Formations et cultures des officiers et de l’entourage des princes dans les territoires angevins (milieu XIIIe-fin XVe siècle)
| ,Culture et exercice du gouvernement
The ambassadors of Charles I of Hungary in the papal curia (1301-1342)
Note de l’auteur
The author is a member of the research group NKFIH NN 124763 Papal Delegates in Hungary in the XIVth Century (1294-1378) – Online Database. The project and the research have been supported by the Hungarian Scientific Research Fund.
Texte intégral
- 1 The series was called Monumenta Vaticana. The first volume contained the account books of the papal (...)
1The examination of the personnel of the diplomatic relations between the Kingdom of Hungary and the papacy in the XIVth century implies on one hand the analysis of the work of papal legates and collectors in Hungary, and the research of the delegations of the ambassadors of the Hungarian king in the papal curia on the other hand. The corpus of the sources in the first case is quite advantageous. Not only the documents of the legation of Gentilis de Monteflorum (the cardinal sent by Clement V to consolidate the reign of the first Angevin king on the Hungarian throne 1307-1311) were preserved in the Vatican Secret Archives, but some account books of certain papal collectors as well. Both document groups were published at the end of the XIXth by Hungarian church historians who started to collect all the material somehow connected to Hungarian history just after the opening of the papal archives1.
2However, the data about the envoys of Charles I (1301/8-1342) are more scattered and scarce. Most probably this is the reason why the topic has not got the deserved attention in Hungarian historiography yet. The primary aim of this paper is to focus on the people who represented Charles I’s interest in the papal curia. I try to present what factors led to being chosen for the diplomatic task, to reconstrunct the careers of the ambassadors if possible and to show what cases they had to negotiate with the pope.
Methodological approach
- 2 Among the envoys presented in this article there were two such procurators: Nicolaus dictus Finta a (...)
- 3 2nd July 1320: A. Theiner, Vetera monumenta historica Hungariam sacram illustrantia, I. Rome, 1859, (...)
3The analysis of the delegations and the sources reporting about them raised many questions. The most complicated of these which had to be clarified in the very beginning of the research was how to decide whether a person mentioned in the registers was really present in the papal curia or not. If a papal letter granted certain privileges to a certain person, does it mean that the receipient was in the curia in the time of the issuing of the document? Not necessarily. Only if we think about the high clergy, we could point out numerous occasions when the archbishops or bishops did not travel to the papal court, but asked for confirmation through procurators2. It seems equally plausible that when a person, either clergyman, or secular, endeavoured to travel, his closest environment entrusted him with their own supplications or complaints as well. Similarly elusive can be the answer for the question: who can be considered as representant of the royal interest? If a cleric was sent to the pope to ask for the confirmation of an elected bishop, who by the way was advocated by the king, can this person be categorized solely as the bishop’s or the king’s envoy as well? My primary goal was to identify the envoys with the least possible uncertainty entailed, so I set a certain range of criteria. The most unambiguous cases were those when the source (papal letter, charter of donation, etc.) stated explicitly that the person appeared in the papal court as nuntius or ambaxiator regis, carried royal letters to the pope, carried out some negotiations on the behalf of Charles I, etc. An illustrative example could be an excerpt from a letter of John XXII to Charles I connected to the delegation of Csanád, provost of Várad in 1320: Cum itaque dilectus filius Chanadinus prepositus ecclesie Waradiensis, secretarius, cancellarius et comes capelle carissimi in Christo filii nostri Caroli regis Ungarie illustris, sicut ipse nobis exposuit…3. In case the envoy was commissioned by a second authority, and not directly by the king, he was included in the examination, if there was clean proof that his mission met the royal interests (e.g. the king supplied him with a letter of recommendation). In a restricted number of cases some people were categorized as royal ambassadors even without explicit evidence: if other signs have been found which indicated that the person was member of a delegation in the papal court (e.g. several papal letters concerning different requests of the same person which coinceded with the documented sojourn of a delegation in the papal court).
The corpus of the research
- 4 Not all, but the most important items in the registers which concerned Hungarian history were publi (...)
- 5 A particularly Hungarian type of offices which had approximately the same functions like the public (...)
4In order to get a more detailed picture of the activity of the ambassadors who represented the interests of Charles I at the Holy See, we can rely on four types of documents. First of all, the majority of the information – mainly concerning the nature and the outcome of the supplications of the Hungarian ambassadors – is contained in the Vatican and Avignon Registers of the papal chancery4. In a more limited number, letters of the diplomatic correspondence of Charles I survived as well. The third most important category of sources consists of charters issued by chapters in Hungary, as a significant number of the royal ambassadors belonged to the middle clergy and had some kind of office in chapters, some of which served as loca credibilia, i.e. “offices” authorized to issue and copy legal documents5. The names of the members of the chapters were often recorded on legal documents, thus in some fortunate cases it is possible to follow the ecclesiastical advancement of certain individuals. Lastly, a couple of royal charters of donation also indicate diplomatic service as the reason of the king’s gratitude, but in this case the missions’ nature is almost never detailed. The documents belonging to the two last categories are available today in the diplomatic and photographic collection of Hungarian National Archives (MNL).
The ambassadors
5Following the priciples determined in the methodological subchapter, I could trace 14 delegations during the 41 years of Charles I’s reign. For these 14 occasions, the names of 21 envoys were identified. 14 of the 21 ambassadors were clerics; many of them were members of the middle clergy, praepositi and canonici, or elected bishops waiting for confirmation.
Table 1 – Clerical envoys.
- 6 P. Engel, Magyarország világi archontológiája I., Budapest,1996, p. 89.
- 7 Hungarian National Archives (henceforth MNL) DL 43386.
- 8 P. Engel, Magyarország… cit. n. 6, p. 90.
- 9 See the edition oft he document in Történelmi Tár, 1898, p. 385˗386.
- 10 Anjou 1331. p. 14. (nr. 16.): a document from January 1331 reports about the resignation of the for (...)
- 11 V. Bunyitay, A váradi püspökség története az alapítástól a jelenkorig II: káptalanok, monostorok, N (...)
Name | Time of delegation | Office held in the time of the delegation | Highest office | Office at the royal court |
Carachinus | autumn 1308 | lector of Kalocsa | lector of Kalocsa | - |
Nicolaus dictus Finta | summer 1310 | chancellor and procurator of the bishop of Győr | ? | - |
Jacobus | after October 1311 | provost of Zagreb (?) | ? | ? |
Johannes | summer 1313 | cantor of Vác | ? | - |
Petrus | summer 1317 | prior of the Dominicans of Székesfehérvár, elected bishop of Bosnia | bishop of Bosnia | royal confessor |
Ladislaus of Jánk | summer 1317 | royal chancellor, Franciscan friar, elected archbishop of Kalocsa | archbishop of Kalocsa (1317-1337) | royal chancellor 30 October 1317-25 October 13366 |
Chanadinus of Telegd | spring 1320 | provost of Várad | archbishop of Esztergom(1330-1349) | royal chaplain 13 July 1319-20 January 13227, secretarius notarius |
Ladislaus of Kabol | 1325 | provost of Titel | archbishop of Kalocsa(1343-1345) | royal chaplain, secretarius notarius, royal vicechancellor 6 June 1322-8 December 13238 |
Johannes | summer 1331 | provincial of the Franciscans | provincial of the Franciscans | - |
Paulus9 | 1331, 1332 | hermit of Saint Augustine, elected bishop of Belgrade | bishop of Belgrade | royal chaplain and secretary |
Gregorius of Kapronca10 | 1331, 1332 | provost of Hájszentlőrinc | bishop of Csanád | royal chaplain |
Stephanus | spring 1332 | provost of Várad | provost of Várad, papal chaplain | royal procurator (?)11 |
Thomas | spring 1332 | archdeacon of Transylvania | papal chaplain | royal chaplain (1319-1321) |
Chama | spring 1332 | archdeacon of Küküllő | - |
- 12 P. Engel, Magyarország… cit. n. 6, p. 65.
- 13 Paulus is entitled by the papal letter capellanus regis on 15 february 1331: ASV Instr. Misc. 1172 (...)
- 14 A. Theiner, Vetera monumenta… cit. n. 3, p. 544-545, no DCCCXLV.
- 15 Earlier Hungarian historiography assumed that the date of Petrus’ confirmation was the 15th of July (...)
- 16 The papal bulla is dated to the 15th of August and it details the consecration. ASV RV 66, ep. 3481 (...)
- 17 27 September 1322: ASV RV 74, ep. 83. A. Theiner, Vetera monumenta… cit. n. 3, p. 481, no DCCXXXVI.
- 18 ASV RV 84, ep. 2122.
- 19 J. Udvardy, A kalocsai érsekek… cit. n. 15, p. 195-197. V. Fraknói, Magyarország egyházi és politik (...)
6Four royal ambassadors belonged to religious orders: one was a Dominican (Petrus, 1317), two of them were Franciscans (Ladislaus of Jánk, 1317; Johannes, 1331) and one of them was a hermit of Saint Augustine (Paulus, later bishop of Belgrade, February 1331 and spring 1332). Out of the four monks, three had offices at the royal court at the time of their missions as confessor (Petrus), cancellarius (Ladislaus of Jánk, verifiable between October 1317 and October 1336)12, or capellanus regis and secretarius regis (Paulus)13. Two of the regular envoys held high offices in their order at the time of their delegations, as Petrus was the prior of the Dominicans of Székesfehérvár and Johannes was the provincial of the Hungarian Franciscans14. What is more, three of them (Petrus, Ladislaus and Paulus) were elevated to high ranks of the secular church after their visit to the papal curia. However, in case of Petrus and Ladislaus it was not their mission that influenced their careers so positively. On the contrary, they were delegated to the papal curia, because they were already the confidants of the king, and Charles I requested the pope to confirm their promotion. Petrus was elected bishop of Bosnia before his journey and he was confirmed by pope John XXII on the 3rd of July 131715. Ladislaus was electus of the archbishopric of Kalocsa when he set off for Avignon, and he was consecrated in the papal curia possibly on the 15th of August16. Probably his acquaintance with the pope had an influence on Ladislaus of Jánk’s later career, as he was charged several times with different duties by John XXII. In 1322, he was one of the three appointed conservatores of the rights of the order of Saint Paul17, then in 1327 he was involved in the investigation on the conditions of the Pauline monks18. Similarly, important to the service he rendered to the papal curia was what Ladislaus of Jánk did for the reign of Charles I. He remained loyal supporter of the king and led the royal chancellery until his death in 1337, and on some occasion he was entrusted with other diplomatic tasks as well19.
- 20 In January 1309 the royal chancellery of Naples assigned him a handsome sum of money for his costs. (...)
- 21 He arrived to Zagreb in September 1308.
7Unfortunately, the limited number of sources sometimes prevents us from reconstructing the careers of the envoys. It occurs even that the only information available comes from the exact same document that reports of the delegation. Most of the cases which are problematic regarding the identification are the missions of those ambassadors who belonged to the middle clergy and most probably did not advance higher. In actual fact, these envoys constitute the majority of the people whose names were recovered from the sources. The best example for the obscure personalities in royal service is Carachinus, canon of Kalocsa who visited the papal court possibly in 130920. Carachinus is mentioned neither before, nor after his delegation in the sources, not even in the charters of the chapter of Kalocsa. One sole entry of the Angevin chancellery of Naples mentions him as clericus et familiaris regis Ungariae in January 1309. The future tense (tunc accessuro ad Romanam Curiam) used in the register makes it clear that the envoy first visited the court of Charles II before continuing his journey to pope Clement V. The document gives only a general description of the purposes of Carachinus’ mission (pro certis agendis tangentibus ipsum regem et archiepiscopum Collocensem, cancellarium regem), but it seems very likely that he was commissioned to report about the arrival and first provisions of cardinal Gentilis21.
- 22 G. Wenzel, Magyar diplomácziai emlékek… cit. n. 20, p. 195-196.
- 23 Vilmos Fraknói’s three-volume book on the relationship of the Hungarian kingdom with the papacy was (...)
- 24 V. Fraknói, Magyarország egyházi… cit. n. 18, p. 402-403.
- 25 B. A. Krčelić, Historiarum cathedralis ecclesiae Zagrabiensis, Zagreb ca., 1760, p. 102.
8The most problematic identification is nonetheless an envoy called Jacobus who was sent to the papal curia in 1311. King Charles I did not specify the title of his delegate in his letter to the pope. The Hungarian monarch asked the protection of pope Clement V for the city Zadar against Venetian aggression and added at the end of his message: cetera vestre sanctitati refferenda commissimus Jacobo latori presentibus…22. It is generally accepted that the envoy Jacobus was the provost of Zagreb. According to the argumentation of Vilmos Fraknói23, the royal envoy must have been the provost of Zagreb, as he had participated on the Council of Vienne and contributed to the process against the Templars24. However, Fraknói refers in his monography to a XVIIth-century book which does not clarify which specific source the information comes from25.
- 26 A. Theiner, Vetera monumenta… cit. n. 3, p. 822-823, no MCCLVIII.
- 27 1th August 1313: ASV RV 60, fol. 187v ep. 581 ; A. Theiner, Vetera monumenta… cit. n. 3, p. 443-444 (...)
9In two cases, the king did not delegate his own ambassadors, but he commissioned the envoy of a bishop or a chapter to communicate his requests. First, the king expressed his support of Nicolaus, electus of Győr by providing a royal recommendation to the bishop’s envoy. Nicolaus dictus Finta, cancellarius et procurator episcopi Iauriensis visited the papal curia in 131026. In addition to the king’s letter, Nicolaus d. F. assured the pope that his legate in Hungary, Gentilis de Monteflorum had advocated the confirmation as well. In the second case, in 1313 Johannes, cantor ecclesie Vaciensis represented the interests of one part of his chapter and that of the king in Avignon27.
- 28 V. Fraknói, Magyarország egyházi… cit. n. 18, p. 154-158.
10As it has already been established by several historians28, the diplomatic negotiations between the Hungarian and Neapolitan Angevins in the beginning of the 1330’s increased the number of Hungarian delegations in the papal curia as well. Pope John XXII showed a great interest in the issue and was engaged in the elaboration of the details of the marriage plan of the son of Charles I with a granddaughter of Robert I. What has been unclear so far is how significant the increase in the Hungarian presence at the Avignon curia was. Vilmos Fraknói tried to name the royal envoys of Charles I who had been in the papal court during 1331 and 1332 and compiled the list as follows:
- Paulus, an hermit of Saint Augustine (February 1331), later bishop of Belgrade (Albensis, spring 1332);
- Stephanus, provost of Várad (Waradiensis)29, and Gregorius, archdeacon of Bekcsény (Bexin/Bezim)30, later provost of Háj (szentlőrinc), Thomas, archdeacon of Transylvania and ‘two seculars’ (end of 1331).
- 31 Történelmi Tár, 1898. p. 385-386, no II.
- 32 ASV RV 103, ep. 1388; A. Theiner, Vetera monumenta… cit. n. 3, p. 549-550, no CCCLVII (vii id mart (...)
- 33 The bulla is dated to 1331. ASV RV 98, ep. 823 (and its copy MNL DF 291549).
- 34 Read like Chesluk in the edition of Anjou-kori oklevéltár XV. 1331. p. 37. no 64.
- 35 MNL DF 236419.
- 36 This village still exist with unchanged name.
- 37 B. Romhányi, Ágostonrendi remeték a középkori Magyarországon, in Aetas, 20/4, 2005, p. 99-100.
- 38 A. Theiner, Vetera monumenta… cit. n. 3, p. 591. no DCCCLXXVII.
- 39 The bishopric was mentioned to be vacant in January 1341 (MNL DF 278114) and the second Paulus foll (...)
11The list gives us the impression that the delegations were separate and were sent after one another for a short period of time. However, the systematization of the sources shows us a different picture. It is more likely that the delegations overlapped each other in time and in some cases the royal ambassadors spent long months in the papal curia. As we will see, it would be problematic to determine exactly how many diplomats represented the Hungarian king and who belonged to their entourage, but the sources prove unquestionably a significant augmentation in the size of the delegations. The first person on the above list, Paulus, the hermit is believed to have visited the Avignon curia twice: first in the beginning (early February) of 133131, and secondly in spring of 133232. There is no evidence of him being continuously in the papal court between these two dates, and one year was sufficient time to make the journey between Avignon and Hungary twice. Thus, it seems very likely that Paulus indeed mediated between Charles I and John XXII on more than one occasion. During his first visit, he was confirmed as bishop of Belgrade33. Although the pope did not specify whether Paulus had been recommended by the Hungarian king for the position, we might surmise that this was the case. It would not have been a unique example for an envoy being in one person the representant and the candidate of the king for an important benefice (see the above the case of Petrus, bishop of Bosnia and Ladislaus of Jánk, the latter archbishop of Kalocsa). The documents related to Paulus’ missions shed some light on his lifepath, although there still remains a lot of uncertainty. His father’s name is mentioned in the bulla of confirmation: Lucas of Chestulz34. The identification of this settlement is rather problematic, especially because the papal document did not mention the diocese of the village. The name form Chestulz does not occur in any other sources related to the 14th-century Hungary. Most probably it signifies the village name Kesztölc which was written in the account of the papal collectors (1332-1337) with the ortography Kesztelch, and as Keztheulchl in a document from 1320/132135. However, these two versions denote two different villages called the same name in this time: the first one was situated in the diocese of Pécs (dioc. Quinqueecclesiensis), and the second one lay close to Esztergom (Strigonium)36. Unfortunately, we cannot exclude neither of the two possibilities, even if we suppose that Paulus chose the Augustine order because of the proximity of their monastery to his home village. The hermits of Saint Augustine had a monastery not only in Esztergom, but in Pécs as well in the XIVth century37. Although the data did not reveal reliable information about the early life of Paulus, it is sure that he belonged to the closest circles of Charles I. During his second visit in the papal curia, he is mentioned as secretarius regis. In 1332 he must have stayed at least five months in Avignon, as we have proof that he was still in the curia in July38. However, the date of his return to Hungary cannot be established. Similarly obscure to the beginning of his life is the time of his death, or to be more precise, until when he held the bishopric of Belgrade. The fact that Paulus’ successor in the episcopal seat of Belgrade was also a monk called Paulus could cause some confusion, but the five years vacancy between the two bishops with the same name clarifies the line of succession39.
- 40 In the documents it occurs with alternate spelling in the forms of Caproncha, Copruncha and Koprunc (...)
- 41 6 January 1331: ASV RV 98, ep. 533.
- 42 A. Theiner, Vetera monumenta… cit. n. 3, p. 551-552, no DCCCLXI.
- 43 If he had indeed been in the curia in the beginning of 1331, he must have had returned to Hungary, (...)
- 44 ASV RV 98, ep 533. The same day pope John XXII promoted Jacob Jacques of Piacenza, former provost o (...)
- 45 ASV RV 98, ep. 999; Theiner, Vetera monumenta… cit. n. 3, p. 533. no DCCCXXV.
- 46 Today Čazma (CR). For the history of the chapter of Hájszentlőrinc in the XIVth century, see G. Tho (...)
- 47 20 July 1332: ASV RV 102, ep. 1244.
- 48 25 April 1332: ASV RV 102, ep. 1051.
- 49 He was bishop of Csanád until his death in 1350. K. Juhász, A csanádi püspökség története (1307-138 (...)
- 50 14 April 1338: ASV RV 126, n. 83 (and its copy MNL DF 291 720).
- 51 MNL DF 230363.
- 52 1st September 1339: G. Wenzel, Magyar diplomácziai emlékek… cit. n. 20, p. 374-379.
- 53 K. Juhász, A csanádi püspökség… cit. n. 47, p. 57-74.
12In addition, Fraknói’s list treats the next envoys, Stephanus (provost of Várad), Gregorius [of Kapronca40, provost of Háj(szentlőrinc)], Thomas (archdeacon of Transylvania) and the ‘two seculars’ as the members of the same delegation. In my opinion, it is worth considering Gregorius, son of Georgius of Kapronca separately from the others. In January 1331, several papal letters were issued relating to him, including one which appointed him as provost of Hájszentlőrinc41. Neither of these documents states explicitly that Gregorius in this time would have been in the papal curia. For that we have proof only from a letter dated to 25th of April 133242, when the pope entitles him nuncius regius and excuses him by the king for the long period which he would spend in the papal curia due to the negotiations. And indeed, the last papal letter in the year dealing his request was issued in July. Although it cannot be stated surely that Gregorius was present in the papal curia in 1331, the possibility that he was in Avignon in the time of his promotion deserves some attention. The reason is that the two plausible periodes of Gregorius’ delegation (beginning of 1331 and spring–summer of 1332) overlap with the time when Paulus, bishop of Belgrade was in Avignon43. Certainly, the delegations consisted of more than person and the most logical decision would have been to commission those envoys for the second time as well who already knew the nature of the negotiations. Presumably, Paulus returned in 1332 to Avignon with the envoys (probably including Gregorius) who had accompanied him during his first visit. Another interesting aspect of the sources related to Gregorius is that his confirmation as provost of Hájszentlőrinc apparently caused some confusion in the papal chancellery, as a papal letter deposing him as archdeacon of Bekcsény and confirming him as provost of Hájszentlőrinc was issued on the 6th of January 133144, and the reverse (deposing him as provost of Hájszentlőrinc and granting him the praepositura of Bekcsény) was dated to the 10th of January 133145. There is no later document assigning him the praepositura of Hájszentlőrinc for the second time, nevertheless, he is entitled after 1331 consequently as provost of Hájszentlőrinc (even by papal letters) until his transfer to the praepositura of Csázma (Chasma) in 133546. The papal letters from 1332 also entitled him capellanus regis which means thathe, just like the majority of the envoys, belonged to the royal court47. What is more, he was granted a prepend this time in the diocese of Zagreb48 which he could keep, and even augment by another one in the diocese of Esztergom. He finally had to renounce his benefices when he was appointed bishop of Csanád (Chanediensis) in 134549. Gregorius’ ecclesiastical advancement involved increased diplomatic duties, especially recurring commissions to the papal court. However, the long journeys from Avignon to Hungary were not without danger. In April 1338 Benedict XII had to ask the intervention of the bishops of Constance, Basel and Chur, because Gregorius, his socios and familiares had been raided and held captive by a miles called Johannes Dapifer from the diocese of Constance. The incident occurred when the provost and his entourage was on the way back from the papal curia where they had been sent by Charles I pro certis negotiis magnis50. The bishops somehow succeeded to free Gregorius, as in May 1339 he was in Visegrád51, and in September he assisted the papal collectors (Galhard of Carcès and Peter, canon of Le Puy) in Warsaw52. Obviously the imprisonment did not discourage Gregorius, neither from travelling nor from contributing to the diplomacy of the Hungarian Angevins. In 1343 he accompanied the queen mother on her journey to Naples and he mediated several time between Louis I and Clement VI in the political conflict caused by the assassination of prince Andrew in Aversa53.
- 54 A. Theiner, Vetera monumenta… cit. n. 3, p. 552, n° DCCCLXII.
- 55 ASV RV 101, fol. 270v ep. 766.
- 56 ASV RV 101, fol. 271v, ep. 773.
- 57 ASV RV 101, fol. 270v ep. 767.
- 58 ASV RV 101, fol. 270v ep. 765.
- 59 ASV RV 101, fol. 270v ep. 768 ; A. Theiner, Vetera monumenta… cit. n. 3, p. 545 no DCCCXLVII.
- 60 ASV RV 103, ep. 1528.
- 61 ASV RV 101, ep. 895.
- 62 1316: MNL DL 29111.
- 63 Chama was recommed for this benefice by Charles I. He had held benefices in the dioceses of Várad, (...)
- 64 7 July 1324: A. Theiner, Vetera monumenta… cit. n. 3, p. 496, no DCCLVIII.
- 65 6 October 1322: ASV RV 74, ep. 58; A. Theiner, Vetera monumenta… cit. n. 3, p. 482-483, no DCCXXXVI (...)
- 66 In the account box of the papal tax collectors from 1335 he was entitled archdeacon of Küküllő as w (...)
- 67 The papal tax collectors’ account book reports that the archdiaconate is vacant. 1341 (20 February) (...)
13On the other hand, it seems that Stephanus, provost of Várad, Thomas, archideacon of Transylvania and the two laics indeed belonged to the same delegation. The reason is a papal letter dated to 29th April 1332 which mentions them together as ambaxiatores et nunicii Carolis regis Ungariae. The two secular ambassadors are named as well: Gedeth de Hethes and Taphan de Harazti, conuncii et conambaxiatores of the two clergymen54. The document most probably marks the end of the negotiations and the departure of the Hungarian envoys from Avignon, as pope John XXII took preventive actions by asking the bishops of Asti and Pavia to take measures in case the Hungarian delegation is attacked or captured. As a consequence the question arises: if the delegation left Avignon in the very end of April or beginning of May 1332, when had they arrived? The envoys’ names can be traced in the registers back until 23rd February 1332. On this day the pope granted Stephanus55, Gedeth (dioc. Vesprimiensis)56 and Taphan (dioc. Iauriensis)57 plenary indulgence in case of their death. The same privilege was given the same day to Chama, archdeacon of Transylvania as well58, and Stephanus, the son of Dionysius of Lochouch, miles Strigoniensis was absolved from his vow to participate in the crusade of Philipp VI, king of France59. Presmuably the two latter were members of the entourage of the royal ambassadors. This hypothesis might be confirmed by the fact that Chama is mentioned twice more in the registers: on the 25th February the pope requested the archbishop of Kalocsa (dioc. Colocensis), the bishop of Eger (Agriensis) and the provost of Bács (Baciensis) to restore Chama as provost of Küküllő, a title which had been taken away from him by the bishop of Várad (Waradiensis)60, and on the 5th April pope John XXII appointed the bishops of Transylvania and Várad as conservatores of Chama’s rights for the archdeaconate61. Chama anyway had built a remarkable, pluralist career and for sure, his name was not unknown in the court of John XXII. His first noteworthy position was provost of Óbuda (eccl. Sancti Petri de Veteri Buda)62, but already in 1321 he was mentioned as consiliario of the king and he held six canonicatus and prebends in different dioceses (in addition to the praepositura of Óbuda) which he had to renounce in order to receive papal approval for a canonicatus in the diocese of Transylvania63. However, this benefice caused him some inconvenience in 1324. The pope appointed somebody else to the praepositura of Székesfehérvár (Albensis), despite the fact that the chapter had elected Chama, because he was simultaneously provost of Óbuda and archdeacon of Küküllő64. Chama obviously had some influence in the chapter of Székesfehérvár, as two years earlier he and two fellow clergymen had been commissioned by the canonics to decide on the person of the new provost. Their decision was later examined and approved in the papal curia65. When the provost elected by them died, the chapter voted for Chama. The papal intervention for the defence of his rights for the archdeaconate of Küküllő had a positive outcome, as he was entitled archdeacon in the accounts of the papal collectors in 133566. He died most possibly in late 1340 or early 134167.
- 68 MNL DF 291665 ; A. Theiner, Vetera monumenta… cit. n. 3, p. 544-545. no DCCXLV.
- 69 F. Karácsonyi, Szt Ferenc rendjének története Magyarországon 1711-ig,Budapest, 1922, p. 34-36.
14As far as the list of the envoys in 1331-1332 is concerned, one more person has to be added. Johannes, provincial of the Franciscans in Hungary visisted the papal curia in August 1331 and his primary task was to report the pope about the victory of Charles I over the tatars68. About Johannes’ life there are only a few known details. He was provincial of the Franciscans from approximately 1323 and most possibly he died shortly after his return from Avignon69.
- 70 For a very detailed biography of Csanád of Telegd, see L. Szende, Telegdi Csanád, in M. Beke (ed), (...)
- 71 Csanád is mentioned as provost of Várad, 5 February 1318: MNL DL 50 658.
- 72 In 1319 Csanád of Telegd was entitled provost of Várad, secretarius notarius and royal chaplain. MN (...)
- 73 MNL DL 2027.
- 74 ASV RV 98, ep. 572; A. Theiner, Vetera monumenta… cit. n. 3, p. 527-528, no DCCCXVI.
- 75 Charles I had five sons, but only three of them reached adulthood: Louis (1326), Andrew (1327) and (...)
- 76 For other members of the royal entourage see: SRH I, 205.
- 77 Gy. Rácz, Az Anjou-ház és a Szentszék (1301-1387), in I. Zombory (ed.), Magyarország és a Szentszék (...)
15Beyond doubt, the lifepaths of those ambassadors who had been members of the middle clergy in the time of their delegations and later were promoted to high offices of the church are the easiest to reconstruct. Ladislaus of Jánk, the archbishop of Kalocsa has been already mentioned. It has to be emphasized that there were two other one-time ambassadors of Charles I who succeeded to gain the title of archbishop after their diplomatic missions in the Avignon curia. The best documented delegation is that of Csanád (Chanadinus) of Telegd. Fifteen documents were preserved in connection with his visit in the papal court in summer 1320 where he fulfilled both ecclesiastical and diplomatic functions. Csanád of Telegd’s life is quite well-known and well-studied70, as the sources reveal almost every stage of his career which he had begun in the chapter of the cathedral church of Várad. In 1295 he was mentioned as cantor, then he disappeared for a three-year break from the documents. It is widely accepted that in this time Csanád of Teleged studied in Italy. Although he was indeed entitled decretorum doctor later, the attempts of historians to identify at which Italian university he studied have been unsuccessful until now. From the early 1300s, his advancement in the ecclesiastical hierarchy is clearly traceable. In 1306 he was lector of the cathedral of Várad, and a document from 1316 shows that he (still entitled lector) substituted Imre, the bishop of Várad as his appointed vicarius and prothonotarius in a legal case which might give us a hint about Csanád’s growing significance. From 1318 he was the provost of the chapter of Várad71, and one year later he started to be mentioned as capellanus and secretarius notarius regis72. It has to be noted that in two documents dated to 1321 Csanád of Telegd is entitled capellanus papae73, which cannot be independent from the fact that he had visited the papal curia during the previous year. Between 1322 and 1330, he was the bishop of Eger. He reached the peak of his career in 1330 when, strongly supported by the king, he obtained papal confirmation as archbishop of Esztergom, in spite of the fact that the chapter of the cathedral had previously elected another candidate74. This forceful royal intervention in the election was the most distinct manifestation of the royal protection which had started in the time when Csanád of Telegd had held the office of secretarius notarius. The close relationship with the royal family seems to have developed both in the personal and in the political dimensions and made Csanád of Telegd a pillar of Charles I’s reign. He did not only become the godfather of Stephen, the youngest son of Charles I75, but he also accompanied the king on his journey to Naples 133376, on the diplomatic mission which was aimed to unify the Hungarian and Neapolitan branches of the Angevin dynasty. And most importantly, Csanád of Telegd proved his loyalty to the king when the bishops of Hungary sent a letter to the pope complaining about the harms that the arbitrariness of the king had done to the church. The archbishop of Esztergom did not support the unsatisfied high clergy by any means77.
- 78 Tam dilecti filii, Ladislavi, prepositi ecclesie Titulensis, physici et nuntii regis, nuper ad nost (...)
16The third ambassador who succeeded to gain the title of archbishop after his mission in the papal curia was Ladislaus of Kabol, provost of Titel. Just like Csanád of Telegd, Ladislaus held the office comes capelle et secretarius cancellarius regis in autumn 1325 when he was sent to Avignon as representative of Charles I. However, Ladislaus had another additional and very important post at the royal court: he was the personal physician of the king78. Unfortunately, there are a lot of unclear details concerning the beginning of his career and the details of his education, even quite important ones, like where he obtained the title artis medicine scientieque professor. What we can be sure of, is that Ladislaus was promoted to the bishopric of Zagreb in 1326 and in 1343 to the archbishopric of Kalocsa which he held until his death in 1345.
17The data suggest that only a respective minority of the ambassadors of Charles I were seculars: 7 people out of 21, but only 4 of them were entrusted with diplomatic tasks, the remaining three people were most probably accompanying envoys as members of a greater delegation.
Table 2 – Secular envoys.
- 79 A later entry (26 June 1328) in the Vatican Registers indicates that Doncs visited the papal curia (...)
Name | Date of the delegation | Title in the sources |
Benedictus de Geszth | 1304 | nobilis vir, filius comitisBoudo de Gezth |
Doncs | end of 132379 | comes of Zólyom |
Georgius | 1324-1325, 1327 | civis Budensis |
Taphan de Harazti | 1332 | nobilis vir |
Gedeth de Hetes | 1332 | nobilis vir |
Stephanus, son of Dionysius | 1332 | miles Strigoniensis |
Humbert of Cholay | 1332 | comes, nuntius dalphini Viennensi, miles |
- 80 MNL DL 260317.
- 81 24 November 1323: A. Theiner, Vetera monumenta… cit. n. 3, p. 494, no DCCLIV. Similarly to the othe (...)
- 82 For the life and career of Doncs, comes of Zólyom see E. Csukovits, Az Anjouk Magyarországon… cit. (...)
18Not surprisingly, those non-clerical ambassadors who led a certain delegation, or who had been commissioned to hand over royal letters to the pope belonged to the upper social strata and had considerable experience with diplomatic matters. Benedictus who visited the papal curia in the beginning of Charles I’s reign is described as filius comitis Boudo de Gezth, and was well rewarded in 1304 for the negotiations which he had carried out not only with the pope, but with Albert, the Holy Roman emperor and with Charles II of Naples as well80. The envoy with the highest rank was nonetheless Doncs, entitled comes of Zólyom in the registers81. Doncs was a very significant figure of Charles I’s reign, although initially he had supported one of the fiersest enemies of the Angevin pretender, Máté Csák, the oligarch who had controlled the northern part of the country. After Doncs changed side, he was able to use the king’s gratitude for acquiring lands and building a remarkable career. Due to the fact that he governed several comitates, often simultaneously, his life can be well reconstructed from the sources: he did not only participate in the inner polictics of Charles I, but he also accompanied the king important diplomatic journeys, e.g. to Naples and in the military campaing against Wallachia82.
- 83 17 June 1332: ASV RV 116, fol. 277 ep. 1296, and 10 June 1332: ASV RV 116, fol. 274v ep. 1279.
19Humbert of Cholay miles might a little bit more peculiar than the others in the sense that he was originally the nuntius of Humbert II, son of John dauphin of Viennois (1306-1318). Humbert’s mother, Beatrix was one of the sisters of Charles I. The Hungarian king I entrusted his nephew’s envoy with his own messages to the pope which suggests that even this side of the dynasty was actively involved in the negotiations concerning the Hungarian-Neapolitan marriage83.
- 84 28 January 1325: A. Theiner, Vetera monumenta… cit. n. 3, p. 498-499, no DCCLXIII.
- 85 7 December 1327: A. Theiner, Vetera monumenta… cit. n. 3, p. 519, no DCCC.
20Lastly, there is one person rather mysterious among the secular envoys of Charles I: Georgius civis Budensis who visited the papal curia twice, first at the end of 1324 or in the beginning of 1325,84 and secondly in 132785. The identification of Gergious seems unfortunately quite hopeless, as he was mentioned in the sources without title. Nevertheless, it is an intriguing question why Charles I decided to send a civis to the papal curia, especially to negotiate such an important issue like Georgius’ second visit when he carried royal letters asking for marriage dispensation for the the third son of Charles I, Ladislaus and Anne, the daughter of John of Bohemia.
The cases
21The analysis of the sources has revealed that there were no envoys “specialized” in a certain type of tasks, rather it seems that the ambassadors were commissioned to discuss with the pope issues of divers nature. Considering all the entries in the registers connected to the delegations which have presented in the previous chapter, the cases that they dealt with can be divided to four basic categories:
- Diplomatic issues
- Political cases
- Spiritual life of the royal family
- Private cases of the ambassadors
- 86 Wladislaus had been crowned king of Poland in January 1320. However, Charles I and Elisabeth did no (...)
- 87 ASV RV 70, ep. 965.
- 88 ASV RV 70, ep. 1009.
- 89 1st October 1325: A. Theiner, Vetera monumenta… cit. n. 3, p. 501-502, no DCCLXXII. Unfortunately t (...)
- 90 Fort he document reference number see note 85.
22The first category, the diplomatic one consists of every event of international importance and all requests or negotiations concerning the dynastic policy of the Angevin dynasty of Hungary. Among these cases some affected the royal family personally, for instance the dispensation which Charles I requested from the pope in 1320 to marry Elisabeth, the daughter of the Polish king Wladislaus I (1320-1333)86. It was Csanád of Telegd’s, the future archbishop’s task to negotiate the matter in the papal curia, and his success was marked by two papal letters issued on the 2nd July87, and 2nd August88. Charles I also informed the papal curia about the birth of his third son in 1325 and the messenger was Ladislaus of Kabol, provost of Titel, later archbishop of Kalocsa89. As it has been already mentioned, later this third son of Charles I, Ladislaus was engaged with Anne, the daughter of John of Bohemia90.
- 91 ASV RV 116, fol. 277 ep. 1296.
- 92 G. Wenzel, Magyar diplomácziai… cit. n. 20, p. 195, no 253.
- 93 Pope John XXII sent letters on the 20th July 1320 informing European monarchs (Frederick IV of Habs (...)
- 94 13 September 1325: A. Theiner, Vetera monumenta… cit. n. 3, p. 501, no DCCLXXI.
23Without doubt, the most significant diplomatic issue about which Charles I communicated with the papal court was, as it has been already pointed out, the betrothal of Andrew, younger son of Charles I with Joanna, the eldest granddaughter of Robert I of Naples. Unfortunately it is not possible to give a detailed reconstruction of the exact content of the negotiations between the Hungarian royal envoys and John XXII. However, it seems sure that the pope was well informed from the beginning: Charles I sent ambassadors (Paulus and Gregorius in 1331 and 1332, Johannes in 1331, and Stephanus, Thomas, Chama and the milites in 1332) to the papal curia approximately in the same time when he started the preparations of his journey to Naples, what is more the pope simultaneously kept a busy correspondence about the issue with king Robert I, and possibly with the king of France91. On some occasions, Charles I turned to the papal curia to obtain support in military matters: in 1311 he asked the pope to intervene for the sake of Zadar que est de Regno Ungarie, quam Veneti a multis temporibus elapsis potentialiter occupatam tenerunt92, in 1320 he reported the pope about his victory against Serbia93, and in 1325 he requested the pope to assist the fight of Hungary against the infideles94. Based on the – negative – answer of the pope to the latter incident, it might be suspected that the papal curia insisted on giving exclusively moral support.
- 95 A good example could be Johannes, son of Berke, provost of Székesfehérvár, vicecancellarius aulae r (...)
- 96 ASV RV 70, ep. 968-970, 973–974 and 982 ; A. Theiner, Vetera monumenta… cit. n. 3, p. 470, no DCCXI (...)
24The second group, the political cases comprises the greatest number of documents. Here belong all the requests of the Hungarian monarch which had importance for his inner politics or his church policy, for instance granting benefices for his confidants, obtaining confirmations for bishops or archbishops and clarifying legal issues. As my primary goal was to examine in this paper the career of those people who had visited the papal curia on the behalf of Charles I, I did not extend the research on the lifepaths of those clericals who had been recommended to the pope by the Hungarian king to certain positions, but I believe that it could be the topic of further and intriguing analysis. Especially in the case of those clerics who were allowed to possess multiple benefices at the same time or of whom we know surely that they belonged to the closest environment of the king95. Although political cases were managed in the papal curia by most of the delegations, the greatest number of recorded requests was submitted by Csanád of Telegd in 1320: from the twelve documents which are connected to his visit in Avignon seven can be categorized as political cases96.
- 97 ASV RV 70, ep. 966 ; A. Theiner, Vetera monumenta… cit. n. 3, p. 467, no DCCVIII.
- 98 1st September 1325: ASV RV 79, ep. 2097 ; A. Theiner, Vetera monumenta… cit. n. 3, p. 500-501, no D (...)
- 99 1st September 1325: ASV RV 79, ep. 2096 ; A. Theiner, Vetera monumenta… cit. n. 3, p. 500, no DCCLX (...)
25In a more limited number of occasions, Charles I solicited spiritual privileges from the pope. The three known requests of such nature were handled by Csanád of Telegd (1320) and Ladislaus of Kabol (1325). The pope allowed Charles I to choose his confessor in order to get absolution from the sins which he had committed against the church97, and a very similar request was granted to the king five years later98. In the last case John XXII gave permission to the Hungarian royal couple to eat meat and diary products in the time of feast, si neccessitas99.
- 100 ASV RV 70, ep. 967.
- 101 ASV RV 108, ep. 440; A. Theiner, Vetera monumenta… cit. n. 3, p. 531, no DCCCXXI. The theory that G (...)
26The last group, similarly to the political one, is an umbrella term. All the issues which concerned the ambassadors personally – their status, benefices or spiritual life – can be categorized as private cases of the ambassadors. Obviously many of the royal envoys used the opportunity of being in the papal court to protect their own interests by submitting complaints or supplications. Chama was already mentioned who successfully reclaimed the archdeaconate of Küküllő during his visit in Avignon in 1332, but a lot of other examples could be listed. Csanád of Telegd (1320) requested absolution for the visitors of the altars which had been established by him previously100. However, Gregorius, the son of Georgius of Kapronca (1331 and 1332) seems to be the cleric who used his time in the papal curia the most efficiently, as he did not only obtain the praepositura of Hájszentlőrinc, but possibly he also gained a prebend in the diocese of Zagreb for his brother, Petrus, son of Georgius of Kapronca101.
- 102 ASV RV 112, fol. 78v. ep. 927; A. Theiner, Vetera monumenta… cit. n. 3, p. 494, no DCCLV.
27It has to be emphasised nonetheless that the categorization is flexible. The confirmation of a bishop for example was both political and personal issue. In some rare cases even more categories are intertwined. The best example is perhaps the papal letter dated to the 18th december of 1323 which is political, spiritual and private case at the same time: the pope granted absolution to Doncs, comes of Zólyom from his vow to visit the Holy Sepulchre, because his service was needed in Hungary102.
Conclusions
28At the first sight it might seem challanging to find the guiding priciples of how Charles I had chosen the people who represented him in the papal curia. The list of the delegates shows people from all over the country, from different dioceses and with different lifepaths. However, the analysis of the sources has allowed us to draw some general conclusions.
29First of all, the ambassadors representing Charles I in the papal curia belonged to official and occasional delegations. Most of the envoys were direct representatives of the king, only two cases (Nicolaus in 1310 and Humbert of Cholay in 1332) indicate that Charles I occasionally authorized the delegate of another power to represent his interests. The delegations were charged with managing different sorts of tasks (diplomatic, spiritual, etc.), and some of the envoys used their presence in the papal court to make supplications concerning their own private issues as well.
- 103 As highlighted by L. Koszta, Conclusions drawn from the prosopographic analysis of the canons belon (...)
30Furthermore, it also has to be emphasized that the majority of the ambassadors (14 out of 21) were ecclesiastics, mainly members of the secular clergy. Only four of them were regulars: two Franciscans, one Dominican and a hermit of Saint Augustine. Many of the envoys came from the middle clergy (provosts, archdeacons, etc.). This fact proves the theory noted by Hungarian historians, namely that the tendency to entrust the members of this social stratum with diplomatic tasks because of their education and skills strengthened in the end of the XIIIth – in the beginning of XIVth century103. Despite the continuously growing influence of the middle clergy, the sources confirm that being competent or qualified was not enough, and that loyalty to the crown did not cease to be the key factor in choosing the royal representatives. This is why we find prelates amongst the royal ambassadors who were at the same time diplomats of the king and his candidates for major ecclesiastical benefices in Hungary: an elected archbishop (Ladislaus of Jánk) and elected bishops (Petrus, elected bishop of Bosnia and Paulus, elected bishop of Belgrade) asking for the pope’s confirmation with the support of the king. The conclusion about the importance of loyalty is also supported by the fact that many of the envoys held offices in the royal court (as confessor, comes capelle, secretarius notarius, etc.), meaning that they belonged to the closest circle of the king. The offices in the royal chapel or in the royal chancellery presuppose literarcy and some degree of education, however, the sources provide only in the case of two ambassadors (Csanád of Telegd, Ladislaus of Kabol) some details about their qualifications.
31The group of the secular envoys of Charles I is probably even more heterogeneous than that of the ecclesiastics. Two of the secular delegates belonged to the Hungarian nobility (Doncs, comes of Zólyom and Benedictus of Gezth). Three other Hungarians mentioned by name in the sources were probably members of the entourage of the royal ambassadors, but were personally not charged with diplomatic tasks. The remaining two secular envoys were a commoner who visited the papal curia twice representing the Hungarian king, and the envoy of the dauphin of Vienne who Charles I entrusted with delivering his messages to the pope.
32It would be difficult to assess how strongly the visit of the royal ambassadors in the papal curia influenced their further career. Nevertheless, some of them rendered service in the future both to the Hungarian king and the Holy See (e.g. Ladislaus of Jánk, Gregorius of Kapronca), and several of them (Csanád of Telegd, Ladislaus of Jánk, etc.) turned out to be capable and ambitious clergymen who managed to build successful careers.
Notes
1 The series was called Monumenta Vaticana. The first volume contained the account books of the papal tax collectors. Rationes collectorum pontificiorum in Hungaria: pápai tized-szedők számadásai: 1281-1375, Budapest, 1887 (Monumenta Vaticana historiam regni Hungariae illustrantia. Vatikáni magyar okirattár, 1.1.). The document of cardinal Gentilis’ legation was printed in the second tome. Acta legationis Cardinalis Gentilis. Gentilis bibornok magyarországi követségének okiratai: 1307-1311, Budapest, 1885 (Monumenta Vaticana historiam regni Hungariae illustrantia: Vatikáni magyar okirattár, 1.2.). Most recently the edition of the sources preserved in the Vatican Archives (henceforth ASV) and connected to Hungarian history has been continued in another series. The ninth and tenth volumes published also XIVth-century documents of the Apostolic Camera. Cameralia Documenta Pontificia de Regnis Sacrae Coronae Hungariae, I-II, Budapest-Rome,2014 (Collectanae Vaticana Hunmgariae, 9-10).
2 Among the envoys presented in this article there were two such procurators: Nicolaus dictus Finta and Johannes, cantor of Vác. For the reference to the sources see notes 26 and 27 below.
3 2nd July 1320: A. Theiner, Vetera monumenta historica Hungariam sacram illustrantia, I. Rome, 1859, p. 467-468.
4 Not all, but the most important items in the registers which concerned Hungarian history were published by A. Theiner, Ibid., and of course, the short extracts of the document see O.S.B. (ed.) Regestum Clementis papae V… 10 vol., Roma, 1885-1892; G. Mollat (ed.), Lettres communes de Jean XXII (1316-1334), 16 vol., Paris, 1904-1947, and J.-M. Vidal (ed.), Lettres communes de Benoît XII (1334-1342), 3 vol., Paris, 1903-1911.
5 A particularly Hungarian type of offices which had approximately the same functions like the public notaries. Usually monasteries and chapters had the right to work as loca credibilia. G. Kiss, La culture juridique des clercs dans le royaume de Hongrie sous les rois angevins au XIVe siècle. Judical Culture of Clerics in the Medieval Hungarian Kingdom under the Angevin Kings (XIVth Century), in Belvedere Meridionale. History and Social sciences, 27, 2015, p. 26-27.
6 P. Engel, Magyarország világi archontológiája I., Budapest,1996, p. 89.
7 Hungarian National Archives (henceforth MNL) DL 43386.
8 P. Engel, Magyarország… cit. n. 6, p. 90.
9 See the edition oft he document in Történelmi Tár, 1898, p. 385˗386.
10 Anjou 1331. p. 14. (nr. 16.): a document from January 1331 reports about the resignation of the former provost.
11 V. Bunyitay, A váradi püspökség története az alapítástól a jelenkorig II: káptalanok, monostorok, Nagyvárad, 1883, p. 41.
12 P. Engel, Magyarország… cit. n. 6, p. 65.
13 Paulus is entitled by the papal letter capellanus regis on 15 february 1331: ASV Instr. Misc. 1172 és 1173. A document from March 1332 mentions him as the he is the secretary of the Hungarian king: ASV RV 103, ep. 1388; A. Theiner, Vetera monumenta… cit. n. 3, p. 549-550. no CCCLVII.
14 A. Theiner, Vetera monumenta… cit. n. 3, p. 544-545, no DCCCXLV.
15 Earlier Hungarian historiography assumed that the date of Petrus’ confirmation was the 15th of July: J. Udvardy, A kalocsai érsekek életrajza (1000–1526), Köln, 1991, p. 190. However, the papal bulla was dated to V nonas Iulii: ASV RV 66, ep. 3542; A. Theiner, Vetera monumenta… cit. n. 3, p. 458-459, no DCXCII.
16 The papal bulla is dated to the 15th of August and it details the consecration. ASV RV 66, ep. 3481. A. Theiner, Vetera monumenta… cit. n. 3, p. 459-460, no DCXIV.
17 27 September 1322: ASV RV 74, ep. 83. A. Theiner, Vetera monumenta… cit. n. 3, p. 481, no DCCXXXVI.
18 ASV RV 84, ep. 2122.
19 J. Udvardy, A kalocsai érsekek… cit. n. 15, p. 195-197. V. Fraknói, Magyarország egyházi és politikai összeköttetései a római Szentszékkel, I, Budapest, 1901, p. 147.
20 In January 1309 the royal chancellery of Naples assigned him a handsome sum of money for his costs. G. Wenzel, Magyar diplomácziai emlékek az Anjou-korból, I., Budeapest, 1874, p. 186, no 241.
21 He arrived to Zagreb in September 1308.
22 G. Wenzel, Magyar diplomácziai emlékek… cit. n. 20, p. 195-196.
23 Vilmos Fraknói’s three-volume book on the relationship of the Hungarian kingdom with the papacy was written in the beginning of the XXth century. The fisrt volume which contains the data on Hungary’s Angevin period is still considered as the fundamental piece of historiography on this topic. For the book’s details see n. 18.
24 V. Fraknói, Magyarország egyházi… cit. n. 18, p. 402-403.
25 B. A. Krčelić, Historiarum cathedralis ecclesiae Zagrabiensis, Zagreb ca., 1760, p. 102.
26 A. Theiner, Vetera monumenta… cit. n. 3, p. 822-823, no MCCLVIII.
27 1th August 1313: ASV RV 60, fol. 187v ep. 581 ; A. Theiner, Vetera monumenta… cit. n. 3, p. 443-444, no DCLXXIX.
28 V. Fraknói, Magyarország egyházi… cit. n. 18, p. 154-158.
29 Today Oradea (RO).
30 Today Becsehely (HU).
31 Történelmi Tár, 1898. p. 385-386, no II.
32 ASV RV 103, ep. 1388; A. Theiner, Vetera monumenta… cit. n. 3, p. 549-550, no CCCLVII (vii id mart an. xvi) and p. 553-554, february no DCCCLXV.
33 The bulla is dated to 1331. ASV RV 98, ep. 823 (and its copy MNL DF 291549).
34 Read like Chesluk in the edition of Anjou-kori oklevéltár XV. 1331. p. 37. no 64.
35 MNL DF 236419.
36 This village still exist with unchanged name.
37 B. Romhányi, Ágostonrendi remeték a középkori Magyarországon, in Aetas, 20/4, 2005, p. 99-100.
38 A. Theiner, Vetera monumenta… cit. n. 3, p. 591. no DCCCLXXVII.
39 The bishopric was mentioned to be vacant in January 1341 (MNL DF 278114) and the second Paulus followed his predecessor only in 1346. K. Eubel, Hierarchia catholica medii aevi, I, Münster, 1898, p. 355.
40 In the documents it occurs with alternate spelling in the forms of Caproncha, Copruncha and Kopruncha. Today Koprivnica (CR).
41 6 January 1331: ASV RV 98, ep. 533.
42 A. Theiner, Vetera monumenta… cit. n. 3, p. 551-552, no DCCCLXI.
43 If he had indeed been in the curia in the beginning of 1331, he must have had returned to Hungary, just like Paulus did, as document issued by the chapter of Hájszentlőrinc mentions Gregorius as provost in 1331 (unfortunately without month and day). MNL DL 76443.
44 ASV RV 98, ep 533. The same day pope John XXII promoted Jacob Jacques of Piacenza, former provost of Hájszentlőrinc to the praepositura of Pozsony (Bratislava). ASV RV 98, ep. 443.
45 ASV RV 98, ep. 999; Theiner, Vetera monumenta… cit. n. 3, p. 533. no DCCCXXV.
46 Today Čazma (CR). For the history of the chapter of Hájszentlőrinc in the XIVth century, see G. Thoroczkay, A messziről jot királyné prépostsága. A hájszentlőrinci prépostság korai története (1342-ig), in A. Bárány, G. Dreska, K. Szovák (eds.), Arcana tabularii I. Tanulmányok Solymosi László tiszteletére, Budapest-Debrecen, 2014, esp. p. 331-332.
47 20 July 1332: ASV RV 102, ep. 1244.
48 25 April 1332: ASV RV 102, ep. 1051.
49 He was bishop of Csanád until his death in 1350. K. Juhász, A csanádi püspökség története (1307-1386), Makó, 1946. p. 57-74.
50 14 April 1338: ASV RV 126, n. 83 (and its copy MNL DF 291 720).
51 MNL DF 230363.
52 1st September 1339: G. Wenzel, Magyar diplomácziai emlékek… cit. n. 20, p. 374-379.
53 K. Juhász, A csanádi püspökség… cit. n. 47, p. 57-74.
54 A. Theiner, Vetera monumenta… cit. n. 3, p. 552, n° DCCCLXII.
55 ASV RV 101, fol. 270v ep. 766.
56 ASV RV 101, fol. 271v, ep. 773.
57 ASV RV 101, fol. 270v ep. 767.
58 ASV RV 101, fol. 270v ep. 765.
59 ASV RV 101, fol. 270v ep. 768 ; A. Theiner, Vetera monumenta… cit. n. 3, p. 545 no DCCCXLVII.
60 ASV RV 103, ep. 1528.
61 ASV RV 101, ep. 895.
62 1316: MNL DL 29111.
63 Chama was recommed for this benefice by Charles I. He had held benefices in the dioceses of Várad, Pécs, Győr, Esztergom, Veszprém and Zagreb. 8 December 1321: ASV RV 73, fol. 129r-v ep. 346.
64 7 July 1324: A. Theiner, Vetera monumenta… cit. n. 3, p. 496, no DCCLVIII.
65 6 October 1322: ASV RV 74, ep. 58; A. Theiner, Vetera monumenta… cit. n. 3, p. 482-483, no DCCXXXVII.
66 In the account box of the papal tax collectors from 1335 he was entitled archdeacon of Küküllő as well. Rationes collectorum… cit. n. 1., p. 135 and 142.
67 The papal tax collectors’ account book reports that the archdiaconate is vacant. 1341 (20 February) ASV Collect. 180, fol. 75-77.
68 MNL DF 291665 ; A. Theiner, Vetera monumenta… cit. n. 3, p. 544-545. no DCCXLV.
69 F. Karácsonyi, Szt Ferenc rendjének története Magyarországon 1711-ig,Budapest, 1922, p. 34-36.
70 For a very detailed biography of Csanád of Telegd, see L. Szende, Telegdi Csanád, in M. Beke (ed), Esztergomi érsekek, Budapest, 2003, p. 161-171.
71 Csanád is mentioned as provost of Várad, 5 February 1318: MNL DL 50 658.
72 In 1319 Csanád of Telegd was entitled provost of Várad, secretarius notarius and royal chaplain. MNL DL 322.
73 MNL DL 2027.
74 ASV RV 98, ep. 572; A. Theiner, Vetera monumenta… cit. n. 3, p. 527-528, no DCCCXVI.
75 Charles I had five sons, but only three of them reached adulthood: Louis (1326), Andrew (1327) and Stephen (1332). E. Csukovits, Az Anjouk Magyarországon I. Károly és uralkodása (1301-1324), Budapest, 2012, p. 129.
76 For other members of the royal entourage see: SRH I, 205.
77 Gy. Rácz, Az Anjou-ház és a Szentszék (1301-1387), in I. Zombory (ed.), Magyarország és a Szentszék kapcsolatának ezer éve, Budapest, 1996, p. 64-65.
78 Tam dilecti filii, Ladislavi, prepositi ecclesie Titulensis, physici et nuntii regis, nuper ad nostram presenciam venientis… A. Theiner, Vetera monumenta… cit. n. 3, p. 501, n° DCCLXXI.
79 A later entry (26 June 1328) in the Vatican Registers indicates that Doncs visited the papal curia a second time. However, there is no proof that in this case Doncs represented the Hungarian king. For the document, see ASV RV vol. 87, ep. 2269 (MNL DL 291492).
80 MNL DL 260317.
81 24 November 1323: A. Theiner, Vetera monumenta… cit. n. 3, p. 494, no DCCLIV. Similarly to the other delegations, the exact time of departure and arrival of Doncs to the papal curia is unknow, but in his case are able to make a closer estimate: in April 1323, he was one of the barons who signed Charles I’s treaty with the Habsburg princes (8 April 1323: MNL DF 257970). This means that he left Hungary vaguely between April and August 1323.
82 For the life and career of Doncs, comes of Zólyom see E. Csukovits, Az Anjouk Magyarországon… cit. n. 76, p. 91, and L. Zolnay, Donch mester és a Balassák ősei, in Turul, 1937, p. 31-39.
83 17 June 1332: ASV RV 116, fol. 277 ep. 1296, and 10 June 1332: ASV RV 116, fol. 274v ep. 1279.
84 28 January 1325: A. Theiner, Vetera monumenta… cit. n. 3, p. 498-499, no DCCLXIII.
85 7 December 1327: A. Theiner, Vetera monumenta… cit. n. 3, p. 519, no DCCC.
86 Wladislaus had been crowned king of Poland in January 1320. However, Charles I and Elisabeth did not wait for the pope’s answer, they married in June 1320 before the royal ambassador could have returned from Avignon. E. Csukovits, Az Anjouk Magyarországon… cit. n. 76, p. 128.
87 ASV RV 70, ep. 965.
88 ASV RV 70, ep. 1009.
89 1st October 1325: A. Theiner, Vetera monumenta… cit. n. 3, p. 501-502, no DCCLXXII. Unfortunately the third son of Charles I died as an infant.
90 Fort he document reference number see note 85.
91 ASV RV 116, fol. 277 ep. 1296.
92 G. Wenzel, Magyar diplomácziai… cit. n. 20, p. 195, no 253.
93 Pope John XXII sent letters on the 20th July 1320 informing European monarchs (Frederick IV of Habsburg, John of Bohemia and Wladislaus I of Poland) about the Hungarian victory: ASV RV 70, ep. 977. Although the letter mentions incorrectly Macedonia, it seems sure that the pope referred to the successful campaign of Charles I against the Serbs and the occupation of Belgrade in autumn of 1319. Gy. Kristó, Az Anjou-kor háborúi, Budapest, 1988, p. 78-79.
94 13 September 1325: A. Theiner, Vetera monumenta… cit. n. 3, p. 501, no DCCLXXI.
95 A good example could be Johannes, son of Berke, provost of Székesfehérvár, vicecancellarius aulae regie who was granted the archdeaconate of Küküllő in the time of the delegation of Ladislaus, electus of Kalocsa and Paulus, bishop of Bosnia (1317). ASV RV 109, fol. 173; A. Theiner, Vetera monumenta… cit. n. 3, p. 456, no DCLXXXIX.
96 ASV RV 70, ep. 968-970, 973–974 and 982 ; A. Theiner, Vetera monumenta… cit. n. 3, p. 470, no DCCXIII.
97 ASV RV 70, ep. 966 ; A. Theiner, Vetera monumenta… cit. n. 3, p. 467, no DCCVIII.
98 1st September 1325: ASV RV 79, ep. 2097 ; A. Theiner, Vetera monumenta… cit. n. 3, p. 500-501, no DCLXX.
99 1st September 1325: ASV RV 79, ep. 2096 ; A. Theiner, Vetera monumenta… cit. n. 3, p. 500, no DCCLXIX.
100 ASV RV 70, ep. 967.
101 ASV RV 108, ep. 440; A. Theiner, Vetera monumenta… cit. n. 3, p. 531, no DCCCXXI. The theory that Gregorius and Petrus were brothers is also confirmed by the fact that a Petrus is mentioned in the accounts of the papal tax collectors concerning the diocese of Zagreb as frater Gregorii praepositi (1333, 1334). Rationes collectorum… cit. n. 1, p. 164, 169-170.
102 ASV RV 112, fol. 78v. ep. 927; A. Theiner, Vetera monumenta… cit. n. 3, p. 494, no DCCLV.
103 As highlighted by L. Koszta, Conclusions drawn from the prosopographic analysis of the canons belonging to the cathedral chapters in Hungary (1200-1350), in Carrieras ecclesiásticas no Ocidente Cristão (séc. XII-XIV), Lisboa, 2007, p. 15-28.
Le texte et les autres éléments (illustrations, fichiers annexes importés) sont sous Licence OpenEdition Books, sauf mention contraire.