 10 (1968), 225–48.

237

23 8

c r i s ti n a b r avo loz an o

all the hatred upon France’, garnering the support of the Dutch people and leadership.35 Antoine Brun’s discourse was entirely in French, and the attendees were referred to as Messieurs.36 During his speech, and in contrast to the deputies, attending knights remained standing and bareheaded, despite their privileged status, as a token of respect for the orator. Following the rules of the prevailing semantics of power, the ambassador emphasised the – necessary – agreement between the Spanish monarchy and the United Provinces. His arrival was a timely occasion to celebrate the first anniversary of the peace treaty, which had caused widespread satisfaction. The words of Brun stressed Philip IV’s commitment to reinvigorating the union according to the principles agreed at Münster. In his description of the new relationship, Spanish interests featured prominently. The diplomat did not forget to mention the ‘Belgian provinces’ where honesty and familiarity were a necessity in the face of the French threat along the border; the last echoes of the Battle of Lens were in everyone’s minds.37 Another point that Brun emphasised during the audience was the need for a Dutch ordinary ambassador in Madrid, ‘in order to perfect the workings of peace’. Reciprocal representation was thus regarded as ‘sealing’ the agreement. It was the Republic’s turn to send a representative to Madrid, ‘so all hurdles, attacks and infractions that could alter, no matter how little, the Treaty of Münster, be prevented’. By issuing this warning, Brun wanted to stress the fragile nature of the new relationship, and the threat posed by the French and the known enemies of the agreement within the States General.38 Avoiding undue ornament and affectation, the sincerity of the ambassador was laid bare in one of his final proposals: Europe is to know that there will be no more competition between us, other than the competition of the courtesies and favours that we shall do for one another.39 The president of the week, the lord of Wimmenum, returned these courtesies.40 Using similar terms, he gave assurances as to the attitude of the States General, which would be in-keeping with the king’s wishes as agreed a year earlier. Brun’s appointment had been well received, and would contribute to ‘turn all past enmities into a good and durable friendship’. Wimmenum stated that 35 AGS, Estado, leg. 8375: Antoine Brun to Philip IV (The Hague, 29 June 1649). 36 This discourse, and the president’s reply, along with the letter of credentials signed by Philip IV were published in French: Discours, fait par monsieur de Brun, Ambassadeur du roy d’Espagne A Messieurs les Estaz Generaulx Des Provinces Unies du Pays-bas, le 26 de Juin 1649 (S. l.: s. i., 1649); and in Dutch, Oratie Gedaen door Monsieur D. Antonio de Brun (S. l.: In ‘t Jaer, 1649). 37 AGS, Estado, leg. 2070, document 85: Discourse of Antoine Brun (S. l., June 1649). Ochoa Brun, Historia de la diplomacia, viii, p. 30. 38 AGS, Estado, leg. 2070, document 85: Discourse of Antoine Brun (S. l., June 1649). 39 Ibid. Discourse of Antoine Brun (S. l., June 1649). Informed of his actions, Philip IV endorsed the treatment given by his minister to the States General, and compelled him to ‘continue that way, which is the right way’. AGS, Estado, leg. 2258: Philip IV to Antoine Brun (Madrid, 31 August 1649). 40 AGS, Estado, leg. 2070, document 83. Report of Antoine Brun’s arrival (The Hague, 29 June 1649).

h y me nae u s i n t he hagu e

the Republic was planning on sending an ambassador to Madrid, but without giving names or setting a deadline for the appointment.41 The open opposition of Zeeland and Utrecht, along with French pressure, did not upset the political standing or the consolidation of Brun’s position in The Hague. Little by little the Spanish ambassador became a diplomatic hub. He received visits from the Danish legate and the Polish resident, as well as from other Dutch plenipotentiaries whom he had met in Münster, including Adriaen Pauw, Willem Ripperda and Adriaen Clant van Stedum. Catholics also gave him a warm welcome, and did not miss a chance to express their satisfaction to Philip IV’s representative, even if all hopes raised by the signing of the peace treaty had not been fulfilled.42 They hoped that Brun’s embassy could help to attenuate the religious pressure suffered by them, which was being spurred by French diplomats in the hope of souring the Spanish-Dutch relationship.43 In keeping with his personal religious beliefs and as an essential part of his duties, Brun was a stern and public advocate of Catholicism. In the house that he rented at Noordeinde, the property of a man called Villebon, which was very close to the residence of the prince of Orange, he built an open chapel served by Zacharias de Metz.44 Antoine Brun soon gained a prominent position among the political and commercial elites of the province of Holland.45 Less than a month after

41 Ibid, document 85: Discourse of Antoine Brun (S. l., June 1649). The dispatch of a Dutch ambassador did not take place until 1655, with the appointment of Hendrik van Reede van Renswoude as envoy, not ambassador, which was a diplomatic affront; Herrero Sánchez, El acercamiento, pp. 63–64; Id., ‘La red diplomática de las Provincias Unidas en la Corte española durante la segunda mitad del siglo XVII’, Dimensioni e problemi della ricerca storica, 1 (2014), 131–163. Maurits Ebben, ‘Het Staatse ambassadegebouw in de zeventiende eeuw. Het logement van Hendrick van Reede van Renswoude in Madrid, 1656–1669’, Virtus, 25 (2018), 29–56 ; Id. ‘Cross-Confessional and Diplomatic Incidents: Dutch Ambassadors in Madrid (1648–72)’, in Ambassadors in Golden-Age Madrid. The Court of Philip IV through Foreign Ages, dir. by Jorge Fernández-Santos and José Luis Colomer (Madrid: Centro de Estudios Europa Hispánica, 2020), pp. 247–72. 42 On the confessional contexts after 1648, see: Laura Manzano Baena, Conflicting Words. The Peace Treaty of Münster (1648) and the Political Culture of the Dutch Republic and the Spanish Monarchy (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2011). 43 AGS, Estado, leg. 2070, document 83: Report of Antoine Brun’s arrival (The Hague, 29 June 1649). 44 Otto Schutte, Repertorium der buitenlandse vertegenwoordigers residerende in Nederland, 1584–1810 (The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1983), p. 582; W. P. C. Knuttel, ‘Vergaderplaatsen der Katholieken te ‘s-Gravenhage in de zeventiende eeuw’, Archief voor Nederlandse Kerkgeschiedenis, 5 (1895), 106–10 (p. 106); Bongaerts, De St Teresia-Kerk, p. 21; José Pablo Alzina, Embajadores de España en los Países Bajos (Madrid: Ministerio de Asuntos Exteriores, 2004), p. 151; Thera Wijsenbeek, Den Haag. Geschiedenis van de stad, 3 vols (Zwolle: Waanders, 2005), ii, p. 217; Hans Cools, ‘Een vreemde eend in de Hollandse bijt. De gesneefde loopbaan van co-adjutor Zacharias de Metz (ca. 1600–1661)’, in Het Gelijk Van De Gouden Eeuw. Recht, Onrecht En Reputatie in De Vroegmoderne Nederlanden, ed. by Michiel Groesen, Judith Pollmann and Hans Cools (Hilversum: Verloren, 2014), pp. 47–55 (p. 51). 45 Les demandes faites aux Estats Généraux des Provinces Unies, par le sieur Brun ambassadeur du Roy d’Espagne, en exécution de leur traité ; et la suite des magnificences de l’entrée de la Reine d’Espagne, ed. by Théophraste Renaudot (Paris: du Bureau d’Adresse, 1649), 608.

239

24 0

c r i s ti n a b r avo loz an o

his arrival, on 13 July he attended a new audience with the States General. Devoid of all sumptuary ceremony, in his address he complained about Dutch breaches of the Treaty of Münster. In a moderate tone, the Burgundian stressed the need to continue on the path of peace, and emphasised the impending threats. His clear rhetoric made an impression on the deputies, who agreed with his arguments. However, Brun’s mission, which had originally been regarded as a long-term endeavour, was cut short when he was appointed to negotiate an agreement concerning the French-Flemish border with France. This mission, which was considered to complement his duty in The Hague, aimed to meet with the agents of the regent, Anne of Habsburg, in order to put an end to the Spanish-French war.46 In the event these conversations came to nothing. After being absent for two months, the ambassador returned to The Hague to continue with his embassy, where he was to put into force new formulas and ceremonies with which to consolidate his public projection and thus represent the majesty of Philip IV in an environment that was less and less hostile to his presence.47

‘Maiestas et amor’: The celebration of the royal wedding in The Hague The untimely death of Elisabeth of Bourbon on 6 October 1644 had plunged Philip IV’s royal family into a sudden crisis. In the midst of the political turmoil unleashed by the events in the court and the provinces of the monarchy, the king announced his determination not to remarry. Dynastic continuity was guaranteed by prince Balthasar Charles, whose marriage with Archduchess Marianna of Austria – his first cousin – had already been arranged. Through this marriage, both branches of the Habsburg house would support one another.48 However, the early death of the Spanish heir on 9 October 1646 left only two available candidates to the crown – Infanta Mary Theresa and John Joseph of Habsburg (natural son of the monarch) – and prompted a debate on the succession.49 In this situation, the possibility of Philip IV marrying

46 Notices (Amsterdam, 9 August 1649; and Antwerp, 13 August 1649), in Recueil des gazettes nouvelles ordinaires et extraordinaires, rélations et récits des choses avenues toute l’année mil six cens quarante-neuf (Paris: du Bureau d’Adresse, aux Galleries du Louvre, 1650), 676; Truchis de Varannes, Antoine Brun, p. 399. 47 Notices (Amsterdam, 6 October 1649), in Recueil des gazettes nouvelles, op. cit., 940. 48 Laura Oliván Santaliestra, Mariana de Austria. Imagen, poder y diplomacia de una reina cortesana (Madrid: Universidad Complutense de Madrid, 2006), p. 32. 49 López-Cordón, ‘La paz oculta’, p. 90; Laura Oliván Santaliestra, ‘El fin de los Habsburgo: crisis dinástica y conflicto sucesorio en la Monarquía Hispánica (1615–1700)’, in Gobernar en tiempos de crisis. Las quiebras dinásticas en el ámbito hispánico (1250–1808), ed. by José Manuel Nieto Soria and María Victoria López-Cordón Cortezo (Madrid: Sílex, 2008), pp. 45–64 (p. 46).

h y me nae u s i n t he hagu e

again to guarantee the Spanish throne with a male heir from his second wife began to be considered. The Imperial ambassador, Francesco Antonio del Carretto, marquis of Grana, proposed the archduchess as the king’s new bride. French candidates were out of the question, and Maria Anna was not only a Catholic but also a relative of Philip IV.50 Despite their consanguinity and the age difference, this match followed the dynastic tradition (Tu felix Austria nube) and consolidated the Madrid-Vienna axis against France and the vacillating United Provinces.51 This proposal aroused mixed feelings among court officials. In Madrid, Ramiro Núñez de Guzmán, duke of Medina de las Torres, praised it whereas the count of Peñaranda expressed his dissent while carrying out his diplomatic duties from Münster. After several meetings, the council of State decided to endorse the match, on the basis of raison d’État. The need to preserve the body politic was stronger than the king’s personal resolution from two years earlier.52 For the ‘good of my vassals and these kingdoms’, Philip IV announced his change of heart on 4 January 1647: the king would marry his son’s former fiancée.53 The wedding was celebrated by proxy in the Hofburg (Vienna) on 8 November 1648.54 After a long trip that brought the bride through Tirol, Lombardy and Genoa before disembarking on the Spanish Levant, the wedding was formalised on 4 October 1649, in the Castilian village of Navalcarnero.55 The news of the consummation of the royal marriage arrived in The Hague a month later, by means of a letter from the favorito minister, Luis Méndez de Haro, marquis of Carpio. Antoine Brun expressed his political satisfaction by celebrating the happy occasion with a party. The king’s wedding presented itself as an ideal occasion to reassert Spanish-Dutch friendship and project Philip IV’s maiestas publicly, contributing to re-establish Spain’s reputation and increasing its presence in the heart of the United Provinces. At any rate, following his Dutch advisors, Brun heeded the opinion of experts in Dutch ceremonial and asked the States General for permission to hold the party.56

50 Zapata Fernández de la Hoz, La corte de Felipe IV, p. 13. 51 López-Cordón, ‘La paz oculta’, p. 91. 52 Luis Tercero Casado, ‘La jornada de la reina Mariana de Austria a España: divergencias políticas y tensión protocolaria en el seno de la Casa de Austria (1648–1649)’, Hispania, LXXI/239 (2011), 639–65 (p. 641). 53 BNE, Mss. 11027, ff. 336r-339v.: Copy of the order of Philip IV. Madrid, 4 January 1647. 54 Zapata Fernández de la Hoz, La corte de Felipe IV, p. 14. 55 The organisation and development of the trip are described in: Zapata Fernández de la Hoz, La corte de Felipe IV, pp. 31–64; Tercero Casado, ‘La jornada de la reina’, pp. 643–64; the new Spanish queen’s trip and the wedding were depicted in the vault of the Palazzo Reale, in Naples; Joan Lluís Palos, ‘Imagen recortada sobre fondo de púrpura y negro. Mariana de Austria y el virrey de Nápoles’, in La historia imaginada. Construcciones visuales del pasado en la Edad Moderna, ed. by Joan Lluís Palos and Diana Carrió-Invernizzi (Madrid: Centro de Estudios Europa Hispánica, 2008), pp. 121–52. 56 AGS, Estado, leg. 2069, document 153: Copy of letter from Antoine Brun to the Count of Peñaranda (The Hague, 9 November 1649).

241

242

c r i s ti n a b r avo loz an o

To a new public audience, the Burgundian announced to the Republic the wedding officially, emphasising the political relevance of the king’s marriage. The deputies expressed their satisfaction with the match and wished Philip IV prosperity and the birth of an heir.57 These good wishes were formally expressed by a resolution on 16 November, by which the States General authorised Brun’s celebration.58 That same day, the ambassador put the last touches to the festivities, which were to last for three days. The first ceremony, immediately following the granting of permission by the States General, took place in the embassy’s chapel. The event was attended by a large number of Catholics, while an orchestra and choir intoned a Te Deum in thanksgiving for the wedding. After a meal, Brun visited the prince of Orange to inform him of Philip IV’s marriage – a ceremony that corresponded to the hierarchical nature of the United Provinces.59 The programme was arranged to respect both the culture of Spanish celebrations and the conservatism of The Hague. Everything was planned in detail, and no expense was spared to convey the majesty of the feasts. The aim of the display was not only to celebrate such a significant event for Spain, but to exalt the royal image before the European powers represented there. This propagandistic apparatus demonstrated Brun’s commitment to Philip IV’s cause, whilst also showcasing his own zeal and merit. The power of images and the political impact of inscriptions, along with the pyrotechnical display programmed for the royal hymenaeus, would ensure that the significance of the function transcended its ostensible motives. The embassy became a veritable court theatre with which to garner support by way of aesthetics. The iconography exhibited during the festivities was used to showcase Philip IV’s and Maria Anna’s match publicly in a legitimising discourse that catered to the political needs of the Spanish monarchy.60 The analytic description of the decoration, as well as the ceremony and events themselves of the afternoon of 17 November 1649 reveals different political levels, depending on the physical space in which they were performed and the audience. All of these layers, however, were guided by the same communicational logic. The highly symbolic code of European Baroque culture conveyed various political messages that could be interpreted in different ways, depending on the individual or collective perspective of the observer. Outside the house, at Noordeinde, food and drink were distributed to entertain the local residents. Windows were laden with sweets, and two

57 BNE, Ms. 18174, f. 252r. Relación de las fiestas que se han hecho en La Haya, corte de Olanda, por el Ilustrísimo señor Antonio Brum, Embaxador de España, a la feliz nueva del casamiento de sus Magestades Católicas, traducida del original Francés en Castellano por el licenciado Escobedo (Madrid: Alonso de Paredes, 1650). 58 Abraham de Wicquefort, L’histoire des Provinces-Unies, I (The Hague: chez T. Johnson, 1719), p. 594. 59 BNE, Ms. 18174, f. 252r. Relación de las fiestas. 60 AGS, Estado, leg. 8395, ff. 97rv.: Antoine Brun to Philip IV (The Hague, 26 November 1649).

h y me nae u s i n t he hagu e

artificial wine fountains were installed outside the front door (an artifice also used by Peñaranda in Münster to celebrate the signing of the peace treaty).61 The fountains represented the bride and groom, heraldically and zoomorphically. A fountain serving claret had the shape of a lion, crowned by Philip IV’s arms; the other one gave out white wine and was shaped like an eagle (which represented the Empire) decorated with Maria Anna’s arms. It was not long before the enthusiastic crowd toppled the fountains, which broke.62 As a further gesture to the people of The Hague, Brun also threw silver reales de a cuatro and de a ocho, which were among the most valuable international currencies, both economically and symbolically, from the windows. This was a common practice, which nevertheless allowed the ambassador to capture the attention of bystanders who gathered outside the house in great numbers.63 The external decoration was also highly elaborate. The façade, which acted as the face of the celebration that was taking place inside, displayed a veritable broadside of symbols, making the occasion a visual and literary celebration. Allegorical inscriptions, taken from the Classics (Claudian, Virgil, Horace, Eustatius, Ovid, Tibullus and Catullus), were set up strategically for the enjoyment of both the people and the erudite elite who knew the authors. They symbolised the rhetoric of Spanish power, scenographically exalting the monarchy and its dynastic continuity. The spectacular decoration filled the house with fire. The Spanish embassy shone in the dark of night, as a metaphor for the luminous period inaugurated by Philip IV in the United Provinces. Monograms, portraits and other forms of ephemeral imagery whose iconographic code complemented the epithalamic quotes were displayed in order to make the king, who was increasingly concealed in the darkness of his court, as if hidden behind the towering figures of his main ministers, more visible.64 The façade was divided into different sectors. The rooftop balustrade was decorated with coloured lights and lanterns, and the inside of the windows was furnished with white candles and torches. On the ground floor, the 32 windows were decorated with Philip IV and Maria Anna’s names, crowned by myrrh and laurel, in order that they constituted symbols of prosperity, while the second and third floors were adorned by the lit portraits of the bride and

61 Israel, ‘El final de la guerra’, in El final de la guerra, ed. by Geens, p. 28. 62 RAH, Salazar y Castro, K-9, f. 227r. Relación de las fiestas que el señor don Antonio Brun, embaxador de Su Magestad, ha echo en La Haya por el feliz casamiento del rey Nuestro Señor (S. l.: s.n., s. f., 1649). The description which this manuscript provides was slightly edited before being published in Madrid by Alonso de Paredes in 1650. 63 BNE, Ms. 18174, f. 252vr: Relación de las fiestas. 64 Pablo Fernández Albaladejo, La crisis de la Monarquía (Madrid: Crítica/Marcial Pons Historia, 2009), 303–15; for the contrast between the idea of Philip IV’s hidden majesty and the very public profile of Louis XIV, see: Peter Burke, La fabricación de Luis XIV (San Sebastián: Nerea, 2003), p. 174.

243

244

c r i s ti n a b r avo loz an o

groom. An inscription above the door of the embassy read Philippo Quarto Hispaniarum Regi Anna Perenna.65 Nearby, a painting depicted the Spanish throne with a figure representing Spanish genius furnished with crown and sceptre reclining upon it and accompanied by Cupid and his attributes. The message in this painting was Quam bene conveniunt & in uno sede morantur Maiestas & Amor, and below were Virgil’s verses, Hinc progeniem virtute futuram Egregiam & totum quae laudibus impleat orbem, which were clearly an allusion to the wish for a heir, the reason behind the royal wedding.66 Other texts, some of which had been altered slightly, suggested the continuity and supremacy of the Spanish imperium over that of ancient Rome (Accendit Hispana salus, magnisque coronis coniugium fit causa tuum).67 Finally, the fourteen windows in the third hall of the ground floor, the one closest to the street, were replaced with large painted lattices, decorated with the royal names.68 The climax of the celebrations was two fireworks displays that went on past midnight. Witness accounts claimed that, over the course of an hour, several structures made up of painted barrels on masts and rockets were set alight, alongside a diadem-shaped fire wheel that moved and raised itself from the ground.69 However, the actual display differed somewhat from Antoine Brun’s original idea, both in terms of the design of the pyrotechnical artefact and of political message. This was explained in a printed pamphlet, written in French and distributed as part of the active propaganda campaign launched to publicise the celebrations in The Hague. According to this document, the Spanish wanted to raise a three-sided structure, representing the three parts of the monarchical cosmography: Castile, Aragon and Portugal, followed by the kingdoms that formed each of these crowns. Centre stage was taken by a column bearing the emblems of France and the United Provinces. In a design full of symbols, Castile would confront France, with which it was at war, and which was the target of all rockets and other fireworks. Peace was represented by an olive branch, springing from the Republic, which was represented by a ship, in allusion to its mercantile nature and maritime projection. The court of Madrid was represented on top of the column, whence a strong wind blew, shaking the whole machine. Castile’s central position in the Christian world, as stated in an inscription that was carried by a Turk, was represented with the greatest emblem of Spain’s reformist efforts: the royal site of San Lorenzo de El Escorial, under a sky strewn with stars, two comets, the

65 BNE, Ms. 18174, f. 253r. Relación de las fiestas. 66 Ibid. Relación de las fiestas. 67 Ibid. Relación de las fiestas. Claudian’s original verses are as follows ‘Accendit Romana salus, magnisque coronis coniugium fit causa tuum’. 68 RAH, Salazar y Castro, K-9, f. 228r. Relación de las fiestas. 69 Modelle ou project du feu d’artifice qui se doibt faire à La Haye le Mardy 16 Nov. pour la rejoüysance sur le mariage du Roy Catholique & la Serenissime archiduchesse fillede l’Empereur (Brussels: s. i., 1649).

h y me nae u s i n t he hagu e

Sun and the Moon. One comet tail pointed to Germany and Austria, Maria Anna’s birthplace, and the other to Italy and Venice. A triumphal chariot pulled by four lions, presented as a gift by the Ottoman ambassador, drove the bride and groom, their hands tied, away from El Escorial. The chariot’s back bench was occupied by the two antagonistic loves, Eros and Anteros, alongside the inscription Imparibus armis idem Scopus. The coach was followed by the nuncio on a mule, the Venetian ambassador on a bucentaur and, in the middle, a Turk with an elephant. The narrative sequence of the machine would exalt the Spanish monarchy and its political and religious values. Thunder was followed by a hail of fire, Philip IV and Maria Anna withdrew, while the remaining figures were consumed by fire. Only France and the United Provinces escaped unscathed. Prevailing political conditions, alliances and threats, were represented with mythological metaphors. The Mars Gallicus, made popular by Jansenius during the Thirty Years’ war, compelled France with the exhortation Aut vincere, aut mori. Meanwhile, thieving Mercury sent the guard Argos to sleep with his caduceus in order to steal his riches. Pan, however, awoke Argos, forcing Mercury to turn into a furious Medusa who, with her serpent hair, attacked the United Provinces. Finally, a nymph – identified as Spain – defended them, incinerating the snakes. Mercury, defeated, withdrew, and was replaced by two wine fountains, to the audience’s delight.70 Beyond these narratives, the events organised by the Spanish ambassador brought the celebrations to the political heart of the United Provinces. A ship moored in the Binnenhof launched rockets which illuminated the palace where the States General and the Provincial States of Holland met. Various artefacts, which plunged into the water only to re-emerge with renewed force, were also thrown from the ship. Finally, pyrotechnical masters joined the celebrations directly, taking to the streets with firework scimitars and dressed as gladiators, to perform mock fights. The festive mood spread among the people of The Hague, who joined in the feasts with gusto. Even after Antoine Brun withdrew, the show continued outside the embassy.71 The crowd was so large that not only nearby buildings but also the trees filled with people who wanted to watch the display of ephemeral architectures and other artifices.72 Unrequested by the diplomat, all the bells in the city rang continuously. The bells were followed by a triple artillery salvo commemorating the royal wedding. The position of the guns was not arbitrary. They were placed in the Vijverberg, opposite the Binnenhof, where the Dutch used to celebrate their military victories. Twelve of the guns were on loan from the States General, which in this way demonstrated their sovereign power to honour

70 Ibid. 71 BNE, Ms. 18174, f. 253r. Relación de las fiestas… 72 Ibid.

245

246

c r i s ti n a b r avo loz an o

their friend Philip IV.73 The prince of Orange also loaned Brun the city’s guns. In this instance, William II’s trumpets, drums and cymbals, and the troops who paraded ‘in good order’ outside the embassy were not celebrating a military victory against the enemies of the Republic, but simply joining in the performances convened by the Spanish diplomat.74 This stage contrasted with the events of two years prior, when the pieces avoient constume de faire trembler et auter les fortresses espagnoles avroient été converties en violons de nopces, according to an anonymous reflection which conveyed some popular sentiments.75 Indeed, the most recalcitrant among the Dutch used the memory of the past war as an instrument with which to keep pressure on the Spanish. Brun’s programme was criticised by some sectors who interpreted his feasts as aiming to intimidate the public (for most people, the war was still very much present). Certain witnesses interpreted the linked figures of the monarchs as les lieus, les cordes et chaines qui garroterent nos pères, while the fire was le germain of those who burned their towns and houses during the Tyrannnie d’Espagne. Finally, the colour of the fireworks was reminiscent of the blood spilled as a consequence of Spanish injustice and cruelty.76 Impervious to these criticisms, the ambassador returned the hospitality received a few months earlier with a vocal and instrumental concert. Similarly, a banquet was celebrated in the ambassador’s residence, who wished to make closer ties with the local elite, both at institutional (except for the obstinate Zeeland) and commercial levels. The banquet was attended by the prince of Orange, Count Willem-Frederik of Nassau, and ten deputies who represented the States General. Standing up and bareheaded, they all raised their glasses to universal peace.77 On the following day, 18 November, the events concluded with another banquet attended by William II and members of the government of the Republic. The meeting included a theatrical performance in the ambassador’s house. Again, French and Spanish wine were used to toast the friendship between both powers, and dry sweets were served as dessert. Music – trumpets, fifes and drums – played a prominent role in these celebrations. The songs were in Spanish, Italian and French. The event also featured the recitation – accompanied by a clavichord – of a sonnet about Maria Anna’s trip to Madrid, finalised by a choir of violins78:

73 ASV, Segreteria di Stato. Fiandra, 33, f. 446r.: Notices (Brussels, 25 November 1649). 74 AGS, Estado, leg. 8395, ff. 97rv: Antoine Brun to Philip IV (The Hague, 26 November 1649): BNE, Ms. 18174, f. 252r. Relación de las fiestas. Truchis de Varennes, Antoine Brun, p. 404. 75 The author refers to Recueil des inscriptions, inserées en l’Appareil dressé à La Haye pour le Mariage du Roy d’Espagne. This work reproduced the inscriptions contained in Relaciones that were disseminated in Madrid. Reflexions sur le feu de joye faict à La Haye le 17 Novembre 1649 pour le Mariage du Roy d’Espagne (Amsterdam: s. n., 1649). 76 Ibid. 77 Waddington, La république, p. 284. 78 BNE, Ms. 18174, f. 252r. : Relación de las fiestas…

h y me nae u s i n t he hagu e

Cet Astre sans pareil, l’Ornement de nostre âge, Ce Miracle d’Amour, de Vertu, de Beuté, L’ Auguste Marie Anne a pousse sa clarté, Dés les bords du Danube, aux rivages du Tâge. L’Air, la Terre, & la Mer, en ont en son passage La lueur & l’eclat à l’envi respecté, Et du sang dés Cesars la haute Majesté; A ravi tout le monde en ce rare visage Seville à son abord recouvre sa santé, Sans grand Roy se guerit, l’Othoman indomté Accourt pour l’adorer, & pour luy rendre homage, L’Ordes Indes arrive à ses pieds transporté, Et cette riche flotte en sa fecundité, De celle de la Reyne est le divin presage.79 The echo of these festivities was heard not only at The Hague, but also at the Spanish court, where Philip IV expressed his satisfaction and gratefulness for Antoine Brun’s actions.80 The ambassador was keen for his programme of celebrations and its propagandistic contents to be publicised as much as possible, and ordered pamphlets and gazettes with descriptions of the events to be printed and distributed widely.81

Conclusions From the moment he arrived in The Hague, Antoine Brun dedicated strenuous efforts to displaying the conciliation between his master, Philip IV, and the United Provinces. His speeches aimed to leave the war behind, and begin a new period which, in the short term, was regarded as a triumph of diplomacy and political balance. Peace became more and more tangible as the presence of a permanent Spanish embassy in The Hague was consolidated. Functions associated with the royal wedding and the strengthening of ties between both branches of the Habsburgs were instrumentalised for their political value. Following the celebratory style of the period, the new Spanish-Dutch relationship was showcased, drawing on every propagandist instrument in the book. The cost of 4,300 florins – which he had borne with the aid of a 79 Recueil des inscriptions, inserées en l’Appareil dressé à La Haye pour le mariage du Roy d’Espagne (The Hague: chez Jean Breeckvelt & Michel Stael, 1649). 80 AGS, Estado, leg. 8375, f. 119r.: Philip IV to Antoine Brun (El Pardo, 17 January 1649). 81 AGS, Estado, leg. 8395, ff. 97rv.: Antoine Brun to Philip IV (The Hague, 26 November 1649). The person in charge of reporting these events to Brussels was the secretary of the ambassador, his co-national Vincent Richard. He handed the description of the events to a publisher, who was also a Burgundian. The publisher was responsible for printing in Brussels and sending the Spanish translation to Madrid. AGS, Estado, leg. 8465, f. 148v. Antoine Brun to the Count of Peñaranda (The Hague, 22 November 1649).

247

2 48

c r i s ti n a b r avo loz an o

loan – was considered a sound investment.82 For three days, his house became the face of the Spanish monarchy, to be admired by the States General and the French officials. The exalted image of Philip IV and his dynasty was projected far and wide by the festivities designed by the Comtois diplomat. The manifestation of the monarchy’s rhetoric aimed to impress and garner support among the Dutch elites. The exceptional nature of the event, in fact, transcended the ostensible reasons for the celebrations. Symbols, gestures and inscriptions, as well as the flamboyant ephemeral decorative artifices, made a deep impact on Dutch society. Antoine Brun’s splendid feast was described as ‘the most grandiose that this nation has ever witnessed’. This success was publicised as ‘most useful for the royal cause’. Brun’s advisors did not hesitate to tell him that he had ‘made enormous gains with his actions’. The political objective of his coup de main had been met. The show had been attended by large crowds, to the confusion and despondency of the ‘enemies of the Crown’.83 As such, after years of failure and tribulation, Brun’s first diplomatic steps had largely restored Spain’s reputation in the North. By pulling festive and political levers, the ambassador reinforced the fragile relationship with the United Provinces, upon which the future of the Spanish monarchy depended.84 Pax optima rerum.

82 AGS, Estado, leg. 2076, document 122: Accounts of Antoine Brun (The Hague, 22 September 1649). 83 AGS, Estado, leg. 8375, ff. 103v-104r.: Antoine Brun to Philip IV (The Hague, 5 December 1649). AGS, Estado, leg. 8395, ff. 97rv. Antoine Brun to Philip IV (The Hague, 26 November 1649). ASV, Segreteria di Stato. Fiandra, 33, f. 446r. Notices (Brussels, 25 November 1649). Which probably included the author of the Reflexions. 84 AGS, Estado, leg. 8395, ff. 97rv.: Antoine Brun to Philip IV (The Hague, 26 November 1649).

TIBOR MARTÍ 

Hungarian Members of the Order of the Golden Fleece The Importance of a Habsburg Chivalric Order in Seventeenth-Century Hungary*

The Illustrious Order of the Golden Fleece is one of the oldest, most prestigious, and most exclusive chivalric orders. In the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries—until the War of the Spanish Succession—membership of it was conferred by the kings of the Spanish branch of the Habsburg dynasty. The Order of the Golden Fleece is an honour usually bestowed on Catholic members of distinguished aristocratic families in recognition of faithful service rendered over the course of generations. Becoming a member of the Order implied an oath of fidelity to the Habsburg dynasty, and, as a token of that royal house’s utmost confidence, the Golden Fleece functioned as an invitation to a select and prestigious group of the European elite. For most



* This study is a summary of an investigation (about conferrals of the Order of the Golden Fleece to Hungarian aristocrats in the seventeenth century) conducted with the support of the MTA Lendület–Holy Crown Research Project and by the János Bolyai Research Scholarship of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences. Also, the present work was carried out within the framework of the Project Sociedad cortesana y redes diplomáticas: la proyección europea de la monarquía de España (1659-1725), supported by the Ministerio de Economía, Industria y Competitividad [HAR2015-67069-P (MINECO/FEDER, UE)] and the project of the Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación Práctica de gobierno y cultura política: Europa y América en la monarquía de España, 1668-1725 [PID2019-108822GB-I00]. I have published some of its other findings in the following papers: ‘Paul Esterházy, Ritter vom Goldenen Vlies’, Ungarn-Jahrbuch Zeitschrift für interdisziplinäre Hungarologie, 32 (2014–15), 139–56; ‘A z aranygyapjas lovag Esterházy Pál [Pál Esterházy, Knight of the Order of the Golden Fleece]’, in Esterházy Pál, a műkedvelő mecénás: Egy 17. századi arisztokrata-életpálya a politika és a művészet határvidékén [Pál Esterházy, Patron of the Arts: The Career of a 17th-Century Hungarian Aristocrat at the Intersection of Politics and Art], ed. by Pál Ács with the cooperation of Enikő Buzási (Budapest: Reciti, 2015), pp. 49–66; ‘Viena – Madrid – Hungría: la mediación de los embajadores en las concesiones de la Orden del Toisón en el siglo XVII,’ will be published in a volume of papers edited by Cristina Bravo Lozano and Antonio Álvarez-Ossorio Alvariño, Los embajadores, representantes de la soberanía, garantes del equilibrio (1659–1748) (Madrid: Marcial Pons Historia, in print); ‘Esterházy Miklós nádor aranygyapjas rendi tagságával összefüggő levéltári források [Unpublished documents related with the conferral of the Order of Golden Fleece to Count Miklós Esterházy, Palatine of Hungary]’, Lymbus. Magyarságtudományi Forrásközlemények, 15 (2018), 211–43. Eagles Looking East and West: Dynasty, Ritual and Representation in Habsburg Hungary and Spain, ed. by Tibor Martí & Roberto Quirós Rosado, Habsburg Worlds 4 (Turnhout, 2021), pp. 249–270.

© FHG

DOI 10.1484/M.HW-EB.5.122805

250

ti bo r m a rt í

new members, the conferral ceremony and the solemn rite of investiture were thus one the most important milestones of their careers.1 During the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, Spanish diplomats used a wide array of methods to build networks of support for the Spanish monarch in Central Europe. They kept close tabs on the most important political debates and on the most influential political leaders in the countries that made up the Habsburgs’ composite monarchy.2 As soon as one of these Spanish diplomats was appointed ambassador to the Emperor in Vienna, he would immediately contact these key local figures and convey to them the Spanish king’s letter of recommendation.3 Many of these local leaders also benefited from regular pensions granted by the Catholic Monarch.4 As a representative of Spain’s king, the ambassador to the emperor regularly appeared at important family events of the elites of the Habsburgs’ Central European territories and countries, such as weddings, christenings, and other ceremonies. As was customary in the era, the ambassador would also present an official gift on such occasions.5







1 For a recent overview of the history and significance of the Order of the Golden Fleece in the early modern period, see: Pavel Marek, La embajada española en la corte imperial (1558– 1641). Figuras de los embajadores y estrategias clientelares (Prague: Universidad Carolina de Praga, Editorial Karolinum, 2014), pp. 175–83; other relevant publications include: Alfonso Ceballos-Escalera y Gila, La insigne Orden del Toisón de Oro (Madrid: Palafox & Pezuela, 2000); Das Haus Österreich und der Orden vom Goldenen Vlies: Beiträge zum wissenschaftlichen Symposium am 30. November und 1. Dezember 2006 in Stift Heiligenkreuz, ed. by Leopold Auer and others (Graz: Stocker, 2007); La Orden del Toisón de Oro y sus soberanos (1430–2011), ed. by Fernando Checa Cremades and Joaquín Martínez Correcher (Madrid: Fundación Carlos de Amberes, 2011); El legado de Borgoña. Fiesta y ceremonia cortesana en la Europa de los Austrias (1454–1648), ed. by Krista de Jonge, Bernardo José García García and Alicia Esteban Estríngana (Madrid: Fundación Carlos de Amberes/Marcial Pons, Ediciones de Historia, 2010); for Central-European members of the Order of the Golden Fleece in the early modern period, see: Pere Molas Ribalta, ‘Austria en la Orden del Toisón de Oro, siglos XVI–XVII’, Pedralbes: Revista d’història moderna, 26 (2006), 123–52; Marie Mírková, ‘Řád zlatého rouna a rodová prestiž v představách Adama Matyáše z Trauttmansdorffu’, in Utváření identity ve vrstvách paměti, ed. by Václav Bůžek, Opera Historica, 15 (České Budějovice: Jihočeská univerzita, 2011), pp. 249–82. 2 Etienne Bourdeu, ‘“Las personas en Alemaña con las quales ha de tener quenta”: personnel, fonctionnement et évolution des réseaux hispaniques dans le Saint Empire durant le règne de Philippe II’, in Felipe II y Almazarrón: la construcción local de un Imperio global, ed. by María Martínez Alcalde, José Javier Ruiz Ibáñez and Magdalena Campillo Méndez, 2 vols (Murcia: Universidad de Murcia, 2014), ii: Sostener, gobernar y pensar la frontera, pp. 191–206. 3 For example: ADA, Caja 2, nr. 9: Letters to princes and several persons of Germany (1632), draft of a recommendation letter for the Marquis of Castañeda, issued in the name of Philip IV and addressed to Miklós Esterházy, Barcelona, 11 May, 1632. 4 For the period of Philip II, see: Friedrich Edelmayer, Söldner und Pensionäre: das Netzwerk Philipps II. im Heiligen Römischen Reich (Vienna: Verlag für Geschichte und Politik, 2002). 5 See, for example, two cases involving the children of Count Miklós Esterházy, palatine of Hungary (1625–1645): István (1616–1641) and Mária Esterházy (1638–1684). The Spanish ambassador, the Marquis of Castañeda, attended Mária Esterházy’s baptism in Pozsony in 1638, when he participated in the February 14th coronation ceremony of Maria Anna of Spain, wife of Ferdinand III, as she became queen consort of Hungary.

hu n ga r i an m e m b e r s o f t h e o r d e r of  t he  go ld e n f le ece

Even so, the conferral of the Order of the Golden Fleece remained an essential diplomatic means of gaining local favours; it is not an exaggeration to state that during the seventeenth century, it served the politicians of the Spanish monarchy as the most important diplomatic instrument for strengthening their kingdom’s international position and its networks of European support.6 The elaborate spectacle of the public conferral ceremonies associated with it served as excellent visual representations of the power of the Spanish branch of the Habsburg dynasty.7 Nevertheless, the awarding of the Order was not merely a symbolic act; diplomatic decisions about new admissions to the Order were made in accordance with Spain’s political interests. Given that this decision-making process was kept apart from public politics, diplomats and ambassadors played an enormously important intermediary role at the imperial court in Vienna and the royal court in Madrid, and not only in the seventeenth century. This topic—the role played by diplomatic personnel in decisions related to the conferral of the Order—has been studied by scholars representing a wide range of specialized branches of historiography.8 In his history of ambassadors to the imperial court in Vienna, Pavel Marek dedicates an entire chapter to an analysis of the relationships between Central European aristocrats (mostly from Bohemia and Moravia) and the Order of the Golden Fleece. Focusing on examples from the first part of the seventeenth century, Marek describes the recommendation process in detail, reporting that the emperor (and sometimes his family members, usually the empress) often asked ambassadors to send the Catholic Monarch recommendation letters on behalf of nobles whose candidacy for the Golden Fleece they supported.9 Marek also highlights the gradually increasing proportion of Central European aristocrats among the members of the Order of the Golden Fleece, most notably after the death of Baltasar de Zúñiga (1608). In the seventeenth century, the Order was conferred on a total of five Hungarian noblemen: Count Miklós Esterházy of Galánta (1628), Count Pál Pálffy of Erdőd (1650), Count Ferenc Wesselényi of Hadad (1662), Count





6 See, for example, the conferral of the Order of the Golden Fleece on Maximilian, Elector of Bavaria, in the cathedral of Salzburg in 1628; Bernardo J. García García, ‘El diario de viajes del rey de armas Jean Hervart (1605–1633). Un registro particular del ceremonial de los toisones’, in El legado de Borgoña, ed. by de Jonge, García García and Esteban Estríngana, pp. 451–502 (p. 480). 7 See Géza Pálffy’s chapter in the present volume. 8 Pere Molas Ribalta, ‘Austria en la Orden del Toisón de Oro’; Pavel Marek, La embajada española, pp. 175–83. 9 Pavel Marek, La embajada española; two other examples: Francisco Moncada (Marquis of Aytona), in his report dated 11 November 1626, supporting the conferral of the Order of the Golden Fleece to Count Otto Heinrich Fugger, count of Kirchberg (1592–1644): BNE, Mss. 1929, fols. 161v–162r; the report written by the Count of Franquenburg (Count Franz Christoph Khevenhüller-Frankenburg), 12 June 1625, about the conferrals of the Order of the Golden Fleece on Johann Ulrich ( Joachim Ulrico), son of Guillermo Count of Slavata and to George Martinitz, ‘son of the Count of Schmissanzky’: AGS, Estado, leg. 2406, nr. 31.

25 1

252

ti bo r m a rt í

Miklós Zrínyi (1664), and Count (from 1687, Prince) Pál Esterházy, son of Miklós Esterházy. Four of these five knights of the Order also served as palatine of Hungary, which was the highest public position in that kingdom. For each of these five statesmen, loyalty to the Habsburg dynasty was surely the decisive factor behind this conferral of knighthood, but their individual relationships with the ambassadors who represented their cases, shepherded their nominations, and official petition letters sent to the court in Madrid, were almost equally important. The Spanish king’s diplomats were typically in close contact with the archbishop of Esztergom (the primate of Hungary, the Catholic Church’s highest-ranking dignitary in that country) and the palatine of Hungary (the official whose executive power was second only to the king’s). These two heads of the ecclesiastical and the secular elite were extremely influential representatives, with extensive leverage over the nobles who were entitled to vote in royal elections until 1687. In the seventeenth century, Spanish ambassadors to the imperial court in Vienna had another important motive for maintaining close and cordial relations with Hungarian palatines: raising armies. For example, one of the Hungarian king’s palatines, Count Miklós Esterházy (1583–1645; palatine from 1625–45), helped the Spanish Habsburgs’ ambassadors recruit Hungarian and Croatian mercenaries, primarily light cavalry to be deployed on the battlegrounds of Western Europe; another palatine, Count Pál Pálffy de Erdőd (1590–1653; palatine from 1649–53), helped a Spanish ambassador buy a significant number of horses in Hungary.10 In evaluating the Hungarian side of such connections, to take one example, it is worth noting that from the beginning of his career as a national dignitary, starting with his appointment to the position of judex curiae in Sopron in 1622, Miklós Esterházy maintained good relationships with the Spanish ambassadors at the imperial court in Vienna, first with the count of Oñate, from the beginning of the 1620s, and later with his successor, Francisco Moncada, the count of Ossona.11 Esterházy, who was familiar with the functioning of the mechanisms of power at the court in Vienna, was well aware of both the Spanish ambassador’s potential influence with the sovereign ruler, and of the Spanish ambassadors’ traditional affiliation with the Catholic Church, an affiliation shared by a number of Hungarian aristocrats.

10 See Tibor Monostori, ‘Adatok a spanyol-magyar kapcsolatok történetéhez. A spanyol király és a német-római császár közötti szövetség terve, 1624–1637 [A Contribution to the History of the Relations between Spain and Hungary. The Plan of the Habsburg League, 1624–1637]’, Kút, 7.1 (2008), 52–53. 11 For more on the correspondence between Count Miklós Esterházy and Spanish ambassadors, see: Tibor Martí, ‘Algunos datos sobre las relaciones entre la nobleza hispana y los estados húngaros en la época de la Guerra de los Treinta Años’, in Nobleza hispana, nobleza cristiana: la Orden de San Juan, ed. by Manuel Rivero Rodríguez, 2 vols (Madrid: Polifemo, 2009), i, pp. 473–526.

hu n ga r i an m e m b e r s o f t h e o r d e r of  t he  go ld e n f le ece

At the Diet of Sopron in 1625, Count Miklós Eszterházy, with the support of the archbishop of Esztergom, Péter Pázmány (1616–37), managed to convince the gathered representatives of the Hungarian kingdom to elect as king of Hungary the son of Emperor Ferdinand II, Archduke Ferdinand Ernest, and to organize his official coronation ceremony for 8 December 1625.12 Immediately after the coronation, the Spanish ambassador, the Count of Ossona, suggested to Philip IV that Palatine Esterházy be awarded the Golden Fleece13 and that Archbishop Pázmány be granted a substantial pension of 3000 ducats (ducados), an amount similar to the sum enjoyed by his predecessor, Ferenc Forgách.14 Perhaps remarkably, in the innermost circles of the Hungarian aristocracy Esterházy was considered a homo novus, a newcomer. He had been the first in his family to obtain a public role of nationwide scope and had himself elevated his family name into the ranks of the upper nobility. The count of Oñate and his successors in Vienna, however, spoke highly of Esterházy’s personal qualities: his Catholic faith, his clarity of reason as a statesman, and his loyalty to the sovereign ruler.15

12 For the election and coronation of the Archduke Ferdinand Ernst as king of Hungary at the Hungarian diet of Sopron in 1625, see: Vilmos Fraknói, Pázmány Péter élete és kora [The life and times of Péter Pázmány], 3 vols (Pest: Ráth Mór, 1868–72), ii: 1622–1631 (1869), pp. 147–84; for a study of Francisco Moncada’s relationship with the Diet and the European political context of the Spanish Monarchy, see: Tibor Martí, ‘Az 1625. évi soproni országgyűlés a Habsburg dinasztia spanyol ágának szemével: Ossona gróf bécsi spanyol követ jelentései [The 1625 Diet of Sopron from the point of view of the Spanish branch of the House of Habsburg: Reports of the Count of Ossona, Spanish Ambassador to Vienna]’, in Amikor Sopronra figyelt Európa. Az 1625. évi soproni koronázó országgyűlés [When the Eyes of Europe were on Sopron: The Hungarian Coronation Diet of 1625], ed. by Péter Dominkovits–Csaba Katona–Géza Pálffy, (Annales Archivi Soproniensis No. 2.) (Sopron–Budapest: MNL Győr-Moson-Sopron Megye Soproni Levéltára – Bölcsészettudományi Kutatóközpont Történettudományi Intézet, 2020), pp. 245–367; for further biographical data, see: Lothar Höbelt, Ferdinand III. 1608–1657. Friedenskaiser wider Willen (Graz: Ares, 2008); Mark Hengerer, Kaiser Ferdinand III. (1608–1657): eine Biographie (Vienna/Cologne/Weimar: Böhlau, 2012); for the political career of Count Miklós Esterházy, see: István Hiller, Palatin Nikolaus Esterházy: die ungarische Rolle in der Habsburgerdiplomatie 1625–1645, Esterházy-Studien, 1 (Vienna: Böhlau, 1991). 13 BNE, Mss. 1433, fol. 120v: Report by Francisco Moncada (Count of Ossona, third Marquis of Aytona), 28 November 1625. 14 Vilmos Fraknói, ‘Pázmány spanyol évdíja [The Spanish Pension of Pázmány]’, Magyar Sion, 1869, 22–39; Vilmos Fraknói, Pázmány Péter élete és kora, ii, pp. 177–84; the Archivo General de Simancas also houses some documents related to the pension which Philip III granted to Pázmány’s predecessor, Ferenc Forgách, the Archbishop of Esztergom (1607–1615). After the death of Archbishop Forgách, his nephew Ádám Forgách (1601–1681) was granted an annual amount of 1500 ducats. Four years later, Zsigmond Forgách (brother of the archbishop, father of Ádám Forgách, and Palatine of the Kingdom of Hungary, 1618–1621) wrote a letter to the Count of Oñate asking him to forward a request to Philip III that this sum—offered in recognition of the Forgách family’s service to the king of Spain—be paid. The Spanish Council of State negotiated this business on 22 December 1618: AGS, Estado, leg. 1658, s.f.; I would like to thank Eduardo Mesa Gallego for drawing my attention to this document. 15 In a report from Vienna dated 10 August 1622, the Count of Oñate writes about Count Miklós Esterházy, ‘es el hombre de más entendimiento y mayor zelo a la Religión y fidelidad

25 3

254

ti bo r m a rt í

Shortly after the coronation of Ferdinand III as king of Hungary in 1625, Philip IV dispatched his ambassador, the count of Ossona, to inform Palatine Esterházy that he had been awarded the Order of the Golden Fleece.16 It would, however, be three years before Esterházy received his chain, the insignia of the Order. The reason for this delay might have been a lack of vacancies within the Order itself. By 1627, Esterházy had sought the mediation of the count of Ossona in lobbying to speed up the conferral process;17 the Spanish state council (Consejo de Estado) would soon debate the proposal. Luckily for Esterházy, one of the knights of the Order, Count Karl von Harrach (1570–1628), died shortly before this session of the state council, and thus the Hungarian palatine was appointed to fill the vacancy without further delay (Fig. 13.1). His investiture ceremony took place on 31 December 1628 in the antechamber of the Hofburg palace in Vienna.18 We have a specific report19 written about this event by Jean Hervart, who served as the rey de armas (‘king of arms’) of the Order of the Golden Fleece for a long period in the early seventeenth century. If the Order was to be conferred on a chevalier, the Spanish king would order the king of arms to go to the treasury of the Order of the Golden Fleece in Brussels, and from there deliver the insignias of the Order to the location where the new chevalier’s investiture ceremony would take place; the king of arms would then participate in this ceremony. Hervart kept detailed diaries of his journeys and the ceremonies in which he participated, including their dates and places (1605–33),20 and thus recorded details about Palatine Miklós Esterházy’s investiture ceremony as well. Hervart’s diaries are especially valuable because they include a great deal of data which do not appear in any other source; his description of this ceremony includes several such pieces of information. In October 1628, he left Salzburg to deliver the insignia of the Order of the Golden Fleece to three people: Georg Ludwig, Count of Schwarzenberg

16 17 18 19

20

del Emperador que yo he hallado en Ungria.’; Tibor Martí, ‘Oñate gróf bécsi spanyol követ jelentései az 1622. évi soproni országgyűlésről (Forrásközlemény) [Reports of the Count of Oñate, Spanish Ambassador to the Imperial Court from the 1622 Diet of Sopron. (A Source Publication)]’, in Egy új együttműködés kezdete: Az 1622. évi soproni koronázó országgyűlés. [The Beginning of a New Cooperation. The Coronation Diet of 1622], Annales Archivi Soproniensis, 1 (Sopron/Budapest: MNL Győr-Moson-Sopron megyei Soproni Levéltára/ MTA BTK TTI, 2014), pp. 233–57 (pp. 251–53, no. 12). ADM, Archivo Histórico, leg. 60, ramo 6, s.f.: Philip IV to Aytona, Zaragoza, 15 January 1626. AGS, Estado, leg. 2510, nr. 55 and nr. 56: Letter written by Aytona, Vienna, 23 August 1628. Bernardo J. García García, ‘El diario de viajes del rey de armas Jean Hervart’, in El legado de Borgoña, ed. by de Jonge, García García and Esteban Estríngana, p. 480. AGP, Libros y registros, registro 7018, fol. 171r–v, 172r: ‘[…] las ceremonias de los Tusones entregados por su Magestad Cesarea al Conde de Schwartzenberg, al Conde de Esterhazi Palatino de Hungría y al Conde de Colalto.’; I am grateful to Prof. Bernardo J. García García for drawing my attention to this source. Bernardo J. García García, ‘El diario de viajes del rey de armas Jean Hervart’, in El legado de Borgoña, ed. by de Jonge, García García and Esteban Estríngana, pp. 451–502.

hu n ga r i an m e m b e r s o f t h e o r d e r of  t he  go ld e n f le ece

Fig. 13.1.  Charter of Philip IV concerning the conferral of the Order of the Golden Fleece on Count Miklós Esterházy, Palatine of Hungary, Madrid, 20 July 1628 © Budapest, Hungarian National Archives

(1586–1646), Palatine Miklós Esterházy, and Rambaldo Count of Collalto (1575–1630), who had been the president of the Aulic War Council in Vienna since 1624. Esterházy’s investiture ceremony took place a short time after that of the count of Schwarzenberg, who received the insignia of the Order from Emperor Ferdinand II in Klosterneuburg on 30 November 1628, the feast day of Andrew the Apostle, the patron saint of the Order the Golden Fleece. Esterházy’s and Schwarzenberg’s investiture ceremonies were organized in similar fashion. Both men were the first in their families on whom the Order had been conferred. Hervart noted that Esterházy had arrived in Vienna on 30 December, having spent a day and a half traveling from one of his palaces, probably Forchtenstein. Hervart’s detailed diary entry on the ceremony enumerated the persons who participated in it and described the insignia he delivered to Esterházy; it is the only known source with data related to the insignia which Count Miklós Esterházy received. The palatine acknowledged his receipt of the insignia.21 (Fig. 13.2) Hervart’s diaries also include specifics

21 AGP, Libros y registros, registro 7018, fol. 171v: ‘Diome su reciuo de su Collar de cinquenta siete piecas comprehendido en ellas el Tuson pendiente con promesa de la restitucion del y del libro para despues de sus días, y entregue este reciuo al Tesorero de la Orden sacando y rompiendo el mio que le tenía dado’.

25 5

2 56

ti bo r m a rt í

Fig. 13.2.  Acknowledgement from Count Miklós Esterházy, Palatine of Hungary, of the reception of the insignia of the Order of the Golden Fleece; Vienna, 2 January 1629 © Budapest, Hungarian National Archives

about the palatine’s coat of arms, which Esterházy had to give to Hervart, the representative of the Order of the Golden Fleece, as part of his investiture. Hervart also mentioned that he received a letter Esterházy had written to Philip IV, thanking him for this honour.22 Esterházy established close relationships with several Spanish ambassadors. For example, the marquis of Castañeda, ambassador to the Viennese court between 1632 and 1641, was a personal friend who presented the Hungarian aristocrat with a life-size portrait which is still on display in the Esterházy family’s famous Fraknó castle, now in Forchtenstein, Austria.23 Their personal 22 AGS, Estado, leg. 2510, nr. 33: Palatine Miklós Esterházy to Philip IV (Vienna, 2 January 1629): ‘[…] Juxta benignam Sacrae Maiestatis Vestrae ordinationem rite inauguratus cooptatusque sum in Excellentissimum Ordinem Aurei Velleris per Sacratissimam Romanorum Imperatoriam Maiestatem Domini Domini clementissimum ultimo die mensis et Anni proxime praeteriti. Rarum hoc, potentissime Rex, in gente nostra decus et ornamentum, et quo rarius tanto me id favori suo reddit magis obnaxium, sed et totam hanc inclytam nationem Hungaricam, quam Catholica Vestra Maiestas in me decoravit, compendio sibi clementer devinxit. Ego me illo fidei et fidelitatis nexu agnosco Augustissimae Domui Austriacae obstrictum, ut ad cum vix aliquid accedere posse putarim’. 23 Tibor Martí and Tibor Monostori, ‘A Spanyol Monarchia értesülései a Magyar Királyságról – Castañeda márki titkárának “interjúja” Esterházy Miklós nádorral (1639) [The Spanish Monarchy’s Information about the Kingdom of Hungary – The Marquis of Castañeda’s interview of Count Miklós Esterházy, Palatine of Hungary (1639)]’, Lymbus. Magyarságtudományi Forrásközlemények, 13 (2016), 123–39 (pp. 123–24).

hu n ga r i an m e m b e r s o f t h e o r d e r of  t he  go ld e n f le ece

correspondence also makes clear that they regularly exchanged valuable gifts, including horses. In a 1639 letter written to the Spanish monarch, the ambassador also emphasized his deep and personal friendship with the palatine. Castañeda reported that it was he who had taken Philip IV’s place and held Esterházy’s daughter Mária (1638–84) at her christening in Pozsony (today Bratislava); he also served as godfather to—and attended the wedding of—the palatine’s son, István (1616–41); the latter ceremony was also celebrated in Pozsony. As detailed above, the Spanish ambassador played a crucial role in the process of nominating Miklós Esterházy for—and awarding him with—the Order of the Golden Fleece, as was the case with other candidates from Central Europe and the Austrian Empire on whom the Order was conferred. The decisiveness of the Spanish ambassador’s role is also suggested by the fact that candidacies were occasionally annulled when a Spanish ambassador provided background information indicating that a candidate’s political influence was insufficient. This was the case in 1646, when the Duke of Terranova’s lack of support sank the candidacy of the Hungarian palatine János Draskovich (1604–48). The Spanish ambassador played these same behind-the-scenes roles—of mediator and informant—when the Order was conferred on Count Pál Pálffy of Erdőd in 1650. The famous book on Ferdinand IV’s coronation as king of the Romans mentions sources according to which the Spanish ambassador, Francisco Moura, third marquis of Castel-Rodrigo, solicited funds (200 florins) from the Spanish council of state (Consejo de Estado) in the hope of covering the costs he would incur buying horses with the help of Palatine Pálffy, and in delivering them to Flanders.24 Furthermore, Pálffy’s candidacy was also strengthened by his noble ancestry, by his beneficial marriage into imperial circles (he was the brother-in law of Maximilian von Trauttmansdorff [1584–1650], president of the secret council of the Empire and the most influential statesman of his era), by his good relations with the imperial court, and almost certainly by his personal friendship with the Spanish ambassador, the marquis of Castel-Rodrigo.25

24 Antonio Valcárcel, Príncipe Pío, XVI Marqués de Castel-Rodrigo, La elección de Fernando IV rey de Romanos: correspondencia del III Marqués de Castel-Rodrigo Don Francisco de Moura durante el tiempo de su embajada en Alemania (1648–1656) (Madrid: Rivadeneyra, 1929), pp. 424, 442: ‘Nº 6 – En 25 de Noviembre del dicho año [1649] se despacho recaudo de 200 florines pagados al Conde de Merode Thian, para ir de Viena a Ungria a tratar y disponer con el Palatino de aquel Reyno, el sacar algunos cav[a]llos para montar las companies que passaron a flandes, como paresce por el recivo.’; see also p. 492: ‘En 25 de novi[emb]re de 1649 se despacho recado de 5.000 florines por la ayuda de costa para el viaxe que hiço S. E. a Possonia en Ungria a asistir a Su Mag[esta]d Cessarea en la dieta que tuvo para la Election del Palatino’. 25 Anna Fundárková, Ein ungarischer Aristokrat am Wiener Hof des 17. Jahrhunderts: die Briefe von Paul Pálffy an Maximilian von Trauttmansdorff (1647–1650), Publikationen der ungarischen Geschichtsforschung in Wien, 1 (Vienna: Collegium Hungaricum, 2009).

25 7

258

ti bo r m a rt í

Count Ferenc Wesselényi (1605–67), the most important Hungarian politician of the period, was appointed palatine at the Hungarian parliament of 1655 and continued to serve in that capacity until his death in 1667. During that same parliamentary session, Archduke Leopold I (1640–1705) was elected and crowned king of Hungary (1655–1705). However, it was only in 1660 that Count Wesselényi was admitted to the Order.26 This honour might have come in recognition of Wesselényi’s efficiency in supporting the stationing of German soldiers in Hungarian fortresses. Spanish ambassadors’ reports on Hungarian diets in the seventeenth century always related such matters if they were being debated. While Hungarian aristocrats consistently opposed the stationing of foreign troops in castles on the territory of the Hungarian kingdom, Wesselényi’s assistance in 1660 was useful to the dynasty, and thus the palatine’s admission to the Order of the Golden Fleece can be regarded as his reward for supporting the political and military aims of the dynasty. Wesselényi received the insignia of the Order two years later. On 11 May 1662, Grand Master of the Household (Obersthofmeister), Duke Portia, informed Palatine Wesselényi that his insignia had arrived in Italy.27 As we will later see in the case of Pál Esterházy, the motifs of a contemporary printed document make reference to Wesselényi’s induction into the Order of the Golden Fleece. This thesis sheet was prepared for a logic exam conducted by the Jesuit priest Márton Zeller and taken by Gáspár Széchy, who dedicated it to his uncle Ferenc Wesselényi, the palatine of Hungary and chief captain of Kassa (now Košice, Slovakia). This document was designed in an atmosphere of Turkish attacks and depicts a legendarily heroic deed of one of Hungary’s greatest secular dignitaries. As his contemporaries were aware, Wesselényi was so powerful that in one calvary battle, he managed to behead an enemy and that enemy’s horse with a single stroke of his sword. Behind this cavalry battle, this engraving depicts the siege of a fortress, with a mustering of troops in the background; above these scenes, in reference to the Order of the Golden Fleece which Wesselényi had received the previous year, imperial eagles are flying with the Order’s insignia around their necks and in their talons, while in a mythological parallel, Jason, having obtained the golden fleece, is arriving in his triumphal chariot, surrounded by female allegorical figures.28 26 MNL OL, E 148 (Neoregestrata acta), Fasc. 75, nr. 23: The diploma of Charles II for the Count of Wesselényi; for other documents related to the conferral of the Order of the Golden Fleece on the Count of Wesselényi, see: AHN, Estado, leg. 7682, Exp. 26. 27 ÖStA HHStA Ungarische Akten Specialia Fasc. 341. Konv[olut] A. Aus dem fürstlich Portia’schen Archive Hungarica 1658–1665, fol. 90: ‘Aureum vellus pro Vestra Excellentia jam in Italiam pervenit, scribo et Dominum Legatum Hispanicum scribere facio, ut maturet iter, ut Sua Maiestas etiam hoc benigni sui affectus specimen coram toto regno dare possit’. 28 Géza Galavics, ‘“Wesselényi Ferenc hőstette” Széchy Gáspár tézislapja a nagyszombati egyetemen 1663. Ismeretlen festő után Matthäus Küssel (1629–1681), (rézmetszet, Wien, Heeresgeschichtliches Museum) [Ferenc Wesselényi’s heroic act. Széchy Gáspár’s thesis sheet at the univeristy of Nagyszombat, 1663. An engraving by Matthäus Küssel (1629–1681), based on a work of an unknown painter (Vienna, Heeresgeschichtliches Museum)]’, in

hu n ga r i an m e m b e r s o f t h e o r d e r of  t he  go ld e n f le ece

Of all the Hungarian knights of the Order, Count Miklós Zrínyi (1620–64) was the only one who did not receive this honour as palatine of Hungary, but rather as ban of Croatia; in this position, he was the second-highest-ranking dignitary in the kingdom of Hungary and Croatia after the palatine.29 Zrínyi was the most outstanding and ingenious political and military leader of his era in Hungary; Philip IV would grant him knighthood and admission to the Order just months before Zrínyi died in a tragic hunting accident on 24 June 1664.30 Although Zrínyi’s death prevented him from donning the collar of the Order, he did receive information about its conferral in a letter sent to him by Don Blasco de Loyola from Madrid. Blasco de Loyola informed him of the decision, and promised that an official notification would follow shortly, accompanied by the traditional collar of the Order.31 Zrínyi was awarded this honour, among the most prestigious of his era, for the personal merits he had demonstrated in the service of the House of Austria, the Habsburg dynasty, and the Christian faith, above all during his 1664 winter military campaign against the Ottomans, which made him famous across Europe. As the marquis of Castel-Rodrigo, Francisco de Moura y Corte Real Melo (1621–1675), put it in a letter to Zrínyi which was later cited by Marcus Forstall, the recently appointed governor of the Low Countries, ‘…this honour is made even more valuable by the fact that the conferral [of the Order] was decided personally by the king, who chose Your Excellency among so many outstanding candidates’.32 The marquis also became personally acquainted with Zrínyi; he served as Spain’s ambassador to the court in Vienna between 1648 and 1656, and it was almost certainly he who spread Zrínyi’s fame to the court in Madrid as well. The marquis of Castel-Rodrigo was still stationed in Vienna as ambassador when the Order was conferred on another Hungarian dignitary, the Hungarian palatine Ferenc Wesselényi. And although the circumstances of the relationship between Castel-Rodrigo and Wesselényi have yet to be investigated, we may safely presume that the Spanish ambassador was a key figure in this conferral as well. The fifth Hungarian knight of the Order of the Golden Fleece was Pál Esterházy (1635–1713), one of the sons of Miklós Esterházy, whose career is recounted above. Count Pál Esterházy received the Order from Charles II

29 30 31 32

Történelem – Kép, Szemelvények múlt és művészet kapcsolatáról Magyarországon [History – Historical Images. The relationship between the past and the arts in Hungary], ed. by Árpád Mikó and Katalin Sinkó (Budapest: MNG, 2000), pp. 368–70. Zrínyi Album, ed. by Gábor Hausner (Budapest: Zrínyi, 2016). Tibor Martí, ‘A téli hadjárat kimagasló elismerése: az Aranygyapjas Rend [Extraordinary Recognition for the winter campaign: The conferral of the Order of the Golden Fleece on Count Miklós Zrínyi]’, Irodalmi Magazin, 2.4 (2014), 17–18. A Zrínyiek a magyar és a horvát históriában [The Zrínyis in Hungarian and Croatian history], ed. by Sándor Bene and Gábor Hausner (Budapest: Zrínyi, 2007), pp. 331–32. A Zrínyiek a magyar és a horvát históriában, ed. by Bene and Hausner, p. 332.

259

26 0

ti bo r m a rt í

in 1681; just like his ancestor, he had made an illustrious political career for himself; he was also an important literary figure and a renowned patron of the arts with excellent taste.33 He assembled a significant portion of his family’s art collection and continued the work of his father in elevating the prestige of his family. An ambitious and ingenious son, Pál remained faithful to the Habsburg dynasty throughout the rebellions and turbulence of the Hungarian national politics of his era. Although Pál Esterházy’s career reached its summit in 1687, when he was elevated to the rank of imperial prince, his admission to the Order of the Golden Fleece in 1681 was perhaps an equally important milestone for the young aristocrat, who planned his career with deliberate care. With the help of the Jesuit Christophorus Stettinger, the emperor’s confessor, he managed to obtain the support of Emperor Leopold around 1680. By 26 June 1679, Pál Esterházy had already obtained the title of secret counsellor, which status elevated him beyond the ranks of the Hungarian aristocracy and into the international elite of the Habsburg monarchy. The subsequent conferral of the Order of the Golden Fleece further consolidated the exceptional position he had achieved. Pál Esterházy’s ambition to be awarded the Order was motivated not only by his personal political ambitions, but by his family’s tradition and his intention to follow the example set by his father. As Miklós Esterházy was both the first member of his family and the first representative of the Hungarian aristocracy to receive the Order of the Golden Fleece, his career served his ambitious son both as an example to follow and as an achievement to be surpassed. Pál Esterházy’s aims manifested themselves physically and symbolically during the construction of the façade on his family’s castle in Kismarton (now Eisenstadt, Austria): one decorative bust depicts his father, Palatine Miklós, wearing the collar of the Order; Pál insisted that the sculpture of himself match it, even though at that time he had not yet been admitted to the Order. This pair of statues is thus a most vivid representation of Pál Esterházy’s ambition to follow in his father’s footsteps and acquire Hungarian and international titles. Pál Esterházy was finally awarded the Order of the Golden Fleece at the age of forty-six, roughly the same age his father had been when he was admitted to the Order. Despite the remarkable service he had rendered, and despite

33 For more about Count (from 1687, Duke) Pál Esterházy, see: Lajos Merényi and Zsigmond Bubics, Herczeg Esterházy Pál nádor 1635–1713 [Duke Pál Esterházy, Palatine of Hungary 1635– 1713] (Budapest: Magyar Történelmi Társulat, 1895); for more recent work, see: Esterházy Pál, a műkedvelő mecénás: Egy 17. századi arisztokrata-életpálya a politika és a művészet határvidékén [Pál Esterházy, the patron: the career of a 17th-century Hungarian aristocrat at the intersection of politics and art], ed. by Pál Ács and Enikő Buzási (Budapest: Reciti, 2015); see also András Szilágyi, ‘Pál Esterházy (1635–1713), Patron of the Arts’, in Hungary’s heritage. Princely treasures from the Esterházy Collection from the Museum of Applied Arts and the Hungarian National Museum, Budapest, ed. by András Szilágyi (London: Holberton, 2004), p. 40.

hu n ga r i an m e m b e r s o f t h e o r d e r of  t he  go ld e n f le ece

the intercession of the emperor’s confessor (and other influential persons), Pál Esterházy’s admission was delayed until Emperor Leopold decided to contact the Spanish king on his behalf; Pál Esterházy was awarded the Order on 10 September 1681, just three months after he had been appointed palatine of Hungary.34 When Esterházy became palatine, Emperor Leopold wrote a letter to his ambassador in Madrid, Ottone Enrico del Carretto, marquis of Grana35—another knight of the Order of the Golden Fleece36—ordering him to arrange Esterházy’s admission without further delay. In detailing his reasons for supporting Pál Esterházy’s candidacy, the emperor suggested that the palatine deserved the Order both for his exceptional personal merits and for his family’s service to the Empire; for his uncompromising loyalty to the dynasty, proven on many occasions; and because, as the Emperor pointed out, ‘currently there is no other person in the Hungarian kingdom who has been awarded the Order of the Golden Fleece’.37 The emperor hoped Esterházy’s knighthood would inspire loyalty in Hungarian aristocrats,38 whose service he desperately needed given the internal turbulence provoked by Imre Thököly’s uprising in northeastern Hungary and by the political manoeuvring of the parliament in Sopron. The Esterházy family archive houses a letter written to Pál Esterházy by his secretary, Mátyás Benyovszky, on 9 September 1681, the day before Emperor Leopold sent his letter of recommendation to the court in Madrid.39 This letter sheds further light on some important details of the process of conferring the Order on Esterházy. The emperor’s letter was drafted by his secretary for Spanish affairs, but Leopold himself supported the motion to admit Esterházy to the Order; as Benyovszky noted in the letter, ‘He even recommended that Your Excellency write to the Imperial ambassador in Spain’. Focused on the eventual triumph of obtaining the Order, the palatine does not seem to have fretted much over the incidental costs associated

34 MNL OL P 108, Rep. 2/3, Fasc. F, nr. 87, fol. 112: Copy of a letter in Latin from Emperor Leopold to King Charles II, Ebersdorf, 10 September 1681. 35 For a copy of a letter he wrote in Ebersdorf, dated 10 September 1681, see: MNL OL P 108, Rep. 2/3, Fasc. F, nr. 87, fol. 112–13. 36 Liste nominale des Chevaliers de l’ordre illustre de la Toisón d’Or, nr. 502: Othon Henri Marquis de Savona, Carretto et Grana, Comte de Millesimo. 37 MNL OL P 108, Rep. 2/3, Fasc. F, nr. 87, fol. 112r: ‘[…] Aurei Velleris Ordinem […] observo in inclyto meo Hungariae Regno, non esse, qui hoc Vestrae Maiestatis tam praeclaro effulgeat symbolo. Cujus proceres tamen eo etiam digni videntur vel maxime, quos in hoc Christianitatis antemurali continuis pro fide et bono publico vigiliis contra Christiani nominis hostem, de tota pene Europa, singulariter merentur. Inter quos praereliquis occurrit Illustris syncere dilecta: a multis retro saeculis vetustissima originemque a primis et antiquissimis Hungarorum Ducibus trahens, familia Esterhasiana’. 38 MNL OL P 108, Rep. 2/3, Fasc. F, nr. 87, fol. 113v: ‘[…] hic inclytus ordo […] Regni Proceres ad continuos devotionis stimulos, ulterius excitabuntur’. 39 MNL OL P 108, Rep. 2/3, Fasc. F, nr. 87, fols. 128r–v.

261

262

ti bo r m a rt í

with it—time, money, and effort. Esterházy and the imperial ambassador to Madrid, the marquis of Grana, established a correspondence; in a letter dated 13 October 1681, the imperial diplomat wrote to Esterházy that he would do everything in his power to facilitate Esterházy’s admission to the Order of the Golden Fleece.40 The imperial ambassador even sent the Hungarian palatine a detailed list of expenditures he had incurred in supporting the latter’s case, for which Esterházy would later reimburse him. Expenses related to the conferral of the Order of the Golden Fleece, incurred by the marquis of Grana, imperial ambassador to Madrid, later reimbursed by Palatine Pál Esterházy41

Golden florins Secretario status, Petro Coloma, pro juribus consuetis / To the Secretary of State, Petro Coloma, for the usual titles

200

Illius Officiali, quem vocant, primario / to his chief officer

50

Pro sigillo / for the seal on the diploma

24

Secretario ordinis / to the Secretary of the Council of Military Orders of Spain

200

Ejusdem officiali Primatis /to his primary official

24

Utriusque secretarii, status nempe et Ordinis, Ephebis / to the officials of the Secretary of State and the Secretary of the Council of Military Orders

32

To Otto Marqués del Carretto

530

Another list of expenses and payments related to Pál Esterházy’s candidacy for admission to the Order of the Golden Fleece is preserved in the imperial archive. Like the previous document, it demonstrates that the Hungarian palatine was not afraid of spending considerable sums in the pursuit of internationally prestigious insignia. These records are also evidence that the ambassador played an intermediary role in such proceedings; it is clear that the ambassador himself conveyed the following financial document. Expenditures related to the conferral of the Order of the Golden Fleece42

Golden florins Primo: Secretario Suae Maiestatis Hispanico, qui recomendatitias, imo et Duplicam nomine Suae Maiestatis in Hispaniam scripsit / to the Spanish Secretary of the Emperor, for his recommendations, and separately for the copy written in Spanish in the name of His Majesty

150

Secundo: Eiusdem scriba / to his scribe

18

40 MNL OL P, Rep. 2/3, Fasc. F, nr. 87, fols. 126r–v: Marquis of Grana to Pál Esterházy, Madrid, 13 October 168). 41 MNL OL P 108, Rep. 2/3, Fasc. F, nr. 87, fol. 132: Index expensarum Nomine Excellentissimi Domini Palatini Hungariae a Marchione de Grana erogatarum. 42 MNL OL P 108, Rep. 2/3, Fasc. F, nr. 87, fol. 133: Expensae quae requiruntur pro Aureo Vellere.

hu n ga r i an m e m b e r s o f t h e o r d e r of  t he  go ld e n f le ece

Golden florins Tertio: In Aula Hispanica hinc inde solvendi / to be paid thus to the Spanish Court

1000

Quarto: Re de Armas seu Curiero Hispanico, qui dictum Torquem 1500 ex Hispania adfert / to the “King of Arms” the Spanish knight who transports the aforementioned Order [of the Golden Fleece] from Spain Quinto: Item eidem unum donum dum praesentat per se / to the same person, as official gift, upon his arrival

75

Sexto: Pro Capellano Aulico, aliisque ad altare inservientibus / to the Court Chaplain, and the other servants of the altar

50

Summa facit / In total

2793

Item Convivium Instituendum / Furthermore, for the preparation of the feast

Sum not specified

Further investigation into the ambassadors’ involvement in Esterházy’s conferral reveals the noteworthy circumstance that the Spanish ambassador Carlo Emanuel d’Este, marquis of Borgomanero, was present at the parliament of Sopron when Pál Esterházy was elected palatine of Hungary. The ambassador wrote detailed reports about the events of this assembly, including a letter from Sopron dated 14 June 1681, in which he refers to Pál Esterházy as one of four candidates nominated by the king for the position of palatine. In his description of the four candidates, the ambassador refers to ‘Astrassy’ [an alternative transcription of Esterházy] as an aristocrat of great wealth and fidelity to the dynasty, as well as Emperor Leopold’s personal choice for the post.43 Given the content of the ambassador’s reports, it is clear that by the summer of 1681, Charles II and the Spanish court would have been familiar with the details that would later induce them to confer the Order of the Golden Fleece on Esterházy. The imperial ambassador in Madrid, the marquis of Grana, in a letter dated 15 October 1681, promised Emperor Leopold that he would officially request that the Order of the Golden Fleece be conferred on Pál Esterházy.44 On 29 October, the ambassador informed the Viennese court that he had already contacted Charles II’s favourite, the duke of Medinaceli, who was enormously influential in Madrid45 and had served in several key positions at the royal court there.46 The ambassador also relayed information from

43 AGS, Estado, Libro 147, fol. 249r–v: Marquis of Burgomayne to Marquis of Carpio, Spanish ambassador in Rome, Sopron, 14 June 1681: ‘[…] ayer auiendo su Mag[esta]d Cess[area] a nombrado quatro suxetos co[n] el Reyno, escoxió al Conde Astrassy, fidelisimo a la agustisima cassa, muy rico, y finalmente el que Su Magestad deseaua que fuesse, con que dada esta satisfazion al Reyno, que con esto cree aver buelto a la possesión de sus privilegios’. 44 ÖStA, HHStA, Spanien, Diplomatische Korrespondenz, K. 61, Konv. 6, fols. 235r–v. 45 Juan Francisco de la Cerda Enríquez de Ribera (1637–1697). 46 ÖStA, HHStA, Spanien, Diplomatische Korrespondenz, K. 61, Konv. 6, fol. 245v.

263

264

ti bo r m a rt í

the prince, according to which the king’s council had already discussed the topic in its sessions; the ambassador also promised the court in Vienna that he would report on further developments so that Leopold could follow the progress of the case. Charles II’s official letter to Emperor Leopold about the conferral of the Order of the Golden Fleece on Esterházy was dated 23 December 1681.47 In this letter, written in French from Madrid, the Spanish king informs the emperor that he has admitted the Hungarian palatine to the Order and bestowed on him the official title confrère, and asks Leopold, in accordance with the traditions of the investiture ceremony, to present the insignia to Esterházy. Shortly thereafter, on 27 December, the Spanish king himself wrote to Esterházy, addressing him as ‘cousin’ the traditional form of address between members of the Order, and informing him that the order would be conferred on him in recognition of his merits. The king indicated that his ambassador would present the insignia of the Order to Esterházy at a traditional investiture ceremony. The king entrusted the preparations for this event to the Emperor’s Burgundian secretary, Charles Malboan (Secretaire de Sa Majesté Imperiale) and to the imperial ambassador to Madrid, the marquis of Grana.

The Investiture of Pàl Esterházy into the Order of the Golden Fleece: The Ceremony in the Augustinerkirche in Vienna Esterházy received the Order of the Golden Fleece in Vienna on 24 February 1682. The ceremony took place in the Augustinerkirche,48 and though the date and location of the investiture are already familiar, some recently discovered archival sources offer deeper insights into the planning and execution of the ceremony. Given the importance and the solemn traditions of the Order, as well as the ceremony’s personal significance for Palatine Esterházy, this investiture was painstakingly planned. The Esterházy family archive has preserved several documents related to the Order’s conferral, including letters written by the king of Spain, correspondence with officers of the Order, the book of statutes for members of the Order,49 and a detailed description of

47 MNL OL P 108, Rep. 2/3, Fasc. F, nr. 87, fol. 115. A transcription in latin: fol. 123. 48 Coelestin Wolfsgruber, Die Hofkirche zu S. Augustin in Wien (Augsburg: Huttler, 1888), p. 100. 49 MNL OL, P 108, Rep. 2/3, Fasc. F, nr. 81, 82, 83, 85; the oldest manual of statutes from the Order of the Golden Fleece in the archives of the Esterházy family (or, at least, the branch including these princes) is a copy made after the death of Palatine Miklós Esterházy: MNL OL, P 108, Rep. 2/3, Fasc. F, nr. 78; according to a note on the first page of the manuscript, the toisón was presented to Miklós Esterházy on the last day of 1628 in Vienna. Emperor Ferdinand II presided over the investiture, which was also attended by Ferdinand III, King of Hungary. In accordance with the statutes of the order, Esterházy’s original insignia and his

hu n ga r i an m e m b e r s o f t h e o r d e r of  t he  go ld e n f le ece

the investiture ceremony,50 all of which attest to his meticulousness. In the course of these preparations, a newly admitted member was to compose a memorandum consisting of three points describing the tasks to be completed. The first was an acknowledgement of receipt of the insignia and the book of statutes; the model for this document, not surprisingly, was the one prepared by his father, Miklós Esterházy;51 Pál’s summary of his father’s letter proves as much.52 Second was the composition of a letter of gratitude to Charles II, the final version of which was dated 12 February 1682. The third task was to present a painting of his coat of arms and a parchment summary of his titles and offices.53 New members of the Order were obliged to present their coat of arms and a complete list of their titles, along with biographical details about their family histories, family members including wives and children, and their careers prior to their admission to the Order.54 The Order of the Golden Fleece was governed by four key officers (counselor, trésorier, gréffier, and herold);55 it was the responsibility of the trésorier to have newly appointed members’ coats of arms copied into a registry (Wappenbuch) kept for this purpose. In addition to his own coats of arms, a new member would also submit the coats of arms of his parents and grandparents, along with a description in French of his family’s history. For the Hungarian palatine, who was keen on investigating his family’s genealogy,56 these requirements were not bothersome administrative tasks, but rather interesting challenges.

50 51 52 53 54

55 56

parchment-bound constitution of the Order of the Golden Fleece were returned in January 1646 by his son, Count László Esterházy (1626–1652), after the palatine’s death. He made a copy so that ‘it would be preserved forever in a commemorative manner in the Esterházy family’s castle at Fraknó [Forchtenstein], and so that the successors of the great and decorated Count Esterházy could observe it together with other documents and the eulogy that had been handed out on the day of his funeral (December 11th, 1645) in Nagyszombat’. MNL OL P 108, Rep. 2/3, Fasc. F, nr. 86: ‘Breve relación de las ceremonias, que se usan en la corte cesarea, para poner el collar a un cavallero de la Orden del Tuson de Oro’. The copy of the acknowledgement, in: ÖStA, HHStA, Archiv des Ordens vom Goldenen Vlies, K. 13, nr. 378. MNL OL P 108, Rep. 2/3, Fasc. F., nr. 87, fol. 140. MNL OL P 108, Rep. 2/3, Fasc. F., nr. 87, fol. 139. In the Archive of the Order of the Golden Fleece (in HHStA, Vienna) is a collection of volumes of coats of arms of the members of the Order; one volume from the period of Charles II, King of Spain contains the coat of arms of Pál Esterházy and the data of his curriculum vitae in French; Tibor Martí, ‘Familienwappen und Lebensdaten von Palatin Paul Esterházy im Wappenbuch des Ordens vom Goldenen Vlies’, in Wiener Archivforschungen. Festschrift für den Ungarischen Archivdelegierten in Wien, István Fazekas (Vienna: Inst. für Ungarische Geschichtsforschung in Wien/Balassi Inst./Collegium Hungaricum: Ungarische Archivdelegation beim Haus-, Hof- und Staatsarchiv, 2014), pp. 223–32. Ignácz Kassics, Érdem koszorúk vagy Értekezés a felséges austriai császári és királyi uralkodó házat illető jeles rendekrül… Európában most virágzó egyéb jeles rendekrül is (Bécs: Stöckholczer, 1840), p. 15 and p. 32. István Fazekas, ‘Esterházy Pál nádor és a családtörténet [Palatine Pál Esterházy and Genealogy]’, Századok, 143 (2009), pp. 905–17.

265

26 6

ti bo r m a rt í

The description of these ceremonies in the book known as the Haus-, Hof- und Staatsarchiv Zeremoniellprotokoll57 sheds further light on the details involved in the planning and execution of Pál Esterházy’s ceremony of investiture. The most detailed description of this ceremony, separated into twelve points or sections, can be found in the Esterházy family archive in a document entitled, ‘The process of the presentation, reception, and investiture of the Order of the Golden Fleece’.58 The details included in this document also confirm that Pál Esterházy’s investiture ceremony followed the Order’s general ceremonial rules. The act of investiture itself was preceded by a series of preparatory rituals at the church: a description of Esterházy’s preparations was included in the Viennese court’s book of ceremonial protocol (Hofprotokoll) under the entry for the Andreasfest, 30 November 1675.59 This document, written in German, also includes a detailed list of the participants in this ceremony: the emperor, the papal nuncio, the ambassadors of Spain60 and Venice,61 the ministers and functionaries of the imperial court, and the members of the Order of the Golden Fleece. The church itself was specially arranged for this solemn occasion: a Bible, a silver crucifix, and a missal were laid out on a separate table; the crucifix was flanked by two golden candelabra. According to these sources, the knight of the order known as the Rey de Armas (‘king of arms’) played an exceptional role in the investiture; in his capacity as the delegate of the Spanish king, the souverain of the order, it was his task to transport the insignia to the site of the investiture ceremony. The statutes of the Order also obliged a newly appointed member to receive the Rey de Armas honourably, 57 ÖStA HHStA OMeA ÄZA, K. 13: [24 February 1682]; ÖStA, HHStA, OMeA ZA-Prot, Bd. 4, fol. 42v–44r. 58 MNL OL P 108, Rep. 2/3, Fasc. F, nr. 81. 59 MNL OL P 108, Rep. 2/3, Fasc. F, nr. 83: ‘Extractus ceremoniarum tempore Collationis Toron[!] observand. ex Protocolo Aulico’; Among the documents in the Esterházy archive related to the Order of the Golden Fleece is a German-language program for the investiture ceremony of Conrad Balthasar, Count of Starhemberg (MNL OL, P 108, Rep. 2/3, Fasc. F, nr. 80); Starhemberg was formally admitted to the Order of the Golden Fleece on 23 December 1681 (Liste nominale des Chevaliers de l’ordre illustre de la Toisón d’Or, nr. 508), and his investiture took place at the diet of Sopron on 27 May 1682. This ceremony is supposed to have inspired Pál Esterházy to seek the Order of the Golden Fleece, which process began in earnest shortly after he was elected palatine. 60 MNL OL, P 108, Rep. 2/3, Fasc. F, nr. 87, fol. 136: Response of Don Carlo d’Este, Marquis of Borgomanero to a letter of invitation from Pál Esterházy (Vienna, 10 February 1682). 61 In February of 1682, the papal nuncio at the Imperial Court was Cardinal Francesco Buonvisi (1626– 1700) and the Venetian ambassador was Dominican Contarini, but it is not known with certainty whether either participated in the investiture of Pál Esterházy. Dominico Contarini was present at the coronation of Eleonor Magdalene of Neuburg, Leopold I’s third wife and queen consort of Hungary, and later at the coronation banquet; Géza Pálffy, ‘Koronázási lakomák a 15–17. századi Magyarországon. Az önálló magyar királyi udvar asztali ceremóniarendjének kora újkori továbbéléséről és a politikai elit hatalmi reprezentációjáról [Coronation banquets in Hungary in the 15th–17th centuries. On the continuity of the seating order of the Hungarian royal court in early modern times and the power representation of the political elite]’, Századok, 138 (2004), p. 1090.

hu n ga r i an m e m b e r s o f t h e o r d e r of  t he  go ld e n f le ece

to provide adequate housing for him, to cover his travel expenses, and to offer him an appropriate sum as personal compensation for his efforts.62 The order of the presentation, reception, and investiture of the Order of the Golden Fleece (Signature: MNL OL, P 108, Rep. 2/3, Fasc. F, nr. 81. – translation from Latin) His Highness, the king and emperor goes to the Church of the Discalced Augustinians, situated in the vicinity of the court, and is followed by his ministers, the noblemen, and the aristocracy. The procession is led by His Majesty’s major-domo, holding an unsheathed sword. The emperor, with his entourage, goes into the sanctuary of the church by the usual entrance while the empress remains in the oratory. The aspirant, Pál Esterházy, separates from the entourage and waits in the vestry of the church. After the emperor sits down and puts his hat back on, the cardinal (the apostolic nuncio), the ambassadors of Spain and Venice [invited personally by Pál Esterházy, according to the testimony of the Spanish ambassador’s letter of response, preserved in the Esterházy family archive], and the knights of the Order of the Golden Fleece follow him in and occupy the prepared seats [scamna]. The antesedile [throne seat] is brought in; the assistant of the herald [Fecialis] arrives and kneels before the emperor, presenting him with the official letter of the Spanish Monarch, which states that the aspirant, Prince Esterházy, has been accepted into the Illustrious Order of the Golden Fleece, and must be incorporated into said Order in accordance with his investiture [the title of ‘Prince of Esterházy’ was used in the document later copied from the Zeremoniellprotokoll]. The emperor commands the vice-herald to read the letter aloud, then to summon the eldest and highest-ranked knight of the Order, Prince Schwarzenberg; the emperor instructs Schwarzenberg to consult the gentleman waiting in the vestry and to ask him if he is ready to accept the Order of the Golden Fleece and its statutes. After Schwarzenberg returns and confirms the will of the aspirant, he then, upon the orders of the emperor, returns to the vestry, and ushers in the aspirant. When entering the sanctuary, the aspirant bows in the direction of the altar and the emperor and walks to the imperial throne; once there, he stops on the second step of the podium and kneels. The vice-herald then presents him with the registry book of the Order; first, the aspirant reads a chapter indicated by the herald; the emperor then does the same. The emperor receives the sword from his major-domo and touches the left shoulder of the aspirant with it, thus bestowing on him the official accolade [creat Equitem].

62 MNL OL P 108, Rep. 2/3, Fasc. F, nr. 84: ‘Tractamentum Regi Armorum’.

267

26 8

ti bo r m a rt í

The herald accompanies the newly admitted knight of the Order to a table prepared nearby. The new knight kneels on a cushion, places three fingers of his left hand on the open missal, holds the crucifix in his right hand, and pronounces his solemn oath. The text of the oath is read aloud by the herald. After the oath, the palatine returns to the throne of the emperor and kneels [poplitibus illic unt antea innititur]. At the same time, the vice-herald brings the collar of the Order from the other table, and when Prince Schwarzenberg calls for him, he assists the emperor in decorating the new knight with the collar. Once adorned with the collar, the palatine kisses the right hand of the emperor, who embraces the palatine with his right hand. The members of the court and the duke of Schwarzenburg greet the palatine with an embrace and accompany him to the bench, where the new knight takes a seat and listens to the mass, after which he departs with his insignia in the company of the emperor.

After the official ceremony, the emperor, the knights of the Order, and the other guests participated in a feast, the costs of which were covered by the new knight, Pál Esterházy. According to the previously cited sources, eighty guests took part in this feast.63 The conferral of the Order of the Golden Fleece on Pál Esterházy also impacted his activities as a patron of the arts. According to a 1772 inventory of the castle of Lakompak (now Lackenbach, Austria), one of its ceiling frescoes shows a scene depicting Pál Esterházy’s solemn reception of the insignia of the Order.64 Another memento of his connection to the Order of the Golden Fleece shows up on the cover of a printed document65 published in Nagyszombat (Trnava) in 1711 and funded by the palatine himself. This volume glorifies Charles VI, who, according to its author, endured the conflicts the War of the Spanish Succession and ascended the Hungarian throne with the help of the Immaculate Virgin Mary; the engraving in the book which depicts Mary’s assumption into heaven is adorned with symbols depicting the myth in which Jason seizes the fleece after conquering its guardian dragon—a direction allusion to the Order of the Golden Fleece.66 63 ÖStA, HHStA, Archiv des Ordens vom Goldenen Vlies, Codex 69, fol. 53. 64 Géza Galavics drew my attention to this data; I am grateful to Margit Kopp for helping me gain access to this inventory; ‘Inventario ipsius Arcis Lákenpak’ – ‘Ex eo magno Palatio intratur ad Audentionale ubi desuper intra Stucaturam pictura repræsentans (?) dum Princeps Paulus Esterházi Aureum Velus accepisset’ [15 January 1722]; Die Kunstdenkmäler des politischen Bezirkes Oberpullendorf, ed. by Judith Schöbel, Petra Schröck and Ulrike Steiner, Österreichische Kunsttopographie, 56 (Horn: Berger, 2005), pp. 262–64. 65 Vellus Aureum Devicto Dracone Divino Jasoni In Præmium Statuum Ex Gentilitijs Eszterhazianæ Domûs Ceris acceptum. Anno Quo CaroLVs aVstrIVs hoC noMIne III. reX CathoLICVs fVIt pVbLICatVs, Tyrnau: Typis Academicis, [1711], RMK II. 2432. 66 From Harald Prickler’s study of a document printed in Nagyszombat and preserved in the Esterházy Princes’ library: Die Fürsten Esterházy. Magnaten, Diplomaten und Mäzene. ed. by Jakob Perschy and Harald Prickler (Eisenstadt: Amt der Burgenländischen Landesregierung, Landesarchiv-Landesbibliothek, 1995), pp. 263–64.

hu n ga r i an m e m b e r s o f t h e o r d e r of  t he  go ld e n f le ece

* * * * In each of the five conferral processes in which Hungarian aspirants were admitted to the Order of the Golden Fleece in the seventeenth century, the participation of the ambassadors to the courts of Madrid and Vienna was crucial: their mediation was an indispensable part of the process by which candidates for the Order were nominated and confirmed. With his admission to the Order of the Golden Fleece, Pál Esterházy—who had been appointed palatine of Hungary in June 1681 and become secret counselor of the empire in December of that same year—ascended definitively into the ranks of an international aristocracy which had considerable influence over the political evolution of the Habsburg monarchy in Central Europe. Moreover, Palatine Esterházy became a member of Europe’s most illustrious chivalric order in an era when international political conflicts—above all, the War of the Spanish Succession—had a significant effect on the evolution of the European system of power. These conflicts left their mark on the Order itself, which soon separated into two branches: the Austrian (or Habsburg), and the Spanish (or Bourbon). Given the continental scale of the activities of the Order of the Golden Fleece and the converse influence of the dynamics of the European system of power on the order’s evolution, Pál Esterházy’s participation in other events organized by the Order merits further investigation; he took part in festivities such as the Andreasfest,67 investitures, and other official ceremonies like the coronation of 1687 and the accolade of 5 May, 1700, which was highlighted as a noteworthy event by the archivist Leopold Auer.68 Emperor Leopold intended to use this latter ceremony to increase the number of German members in the Order, which was then on the verge of splitting; he succeeded in inducting Ernst Friedrich, count of Windischgrätz and Leopold Matthias, count of Lamberg. Naturally, as an acclaimed member of the Order and an illustrious Central European politician, Pál Esterházy was also present at this ceremony. A further interesting episode in Pál Esterházy’s lengthy membership in the Order occurred in the spring of 1712, a year before his death, when Emperor Charles VI asked Esterházy to loan out his insignia because new insignias

67 For more about the St Andrew’s Day Celebrations of the Order of the Golden Fleece, see: Astrid Wielach, ‘Die Ordensfeste der Ritter vom Goldenen Vlies im Spiegel der Wiener Zeremialprotokolle (1665–1790)’, in: Der Wiener Hof im Spiegel der Zeremonialprotokolle (1652–1800). Eine Annäherung, ed. by Irmgard Pangerl and others (Innsbruck/Vienna: StudienVerlag, 2007), pp. 287–308; Anna-Katharina Stacher-Gfall, ‘Das Andreasfest des Ordens vom Goldenen Vlies im Spiegel der Zeremonialprotokolle des Wiener Hofes der Jahre 1712 bis 1800’, in Der Wiener Hof im Spiegel der Zeremonialprotokolle, ed. by Pangerl and others, pp. 309–36. 68 Leopold Auer, ‘Der Übergang des Ordens an die österreichischen Habsburger’, in Das Haus Österreich und der Orden vom Goldenen Vlies, ed. by Checa Cremades and Martínez Correcher, p. 54 and the following pages.

269

270

ti bo r m a rt í

had not yet been prepared for the chevaliers who were to be inducted into the Order of the Golden Fleece in Vienna on Easter Monday. Crown Guard Miklós Pálffy conveyed the emperor’s request to András Galya, Esterházy’s representative at the imperial court in Vienna, and Galya communicated it to Palatine Esterházy in a letter written on 23 March 1712.69 And when Palatine Esterházy died 305 years ago, high-ranking representatives of the Order reacted to the news by describing the deceased as one of the most famous and appreciated members of the Austrian branch of the Order. And even though his uncompromising loyalty to the Viennese branch of the Habsburg dynasty excluded him from membership in Bourbon (Spanish) branch of the Order, that loyalty would shape not only his life and career, but also Hungary’s destiny in this era.70 In the seventeenth century, all five Hungarian members of the Order of the Golden Fleece received this insignia as a result of political and diplomatic decisions which were conscious and thoroughly examined. And though the Spanish king’s diplomats were generally in contact with the Hungarian palatine and the archbishop of Esztergom, the palatine of the kingdom of Hungary would be inducted into the Order only if he had served the interests of the Habsburg dynasty in a political or military capacity. Being chosen for the honour of wearing the insignia of the Order would have been an enormously important milestone in the career of any Hungarian noble. For four of the five71 Hungarian knights under discussion here, it is obvious that their membership in the Order of the Golden Fleece brought them further advantages: they were promoted into the upper political elite of the Habsburg monarchy more quickly, their networks of connections widened, and their reputations improved at the Viennese imperial court.

69 MNL OL P 125, from batch 24 of the writings of Pál Esterházy (1635–1713), nr. 2146. fol. 9–10: András Galya’s letter to Pál Esterházy, Vienna, 23 March 1712; Emma Iványi, Esterházy Pál nádor közigazgatási tevékenysége 1681–1713 [Palatine Pál Esterházy’s Public-Administrative Activities, 1681–1713] (Budapest: Akadémiai, 1991), p. 395; cited by: Fanni Hende, ‘A Szent Korona a Rákóczi-szabadságharc idején (1703–1712) [The Holy Crown in the Period of Rákóczi’s War of Independence (1703–1712)]’, in: A Szent Korona hazatér: a magyar korona tizenegy külföldi útja, 1205–1978. [The Holy Crown Comes Home: The Eleven Foreign Roads of the Hungarian Crown] Ed. by Géza Pálffy (Budapest: MTA BTK TTI) 2019. (2. ed.) 70 For more on the decision of the Bourbon sovereign Philipp V, King of Spain, to exclude 37 members of the Order of the Golden Fleece (mostly members loyal to archduke Carlos, the future Emperor, King of Hungary and Bohemia), see: Julián de Pinedo y Salazar, Historia de la Insigne Orden del Toisón de Oro, Madrid: Imprenta Real, 1787, parte segunda, ii, pp. 470–72. 71 Though Miklós Zrínyi died just after this honor was bestowed on him, it is obvious that the House of Habsburg reckoned him among its most illustrious and honored subjects.

ROBERTO QUIRÓS ROSADO 

Moribus antiquis Dynasty, Political Strategy and Burgundian Court Ceremonial during the Genesis of the Austrian Golden Fleece, 1709–13*

A few days after the unexpected death of Emperor Charles VI in autumn 1740, Joseph Carpintero, Philip V’s minister in Vienna, wrote a letter to Sebastián de la Cuadra, marquis of Villarías, reporting that he was trying to determine on what grounds Charles’s son-in-law, Francis Stephen of Lorraine, had appointed himself ipso facto head of the Order of the Golden Fleece (‘Grand Master’), the chivalric order founded by the duke of Burgundy, Philip the Good, in 1430. This prince, who had been grand duke of Tuscany since the end of the War of the Polish Succession and was the husband of Archduchess Maria Theresa of Austria, based his claim on marriage rights, citing chapter sixty-five of the Statutes of Maximilian I. According to a confidant of Carpintero in the imperial Hofkanzlei, Francis Stephen’s claims over the Golden Fleece were seamless – an opinion which was openly rejected by the Madrid government.1 After the War of the Spanish Succession and the Vienna agreements of 1725, the two heads of the Insigne Orden were to be shared by the two dynasties and courts that had fought for the Spanish throne. The absence of an heir following the death of Emperor Charles encouraged Philip V to launch an offensive and gain full control of the military and aristocratic institution. Secretary Villarías instructed Carpintero to issue a complaint which demanded that Francis Stephen ‘cease calling himself sovereign of the Ynsigne Orden del Toysón de Oro, which he is using without permission’, and to restore the title in its entirety to the Spanish king. This claim deeply upset Count Philipp Ludwig Wenzel von Sinzendorf, author of the appointment of the grand duke of Tuscany as Grand Master, and was the reason, along with other more substantial reasons, for the breach in the fragile relationship between both crowns.2



* The present work was undertaken within the project of the Ministerio de Economía, Industria y Competitividad Sociedad cortesana y redes diplomáticas: la proyección europea de la monarquía de España (1659-1725) [HAR2015-67069-P (MINECO/FEDER, UE)] and the project of the Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación Práctica de gobierno y cultura política: Europa y América en la monarquía de España, 1668-1725 [PID2019-108822GB-I00]]. 1 AGS, Estado, leg. 6477. Joseph Carpintero to the Marquis of Villarías (Vienna, 5 November 1740); anonymous note (Vienna, November 1740). 2 AGS, Estado, leg. 6477: Minuta de la protesta que deve hacer don Joseph Carpintero sobre la soberanía en xefe de la Orden del Toysón de Oro (Madrid, December 1740); Joseph Carpintero to the Marquis of Villarías (Vienna, 20 January 1741). Eagles Looking East and West: Dynasty, Ritual and Representation in Habsburg Hungary and Spain, ed. by Tibor Martí & Roberto Quirós Rosado, Habsburg Worlds 4 (Turnhout, 2021), pp. 271–285.

© FHG

DOI 10.1484/M.HW-EB.5.122806

272

ro be rto q u i ró s ro s ad o

The Spanish demands can be considered the last chapter in the conflictive relationship between the Bourbons and the Habsburgs, following Charles II of Spain’s death without an heir. Control over the Golden Fleece had been considered a consubstantial part of the identity of the crown since the union of the Spanish and Austrian–Flemish territories under one sovereign in 1516, and was a recurrent theme in the cycle of warfare that confronted Philip V and Charles III/VI on three occasions. However, although the story of the Bourbon branch of the Order in the early eighteenth century is well established, the problems and chronology of the Habsburg branch are practically unknown.3 The present paper addresses the intertwining political, dynastic and social factors surrounding the Golden Fleece, which in the courts of Vienna and Barcelona were reminiscent of the contested mastery of Charles of Austria.

The Habsburg Toison, between hidden appointments and the dynastic Bruderzwist, 1709-11 King Charles III of Habsburg, who was the physical embodiment of the restored Austrian Spanish monarchy, left Vienna for the Iberian Peninsula in late 1703. The plans for this trip had begun nearly three years previously, and had caused some diplomatic difficulties between the members of the Grand Alliance of The Hague – the military coalition that opposed the Two Crowns (that is, Louis XIV and Philip V of Bourbon). Leopold I’s renunciation of his dynastic rights – and those of his heir Joseph, king of the Romans and king of Hungary – to the throne of Madrid turned the archduke into the secular link between the Spanish monarchy and the House of Habsburg. At the same time, an attempt was made to configure the government of the provinces under the sovereignty of the young king, and the military campaigns provided the territories to be ruled through this jurisdictional construct. During the early years of the War of the Spanish Succession, in the run-up to the difficult year of 1709, the Habsburg side gained control over Catalonia, the kingdoms of Mallorca, Sardinia and Naples, several fortifications in Tuscany, the state of Milan, and most of the Spanish Netherlands. While this was taking place, the governance of this nascent monarchy was being designed with the ultimate aim of consolidating the position of the king and preventing interference from his brother, the new Emperor Joseph I, and from the Maritime Powers (Great Britain and the United Provinces). Despite the constant complaints of Francesco Moles, duke of Parete and imperial ambassador in Barcelona, Charles yielded to pressure from the Spanish and Neapolitan elites, and created the junta de dependencias de Nápoles, which was soon after reshaped



3 For Philip V’s Toisón, see: Elena Postigo Castellanos, ‘El cisma del Toisón. Dinastía y Orden (1700–1748)’, in Los Borbones. Dinastía y memoria de nación en la España del siglo XVIII, ed. by Pablo Fernández Albaladejo (Madrid: Marcial Pons Historia, 2002), pp. 331–80.

m ori bus an t i qu i s

as junta de Italia. This junta was a collegiate tribunal which, inspired by the polisynodal structure of the Spanish Habsburg crown, played a prominent role in regulating political life in Lombardy and Naples. The king avoided further friction with the representative of his brother, Joseph I, including Moles in the institution, along with the famous Neapolitan lawyer Serafino Biscardi and two of the king’s men: the Neapolitan homo novus Rocco Stella and the Navarrese Juan Antonio Romeo, marquis of Erendazu and secretary of state de la parte de Italia.4 Charles III’s will to consolidate his royal prestige directly affected the government of the Italian provinces and, indirectly, that of the Low Countries. Following the 1703 campaign, the first province to recognise Charles III as its master was the duchy of Limburg, but the Spanish Gelderland remained in Dutch military hands for the duration of the conflict. Following the Battle of Ramillies in May 1706, the duchy of Brabant and the county of Flanders declared Charles III their legitimate sovereign. At all events, this dominion was symbolic rather than actual, as the real government of these territories was entrusted to delegate ministers appointed by the Maritime Powers. For this reason, the secretaría de Flandes, based in Barcelona, never developed to the same extent as its ‘Italian’ counterpart. The role of the Austrian secretary Wilhelm Kellers, who was linked to the Viennese court and a client of Ambassador Parete, was limited to matters related to royal grace (aristocratic titles and privileges) and to corresponding with Charles’ loyal subjects in Flanders, which meant that his main role was to keep communication open between Barcelona and Vienna.5 Despite these limitations, on 18 July 1709 Kellers was asked to deal with a special piece of business that had never before been addressed by the kings and his ministers: the compilation of a general list of pretenders and candidates to the Toison d’Or – the insignia that the king himself had received from his Spanish uncle, Charles II, in 1697.6 The cooperation between Kellers and the aforementioned marquis of Erendazu led to an exchange of information about the candidates who, among Charles III’s Spanish and Italian subjects, were most deserving of the prize (in Erendazu’s opinion).7 The veteran Navarrese secretary told Kellers that: Nobody in Spain has received the Toison from his majesty who is not a member of one of the main aristocratic houses, and not only this, but the title has only been given to the heads of these families, and if there are

4 On these court and institutional details of Spanish Habsburg monarchy, see: Roberto Quirós Rosado, Monarquía de Oriente. La corte de Carlos III y el gobierno de Italia durante la guerra de Sucesión española (Madrid: Marcial Pons Historia, 2017). 5 Quirós Rosado, Monarquía de Oriente. 6 Roberto Quirós Rosado, ‘“Hault et puissant Prince, mon très cher et très aymé bon cousin et nepveu”: El archiduque Carlos y la monarquía de España (1685–1700)’, Mediterranea. Ricerche storiche, 33 (2015), 47–78 (pp. 60–63). 7 AHN, Estado, leg. 8711: Baron Wilhelm Kellers to Marquis of Erendazu (From the secretary, 18 July 1709).

27 3

2 74

ro be rto q u i ró s ro s ad o

any exceptions to this, it will be because the title has been conferred to their first-born heirs and nobody else. Of all the aristocrats in the Iberian Peninsula, Erendazu could name only one candidate for the order: Vicente Pedro Álvarez de Toledo y Pacheco, count of Oropesa. Don Vicente Pedro was the son and heir of Manuel Joaquín Álvarez de Toledo y Portugal, who was twice valido under Charles II, president of the councils of Italy and Castile, and, between 1706 and his death in 1707, counsellor of Charles III himself. In addition to this, Don Vicente Pedro was a Grande de España and was also related by blood to the Portuguese royal House of Bragança. He had served under the Habsburg king as gentleman of the bedchamber and was a member of the entourage of Queen Elisabeth Christine of Braunschweig-Wolfenbüttel during her trip from Milan to Barcelona. Last but not least, it is worth pointing out that Erendazu’s appointment to secretary of state was secured by the late Count Don Manuel Joaquín, who was Erendazu’s patron during king Charles’s stay in Castile, Valencia and Catalonia. Of the Italian aristocrats, the marquis of Erendazu considered the prince of Bisignano, Giuseppe Sanseverino, who was first baron of the kingdom of Naples and well known for his loyalty to the House of Austria, and Carlo Filiberto d’Este, marquis of Borgomanero, who was recommended by his father’s qualities and long diplomatic career under Charles II (‘he is fine, as he is loyal to the Augustíssima Casa’). Two other Italian candidates were the Genoese Giulio Imperiali, prince of Francavilla, and the patrician Malizia Carafa, who had taken part in the failed pro-Austrian conspiracy in Naples in 1701.8 The request for a full list of candidates was not a mere desideratum of Charles III. Around this time, through Baron Kellers, Charles III sent two letters to Flanders, addressed to Jean-Philippe-Eugène de Mérode-Westerloo, marquis of Westerloo and knight of the Insigne Orden, and Claude-François d’Humyn, lord of Saint-Albert, ordinary auditor of the Chambre des Comptes and recent appointee to the post of treasurer of the Golden Fleece, because the previous treasurer – who had an obligation to reside in the Low Countries – was in Namur in the service of Philip V.9



8 AHN, Estado, leg. 871: Letter draft from Marquis of Erendazu to Baron Wilhelm Kellers (Barcelona, July 1709); on political links between Romeo and Count of Oropesa, don Manuel Joaquín, vid. Quirós Rosado, Monarquía de Oriente, pp. 55–62. 9 The appointment as auditor of the Chambre des Comptes was completed via a patent letter in 6 November 1707. Humyn’s position was due to the support of the Flemish and Walloon knights of the Toison, who were at the service of Charles III: Prince of Rubempré, Prince of La Tour, Marquis of Westerloo, Count of Coupigny and Duke of Arenberg; Jean de Seur, La Flandre illustrée par l’institution de la Chambre du Roi a Lille, l’an 1383 par Philippe le Hardi, duc de Bourgogne (Lille/Brussels, s. n., 1713), p. 120; Fortuné Koller, Au service de la Toison d’or (Les officiers) (Dison: Imprimerie G. Lelotte, 1971), p. 103, n. 1; the previous auditor was Baron Antonio Francisco von Heider y Butrón de Múxica, grandson of the Count of Aramayona, who had been appointed after marrying the daughter of the previous treasurer.

m ori bus an t i qu i s

The letters addressed to Westerloo and Humyn expressed several legal doubts: first, he wondered if, as sovereign and Grand Master, he could appoint knights extra capitulum – Pope Alexander VII had relatively recently granted Charles II permission to do so, but only as a personal prerogative; second, he questioned whether the king had to be solemnly sworn in as head of the Toison d’Or, because in his court he could summon only a single knight, Prince Anton Florian von Liechtenstein; finally, if the swearing-in ceremony was necessary, he pondered whether knights who were loyal to him but not present in Spain could take part in the event by letter or through a deputy.10 Westerloo replied that, in his opinion, no pontifical bull was required for the king to have the authority to appoint members, owing to the tension between his faction and the pope, which abated only when he was recognised as ‘Catholic king of Spain’, and to the precedence of previous Spanish kings appointing knights without pontifical assent. He thought, on the other hand, that the swearing-in ceremony was indeed necessary, even if the ceremony had to follow a sui generis format, with the oldest and most relevant knights appointing delegates through Liechtenstein and Baron Kellers. Treasurer Humyn was of a similar opinion; after consulting the Franc-Comtois clergyman Humbert de Precipiano, archbishop of Mechelen, and two lawyers, Humyn thought that the king did not require a pontifical bull, at least not until the end of the war.11 These reports were received by Charles III, who ordered the knights loyal to him to appoint deputies. The only members of the Order to respond to his command were Westerloo and Léopold-Philippe d’Arenberg, duke of Arenberg and Aarschot, a colonel of a Walloon regiment fighting for the king, as none of the knights who resided in the Holy Empire heeded the king’s orders.12 This strange impasse, however, did not deter Charles III. In mid-summer 1709, Count Orazio Guicciardi, Modenese envoy in Barcelona, met the favourite – Count Rocco Stella – and was made privy to remarkable information. The king was willing to appoint knights to the Golden Fleece, and with this, illustrate how this was previously done, awarding the title only to princes, kings or knights, to the ones who, joining the nobility of descent to personal

After the Bourbon Low Countries came under the sovereignty of the Bavarian elector and the signature of the treaties of Utrecht and Rastatt, Heider died in Namur in 20 April 1714; AHN, Estado, leg. 1491. Request by Therèse-Françoise de Prudhom (1714); After his death, the archive would remain under the control of the Viscount of Saint-Albert. For the appointment of Baron Heider, see: Julián de Pinedo y Salazar, Historia de la Insigne Orden del Toysón de Oro, II (Madrid: Imprenta Real, 1787), pp. 588–89. 10 Frédéric-Auguste-Ferdinand-Thomas de Reiffenberg, Histoire de l’Ordre de la Toison d’Or (Brussels: Fonderie et Imprimerie Normales, 1830), p. lxvii. 11 Reiffenberg, Histoire de l’Ordre, p. lxvii. 12 Reiffenberg, Histoire de l’Ordre, pp. lxvii–lxviii.

27 5

2 76

ro be rto q u i ró s ro s ad o

merit, are distinguished for their illustrious birth and have stood out in their loyalty in their service to the king.13 One of the first persons to benefit from this promotion was Rinaldo III d’Este, duke of Modena. This was a clear statement of intent on the part of Charles III, who wanted to revitalise the Order by way of renewing the golden Burgundian era, and his first step in this direction was to appoint princes and aristocrats loyal to Charles III’s cause. In the words of Count Guicciardi, in this regard Charles was acting as a counterweight to Philip V of Bourbon, who was accused of prioritising the French Saint-Esprit over the Spanish Toisón de Oro. According to Stella, there was no doubt that ‘That His Majesty intends to bring back into fashion, more than it has ever been’.14 This allowed Guicciardi to draw a new comparison, not with the Bourbons but with the Spanish grandees granted in Barcelona, which soon lost their value, as they represented a return to the venal practices of former Spanish monarchs. Toison d’Or knights wanted to be clearly distinct from those grandees which ‘I see such […] that Your Serene Highness can make them greater’.15 One by one, a number of Italians expressed their interest in the appointment. The first to do so was the aforementioned marquis of Borgomanero, whose appointment was left on hold despite Charles III’s predisposition to comply.16 The appeal made by Carlo Albani, who was a member of an important medieval Albanian dynasty settled in Italy, met with better luck. After his uncle Giovanni Francesco Albani was appointed pope as Clement XI, Carlo became the pontifical nipote, which opened for him the doors of the Roman Arcadia (under the name Cleandro Elideo) and procured for him a remarkable marriage with the Lombard nobildonna Teresa Borromeo. However, his secret appointment as knight of the Golden Fleece in May 1710 served the purpose of bringing together the Habsburg monarchy and the Holy See, whose mutual relationship had been undermined by the conflict surrounding the recognition of Charles III as king, which in turn had led to the War of Comacchio with Emperor Joseph I.17 The reasons behind the secret appointment of Alfonso de Cárdenas, count of Acerra, on 31 December 1710, were very different. Like Albani, he did not fit the profile that Charles III

13 ASMo, Ambasciatori. Spagna, busta 70. Count Orazio Guicciardi to Rinaldo III (Barcelona, 18 August 1709). 14 ASMo, Ambasciatori. Spagna, busta 70. Count Orazio Guicciardi to Rinaldo III (Barcelona, 14 October 1709). 15 ASMo, Ambasciatori. Spagna, busta 70: Count Orazio Guicciardi to Rinaldo III (Barcelona, 19 October 1709). 16 AGRB, Chancellerie Autrichienne des Pays-Bas, 15: Baron Wilhelm Kellers to Marquis of Borgomanero (Barcelona, 23 October 1709). 17 HHStA, Staatenabteilungen. Italienische Staaten. Rom. Spanischer Rat, K. 1: Concession of Charles III to Carlo Albani (Horta, 26 May 1710); on Comacchio’s affaire, see: David Martín Marcos, El Papado y la Guerra de Sucesión española (Madrid: Marcial Pons Historia, 2011), pp. 161–64.

m ori bus an t i qu i s

sought for new tosonisti. Cárdenas was descended from an illustrious Castilian family who had settled in Naples during the time of Alfonso V of Aragon. His ancestors had drawn links with Neapolitan, Valencian and Roman families, and held the county of Acerra and the marquisate of Laino. Don Alfonso’s services and medieval attitudes were highly valued by Charles III, who made him a Spanish grandee in 1709. His inclusion in the Insigne Orden was a reward for the personal sacrifice of his brother Ferdinando de Cárdenas, who had fallen in Brihuega during the battle that saw the end of Charles III’s Castilian dream in autumn 1710.18 Charles III’s secret appointments, his open intention to promote new knights and the moves made by various aristocrats to be granted the Golden Fleece greatly displeased the Viennese court. Although the letters appointing Albani and Cárdenas stated that such an appointment would only become valid ‘should it become public’, Joseph I withheld his endorsement. The emperor had no authority whatsoever to encroach on the sovereignty of the Order or to limit that of his brother, as sovereignty over the Order was an exclusive attribute of the Spanish king; however, his negative attitude towards the renewal of the Toison d’Or being pushed forward from the Barcelona court, and towards other government policies implemented from 1707 onwards, carried much weight.19 The reasons behind this attitude were manifold, although it was openly claimed that the Viennese elites rejected the distinction ‘because [the Toison] was awarded to Prince Lamberg’.20 In 1700, Count Leopold von Lamberg’s appointment by Charles II had met with the displeasure of the Austrian court, an attitude that still persisted a few years later. Lamberg’s position in Vienna depended entirely on the support of the emperor. It is likely that, by supporting Count Lamberg, the emperor brought about the end of the controversy at court, and opened the possibility for appointing new knights of the Toison d’Or among the highest circles of the imperial nobility. Prince Eugene of Savoy’s likely attempt to procure the Golden Fleece for one of his nephews would also have helped to improve Charles III’s position in Vienna and, consequently, the political projection of the order.21

18 AHN, Estado, leg. 8687: Concession of Charles III to Count of Acerra (Barcelona, 31 December 1710). 19 This internal conflict among the Habsburg brothers is known as Bruderzwist; Marcello Verga, ‘Il “Bruderzwist”, la Spagna, l’Italia. Dalle lettere del duca di Moles’, in Dilatar l’Impero in Italia. Asburgo e Italia nel primo Settecento, ed. by Marcello Verga (= Cheiron, 21 (1994)), pp. 13–53. 20 As claimed by Modenese diplomats. ASMo, Ambasciatori. Spagna, busta 70: Count Orazio Guicciardi to Rinaldo III (Barcelona, 19 October 1709). 21 Alfred von Arneth, ‘Eigenhändige Korrespondenz des Königs Karl III. von Spanien (nachmals Kaiser Karl VI.) mit dem obersten Kanzler des Königreiches Böhmen, Grafen Johann Wenzel Wratislaw’, Archiv für österreichische Geschichte, 16 (1856), 116–17: Charles III to Count Vratislav (Barcelona, 28 April 1710).

27 7

278

ro be rto q u i ró s ro s ad o

The diktat that Emperor Joseph tried to impose on his brother Charles III also stressed the need to keep the promotion of new knights on hold until his sovereignty was uncontested. This imperial caveat was withdrawn in October 1710, when Charles III entered and (briefly) established his residence in Madrid.22 Although the victory over Philip V could not be pressed home and the Allied troops had to begin their disastrous retreat towards Catalonia, King Charles still managed to promote the restoration of the Toison d’Or under the Habsburgs. In early 1711, he requested Imperial Ambassador Moles’s opinion concerning the need for a papal bull for the appointment of knights. According to the diplomat, an expert in ecclesiastical law and policies, the improvement of diplomatic relations with Rome would not alter the situation, and the opinions presented by Westerloo and Humyn prevailed. The privilege granted by the pope was exclusively related to promotions extra capitulum, as regular appointments were the exclusive attribution of the Spanish kings and Grand Masters of the Order.23 Once interference from Joseph I and Clement XI was ruled out, the assimilation between the Order and the renewed Habsburg Spanish monarchy could be regarded as complete. Experts determined that the link between both institutions needed to be sanctioned by an ordinary chapter meeting of knights loyal to Charles III, which would also project the king’s religious image. Once this was done, the Habsburg sovereign would face no further obstacles to appearing as the head of the Order and equating his war against Philip of Bourbon with a crusade. A fortuitous event accelerated the process. Emperor Joseph I died on 17 April 1711, making his brother Charles depositary of the sovereignty over the Austrian Erblande and the Crowns of Bohemia and Hungary, and a firm candidate for the throne of Charlemagne. Two hundred years later, a Spanish king could be elevated to the head of the Holy Empire. Like Charles V before him, he appointed a regency government in Spain and planned a trip through Italy and Germany to promote his candidacy among the members of the imperial diet. He received news of his appointment while in Milan, prompting him to expedite his departure for Frankfurt. After his arrival, the emperor in pectore gave the necessary orders for his solemn coronation and for the required arrangements to be made regarding his multiple sovereignties.24 On 9 January 1712, Charles VI published his 22 This was confirmed by the arrival of a letter signed in 15 October 1710; HHStA, Staatenabteilungen. Spanien. Diplomatische Korrespondenz, K. 68, Konvolut 9. Duke of Parete to Joseph I (Barcelona, 17 January 1711); for the political impact of Charles III’s presence in Madrid in autumn 1710, see: Roberto Quirós Rosado, ‘El coste del trono. Guerra defensiva y fiscalidad municipal en la estancia madrileña de Carlos III de Austria (1710)’, Vegueta, 16 (2016), 289–312. 23 HHStA, Staatenabteilungen. Spanien. Diplomatische Korrespondenz, K. 68, Konvolut 9: Duke of Parete to Charles III (Barcelona, 11 January 1711). 24 Foglio aggiunto all’Ordinario. 23 genaro 1712 (Vienna: appresso Giovanni van Ghelen, 1712): News (Vienna, 23 January 1712).

m ori bus an t i qu i s

first appointments to the Toison d’Or. The names of 21 of the 22 appointees clearly reflected Charles’s plans for the order. The list included three sovereign princes (Duke Anton Ulrich of Braunschweig-Wolfenbüttel, grandfather of his wife, Queen Elisabeth Christine; Rinaldo III d’Este, duke of Modena; and Vincenzo Gonzaga, duke of Guastalla), five Italian vassals of the Habsburgs (Prince Emanuele of Savoy, Prince Livio Odescalchi, the prince of Bisignano, Count Giovanni Battista Colloredo and Paolo di Sangro, prince of Sansevero), three Spanish aristocrats (the counts of Oropesa -Vicente Pedro Álvarez de Toledo-, Cifuentes -Fernando de Silva y Meneses- and Centelles -Francesc de Blanes i Centelles-), a Hungarian nobleman (Count Miklós Pálffy) and nine courtesans and military officers from Vienna – Count Wenzel Norbert von Kinsky, Count Philipp Ludwig Wenzel von Sinzendorf (court chancellor), Count Gundaker Thomas von Starhemberg (president of the Hofkammer), Count Karl Josef von Paar (general postmaster), Count Rudolf von Sinzendorf (the emperor’s high steward), Count Michael Johann von Althann (favourite of the emperor), Prince Adam Franz von Schwarzenberg (marshal of the court), Count Norbert Leopold z Kolovrat and Count Wirich Philipp von Daun (field marshal). The remaining appointment was reserved for an aristocrat from the Spanish Netherlands. Ultimately, this position was granted to the Austrian Count Maximilian von Thurn und Taxis, chamberlain of Empress Eleonor of Neuburg, and not to a relative of Count Paar, as was the intention of Widow Empress Amalia and her confidant Countess Carafa, Caterina Folch de Cardona i d’Erill.25 These appointments, which were made outside the chapter of the Order advocated by the duke of Parete and which had no papal endorsement, aimed to shift European public opinion. The concentration of dignities in a single person (king of Spain, king of Bohemia, king of Hungary, Grand Master of the Toison and Holy Roman emperor) confirmed the need to reinforce the multinational and aristocratic image of the Habsburg branch of the Insigne Orden. The appointments covered most of Charles’s subjects, and were well regarded by the political commentators of the period. It is worth noting that the two previous appointees – Carlo Albani and Count of Acerra – were left behind, and their secret appointment postponed sine die, and there is reason to believe that this was a deliberate move. Both the count of Oropesa and prince of Bisignano, recently nominated in Frankfurt, were on the select list of candidates drawn up by marquis of Erendazu in 1709. Emanuele Tommaso of Savoy-Soissons was one of the nephews of the prominent Eugene of Savoy, who may have also been alluded to as a potential recipient of the Toison d’Or in letters exchanged between Charles III and his confidant Count Jan Václav Vratislav in spring 1710. Emanuele became the subject who was most appropriate in the context of pleasing his powerful uncle after the death of his brother Maurizio of Savoy-Soissons, who had been a colonel in Charles’s 25 ASMo, Ambasciatori. Germania, busta 185: Count Orazio Guicciardi to Rinaldo III (Vienna, 6 April 1712).

27 9

280

ro be rto q u i ró s ro s ad o

armies, shortly before these developments. Whether as a result of the change in the relationship between Barcelona and Vienna and the Holy See, or because they were earmarked to be appointed later, Albani and Cárdenas were, for the time being, left outside the select lobby of the order. Ultimately, the count of Acerra was made a member of the order, along with a large number of new knights, in 1721. Carlo Albani, for his part, lost his main asset, Clement XI, in 1720. His successor, Innocent XIII, rewarded him with the principate of Soriano, while the grand duke of Tuscany gave him the habit of the Order of Santo Stefano.26 Other candidates for the Golden Fleece did not fare so well. According to an Italian informant, ‘Many malcontents [were] believed to be included in these declarations, and others were dissatisfied in being relieved of the duties and rank they had during the previous government’.27 The echoes of the previous struggle between Charles III and Joseph I allowed the new emperor to carry out a bold purge among the leading members of the Viennese factions.

Solemnia restituta. The Viennese ceremonies of 1712 The publication of the new list of knights of the Insigne Orden confirmed Charles’s position as Grand Master, and provided continuity to the Austrian branch of the House of Burgundy, thereby introducing an extra element of hostility into the relationship between the Habsburgs and the Bourbon Grand Master, Philip V. In order to ensure that the institution was well administered, the emperor re-established its government cadres. Freiherr Johann Theodor von Imbsen, a member of the lesser Viennese nobility, was appointed chancellor and greffier, which involved the merging of both posts and their attachment to the imperial court.28 His personal closeness with Charles as valet of the bedchamber, ‘Most diligent and in the Master’s good grace’, and the fact that he was ‘To the revered sign that His Majesty makes use of for the notes he writes himself ’, triggered Charles VI’s decision to place him at the head of the administration of the order.29 Claude-François de Humyn, appointed viscount of Saint-Albert on 25 October 1712, retained his position as treasurer in the provincial court of Brussels. His expertise in

26 Quirós Rosado, Monarquía de Oriente, p. 232, no. 78. 27 ASMo, Ambasciatori. Germania, busta 185: Count Orazio Guicciardi to Rinaldo III (Vienna, 20 January 1712). 28 Paul Anton Gundl, Vellus Aureum Burgundo-Austriacum sive Augusti & Celeberrimi Ordinis Torquatorum Aurei Velleris Equitum fidelis & succinta relatio historica (Vienna: Typis Wolffgangi Schwendimann, Universitatis Typog., 1728), p. 112. 29 These comments about Imbsen are recorded in: ASMo, Ambasciatori. Germania, busta 184:Giuseppe Riva to Alessandro Bertacchini (Vienna, 8 April 1712); ASF, Mediceo del Principato, filza 4432: Marquis Neri Guadagni to Francesco Panciatichi (Vienna, 4 November 1713).

m ori bus an t i qu i s

taxation in the Low Countries, as an ordinary auditor of the Flemish Chambre des Comptes, and his position as heir of a family that could boast of a long history of service under the Spanish crown in Brussels and Madrid, allowed the viscount not only to maintain his ministerial rank but also to guarantee that the finances of the Order were well managed.30 Finally, Jan Baptist van Ysendyck was appointed the Vienna-based King of Arms of the order. This Flemish subject had accompanied young Charles on his voyages since 1703, and was now rewarded for his services through his appointment as treasurer of the privy purse (Schatzmeister) and, in 1715, with his elevation to the rank of knight of the Holy Empire.31 The elevation of Emperor Charles VI to the position of Grand Master of the Order affected the cycle of festivities to be celebrated in the Viennese court from that point onwards. Although the knights appointed by previous Spanish monarchs already attended events as a united body, after the spring of 1712 these events were invested with a renewed ceremonial aura.32 The new age of the Order began on 29 March 1712 with a celebration in cosmopolitan Vienna. Several diplomatic accounts and a print by the Flemish typographer Johan van Ghelen provide us with a vivid description of the ceremony, during which the new knights were invested with their insignias.33 On 27 March, the new King of Arms Ysendick summoned the knights of the Toison d’Or to attend a chapter of the Order, to be held in a richly appointed hall in the Hofburg. There, the knights were informed by Chancellor Imbsen that the Grand Master would be shortly renewing his oath, while the new appointees were made to pay him due homage. The emperor took the stand to address the assembly in Latin; he expressed his fondness for the Order and ordered the statutes that regulated the ceremony scheduled for 29 March to be distributed. The celebration of the mass was entrusted to the Discalced Augustinians who managed the palatine church, and in whose sacristy the veteran and new 30 Gundl, Vellus Aureum, p. 112; Koller, Au service, p. 103; for a copy of the letter of ennoblement, see: Jean Le Roux, Recueil de la noblesse de Bourgogne, Limbourg, Luxembourg, Gueldres, Flandres, Artois, Haynau, Hollande, Zeelande, Namur, Mailines, et autres provinces de Sa Majesté Catholique (Brussels: Simon t’Serstevens, 1715), pp. 394–96. 31 Gundl, Vellus Aureum, p. 112; Koller, Au service, p. 159. 32 On the strong links between Viennese aristocrats and the Order of the Golden Fleece under the Spanish Habsburgs, see: Pavel Marek, La embajada española en la corte imperial (1558–1641). Figuras de los embajadores y estrategias clientelares (Prague: Editorial Karolinum, 2013), pp. 175–83; Tibor Martí, ‘Viena-Madrid-Hungría: la mediación de los embajadores en las concesiones de la Orden del Toisón en el siglo XVII’, in Los embajadores. Representantes de la soberanía, garantes del equilibrio (1659–1748), ed. by Cristina Bravo Lozano and Antonio Álvarez-Ossorio Alvariño (Madrid: Marcial Pons Historia, 2021) [forthcoming]. 33 HHStA, Obersthofmeisteramt. Ältere Zeremonielakten, K. 24, Konvolut 16–1. Extractus Protocolli Cesareo-Aulici Toisonis Ettheillung den 29 Martij 1712; Descriptio distributionis Aurei Velleris ab Augustissimo Imperatore Carolo VI facta in Ecclesia PP. Augustinianorum 29 martij 1712. Also, see Distinto ragguaglio della cospicua solennità con cui l’augustissimo monarca Carlo VI conferì alli 29 di marzo l’Insigne Ordine del Tosone d’Oro a 14 nuovi creati cavalleri del medesimo, in Foglio straordinario. 2 aprile 1712 (Vienna: Giovanni van Ghelen, 1712).

281

282

ro be rto q u i ró s ro s ad o

knights met. The ceremony began at nine in the morning. The ceremonial parade was opened by the Neapolitan chamberlain Girolamo Capece, marquis of Rofrano, who carried an unsheathed sword in place of the holder of the position of Oberhofmarschall, Prince Schwartzenberg, who was among the new knights. From his baldachin, Charles VI ordered Baron Imbsen to repeat his Latin address, expressing his will. The dean of the knights, Prince Lamberg, received the 14 candidates in order of rank. In his presence, they kneeled and were interrogated before swearing and being touched with the sword. Afterwards, they took their oath and ritually embraced the emperor. Princes Emanuele of Savoy and Schwartzenberg, and Counts Kinski, Thurn und Taxis, Starhemberg, Paar, Rudolf von Sinzendorf, Althann, Cifuentes, Pálffy, Kolovrat, Oropesa, Daun and Colloredo thus received the Golden Fleece and entered one of the most select aristocratic entourages in eighteenth-century Europe. News of the promotions announced in Frankfurt had, in the meantime, reached the appointees who did not live in Vienna, and also cafes and chancelleries all over Europe. Some of the latter doubted the accuracy of the reports, and asked their representatives in Vienna to find out more, before sending any congratulations.34 Soon enough, however, imperial ministers in Italy began receiving instructions for delivering the golden chains. In June, Marshal Count Wirich von Daun handed it to Duke Rinaldo III d’Este.35 On 4 November 1712, the feast day of St Charles Borromeo and name day of the emperor, the Toison d’Or was invested by Carlo Borromeo Arese, viceroy of Naples, on the princes of Bisignano and Sansevero. The prince of Sirmium, Livio Odescalchi, had to wait until 1 June 1713;36 the ceremony, officiated in Rome by Borromeo Arese, who had recently abandoned the viceroyalty of Naples, was attended by the toisonisti Constable Filippo II Colonna and Giuseppe Mario Orsini, duke of Paganica, and is extremely familiar owing to the manuscript Cérémoniel observé à l’inauguration du prince don Livio Odescalchi, which reflects the strongly propagandistic tone with which the Roman-Lombard noble invested his knighthood.37 Back in Central Europe, the next major ceremony to be celebrated by Charles VI and his knights of the Golden Fleece took place on the eve of the sovereign’s coronation as king of Hungary, on 21 May 1712 during his stay in Bratislava Castle.38 In a similar ceremony, celebrated on 8 November, the states

34 ASMo, Ambasciatori. Germania, busta 185: Count Orazio Guicciardi to Rinaldo III (Vienna, 17 February 1712). 35 Il corriere ordinario, nº 52 (Vienna: Giovanni van Ghelen, 1712), News (Milan, 15 June 1712). 36 Il corriere ordinario, nº 96 (Vienna: Giovanni van Ghelen, 1712), News (Naples, 8 November 1712). 37 AOM, Archivio Litta, cartella 74: Cérémoniel observé à l’inauguration du prince don Livio Odescalchi. 38 Distinta relazione di quanto è passato nella coronazione dell’Augustissimo Imperatore Carlo VI in Re di Ungheria, seguita felicemente in Posonia alli 22 di maggio 1712 (Bratislava, 23 May 1712), in Foglio straordinario. 25 maggio 1712 (Vienna: Giovanni van Ghelen, 1712).

m ori bus an t i qu i s

of Lower Austria presented their oath of loyalty to the emperor.39 Finally, in addition to other religious festivities, such as the Immaculate Conception or the commemoration of the proto-martyr St Stephen, patron of Vienna’s cathedral, the solemn ‘inauguration’ of the Viennese branch of the Order was the vigil and festivity of St Andrew the Apostle. In order to define clearly and permanently the ceremonial aspects of the festivity of the patron of the Toison d’Or, it was necessary to study carefully the distribution of the knights. Chancellor Imbsen’s draft was approved by the emperor without much ado;40 Charles VI, as Grand Master of the Order, had decided to renovate some ceremonial aspects of the institution. On the eve of St Andrew’s day, on 29 November, Golden Fleece chains and rich satin and gold garments filled the Hofburg and the cathedral. The imperial parade was led by the chancellor and the King of Arms of the Order, on horseback, followed by 17 knights of the Toison, including Castilian, Bohemian and Austrian nobles. The ceremony was officiated by the Bishop of Vienna, seconded by Cardinals Giulio Piazza and Christian August of Saxony-Seitz. The event made a great impression on the population of Vienna; in van Ghelen’s words, ‘The involvement of the people, who came to see this most noble figure who had never been seen before in this city, was extraordinary’. The novel nature of the parade did not detract from the solemnity of the celebration of the festivity of St Andrew, which was celebrated by the Viennese bishop on the following day, in the presence of Charles’s entourage, and followed the same ceremonial order. Following traditional customs borrowed from Dijon, the Netherlands and Madrid, the Grand Master and his knights climbed onto the high altar during the offertory and then returned to the Hofburg, where two tables – one for the emperor and the other, which was located nearby, for the knights – awaited them for a public meal.41 A ceremony devised in medieval times was being re-enacted in Baroque Vienna. The model to be followed was a quasi-legendary past that was now being brought back to life in the middle of the War of the Spanish Succession. Burgundy, through the poetry of Ennius, was reborn in Vienna, granting legitimacy to the assumption of the potestas by the restorer Charles VI, as reflected in a commemorative coin issued for the occasion:42 39 Relazione dell’atto dell’omaggio prestato all’Augustissimo Imperatore Carlo VI, re delle Spagne, &c, da’ signori Stati dell’Austria Inferiori, colle funzioni del medesimo, seguito martedì 8 di novembre 1712 (Vienna, 8 November 1712), in Foglio straordinario. 8 novembre 1712 (Vienna: Giovanni van Ghelen, 1712). 40 HHStA, Obersthofmeisteramt. Ältere Zeremonielakten, K. 24, Konvolut 26: Particular judgement to Charles VI (Vienna, 22 November 1712) and royal decree. 41 Foglio aggiunto all’Ordinario. 3 decembre 1712 (Vienna: appresso Giovanni van Ghelen, 1712). News (Vienna, 3 December 1712). 42 Gundl, Vellus Aureum, pp. 60–64; the only known representation of this coin, which, along with the words, included a portrait of Charles VI on horseback and wearing the robes of the Grand Master of the Toison d’Or, can be seen in: Carl Gustav Heräus, Inscriptiones et symbola varii argumenti (Nuremberg: apud Petr. Conr. Monath, 1721), no. 31.

283

284

ro be rto q u i ró s ro s ad o

Moribus antiquis. Aviti Ordinis Equitum Torquator. Aur. Vell. Solemnia Restituta Vindob. M.DCCXII 30. Nov. The ceremonial that followed in 1712 was to be used as a model for the future. During the following year, the sovereign and his international entourage of knights attended over a dozen religious ceremonies: the festivities of the Apostles, Epiphany, the Purification of the Virgin, Corpus Christi, St Charles Borromeo, All Saints, the Presentation of the Virgin, the vigils and festivity of St Andrew, the Immaculate Conception and St Stephen, among others.43 The chapels presided over by Charles VI were the most numerous palatine festivities in Vienna.44 The emperor’s deep religiosity turned celebrations at the Hofburg and the rest of Vienna’s churches and columns into the solemn and attractive festivities of the court, despite the fact that they were not particularly lavish, with the exception of those related to the Golden Fleece. According to the minister from Savoy, the count of Baldissero, the knights attended these ceremonies wearing the black habit and the rich chain of the order. On these occasions the highest personages of the Empire, Hungary and the ‘Spanish’ possessions of the emperor convened. In contrast, on those occasions when the knights did not participate as a united body, Charles VI was accompanied only by the foreign ambassadors, the high steward, two or three attendants and two captains of the guard. The marked symbolism of the ceremonial that involved the Toison d’Or, therefore, underlined the sacred nature of Charles’s kingship. At church, the emperor’s position was in the Sancta Sanctorum, next to the Gospel, under a baldachin of red silk, where he was attended by his high steward. Cardinals and foreign ambassadors sat to the side of the Epistle, on a bench draped in the same rich fabric. Several lines of benches, under the high altar and immediately behind the emperor’s baldachin, were made available for the knights of the Golden Fleece, who sat in order of seniority. This format was limited to pontifical masses; otherwise, the arrangements were restricted to the construction of a two-step palchetto with a chair, a carpet and a tapestry behind the emperor.

43 For further information on these ceremonies, see the different issues of Avvisi italiani ordinari e straordinarii dell’anno 1713 (Vienna: appresso Giovanni van Ghelen, 1713). 44 These and the following references about ceremonies are based on: Bartolomeo di San Martino, ‘Relazione della corte di Vienna del conte San Martino di Baldissero’, in Relazioni di ambasciatori sabaudi, genovesi e veneti durante il periodo della Grande Alleanza e della Successione di Spagna (1693–1713), ed. by Carlo Morandi (Bologna: N. Zanichelli, 1935), pp. 89–140 (pp. 101–02).

m ori bus an t i qu i s

Epilogue The appointment of ministers to govern the Insigne Orden del Toisón de Oro, the consolidation of the ceremonial and the promotion of large numbers of new knights reinforced the Spanish sovereignty of Charles VI over Philip V. However, if the emperor’s wish was to restore the greatness of the order and rejuvenate its statutes to rescue it from the decrepitude into which, according to his supporters, the Order had fallen under the Bourbons, there was still one more thing to do: summon a general chapter. The last such event had taken place in Ghent in 1559, on the initiative of Philip II, a few years prior to the Flanders revolt and the beginning of the Eighty Years’ War.45 In a letter dated 4 February 1713, the Grand Master Charles of Habsburg summoned his knights to a chapter in Vienna, on 1 May, ‘in order to deal with different issues concerning this glorious Order’. Given that some knights had government responsibilities, Charles gave them the opportunity to send delegates.46 Despite his efforts, owing to the diplomatic context around the Utrecht conference and the impossibility of reaching a quorum, the chapter never took place.47 This was a false step in the emperor’s policy, but it did not deter him from constructing the image of a Christian militia formed by the different lords loyal to the Habsburgs, with the ultimate goal of rescuing the Holy Land. In fact, in 1713 Charles VI instructed Imbsen to make sure that the knights sent their portraits to Vienna. Some Vienna-based diplomats, such as Count Orazio Guicciardi, reported on the emperor’s urgency and precise instructions concerning the composition of these portraits: ‘Standing, dressed in clothes which followed the taste and the example set by His Caesarean Majesty.’ This, again, reveals Charles’s will to surround himself with the elite of the European aristocracy, at a time when, following the uncertain end of the War of the Spanish Succession, war drums were being beaten at the Sublime Porte.48

45 Joaquín Azcárraga Servert, ‘Felipe II: el Toisón de Oro y los sucesos de Flandes’, Cuadernos de Historia del Derecho, 6 (1999), 475–90. 46 ASMo, Carteggio Principi Esteri, busta 1580/6. Charles VI to Rinaldo III (Vienna, 4 February 1713). 47 Reiffenberg, Histoire, p. lxviii. 48 ASMo, Ambasciatori. Germania, busta 185: Count Orazio Guicciardi to Rinaldo III (Vienna, 4 October 1713).

285

ZSOLT KÖKÉNYESI 

Court Entertainment and Relationship Networks Shooting Competitions in Charles VI’s Viennese Court as Social Opportunities for the Noble Elite, 1716–33*

Court Entertainment as a Basic Tool of Representation and Relationship-building Balls, games, and other forms of entertainment were indispensable elements of court life and culture. The famous publicist Julius Bernhard von Rohr (1688–1742), an expert on European court life, justified the expense of such events as follows: ‘[…] all the monarch’s activities must be in harmony with one another, just as they must for private citizens, and thus their diversions must be princely, too; one cannot criticize a great lord for the costs of his entertainment, though one might justifiably reproach his subordinates for similar expenses.’1 Nevertheless, the author later mentions that these expenditures must not exceed a certain limit, because even monarchs cannot exempt themselves from the laws of God and nature.2 The luxurious festivities of the Baroque era were not simply ‘national’ ceremonies (e.g. a celebration of a peace treaty between two countries or a marriage between two ruling dynasties); they also served as a form of court entertainment. Fireworks, operas, hunts, and other sumptuous ceremonies organized at the residences of Louis XIV, Augustus II the Strong, and Emperor Leopold I were expensive and spectacular—it is no wonder they attracted the interest of wider society and the European media culture of the period.3 According to one of Norbert Elias’s basic concepts concerning the ‘domestication’ of the nobility, splendid royal festivities were among the

* I would like to thank my friend Zsófia Rajki for her help and advice in translating this paper. The completion of this paper was supported by the project NKFIH PD 132018. 1 Julius Bernhard von Rohr, Einleitung zur CeremonielWissenschafft der großen Herrn […], Berlin: Rüdiger, 1729, p. 732: ‘[…] alle Handlungen, der Regenten so sowl als der PrivatPersonen, mit einander harmoniniren müssen, so müssen auch ihre Divertissemens Fürstlich seyn, und man kan nicht allezeit die mit einigen Unkosten vorgenommene Ergötzlichkeiten, die man bey ihren Unterthanen mit allem Recht zu mißbilligen hätte, einem grossen Herrn verdencken’. 2 Rohr, CeremonielWissenschafft der großen Herrn, p. 733. 3 Jeroen Duindam, Vienna and Versailles: The Courts of Europe’s Dynastic Rivals, 1550–1780, New Studies in European History (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), pp. 143–80; T. C. W. Blanning, The Culture of Power and the Power of Culture: Old Regime Europe Eagles Looking East and West: Dynasty, Ritual and Representation in Habsburg Hungary and Spain, ed. by Tibor Martí & Roberto Quirós Rosado, Habsburg Worlds 4 (Turnhout, 2021), pp. 287–319.

© FHG

DOI 10.1484/M.HW-EB.5.122807

288

zs o lt kö ké n y e s i

central attractions of the court’s ‘Trojan horse’ (to use Jeroen Duindam’s apt phrase).4 Most present-day historians now regard these phenomena as more complex and attempt to analyze similar manifestations of court culture by means of the explanatory principles provided by the history of representation. Thorsten Veblen uses the generic term ‘conspicuous consumption’ to describe the striking, sometimes spectacular, often seemingly irrational consumption practices by which members of the upper classes hoped to differentiate themselves from lower social strata.5 Historians have conventionally used this concept (with certain limitations) in categorizing the expenses incurred by court societies. However, court entertainment cannot be interpreted simply as an exercise in social differentiation, or as mere occasions for the amusement of the court community, because these events—like the large royal household, artificially created court etiquette, and the allegorical layout of royal residences—were also tools of royal representation. Spectacular festivities made the abstraction of royal sovereignty visible. And even if a celebration was not a public event intended for the eyes of a sovereign’s subjects, but rather a private one, participation in it and the possibility of enjoying oneself in the company of the ruler (even if only within the framework of strict, formal rules) was a serious privilege. It is not without reason that Rohr advised young noblemen to attend such parties as often as they could, as these events were excellent opportunities for building relationships.6 As the volume of research into court-related and new cultural-historical themes has grown, investigations and interpretations of court festivities have become an increasingly important component of international studies of history, art history, and even literature. Given its importance in the early modern period and the array of available resources related to it, the royal court of Vienna is a perfect subject for such research. Various types of Viennese court festivities have been examined with impressive results, from sledging and horse waltzes to carnivals; however, despite their importance, eighteenth-century shooting competitions have not yet to attract much attention.7 The present



4



5



6



7

1660–1789 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002), pp. 42–52, 66–77; Jutta Schumann, Die andere Sonne. Kaiserbild und Medienstrategien im Zeitalter Leopolds I., Colloquia Augustana, 17 (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2003), pp. 255–62. Norbert Elias, Az udvari társadalom. A királyság és az udvari arisztokrácia szociológiai jellemzőinek vizsgálata [The court society. A study of the sociological characteristics of the royalty and aristocracy] (Budapest: Napvilág, 2005); Jeroen Duindam, Myths of power: Norbert Elias and the Early Modern European court (Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 1990), pp. 83–84. Thorsten Veblen, The Theory of the Leisure Class: An Economic Study in the Evolution of Institutions, Oxford World’s Classics (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009), pp. 49–69. Julius Bernhard von Rohr, Einleitung zur CeremonielWissenschafft der Privat-Personen […], Berlin: Rüdiger, 1728, p. 244. Important related works: Beatrix Bastl, ‘Feuerwerk und Schlittenfahrt. Ordnung zwischen Ritual und Zeremoniell’, Wiener Geschichtsblätter, 51.4 (1996), 197–229; Stefan Seitschek, ‘Karussell und Schlittenfahrt im Spiegel der Zeremonialprotokolle – nicht mehr als

co u rt e n t e rtai n m e n t an d r elat i o nshi p ne t wo rk s

paper is a general introduction to royal shooting competitions in Charles VI’s court, with a particular focus on their participants. I hope that my research will add a new perspective to explorations of the social connections among the Habsburg court’s elite in the first few decades of the eighteenth century.

Shooting Competitions at the Viennese Court The German polymath and traveller Johann Georg Keyßler (1693–1743) writes the following: ‘Falconry, target-shooting, and hunting are the emperor’s [Charles VI] regular amusement activities. He usually hunts in the afternoon, and the total cost of doing so is no less than three thousand florins, and sometimes an additional few thousand thalers, if he requires post-horses as well’.8 Hunting was traditionally one of the most important forms of entertainment among European nobles, and was legally limited to men of the upper social classes. As it required agility, strength, and stamina, this activity projected the virtues of nobility and knighthood, and thus gave its participants an air of martial glory even in periods of peace. Most Habsburg rulers, including Charles VI, took pleasure in hunting; moreover, attending such events was a significant part of their overall education.9 Hunting, however, given its circumstances, did not serve as a public court activity, but rather as a sort of withdrawal from the ceremonial atmosphere of the court’s Baroque residences. Consequently, from the perspective of court society, the shooting competitions mentioned by Keyßler played a more significant role than hunting.



höfische Belustigungen?’, in Der Wiener Hof im Spiegel der Zeremonialprotokolle (1652–1800). Eine Annäherung, ed. by Irmgard Pangerl, Martin Scheutz and Thomas Winkelbauer, Forschungen und Beiträge zur Wiener Stadtgeschichte, 47, Forschungen zur Landeskunde von Niederösterreich, 31 (Vienna: Studien Verlag, 2007), pp. 357–434; Christina Schmücker, ‘Im Wirtshaus „Zum Schwarzen Adeler”. Die Wirtschaften in den Zeremonialprotokollen (1652–1800)’, in Zeremonialprotokolle, ed. by Pangerl and others, pp. 435–62; Martin Scheutz, ‘Fasching am frühneuzeitlichen Wiener Hof. Zur Domestizierung der „verkehrten Welt” in einem höfischen Umfeld’, in Wien und seine Wienerinnen. Ein historischer Streifzug durch Wien über die Jahrhunderte, ed. by Martin Scheutz and Vlasta Valeš (Vienna/Cologne/Weimar: Böhlau, 2008), pp. 125–55. 8 Johann Georg Keyßler, Neueste Reisen durch Deutschland, Böhmen, Ungarn, die Schweiz, Italien und Lothringen… (Hannover: Förster, 1751), p. 1230. 9 Oskar Freiherr von Mitis, Jagd und Schützen am Hofe Karls VI. Mit einer Vorrede von Maximilian Graf Thun von Hohenstein (Vienna: Gerlach & Wiedling, 1912), pp. 33–48.; Richard Alewyn, Das grosse Welttheater. Die Epoche der höfischen Feste in Dokument und Deutung, Rowohlts deutsche Enzyklopädie, 92 (Hamburg: Rowohlt, 1959), p. 19; Stefan Seitschek, Die Tagebücher Kaiser Karls VI. Zwischen Arbeitseifer und Melancholie (Vienna: Berger, 2018), pp. 314–19; János Kalmár, ‘Ahnen als Vorbilder. Der vom späteren Kauser Karl VI. in seinen Jugendjahren verfasste Kanon der Herrschertugenden’, in Adel im “langen” 18. Jahrhundert, ed. by Gabriele Haug-Moritz, Hans-Peter Hye and Marlies Raffler, Zentraleuropa-Studien, 14 (Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2009), pp. 43–60 (p. 60).

289

290

zs o lt kö ké n y e s i

Target shooting, which was also one of Ferdinand I’s pastimes in Vienna, already had a centuries-long tradition and was one of the most characteristic court activities during the reign of Charles VI.10 So-called Haupt- und FreiSchiessen, which were organized after events of great importance to the dynasty and the monarchy—a coronation, the birth of an archduke, the signing of a peace treaty, or a dynastic marriage—were the most spectacular and representative types of shooting competition. These occasions lasted for days or even weeks, and were normally attended by the monarch and his family (though the latter did not usually take part in the actual shooting, replaced by delegated nobles), leading aristocrats, foreign nobles, and sometimes up to hundreds of bourgeois or lower-class sharpshooters, if they were able to satisfy the competition’s entry requirements. Similar festivities occurred quite frequently at European courts; Charles VI’s Habsburg predecessors had occasionally organized major events of this sort. For example, Mathias I held one in Prague in 1617; Francis I of Lorraine would later do so in Vienna in 1746.11 During the reign of Charles VI, there were two public target-shooting competitions: first in 1716, on the occasion of the birth of Archduke Leopold, and later in 1739, when the war with the Ottomans had come to an end—though this war did not bring much martial glory to the Habsburgs.12 It was common practice to publish detailed descriptions of these spectacular ceremonies, which normally included an account of the shooting, a list of participants organized by prizes won, and a description of the targets (sometimes with illustrations). These publications increased the representative value of such shooting parties, spreading news of them to towns hundreds or even thousands of kilometres from Vienna. Nevertheless, the focus of this paper is not these celebratory shooting events, but rather those which regularly took place at the court of Charles VI in 10 For a unique and very important art-historical work about target shooting at Charles VI’s court in Vienna, see: Elisabeth Klecker, ‘“Non manus magis quam ingenia exercere”: Imperial Propaganda on Emblematic Targets’, in The International Emblem: From Incunabula to the Internet. Selected Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference of the Society for Emblem Studies, 28th July – 1st August, 2008, Winchester College, ed. by Simon McKeown (Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2010), pp. 235–62; and recently: Seitschek, Die Tagebücher Kaiser Karls VI, pp. 333–34. 11 Beschreibung etlicher ansehenlich und vornemen Schiessen, so dis 1617 Jar zu Prag, beydem Kayserlichen Hoff mit der Püchsen gehalten worden sein […], Prague: Samuel-Adam von Weleslawin, 1617; Beschreibung Des freyen Haupt- und Gnaden-Schiessens, Welches Ihro Römisch-Kaiserliche Majestät, Zu Germanien, und Jerusalem König, Herzog zu Lothringen, und Barr, Groß-Herzog zu Toscana, etc. etc. Franciscus. I. Der Wiennerischen Burgerschaft gegeben hat, Vienna: Johann Peter van Ghelen, 1746. 12 Beschreibung des Haubt- und Frey-Schiessen, welches von Ihro Kaiser- und Königlich Katholischen Majestät Carolo Sexto, wegen erfreulichster Geburt Leopoldi […], der Wienerischen Burgerschafft gegeben worden, Vienna: Andreas Heyinger, 1716; Beschreibung des Kaiserl. Gnaden- und Frey-Schiessen, welches von Ihro Kaiser- und Königlich Katholischen Majestät Carolo Sexto der Wienerischen Burgerschaft durch 14 Täg gegeben worden. In dem Jahr 1739, (Vienna: Johann Peter van Ghelen, 1739.

co u rt e n t e rtai n m e n t an d r elat i o nshi p ne t wo rk s

Vienna, because by investigating the latter sort of event, we can sketch portraits of the attendees, determine the common tendencies of their participation, and examine these communities of marksmen in greater depth. During the reign of Charles VI, three types of shooting competition regularly took place in the imperial city. The most frequent was common target shooting (Kräntzel-Schiessen), followed by ‘prime’ target shooting (Haupt-Schiessen), which could last for three or four days, and finally women’s target shooting (Frauen-Schiessen).13 Weekly shooting events took place seasonally, from St James’s Day at the end of July to the end of October, usually in the garden of Favorita Castle, though occasional events were also held on the section of the Aleserstraße in front of the Schottentor. One season might consist of twelve to fifteen shooting events, usually held on weekdays (Tuesdays, in many instances). Target-shooting competitions were enlivened by playful tasks and challenges, and their most successful shooters were rewarded with valuable prizes: across Europe, standard gifts included various types of porcelain, silver vessels, expensive pistols, watches, and valuable tobacco jars.14 At Viennese shooting events, prize-worthy finishing positions included the following: knight (Ritter), first prize for target shooting (Ersten-KrantzPreis), second prize for target shooting (Anderten-Krantz-Preis), and the ‘best’ (Bestes) prize. On 29 July 1731, Chancellor Philipp Ludwig von Sinzendorf finished in the knight’s position, the prize for which was a sum four times the entry fee (Leggeld); winners of other events were awarded with similar prizes. Thus these competitions were not free entertainment activities for aristocrats, either, though specific competition fees were rarely mentioned.15 The fee for occasional shooting events was six florins,16 though competitions limited to the inner circle of the court elite’s were surely more expensive. According to court lawyer and publicist Friedrich Karl von Moser (1723–98), shooting events – at least in European courts – took place after dark, but were brightly lit.17 Nighttime festivities played an important role in Baroque court culture because nocturnal darkness provided an ideal setting for spectacular illumination and fireworks.18 However, contemporary accounts suggest that

13 Shooting competitions for aristocratic women were rather rare occasions, see, for example, 17 August 1717 (Annex Wienerisches Diarium [later WD], 20 August 1717) and 2 September 1717 (Annex WD, 07 September 1717). 14 Rohr, CeremonielWissenschafft der großen Herrn, p. 854. 15 WD, 04 August 1731, Annex. 16 Schützen-Ordnung auf der Römisch-Kaiserlich auch Königlich-Katholischen Majestät etc. etc. Angesteltem Cränzel-Schiesen, wie solche von allerhöchstgedachter Ihrer Kaiserl. und Königl. Majestät etc. etc. allergnädgigst approbiret worden und in allen nachfolgenden Puncten zu beobachten, auch derselben von allen einverleibten Schützen, bey Vermeidung der andictirten Straf nachzukommen seyn wird, Vienna: Kais. Reich-Buchtruckerey, 1716, 1st point. 17 Friedrich Karl von Moser, Teutsches Hof-Recht […], 2 vols, Frankfurt/Leipzig: Knoch und Eßlinger, 1761, i, p. 584. 18 Craig Koslofsky, ‘Princes of Darkness: The Night at Court, 1650–1750’, Journal of Modern History 79 (2007), 235–73.

291

292

zs o lt kö ké n y e s i

shooting competitions in Vienna generally took place in the afternoon or early evening. Wienerisches Diarium, the Habsburg Monarchy’s leading periodical (published twice a week starting in 1703), issued reports about these shooting events in separate supplements which included rosters of participants. It is important to add that this Viennese newspaper communicated more information about these shooting events, and did so more frequently, than the volumes of Zeremonialprotokoll written by the Office of the Grand Court Master (Obersthofmeisteramt), which documented the court’s ceremonial life.19 The Diarium usually needed three to seven days to inform its readers about such court festivities. In 1725, however, there was a delay of more than a month before it published one shooting-competition appendix because nearly every article in the intervening issues was a point-by-point discussion of the ratification and terms of the 1725 Treaty of Vienna, which was signed to enforce the Sanctio Pragmatica.20 The Diarium’s accounts of these shooting events were based on detailed descriptions written by the registrar of the Austrian court chancellery and the target-shooting scribe, which can be found in yearly volumes housed in the ÖNB manuscript collection.21 Descriptions of these ceremonies undoubtedly had significant representational value for the monarch and his guests. It is difficult to determine how much the news of court festivities actually interested average newspaperreaders, though these ceremonial supplements may have been informative for aristocrats who were currently or continuously absent from the imperial city. As the previous example demonstrates, however, timely reporting was often a secondary concern for the newspapers of the period.22 In addition to lists of participants, these appendices to the Wienerisches Diarium also provided descriptions of the targets, because every occasion featured new targets crafted at the organizers’ expense, often ornamented with antique motifs and Latin aphorisms, which themselves offer useful insights for researchers investigating

19 It occurred for example that the description only included the following information: at the shooting competition in the Favorita on the 11th October 1733, the whole court, the Archduchesses and the Grand Marshal were also present: ÖStA HHStA OMeA ZA-Prot Bd. 15. (1732–1734) p. 226. 20 The paper thus published this supplement only in the issue of WD, 22 August 1725; they tried to catch up in later issues, which contained two appendices about shooting competitions. 21 Beschreibung aller sowohl von Ihrer Röm. Kayl. May. May.ten Durchleuchtigsten Erzherzoginen allergnädigst gegebenen Haubt als Cavalliers-Cränzl-Schiessen in der Kayl. Favorita […] 1716–1733 [without years 1723; 1728; 1732], Sign: Cod. 7257–7271 Han. 22 Volker Bauer, ‘Nachrichtenmedien und höfische Gesellschaft. Zum Verhältnis von Mediensystem und höfischer Öffentlichkeit im Alten Reich’, in Das Mediensystem im Alten Reich der Frühen Neuzeit (1600–1750), ed. by Johannes Arndt and Esther-Beate Körber, Veröffentlichungen des Instituts für Europäische Geschichte Mainz/Beihefte, 75 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2010), pp. 173–94 (p. 187).

co u rt e n t e rtai n m e n t an d r elat i o nshi p ne t wo rk s

art history and classical philology.23 Descriptions of these ceremonies found in the ÖNB even include illustrations of these targets. Shooting competitions took place at the court in fifteen of the thirty years between 1711 and 1740; no such festivities were organized in the first five years after Charles’s coronation because of the War of the Spanish Succession; in 1723, due to the Prague Coronation; in 1728, because of the emperor’s tour of inner Austria; in 1732, because of Charles VI’s journey to Karlsbad and Linz; and from 1734–40, because of the War of the Polish Succession and a new round of battles with the Ottoman army. During the reign of Maria Theresa, a transformation of the symbolic representation of the court and the empress’s divergent interests led to a suspension of seasonal shooting competitions; ‘prime’ shooting events were organized only on special occasions.24

Competitors at Shooting Events There were approximately twenty participants at shooting competitions, most of whom moved in the same social circles. Members of the Habsburg family were regular competitors. Like her husband Charles VI, Empress Elisabeth Christine was an avid shooter; Charles’s sisters, Maria Elisabeth and Maria Magdalene, also participated regularly, and Maria Theresa later became an active competitor as well. According to Johann Basilius Küchelbecker (1697–1757), the emperor himself handpicked the participants from among his ‘most prominent ministers’.25 The circle of participants also included high-ranking aristocrats who enjoyed the emperor’s favour, such as Chancellor Sinzendorf and Grand Marshal (Obersthofmarschall) Adam Franz von Schwarzenberg. Spending time with the ruling family in the most exclusive circles of the court was a great privilege, an important source of symbolic and social capital and political influence, as we will soon see. Shooting competitors formed a kind of closed society at court, similar to the shooting companies of the early modern period. Admission to these companies was subject to various conditions, and new members could join only with the approval of existing members and leaders.26 This is confirmed by the following custom: if someone was absent

23 For more on this theme, see: Klecker, Imperial Propaganda, pp. 235–62. 24 Unlike her husband, Maria Theresa did not like traditonal courtly hunting festivities; Barbara Stollberg-Rilinger, Maria Theresia: Die Kaiserin in ihrer Zeit (München: C. H. Beck, 2017), p. 379. 25 Johann Basilius Küchelbecker, Allerneueste Nachricht vom römisch-käyserl. Hofe: nebst einer ausführlichen historischen Beschreibung der kayserlichen Resedentz-Stadt Wien und der umliegenen Oerter. Theils aus den Geschichten, Theils aus eigener Erfahrung zusammen getragen und mit saubern Kupffern ans Licht gegeben, Hannover: Förster, 1730, p. 262. 26 Anne Braun, Historische Zielscheiben: Kulturgeschichte europäischer Schützenvereine (Leipzig: Prisma, 1981), pp. 34–35.

293

2 94

zs o lt kö ké n y e s i

from a well-established shooting community, no new member was invited; the missing member was simply replaced by someone else from the community. The lists of names published after these competitions did not include all of the participants’ titles, only their names, ranks, and sometimes the highest office in which they had served. Full titles were published only for two specific aristocrats, the so-called ‘organizing pair’. On the occasion of each shooting competition, two aristocrats were allowed the privilege of acting as nominal hosts at Favorita Castle. According to Küchelbecker, the most successful shooters, the champions of the previous competition, would host the next event.27 This may not have been the general practice in Vienna, however, given that in 1722, the names of the hosts for the season had already been written in the Zeremonialprotokoll by the end of July.28 Even though these events took place at the royal residence, the position of host probably rotated among aristocrats so as to ensure that members of the Habsburg family (in a slight departure from strict protocol) could actively participate in these competitions instead of just standing by as organizers. Even so, during the large-scale, ‘prime’ shooting competitions that lasted for three or four days, the royal family formally fulfilled the role of host. In its section on the news of Vienna, the Wienerisches Diarium identified the organizers of recent shooting competitions, though it was no surprise if the appendix covering such an event was published only a week later. Küchelbecker reported that the organizers had to take care of the valuable prizes and miscellaneous expenses, which could add up to two thousand florins, four times the yearly income of a lady-in-waiting (Hofdame).29 I would like to add here that it was a widespread custom, especially in German-speaking areas in the early modern period, to give the most successful competitor the title of Schützenkönig (‘shooting king’), which guaranteed its recipient a privileged position in the community for a certain time, though this was not a custom at Viennese shooting competitions.30 This was obviously impossible if royal participants were present, although the so-called Bauernhochzeit (‘peasants’ wedding’) during carnival season was one event at the Viennese court which provided opportunities for playful subversion and the bypassing of court rules and strict hierarchy.31 In addition to members of the Habsburg family, participants in these court shooting competitions during the reign of Charles VI included sixty-four guests from the highest social classes, representing forty-nine aristocratic and/or regal families. Four foreign dynasties were also represented by regular guests: Manuel de Bragança, son of Peter II, king of Portugal; Maximilian Wilhelm

27 Küchelbecker, Allerneueste Nachricht, p. 263. 28 ÖStA HHStA OMeA ZA-Prot Bd. 11. (1720–22), p. 195. 29 Küchelbecker, Allerneueste Nachricht, p. 262. 30 Braun, Historische Zielscheiben, p. 103. 31 Bastl, Feuerwerk und Schlittenfahrt, pp. 225–29; Scheutz, Fasching, pp. 143–50.

co u rt e n t e rtai n m e n t an d r elat i o nshi p ne t wo rk s

von Braunschweig-Lüneburg, younger brother of the English king George I; Gianfederico d’Este, son of Rinaldo, prince of Modena; and Francis I of Lorraine, the future husband of Maria Theresa. All four were regular participants in these competitions for many years, so they cannot be considered occasional members, unlike Prince-Elector Franz Ludwig von Pfalz-Neuburg of Mainz (1664–1732), a younger brother of Empress Eleonor who competed only once during a visit to Vienna in the autumn of 1731.32 All four of these high-ranking dignitaries came from dynasties allied with the Habsburgs, the military and diplomatic support of which Charles VI (the self-declared Charles III of Spain) relied on in the War of the Spanish Succession. Furthermore, the dukes of Modena and Hannover personally fought for Charles’s right to the Spanish throne, while the Portuguese duke fought in the Habsburg-Ottoman war of 1716–18.33 Charles’s sister, Archduchess Maria Anna, became the sister-in-law of the Portuguese prince when she married his older brother John V in 1707, further strengthening the Habsburg-Bragança alliance. Similar family ties can be identified in the case of d’Este, whose maternal aunt was Empress Wilhelmine Amalia. Four of the other competitors (Auersperg, Liechtenstein, Lobkowitz, and Schwarzenberg) bore the title of Prince, the vast majority (fifty-three others) were counts, and three (Kriechbaum, Klein, and Gilleiss) were barons. The majority of the participating aristocrats were from renowned noble families, with ancestors who had already served the Habsburgs in higher positions. For example, Adolph Bernhard von Martinitz’s father Georg Adam had made a successful career as a diplomat, Corfiz Anton von Ulfeld’s father had served as field marshal in the Habsburg army, and Lothar Franz von Schönborn (1655–1729), the uncle of Friedrich Karl von Schönborn and Heinrich von Ostein, was the bishop of Mainz. Among the lowest-ranking participants was Johann Jakob von Kriechbaum, whose father Sigmund Balthasar had worked as a provincial lawyer (Landesanwalt) and received the title of baron from Leopold I in 1676.34 It is difficult to categorize the competitors according to nationality because in the eighteenth century (before the rise of nationalism), the aristocracy of the Habsburg monarchy was a widespread network of relatives, the members of which could be landowners and leaders of several territories with a variety spoken languages. Even so, there was more than one foreigner among the competitors, including people of Danish (Ulfeld), Scottish (Hamilton), Hungarian (Pálffy, Zichy), and Neapolitan origin (Rofrano), as well as 32 WD, 03 October 1731. 33 On the diplomatic importance of Manuel de Bragança: Urszula Kosińska, ‘Could a Portuguese Prince become King of Poland? The Candidacy of Don Manuel de Bragança for the Polish Throne in the Years 1729–33’, The Slavonic and East European Review, 94.3 (2016), 497–508. 34 Gerhart Kriechbaum, Kriechbaum: Die Geschichte eines Namens (Bamberg: Gerhart Kriechbaum, 2011), p. 21.

295

296

zs o lt kö ké n y e s i

someone from the Holy Roman Empire (Schönborn), though most members came from the Austrian and Czech-Moravian hereditary lands (Hardegg, Schwarzenberg, etc.). One common characteristic of the competitors was that most of them came from families which were members of the Lower Austrian Herrenstand, or had been awarded the Lower Austrian Inkolat, like future chancellor Franz Ferdinand von Kinsky, on whom this privilege was conferred in 1720.35 Five of the latter province’s aristocrats (Brandis, Kirechbaum, Ferdinand Kuefstein, Lamberg, and Ulfeld) had already found their way into the competition as advisors (Regimentsrat) to the government of Lower Austria, a position which—as we will see later—was one of the lowest ranks in the hierarchy of participants. Adrian Wenzel von Enkevoirt, Karl Anton von Harrach, and Leopold von Kuefstein participated in these competitions as Verordneter of the Lower Austrian Herrenstand. Another nine noble shooters held offices in the provincial court of Lower Austria, or earned these titles later in their careers.36 In the period under discussion, only one attendee, Alois Thomas von Harrach (1669–1742), held the position of Landmarschall, although he did not actually compete in any of these events. Two other regular competitors, Ferdinand Leopold von Herberstein and Johann Wilhelm von Trautson, achieved the highest office in Lower Austria. The presence of noblemen who played leading roles in Lower Austria was not surprising; their participation in these shooting competitions can be accounted for by the geographical location of their province, which surrounded the imperial capital and thus enjoyed a privileged position within the Habsburg monarchy. A considerable number of the participating aristocrats were engaged in active service to the Habsburg royal household, on either the emperor’s or the empress’s side; they held titles of various levels of prestige, from chamberlain (Kämmerer) to grand court master (Obersthofmeister). The majority of the shooters who served the Habsburg household belonged to the emperor’s court, though there were always a few members of the empresses’ households at these festivities (curiously, there were three households serving three empresses in the period under discussion). Philipp Fürst von Lobkowitz was grand court master to the reigning Empress Elisabeth Christine; Heinrich Julius von Gilleis was the grand silver chamberlain (Oberster Silberkämmerer) to Empress Eleonor, widow of Leopold I; Anton Maria von Thurn-Valsassina served as Eleonor’s grand kitchen master (Oberstküchenmeister); Franz Wilhelm von Salm was grand stablemaster (Oberststallmeister) to Wilhelmine Amalia,

35 Franz Karl Wißgrill, Schauplatz des landsässigen Nieder-Oesterreichischen Adels vom Herrenund Ritterstande von dem XI. Jahrhundert an, bis auf jetzige Zeiten, 5 vols (Vienna: Franz Seizer, 1794–1804), v (1804), pp. 135–36; NÖLA Herrenstandsarchiv Lade K Nr. 17. 36 Johann Julius von Hardegg, Johann Karl von Hardegg, Karl Anton von Harrach, Johann Ferdinand von Kuefstein, Karl Ernst von Rappach, Friedrich Karl von Schönborn, Philip Ludwig von Sinzendorf, Johann Albrecht von St Julian and Anton Ernst von Trautson.

co u rt e n t e rtai n m e n t an d r elat i o nshi p ne t wo rk s

widow of Joseph I; and Joseph Ignaz von Paar served as Wilhelmine Amalia’s grand court master. The four dignitaries of the emperor’s court—the grand court master, the grand chamberlain (Oberstkämmerer), the grand marshal, and the stablemaster—were regular guests at these shooting competitions. The only exceptions were the grand court masters Johann Leopold Donat Fürst von Trautson (1659–1724) and Anton Florian Fürst von Liechtenstein (1656–1721), neither of whom participated in such events. Liechtenstein did compete once, in 1716, and his younger brother Hartmann was a regular guest at these competitions, as were Trautson’s sons, Anton Ernst and Johann Wilhelm.37 It is possible that ceremonial or other reasons related to their office are behind the absence of these individuals, as they did not participate even in the celebratory shooting competitions of 1716 and 1739 (the organization of which was the responsibility of the Grand Marshal).38 In contrast, the grand chamberlain, grand marshal, and grand stablemaster usually participated in these shooting festivities; only Johann Baptist Graf von Colloredo und Waldsee (1654–1729), grand marshal from 1727 to 1729, did not participate, probably on account of his advanced age.39 The grand master of the hunt (Oberstjägermeister) and the grand master falconer (Oberstfalkenmeister) were also regular guests at these competitions, which can be explained both by the purview of their offices and the confidence the emperor placed in those who held these positions.40 In addition to the dignitaries of the imperial and Lower Austrian courts, numerous office holders from the Austrian provinces and the Czech royal court were present at these shooting competitions, including Ferdinand Leopold Herberstein, Carinthian Erbkammerer (hereditary chamberlain) and Erbtruchsess (hereditary steward), Rudolph Joseph von Krozensky, Czech Erbpanier (hereditary ensign); or Anton Ernst von Trautson, Erbmarschall (hereditary marshal) of Tyrol. According to Martin Scheutz, most of the leading officers of the court were aristocrats who had previously served as diplomats.41 Those who were promoted to the highest positions at court had already proven themselves as ambassadors, which was an extremely complex challenge in itself; the appointed noblemen had to represent the authority of the monarch in the

37 WD, 26 September 1716. 38 Schützen-Ordnung, 2. point. 39 Martin Scheutz, ‘Die Elite der hochadeligen Elite. Sozialgeschichtliche Rahmenbedingungen der obersten Hofämter am Wiener Kaiserhof im 18. Jahrhundert’, in Adel im 18. Jahrhundert. Umrisse einer sozialen Gruppe in der Krise, ed. by Gerhard Ammerer, Elisabeth Lobenwein and Martin Scheutz, Querschnitte, 28 (Innsbruck/Vienna: Studien, 2015), pp. 141–94 (p. 188). 40 Ferdinand Menčík, ‘Beiträge zur Geschichte der kaiserlichen Hofämter’, Archiv für österreichische Geschichte, 87 (1899), 447–563 (pp. 480–81). 41 Scheutz, ‘Die Elite’, in Adel im 18. Jahrhundert, ed. by Ammerer, Lobenwein and Scheutz, pp. 166–71.

297

298

zs o lt kö ké n y e s i

given country and to be able to handle even the most sensitive military negotiations. It was thus a great honour and a sign of trust to be appointed ambassador. Several competitors had already proven their talent and loyalty in the field of diplomacy by the time they were invited to participate, such as Rudolph Joseph von Colloredo, the kingdom of Bohemia’s ambassador to the Diet of Regensburg from 1731 to 1734; Franz Ferdinand von Kinsky, the kingdom of Bohemia’s ambassador to the Diet of Regensburg in 1708, and again in 1711, during the imperial election; Johann Wilhelm von Sinzendorf, who participated in several diplomatic missions to Italy; Philipp Ludwig von Sinzendorf, an ambassador to Versailles in 1699; or Otto Christoph von Volkra, an ambassador to London. Several leaders of the most important government bodies in the Habsburg monarchy also took part in these shooting competitions. In the period under discussion, only two participants held the office of the Austrian court chancellor (Hofkanzler) or imperial vice chancellor (Reichsvizekanzler)—Philip Ludwig von Sinzendorf and Friedrich Karl von Schönborn, both of whom were regular guests at these events. Bohemian court chancellors (Böhmischer Hofkanzler) Leopold von Schlick and Franz Ferdinand von Kinsky were also pillars of the shooting community. Several members of the imperial council (Reichsrat) were also invited to these prestigious court festivities, such as Johann Kaspar von Cobenzl, Jakob Anton von Dietrichstein, Johann Ferdinand von Kuefstein, Heinrich von Ostein, and Corfiz Anton von Ulfeld. Interestingly, though, none of the presidents of the imperial council, including Ernst Friedrich von Windischgrätz (1670–1727) and Johann Wilhelm Graf von Wurmbrand (1670–1750), ever participated in any of these court competitions.42 And as the presidents of the court chamber (Hofkammer) did not belong to the shooting community, neither Franz Anton Graf von Walsegg (1661–1720), Johann Franz Gottfried Graf von Dietrichstein (1671–1755), nor Gundacker Thomas Graf von Starhemberg (1663–1745), who was president until 1715, were present, though the latter was the most important coordinator of the government’s finances during the reign of Charles VI.43 A large number of military officers also took part in these shooting competitions, though in the eighteenth century, military careers often overlapped with other professions in diplomacy, bureaucracy, or court administration; thus these officers usually had other titles apart from their

42 Oswald von Gschließer, Der Reichshofrat. Bedeutung und Verfassung, Schicksal und Besetzung einer obersten Reichsbehörde von 1559 bis 1806, Kommission für neuere Geschichte des ehemaligen Österreich, 33 (Vienna: Holzhausen, 1942), p. 528. 43 Thomas Fellner and Heinrich Kretschmayr, Österreichische Zentralverwaltung. I. Abteilung. Von Maximilian I. bis zur Vereinigung der Österreichischen und Böhmischen Hofkanzlei (1749), 3 vols (Vienna: Holzhausen, 1907), i, p. 286; Brigitte Holl, Hofkammerpräsident Gundaker Thomas Graf Starhemberg und die österreichische Finanzpolitik der Barockzeit. (1703–1715), Archiv für österreichische Geschichte, 132 (Vienna: Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1976).

co u rt e n t e rtai n m e n t an d r elat i o nshi p ne t wo rk s

military ranks. Gundacker von Althann, a regular guest at these shooting competitions, had successful careers both in the military and at court; Ignaz von Hohenfeld was both a Feldwachtmeister and a member of the Aulic war council (Hofkriegrsrat); Leopold von Schlick was a respected Feldmarschall before he was appointed chancellor, and Ottokar von Starhemberg had also served as Feldmarschalleutenant.44 The number of competing clergymen, on the other hand, was remarkably low. Among prelates and high priests, only Friedrich Karl von Schönborn and Sigismund von Kollonich participated in these events, and Schönborn attended as imperial vice-chancellor (Reichsvizekanzler), not as a man of the cloth. He became archbishop of Bamberg in 1728 upon the death of his uncle Lothar Franz, but he never attended any competitions under that title.45 Kollonich participated in four consecutive shooting competitions as bishop of Vienna, and attended this prestigious court festivity as archbishop in 1722, though he did not participate in any such events from 1723. The clergy’s low participation rate is obviously related to the fact that there were very few high-ranking prelates in Charles VI’s inner circle; it could also be connected to an ecclesiastical mentality that discouraged hunting, shooting, and other court festivities, though many Lower Austrian provosts and abbots participated in the celebratory competition of 1716. Even so, no papal nuncio or cardinal would participate in so much as one shooting competition at the court in Vienna—even Franz Ludwig von Pfalz-Neuburg, archbishop of Mainz, never donned a cardinal’s biretta. Perhaps this is why Christian August of Saxe-Zeitz (1666–1725), archbishop of Esztergom and commissioner of Regensburg, never competed in any of these events, though he was a regular guest at court who enjoyed the confidence of Charles VI.46 It is important to add that it was not only middle-aged aristocrats at the pinnacles of their careers who made up this shooting community, but also young chamberlains. The age distribution of this community is rather heterogeneous. The oldest shooter was Karl Ernst von Rappach, who competed at the age of sixty-seven or sixty-eight; the youngest was Francis Stephen of Lorraine, aged seventeen, followed by Miklós Pálffy (1710–73), who was only twenty-three when he participated in one of these prestigious contests. The plurality of the competing aristocrats (seventeen of them) had been born in the 1670s,

44 Kaiserliche und k.k. Generale (1618–1815), ed. by Antonio Schmidt-Brentano (Vienna: Österreichische Staatsarchiv, 2006), pp. 3, 44, 89, 96. 45 For Schönborn’s career and work, see: Hugo Hantsch, Reichsvizekanzler Friedrich Karl Graf von Schönborn (1674–1746). Einige Kapitel Zur Politischen Geschichte Kaiser Josefs I. Und Karls VI., Salzburger Abhandlungen und Texte aus Wissenschaft und Kunst, 2 (Augsburg: Filser, 1929). 46 Adél Lakatos, ‘Keresztély Ágost’, in Esztergomi érsekek 1001–2003 [Archbishops of Esztergom 1001–2003], ed. by Margit Beke (Budapest: Szent István Társulat, 2003), pp. 326–31.

299

3 00

zs o lt kö ké n y e s i

and were thus five to fifteen years older than Charles VI (b. 1685).47 There were also twelve members of the emperor’s age cohort, born in the 1680s,48 and another eleven noblemen somewhat younger than Charles VI, born in the 1690s.49 Slightly smaller numbers of participating nobles had been born before 166950 or after 170051 (eight and nine people, respectively). The careers of many of these young aristocrats took off after they participated in these shooting competitions, which is surely not attributable simply to their regular attendance at court festivities; an invitation to a shooting contest early in a young noble’s career was a reflection of an already excellent relationship with the monarch and/or the inner circles of the court. For example, as I mentioned previously, Ferdinand Leopold Graf von Herberstein and Johann Wilhelm von Trautson would go on to become Landmarschall of Lower Austria; similarly, Wolfgang von Orsini-Rosenberg would acquire the title of the Landmarschall of Corinthia. Before his appointment as Landmarschall, Herberstein served as Charles VI’s ambassador to Stockholm, while Heinrich von Ostein was sent on diplomatic missions to Petersburg and London. Wilhelm Albert von Kolowrat-Krakovsky would go on to become the supreme chancellor of Bohemia; Franz Ludwig von Salburg first participated in these shooting competitions as a chamberlain, but later continuously advanced through the military hierarchy, all the way up to the rank of Feldmarschall. Several court shooters were later promoted to higher positions at court; for example, Franz Jakob von Brandis would become grand marshal, while Philipp von Lobkowitz would become the empress’s grand court master. Anton Corfiz von Ulfeld, who enjoyed the most lucrative career among these shooting competitors, started participating as Regimentsrat of Lower Austria and was then named to the imperial court council (Reichshofrat). He later received assignments as

47 Johann Michael von Althann, Franz Jakob von Brandis, Márk Czobor, Jakob Anton von Dietrichstein, Andreas von Hamilton, Johann Julius von Hardegg, Ferdinand Marquard von Harrach, Franz Ferdinand von Kinsky, Sigismund von Kollonich, Wilhelm Albert von Kolowrat-Krakovsky, Ehrgott Maximilian von Kuefstein, Leopold von Kuefstein, Franz Wilhelm von Salm, Friedrich Karl von Schönborn, Philipp Ludwig von Sinzendorf, Rudolf von Sinzendorf and Gundemar von Starhemberg. 48 Heinrich Julius von Gilleis, Ignaz von Hohenfeld, Johann Ferdinand von Kuefstein, Karl Joseph von Lamberg, Philip von Lobkowitz, Adolph Bernhard von Martinitz, Wolfgang von Orsini-Rosenberg, Lipót Pálffy, Franz Ludwig von Salburg, Adam Franz von Schwarzenberg, Ottokar von Starhemberg and Johann Albrecht von St Julian. 49 Michael Anton von Althann, Heinrich von Auersperg, Manuel de Bragança, Karl Anton von Harrach, Ferdinand Leopold von Herberstein, Heinrich von Ostein, Leopold von Paar, Johann Wilhelm von Sinzendorf, Ernst Sigmund von Trautmannsdorf, Corfitz Anton von Ulfeld and Károly Zichy. 50 Gundacker von Althann, Maximilian William von Brunswick-Lüneburg, Johann Kaspar von Cobenzl, Adrian Wenzel von Enkevoirt, Hartmann zu Liechtenstein, Joseph Ignaz von Paar, Girolamo Capece di Rofrano and Leopold von Schlick. 51 Rudolph Joseph von Colloredo, Gianfederico di Este, Johann Karl von Hardegg, Francis Stephen of Lorraine, Miklós Pálffy, Johann Joseph von St Julian, Anton Ernst von Trautson and Johann Wilhelm von Trautson.

co u rt e n t e rtai n m e n t an d r elat i o nshi p ne t wo rk s

an ambassador, served as state chancellor (Staatskanzler), and was appointed grand court master at the peak of his career. It is important to add that Ulfeld was appointed state chancellor and grand court master during the reign of Maria Theresa, and his regular socializing at court, including these exclusive shooting competitions, may have helped him considerably in establishing his good relationship with the empress. However, it was not only Ulfeld’s career that was affected positively by a close association with Maria Theresa. Among others, I would note Heinrich von Auersperg and Rudolph Joseph von Colloredo; the former had a glorious career at court, while the latter became vice-chancellor and then achieved the rank of imperial duke in 1764.52 Even so, I would point out that people like Erdmann Christoph von Proskau and Ehrgott Maximilian von Kuefstein also took part in these shooting competitions, but never rose above the rank of chamberlain—or, at least, there is no evidence that they did. It is important to draw attention to the relationship between these competitions and the Order of the Golden Fleece, members of which made up a large proportion of the participants in these events.53 Almost every third shooter (twenty-one out of sixty-four) was a recipient of the Habsburgs’ loftiest distinction, an acknowledgement of the multigenerational loyalty and service of aristocratic families like the Liechtensteins, Pálffys, and Trautsons. The Austrian branch of the Order of the Golden Fleece was Charles VI’s inner circle, made up of his most important and authoritative aristocratic—and even royal—allies. Nevertheless, the privileged positions of these shooting competitors and their close relationships with the monarch are also demonstrable at lower levels. The future participants in these shooting parties were already among those who received awards at Charles VI’s coronation ceremonies. Johann Albrecht von St Julian was given the title of imperial knight (Reichsritter) during the imperial coronation in 1711 in Frankfurt,54 while Adrian Wenzel von Enkevoirt and Leopold von Kuefstein received the title of chamberlain after the hereditary homage (Erbhuldigung) of Lower Austria.55 Furthermore,

52 OeStA AVA Adel RAA Kt. 68. Nr 40. 53 For the history and importance of the Order of Golden Fleece, see: Annamarie Weber, Der österreichische Orden vom Goldenen Vliess. Geschichte und Probleme (unpublished doctoral thesis, Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität, 1971); Christian Steeb, ‘Der Orden vom Goldenen Vlies’, in Österreichs Orden: vom Mittelalter bis zur Gegenwart, ed. by Johann Stolzer and Christian Steeb (Graz: Akademische Druck- u. Verlagsanstalt, 1996), pp. 68–89. 54 Beschreibung der Crönung Ihrer Röm. Kaiserl. Majestät Caroli VI. So den 22. Decembr. 1711. in der Kayserlichen freyen Reichs-Wahl und Handel-Stadt, Franckfurth am Mayn […], s.l.: s.n., 1711, p. 11. 55 Johann Baptist von Marin, Beschreibung Was auf Ableiben Weyland Ihrer Keyserl. Majestät Joseph I. biß nach vorgegangener Erb-Huldigung Welche dem AllerdurchleuchtigstGroßmächtigst- und Unüberwindlichsten Römischen Keyser Carolo Dem Sechsten, zu Hispanien, Hungarn und Böheim König, c. c. Als Erz-Herzogen zu Oesterreich, Die gesamte NiederOesterreichische Stände Den 8. Nov. 1712. In allertiefigster Unterthänigkeit abgelegt, Vienna: Johann Jakob Kürner, 1712, p. 74.

301

302

zs o lt kö ké n y e s i

the Order of St Wenceslaus was conferred on Andreas von Hamilton, Johann Julius von Hardegg, Johann Ferdinand von Kuefstein, Felix Ernst von Mollard, Leopold von Paar, Gundemar and Ottokar von Starhemberg, Johann Albrecht von St Julian, and Johann Wilhelm von Trautson at Charles VI’s coronation as king of Bohemia in 1723.56 All of these honours were important symbolic means of acknowledging the loyalty of Charles VI’s followers. The trust and sympathy of the monarch were undoubtedly the most important factors in receiving an invitation to these exclusive court shooting competitions. For instance, Johann Michael von Althann, a primary confidant and friend of Charles VI, was a regular guest at the competitions until his death in 1722.57 It is widely known that the monarch attached great importance to his relationships with aristocrats who had proven their loyalty while serving him during his reign as king of Spain. In addition to Althann, Rudolph Sigmund von Sinzendorf and Johann Caspar von Cobenzl were also invited to these shooting events after serving as Spanish chamberlains to the future Charles VI; both later enjoyed illustrious careers at his imperial court.58 A certain Johann Klein also served at the monarch’s Spanish court and later participated in shooting events in Vienna; he was a court dwarf (Hofzwerg) whom Charles VI later elevated to the rank of baron.59 It is strange, though, that after the War of the Spanish Succession, the Spanish and Italian aristocrats who had moved to the imperial city—members of the so-called Spanish party at the Viennese court—barely figured in the lists of these shooting competitions’ participants. The Naples-born Girolamo Capece, marchese of Rofrano, a member of the Spanish Council and postmaster of Italy, was both a shooter and a member of this circle; based on his interests and his wife Anna Maria Pignatelli (1689–1755), Johann Michael Althann can also be listed in these groups. However, among the members of the Spanish council (Spanischer Rat), neither former archbishop of Valencia Antoni Folch de Cardona (1657–1724), Rocco Stella, count of Santa Croce (1670–1720), nor Ramon Frederic de Vilana Perlas, marquis of Rialp (1663–1741) took part in these

56 Beschreibung, Wie es bey deß Allerdurchlauchtigst- Großmächtigst- Und Unüberwindlichsten Römischen Kaysers Caroli Deß Sechsten… In Dero Königlichen Residentz-Statt Prag Den 5. Septembris Anno 1723. Fürgegangenen Königlichen Böhmischen Crönung gehalten worden, Prague: Wickhart, 1723, p. 24v–25r. 57 Wilhelm Hauser Hollabrunn, Das Geschlecht derer von Althann (unpublished doctoral thesis, Universität Wien, 1949), pp. 79–90; Andreas Pečar, ‘Favorit ohne Geschäftsbereich. Johann Michael Graf von Althann (1679–1722) am Kaiserhof Karls VI.’, in Der zweite Mann im Staat. Oberste Amtsträger und Favoriten im Umkreis der Reichsfürsten in der Frühen Neuzeit, ed. by Michael Kaiser and Andreas Pečar, Zeitschrift für historische Forschung, Beiheft, 32 (Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 2003), pp. 331–44. 58 Pečar, ‘Favorit ohne Geschäftsbereich’, in Der zweite Mann im Staat, ed. by Kaiser and Pečar, p. 334. 59 Stefan Seitschek, ‘Der Adel’, in 300 Jahre Karl VI. (1711–1740). Spuren der Herrschaft des “letzten” Habsburgers, ed. by Stefan Seitschek, Herbert Hutterer and Gerald Theimer (Vienna: Österreichische Staatsarchiv, 2011), pp. 63–73 (p. 73).

co u rt e n t e rtai n m e n t an d r elat i o nshi p ne t wo rk s

shooting competitions. I cannot determine the exact reason for their absence; perhaps the members of the court’s so-called ‘German party’ disturbed these Spanish council members, or more probably they simply did not like shooting or were inexperienced. The latter argument is suggested by the fact that Stella’s name was listed among the participants in the celebratory competition of 1716, though the hunter Stephan Paar shot in his place.60 Similar reasons were probably behind the Spanish council members’ avoidance of court-organized hunting. Lists of the regular participants in these shooting competitions and in Charles VI’s hunts overlap significantly; these included Baron Klein, Johann Michael and Gundacker von Althann, Johann Kaspar von Cobenzl, Johann Julius von Hardegg, Hartmann von Liechtenstein, Philipp Ludwig von Sinzendorf, Johann Albrecht von St Julian, and Adam von Schwarzenberg (who died in a hunting accident).61 Apart from them, Grand Kitchen Master Felix Ernst von Mollard, who also enjoyed the trust of the monarch, was another regular guest during shooting season.62 Furthermore, not all the members of the ‘German party’ — which, according to the British diplomat Saint-Saphorin, was made up of at least two groups of leading aristocrats with opposing interests—participated in these shooting competitions.63 For example, as I have already mentioned, Gundacker von Starhemberg and Ernst Friedrich Graf von Windischgrätz did not participate in any of these shooting festivities, not even in the larger, celebratory competition of 1716. It is difficult to explain the absence of these two knights of the Golden Fleece and conference ministers (Konferenzminister); it is possible that they simply did not enjoy target shooting (or did not have good shooting skills), as they were not regular guests at court hunts either. Starhemberg’s absence could be explained by his advanced age; Windischgrätz, on the other hand, had an extremely poor relationship with Imperial ViceChancellor Schönborn, who was a regular competitor at shooting events in the early years of Charles’s reign—Windischgrätz even challenged the future archbishop to a duel.64 However, the absence of Eugene of Savoy (1663–1736), a knight of the Golden Fleece and president of the Aulic war council, is much more conspicuous. That Charles VI’s foremost general failed to appear can be explained by various factors: military service kept the general from taking 60 Beschreibung des Haubt- und Frey-Schiessen, p. 56. 61 Mitis, Jagd und Schützen, pp. 33–36. 62 Alphons Lhotsky, ‘Kaiser Karl VI. und sein Hof im Jahre 1712/13’, Mitteilungen des Instituts für Österreichische Geschichtsforschung, 66 (1958), 52–80 (p. 65). 63 Hugo Hantsch, ‘Die drei großen Relationen St Saphorins über die inneren Verhältnisse am Wiener Hof zur Zeit Karls VI.’, Mitteilungen des Instituts für Österreichische Geschichtsforschung, 58 (1950), 625–36; Theo Gehling, Ein Europäischer Diplomat am Kaiserhof zu Wien. François Louis de Pesme, Seigneur de Saint-Saphorin, als englischer Resident am Wiener Hof, 1718–1727 (Bonn: Röhrscheid, 1964). 64 Constantin von Wurzbach, ‘Windisch-Grätz, Ernst Friedrich’, in Biographisches Lexikon des Kaiserthums Oesterreich, 60 vols (Vienna: Verl. d. typograf.-literarisch-artist. Anstalt, 1856–91), lvii (1889), p. 47.

303

3 04

zs o lt kö ké n y e s i

up permanent residence in the imperial city; military obligations kept him from attending several of these shooting competitions. Furthermore, several members of the shooting community, including influential aristocrats like Johann Michael von Althann and Leopold von Schlick, distrusted the general or were hostile towards him.65 Nevertheless, the most important factor is that the relationship between Savoy and the emperor was constantly changing, and Savoy never enjoyed Charles VI’s unconditional trust; not without reason did he feel that ‘Leopold was his father, Joseph was his brother, and Charles is his master’.66 We could speculate endlessly on the reasons why some of the era’s most significant aristocrats were absent from these shooting competitions, but so as not to take us too far afield, I will limit myself to a few important examples: among Charles VI’s most significant advisors, Austrian chancellor Johann Friedrich Graf von Seilern (1646–1715) and Bohemian chancellor Johann Wenzel Wratislaw Graf von Mitrowitz (1669–1712)—both were conference ministers (Konferenzminister)—passed away before 1716, the year of Charles’s first shooting competition.67 Count Joseph Lothar von Königsegg-Rothenfels (1673–1751), the future grand court master to the empress, who served as conference minister and president of the court war council after the death of Eugene of Savoy, was one of the most successful aristocrats during Charles’s reign, but diplomatic duties kept him away from Vienna during the period under discussion.68 In addition, among those nobles whose governmental careers started during the reign of Charles VI and peaked during the reign of Maria Theresa, Johann Christoph von Bartenstein (1689–1767) reached the rank of imperial baron only in 1732/1733, and thus lacked the proper title and prestige he would have needed to participate.69 Wenzel Anton von Kaunitz (1711–94), the future chancellor of state, finished his studies in 1733, then returned from his Kavalierstour and was appointed provincial advisor to Lower Austria in 1734; given his young age and his absence, there was no way he could have competed in any of the events held between 1716 and 1733.70

65 Alfred Ritter von Arneth, Prinz Eugen von Savoyen. Nach den handschriftlichen Quellen der kaiserlichen Archive, 3 vols (Vienna: Verl. d. typograf.-literarisch-artist. Anstalt, 1864), iii, pp. 39–42. 66 Arneth, Prinz Eugen, p. 30. 67 Karl Gutkas, ‘Die führenden Persönlichkeiten der habsburgischen Monarchie von 1683 bis 1740’, in Prinz Eugen und das barocke Österreich, ed. by Karl Gutkas (Salzburg/Vienna: Residenz, 1985), pp. 73–86 (pp. 75–76). 68 Andreas Pečar, Die Ökonomie der Ehre. Höfischer Adel am Kaiserhof Karls VI. (1711–1740), Symbolische Kommunikation in der Vormoderne, 5, Studien zur Geschichte, Literatur und Kunst (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 2003), p. 63; Scheutz, ‘Die Elite’, in Adel im 18. Jahrhundert, ed. by Ammerer, Lobenwein and Scheutz, p. 153. 69 Friedrich Walter, Männer um Maria Theresia (Vienna: Holzhausen, 1951), pp. 19–38. 70 Franz A. J. Szabo: ‘Favorit, Premierminister oder, “drittes Staatsoberhaupt”? Der Fall des Staatskanzlers Wenzel Anton Kaunitz’, in Der zweite Mann im Staat. Oberste Amtsträger und Favoriten im Umkreis der Reichsfürsten in der Frühen Neuzeit, ed. by Michael Kaiser

co u rt e n t e rtai n m e n t an d r elat i o nshi p ne t wo rk s

It worth examining not only the relationships between the monarch and the shooters, but also the connections between and among the shooters themselves, especially their family ties. In addition to one’s personal achievements, recommendations, and family connections, intergenerational loyalty to the Habsburgs also played an important role in winning the favour of the monarch. Among the guests at these competitions, seven families (Hardegg, Harrach, Paar, Pálffy, St Julian, Starhemberg, and Trautson) were represented by two members, while three (Althann, Kuefstein, Sinzendorf) were represented by three members. Among these, several types of relationships can be identified, such as father-son (Hardegg, Pálffy, Sinzendorf, and St Julian), siblings (Kuefstein and Trautson), or uncle-nephew in the case of the Paars. However, in addition to connections which can be easily identified due to similar names, other kinds of family relationships bound these noble competitors together. For example, Bohemian Grand Chancellor Kinsky was the maternal uncle of Rudolph Joseph von Colloredo, who began participating in these events at a very early age. The most typical connection was affinity by marriage between competitors’ close relatives. Of the many such examples, I will mention only a few: Karl Joseph, the son of Duke Auersperg, married Johann Wilhelm von Trautson’s daughter Maria Josepha; Auersperg’s other son Heinrich Joseph married Trautson’s sister Maria Francesca. Rudolf von Sinzendorf ’s daughter Maria was married to Johann Julius von Hardegg’s son Johann Karl, who also participated in these shooting competitions. Adam Franz von Schwarzenberg and Philipp von Lobkowitz became brothers-in-law through Lobkowitz’s sister Eleonore Elisabeth; Lobkowitz’s daughter Maria Elisabeth married Ulfeld. It would be wrong to assume that the familial and marital relationships among these aristocratic families were the result of their participation in these shooting competitions; nevertheless, it seems possible that the rate of marriages among these competitors’ families was higher than among the wider circle of the court aristocracy. Finally, it is important to discuss briefly how often these aristocrats appeared as guests at these shooting festivities. Five of these sixty-four aristocrats participated in every competition season: Johann Julius Hardegg, Lamberg, Mollard, Gundemar Starhemberg, and Philipp Sinzendorf; while four others participated in all except one (Gundacker Althann, Salm, Schwarzenberg, and St Julian). Thus roughly 14% of the participants could be considered core members of the shooting community. Among these, the name of Gundemar von Starhemberg is the most notable, given that unlike the others, he barely appears in the available literature and is not usually mentioned as a member of Charles VI’s inner circle; however, his continuous presence at the competitions may suggest that he was. Gundemar was the son of Gundacker von Starhemberg (1652–1702), a leading Upper Austrian aristocrat and secret

and Andreas Pečar, Zeitschrift für historische Forschung, Beiheft, 32 (Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 2003), pp. 345–62 (p. 347).

305

3 06

zs o lt kö ké n y e s i

councillor, and Maria Anna von Rappach (1654–1721), a lady-in-waiting to Empress Eleonore.71 Judged by the offices he held, Gundemar was not part of the Viennese governmental elite, but his regular presence at shooting competitions suggests that he was tightly integrated into the court and closely connected to Charles VI; these relationships surely played a role in his receiving the indigenat—a conferral of Hungarian nobility on a foreigner—in 1723.72 In that same year, he was inducted into the Order of St Wenceslaus; he became the vice-president of the court chamber and a privy councillor in 1732. He was also one of the competitors with the closest family ties to the others: his maternal uncle was Karl Ernst von Rappach; his younger brother Ottokar von Starhemberg married into the Trautson family; and his sisters were married to Franz Jakob Brandis and Jakob Anton Dietrichstein. Eleven people—a group slightly larger than the ‘core members’ who competed regularly—participated in only one shooting season.73 Some of them probably resided in the imperial city only temporarily, while others (Colloredo, Karl Hardegg, Paar, Pálffy, Joh. St Julian, and Trautson) participated only at a very young age thanks to the involvement of a close relative; still others, like Andreas von Hamilton, competed for only one season despite their positions at court. Other aristocrats participated in an average of five or six years’ worth of shooting competitions, though some competed only twice; yet others attended these court festivities in as many as thirteen years. There are several reasons for these absences; some, like Johann Michael von Althann, passed away in this period; some were obliged by their offices or properties to move to the countryside (like Rosenberg, who got married in 1721 and lived Carinthia thereafter); some could not attend due to diplomatic assignments (Ulfeld, for example, who was envoy to the Hague starting in 1733). In some cases, health problems or the loss of the monarch’s trust prevented them from attending any longer.

71 Johann Schwerdling, Geschichte des uralten und seit Jahrhunderten um Landesfürst und Vaterland höchst verdienten, theils fürstlich, theils gräflichen Hauses Starhemberg (Linz: Feichtinger, 1830), p. 321; Georg Heilingsetzer, ‘Fata Starhembergica: Aristokratie, Staat und Militär zur Zeit des Prinzen Eugen am Beispiel des Hauses Starhemberg’, in Prinz Eugen und das barocke Österreich, ed. by Karl Gutkas (Salzburg/Vienna: Residenz, 1985), pp. 87–98 (p. 97). 72 After the fourth paragraph of article cxxiii of the Diet of 1722–23: Corpus juris Hungarici. Magyar törvénytár. 1000–1895. 1657–1740. évi törvényczikkek. Ed. by Dezső Márkus. Trad. Lőrinc Tóth. I–XXI. (Budapest, 1900), VI. pp. 651. 73 Aristocrats who took part in only one shooting season: Rudolph Joseph von Colloredo, Márk Czobor, Anton von Dietrichstein, Andreas von Hamilton, Johann Karl von Hardegg, Ignaz von Hohenfeld, Joseph Ignaz von Paar, Miklós Pálffy, Erdmann Christoph von Proskau, Johann Joseph von St Julian and Johann Wilhelm von Trautson.

co u rt e n t e rtai n m e n t an d r elat i o nshi p ne t wo rk s

Hungarian Aristocrats at Charles VI’s Shooting Competitions According to descriptions of these ceremonies, there were always a few Hungarian aristocrats who participated in shooting competitions held between 1716 and 1733, with the exception of three years (1720–22). During the reign of Charles VI, four Hungarian magnates were honoured with invitations to shoot with the Habsburg royal family and the most exclusive inner circles of its court. From the perspective of Hungarian participation, the shooting competitions at court in the fifteen years under discussion can be divided into two stages: between 1716 and 1720, Count Lipót Pálffy and Count Márk Czobor are listed among the participants, while between 1724 and 1733, Count Károly Zichy and Count Miklós Pálffy (1710–73) were present. The most active person in the first period was Count Lipót Pálffy, a chamberlain and colonel.74 He participated in almost fifty of the court’s shooting competitions over four years, though his ‘shooting career’ ended with his death in 1720. General and Hungarian master of the doorkeepers (janitorum regalium magister) Count Márk Czobor competed in multiple events in 1719, though not nearly as many as Pálffy. Between 1724 and 1733, the chamberlain and count Károly Zichy was the most frequent Hungarian guest; his name appears in the newspaper’s appendix almost eighty times.75 In the last two months of the final shooting season, Count Miklós Pálffy—son of the aforementioned Count Lipót Pálffy—participated in multiple competitions.76 However, he should not be confused with his relative of the same name, the chamberlain and colonel Count Miklós Pálffy (1699–1734), his father Lipót’s cousin and the son of palatine János; the former Miklós Pálffy was the lord lieutenant (főispán) of Pozsony County and the lord of Marchegg, as is mentioned in his list of titles. Thus four members of three Hungarian aristocratic families participated in these shooting competitions, although interestingly, these names do not include Esterházy, Batthyány, Csáky, Erdődy, Nádasdy, or even Serényi, a family well-connected at court, especially its Moravian branch, which participated actively in the life of the court. And though Hungarian high priests were regularly present in the imperial city, none participated in these occasions at

74 Iván Nagy, Magyarország családai czimerekkel és nemzékrendi táblákkal [The families of Hungary, with coats of arms and genealogical tables], 12 vols (Pest: Ráth Mór, 1857–65), ix (1862), p. 59; Jedlicska Pál, Eredeti részletek gróf Pálffy-család okmánytárához (1401–1653) s gróf Pálffyak életrajzi vázlatai [Transcripts of original documents of Count Pálffy’s family archives, 1401–1653, and biographical sketches of the members of Count Pálffy’s family] (Budapest: Stephaneum, 1910), pp. 601–02. 75 Zoltán Fallenbüchl, Magyarország főméltóságai 1526–1848 [High Dignitaries in Hungary 1526–1848] (Budapest: Maecenas, 1988), p. 83. 76 Jedlicska, Eredeti részletek, pp. 604–06; Éva H. Balázs, Hungary and the Habsburgs 1765–1800: An Experiment in Enlightened Absolutism (Budapest: Central European University Press, 1997), pp. 101–02.

307

3 08

zs o lt kö ké n y e s i

court.77 This is perhaps unsurprising, given that they traditionally avoided public court festivities. It is more curious that none of the chancellors of the Hungarian court competed, even though the Austrian and Bohemian chancellors and the imperial vice-chancellor were regular guests at such festivities. This might be explained by the fact that three of the era’s five Hungarian chancellors were clergymen.78 The influence and significance of the secular chancellor Miklós Illésházy (1653–1723), who gained the title of count in 1678, cannot be compared to that of Schlick or Schönborn; the other secular chancellor, Count Lajos Batthyány (1696–1765), was promoted to that rank only in 1733, and at the beginning of his career, he was probably more closely connected to Eugene of Savoy through his mother Eleonore Gräfin von Strattmann (1672–1741), though his brother-in-law Franz Ferdinand von Kinsky was also a regular competition guest.79 The duties of their offices often prevented other secular Hungarian dignitaries (palatine, judge royal, Croatian ban, master of the treasury) from spending much time in Vienna, and thus they would not generally have been able to participate in such events. The closed character of this shooting community is also demonstrated by the fact that the Hungarians who did attend participated regularly, generally over the course of several years, while the lists of attendees in published supplements include no names which show up only occasionally. How can we account for the presence of the aforementioned Hungarian aristocrats in this closed group, and how did their attendance affect their careers and their families? Given the lack of further explanatory sources, the reasons for their acceptance cannot be elucidated with any certainty, and thus we can only speculate; it is nevertheless problematic to make assumptions about a selection process which led to invitations for Count Károly Zichy, but overlooked the president of the Hungarian court chamber, Count György Erdődy (1680–1759), the future grand court master to Archduke Joseph, Count Károly Batthyány (1697–1772), and the heir of the only Hungarian princely family of the era, Prince Pál Antal Esterházy (1711–62). On the other hand, there is no information suggesting that the latter three actually sought admission. The attendance of the two Pálffys is not surprising, given that they were part of one of the most important Hungarian noble families that rose to prominence during the Habsburgs’ reign. Miklós Pálffy (1657–1732) maintained excellent 77 Zsolt Kökényesi, ‘Mise és presztízs: A magyar főpapok jelenléte és reprezentációja a bécsi udvarban 1711 és 1765 között [Mass and Prestige: The presence and representation of Hungarian Prelates in the Viennese court between 1711 and 1765]’, Századok, 149.4 (2015), 905–39. 78 István Fazekas, ‘A Magyar Udvari Kancellária és hivatalnokai a 16–18. században: hivatalnoki karrierlehetőségek a kora újkori Magyarországon [The Hungarian Court Chancellery and its officals from the 16th to the 18th century: Bureaucratic career possibilities in early modern Hungary]’, Századok, 148.5 (2014), 1131–51 (p. 1145). 79 Hungarian chancellors during the reign of Charles III: Miklós Illésházy (1706–1723); László Ádám Erdődy (1725), bishop of Nyitra/Nitra/Neutra; Imre Eszterházy (1725), bishop of Veszprém/Wesprim; Ádám Acsády (1725–1732), bishop of Veszprém/Wesprim; and Lajos Batthyány (1733–1746).

co u rt e n t e rtai n m e n t an d r elat i o nshi p ne t wo rk s

relationships at court, serving as captain of the Trabantengarde and (later) the Hartschierenliebgarde; he then served as Empress Eleonore’s stablemaster, and in 1714 was elevated to the rank of palatine (palatinus, nádor), the highest secular official in Hungary.80 Although Miklós Pálffy never participated in these shooting competitions, his son Lipót (borne to him by his wife, Baroness Weichs) were regular guests from 1716 until Lipót’s death in 1720. Lipót Pálffy’s son Miklós (1710–73) was probably admitted into his father’s community with ease; this is suggested by the fact that he was the youngest participant and the only Hungarian aristocrat who did not make his way into this prestigious court community as a soldier. Czobor and Zichy were presumably accepted into this small court community on the strength of their own service, positions, and connections, though their fathers were both talented soldiers; Count Ádám Czobor (?–1691) was a general, while Count Ádám Zichy (1655–1701) was the vice-captain of the garrison at Győr. And though the latter two were not national dignitaries, their wives were the daughters of the Hungarian aristocrats Erdődy and Jakusith. In the case of Zichy, his properties near Vienna—he was the lord lieutenant of Moson County—and his education on a Kavalierstour may also have been significant.81 Moreover, Zichy was one of the most successful Hungarian participants at these shooting events; his name is often listed among the very best prize-winning competitors. It is possible that his education and family traditions played a significant role in his marksmanship; an unknown artist’s portrait of his sister Katalin even depicts the lady holding a rifle.82 Czobor and Zichy’s family relations might also have helped them gain admittance to the shooting community. Márk Czobor’s brother-in-law (the husband of his sister Krisztina) was Ádám Kollonich (1651–1726), whose nephew was Viennese bishop Zsigmond Kollonich, while Czobor’s other brother-in-law (through his sister Mária Anna) was the Croatian ban János Pálffy (1663–1751), with whom Czobor served in the imperial army, and whose cousin Lipót was also a participant at these shooting competitions. Károly Zichy’s foster father was György Erdődy, whose nephew László Ádám Erdődy (1679–1736), the bishop of Nitra, was one of the most influential Hungarian high priests at Charles VI’s court.83 Given that there were always a few Hungarian aristocrats participating 80 Zsolt Kökényesi, A magyar arisztokraták integrációja a bécsi udvarba 1711 és 1765 között [The integration of the Hungarian Aristocracy into the Viennese Court between 1711 and 1765] (unpublished doctoral thesis, Loránd Eötvös University, Budapest, 2016), pp. 76, 344; Jedlicska, Eredeti részletek, pp. 508–11. 81 Nagy, Magyarország családai, xii (1865), p. 384. 82 See the picture in Museum Ottó Hermann in Miskolc or online on the site of the Nemzeti Portrétár [Hungarian Portrait Collection]: Portrait of Katalin Zichy, oil on canvas, private collection, Budapest [accessed 23 May 2017]. 83 For Erdődy’s career, see: Zsolt Kökényesi, ‘Egy magyar főpap jelenléte és karrierútja a bécsi udvarban. Vázlat Erdődy László Ádám nyitrai püspök életrajzához [The presence and career of a Hungarian prelate in the Viennese Court. Biographical Sketch of László Ádám

309

31 0

zs o lt kö ké n y e s i

in these competitions, it is possible that the emperor himself always sought to include Hungarian nobles in the court’s inner circle, either for reasons of symbolic representation or personal trust. One common characteristic of the four Hungarian aristocrats who participated was that their families all had property in the western part of the kingdom of Hungary, and had all been loyal to the Habsburgs for generations; their sons remained unconditionally faithful to the court even during the Rákóczi liberation movement. It is important to add that the Pálffys (since 1589) and the Czobors (since 1657) had also been awarded the inkolat of Lower Austria.84 Márk Czobor was so devoted to the Habsburgs that in 1707, he got into an argument and a physical confrontation with the Swedish diplomat Henning Freiherr von Stralenheim (1665–1731) because—according to Czobor—Stralenheim had spoken disrespectfully of the emperor; this incident caused a serious diplomatic scandal and displeased the court.85 The Hungarian participants at these shooting competitions proved their political loyalty numerous times. For example, Márk Czobor did much to promote the acceptance of the Pragmatica Sanctio;86 Károly Zichy was the chief advocate for a 1737 military tax (subsidium) to be paid by the Hungarian estates to the imperial government;87 and Miklós Pálffy (1710–73) was an important Hungarian statesman in the eighteenth century who had equal respect for the interests of the court and for Hungary’s public affairs.88

84

85

86

87 88

Erdődy, Bishop of Nyitra]’, in Egyház és reprezentáció a régi Magyarországon, ed. by Orsolya Báthory and Franziska Kónya, Pázmány Irodalmi Műhely, Lelkiségtörténeti tanulmányok, 12 (Budapest: MTA–PPKE Barokk Irodalom és Lelkiség Kutatócsoport, 2016), pp. 223–54. NÖLA Herrenstandsarchiv Aufnahmeakten P Nr. 5.; Z Nr 1; Zsolt Kökényesi, ‘Herrenstand és Erbhuldigung: Magyar főnemesek, mint az alsó-ausztriai hódolások résztvevői a 18. század első felében’ [Herrenstand and Erbhuldigung, Hungarian Aristocrats as participants in the Lower Austrian homages of the first half of 18th century], in Az indigenák, ed. by István Szijártó (Budapest: ELTE Eötvös Kiadó, 2017), pp. 75–102 (p. 90). For more about this diplomatic conflict, see: Brieff des Hern N. N. An seinen Freund, den Bericht der Affaire des Graf Zobor mit dem Baron Von Stralenheim betreffend, s.l.: s.n., 1711; Árpád Győry, ‘A Czobor-Strahlenheim párbaj története [The history of Czobor-Stralenheim duel]’, Történelmi szemle, 5.3 (1915), 366–78. Czobor was an important participant of the Lower Austrian diet of 1720 and the Hungarian diet of 1722–23 (where Czobor was a member of the Upper House’s delegation to the Lower House), which approved the Pragmatica Sanctio; Kökényesi, ‘Herrenstand’, in Az indigenák, ed. by Szijártó, p. 86; Az 1712. évi pozsonyi diéta egy ciszterci szerzetes szemével, ed. by András Forgó, Fontes ex Archivo Sancti Martini editi 1, A Veszprém Megyei Levéltár kiadványai, 32 (Pannonhalma/Veszprém: Pannonhalmi Főapátsági Levéltár, A Magyar Nemzeti Levéltár Veszprém Megyei Levéltára, 2013), p. 164. István M. Szijártó, A diéta. A magyar rendek és az országgyűlés, 1708–1792 [The Diet: The Estates and the Parliament of Hungary, 1708–1792] (Keszthely: Balaton Akadémia Kiadó, 2010), p. 240. For Pálffy’s political ideas, see his political memorandum in: Gróf Pálffy Miklós főkanczellár emlékirata Magyarország kormányzásáról, Adalék Mária-Terézia korának történetéhez [Chief Chancellor Count Miklós Pálffy’s Memorandum about the governance of Hungary, a contribution to the history of the era of Maria Theresa], ed. by Henrik Marczali (Budapest: Magyar Tudományos Akadémia, 1884).

co u rt e n t e rtai n m e n t an d r elat i o nshi p ne t wo rk s

The four Hungarian aristocrats who were invited to compete also actively endeavoured to attend Charles VI’s coronation and homage ceremonies. Lipót Pálffy attended the imperial coronation in Frankfurt and the homage of Lower Austria’s estates to Charles VI in 1712.89 In that same year, at the monarch’s coronation as king of Hungary, Lipót Pálffy and Károly Zichy both received the honour of a representative service at the feast following the crowning ceremony: Pálffy was the carver (Vorschneider), while Zichy was the cupbearer of either the papal legate or the Venetian ambassador.90 After the coronation, Márk Czobor was appointed chamberlain.91 Among others, Márk Czobor and Károly Zichy also attended Charles VI’s coronation as king of Bohemia in 1723. It is worth noting that at the feast after the coronation, Czobor was seated at a table with Chancellor Franz Ferdinand von Kinsky, Philipp Sinzendorf, Johann Kriechbaum, Wilhelm Albert Kolowrat-Krakovsky, and Ferdinand Harrach; this suggests a kind of solidarity among the members of the shooting community.92 The title of chamberlain was conferred on Károly Zichy at this coronation ceremony, and thirteen years later, he was elevated to the rank of privy councillor at the wedding of Maria Theresa and Francis Stephen of Lorraine; both titles prove his presence at court and the appreciation he was shown there.93 Close ties to the court were quite beneficial to the careers of aristocrats in their late twenties or thirties. Count Czobor became the Hungarian royal master of the doorkeepers, Count Zichy became a crown guard (Conservator Coronae) and royal chamberlain.94 Count Lipót Pálffy died before his career could advance further and Count Miklós Pálffy received the title of chancellor and later judge royal (Iudex Curiae); Pálffy was also inducted into the Order of the Golden Fleece and was awarded the Grand Cross of the Order of St Stephen (established in 1764). Partly due to his age, Pálffy’s career accelerated

89 ÖStA HHStA SB Csáky Kt. 7. Fol. 2653; Marin, Beschreibung, pp. 36, 68. 90 Géza Pálffy, ‘Koronázási lakomák a 15–17. századi Magyarországon: Az önálló magyar királyi udvar asztali ceremóniarendjének kora újkori továbbéléséről és a politikai elit hatalmi reprezentációjáról [Festive Coronation Banquets in Hungary in the 15th–17th Centuries. On the Survival of the Table Ceremonial of the Independent Hungarian Court in the early modern era and on the Representation of the Hungarian Political Elite]’, Századok, 138.5 (2004), 1095–96; Forgó, Az 1712. évi pozsonyi diéta, p. 103. 91 Kayserlicher Und Königlicher Wie auch Ertz-Hertzoglicher Und Dero Residentz-Stadt Wien Staats- und Stands- Calender auf das Jahr 1721. XI; Kökényesi, A magyar főnemesség, p. 346. 92 Böhmischen Crönung, p. 65. 93 WD 23. October 1723; MNL OL A 5/2: 1736. Nr. 6; WD. 07. March 1736; Kökényesi, A magyar főnemesség, p. 347, p. 361. 94 Despite his excellent courtly relations Zichy also had to wait the ‘range of promotions’. It is known from his letters to Count Lajos Batthyány, that Zichy competed unsuccessfully for the crown guard’s position in 1729 and for the Croatian ban’s dignity in 1732. Finally in 1735 he could obtain the title of the first royal crown guard. Furthermore it is important to note that Zichy was from 1726 until his death councillor of the Hungarian Governor’s Council (consilium regium locumtenentiale Hungaricum). The correspondence: MNL OL P 1314 Nr. 106553; Nr. 106556; the appointment: MNL OL P 707. IX. 41. Nr. 27.

311

312

zs o lt kö ké n y e s i

sharply during the reign of Maria Theresa; this was probably due not only to his personal talents, but also to the closer relationships he formed with the archduchess and her future husband at these shooting competitions. Pálffy’s position of confidence is also demonstrated by the fact that he was trusted with the honour of traveling to Dresden to deliver the news of Maria Theresa’s coronation as queen of Bohemia to the Saxon elector and king of Poland, Frederick Augustus II, in 1743.95 Francis Stephen of Lorraine also seems to have taken a liking to Pálffy, given that he regularly visited Pálffy’s estate in Marchegg to hunt, even as emperor.96 The integration of these Hungarian shooting competitors into the court is also reflected by their marriages; all four nobles chose their wives in Vienna. Count Lipót Pálffy married Antonia Ratuit de Souches (1683–1750), Count Czobor married Johann Adam von Liechtenstein’s (1662–1712) daughter Maria Antonia (1687–1750), Count Zichy wed Julianna von Stubenberg (?–?), and Count Miklós Pálffy took Johann Michael von Althann’s daughter Maria Anna (1715–90) as his wife. Their excellent connections at court were also beneficial to their children (except for Zichy, whose children did not survive into adolescence). Czobor’s daughter Maria Antonia was a lady-in-waiting in the court of Empress Elisabeth Christine and later wed Francesc Folch de Cardona (1682–1739), prince of Cardona. Márk Czobor’s son József became affluent as an aristocrat at court. One of Count Lipót Pálffy’s daughters, Mária Auguszta (1714–?), became the second wife of Franz Ferdinand von Kinsky. Of his sons, Rudolf (1719–68) was a lieutenant general; Lipót (1716–73) was a general, a crown guard, and the first captain of the Viennese Hungarian noble guard (Ungarische Adelige Leibgarde), and Miklós (1710–73) became successful in his own right, as we have seen. Miklós Pálffy’s son Károly (1735–1816) continued the family tradition with his own career at court; he served as chamberlain to Archduke Joseph and later became Hungarian court chancellor, and was rewarded for his service with the Order of the Golden Fleece and the Grand Cross of the Order of St Stephen; he also married the daughter of Emmanuel von Liechtenstein (1700–71), Maria Theresa (1741–66). * * * * Shooting competitions at Charles VI’s court in Vienna were undoubtedly important opportunities for the court elite to meet and display their power and influence. It was not simply the formal administrative elite who were present at these exclusive court festivities, but a wide range of aristocrats who resided in the imperial city and had gained the favour of the monarch. In my opinion, the gradually changing guest lists of these prestigious court festivities mirror a slow change in the monarch’s circle of trust. In their family 95 Zsolt Kökényesi, ‘Die ungarischen Stände als Teilnehmer der böhmischen Krönung im Jahre 1743. Eine Fallstudie zur Regierungsstrategie von Maria Theresia’, in Opera historica 21.1. (2020) 40. 96 Kökényesi, A magyar főnemesség, p. 239.

co u rt e n t e rtai n m e n t an d r elat i o nshi p ne t wo rk s

backgrounds, careers, and ages, the guests formed a relatively heterogeneous group; most of them came from reputable aristocratic families and had earned the monarch’s trust on the basis of their service, the multi-generational loyalty of their families, or simple affinity; several of them were also closely connected to each other by family ties. For young aristocrats, participating in a shooting competition was an excellent opportunity to establish connections and gain influence; for example, Ulfeld and Miklós Pálffy began competing from lower official positions, but went on to enjoy illustrious careers. Thus, these court festivities generally featured several members of not only the current, but also of the future governmental elite. From this perspective, shooting competitions at court also offered participants the chance to get acquainted with a future emperor or empress, or other future candidates for influential offices. It is beyond doubt that aristocratic families actively endeavoured to have a few family members present at these shooting competitions every year. Even so, it is important to emphasize that other court festivities, especially hunting, played similarly important roles, though the resources related to these target-shooting events, especially the accurate catalogues of the names of their participants, are much more reliable. The presence of Hungarian aristocrats was important not only to their careers and their families’ aspirations, but also to Habsburg-Hungarian relations. During the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, the laborious integration of the kingdom of Hungary into the Habsburg monarchy was complicated by differences in governmental traditions, mutual mistrust, and several armed conflicts. The Treaty of Szatmár, which ended Rákóczi’s War of Independence in 1711 and the coronation of Charles VI (Charles III of Hungary)—along with his style of governance, which differed from that of his ancestors—opened a new chapter in the history of Habsburg-Hungarian relations.97 During the reign of Charles VI, as the Hungarian aristocracy was further integrated into the court in Vienna, the government there endeavoured to reward its trusted followers with suitable titles and commissions, and the most influential Hungarian aristocrats were admitted to the court’s inner circles, as demonstrated by their participation in these shooting competitions. Moreover, similar measures— which extended beyond these aristocrats to the government of the entire country—made the kingdom of Hungary one of Maria Theresa’s most important sources of support in the War of the Austrian Succession after the death of Charles VI.98 97 István Szijártó, ‘The Rákóczi Revolt as a Successful Rebellion’, in Resistance, Rebellion and Revolution in Hungary and Central Europe: Commemorating 1956, ed. by László Péter and Martin Rady (London: Hungarian Cultural Centre, 2008), pp. 67–76. 98 On the courtly integration of the Hungarian nobility under the reign of Maria Theresia, see: Zsolt Kökényesi, ‘Die Wege der Integration Eine Skizze zu den Karrieremöglichkeiten und der Repräsentation von ungarischen Aristokraten am Hof Maria Theresias’, in Weibliche Herrschaft im 18. Jahrhundert Maria Theresia und Katharina die Große, ed. by Bettina Braun, Jan Kusber and Matthias Schnettger, Mainzer Historische Kulturwissenschaften (Mainz: Transcript, 2020), pp. 189–210.

313

31 4

zs o lt kö ké n y e s i

APPENDIX

Participants in Courtly Target-shooting Events Under Charles VI This appendix contains the names of the participants of shooting competitions held between 1716 and 1733 (excluding members of the Habsburg family), and includes their highest offices, military or courtly ranks, knighthoods and exact years of participation.99 It does not include the titles of chamberlain (Kämmerer) and privy councillor (Geheimer Rat), however they were obtained, except in the cases of aristocrats who did not possess other titles when they competed or were never promoted to higher positions. 1. Althann, Gundacker Graf von (1665–1747). Career: Generalfeldwachtmeister (1708), Feldmarschalleutnant (1716), Director of Hofbauamt (1716–42), General of the Cavalry (1723), Captain of Hartschieren-Guard (1728–31), Feldmarschall (1741), and Knight of the Order the of Golden Fleece (1739). Target-shooting participant: 1717–22, 1724–27, 1729–31, 1733. 2. Althann, Johann Michael Graf von (1679–1722). Career: Oberststallmeister (1716–22) and Knight of the Order of the Golden Fleece (1712). Targetshooting participant: 1716–21. 3. Althann, Michael Anton Graf von (1696–1765). Career: Edelknabe (1715–21), Kreishauptmann in Znajm (1732–38), Landrat in Moravia. Target-shooting participant: 1724–27, 1729–31, 1733. 4. Auersperg, Heinrich Fürst von (1697–1783). Career: Erblandmarschall and Erblandkämmerer in Krain, Obersthofmarschall (1735–42), Oberststallmeister

99 In assembling this appendix, I have used (near by the Wienerisches Diarium connected appendices and in the footnote 21 named sources) the following works: Fallenbüchl, Magyarország főméltóságai; Zoltán Fallenbüchl, Magyarország főispánjai [Lord Lieutenants of Hungary] (Budapest: Argumentum Kiadó, 1994); Fellner–Kretschmayr, Österreichische Zentralverwaltung; Gschließer, Der Reichshofrat; Irene Kubiska-Scharl and Michael Pölzl, Die Karrieren des Wiener Hofpersonals 1711–1765. Eine Darstellung anhand der Hofkalender und Hofparteienprotokolle, Forschungen und Beiträge zur Wiener Stadtgeschichte, 58 (Vienna: Studien Verlag, 2013); ‘Liste Nominale des Chevaliers de l’Ordre Illustre de la Toison d’Or depuis son Institution jusqu’à nos jours’, in Das Haus Österreich und der Orden vom Goldenen Vlies: Beiträge zum wissenschaftlichen Symposium am 30. November und 1. Dezember 2006 in Stift Heiligenkreuz, ed. by Leopold Auer, Sonja Dünnebeil, Birgit Charlotte Glaser and Alexander Pachta-Reyhofen (Graz: Stocker, 2007), pp. 161–97; Erwin Matsch, Der Auswärtige Dienst von Österreich (-Ungarn) 1720–1920 (Vienna/Cologne/Graz: Böhlau, 1986); Scheutz, ‘Die Elite’, in Adel im 18. Jahrhundert, ed. by Ammerer, Lobenwein and Scheutz; Kaiserliche und k.k. Generale, ed. by Schmidt-Brentano; Wißgrill, Schauplatz.

co u rt e n t e rtai n m e n t an d r elat i o nshi p ne t wo rk s

(1742–65), Oberstkämmerer (1770–74), and Knight of the Order of the Golden Fleece (1739). Target-shooting participant: 1721, 1722, 1724. 5. Bragança, Manuel de (1697–1766). Portuguese prince. Target-shooting participant: 1719–22, 1725. 6. Brandis, Franz Jakob Graf von (1677–1746). Career: Regimentsrat in Lower Austria, Obersthofmarschall (1726). Target-shooting participant: 1716–18. 7. Brunswick-Lüneburg, Maximilian William Prinz von (1666–1726). Career: Prince of Hannover, (imperial) Feldmarschalleutnant (1693), General of the Cavalry (1704), Feldmarschall (1697) and Knight of the Order of the Golden Fleece (1721). Target-shooting participant: 1716–20. 8. Capece, Girolamo, Marquis of Rofrano (1661–1724). Career: Postmaster General of Italy, Spanischer Rat and Hungarian Indigenat (1715). Targetshooting participant: 1717–22. 9. Cobenzl, Johann Kaspar Graf von (1664–1742). Career: Reichshofrat (1692–94), Obersthofmarschall (1722–24), Oberstkämmerer (1724–40), and Knight of the Order of the Golden Fleece (1731). Target-shooting participant: 1722, 1724–27, 1729–31. 10. Colloredo, Rudolph Joseph Graf von (1706–88). Career: Komitialgesandter (of the Kingdom of Bohemia) at the Reichstag in Regensburg (1731–34), Gesandter at the Oberrheinischer Reichskreis (1735–39), Konferenzminister (1743), Reichsvizekanzler (1745–88), Fürst (1763), Knight of the Order of the Golden Fleece (1744) and and the Order of Saint-Stephen (Grand Cross: 1765). Target-shooting participant: 1733. 11. Czobor, Márk count (1679–1728), Generalfeldwachtmeister (1723), Hungarian janitorum regalium magister (1692), Lord Lieutenant of Bodrog County (1721). Target-shooting participant: 1719. 12. Dietrichstein, ( Jakob) Anton Graf von (1678–1721). Career: Reichshofrat (1704). Target-shooting participant: 1716. 13. Enkevoirt, Adrian Wenzel Graf von (1660–1738). Career: Regimentsrat of Lower Austria, Lower Austrian Herrenstand Verordneter (1716–22). Target-shooting participant: 1719–22, 1724, 1725. 14. Este, Gianfederico Principe di (1700–27). Son of Rinaldo, Prince of Modena. Target-shooting participant: 1724, 1726. 15. Gilleis, Heinrich Julius Freiherr von (1687–1734). Career: Hofkavalier (1715–17) and Oberst Silberkämmerer (1718–20) at the court of Empress Eleonora. Target-shooting participant: 1717, 1718. 16. Hamilton, Andreas Graf von (1679–1738). Career: Feldmarschalleutnant (1717), General of the Cavalry (1723), Captain of the Trabanten-Guard (1728–33), Captain of the Hartschieren-Guard (1733–38), and Knight of the Order of Saint Wenceslaus (1723). Target-shooting participant: 1730. 17. Hardegg, Johann Julius Graf von (1676–1746). Career: Erbmundschenck in Österreich unter und ob der Enns, Erbtruchseß in Steyr, Obersthof- und Landjägermeister (1726–40) and Knight of the Order of Saint Wenceslaus (1723). Target-shooting participant: 1716–22, 1724–27, 1729–31, 1733.

315

31 6

zs o lt kö ké n y e s i

18. Hardegg, Johann Karl Graf von (1703–52). Career: Edelknabe (1721–25), Erbmundschenck in Österreich unter und ob der Enns, Erbtruchseß in Steyr. Target-shooting participant: 1733. 19. Harrach, Ferdinand Marquard Graf von (1677–1725). Career: Unknown (Bohemian Count starting in 1706). Target-shooting participant: 1717–22, 1724. 20. Harrach, Karl Anton Graf von (1692–1758). Career: Regimentsrat of Lower Austria (1718), Erblandstallmeister in Österreich unter und ob der Enns, Lower Austrian Herrenstand Verordneter (1733–39), Feldmarschalleutnant (1742), Oberstfalkenmeister (1744–58), Oberstjägermeister (1746–58). Target-shooting participant: 1720–22, 1724–27, 1729–31, 1733. 21. Herberstein, Ferdinand Leopold Graf von (1695–1744). Career: Erbkämmerer und Erbtruchsess in Carinthia, Gesandter und bevollmächtigter Minister in Sweden (1734–37), Oberstkämmerer 1741–42, Landmarschall of Lower Austria (1742–44), and Knight of the Order of the Golden Fleece (1744). Target-shooting participant: 1731, 1733. 22. Hohenfeld, Ignaz Graf von (1682–1726). Career: Generalfeldwachtmeister (1719), Hofkriegsrat. Target-shooting participant: 1716. 23. Kinsky, Franz Ferdinand Graf von (1678–1741). Career: Vice Chancellor of Bohemia (1705), Obrerster Erblnadhofmeister of Bohemia, Komitialgesandter (of the Kingdom of Bohemia) at the Reichstag in Regensburg (1708), Bevollmächtiger böhmischer Gesandter at the Imperial election (1711), Gesandter in Rome (1720–21), Oberster böhmischer Kanzler (1722–34), Lower Austrian Inkolat (1720), Hungarian Indigenat (1723), and Knight of the Order of the Golden Fleece (1731). Target-shooting participant: 1716–20. 24. Klein, Johann Freiherr von (?–1759). Career: Hofzwerg. Target-shooting participant: 1716–20. 25. Kollonich Sigismund Graf von (1677–1751). Career: Bishop of Vác (1708–16), Bishop (and from 1723) Archbishop of Vienna (1716–51). Target-shooting participant: 1719–22. 26. Kolowrat-Krakovsky, Wilhelm Albert Graf von (1678–1738). Vice Chancellor of Bohemia (1720), Oberster böhmischer Kanzler (1734–38). Target-shooting participant: 1725–27, 1729, 1730. 27. Korzensky, Rudolph Joseph Graf von (?–1769). Career: Vice Chancellor of Bohemia, Erbpanier des Herrenstandes of Bohemia and Knight of the Order of the Golden Fleece (1763). Target-shooting participant: 1724–27, 1729–31, 1733. 28. Kriechbaum, Johann Jakob Freiherr von (?–1728). Career: Regimentsrat of Lower Austria (1685), Vizestatthalter of Lower Austria (1705). Targetshooting participant: 1716–22, 1724–27. 29. Kuefstein, Ehrgott Maximilian Graf von (1676–1728). Career: Chamberlain. Target-shooting participant: 1716–18. 30. Kuefstein, Johann Ferdinand Graf von (1688–1755). Career: Oberster Erblandsilberkämmerer in Österreich unter und ob der Enns, Regimentsrat of

co u rt e n t e rtai n m e n t an d r elat i o nshi p ne t wo rk s

Lower Austria (1714), Reichshofrat (1720), Kommissarius at the election of the Bishop of Lüttich (1724), envoy (Gesandter) to the Imperial Circle of Swabia, later of Upper Rhine (1730, 1734), Austrian Vizekanzler (1735), Statthalter in Lower Austria (1746). Target-shooting participant: 1721, 1722, 1724–27, 1729. 31. Kuefstein, Leopold Graf von (1676–1745). Career: Landrechts Beisizter of Lower Austria (1706–10), Herrenstands Verordneter of Lower Austria (1731). Target-shooting participant: 1716, 1718. 32. Lamberg, Karl Joseph Graf von (1686–1746). Career: Regimentsrat of Lower Austria (1707–25), Erbstallmeister of Krain and Knight of the (Castilian) Order of Santiago. Target-shooting participant: 1716–22, 1724–27, 1729–31, 1733. 33. Liechtenstein, Hartmann Fürst zu (1666–1728). Career: Obristhof- und Landjägermeister (1715–25). Target-shooting participant: 1716–22. 34. Lobkowitz, Philipp Fürst von (1680–1737). Career: Obersthofmeister to the Empress (1731–35) and Knight of the Order of the Golden Fleece (1731). Target-shooting participant: 1716–18, 1730, 1731, 1733. 35. Lorraine, France Stephen of (1708–65). Duke of Lorraine, Emperor (1745), and Knight of the Order of the Golden Fleece (1723). Target-shooting participant: 1725–27, 1729, 1733. 36. Martinitz, Adolph Bernhard Graf von (1680–1735). Career: Oberststallmeister to Empress Eleonore (1717–20), Obersthofmarschall (1730–35), and Knight of the Order of the Golden Fleece (1731). Target-shooting participant: 1729–31, 1733. 37. Mollard, Felix Ernst Graf von (?–?). Career: Oberstsilberkämmerer (1715–17), Obersthofküchenmeister (1717–40), and Knight of the Order of Saint Wenceslaus (1723). Target-shooting participant: 1716–22, 1724–27, 1729–31, 1733. 38. Orsini-Rosenberg, Wolfgang Graf von (1682–1739). Career: Chamberlain, Landeshauptmann of Carinthia (1728), Burggraf of Carinthia (1733). Target-shooting participant: 1716, 1718. 39. Ostein, Heinrich Graf von (1693–1742). Career: Reichshofrat (1725), Ambassador to St Petersburg (1734–39), Ambassador to Britain (1740–41). Target-shooting participant: 1729–31, 1733. 40. Paar, Joseph Ignaz Graf von (1660–1735). Career: Obersthofmeister to Empress Wilhelmine Amalia (1715–36) and Knight of the Order of the Golden Fleece (1731). Target-shooting participant: 1716. 41. Paar, Leopold Graf von (1693–1741). Career: Chamberlain and Knight of the Order of Saint Wenceslaus (1723). Target-shooting participant: 1717–19. 42. Pálffy, Lipót count (1681–1720). Career: Chamberlain, colonel. Targetshooting participant: 1716–19. 43. Pálffy, Miklós (1710–73). Career: Hungarian Obersthofmeister (1734–65), Hungarian Court Chancellor (1758–62), Iudex Curiae (1765–73), Knight of the Order of the Golden Fleece (1759) and the Order of Saint-Stephen (Grand Cross: 1767). Target-shooting participant: 1733.

317

31 8

zs o lt kö ké n y e s i

44. Proskau, Erdmann Christoph Graf von (?–1753). Career: Chamberlain. Target-shooting participant: 1716. 45. Rappach, Karl Ernst Graf von (1649–1719). Career: Obrister Erblandstabelmeister in Österrech ob und unter der Enns, Generalfeldwachtmeister (1704), Feldmarschalleutnant (1705), Feldzeugmeister (1711), Feldmarschall (1717). Target-shooting participant: 1716, 1717. 46. Salburg, Franz Ludwig Graf von (1689–1758). Career: Generalfeldwachtmeister (1734), Feldmarschalleutnant (1739), General of the Cavalry (1745), Feldmarschall (1754). Target-shooting participant: 1717–22, 1725–27, 1729–31, 1733. 47. Salm, Franz Wilhelm Graf von (1672–1734). Career: Oberststallmesiter to Empress Wilhelmine Amalia (1715–34). Target-shooting participant: 1716–22, 1724–27, 1729–31. 48. Schlick, Leopold Graf von (1663–1723). Career: Generalfeldwachtmeister (1692), Feldmarschalleutnant (1700), General of the Cavalry (1704), Feldmarschall (1707), Oberster Böhmischer Kanzler (1713–25) and Knight of the Order of the Golden Fleece (1721). Target-shooting participant: 1716–21. 49. Schönborn, Friedrich Karl Graf von (1674–1746). Career: Obrister ErblandTruchsess in Österreich ober und unter der Enns Reichsvizekanzler (1705–31), Fürstbischof of Bamberg and Würzburg (1729–46), and Hungarian Indigenat (1715). Target-shooting participant: 1716, 1717. 50. Schwarzenberg, Adam Franz Fürst von (1680–1732). Career: Reichshofrat (1700–11), Obersthofmarschall (1711–22), Oberststallmeister (1722–32), and Knight of the Order of the Golden Fleece (1712). Target-shooting participant: 1716–22, 1724–27, 1729–31. 51. Sinzendorf, Johann Wilhelm Graf von (1697–1766). Career: Commissarius of Naples and Knight of the Order of the Golden Fleece (1744). Targetshooting participant: 1719, 1721, 1722, 1724–27, 1729–31, 1733. 52. Sinzendorf, Philipp Ludwig Graf von (1671–1742). Career: Ambassador to Versaille (1699), Obrister Erbland-Fürschneider in Österreich ober und unter der Enns, Österreichischer Hofkanzler (1715–42), and Knight of the Order of the Golden Fleece (1712). Target-shooting participant: 1716–22, 1724–27, 1729–31, 1733. 53. Sinzendorf, Rudolph Sigmund Graf von (1670–1747). Career: Oberstkämmerer (1715–24), Obersthofmeister (1724–47), and Knight of the Order of the Golden Fleece (1712). Target-shooting participant: 1716–21, 1724. 54. Starhemberg, Gundemar Joseph Graf von (1679–1743). Career: Hofkammer Vicepräsident (1732), Hungarian Indigenat (1723), and Knight of the Order of Saint Wenceslaus (1723). Target-shooting participant: 1716–22, 1724–27, 1729–31, 1733. 55. Starhemberg, Ottokar Graf von (1681–1733). Career: Generalfeldwachtmeister (1717), Feldmarschalleutnant (1723), and Knight of the Order of Saint Wenceslaus (1723). Target-shooting participant: 1725–27, 1729. 56. St Julian, Johann Albrecht Graf von (1681–1743). Career: Oberstfalkenmeister (1715–40), Obrister Erbland-Falkenmeister in Österreich ober und unter der

co u rt e n t e rtai n m e n t an d r elat i o nshi p ne t wo rk s

Enns, Knight of the Order of Saint Wenceslaus (1723). Target-shooting participant: 1716–22, 1724, 1726, 1727, 1729–31, 1733. 57. St Julian, Johann Joseph Graf von (1704–94). Career: Regimentsrat of Lower Austria (1725–46), Obersterküchenmeister (1754–65), Oberstfalkenmeister (1758–94). Target-shooting participant: 1733. 58. Thurn-Valsassina, Anton Maria Gr. von (?–?). Career: Hofkavalier (1715–16) and Oberstküchenmeister (1717–20) to Empress Eleonora. Target-shooting participant: 1718, 1719. 59. Trautmannsdorf, Ernst Sigmund Graf von (1694–62). Career: Chamberlain. Target-shooting participant: 1726, 1727. 60. Trautson, Anton Ernst Graf von (1701–44). Career: Erblandhofmeister in Österreich unter der Enns, Erbmarschall of Tyrol and Knight of the Order of Malta. Target-shooting participant: 1727, 1729, 1730. 61. Trautson, Johann Wilhelm Graf von (1700–75). Career: Reichshofrat (1722–24), Zweiter Obersthofmeister to the Empress (1746), Landmarshall of Lower Austria (1753–75), Knight of the Order of Saint Wenceslaus (1723) and the Order of the Golden Fleece (1749). Target-shooting participant: 1722. 62. Ulfeld, Corfiz Anton Gr. von (1699–1760). Career: Regimentsrat of Lower Austria, Reichshofrat (1724–33); from 1733–39, envoy (Gesandter), and from 1738, ambassador to The Hague; ambassador to Constantinople from 1740–41, State Chancellor 1742–53, and Knight of the Order of the Golden Fleece (1744). Target-shooting participant: 1721, 1722, 1724–27, 1729–31. 63. Volkra, Otto Christoph Graf von (1660–1734). Career: President of the Hungarian Court Chamber (1704–09), Obersterküchenmeister (1708), Gesandter at the election of the Bishop of Passau (1713), Gesandter to London (1714), President of the Silesian Chamber (1722), Vertreter des Landmarschalls of Lower Austria (1728), Obersthofmeister to Francis Stephen (1732). Target-shooting participant: 1719–20. 64. Zichy, Károly count (1690–1741). Career: Lord Lieutenant (főispán) of Moson County (1713–41), Hungarian Conservator Coronae (1736–41), Hungarian Oberstkämmerer (1732–41). Target-shooting participant: 1724–27, 1729–31, 1733.

319

Notes on Contributors

Cristina Bravo Lozano is Tomás y Valiente Fellow at Madrid Institute for Advanced Study-Universidad Autónoma de Madrid. Her topics of research include Spanish-Irish relations in the seventeenth century, Spanish Habsburg confessional politics in Northern Europe after the peace of Westphalia, and the diplomatic and cultural activity of Philip IV and Charles II’s embassies in London, The Hague, Copenhagen and Hamburg. She is author of Spain and the Irish Mission, 1609–1707 (New York: Routledge, 2018) and she has co-edited six books and thematic journal issues. She has participated in several international research projects, such as two European RISE and Erasmus+ Strategic Partnership programmes. Václav Bůžek is Professor of Czech history and Director of the Historical Institute at the Faculty of Arts, Southern Bohemian University, České Budějovice. His work has focused on the history of nobility and of the Habsburg dynasty in the sixteenth- and seventeenth-century Czech lands, with a particular interest in symbols of power and representation. He is author of Ferdinand von Tirol zwischen Prag und Innsbruck. Der Adel aus den böhmischen Ländern auf dem Weg zu den Höfen der ersten Habsburger (Wien-Köln-Weimar: Böhlau, 2009) and of Společnost českých zemí v raném novověku: struktury, identity, konflikty (Prague: NLN, 2010). Nóra G. Etényi is an Associate Professor at the Department of Early Modern History at the Eötvös Loránd University of Budapest (habilitation in 2010). She studies the history of politics, culture and mentality in sixteenth- and seventeenth-century Hungary. Her main field of research comprises the early modern media, representation, propaganda, the flow of information and the formation of public opinion in the German-speaking territories. Among other publications, she is the author of Hadszíntér és nyilvánosság. A magyarországi török háború hírei a 17. századi német újságokban (Budapest: Balassi Kiadó, 2003) and Pamflet és politika (Budapest: L’Harmattan, 2009). Alfredo Floristán Imízcoz is Professor of Early Modern History at the Universidad de Alcalá. His historiographical work is based on the political government of the kingdom of Navarre during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. His recent research topics are linked to the study of collective identities and comparative history. He has coordinated or participated in more than twenty international and Spanish projects. Amongst his most recent books are 1512. Conquista e incorporación de Navarra. Historiografía, derecho y otros procesos de integración en la Europa del Renacimiento (Barcelona: Ariel,

3 22

n ote s o n co n t r i b u to r s

2012) and El reino de Navarra y la conformación política de España (1512–1841) (Madrid: Akal, 2014). Rubén González Cuerva is Titular Researcher of the Historical Institute, Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas, Madrid. His PhD dissertation has been published as Baltasar de Zúñiga. Una encrucijada de la Monarquía Hispánica (1561–1622) (Madrid: Polifemo, 2012). After his doctorate, he received an AECID grant at the Universidad Nacional de Salta, Argentina and he was member of the Deutsches Historisches Institut in Rome, Italy. Since 2018, thanks to the Beca Leonardo a Investigadores y Creadores Culturales (Fundación BBVA, Spain), he has been developing the project Diplomacia a través de redes femeninas: la emperatriz María de Austria en el dinasticismo europeo (1528–1603). Borbála Gulyás is Research Fellow of the Institute of Art History at the Research Centre for the Humanities, Budapest. From the Eötvös Loránd University, Budapest, she received a PhD in Art History (2013), with a dissertation entitled A Hungarian Zeuxis in Vienna: Art and Life of the Calligrapher George Bocskay (ca. 1510–75). She is currently a member of the Art of the Renaissance in Hungary Research Project of the Institute of Art History, and of the ‘Lendület’ Holy Crown of Hungary Research Project of the Institute of History, both based in the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Research Centre for the Humanities. Her research interests include art, court festivals and tournaments in Europe, especially in the kingdom of Hungary in the early modern period. Fanni Hende is a Research Fellow in the Hungarian Academy of Sciences – National Széchényi Library Res Libraria Hungariae Research Group. She is member of the ‘Lendület’ Holy Crown of Hungary Research Project. She received her PhD in History at the Pázmány Péter Catholic University in 2017. Her research has focused on political representation in the Hungarian diet in the first half of the eighteenth century and she has also explored medieval manuscripts, codices and codex fragments in Hungarian public collections. János Kalmár is President of the Hungarian Society for Eighteenth-Century Studies and professor of early modern history at the Universities Eszterházy Károly, Eger and Eötvös Loránd, Budapest, Hungary. He was Visiting Professor at the Universities of Bordeaux-3 (Michel de Montaigne) and Paris-1 (Panthéon-Sorbonne). His research interests include political, diplomatic, economical and intellectual relations between Western Europe and the Habsburg monarchy. Zsolt Kökényesi holds the position of Research Fellow at the Early Modern Department of the Institute of History at the Faculty of Humanities of Eötvös Loránd University and he is treasurer of Hungarian Society for EighteenthCentury Studies. His research interests are in Habsburg-Hungarian relations in the eigthteenth century, especially the political and cultural role of the high nobles. The topic of his PhD dissertation was the representation of the Hungarian

n ot e s o n co nt ri b u to rs

aristocracy at the Viennese court in the eighteenth century (The Integration of the Hungarian High Nobles into the Viennese Court between 1711 and 1765). Zoltán Korpás is an independent research fellow, focusing on the correlations of the clash of the Ottoman and Habsburg empires in the sixteenth century, both in Hungary and in the Mediterranean. He wrote his PhD dissertation on Charles V and Hungary, also investigating the presence of Spanish tercios in Hungary as well as Habsburg dynastic and diplomatic interactions between the Mediterranean and Central European areas. Pavel Marek is Associate Professor and Director of the Historical Institute at the University of Pardubice (Czech Republic). His research concentrates on Spanish diplomacy on the imperial court and aristocratic relations between the Spanish and the Austrian Habsburg branches. He has published La embajada española en la corte imperial 1558–1640. Figuras de los embajadores y estrategias clientelares (Prague: Karolinum, 2013); Pernštejnské ženy. Marie Manrique de Lara a její dcery ve službách habsburské dynastie (Prague: NLN, 2018) and Gesandte und Klienten. Päpstliche und spanische Diplomaten im Umfeld von Kaiser Rudolf II. (Berlin-Boston: De Gruyter, 2020). Tibor Martí holds the position of Research Fellow at the Early Modern History Department of the Institute of History at the Research Centre for the Humanities, Budapest. He has been member of ‘Lendület’ Holy Crown of Hungary Research Project. His research interests comprise Hungarian-Habsburg relations in the seventeenth century, with special regard to the Spanish Habsburgs as well as the political elite of the kingdom of Hungary in the seventeenth century (primarily the members of the Esterházy family) and their relations. His PhD-dissertation (2013) will be published as Count László Esterházy (1626–52). Chapters of a History of an Aristocratic Family (forthcoming). Tibor Monostori is a historian, economist, philologist and Hispanist from Central Europe and a member of the ‘Lendület’ Holy Crown of Hungary Research Project at the Hungarian Academy of Sciences. His primary research interests are global politics, diplomacy, economics and ideas in early modern Spain, Central Europe and beyond. His latest book, published in Spain, is a new biography and sourcebook about Saavedra Fajardo. He has presented at international conferences in Madrid, Cambridge, Paris and Budapest. Géza Pálffy is Research Professor and Leader of the Holy Crown of Hungary Research Group at the Research Centre for the Humanities, Institute of History, Budapest. He has been Principal Investigator of ‘Lendület’ Holy Crown of Hungary Research Project. His research interests comprise the history of the Central European Habsburg Monarchy from the fifteenth to the beginning of the eighteenth century. He is author of The Kingdom of Hungary and the Habsburg Monarchy in the Sixteenth Century (New York: Columbia University Press, 2009) and co-author of Coronatio Hungarica in Nummis: Medals and

323

3 24

n ote s o n co n t r i b u to r s

Jetons from Hungarian Royal Coronations (1508–1916) (Budapest: Hungarian Academy of Sciences, 2019) and Crown and Coronation in Hungary 1000–1916 A.D. (Budapest: Research Centre for the Humanities, 2020), as well as more than thirty international publications. Roberto Quirós Rosado is Assistant Professor at the Universidad Autónoma de Madrid. His topics of research focus on the construction of the Habsburg monarchy (Spain, Italy, Flanders, and the Americas) during the early eighteenth century, and Spanish historiography from the late sixteenth century to the Novatores period. He is author of Monarquía de Oriente. La corte de Carlos III y el gobierno de Italia durante la guerra de Sucesión española (Madrid: Marcial Pons Historia, 2017), and he has co-edited another six books and thematical Journal issues. He has been member of ‘Lendület’ Holy Crown of Hungary Research Project. Currently, he is co-developing the Spanish project Práctica de gobierno y cultura política: Europa y América en la monarquía de España, 1668-1725.

Index of Names

Abondio, Alessandro  97 Abondio, Antonio   97 Acsády, Ádám  308 Adrian VI, pope  64, 73 Aedo, Diego de  201, 202 Aguirre Landa, Isabel  189 Alagón y Córdoba, Cristóbal de, count of Sástago  164 Albani, Carlo  276-277, 279, 280 Albert II of Habsburg, king of Germany (1438–1439), Hungary, and Bohemia (1437–1439)  36, 37, 39, 40 Albert of Habsburg, archduke  23, 40, 42, 50, 101, 105, 115, 116, 118 Albert V, duke of Bavaria  86 Aldana, Bernardo de  189, 192 Alesón, Francisco de  60, 67 Alexander VII, pope  275 Alfonso II of Este, duke of Ferrara  92, 93 Alfonso II of Trástamara, king of Aragon and Naples  59, 277 Althann, Gundacker von, count  299, 300, 303, 305, 314 Althann, Johann Michael von, count  300, 302–304, 306, 312, 314 Althann, Maria Anna von, countess 312 Althann, Michael Anton von, count  300, 314 Álvarez de Toledo y Pacheco, Vicente Pedro, count of Oropesa  274, 279, 282 Álvarez de Toledo y Portugal, Manuel Joaquín, count of Oropesa 274 Ana Dorotea de la Concepción (of Habsburg) 108–109

Andelot, Jean d’  188 Andrew the Apostle, saint  255 Andrew II, king of Hungary  168 Anna Jagiellon  110 Anna of Habsburg, queen of Spain 114 Anne of Brittany, queen of France 78 Anne of England  160 Anne of Foix-Candale  78 Anne of Habsburg, queen of France,  92, 114 Anna of Tyrol, Holy Roman empress, queen consort of Bohemia and Hungary  104 Anteros 245 Anthony I of Bourbon, king of Navarre  68, 70 Anton Ulrich of BraunschweigWolfenbüttel, duke of Wolfenbüttel 279 Aragon, Ferdinand of, duke of Calabria 64 Aragón (Aragona) Tagliavia, Diego, duke of Terranova  257 Arcimboldo, Giuseppe  93 Arenberg, Léopold-Philippe d’, duke of Arenberg and Aarschot  274, 275 Argensola, Lupercio Leonardo de  63, 65 Argos 245 Ariosto, Ludovico  89 Attila 94 Auer, Leopold  269 Auersperg, Heinrich Joseph von, prince 305 Auersperg, Heinrich von, prince  300, 301, 314

3 26

in d e x o f n am e s

Auersperg, Karl Joseph, prince  305 Auersperg, Volkhard  90 Augustus II of Saxony, king of Poland and elector of Saxony  287, 312 Balassa, András, baron  87 Balassi, Bálint, baron  92 Balthasar Charles of Habsburg, prince of Asturias  22 Barbara of Habsburg, archduchess 93 Barbarossa, Hayreddin  190 Bartenstein, Johann Christoph von 304 Basin, Guillaume  188 Báthori, Miklós, count  89 Báthory, Sigismund, prince of Transylvania 52 Batthyány, Ferenc, count  143, 174 Batthyány, Károly, count  308 Batthyány, Lajos, count  308, 311 Beatrice of Aragon, queen of Hungary and Bohemia  77, 78 Beaumont, Luis de, count of Lerín 67 Becher, Joachim  134 Bensimius, Miklós  149 Benyovszky, Mátyás  261 Bercsényi, Miklós  149 Bernáldez, Andrés  60 Bethlen, Gábor, prince of Transylvania see Gabriel Bethlen Biscardi, Serafino, marquis of Guardia Alfiera  273 Blancas, Jerónimo  58, 59, 66 Blanes I Centelles, Francesc de, count of Centelles  279 Bocskai, István  169 Boethius, Christoph  141 Bonfini, Antonio  230 Bonney, Richard  29 Borja, Gaspar de  112, 113 Borkovics, Márton  173, 174 Borromeo Arese, Carlo, count  282

Borromeo, Teresa  276 Bouckhorst, Amelis van den, lord of Wimmenum  237, 238, 239 Boudot, Paul  115, 116, 117, 118 Bouillon, Godfrey of, duke  116 Bouttats, Philibert  146, 155 Bouttats, Philibert, Jr.  149 Bracamonte, Gaspar de, count of Peñaranda  233, 241, 243, 247 Brandis, Franz Jakob von, count  300, 306, 315 Brenner, Martin  147 Brun, Antoine  25 Buccellini, Julius Friedrich  161 Budin Beylerbeyi Hadım Ali Paşa, Pasha of Buda  193 Buonvisi, Francesco  144, 145, 146, 170, 173–174, 266 Burckhardt von Birkenstein, Anton Ernest, baron  130 Caetani, Antonio  113, 114, 115 Caffarelli-Borghese, Scipione  98, 104 Caldas, Juan Álvarez de  113, 114 Calderón de la Barca, Pedro  202, 203, 204, 206, 213, 215 Cánovas del Castillo, Antonio 201 Capece, Girolamo, marquis of Rofrano  300, 302, 315 Carafa, Antonio, count 140 Carafa, Girolamo, marquis of Montenegro 224 Carafa, Malizia  274 Cárdenas, Alfonso de, count of Acerra  276, 277, 280 Cárdenas, Bernardino de, duke of Maqueda 69 Cárdenas, Ferdinando de  277 Carpintero, Joseph  271 Carretto, Francesco Antonio de, marquis of Grana  227 Carretto, Ottone Enrico del, marquis of Grana  261–264

i nd e x o f name s

Castaldo, Giovanni Battista  87, 189, 193 Castillo Solórzano, Alonso de  204, 205, 206 Catherine of Foix  59 Catherine Michelle of Spain, infanta 112 Cats, Jacob  235 Cerda y Enríquez de Ribera, Juan Francisco de la, duke of Medinaceli 263 Charles Emmanuel I of Savoy, duke of Savoy  105 Charles Frederick of Jülich-ClevesBerg, duke  94 Charles I of Habsburg, king of Spain see Charles V of Habsburg Charles II of Habsburg, archduke  82, 86, 87, 89, 90, 92, 93, 94, 95, 194 Charles II of Habsburg, king of Spain  21, 155, 159–161, 181, 258, 259, 263–265 Charles II of Stuart, king of England, Scotland and Ireland  235, 236 Charles III of Habsburg, king of Spain, see Charles VI of Habsburg Charles IV of Bourbon, king of Spain 74 Charles IV of Habsburg-Lorraine, emperor of Austria and king of Hungary 47 Charles IX of Valois, king of France 92 Charles V of Habsburg, emperor and king of Spain  19, 31, 37, 38, 42, 109, 110, 118, 152, 181–195, 221, 224, 227 Charles V of Lorraine, duke of Lorraine  123, 124, 130, 136, 137, 144, 152 Charles VI of Habsburg, emperor and king of Spain, Hungary and

Bohemia  21, 23-24, 26, 130, 157, 159–165, 167–169, 174–176, 268, 269, 270, 271, 272, 273, 274, 275, 276, 277, 278, 279, 280, 281, 282, 283, 284, 285, 287, 289–291, 293–295, 298–309, 311–313 Choque, Pierre  78 Clant van Stedum, Adriaen  239 Clement VII, pope  191 Clement XI, pope  276, 278, 280 Cobenzl, Johann Kaspar von, count  298, 300, 302, 303, 315 Coello, Antonio  204 Collalto, Rambaldo, count  255 Colloredo und Waldsee, Johann Baptist von, count  297 Colloredo, Rudolph Joseph von, count 298, 300, 301, 305, 315 Coloma y Escolano, Pedro, marquis of Canales  262 Colonna Mancini, Filippo, prince of Paliano 282 Constance of Aragon  18 Contarini, Domenico  266 Conti de Padua, Antonio  189 Córdoba, Pedro de  188 Cornaro, Frederico  145, 173, 174 Cosimo II of Medici, grand duke of Tuscany 105 Cosmerovius, Susanna Christina  136, 138, 145 Csáky, István, count  144, 149, 171 Csáky, Zsigmond, count  174 Cuadra, Sebastián de la, marquis of Villarías 271 Cuesta Astobiza, José Ramón  189, 190 Cueva, Pedro de la  188 Czobor, Ádám  149, 171, 309 Czobor, József, count (son of Márk Czobor) 312 Czobor, Krisztina, countess  309 Czobor, Mária Anna, countess  309 Czobor, Mária Antonia (daughter of Márk Czobor)  312

327

3 28

in d e x o f n am e s

Czobor, Márk, count  300, 306, 307, 309–312, 315 Daun, Wirich Philipp von, count and prince of Tiano  279, 282 Davia, Giovanni Antonio  162 Dávila y Toledo, Gómez, marquis of Velada  112, 113 Dietrichstein, Ferdinand von, prince  144, 149 Dietrichstein, Jakob Anton von, count  298, 300, 306, 315 Dietrichstein, Johann Franz Gottfried von, count  298 Doria, Gian Andrea  189 Draskovich, János, master of chamberlain 174 Draskovich, János, count, palatine of Hungary  257 Draskovich, Miklós  144 Duindam, Jeroen  288 Dürer, Albrecht  31 Eggenberg, Hans Ulrich von, prince 223 Eguía, Miguel de  187 Eleonor of Neuburg, empress  122, 124, 140, 145, 160, 170, 266, 295, 296, 306, 309, 315, 317, 319 Eleonora Anna Gonzaga, empress, queen consort of Hungary and Bohemia 15 Eleonore Maria Josefa of Habsburg, queen of Poland  137 Elias, Norbert  287 Elisabeth Christine of Braunschweig-Wolfenbüttel, empress  293, 296, 312 Elisabeth of Austria, queen of France 92 Elisabeth of Bourbon, queen of Spain  233, 240 Elliott, John Huxtable  22, 29, 30 Emeric, king of Hungary  18

Emmanuel Philibert of Savoy, prince 112 Enkevoirt, Adrian Wenzel von, count  296, 300, 301, 315 Erdődy, György, count (1680–1759)  308, 309 Erdődy, György, judge royal  149, 171, 174 Erdődy, Kristóf, count  143, 145, 171 Erdődy László Ádám, count, bishop of Nitra  309 Erdődy, Miklós, count, ban of Croatia  149, 171 Ernest of Habsburg, archduke  82, 94, 95 Este, Carlo Emanuel d’, marquis of Borgomanero  144, 145, 173, 263, 266 Este, Carlo Filiberto d’, marquis of Borgomanero  274, 276 Esterházy, Imre, count, archbishop of Esztergom  308 Esterházy, István, count  250, 257 Esterházy, János, count  149 Esterházy, László, count  264 Esterházy, Mária, countess  250, 257 Esterházy, Miklós, count, palatine of Hungary  48, 171, 229, 250–257, 259, 260, 264, 265 Esterházy, Pál, prince, palatine of Hungary  23, 140, 143, 144, 147–151, 154, 157, 158, 171–174, 176, 252, 258–270 Esterházy, Pál Antal, prince  308 Esterházy, Miklós, prince (son of Pál Esterházy) 154 Eugene of Savoy, prince  303, 304, 308 Ezekiel  109, 116, 117, 118 Fazekas, István  136 Feige, Johann Constantin  136, 145, 151 Feliu de la Penya, Narcís  65

i nd e x o f name s

Felsecker, Johann Jonathan  122 Ferdinand I of Aragon, king of Naples 77 Ferdinand II of Aragon  19, 23 Ferdinand I of Habsburg, emperor, king of Hungary and Bohemia  19, 31, 38, 39, 40, 41, 79, 80, 83, 84, 85, 86, 94, 110, 167, 175, 181–186, 188–195, 227, 290 Ferdinand II of Habsburg, archduke (1529–1595),  82, 83, 86, 87, 89, 90, 95 Ferdinand II of Habsburg, emperor  15, 16, 48, 50, 52, 105, 223, 227, 253, 264 Ferdinand II of Trastámara, king of Aragon and Castile  58, 59, 60 Ferdinand III of Habsburg, emperor  16, 20, 24, 44, 50, 51, 52, 218, 219, 221, 224–228, 250, 253, 254, 264 Ferdinand IV of Habsburg, king of Romans, king of Hungary and Bohemia  153, 257 Ferdinand of Bavaria  94 Ferdinand of Habsburg, cardinal of Toledo  24, 218, 221, 225 Ferdinand VI of Bourbon, king of Spain 74 Ferdinand VII of Bourbon, king of Spain 74 Fernández Portocarrero, Luis Manuel 162 Ferrabosco, Pietro  84 Février, Jacques  188 Flämitzer, Johan Nikolaus  140, 158 Folch de Cardona I d’Erill, Caterina, countess Carafa  279 Folch de Cardona, Antoni  302 Folch de Cardona, Francesc, prince of Cardona  312 Forgách, Ádám, count  253 Forgách, Ferenc, count, archbishop of Esztergom  253

Forgách, Simon, count  95, 149 Forgách, Zsigmond, count  253 Forstall, Marcus  259 Francesco Maria II della Rovere, duke of Urbino  93 Francis I of Lorraine, duke of Lorraine  290, 295 Francis Louis of Neuburg (Franz Ludwig von PfalzNeuburg)  295, 299 Francis I of Valoise, king of France 191 Francis II Rákóczi, prince of Transylvania  24, 167, 176, 310, 313 Francis Stephen of Lorraine, duke of Lorraine and emperor  299, 300, 311, 312, 317 Franck, Johann  124 Francolin, Hans  31, 50, 52, 82, 88 Frangepán, Ferenc, count  134 Franquart, Jacob  42, 50 Frederick III of Habsburg, emperor  31, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 Fruyes, Jean de  188 Fugger, Otto Heinrich, count  251 Gabriel Bethlen, prince of Transylvania 224 Gaius Julius Caesar  110, 116 Gallas, Matthias, count  227 Galya, András  270 Gámiz, Juan Alonso de  182, 188–190, 193, 194 Garibay, Esteban de  61 Gent, Johan van, baron of Gent  235 Gaspar de Borja, cardinal  112, 113 George I of Hannover, king of Great Britain 295 Georg I Rákóczi, prince of Transylvania  225–227, 229 Germana of Foix, queen of Aragon and duchess of Calabria  64 Gevaerts, Caspar  208 Ghelen, Johan van  136, 143

329

330

in d e x o f n am e s

Gianfederico of Este, prince  295, 300, 315 Gilleis, Heinrich Julius von, baron  296, 300, 315 Glotsch, Ludwig Christoph  147 Gómez de Sandoval y Rojas, Francisco, duke of Lerma  112, 113 Gonzaga, Francesco, marquis of Castiglione  101, 112 González, Estebanillo  204 Gottlieb, Lazarus  147 Gracián, Baltasar  215 Greischer, Matthias  148, 150 Grünenberg, Conrad  50 Gudenus, Christoph  134 Guicciardi, Orazio, count  275, 276, 277, 279, 280, 282, 285 Gustav II Adolph of Sweden, king of Sweden 200 Guzmán, Gaspar de, count-duke of Olivares  202, 203, 204, 214, 221 Habersack, Hans  89 Haffner, Melchior  123 Hamilton, Andreas von, count  300, 302, 306, 315 Hannart, Jan  188 Hannibal 152 Hardegg, Johann Julius von, count  296, 300, 302, 303, 305, 315 Hardegg, Johann Karl von, count  296, 300, 305, 306, 316 Harrach, Alois Thomas von, count 296 Harrach, Ferdinand Bonaventura von, count  159 Harrach, Ferdinand Marquard von, count  300, 311, 316 Harrach, Karl, count  254 Harrach, Karl Anton, count  296, 300, 316 Hautsch, Georg  147 Heider y Butrón de Múxica, Antonio Francisco von, baron  274, 275

Heiss, Johann  152, 153 Henricourt, Henri  188 Henry II of Albret, king of Navarre  68, 69 Henry II of Valois, king of France  182, 193 Herberstein, Ferdinand Leopold von, count  296, 297, 300, 316 Herberstein, Sigismundus von, count 189 Hervart, Jean  254, 255 Hirlinger, Johann Martin  138 Hocher, Johann Paul  134 Hoecke, Jan van der  198, 210 Hofhalter, Raphael  88 Hoffmann, Johann Jacob  147 Hohenfeld, Ignaz von, count  299, 300, 306, 316 Hooghe, Romeyn de  146, 155, 156 Hörnigk, Philip Wilhelm von  158 Hoyos, Juan de, count  188 Hübschmann, Donat  23, 81, 82, 84, 87 Hübschmann, Martin  23, 81, 84, 87 Humyn, Claude-François d’, lord and viscount of SaintAlbert  274, 275, 278, 280 Hurtado de Mendoza, Francisco, marquis of Almazán  71, 74 Illésházy, Miklós, count  149, 308 Imbsen, Johann Theodor von, baron  280, 281, 282, 283, 285 Imperiali, Giulio, prince of Francavilla 274 Innocent XI, pope  155 Isabella Clara Eugenia of Habsburg, archduchess  23, 42, 43, 50, 105, 115 Isabella I of Trastámara, queen of Castile and Aragon  19, 23 Isabella of Portugal, empress  110 Isabella of Trastámara, queen of Portugal 58 Isabella of Valois, queen of Spain  67

i nd e x o f name s

Jäger, Clemens  31 Jaime I, king of Aragon  18 Jakusics, Imre  149 Jansenius 245 Janssens, Cornelius, see Jansenius 245 Jerome, saint  116 Jiří, father, from St Vitus Cathedral 100 Joanna, Princess of Portugal  107 Joanna I of Trastámara, queen of Spain  57, 59, 62, 63, 65 Joanna of Albret-Foix, queen of Navarre  68, 70 Joanna of Trastámara la Beltraneja 60 John George III of Saxony, duke of Saxony  123, 124, 138 John I Szapolyai, king of Hungary  79, 183, 191 John II of Trastámara, king of Aragon and Navarre  58 John III of Albret, king of Navarre  59, 61, 67 John III Sobieski, king of Poland  123, 124, 155 John V of Bragança, king of Portugal 295 John Joseph of Habsburg  240 John of Habsburg  189, 191 John of Trastámara, prince of Asturias 58 John the Apostle, saint  109, 116, 117, 118 Joseph I of Habsburg, emperor  23, 24, 121–130, 138, 141, 144–149, 151, 152, 154–158, 160, 161, 167–176, 297, 304 Joseph II of Habsburg, emperor  308, 312 Károlyi, László, count  149 Kaunitz, Wenzel Anton von, count 304 Keglevich, Miklós, count  149

Kellers, Wilhelm, baron  273, 274, 275, 276 Kéry, Ferenc  151 Keyßler, Johann Georg  289 Khevenhüller, Franz Christoph von, count  223, 224, 251 Khuen von Belasy, Johann Jakob  90 Khuen von Belasy, Rudolf  38 Kinsky von Wchinitz und Tettau, Wilhelm von  101, 305 Kinsky, Franz Ferdinand von, count  296, 298, 300, 308, 311, 312, 316 Kinsky, Franz Ulrich von  140 Kinsky, Wenzel Norbert von, count 279 Klaudyán, Mikuláš  35 Klein, Johann von, baron  302, 303, 316 Kleinert, Friedrich  147 Knuyt, Johan de  237 Koháry, Farkas  149 Kollonich, Leopold Karl von, cardinal  146, 152, 161, 173 Kollonich, Sigismund von, count  299, 300, 309, 316 Kollonitsch, Adam von  149, 309 Kolovrat, Norbert Leopol z, count 279 Kolovrat-Krakovsky, Wilhelm Albert von, count  300, 311, 316 Königsegg-Rothenfels, Joseph Lothar von, count  304 Koppmayer, Jakob  123, 124, 141, 142 Korzensky, Rudolph Joseph von, count 316 Kovachich, Márton György  173, 176 Krauss, Johann Ulrich  152, 153 Kriechbaum, Johann Jakob von, baron  295, 311, 316 Kriechbaum, Sigmund Balthasar von, baron  295 Krozensky, Rudolph Joseph von 297

331

332

in d e x o f n am e s

Küchelbecker, Johann Basilius  293, 294 Kürner 137 Kuefstein, Ehrgott Maximilian von, count  300, 301, 316 Kuefstein, Johann Ferdinand von, count  296, 298, 300, 302, 316 Kuefstein, Leopold von, count  296, 300, 301, 317 Ladislaus I of Hungary, king of Hungary, saint  124 Lamberg, Karl Joseph von, count  300, 305, 317 Lamberg, Leopold Matthias von, count 269 Lamberg, Leopold von, count  277 Lanuza, Juan de  58 Lasso de Castilla, Pedro de  194 Lautensack, Sebald  88 Lazcano, Martín de  194 Le Mire, Aubert  115 Le Roy, Philippe, lord of Broechem 235 Leopold I of Habsburg, emperor  20, 24, 44, 45, 46, 159–161, 167–170, 173, 258, 260, 261, 263, 264, 266, 269, 287, 295, 296, 304 Leopold John of Habsburg, archduke 290 Lerch, Johann Martin  137, 138, 148, 150 Lidl, Bernard Joseph  143, 144, 145, 151 Liechtenstein, Anton Florian von, prince  164, 297 Liechtenstein, Emmanuel von  312 Liechtenstein, Hartmann von, prince  297, 300, 303, 317 Liechtenstein, Johann Adam von, prince 312 Liechtenstein, Maria Antonia von 312 Ligorio, Pirro  93

Lippay, György, archbishop of Esztergom 229 Lisola, François-Paul de, baron 134 Lobkowitz, Eleonore Elisabeth von 305 Lobkowitz, Maria Elisabeth von 305 Lobkowitz, Philipp von, prince  296, 300, 305, 317 Lochner, Johann Christoph  127, 128 Loschge, Leonhard  124 Louis II Jagiellon, king of Hungary and Bohemia  19, 36, 79, 181, 183, 185 Louis IX Capet, king of France, saint 116 Louis XIII of Bourbon, king of France  124, 221 Louis XIV of Bourbon, king of France  25, 110, 154, 159, 287 Lovencito, Gieronimo  105 Loyola, Blasco de  259 Lucrezia of Este, duchess of Urbino 93 Lünig, Johann Christian  161 Luyckx, Frans  207 Machiavelli, Niccolò  117 Malboan, Charles de  264 Manrique de Mendoza, Juan  87 Mansfeld, count  145 Manuel of Bragança, infant of Portugal  294, 300, 315 Manuel I of Avís, king of Portugal 58 Marek, Pavel  251 Margaret of Habsburg, queen of Spain 98 Margaret of Habsburg, archduchess see Margarita de la Cruz Margaret Theresa of Spain  133 Margarita de la Cruz (of Habsburg)  107, 108

i nd e x o f name s

Maria Anna of Bavaria  93 Maria Anna of Habsburg, queen consort of Portugal  295 Maria Anna of Habsburg, empress, queen consort of Hungary and Bohemia  17, 19, 24, 200, 206, 250 Maria Anna of Habsburg, queen of Spain  25, 233, 241, 242, 243, 245, 246 Maria Anna of Neuburg, queen of Spain 162 Maria of Austria, empress (1528–1603)  82, 84, 86, 92, 107, 108, 112 Maria Elisabeth of Habsburg, archduchess  124, 144, 173, 293 Maria Luisa Gabriella of Savoy, queen of Spain  165 Maria Maddalena of Habsburg, great duchess of Tuscany  105, 293 Maria Theresa of Habsburg, empress  176, 293, 295, 301, 304, 311, 312, 313 Maria Theresa of Habsburg, queen of France  240 Marineo Siculo, Lucio  187 Martinitz, Adolph Bernhard von, count  295, 300, 317 Martinitz, Georg Adam von, count 295 Martinitz, Georg, count  251 Masson, Jean  188 Matheu, Lorenzo  65 Matthias Corvinus, king of Hungary  30, 32, 34, 36, 49, 77, 78 Matthias of Habsburg, emperor  42, 50, 52, 100, 101, 104, 114, 290 Maudhuy, Robert  115 Maurice of Saxony, elector of Saxony  83, 193 Maximilian I of Habsburg, emperor  23, 31, 32, 35, 36, 37, 38, 40, 49, 80, 185, 186, 188 Maximilian I of Wittelsbach, elector of Bavaria  225, 251

Maximilian II Emanuel of Wittelsbach, elector of Bavaria  123, 124, 152 Maximilian II of Habsburg, emperor  38, 39, 44, 46, 77, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 87, 89, 90, 92, 93, 94, 95, 99, 114 Maximilian III, archduke of Austria  100, 105 Maximilian Wilhelm von Braunschweig-Lüneburg, prince of Lüneburg  294–295, 300, 315 Mazzarino, Giulio  25 Méndez de Haro y Guzmán, Gaspar, marquis of Carpio  263 Méndez de Haro, Luis, marquis of Carpio 241 Mendoza, Antonio de  188 Meneses, Alonso González de  188 Merklin von Waldkirch, Baltasar 188 Merode, Albert-Eugène de, count of Merode-Thiant et Waroux  257 Mérode-Waterloo, Jean-PhilippeEugène de, marquis of Westerloo  274, 275, 278 Messía, Alonso  113 Metych of Čečov, Jáchym  101 Metz, Zacharias de  239 Miguel of Avís, prince of Portugal and Asturias  58, 59 Minerbetti, Cosimo  115 Mitelli, Giuseppe Maria  137 Moles, Francesco, duke of Parete  272, 273, 277, 278, 279 Mollard, Felix Ernst von, count 302, 303, 305, 317 Moncada, Francesc de, marquis of Aytona, count of Ossona  16, 251, 252–254 Monroy, Sancho de, marquis of Castañeda  250, 256, 257 Montaigne, Michel de  198 Monteverdi, Claudio  207 Montfort, Guillaume de  188

333

334

in d e x o f n am e s

Morosini, Francesco  129 Moser, Friedrich Karl von  291 Moura Corte Real, Francisco de, marquis of Castelo Rodrigo  229, 257, 259 Mustafa, Kara  137 Nádasdy, Ferenc, count  134 Nádasdy, Tamás, count  149 Nassau, Willem-Frederik of  246 Niéremberg, Juan Eusebio  214, 215 Nogarola, Leonard  188, 189 Núñez de Guzmán, Ramiro, duke of Medina de las Torres  241 Nypoort, Justus van der  130, 137, 147, 148 Odescalchi, Livio, prince of Sirmium  279, 282 Oláh, Miklós  82, 85 Ormaechea Guerrero, Jerónimo de 214 Orsini-Rosenberg, Wolfgang von, count  300, 306, 317 Ortelius, Hieronymus  136 Orville, Johann Joachim d’  157 Ossona, count of see Moncada, Francesc de Ostein, Heinrich von, count  295, 298, 300, 317 Ottavio Farnese, duke of Parma  89 Paar, Joseph Ignaz von, count  297, 300, 303, 317 Paar, Karl Joseph von, count  279, 282 Paar, Leopold von, count  300, 302, 317 Paar, Stephan, count  303, 306 Palencia, Alonso de  60 Pálffy, Antal, count  143, 149 Pálffy, János, palatine of Hungary 307 Pálffy, János (1663–1751), ban of Croatia, count  174, 309

Pálffy, Károly, count  144 Pálffy, Károly (1735–1816), count 312 Pálffy, Lipót, count (1681–1720), colonel  300, 307, 309, 311, 312, 317 Pálffy, Lipót, count (1716–73)  312 Pálffy, Mária Auguszta, countess  312 Pálffy, Miklós (1657–1732), count, palatine  270, 308–309 Pálffy, Miklós (1699–1734), count, chamberlain and colonel  307 Pálffy, Miklós (1710–1773), count, son of Lipót Pálffy  299, 300, 306, 307–310–313, 317 Pálffy, Pál, count, palatine of Hungary  251, 252, 257 Pálffy, Rudolf, count  312 Pallavicini, Sforza, marquis di Cortemaggiore  189, 193 Paravicino, Hortensio Félix  214 Pauw, Adriaen  236, 239 Pázmány, Péter  227, 229, 253 Pedrosa, Gregorio de  114, 115 Perguera, Lluís de  65 Pellicer de Tovar y Ossau, Joseph de  214, 215 Pérez del Pulgar, Hernán  60 Perger, Simon  101 Pernstein, Luisa von  108 Perrenot de Granvelle, Antoine 194 Pesmes de Saint-Saphorin, François-Louis 303 Peter I Romanov, tsar  141 Peter II of Bragança, king of Portugal 294 Petrocini, Rodolfo  101 Philip I of Habsburg, archduke and king of Castile  59 Philip II of Habsburg, king of Spain  19, 22, 37, 92, 103, 107, 114, 189, 223 Philip III of Habsburg, king of Spain  22, 98, 106, 108, 111–113, 227, 253

i nd e x o f name s

Philip III of Valois, duke of Burgundy 271 Philip IV of Habsburg, king of Spain  16, 20, 22, 24, 25, 218, 219, 221, 223, 225, 226, 229, 250, 253–257, 259 Philip V of Bourbon, king of Spain  24, 26, 159, 162–165, 270 Piazza, Giulio  283 Pighius, Winandus  94 Pigna, Giovan Battista  93 Pignatelli, Anna Maria  302 Portia, Johann Ferdinand von, duke of Porcia  258 Praet, Monsieur de  185 Precipiano, Humbert de  275 Priorato, Galeazzo Gualdo  134 Probst, Johann  135, 137 Proskau, Erdmann Christoph von, count  301, 306, 318 Proskau, Ulrich Desiderius von  100, 101 Pruskovský z Pruskova, Jiří  38 Rákóczi, Ferenc II, prince see Francis II Rákóczi Rákóczi, George I see George Rákóczi I Ranuccio Farnese, duke of Parma  98, 101 Rappach, Karl Ernst von, count  296, 299, 306, 318 Rappach, Maria Anna von  306 Reede van Renswoude, Hendrik, baron 239 Reidel, Johann Zaharias  124 Révay, Péter, baron  147 Richard, Vincent  247 Richardot, François  109, 118 Richelieu, Armand Jean du Plessis, duke and cardinal of  227 Riegel, Christoph  127 Rinaldo III of Este, duke of Modena 295 Ripperda, Willem  239

Rodríguez Villa, Antonio  189 Rohr, Julius Bernhard von  287, 288 Romeo y Anderaz, Juan Antonio, marquis of Erendazu  273, 274, 279 Roncaroli, Tomasso  98, 101 Rota, Martino  81, 91 Roveretti, Ottaviano  101 Rubens, Peter Paul  24 Rudolf I of Habsburg, king of the Romans  116, 153 Rudolf II of Habsburg, emperor  23, 38, 42, 46, 49, 52, 53, 77, 82, 90, 91, 92, 94, 95, 97–105, 107, 109–119 Saavedra Fajardo, Diego de  25, 217–220, 222, 224–230 Sadeler, Aegidius 97 Salamanca, Francisco de  188, 194 Salburg, Franz Ludwig von, count  300, 318 Salinas, Martín de  182, 185, 186, 188–190 Salm, Franz Wilhelm von, count  296, 300, 305, 318 Salm, Niklas von, count  188 Salvago, Giovanni Battista  98, 104 Sambocus, Johannes  23, 81, 82, 84, 87, 93 San Martino, Bartolomeo di, count of Baldissero  284 Sande, Álvaro de  189, 192 Sandoval, Prudencio de  62, 63 Sangro, Paolo di, prince of San Severo  279, 282 Sanseverino, Giuseppe, prince of Bisignano  274, 279, 282 Savoy-Soissons, Maurizio de  279 Savoy-Soissons, Emanuele Tommaso de  279 Saxony-Seitz, Christian August of  174, 299 Schaff, Lorenz  145 Schepper, Cornelius  188, 190 Scheutz, Martin  297

335

3 36

in d e x o f n am e s

Schlick, Leopold von, count  298, 299, 300, 304, 308, 318 Schomberg, count  227 Schönborn, Friedrich Karl von, count  295, 296, 298, 299, 300, 303, 308, 318 Schönborn, Lothar Franz von  295, 299 Schut, Cornelis  198, 210 Schwarzenberg, Adam Franz von, prince  294, 295, 300, 303, 305, 318 Schwarzenberg, Ferdinand von, prince 144 Schwarzenberg, Georg Ludwig von, count  254, 255, 267, 268 Seilern, Johann Friedrich von, count  175, 304 Seybold, Hans  78 Siebmacher, Hans  35, 51 Sigismund Báthory, prince of Transylvania 52 Sigismund I Jagiellon (Sigismund the Old), king of Poland  188 Sigismund III Vasa, king of Poland and Sweden Sigismund of Luxembourg, king of Hungary 30 Silva y Meneses, Fernando de, count of Cifuentes  279, 282 Sinzendorf, Johann Wilhelm von, count  298, 300, 318 Sinzendorf, Maria von  305 Sinzendorf, Philipp Ludwig von, count  291, 293, 296, 298, 300, 303, 305, 311, 318 Sinzendorf, Rudolf von, count  300, 305 Sinzendorf, Rudolf Sigmund von, count  302, 318 Slavata, Jáchym Oldřich, count  251 Slavata, Vilém, count  227, 251 Solis, Virgil  50, 51 Souches, Antonia Ratuit de  312 St Julian, Johann Albrecht von, count  296, 300–303, 305, 318

St Julian, Johann Joseph von, count  300, 306, 319 Stainhofer, Caspar  82, 84, 87 Starhemberg, Conrad Balthasar von, count 266 Starhemberg, Ernst Rüdiger von, count  123, 124, 145 Starhemberg, Gundacker Thomas Graf von, count  298 Starhemberg, Gundacker von, count  303, 305 Starhemberg, Gundemar Joseph von, count  300, 302, 305, 306, 318 Starhemberg, Ottokar von, count  299, 300, 302, 306, 318 Stella, Rocco, count of Santa Croce  302, 303 Stephen I, king of Hungary, saint  18, 35, 45, 47, 151, 171–174, 181, 183, 186, 188, 195, 311, 312 Stettinger, Christophorus  260 Strada, Jacopo  94 Stralenheim, Henning von, baron 310 Strattmann, Eleonore von, countess 308 Strattmann, Theodor Althet Heinrich von  140 Stubenberg, Julianna von  312 Suárez de Figueroa, Gómez, duke of Feria 200 Süleyman I, sultan  79 Szapolyai, János see John I Szapolyai Széchényi, György  143, 148, 149, 170–173 Széchy, Gáspár  258 Tasso, Annibale  194 Teufel, Andreas  89 Teuffel, Erasmus  193 Thaumantium, Stephanus  148, 152 Thököly, Imre  127, 140, 261 Thurn und Taxis, Maximilian von, count  279, 282

i nd e x o f name s

Thurn-Valsassina, Anton Maria von, count  296, 319 Thuróczy, Johannes  33 Titus Livius  89 Torstensson, Lennart  229 Trautson, Anton Ernst von, count  296, 297, 300, 319 Trautson, Johann Leopold Donat von, prince  297 Trautson, Johann Wilhelm von  296, 297, 300, 302, 305, 306, 319 Trautson, Maria Francesca von  305 Trautson, Maria Josepha von  305 Trautmannsdorf, Ernst Sigmund von, count  300, 319 Trauttmansdorf, Adam von  101 Trauttmansdorff, Maximilian von, count 257 Ulfeld, Corfitz count  295, 298, 300, 301, 305, 306, 313, 319 Urban VIII, pope  213 Ustárroz, Juan Francisco Andrés de 66 Utrecht, Adrian of, cardinal of Tortosa, see Adrian VI Veblen, Thorsten  288 Vega y Carpio, Félix Lope de  206 Vélez de Guevara y Tassis, Íñigo, count of Oñate  15, 16, 226, 227, 252, 253 Veltwyck, Gerhard  188 Venegas y Figueroa, Antonio  113, 114 Venegas y Figueroa, Luis  114 Verancsics, Antal  92 Vermeyen, Jan  90 Vianen, Paulus van  90 Vilana Perlas, Ramón Frederic de, marquis of Rialp  302 Vincenzo Gonzaga, duke of Guastalla 223 Violant of Hungary  18 Vital, Lorenzo  62

Voigt, Leopold  136, 137 Volkra, Otto Christoph von, count  298, 319 Vratislav, Jan Václav, count, see Wratislaw, Johann Wenzel von, count of Mitrowitz Vries, Adrian de  97 Wagner, Johann Christoph  123 Wagner, Matthäus  152, 153 Waldstein, Ferdinand Carl von, count 149 Walsegg, Franz Anton von, count 298 Weeze, Johannes von  188, 191 Weichs, Baroness  309 Wenceslaus, saint  186, 195, 302, 306, 315, 317, 318, 319 Wendish, Mark  37, 39 Wesselényi, Ferenc, count, palatine of Hungary  251, 258, 259 Wilhelmine Amalia of Braunschweig-Lüneburg, empress  295, 296, 297 William II of Orange-Nassau, prince of Orange  235, 236, 239, 242, 246 William III of Orange-Nassau, prince of Orange  155 William V of Wittelsbach, elector of Bavaria  94, 95 Windischgrätz, Ernst Friedrich von, count  269, 298, 303 Wirrich, Heinrich  93 Wladislav I Jagiellon, king of Poland and Hungary  36 Wladislav II Jagiellon, king of Hungary and Bohemia  34, 36, 50, 78, 79, 175 Wolfgang Wilhelm I of Neuburg, duke of Neuburg  236 Wratislaw, Johann Wenzel, count of Mitrowitz  277, 279, 304 Wurmbrand, Johann Wilhelm von, count 298

337

338

in d e x o f n am e s

Ysendyck, Jan Baptist van  281 Zasius, Johann Ulrich  38 Zeller, Márton  258 Zeller, Walter  31 Zichy, Ádám, count  309 Zichy, István, count  145, 171 Zichy, Károly, count  300, 307–312, 319 Zichy, Katalin, countess  309 Zrínyi, Ádám, count  149, 171

Zrínyi, György, count  89 Zrínyi, Ilona, countess  127, 140 Zrínyi I, Miklós, count (1508–1566)  82, 86, 89 Zrínyi II, Miklós, count (1620–1664)  252, 259, 260 Zrínyi, Péter, count  134 Zumel, Juan  62 Zúñiga, Baltasar de  98, 101, 251 Zsámboky János see Sambocus, Johannes