Version classiqueVersion mobile
OpenEdition Books

Des chartes aux constitutions

 | 
François Foronda
, 
Jean-Philippe Genet

Partie I. Généalogies constitutionnelles

The Golden Bull of Andrew II

Attila Zsoldos

Texte intégral

  • 1 For the most important editions of the Golden Bull see H. Marczali (ed.), Enchiridion fontium histo (...)
  • 2 J. Karácsonyi, Az aranybulla keletkezése és első sorsa [The Origin of the Golden Bull and its First (...)
  • 3 L. Erdélyi, “Anonymus korának társadalmi viszonyai” [“The Social Circumstances of Age of Anonymus”] (...)

1The Golden Bull – meaning the decree included in the privilege that Andrew II (1205-1235), King of Hungary, issued in 12221 – is thought to have been issued before the end of May 1222, and it is a widely held belief that it was issued because the political movement sparked by the opponents of the politics of Andrew II forced the ruler to do so. The works of János Karácsonyi and László Erdélyi serve as the basis of our present knowledge of the topic. Karácsonyi’s findings about the political history and political developments of 12222 are still fundamental. Erdélyi’s main contribution to the topic was breaking with the tradition of identifying the “servientes” mentioned in the Golden Bull as a part of the lower nobility; he realized that the royal servientes are a separate social group of 13th-century Hungarian society that can be and should be distinguished from the nobility of the era. He also recognized the servientes as the mass support of the movement that forced the issue of the Golden Bull3.

  • 4 LMKH, p. 37: anno verbi incarnati millesimo ducentesimo vicesimo secundo […] regni nostri anno deci (...)
  • 5 “Chronici Hungarici compositio saeculi XIV”, c. 173, in Scriptores rerum Hungaricarum tempore ducum (...)
  • 6 “Chronici Hungarici compositio saeculi XIV”, op. cit., c. 174 (SRH, vol. 1, p. 464).
  • 7 J. Karácsonyi, Az aranybulla keletkezése…, op. cit., pp. 6, 13-17.

2It is of vital importance that we attempt to place the exact date of issue of the Golden Bull within the eventful year of 1222 as accurately as possible. The task is rendered more difficult by the fact that the charter that includes the decree doesn’t have a proper date; the dating only says that it was issued “in the year of the Incarnation of the Word one thousand two hundred twenty-two […] in the seventeenth year of our reign4”. The regnal year mentioned was the starting point of Karácsonyi’s argumentation. Karácsonyi established that during the course of his three-decade reign Andrew II changed the practice of counting his regnal years several times. At the beginning of his reign he counted his regnal years from 1205, but it cannot be determined whether 7 May – the date of the death of his predecessor, Ladislaus III (1204-1205)5 – or 29 May – his own coronation day6 – was considered the beginning of his reign. However, this custom changed by 1218: since then, a day in 1204 was considered to be the starting point for counting his regnal years. Karácsonyi presented compelling arguments for placing the day between 19 January and 1 May 1204, and he may also be right about calculating a day that falls in the middle of this period of time, around 15 March7.

  • 8 Ibid., pp. 27-28.

3According to the new counting practice that had been in force since 1218, the Golden Bull should be dated to the king’s 18th or 19th regnal year, but in fact it is dated to his 17th regnal year, following the old, pre-1218 counting practice. It is reasonable to conclude that in 1222 Andrew II changed the practice of counting his regnal years again, and returned to the pre-1218 practice; therefore the Golden Bull must have been issued before either 7 May 1222 or 29 May 1222. Karácsonyi believed that an assembly held before either one of these dates may have been an appropriate occasion for issuing the Golden Bull, and he reckoned that this assembly may have been held around Saint George’s Day, which falls on 24 April in Hungary8.

  • 9 LMKH, p. 37.
  • 10 1229: L. Erdélyi, P. Sörös (eds.), A pannonhalmi Szent-Benedek-rend története [The History of the B (...)
  • 11 1204: Urkundenbuch zur Geschichte der Deutschen in Siebenbürgen, ed. by F. Zimmermann et al., Herma (...)
  • 12 1221: CDES, vol. 1, p. 196.
  • 13 3 June 1222: Vetera monumenta historica Hungariam sacram illustrantia. Maximam partem nondum edita (...)
  • 14 Cf. J. Karácsonyi, Az aranybulla keletkezése…, op. cit., p. 16.

4The correctness of Karácsonyi’s dating can be proven. By 1222 it had been customary to list the names of the kingdom’s prelates – the two archbishops and the bishops – as well as the names of the most important lay dignitaries in the datings of privileges for several decades. This list of dignitaries is included in the Golden Bull as well; however, it is unusual that only the prelates are named in it, whereas the lay dignitaries are unmentioned9. The exclusion of the lay dignitaries is fully worthy of attention (it will be discussed later); however, the list of prelates alone provides us with sufficient information regarding the exact date of issue. The list of dignitaries only includes ten prelates. The bishop of Nitra is missing, but this is not surprising since the bishop of Nitra rarely appears in such lists – during the reign of Andrew II the bishop of Nitra is only listed on three occasions10. More interesting is the fact that the bishop of Transylvania is also excluded from the list, although he regularly appears in such lists of dignitaries. The reason why the name of the bishop of Transylvania is not in the list of dignitaries is rather simple: Vilmos, who had held this office since 120411, died in 1221, and it was known that his office was vacant since then12. Rajnald, provost of Várad (today: Oradea in Romania), who was chosen as Vilmos’s successor, was confirmed in his office by Pope Honorius III on 3 June 122213. A month and a half could well have passed before the news of the election reached Honorius III and before the pope made his decision14. Thus the conclusion is that the Golden Bull, which was issued before the election of Rajnald, cannot have been issued later than the middle of April 1222.

  • 15 A. Zsoldos, Magyarország világi archontológiája 1000-1301 [The Secular Archontology of the Hungaria (...)
  • 16 UGDS, vol. 1, p. 20. The doubts about the authenticity of the charter (cf. Regesta regum stirpis Ar (...)
  • 17 J. Karácsonyi, Az aranybulla keletkezése…, op. cit., pp. 19-25.

5Karácsonyi, having realised that the practice of counting the regnal years of Andrew II changed, rightly supposed that there was a good reason for it. Indeed, the other royal charter of 1222 that, like the Golden Bull, is dated to the 17th regnal year of Andrew II, does not only include in its list of dignitaries the names of the two archbishops and the bishops, but several lay dignitaries as well. This list of dignitaries demonstrates that the royal council had undergone a radical change in 1222: whereas earlier Miklós, son of Barc of the Szák kindred was the palatine, Bánk was the judge royal (comes curialis), Dénes, the magister tavarnicorum, was the ispán (comes) of Bács, Smaragd was the ispán of Pozsony and Buzád the ispán of Bihar15, in the royal charter of 1222 (dated to the 17th regnal year like the Golden Bull) Tódor, son of Vejte, was the palatine, Pósa, son of Nána, was the comes curialis, Miklós was the ispán of Bács, Tiborc the ispán of Pozsony and Illés the ispán of Bihar16. Karácsonyi identified the new dignitaries with the noblemen who forced their king to issue the Golden Bull. By analysing the data available about their careers, he came to the conclusion which is still valid today: these noblemen had been the confidants of the brother of Andrew II, King Emeric (1196-1204). This explains why King Andrew had to go back to his pre-1218 practice of counting regnal years thus giving up the new practice he introduced in 1218, which disregarded the last months of Emeric’s reign as well as the entire reign of Emeric’s son, Ladislaus III (1204-1205)17.

  • 18 A. Zsoldos, Magyarország világi archontológiája…, op. cit., pp. 169, 217.

6Examining the later careers of Emeric former adherents is illuminating. We only have reliable data about the career of Tódor, son of Vejte, who was raised to the office of palatine and therefore, could rightly be considered as the leader of the group: surely he must have been the same Tódor who in 1225 was the ispán of Moson, and in 1232 the ispán of Újvár18. The first of these two data is especially significant, because it appears in the list of dignitaries of a charter issued by the eldest son of Andrew II, Prince Béla – the future King Béla IV of Hungary (1235-1270) –, doubtless because Tódor was a dignitary of the prince. It may seem striking that the leader of the discontent noblemen who opposed the government of Andrew II in 1222 should be associated with the crown prince; however, this is not the only evidence that connects Prince Béla to the political events leading to the issue of the Golden Bull.

7A seldom mentioned article of the Golden Bull provides that

  • 19 The Golden Bull of 1222, c. 18: servientes accepta licentia a nobis possint libere ire ad filium no (...)

servientes who have received permission shall be free to go from us to our son, or from the older to the younger, without their possessions being wasted. We shall not receive any one whom our son has condemned legally or whose case has been opened before him until it shall be concluded in his court, and our son shall do likewise19.

  • 20 1262: Monumenta ecclesiae Strigoniensis, ed. by F. Knauz and L. C. Dedek, Strigonii, Horák, 1874-19 (...)
  • 21 A. Zsoldos, Családi ügy. IV. Béla és István ifjabb király viszálya az 1260-as években [A Family Aff (...)
  • 22 4 July 1222: quia karissimus in Christo filius noster A. Ungarie rex illustris tamquam pius pater a (...)

8These measures are eerily similar to those that appear forty years later in the pacts negotiated during the conflict between King Béla IV and his son, Stephen, junior King of Hungary20, and it is widely known that the latter conflict led to a war21. We know of no armed conflict between Andrew II and Prince Béla – in all likelihood, because there was no such conflict –, however, we do know of serious tensions between the two of them, as the news of their strained relations reached even the Pope. The bull of Honorius III, dated to 4 June 1222, warned the Hungarian prelates that even though King Andrew II crowned his firstborn son, he did not do so with the intention of sharing the rule of his kingdom while he lived, therefore, all those “perverts” eager to sow discord believed they owed allegiance not to King Andrew II, but to his son, were to be punished by ecclesiastical punishment22.

  • 23 1222: cuius [sc. Stephanis episcopi Zagrabiensis] discretione procurante pre ceteris regni primatib (...)

9This makes everything clear. It is self-evident that the papal bull is an answer to the complaint of King Andrew II, and its dating suggests that King lodged a complaint with Honorius III in a letter written in the middle of May or at the end of May, in other words, not long after the issue of the Golden Bull. Indisputedly, King Andrew did not procure the Pope’s intervention by misleading him; after all, Prince Béla himself rewarded István, the bishop of Zágráb (today: Zagreb in Croatia), for his services and his efforts to resolve the conflict between him and his father23. So without the shadow of a doubt, in 1222 King Andrew II and his heir presumptive, Prince Béla came into serious conflict with each other, which spurred the Pope to intervene.

  • 24 See M. Horváth, Magyarország történelme [A History of Hungary], Pest/Budapest, Heckenast/Franklin, (...)

10Knowing that it were the former followers of King Emeric who, before the end of May 1222, forced King Andrew II to appoint them to the principal dignities, and the leader of these noblemen later appears in Prince Béla’s court, and bearing in mind that around the same time, before the end of May 1222, a serious conflict broke out between the king and his firstborn son – the essence of which was that “some perverts” wanted to obey to Prince Béla instead of his father, King Andrew II –, it is easy to infer that the two groups are one and the same, therefore the “perverts” mentioned in Pope Honorius’s bull were Tódor, son of Vejte and his companions. This theory is supported by other arguments as well: it also explains why earlier works of Hungarian historiography about the history of the Golden Bull mention “Béla’s faction” in connection with the political events related to the issue of the decree24.

  • 25 M. Wertner, Az Árpádok családi története [A Family History of the Árpáds], Nagybecskerek, Pleitz, 1 (...)
  • 26 Cf. J. Holub, “Az életkor szerepe középkori jogunkban és az ‘időlátott levelek’” [“The Role of Age (...)

11Nevertheless, it should not be forgotten that in spring 1222 Prince Béla was not yet 16 years old25, thus – even though Béla was considered to have “come of age” in contemporary Hungary26 – it is highly doubtful that a personal conflict between the prince and the king underlay the events. Rather, the underlying cause is more likely to have been an archaic strategy of enforcing one’s interests: essentially, the noblemen who were dissatisfied with the ruler or his policies for some reason tried to force favourable political changes by putting forward a suitable member of the dynasty. In all likelihood this is the reason why the prince’s name completely vanished from the narratives on the origins of the Golden Bull, and the emphasis shifted to the movement of the royal servientes suggested by Erdélyi.

  • 27 P. Váczy, “A királyi serviensek és a patrimoniális királyság” [“The Royal Servientes and Patrimonia (...)
  • 28 E. Mályusz, “A karizmatikus királyság” [“Charismatic Kingship”], in I. Soós (ed.), Klió szolgálatáb (...)
  • 29 I. Bolla, A jogilag egységes jobbágyosztály kialakulása Magyarországon [The Emergence of the Legall (...)

12Owing to the research of Péter Váczy27, Elemér Mályusz28, and above all, Ilona Bolla29, today we know considerably more about the royal servientes than Erdélyi. On the basis of all these, today it is clear that the Latin expression serviens regis (regalis), indicating a particular and easily distinguishable part of society, is itself a product of the first third of the 13th century, i.e. the time of the Golden Bull.

  • 30 1212: ÁÚO, vol. 6, pp. 355-356; for its authenticity see K. Tagányi, “Felelet Erdélyi Lászlónak” [“ (...)
  • 31 1217: ÁÚO, vol. 11, pp. 141-142, and CDCr, vol. 3, pp. 157-159.
  • 32 E. Mályusz, “A karizmatikus királyság”, op. cit., p. 35; I. Bolla, A jogilag egységes jobbágyosztál (...)
  • 33 E. Mályusz, “A karizmatikus királyság”, op. cit., p. 35.
  • 34 I. Bolla, A jogilag egységes jobbágyosztály…, op. cit., p. 64.

13The expression “royal servientes” – consequently, the social group it refers to as well – first appears in an indisputably genuine charter in 121230. Both Mályusz and Bolla rightly drew attention to the fact that only a part of the royal servientes, in fact, in all probability a smaller portion of them, achieved their legal status by being granted privileges individually – the first examples for this are from 121731 –; the majority of the servientes were small freeholders whom the royal power considered to belong to the royal servientes without granting them privileges one by one32. This must have been initiated by the ruler, as Mályusz writes: “it could only have been the king, who rewarded a stratum of society by regarding them and naming them his own servants33”, which means that it was King Andrew II himself who established the stratum of the royal servientes. Essentially, he expanded the contents of the 12th-century royal charters that liberated servants by granting them the status of the free smallholder by recognizing them as royal servientes. Thus the new legal status of the royal servientes was created34, which entitled its holder rights of a status above that of a free smallholder.

  • 35 See 1271: ÁÚO, vol. 8, p. 350. 1273: CD, vol. VII/2, p. 73; ÁÚO, vol. 9, p. 18. 1275: ibid., vol. 4 (...)
  • 36 Cf. A. Zsoldos, “The First Centuries of Hungarian Military Organization”, in L. Veszprémy, B. K. Ki (...)

14It should be observed that one of the differences that distinguishes the legal status of the 13th-century royal servientes from the legal status of the 12th-­century free smallholder concerns warfare. Whereas in the 11th-12th centuries the free landholders fulfilled their military duties in units usually referred to as “county troops” (agmen) in Hungarian historiography, which united soldiers of various legal statuses under the authority of the ispán, our 13th-century sources mention that the right to serve “under the king’s banner” (sub vexillo regio) is one of the privileges of the legal status of a royal servientes35, meaning that the free smallholders – now as royal servientes – are exempt from the military jurisdiction of the ispán, so they can perform their military service separately from the county troops. The obligation to do military service remained unchanged, but its legal framework was fundamentally altered36.

  • 37 A. Zsoldos, “Adalékok a királyi várszervezet udvarispáni tisztségének történetéhez” [“The Origins o (...)
  • 38 The Golden Bull of 1222, c. 5: LMKH, p. 15.

15The second striking and vitally important difference between the rights of the former free smallholders and the royal servientes is along the same lines. The free smallholders were under the jurisdiction of the king’s county judges: first the county judges, then from the beginning of the 12th century the judiciary deputies of the ispáns37. However, the royal servientes were exempt from the ispán’s jurisdiction; this privilege is also codified in the Golden Bull38.

16The creation of the legal status of the royal servientes and the social group holding it, therefore, resulted in – among other things – the considerable and instantaneous decrease in the judiciary authority of the ispáns, which contemporaries could easily detect.

  • 39 1217: MES, vol. 1, pp. 216-217; for its date see RA, vol. I/1, no. 317.

17Hence, the creation of the layer of royal servientes is closely related to the policies of Andrew II called “new institutions” or “new system” (nove instituciones)39. During the 800 years that have passed since, this link has been all but forgotten – partially because of the practice of historiographers which has regarded the king’s policy of donating land as the only noteworthy element of the new system – but the close posterity was aware of it. It is also proven by the work of Rogerius, chronicler of the Mongolian invasion on Hungary in 1241-1242, written in 1243-1244.

  • 40 “Rogerii Carmen Miserabile”, c. 10 (SRH, vol. 2, p. 558). For an English version see Anonymus and M (...)
  • 41 A. Zsoldos, A szent király szabadjai. Fejezetek a várjobbágyság történetéből [The Freemen of the Ho (...)

18In his work, Rogerius pays considerable attention to the issues that on the eve of the Mongolian invasion created great tension between King Béla IV and his subjects. In his list, he mentions the complaints about Béla’s policy of reviewing and invalidating previous grants in third place. Discussing the unfounded nature of these complaints, he wrote that “because of the profligacy of some of his predecessors, their rights over the counties had been diminished to a great extent” (per prodigalitatem quorundem progenitorum suorum iura comitatuum erant […] diminuta), but in relation to the statement of his belief, he does not only mention the land donations, but that “because of the diminution of the counties the ispáns had no men, and when they marched out, they were taken for simple knights” (viros comites non habebant et, cum incedebant, simplices milites propter diminutionem comitatuum putabantur) as well40. The mention of prodigalitas is an obvious reference to the grant policy of Andrew II’s new system, but that diminutio of iura comitatuum, which resulted in the fact that the ispáns at war did not have enough soldiers, could not refer to the land donations, because the soldiers of the ispanates were mainly várjobbágys; and neither Andrew II, nor any other king ever donated várjobbágys or the properties of them – neither in the first third of the 13th century, nor later41 – which the contemporaries, naturally, knew perfectly well. However, the military privilege of the royal servientes, namely the secession of the free landholders from the county troops, significantly reduced the headcounts of the troops, and indeed it cut back on the rights of the ispáns; in turn, the legal status of royal servientes granted by privilege to the royal servants who gained distinction, since it had always involved the donation of the land that was previously used by the privileged person, diminished the estate of the ispanates in the same way as a regular donation of land.

19Rogerius presented the land donations and the creation of the layer of royal servientes as coherent elements of the same policy: the new system of Andrew II, thereby he gave us the key to understanding the new system. After all, the main point of that policy can best be described by an expression of Rogerius: cutting back on the rights of the ispanates (iura comitatuum diminution).

  • 42 To review the events of political history see G. Pauler, A magyar nemzet története az Árpádházi kir (...)

20The dignity of the ispán was, above all, a political office, which under normal circumstances was given to the king’s confidants, who, in possession of the dignities, took part in the meetings of the royal council and advised the king – then executed the decisions of the council. In the ordinary course of events this was indeed the case, but the succession of rulers was an extraordinary event that always brought about several issues, the most sensitive of which was the selection of dignitaries. Even more so, when the royal succession had precedents similar to those in 1205: King Emeric spent most of his reign fighting his brother, Prince Andrew. After the death of Béla III in 1196, Andrew forced his elder brother, King Emeric, to cede the provinces south of the Dráva river to him. A few years later, in another clash, Andrew was defeated, and he had to take refuge from his brother in Austria. The short standstill after the reconciliation of the brothers was yet followed by another conflict, which Emeric ended by imprisoning his brother42.

21One would rightfully expect that after the accession to the throne Andrew granted important dignities to those who had been loyal to him during the years while he was still a duke, and he may also have granted dignities to noblemen who although they had not stood by him, had neither committed themselves to Emeric, whereas those who played a major role in the government of his elder brother, would have been excluded. Yet this is not what was to happen: Andrew II concluded that the governmental experience of Emeric’s former dignitaries was indispensible, and he had to grant dignities to those who were willing to serve him as well. There were great many people like that: between 1205 and 1217, four of the seven palatines in office were former dignitaries of Emeric. The ratio is even bigger if we consider the actual years spent in office during this period of time: for ten years (out of thirteen) they held the dignity of palatine.

  • 43 1217: RA, vol. I/1, p. 105.

22That is the essence and motivation behind the politics of the new system called diminutio iura comitatuum by Rogerius. In the 11th-12th centuries all resources of the ispanate – discounting naturally two thirds of the income which were due to the king – concentrated in the hands of the ispán: one third of the taxes and tolls that came in, as well as the income from the judiciary duties; those who went to war from the county of the ispanate – with the exception of the soldiers of the churches and the privileged ethnic groups – campaigned in his troops. The arrangements of the new system divided these resources: some remained in the ispán’s hands, while others belonged to those who were granted donations and to the royal servientes – irrespective of the fact whether they were free smallholders earlier or achieved the legal status through individual privileges –, but the system’s greatest beneficiary was the king himself, since he could count on the loyalty of the beneficiaries of the donations, as well as the military force of the royal servientes, without the intervention of the ispáns. This was the “general distribution” (generalis distributio)43, not the so-called “irresponsible” donation of royal estates.

  • 44 The same phenomenon, the diminutio iura comitatuum, can be observed in Andrew’s measures related to (...)

23The operability of the archaic system based on the ispanates rested on the assumption that the ispáns were unconditionally loyal to the ruler. If their loyalty was shaken, the result could have been catastrophic, and Andrew granted important dignities to noblemen who had previously served his brother, King Emeric. The noblemen who submitted gained the new king’s favour in the form of dignities, but they did not gain his trust: that could only have been gained by long years of loyal service. But Andrew could not wait years to decide whether he could trust them – after all, he had to start governing the kingdom immediately – so he took his “new measures” to lessen the power of the ispáns that Rogerius called diminutio iura comitatuum44.

  • 45 1221: Urkundenbuch des Burgenlandes und der angrenzenden Gebiete der Komitate Wieselburg, Ödenburg (...)
  • 46 F. Makk, The Árpáds and the Comneni. Political Relations between Hungary and Byzantium in the 12th  (...)
  • 47 1210: CDCr, vol. 3, p. 101.
  • 48 A. Zsoldos, Magyarország világi archontológiája…, op. cit., p. 343.
  • 49 For a more recent account of the history of Queen Gertrudis see W. Schüle, Tod einer Königin: Gertr (...)
  • 50 Cf. L. Veszprémy, “II. András magyar keresztes hadjárata, 1217-1218” [“The Hungarian Crusade of And (...)
  • 51 1219: MES, vol. 1, p. 222.
  • 52 1235: CDES, vol. 2, p. 3.

24Events that occurred during Andrew’s reign proved him right; his reservations about the dignitaries who previously served King Emeric were not entirely unfounded. Although it is true that the loyalty or disloyalty of a particular dignitary may have been influenced by circumstances that we are not fully able to identify today, and it is also true that a number of noblemen who had held significant positions under Emeric, and then went on to become important dignitaries during the reign of Andrew as well, later became the pillar of Andrew’s reign, yet it is also an undeniable fact that when we know the noblemen by name who – in various ways – opposed Andrew II, they all were the former dignitaries of Emeric. Benedek, son of Korlát, the voivode of Transylvania, who had held this position during the reign of Emeric as well, disappeared from the lists of Andrew’s dignitaries in 1209. Years later, it is revealed in a charter dated to 1221 that Andrew banished him, but the source does not mention Andrew’s reason for doing so45. However, since in 1209 a few dignitaries (quidam principes) conspired to put up the sons of Prince Géza – the younger brother of Béla III – who had been exiled to Byzantium by Béla III46 as pretenders and support them against Andrew II47, it is sensible to assume that Benedek, son of Korlát, must have been part of the conspiracy. In 1214 the coronation of Prince Béla was enforced, in which Pat, of the kindred Győr, Emeric’s former ispán of Temes and Moson, probably also played a part. In 1222, the year of the issue of the Golden Bull, it was again the former confidants of Emeric who forced Andrew II to reorganise his royal council, as János Karácsonyi demonstrated. However, it is not justified to include the murder of Queen Gertrudis in 1213 in this list – though the assailant, Péter, son of Töre, also held important dignities during Emeric’s reign48 –, because what we know about the queen supports the theory that her own actions were the source of her assailants’ hatred towards her, and her murder was not some kind of message meant for Andrew II49. It is more relevant whether the unrest in 1217-1218, which was caused in the absence of King Andrew II, who was away fulfilling his father’s oath of crusade, by “numerous powers and noblemen […] who disturbed the peace and ruined Hungary like foes” (quamplurimi potentum et nobilium regni […] pacem perturbantes et Hungariam hostiliter affligentes) fits the pattern. Who they were, we do not know, it is only certain that – contrary to previous opinions – they were not the beneficiaries of the new system, because they were in the Holy Land with the king50. Our only point of reference regarding the issue is that according to our source that relates the events, János the Archbishop of Esztergom who was in charge of governing the country in the absence of the king “chose death, rather than go along with their evil-doing” (eligeret mori magis, quam ipsorum maliciis consentire), so he was driven out of the country, and he could only return home after the king’s return51, which suggests that the trouble-makers tried to involve János in their plans, but he was not willing to do so. Forming an opinion about the issue is rendered more difficult by the fact that we know nothing of these plans. However, the Archbishop of Esztergom had nothing to fear from common evil-doers, even if they formed cliques, so the events suggest an organised political movement, which, it seems, had premonitions. It is unlikely to be a simple coincidence that before leaving for the Holy Land, Andrew sent Prince Béla, the heir presumptive, outside the borders of kingdom, to the castle of Stein in Krajna, placing him under the supervision of his former brother-in-law Bertold, the Archbishop of Kalocsa52. Undoubtedly, the then fresh memory of the murder of Gertrudis must have played a part in his decision to do so.

25All these undertakings of Emeric’s former confidants, in which those who were given important dignities by Andrew also took part regularly, on the one hand might have reinforced Andrew’s belief, that the diminutio iura comi­tatuum, i.e. the introduction of the new system was a good decision, and on the other hand, it could also have made him realise that he needs to take additional steps to disarm his adversaries.

  • 53 1220: UB, vol. 1, p. 77.
  • 54 1221: Regestrum Varadinense examinum ferri candentis ordine chronologico digestum, ed. by J. Karács (...)
  • 55 1220: UB, vol. 1, pp. 77-78.

26In the years since his ascension to the throne, it became clear that Andrew had two types of adversaries. The king himself must have been aware of this as well; since it is clearly discernible that he took measures to make concessions to the demands of one or the other group of adversaries in turns. One group consists of the adversaries of Andrew II; the other is made up of the adversaries of his policies. Andrew’s actions in 1220-1221 regarding the issue of the royal estates served to appease the latter group. As a charter issued in 1220 informs us, the royal council made the decision to take back some of the lands donated earlier53, and according to complementary pieces of data from the following year, this measure was expanded to another group of the royal estates formerly donated54. These measures could not have satisfied the opponents of the previous donation policy, especially since in the only known case where the donated lands had actually been taken back, the king mitigated the loss of the injured party by donating him other estates55.

27The fate of the royal estates left the other group of Andrew’s adversaries unmoved, since they opposed not the king’s policies, but the king himself. This is made explicit by the fact that their first action took place in 1209, when the measures of the new system had just begun, therefore, their effect could not yet have been felt. The known members of this group were Emeric’s former dignitaries who played a role in Andrew’s government as well. They, with surprising regularity – every four or five years –, made efforts to drive the king into a corner. Andrew did not have many means at his disposal to disarm this group, and the ones he tried, did not bring him any luck either.

  • 56 J. Karácsonyi, Az aranybulla keletkezése…, op. cit., p. 19.
  • 57 [Beginning of February 1205:] Die Register Innocenz’ III, ed. by O. Hageneder et al., Vienna, Verl. (...)
  • 58 1204: CD, vol. 2, p. 431.
  • 59 “Chronici Hungarici compositio saeculi XIV”, op. cit., c. 173 (SRH, vol. 1, p. 463).
  • 60 Cf. F. Mátyás, Sz. László és Imre királyok végnapjai és II. Endre életévei, fogsága és temetése [Th (...)
  • 61 J. R. Sweeney, “III. Ince és az esztergomi érsekválasztási vita. A Bone Memorie II. dekretális tört (...)

28As it has been mentioned before, in 1218 Andrew II started to count his regnal years from the spring of 1204. The innovation is hard to interpret: the explanation that had previously come up was that the new date referred to his release from his brother’s, Emeric’s captivity56. It is much more likely that the change in counting his regnal years was related to Emeric’s decision, made in the same year, 1204, to appoint Andrew, in case Emeric should die, governor to his son and heir, Ladislaus III, a minor57. We do not know precisely when this appointment was made; nevertheless, the date of Ladislaus’ coronation suggests that it was unlikely that Emeric took this course of action on his deathbed. Pope Innocent III ordered Ugrin the Archbishop of Esztergom – to fulfil King Emeric’s request – to crown Ladislaus in his bull dated to 24 April 120458, and his bull must have reached Hungary by the end of May. Yet the coronation only took place on 26 August59, even though the pope ordered Ugrin to perform the ceremony without delay. The delay is inexplicable if we assume that Andrew escaped from prison sometime in mid-March – since then it would have been in Emeric’s best interests to crown his son as soon as possible, thereby presenting his younger brother, who might have been planning another rebellion, with a fait accompli –, however, it is easily explained if Andrew did not escape from prison, but he was released by his brother60, because they struck an agreement: in exchange for governorship Andrew accepts Emeric’s son, the child Ladislaus, as his king. In this case, the coronation of Ladislaus – which had been so urgent earlier – could easily be postponed to the holiday of the first Hungarian king, Saint Stephen, a day of great symbolic importance (20 August) – but due to Ugrin’s sudden death, the ceremony could only be held a few days later, on 26 August61. It is unlikely that Andrew II would have wanted to commemorate his release when he chose the new starting point of his reign – after all, that would have referred to his imprisonment as well. It could not have been such a fond memory for him that he would have liked to recall it in every privilege – rather, he wanted to commemorate his appointment as governor. Andrew might have thought in 1218 that emphasising his appointment as governor was a good way of appeasing Emeric’s former allies, because it demonstrated that the throne was not only his due to the laws of succession, but because of Emeric’s decision, too; so even those who sided with his brother during their conflict, had neither the reason, nor the right to rebel against him then. However, what in Andrew’s point of view was a rational reconciliatory step, the former allies of Emeric viewed as deliberate provocation, so the measure had a contrary effect to what Andrew originally intended to achieve.

29According to the currently widely accepted notion, we should include the royal servientes on the list of Andrew II’s adversaries as well, but reasons that support this theory are hard to find. The group of royal servientes was created by the policy of the new system, which in itself does not exclude the possibility that in time the servientes would turn on the ruler. It is more interesting that our sources mention no trace of any discontent on the part of the royal ­servientes that could have set them against Andrew. Therefore, it is not surprising that the only argument for the idea that the royal servientes might have joined the adversaries of Andrew II is the Golden Bull itself: since Erdélyi it has become customary to reason that the majority of the Golden Bull is concerned with the rights of the royal servientes, and – as we all know – the issue of the Golden Bull was enforced by Andrew II’s “opposition”.

30But is this reasoning indeed correct?

  • 62 The Golden Bull of 1222, c. 16: integros comitatus vel dignitates quascumque in predia seu possessi (...)
  • 63 The Golden Bull of 1222, c. 17: possessiones etiam quas quis iusto servitio obtinuerit, aliquo temp (...)
  • 64 A. Zsoldos, “Örökös ispánságok az Árpád-korban” [“Hereditary Ispanates in the Árpádian Age”], in M. (...)
  • 65 1263: UB, vol. 1, p. 293.
  • 66 Cf. J. Stessel, “Locsmánd vár és tartománya” [“The Castle and Province of Locsmánd”], Századok, 34, (...)
  • 67 For the quoted expression see: 1229: CD, vol. III/2, p. 194; ibid., vol. VII/1, p. 220; MES, vol. 1 (...)
  • 68 The Golden Bull of 1222, c. 23: denarii tales sint, quales fuerunt tempore regis Bele (LMKH, p. 36)
  • 69 B. Hóman, Magyar pénztörténet 1000-1325 [Hungarian Monetary History 1000-1325], Budapest, Magyar Tu (...)
  • 70 The Golden Bull of 1222, c. 23: nova moneta nostra per annum observetur a Pascha usque ad Pascha (L (...)
  • 71 B. Hóman, Magyar pénztörténet 1000-1325, op. cit., p. 304.
  • 72 The Golden Bull of 1222, c. 24: comites camere, monetarii, salinarii et tributarii nobiles regni, I (...)
  • 73 [1239:] VMHH, vol. 1, p. 173. For a summary of the employment of Jews as comites camerae in the Árp (...)
  • 74 The Golden Bull of 1222, c. 30: preter hos quatuor iobagiones, scilicet palatinum, banum, et curial (...)
  • 75 A. Zsoldos, Magyarország világi archontológiája…, op. cit., passim.

31It is remarkable that the pivotal point of the history of the origin of the Golden Bull, namely, that Andrew II only issued the decree because he was under political pressure to do so, is largely unfounded, especially since the notion is so wide-spread. To support this theory, various content- and form-related elements of the Golden Bull are usually brought up, as well as the bull of Honorius III dated to 15 December 1222. I shall dedicate some time to analyse the latter, but let us first examine the Golden Bull itself. Based on the findings of Karácsonyi and Erdélyi, a new theory emerged, which identifies the force that compelled Andrew II to issue the Golden Bull with an ad hoc alliance between Emeric’s former dignitaries and the royal servientes, and in contrast with former works of Hungarian historiography, does not search for one single general guiding principle in the Golden Bull, but presents its provisions as a measure that is in the best interests of one or the other group. This solution undeniably gives an explanation for the complexity of the Golden Bull’s provisions, but it leaves several important questions that are raised – or rather should be raised – when analysing the contents of the Golden Bull unanswered. How can the Golden Bull prohibit the hereditary donation of ispanates and dignities62 while it provides that estates obtained by honourable service cannot be taken back from the beneficiaries63? The popular explanation that the former provision is against the land policy of the new system is highly doubtful, since the donation of entire ispanates is not characteristic of the new system64, and we have no data at all regarding the hereditary donation of dignities. There is evidence of only one ispanate to have been donated by Andrew II to a lay person65, but we do not know when it actually happened, and in reality, the event is merely dated to around 122066 to have at least one example that justifies the appearance of that particular provision in the text of the Golden Bull. If the Golden Bull reflects the intentions of those who opposed the land donations of the king, they were not very successful in prescribing the text of the decree; after all, the latter provision mentioned above prevents the taking back previous donations: since obviously it is the king who determines what counts as “honourable service”; similarly, when donations were taken back, it was Prince Béla who decided which of his father’s donations counted as inutiles et superfluas donaciones67. How is it possible that the Golden Bull provides that coins should be as they were in the time of King Béla68 when Béla’s coins were of much worse quality than those coined by Andrew II69? How is it possible that the Golden Bull allowed for the yearly issue of coins70 when Andrew’s coinage does not support the assumption that before the Golden Bull he used to issue new coins more than once a year71? How is it possible that the Golden Bull would entrust the office of comes camerae to the noblemen of the kingdom instead of Jewish or Ismaelite businessmen72 if this provision is so absurd that only four years after his father’s death Béla IV had no choice but to ask Pope Gregory IX for special dispensation from the ecclesiastical regulation that prohibits such employment of non-Christians73? How is it possible that the Golden Bull only allows the palatine, the king’s and the queen’s comes curialis and the ban of the southern provinces – Slavonia and Croatia – hold more than one dignity at once74, if the archontological data show that Andrew II’s governmental system was not characterised by the excessive accumulation of dignities75?

32All these questions can be answered without any difficulty, if we abandon the 150-year-old historiographical tradition of assuming that the opponents of Andrew II’s policies forced the king to issue the Golden Bull and instead we try to interpret the decree as a document that reflects the king’s own ideas. The result will be a Golden Bull – free from the above contradictions – which was issued because the king wanted to appease the group of noblemen led by Tódor, son of Vejte without having to surrender important elements of the policies of the new system.

  • 76 The Golden Bull of 1222, c. 12: LMKH, p. 35.
  • 77 The Golden Bull of 1222, cc. 13, 14, 15: ibid.
  • 78 The Golden Bull of 1222, cc. 5, 6, 8, 9, 28: ibid., pp. 35, 36.
  • 79 1217: RA, vol. I/1, p. 105.
  • 80 The Golden Bull of 1222, c. 11: si hospites, videlicet boni homines ad regnum venerint, sine consil (...)
  • 81 The Golden Bull of 1222, c. 26: possessiones extra regnum non conferantur, si alique sunt collate v (...)
  • 82 The Golden Bull of 1222, c. 31: statuimus etiam, quod si nos vel aliquis successorum nostrorum aliq (...)
  • 83 The Golden Bull of 1222, c. 4: ibid., p. 34.
  • 84 Cf. P. Engel, The Realm of St Stephen. A History of Medieval Hungary, 895-1526, trans. by T. Pálosf (...)
  • 85 1351: litteras […] domini Andree regis […] aurea bulla sua roboratas […] de verbo ad verbum present (...)

33Several articles of the Golden Bull, for example the ones about the protection of widows76, the prohibition of the misuse of their power by greater and lesser dignitaries77, various judiciary issues78 are all politically neutral; they settle grievances and regulate issues that were always topical in the life of a country in the Middle Ages. However, all the politically charged provisions fit nicely into the policies of the new system, even those that are usually explained as the renunciation of the new system. The protection of the lands obtained by honourable services gives a free hand to the king to continue his donation policy, without having to be afraid that “the general distribution which takes place in the country will revert to its previous state” (generalis in nostro regno facta distributio ad priorem statum redeat)79. That the decree includes the prohibition of the donation of entire ispanates, does not contradict this, since such a donation would concentrate all the resources provided by the ispanate in one hand, and the new system, as we have discussed, strives to prevent such occurrences. The absurd notion of noblemen as comites camerae was not made a provision – which could not have been observed anyway – to oppose the economic policy of the new system, it was created to give the king a better position in the negotiations about the lease conditions of royal incomes with Jewish and Ismaelite businessmen. The provisions related to coinage and issue of new coins gave an opportunity to Andrew II to increase his income when necessary. The prohibition of the accumulation of dignities – thereby setting a limit to the ambitions of the dignitaries – is an attempt to solve the ruler’s problem that there were always more noblemen who felt entitled to a dignity than dignities available. If the restriction of granting dignities to foreigners80, and the prohibition of land donation to foreigners who did not settle down in Hungary81 is indeed a reaction to the excessive favours that Queen Gertrudis granted to her countrymen – this popular assumption is highly doubtful, because ten years after the queen’s murder it was unlikely that the noblemen were still nursing their grievances –, then it only proves that Andrew had learnt his lesson, and he recognised his mistake: it is needless for the king to patronize those from whom the king can expect nothing in return. Even the famous “reservation of resistance82” of the Golden Bull presented no risk for Andrew since the decree reflected his ideas: similarly, King Louis I (1342-1382) had no qualms about confirming this article in 1351, whereas the article of the Golden Bull83 that he thought was in conflict with the interests of his royal power84, was changed85. Finally, the close relationship between the royal servientes and the policies of the new system has already been discussed; that the codification of the rights of the royal servientes is a prominent part of the Golden Bull, is self-evident and needs no further explanation.

  • 86 J. Karácsonyi, Az aranybulla keletkezése…, op. cit., pp. 19-20.
  • 87 Ibid., p. 20.

34Regarding the formal elements of the Golden Bull, two of them warrant our particular interest. One of them is the 17th regnal year, which was the starting point of Karácsonyi’s argumentation: in his opinion, Andrew II was forced to change the practice of counting his regnal years by those who, in the other royal charter from 1222 – dated to the 17th regnal year – are listed as the most important dignitaries, namely Emeric’s one-time allies86. This could rightly be considered as the most important evidence that the king was actually forced to issue the Golden Bull, were it not in complete contrast with the second eye-catching formal characteristic of the decree: that the list of dignitaries that accompanies the dating only includes the two archbishops and the bishops, and none of the lay dignitaries appear in it. Karácsonyi argued that the Golden Bull was issued after the dismissal of the previous dignitaries and before the appointment of the new ones87. As a matter of fact, his explanation is not logical at all: it assumes that it is possible that Tódor, son of Vejte and his associates were powerful enough to force Andrew II to issue the Golden Bull, and they even had enough influence to instruct the chancellery to change the regnal year, but they could not force the king to grant them dignities. If the noblemen formerly loyal to Emeric are excluded from the list of dignitaries of the Golden Bull, it can mean nothing else but that they had nothing to do with the contents of the decree, just as the members of the former royal council, headed by Miklós, son of Barc, had absolutely nothing to do with it. Thus the change of the regnal year only proves that Andrew II realised that he had made a mistake in 1218 and returned to the previous practice.

  • 88 Ibid., pp. 27-28.

35All that remains now is to briefly outline the events of 1222, specifically the history of the creation of the Golden Bull. As a reminder: Karácsonyi, who established most of our current knowledge of the topic, supposed that at a meeting – which he called the “national assembly” – held around 24 April 1222, noblemen previously loyal to Emeric forced Andrew II to remove his current dignitaries from their offices, issue the Golden Bull and grant them the dignities thus made vacant. At the end of July the noblemen once loyal to Emeric fell, and Andrew II again granted the key positions of the government to the group led by Miklós, son of Barc, but at the beginning of November a new meeting of the discontented noblemen forced the king to dismiss Miklós, son of Barc and appoint Gyula of Kán kindred in his place as palatine, and they coaxed a promise out of the king to hold an assembly twice a year onwards to settle the grievances of his subjects, where the king himself had to appear personally88. In this reconstruction of the course of the events, Karácsonyi attempted to cross-check the data of the privileges dated to 1222 and the papal bull dated to 15 December, but the results are not very convincing.

  • 89 1222: UGDS, vol. 1, p. 20.
  • 90 1222: Codex diplomaticus patrius, ed. by I. Nagy et al., Győr/Budapest, Jaurini, 1865-1891 (hereaft (...)
  • 91 B. L. Kumorovitz, “Buda (és Pest) ‘fővárossá’ alakulásának kezdetei” [“The Origins of Buda (and Pes (...)
  • 92 4 July 1222: VMHH, vol. 1, p. 35.
  • 93 1222: National Archives of Hungary, Collection of Medieval Chartres, no. 40 005.
  • 94 1222: CDCr, vol. 3, p. 220.
  • 95 A. Zsoldos, Magyarország világi archontológiája…, op. cit., pp. 305-306.
  • 96 The majority of the members of the royal council were old confidants of Andrew, with a few younger (...)

36The idea that Miklós, son of Barc, was twice palatine in 1222 – first until mid-April, then between the end of July and November – is definitely wrong. The reason for the misunderstanding is that Karácsonyi assumes that all the charters from 1222 that mention Miklós as palatine and are dated to the 19th regnal year of Andrew II, were issued after the Golden Bull, not even considering the possibility that they might have been issued at the beginning of the year, before the issue of the Golden Bull. But that is exactly what happened. The fact that in the lists of dignitaries of these charters the name of the bishop of Transylvania is missing – just as he does not appear in the Golden Bull which is dated to Andrew’s 17th regnal year – proves it. In the other privilege from 1222 dated to his 17th regnal year, which names Tódor, son of Vejte as the palatine, Rajnáld, the elected bishop of Transylvania also appears89, only to later appear in a charter from 1222, where Gyula Kán is listed as the palatine, as Rajnáld, bishop of Transylvania, without any further remark, which suggests that by that time he had already received the papal confirmation90. Therefore, the charters listing Miklós, son of Barc as palatine were dated to April: in all probability, these charters left the chancellery after the assembly that dealt with the judiciary and governmental issues, which, during Andrew II’s reign, used to be held during Lent (in 1222: between 16 February and 3 April) in Óbuda91 which would explain why they are dated to the 19th regnal year. The period after the assembly in Óbuda – when the king’s dignitaries were probably scattered – could have provided an excellent opportunity for the group of Emeric’s former dignitaries led by Tódor, son of Vejte who were in contact with Prince Béla to again attempt to take over the control of the government. Andrew II first tried to resolve the conflict by issuing the Golden Bull, but Tódor and his companions were not interested in privileges, but in power, and the king had to give in. The most obscure point has been how Tódor and his group managed to persuade the king to grant them the most important dignities, and regrettably, it remains just as difficult to decipher: we do not know anything about the details, just as we know nothing about how the discontent noblemen in 1214 achieved that Andrew had his son, Béla crowned against his – Andrew’s – will. We only know the result in this case as well – thanks to the charter that lists Tódor as palatine. Another similarity between the two cases is that in both instances the noblemen who once allied with Emeric formally rallied behind Prince Béla, which is revealed by the papal bull of Honorius III dated to 4 July 1222, according to which “some perverts” (quidam perversi) wanted to obey Prince Béla instead of King Andrew92. There is evidence that the new dignitaries took steps to win the adversaries of Andrew’s land policy over to their side: in 1222, Pósa, ispán of Borsod and Márton, ispán of Újvár presided over the case of Győr near Miskolc, today Diósgyőr, during the review of donations ordered by royal decree93. Both Pósa and Miklós had already been appointed to their dignities in the months before the issue of the Golden Bull, but since the review of donation is in sharp contrast with Andrew’s intentions, the review must have happened during Tódor’s time as palatine. This seems even more likely because it answers what could have caused the downfall of the former loyalists of Emeric: we have no reason to suppose that such a measure was greeted with less hostility than King Béla IV’s attempt to follow a similar pattern. We do not know exactly when the downfall of Tódor and his companions was. One thing is for certain: the sources that list Gyula of the kindred Kán as palatine were issued when the political storms of 1222 had already died down, since palatine Gyula also appears in the list of dignitaries in the charter of Prince Béla that mentions the reconciliation of the crown prince and his father94. This is the only instance where a palatine appears in the charters issued by the prince, making it plain that the reconciliation actually means Andrew’s absolute victory over the opposition that formally rallied behind Prince Béla. Therefore, the belief that Gyula of the kindred Kán and the noblemen appointed to dignities with him obtained their position against the king’s will is unfounded. This assumption is unequivocally disproved by the entire career of the new palatine, Gyula of the kindred Kán95, the identity of those appointed to dignities together with him96, and the remarkable fact that all charters of Andrew II in which Gyula of the kindred Kán appears as the palatine once more counted regnal years as had been introduced in 1218, i.e. counting them from 1204, and his practice did not change again after this.

37The reconstruction of the events in 1222 has been hindered by former researchers having given full credit to what is related in the bull of Honorius III dated to 15 December. According to the bull,

  • 97 15 December 1222: in regno Ungarie noviter sit statutum, ut omnes populi conveniant bis in anno, ub (...)

it has recently been decided in Hungary that the whole nation should gather together twice a year, and when our son in Christ [Andrew], His Grace the King of Hungary, will be present in person, the multitude of people present, setting aside all sensible moderation, usually demands serious and unjust things of the said king, namely that the magnates and the noblemen of the country, who they hate, should be stripped off their dignities and offices and banished from the country, and their goods should be divided between the people. Therefore the king is embarrassed, since if he fulfilled the requests of the troublemakers, he would err against justice and violate peace diminishing royal power, but if he rightly turned down the unjustified requests, he would put himself and his people at risk97.

  • 98 The Golden Bull of 1222, c. 1: annuatim in festo sancti regis, nisi arduo negotio ingruente vel inf (...)
  • 99 The Golden Bull of 1222, c. 14: si quis comes honorifice se iuxta comitatus sui qualitatem non habu (...)
  • 100 J. Karácsonyi, Az aranybulla keletkezése…, op. cit., p. 28.
  • 101 The Golden Bull of 1222, c. 20: decimo argento non redimatur, sed, sicut terra protulerit, vinum ve (...)
  • 102 29 March 1223: VMHH, vol. 1, pp. 38, 38-39.

38The information related in the papal bull only loosely resembles what we know about the events in Hungary from other sources available. Although there is a mention of an assembly held in the presence of the king in the Golden Bull, but only one, not two assemblies are referred to, and the presence of the ruler is not as strictly prescribed as Honorius’ description would have us believe: the decree also provides for the substitution of the king98. It is also a fact that the Golden Bull is concerned with the punishment of the dignitaries who misuse their power, but only their deprivation of their office and a compensation for the damage caused by them comes up99; their exile or the division of their goods between the people is not suggested. Karácsonyi tried to resolve the contradiction by assuming that there was a second assembly in November (in his opinion, the first assembly resulted in the issue of the Golden Bull). This second assembly would have been the one that led to Miklós, son of Barc and his companions – who had recently returned into power after the downfall of the confidants of Emeric – being stripped of their titles, and the one that voiced even more radical ideas than the Golden Bull100. However, as has been discussed before, Miklós, son of Barc, had only been palatine in the first few months of 1222, so the alleged second assembly – in reality the one and only – could only have followed the dismissal of the group of dignitaries led by Tódor, son of Vejte. Therefore if we do not persist that the papal bull is fully trustworthy, and we do not completely disregard the whole letter either, the obvious conclusion is that only contradictory fragments of what had happened in Hungary reached the papal court, and the papal bull dated to 15 December tried to summarise them as a coherent story. Honorius knew that during the course of the year political tensions had twice surfaced, he knew that some kind of decision had been made, he also knew that this decision included that an assembly be held regularly in the presence of the king, and finally he knew of some events when the agitated crowd demanded that some hated noblemen should be punished severely, the idea of which was the king did not support. The source of Honorius’ information is clearly Andrew II or someone from his circles, since the viewpoint of the bull is that of the king’s, but after all, the king or his followers could have informed the pope as they liked. More precise and detailed information could not have been available to Honorius on 15 December 1222 since in that case it would be inexplicable why he protested against the manner of paying the tithe as written in the Golden Bull101 a few months later only, on 29 March 1223102: obviously because he by then received reliable and precise information about the contents of the decree.

39Considering that Miklós, son of Barc, was the palatine in 1222 only once, before the issue of the Golden Bull and that the papal bull of Honorius III dated to 4 July knew about the takeover of Tódor and his companions – as a reminder: this bull relates that in Hungary “some perverts” wanted to obey Prince Béla instead of King Andrew – but makes no mention of an uproar like the one mentioned in the bull dated to 15 December, the last piece missing from the puzzle must be an assembly that took place between the dates of the two papal bulls, and the demands of this assembly must have been against Tódor and his group. Thus it seems very likely that Andrew II got rid of the dignitaries forced onto him at the end of April by applying the provision of the Golden Bull about the assembly on Saint Stephen’s Day (20 August): he summoned the royal servientes and with their support, he seized the full power to govern the country. Whether the crowd really demanded the things described in the papal bull, cannot be decided due to the lack of further sources. If they did indeed demand such things, then the king was able to remain in control of the situation, because we know that no member of the group led by Tódor, son of Vejte, was exiled, and nobody’s property was taken away and divided between the people. It is not ill-founded to assume that false reports of an uproar served the purpose of having the pope take sides with Andrew II – who according to the story went against the demands of the crowd. It was widely known that several religious movements condemned as heresy advocated similar principles in the 1220s, and the king wanted to discredit his enemies in advance by hinting at these heretic movements, since naturally he could not delude himself into thinking that news only reached the papal court coming from him and his circle.

  • 103 1225: CDES, vol. 1, pp. 221, 222; CD, vol. III/1, p. 294; cf. G. Bónis, “Decretalis Intellecto. (II (...)
  • 104 1267: procedente itaque tempore idem pater noster karissimus huiusmodi immensas donaciones et perpe (...)

40Barely three years later, in 1225, this time actually led by Prince Béla – who in the meantime grew up – and with the support of papal authority a vigorous attack was launched against the policies of the new system. The above analysis is also supported by the fact that the new attack was based on the decretal of Honorius III issued in 1225, called by its first word Intellecto103 – as it is clearly indicated by the 1267 charter of King Béla IV104 –, and not on the Golden Bull, which is not surprising, since the decree cannot be applied to support attacks on the new system. After all, the contents of the Golden Bull are not in accordance with the ambitions of the former confidants of Emeric, nor with the demands of the adversaries of the policies of Andrew II; rather they are a reflection of the key elements of King Andrew’s new system: therefore, we may conclude that the Golden Bull is in fact Andrew’s own creation.

Notes

1 For the most important editions of the Golden Bull see H. Marczali (ed.), Enchiridion fontium historiae Hungarorum, Budapest, Magyar Tudományos Akadémia, 1901, pp. 134-143; G. Érszegi, “Az Aranybulla” [“The Golden Bull”], in G. Farkas (ed.), Fejér megyei történeti évkönyv, Székesfehérvár, Fejér Megyei Levéltár, 1972, vol. 6, pp. 5-13; Codex diplomaticus et epistolaris Slovaciae, Bratislavae, Ad edendum praeparavit Richard Marsina, 1971-1987 (hereafter as CDES), vol. 1, pp. 199-201; The Laws of the Medieval Kingdom of Hungary, vol. 1: 1000-1301, ed. and trans. by J. M. Bak, G. Bónis and J. R. Sweeney, with a critical essay on previous editions by A. Csizmadia, Bakersfield, Charles Schlacks Jr. Publisher, 1989 (hereafter as LMKH), pp. 34-37; L. Besenyei, G. Érszegi, M. Pedrazza Gorleo (eds.), De Bulla Aurea Andreae II regis Hungariae MCCXXII, Verona, Edizioni Valdonega, 1999, pp. 23-29.

2 J. Karácsonyi, Az aranybulla keletkezése és első sorsa [The Origin of the Golden Bull and its First Line], Budapest, Magyar Tudományos Akadémia, 1899, pp. 3-30.

3 L. Erdélyi, “Anonymus korának társadalmi viszonyai” [“The Social Circumstances of Age of Anonymus”], Történeti Szemle, 3, 1914, pp. 195-197; id., “Árpádkori társadalomtörténetünk legkritikusabb kérdései” [“The Key Questions of Árpádian Social History”], Történeti Szemle, 5, 1916, pp. 39-63; id., “Az aranybulla társadalma” [“The Golden Bull’s Society”], in Emlékkönyv Fejérpataky László életének hatvanadik évfordulója ünnepére, Budapest, Franklin, 1917, pp. 82-108.

4 LMKH, p. 37: anno verbi incarnati millesimo ducentesimo vicesimo secundo […] regni nostri anno decimo septimo.

5 “Chronici Hungarici compositio saeculi XIV”, c. 173, in Scriptores rerum Hungaricarum tempore ducum regumque stirpis Arpadianae gestarum, ed. by A. Domanovszky, Budapestini, Edendo operi praefuit Emericus Szentpétery, 1937-1938 (hereafter as SRH), vol. 1, p. 464 (it erroneously gives the year 1201).

6 “Chronici Hungarici compositio saeculi XIV”, op. cit., c. 174 (SRH, vol. 1, p. 464).

7 J. Karácsonyi, Az aranybulla keletkezése…, op. cit., pp. 6, 13-17.

8 Ibid., pp. 27-28.

9 LMKH, p. 37.

10 1229: L. Erdélyi, P. Sörös (eds.), A pannonhalmi Szent-Benedek-rend története [The History of the Benedictine Order of Pannonhalma], Budapest, Stephaneum, 1902-1916, vol. 1, p. 696; 1233: Codex diplomaticus Hungariae ecclesiasticus ac civilis, Budae, Studio et opera Georgii Fejér, 1829-1844 (hereafter as CD), vol. III/2, p. 366; 1234: Codex diplomaticus Arpadianus continuatus, ed. by G. Wenzel, Pest/Budapest, Magyar Tudományos Akadémia, 1860-1874 (hereafter as ÁÚO), vol. 6, p. 549.

11 1204: Urkundenbuch zur Geschichte der Deutschen in Siebenbürgen, ed. by F. Zimmermann et al., Hermanstadt/Cologne/Vienna/Bucharest, s. n., 1892-1991 (hereafter as UGDS), vol. 1, p. 8.

12 1221: CDES, vol. 1, p. 196.

13 3 June 1222: Vetera monumenta historica Hungariam sacram illustrantia. Maximam partem nondum edita ex tabulariis Vaticanis deprompta, collecta ac serie chronologica disposita ab Augustino Theiner, Romae, Typ. Vaticanis, 1859-1860 (hereafter as VMHH), vol. 1, p. 34.

14 Cf. J. Karácsonyi, Az aranybulla keletkezése…, op. cit., p. 16.

15 A. Zsoldos, Magyarország világi archontológiája 1000-1301 [The Secular Archontology of the Hungarian Kingdom, 1000-1301], Budapest, História, 2011.

16 UGDS, vol. 1, p. 20. The doubts about the authenticity of the charter (cf. Regesta regum stirpis Arpadianae critico-diplomatica, ed. by E. Szentpétery and I. Borsa, Budapestini, Akadémiai, 1923-1987 [hereafter as RA], vol. I/1, no. 380) are dispelled by the fact that Rajnald is included in the list of dignitaries of the charter as elected bishop of Transylvania, which is a contemporary element that rules out the possibility of forgery.

17 J. Karácsonyi, Az aranybulla keletkezése…, op. cit., pp. 19-25.

18 A. Zsoldos, Magyarország világi archontológiája…, op. cit., pp. 169, 217.

19 The Golden Bull of 1222, c. 18: servientes accepta licentia a nobis possint libere ire ad filium nostrum seu a maiori ad minorem nec ideo possessiones eorum destruantur. Aliquem iusto iudicio filii nostri condemnatum vel causa incohata coram ipso, priusquam terminetur coram eodem, non recipiemus nec e converso filius noster (LMKH, p. 36).

20 1262: Monumenta ecclesiae Strigoniensis, ed. by F. Knauz and L. C. Dedek, Strigonii, Horák, 1874-1924, vols. 1-3; Monumenta ecclesiae Strigoniensis, ed. by G. Dreska et al., Strigonii/Budapestini, Horák/Argumentum, 1999 (hereafter as MES), vol. 4: here vol. 1, pp. 478-479; 1263: ibid., p. 486; 1266: VMHH, vol. 1, pp. 285, 286.

21 A. Zsoldos, Családi ügy. IV. Béla és István ifjabb király viszálya az 1260-as években [A Family Affair: the Struggle between Béla IV and Junior King Stephen in the 1260s], Budapest, História, 2007.

22 4 July 1222: quia karissimus in Christo filius noster A. Ungarie rex illustris tamquam pius pater ad promotionem primogeniti sui diligenter aspirans, necnon et discrimen precavens regni sui ac ipsius tranquillitatem volens salubriter procurare, dictum primogenitum suum in regem fecit inungi ac etiam coronari, quidam perversi, qui dissensionum semitas satagunt invenire, malignari volentes, suum machinantur obsequium subtrahere ipsi regi, tamquam non sibi, sed filio teneantur, et sic contra utrumque dissidium et scandum regni procurant. Cum igitur non fuerit ipsius regis intentio, nec esse debuerit, ut eo vivente alius dominaret in regno, sed ipse potius regnum teneat et gubernet, fraternitati vestre per apostolica scripta mandamus atque precipimus, quatenus universos tam in regno, quam extra regnum constitutos, qui huiusmodi seditiones movere presumpserint, a sua temeritate cessare per censuram ecclesiasticam appellatione postposita compellatis (VMHH, vol. 1, p. 35).

23 1222: cuius [sc. Stephanis episcopi Zagrabiensis] discretione procurante pre ceteris regni primatibus discordia inter patrem nostrum et nos olim exorta et ad inextimabile regni detrimentum succrescens est ad concordiam revocata et universa gens variis perturbationum procellis fluctuans in pace collocata (Codex diplomaticus regni Croatiae, Dalmatiae et Slavoniae, ed. by T. Smičiklas, Zagrabiae, Ex officina Societatis typographicae, 1904-1934 [hereafter as CDCr], vol. 3, p. 220).

24 See M. Horváth, Magyarország történelme [A History of Hungary], Pest/Budapest, Heckenast/Franklin, 1871, 2nd ed., vol. 1, pp. 517-518; S. Szántó, “Az Aranybulla keletkezése összehasonlítva az angol Magna Chartával” [“The Origin of the Golden Bull, in Comparison with the Magna Carta”], Erdélyi Múzeum, 8, 1881, pp. 158-159.

25 M. Wertner, Az Árpádok családi története [A Family History of the Árpáds], Nagybecskerek, Pleitz, 1892, pp. 456-457.

26 Cf. J. Holub, “Az életkor szerepe középkori jogunkban és az ‘időlátott levelek’” [“The Role of Age in Medieval Law and Letters Related to Age”], Századok, 55-56, 1921-1922, pp. 38-39.

27 P. Váczy, “A királyi serviensek és a patrimoniális királyság” [“The Royal Servientes and Patrimonial Kingship”], Századok, 61, 1927, pp. 243-290, 351-414.

28 E. Mályusz, “A karizmatikus királyság” [“Charismatic Kingship”], in I. Soós (ed.), Klió szolgálatában. Válogatott történelmi tanulmányok, Budapest, História, 2003, pp. 22-44.

29 I. Bolla, A jogilag egységes jobbágyosztály kialakulása Magyarországon [The Emergence of the Legally Unified Tenant Peasantry in Hungary], Budapest, Akadémiai, 1983 (especially pp. 62-74).

30 1212: ÁÚO, vol. 6, pp. 355-356; for its authenticity see K. Tagányi, “Felelet Erdélyi Lászlónak” [“Response to László Erdélyi”], Történelmi Szemle, 5, 1916, pp. 594-595.

31 1217: ÁÚO, vol. 11, pp. 141-142, and CDCr, vol. 3, pp. 157-159.

32 E. Mályusz, “A karizmatikus királyság”, op. cit., p. 35; I. Bolla, A jogilag egységes jobbágyosztály…, op. cit., pp. 66-67.

33 E. Mályusz, “A karizmatikus királyság”, op. cit., p. 35.

34 I. Bolla, A jogilag egységes jobbágyosztály…, op. cit., p. 64.

35 See 1271: ÁÚO, vol. 8, p. 350. 1273: CD, vol. VII/2, p. 73; ÁÚO, vol. 9, p. 18. 1275: ibid., vol. 4, p. 49; CD, vol. V/2, p. 252. 1282: ÁÚO, vol. 4, p. 243, etc.

36 Cf. A. Zsoldos, “The First Centuries of Hungarian Military Organization”, in L. Veszprémy, B. K. Király (eds.), A Millennium of Hungarian Military History, New York, Columbia University Press, 2002, pp. 11-17.

37 A. Zsoldos, “Adalékok a királyi várszervezet udvarispáni tisztségének történetéhez” [“The Origins of the Curialis Comes”], Levéltári Szemle, 41/4, 1991, pp. 20-31.

38 The Golden Bull of 1222, c. 5: LMKH, p. 15.

39 1217: MES, vol. 1, pp. 216-217; for its date see RA, vol. I/1, no. 317.

40 “Rogerii Carmen Miserabile”, c. 10 (SRH, vol. 2, p. 558). For an English version see Anonymus and Master Roger, The Deeds of the Hungarians. Epistle to the Sorrowful Lament upon the Destruction of the Kingdom of Hungary by the Tatars, ed. by M. Rady, J. M. Bak and L. Veszprémy, Budapest/New York, Central European University Press (Central European Medieval Texts, 5), 2010, p. 151.

41 A. Zsoldos, A szent király szabadjai. Fejezetek a várjobbágyság történetéből [The Freemen of the Holy King: a History of the Várjobbágys], Budapest, História, 1999, pp. 78-80.

42 To review the events of political history see G. Pauler, A magyar nemzet története az Árpádházi királyok alatt [The History of the Hungarian Nation under the Árpádian Kings], Budapest, Magyar Tudományos Akadémia, 1899, 2nd ed., vol. 2, pp. 12-36; see also G. Szabados, “Imre és András” [“Emeric and Andrew”], Századok, 133, 1999, pp. 85-111.

43 1217: RA, vol. I/1, p. 105.

44 The same phenomenon, the diminutio iura comitatuum, can be observed in Andrew’s measures related to economic policies: see B. Weisz, “II. András jövedelmei: régi és új elemek” [“The Revenues of Andrew II: New and Old Elements”], in K. Terézia, S. András (eds.), II. András és Székesfehérvár, Székesfehérvár, Székesfehérvári Egyházmegyei Múzeum, 2012, pp. 49-80.

45 1221: Urkundenbuch des Burgenlandes und der angrenzenden Gebiete der Komitate Wieselburg, Ödenburg und Eisenburg, ed. by H. Wagner et al., Graz/Cologne/Vienna, Böhlau, 1955-1999 (hereafter as UB), vol. 1, p. 81.

46 F. Makk, The Árpáds and the Comneni. Political Relations between Hungary and Byzantium in the 12th Century, Budapest, Akadémiai, 1989, p. 122.

47 1210: CDCr, vol. 3, p. 101.

48 A. Zsoldos, Magyarország világi archontológiája…, op. cit., p. 343.

49 For a more recent account of the history of Queen Gertrudis see W. Schüle, Tod einer Königin: Gertrud von Andechs-Meranien, Königin von Ungarn 1205-1213, Neckenmarkt, Novum Pro, 2009.

50 Cf. L. Veszprémy, “II. András magyar keresztes hadjárata, 1217-1218” [“The Hungarian Crusade of Andrew II, 1217-1218”], in J. Laszlovszky, J. Majorossy, J. Zsengellér (eds.), Magyarország és a keresztes háborúk. Lovagrendek és emlékeik, Máriabesnyő/Gödöllő, Attraktor, 2006, p. 109.

51 1219: MES, vol. 1, p. 222.

52 1235: CDES, vol. 2, p. 3.

53 1220: UB, vol. 1, p. 77.

54 1221: Regestrum Varadinense examinum ferri candentis ordine chronologico digestum, ed. by J. Karácsonyi and S. Borovszky, Budapest, Hornyánszky, 1903, nos. 310, 315, 317.

55 1220: UB, vol. 1, pp. 77-78.

56 J. Karácsonyi, Az aranybulla keletkezése…, op. cit., p. 19.

57 [Beginning of February 1205:] Die Register Innocenz’ III, ed. by O. Hageneder et al., Vienna, Verl. des Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1997, vol. 7, p. 398.

58 1204: CD, vol. 2, p. 431.

59 “Chronici Hungarici compositio saeculi XIV”, op. cit., c. 173 (SRH, vol. 1, p. 463).

60 Cf. F. Mátyás, Sz. László és Imre királyok végnapjai és II. Endre életévei, fogsága és temetése [The Last Days of King Ladislas the Saint and King Emeric and Timeline of the Life, Imprisonment and the Place of Funeral of Andrew II], Budapest, Magyar Tudományos Akadémia, 1900, pp. 34-35.

61 J. R. Sweeney, “III. Ince és az esztergomi érsekválasztási vita. A Bone Memorie II. dekretális történeti háttere”, Aetas, 8/1, 1993, pp. 148, 161 (note 11). The study was originally published in English: see id., “Innocent III and the Esztergom Election Dispute. The Historical Background of the Decretal Bone Memorie II (X. I. 5. 4)”, Archivum Historiae Pontificiae, 15, 1977, pp. 113-137.

62 The Golden Bull of 1222, c. 16: integros comitatus vel dignitates quascumque in predia seu possessiones non conferamus perpetuo (LMKH, p. 35).

63 The Golden Bull of 1222, c. 17: possessiones etiam quas quis iusto servitio obtinuerit, aliquo tempore non privetur (ibid.).

64 A. Zsoldos, “Örökös ispánságok az Árpád-korban” [“Hereditary Ispanates in the Árpádian Age”], in M. Font, T. Fedeles, G. Kiss (eds.), Aktualitások a magyar középkorkutatásban, Pécs, Molnár, 2010, pp. 73-92.

65 1263: UB, vol. 1, p. 293.

66 Cf. J. Stessel, “Locsmánd vár és tartománya” [“The Castle and Province of Locsmánd”], Századok, 34, 1900, p. 699; G. Kristó, “A locsmándi várispánság és felbomlása” [“The Ispanate of Locsmánd and its Dissolution”], Soproni Szemle, 23, 1969, p. 134.

67 For the quoted expression see: 1229: CD, vol. III/2, p. 194; ibid., vol. VII/1, p. 220; MES, vol. 1, p. 271. 1230: CDES, vol. 1, p. 259; CDCr, vol. 3, p. 334. For a summary of Béla’s measures to revoke donations see I. Rákos, “IV. Béla birtokrestaurációs politikája” [“Béla IV’s Policy of Restoring the Royal Estates”], in Acta Universitatis Szegediensis de Attila József nominatae, Szeged, Hungária (Acta Historica, 47), 1974.

68 The Golden Bull of 1222, c. 23: denarii tales sint, quales fuerunt tempore regis Bele (LMKH, p. 36).

69 B. Hóman, Magyar pénztörténet 1000-1325 [Hungarian Monetary History 1000-1325], Budapest, Magyar Tudományos Akadémia, 1916, pp. 258, 265, cf. also pp. 306-307 and 308-309. The opinion that the “King Béla” mentioned in the Golden Bull in relation to royal coinage is not Béla III, but Béla I (e.g. see G. Pauler, A magyar nemzet története…, op. cit., vol. 2, pp. 81, 502), is made highly doubtful, by the fact that in support of the argument the chronicle says omnibus enim diebus vite sue [sc. Bele I regis] in tota Hungaria non est mutata moneta (“Chronici Hungarici compositio saeculi XIV”, op. cit., c. 94: SRH, vol. 1, p. 358), yet the article of the Golden Bull mentioning “King Béla” does not prohibit the issue of new coins.

70 The Golden Bull of 1222, c. 23: nova moneta nostra per annum observetur a Pascha usque ad Pascha (LMKH, p. 36).

71 B. Hóman, Magyar pénztörténet 1000-1325, op. cit., p. 304.

72 The Golden Bull of 1222, c. 24: comites camere, monetarii, salinarii et tributarii nobiles regni, Ismaelite et Iudei fieri non possint (LMKH, p. 36).

73 [1239:] VMHH, vol. 1, p. 173. For a summary of the employment of Jews as comites camerae in the Árpádian Age see B. Weisz, “Zsidó kamaraispánok az Árpád-korban” [“Jewish comites camerae in the Árpádian Age”], in S. Homonnai, F. Piti, I. Tóth (eds.), Tanulmányok a középkori magyar történelemről, Szeged, Szegedi Középkorász Műhely, 1999, pp. 151-161.

74 The Golden Bull of 1222, c. 30: preter hos quatuor iobagiones, scilicet palatinum, banum, et curiales comites regis et regine duas dignitates nullus teneat (LMKH, p. 36).

75 A. Zsoldos, Magyarország világi archontológiája…, op. cit., passim.

76 The Golden Bull of 1222, c. 12: LMKH, p. 35.

77 The Golden Bull of 1222, cc. 13, 14, 15: ibid.

78 The Golden Bull of 1222, cc. 5, 6, 8, 9, 28: ibid., pp. 35, 36.

79 1217: RA, vol. I/1, p. 105.

80 The Golden Bull of 1222, c. 11: si hospites, videlicet boni homines ad regnum venerint, sine consilio regni ad dignitates non promoverentur (LMKH, p. 35).

81 The Golden Bull of 1222, c. 26: possessiones extra regnum non conferantur, si alique sunt collate vel vendite, populo regni ad redimendum reddentur (ibid., p. 36).

82 The Golden Bull of 1222, c. 31: statuimus etiam, quod si nos vel aliquis successorum nostrorum aliquo umquam tempore huic dispositioni contraire voluerint, liberam habeant harum auctoritate sine nota infidelitatis tam episcopi, quam alii iobagiones ac nobiles nostri universi et singuli presentes et posteri resistendi et contradicendi nobis et nostris successoribus in perpetuum facultatem (LMKH, p. 37).

83 The Golden Bull of 1222, c. 4: ibid., p. 34.

84 Cf. P. Engel, The Realm of St Stephen. A History of Medieval Hungary, 895-1526, trans. by T. Pálosfalvi, English edition by A. Ayton, London/New York, Tauris, 2001, pp. 177-178.

85 1351: litteras […] domini Andree regis […] aurea bulla sua roboratas […] de verbo ad verbum presentibus insertas acceptantes, ratificantes et approbantes, simul cum omnibus libertatibus in eisdem expressis, excepto solummodo uno articulo modo prenotato de eodem privilegio excluso, eo videlicet, quod nobiles homines sine herede decedentes possint et queant ecclesiis vel aliis, quibus volunt, in vita et in morte dare vel legare possessiones eorum vendere vel alienare, ymo ad ista facienda nullam penitus habeant facultatem, sed in fratres, proximos et generationes ipsorum possessiones eorundem de iure et legitime, pure et simpliciter absque contradictione aliquali devolvantur (Decreta Regni Hungariae 1301-1457. Collectionem manuscriptam Francisci Döry additamentis auxerunt, commentariis notisque illustraverunt Georgius Bónis, Vera Bácskai, Budapest, Akadémiai, 1976, pp. 129-130).

86 J. Karácsonyi, Az aranybulla keletkezése…, op. cit., pp. 19-20.

87 Ibid., p. 20.

88 Ibid., pp. 27-28.

89 1222: UGDS, vol. 1, p. 20.

90 1222: Codex diplomaticus patrius, ed. by I. Nagy et al., Győr/Budapest, Jaurini, 1865-1891 (hereafter as HO), vol. 5, p. 10.

91 B. L. Kumorovitz, “Buda (és Pest) ‘fővárossá’ alakulásának kezdetei” [“The Origins of Buda (and Pest) as a ‘Capital City’”], in S. Tarjányi (ed.), Tanulmányok Budapest Múltjából. XVIII, Budapest, Múzeumi Ismeretterjesztő Központ, 1971, pp. 7-57.

92 4 July 1222: VMHH, vol. 1, p. 35.

93 1222: National Archives of Hungary, Collection of Medieval Chartres, no. 40 005.

94 1222: CDCr, vol. 3, p. 220.

95 A. Zsoldos, Magyarország világi archontológiája…, op. cit., pp. 305-306.

96 The majority of the members of the royal council were old confidants of Andrew, with a few younger noblemen who – in view of their later illustrious careers as dignitaries – might be categorized as “promising youngsters”. The only exception was Buzád, ispán of Pozsony, assuming of course that he was already as close to Prince Béla as later data seem to suggest (1224: VMHH, vol. 1, pp. 44, 44-45), in that case, his inclusion into the royal council might have been part of the negotiations related to the reconciliation between Andrew II and Prince Béla.

97 15 December 1222: in regno Ungarie noviter sit statutum, ut omnes populi conveniant bis in anno, ubi etiam karissimus in Christo filius noster [Andreas] rex Ungarorum illustris personaliter interesse tenetur, et tanta multitudinis turba, turbata modestia rationis, ab eodem rege difficilia et iniusta soleant postulare, videlicet ut magnates et nobiles regni, quos habent exosos, suis dignitatibus et honoribus spoliati excludantur a regno et eorum bona in populis dividantur: quare idem redditur rex perplexus, eo quod si turbulentis huiusmodi postulationibus acquiescat, ledit iustitiam, offendit pacem, et exinde regia potentia enervatur, et iterum si iuste neget iniusta, sue suorumque timet periculum personarum (VMHH, vol. 1, p. 36).

98 The Golden Bull of 1222, c. 1: annuatim in festo sancti regis, nisi arduo negotio ingruente vel infirmitate fuerimus prohibiti, Albe teneamur solemnizare; et si nos interesse non poterimus, palatinus procul dubio ibi erit pro nobis, ut vice nostra causas audiat […] (LMKH, p. 34).

99 The Golden Bull of 1222, c. 14: si quis comes honorifice se iuxta comitatus sui qualitatem non habuerit vel destruxerit populos castri sui, convictus super hoc coram omni regno dignitate sua turpiter spolietur cum restitutione ablatorum (ibid., p. 35).

100 J. Karácsonyi, Az aranybulla keletkezése…, op. cit., p. 28.

101 The Golden Bull of 1222, c. 20: decimo argento non redimatur, sed, sicut terra protulerit, vinum vel segetes persolvantur et si episcopi contradixerint, non iuvabimus ipsos (LMKH, p. 36).

102 29 March 1223: VMHH, vol. 1, pp. 38, 38-39.

103 1225: CDES, vol. 1, pp. 221, 222; CD, vol. III/1, p. 294; cf. G. Bónis, “Decretalis Intellecto. (III. Honorius pápa a koronajavak elidegeníthetetlenségéről)” [“Decretalis Intellecto: Pope Honorius III on the Inalienable Royal Revenues”], Történelmi Szemle, 17, 1974, p. 25.

104 1267: procedente itaque tempore idem pater noster karissimus huiusmodi immensas donaciones et perpetuitates auctoritate decretalis super hoc specialiter ab ecclesia Romana, que incipit Intellecto, edite et de mandato domini pape speciali, tacite vel expresse penitus revocavit (HO, vol. 4, p. 45).

Auteur

Research Centre for the Humanities, Hungarian Academy of Sciences (Budapest)

© Éditions de la Sorbonne, 2019

Conditions d’utilisation : http://www.openedition.org/6540