Sara Katanec THE PERQUISITE OF A MEDIEVAL WEDDING: BARBARA OF CILLI’S ACQUISITION OF WEALTH, POWER, AND LANDS MA Thesis in Medieval Studies Central European University Budapest May 2014 THE PERQUISITE OF A MEDIEVAL WEDDING: BARBARA OF CILLI’S ACQUISITION OF WEALTH, POWER, AND LANDS by Sara Katanec (Croatia) Thesis submitted to the Department of Medieval Studies, Central European University, Budapest, in partial fulfillment of the requirements of the Master of Arts degree in Medieval Studies. Accepted in conformance with the standards of the CEU. ____________________________________________ Chair, Examination Committee ____________________________________________ Thesis Supervisor ____________________________________________ Examiner ____________________________________________ Examiner Budapest May 2014 THE PERQUISITE OF A MEDIEVAL WEDDING: BARBARA OF CILLI’S ACQUISITION OF WEALTH, POWER, AND LANDS by Sara Katanec (Croatia) Thesis submitted to the Department of Medieval Studies, Central European University, Budapest, in partial fulfillment of the requirements of the Master of Arts degree in Medieval Studies. Accepted in conformance with the standards of the CEU. ____________________________________________ External Reader Budapest May 2014 I, the undersigned, Sara Katanec, candidate for the MA degree in Medieval Studies, declare herewith that the present thesis is exclusively my own work, based on my research and only such external information as properly credited in notes and bibliography. I declare that no unidentified and illegitimate use was made of the work of others, and no part of the thesis infringes on any person’s or institution’s copyright. I also declare that no part of the thesis has been submitted in this form to any other institution of higher education for an academic degree. Budapest, 21 May 2014 __________________________ Signature ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS First and foremost, I would like to thank my supervisor, Professor Katalin Szende, for the high interest in my topic and therefore also all the help she provided, suggestions she gave, and corrections she made. Without her this thesis would have looked very differently. SecondlyĽ I would like to thank Márta KondorĽ currently a Ph.D. studentĽ for all the knowledge she shared and the fact that she voluntarily read my thesis and gave me many suggestions. Thirdly, I would like to thank Judith Rasson, who made this bunch of words on a paper sound like proper English. Finally, I would like to thank Christian-Nicolae Gaşpar for his help with my Latin sources, and in general for teaching me proper Latin. Furthermore I would like to thank all my friends, the new ones from CEU and the old onesĽ for their supportĽ emotional and intellectual. I would especially like to thank János Incze for sharing his knowledge and giving me good advice regarding my thesis. I would also like to thank my friend and colleague Mišo Petrović for scanning all the books that I needed for my thesis but that I could not reach. Moreover I would like to thank Rolanda Fugger Germadnik and all the staff of the Celje Regional Museum for generously placing their library at my disposal and helping me find bits and pieces on Barbara of Cilli. Last, but not least, I would like to thank my parents, sisters, and grandfather in particular, but other members of my family in general as well, for supporting me financially and emotionally in pursuing my dreams, and what is most important, for not asking too many times, how many pages of my thesis I still have to write. That really speeded things up. TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................... 1 Justifying the “German Messalina” (Die Keiserin Barbara ist geil un ruchlos)................ 1 Research topic .......................................................................................................................... 2 CHAPTER ONE ...................................................................................................................... 5 Research questions and methodology .................................................................................... 5 Sources ...................................................................................................................................... 5 Historiography ......................................................................................................................... 9 Queenship in medieval Europe ............................................................................................. 13 CHAPTER TWO ................................................................................................................... 15 Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 15 The Cilli family and Barbara’s engagement to Sigismund ................................................ 16 Bosnia and the events of 1405 ............................................................................................... 26 The wedding: Problems with dating resolved? A charter from Krapina ......................... 29 The place of the wedding - Krapina ..................................................................................... 44 CHAPTER THREE ............................................................................................................... 52 Barbara’s properties at the time of her wedding ................................................................ 52 The estates in Slavonia........................................................................................................... 56 The gradual increase in power.............................................................................................. 65 CONCLUSION ...................................................................................................................... 72 SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY ............................................................................................ 78 Primary sources ..................................................................................................................... 78 Secondary literature .............................................................................................................. 79 i LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Left: Cavalier (Konrad Kyeser, Bellifortis, manuscript 1360, folio 002v, Bibliothèque municipale de BesançonĽ first half of the fifteenth centuryĽ http://www.enluminures.culture.fr/Wave/savimage/enlumine/irht5/IRHT_085827-p.jpg, [last accessed: May 2014]); Right: Barbara of Cilli as Venus, “Liber de septem signis”Ľ Bellifortis-fragment (Rolanda Fugger Germadnik, Barbara of Celje, 10). ................................ 4 Figure 2. The family tree of Mary of Anjou and Sigismund of Luxemburg (Sara Katanec) .................................................................................................................................................. 18 Figure 3. The Cilli family tree (Sara Katanec) ...................................................................... 24 Figure 4. The Kotromanić family tree (Sara Katanec) ........................................................ 28 Figure 5. Charter from Krapina, 16 November 1405 (MNL OL DL 78655)..................... 31 Figure 6. Map of Sigismund's travel route in 1405 (Sara Katanec) .................................... 39 Figure 7. Krapina. Castle, nineteenth century (Croatian places in the collection of prints of the Croatian State Archives, http://arhinet.arhiv.hr/_DigitalniArhiv/GrafikeHrvatskihMjesta/Krapina2.htm) .................... 49 Figure 8. The castrum in Krapina (A történelmi Magyarország várai [Castles of historical Hungary], http://jupiter.elte.hu/krapina/krapinarajzok1.jpg) A – Romanesque fundament of the castle; B – workshops and economical buildings near the east wall of the castle; C – chapel of the Holy Trinity; D – gate tower of the upper castle courtyard; E – remains of the living quarters (palace); F – living space in front of the large cave (storage room for the food); G – western wall of the castle; H – northeastern tower of the castle; I – south defense wall of the upper courtyard; J – south defense wall of the lower courtyard; K – barbican of the lower courtyard and the gate of the lower castle; L – natural rock with the remains of medieval fortification features; M – defensive ditch around the northern part of the castle. .. 50 ii Figure 9. Mali Kalnik. Approach route to the stronghold (HorvatĽ “Ulazi u burgove”Ľ 61) .................................................................................................................................................. 57 Figure 10. Veliki Kalnik. Ground plan of the palace. Ground floor: ŽS – rock in the entrance hall. First floor: PI – exit into a small garden; D – communication shaft; S – vertical rock; Z – lavatory; B – wall towards the tower on the highest part of the stronghold (Horvat, “Stambeni prostori”Ľ 39). ......................................................................................................... 58 Figure 11. Garić. Left: Ground plan of the palace. Ground floor: U – entrance; K – fireplace. First floor: P – tile stove; L – chapel, the shrine from the eastern wall is missing; II. – access to the second floor. Right: Reconstruction of the east façade of the palace (HorvatĽ “Stambeni prostori”Ľ 38). ......................................................................................................... 62 Figure 12. Velika near Požega. Left: reconstruction of the stronghold. Right: ground plan of the first floor of the great hall and second floor of the defense tower. P – palace; G – approach gallery; Z – console lavatories (Zorislav HorvatĽ “Zidine i braništa na utvrdama kontinentalne Hrvatske 12-15. stoljeća” [Walls and Battlements on Fortifications in Continental Croatia, 12th – 15th century], Prostor 4 (1996): 182; HorvatĽ “Pomoćni prostori”Ľ 302). ......................................................................................................................................... 64 iii LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS CD - Codex Diplomaticus Regni Croatiae, Dalmatiae et Slavoniae CDH - Codex diplomaticus Hungariae ecclesiasticus ac civilis CDZ - A zichi és vásonkeői gróf Zichy-család idősb ágának okmánytára. Codex diplomaticus domus senioris comitum Zichy de Zich et Vasonkeo MHEZ - Monumenta historica episcopatus Zagrabiensis iv INTRODUCTION Justifying the “German Messalina” (Die Keiserin Barbara ist geil un ruchlos) His consort Barbara was a German Messalina, a woman of insatiable appetite for lust; at the same time so heinous that she did not believe in God and neither angel nor devil, neither heaven nor hell. How she scolded her maidservants when they fasted and prayed, that they were agonizing their bodies and worshipped a fictional god: she on the other hand admonishes, in the spirit of Sardanapalus,1 that they should make use of all the pleasures of this life, because after this one, there is no other to hope for. This denier of God, searching for her heaven upon this foul earth and her paradise in groveling lust, even though she was already 60 years old… With these words is Barbara of Cilli, the central person of this thesis, described in Johann Jakob Fugger’s Spiegel der Ehren des Hoechstloeblichsten Kayser- und Koeniglichen Erzhauses Oesterreich from the year 1668.2 The notion about Barbara was taken from her contemporary, Aenea Silvio Piccolomini (1405-1464), the later Pope Pius II, chancellor of Frederick III of Habsburg (1415-1493), who later became the Holy Roman Emperor. Since the Habsburgs were always the enemies of the Cillis, a family that had been under their Lehensherrschaft and since then tried to climb the ladder of nobility, it is clear why Piccolomini tried with such hateful words to denigrate Barbara’s character. Only after her death did Piccolomini change his attitude, or neutralized it if anything. When describing her looks, Piccolomini talks about a woman of pale, almost snow white skin and of a beautiful 1 A literary figure, indicates the legendary king of Assyria, and referrs probably to Ashurbanipal. The Greek historian who first used this expression, speaks of a man, Sardanapalus, who is characterized as a decadent figure, spending his life in debauchery, and who was responsible for the downfall of Assyria. See Gloria Lotha, “SardanapalusĽ” Britannica Academic EditionĽ http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/524121/Sardanapalus (last accessed: May 2014). 2 Seine Gemahlinn BarbaraĽ war eine Teutsche MessalinaĽ ein Weib von unersáttlicher Wollust-begierde; daebey so ruchlos / daß sie keinen Gott / auch weder Engel noch Teufel / weder Himmel noch Hölle / glaubte. Wie sie dann ihre Hofmägde / wann sie fasteten und beteten / oft gescholten / daß sie den Leib also zerquálen / und einen erdichteten Gott verehren móchten: hingegen sie / auf gut Sardanapalisch / vermahnet / sie sollten auf alle weise sich der Freuden dieses Lebens gebrauchen weil nach diesem kein andres zuhoffen sey. Diese Gottesveráchterinn nun / ihren Himmel auf der unflátigen Erde / und ihr Paradies in húndischer Wollust suchend / wiewohl sie schon nahe 60 Jahren ware / … Johann Jakob FuggerĽ Spiegel der Ehren des Hoechstloeblichsten Kayser- und Koeniglichen Erzhauses OesterreichĽ ed. Sigismund von Birken (NürnbergĽ 1668)Ľ 459Ľ http://digi.ub.uniheidelberg.de/diglit/drwFugger1668/0438?page_query=459&navmode=struct&action=pagesearch&sid=266e5b3 043ac3b63fe2c9d87c021c9cd (last accessed: May 2014). 1 physical constitution. Furthermore, Barbara knew several languages, had an unusually profound education, and displayed an interest for politics and diplomacy. 3 Misogyny is therefore another explanation why such a versatile woman had a so bad reputation from the Middle Ages, which was carried on by history up until the recent years. Research topic This thesis is far from a much needed monograph on Barbara of Cilli, but can give answers on an early part of her life. Regarding the fact that there is no work that studies Barbara alone, except for some useful articles in exhibition catalogues and conference volumes about Sigismund, my thesis will fill a gap and will fit into the scholarly tradition of the historiography of gender studies and queenship altogether. At the outset of my workĽ I intended to cover all the areas of Barbara’s life and activities. The comparison of all the visual sources representing Barbara was one of the ideas that I wanted to work on, since there are not many representations of her. Due to the new narrower focus of my thesis, I did not study the visual sources, although they are the best way to see how Barbara was perceived by her contemporaries, as can be seen on the right picture below (Figure 1).4 On one hand a woman on horseback, playing a male role, a leader, as can be compared with the left picture. On the other hand, she is representing Venus, the goddess of love and lust, an idealization of a woman. Even if my thesis will utilize primarily written documents and archaeological remains, I will keep this idea and image in my mind during my research. The aim of my research will be on the one hand to highlight the beginnings of Barbara’s relationship with Sigismund; particularly their engagement and wedding, the Thomas KrzenckĽ “Barbara von Cilli – eine deutsche Messalina?” in Mitteilungen der Gesellschaft für Salzburger Landeskunde 131 (1991): 48, 62-63. 4 Csaba CsapodiĽ “Az úgynevezett ‘Liber de septem signis’. Kyeser ‘Bellifortis’-ának budapesti töredékéről [The so called “Liber de septem signis”. A Budapest fragment of the ‚Bellifortis’ by Kyeser]Ľ in Magyar Könyvszemle 82 (1966), 228-229. 3 2 location where the wedding took place, and the more precise date of the wedding. Since the exact time and place of the wedding are still disputed among scholars, I intend to return to the roots and look at already known but often neglected evidence, and combine the old sources in a way that will result in a new approach to the event. The wedding was among the most important events in Barbara’s lifeĽ which she used as a stepping stone in her further political and personal development. This is why I decided to focus the most on this particular event. The second focal point of my thesis will be the research of Barbara’s properties and estates in Slavonia, received as a wedding gift from Sigismund, therefore inseparably linked with the wedding itself. Again on the basis of these properties Barbara could increase her wealth and gain more authority. I would like to show how the geographical distribution of her estates and the prestige of her castles enabled her to live a comfortable life and become one of the wealthiest queens of the fifteenth century, at the same time gaining an increasing political influence. 3 Figure 1. Left: Cavalier (Konrad Kyeser, Bellifortis, manuscript 1360, folio 002v, Bibliothèque municipale de Besançon, first half of the fifteenth century, http://www.enluminures.culture.fr/Wave/savimage/enlumine/irht5/IRHT_085827-p.jpg, [last accessed: May 2014]); Right: Barbara of Cilli as Venus, “Liber de septem signis”, Bellifortis-fragment (Rolanda Fugger Germadnik, Barbara of Celje, 10). 4 CHAPTER ONE Research questions and methodology In my thesis I am going to answer a number of questions regarding Barbara’s power as a substitute ruler and queen, her properties, and her personal life. Regarding those three aspects of her life as three bases of my thesis, I ask several questions, for instance: Why did Sigismund of Luxemburg marry Barbara? How did the place and date of the wedding fit into the political constellation of the time and the political aspirations of the parties involved? How does the physical appearance of the proposed wedding place support its ceremonial and residential role? Who surrounded the king and his new queen at the time of the wedding and the coronation, and who was expected to be present? What was Barbara’s role at the court and was she a substitute ruler indeed? Furthermore, how much power did Barbara have over her possessions and while issuing charters? Are the claims of her wealth true and how did she earn it? Was there a geographical pattern of her possessions and if yes, did it have a purpose? Can the queen’s finances be linked to her authority? How did Barbara refer to herself or her estates in the charters, and how was she referred to? What decisions did she make in them and how were they conducted? I tried to answer these questions by studying all the available narrative and diplomatic sources and analyzing them, comparing them among each other and with narrative sources, as well as with the available literature. Furthermore, an important methodological aspect of my work was also the critical revision of scholarship in addition to the close reading of the source basis of earlier statements. Sources As already mentioned, there are two types of sources that I used for my research: narrative or literary sources and diplomatic or legal sources. The narrative sources which I 5 focused on were Das Leben König Sigismunds5 by Eberhard Windecke and Die Freien von Saneck und ihre Chronik als Grafen von Cilli.6 Each one is important in its own way, one giving a small, but valuable amount of information on Barbara, the other giving an insight in a few, but either way valuable anecdotes in her life. Still, by reading and researching these sources I encountered some problems, my main one being notably the scarcity of information and their reliability. Barbara’s contemporaries wrote about her only when her actions were somehow connected to her husband, the king, so she is mentioned rather marginally. Otherwise these chronicles keep silent about her. Furthermore, it seems that the sources have to be taken cum grano salis, even more than usually, probably because they were speaking about a woman that was in power and was wealthy as well. This could be one explanation for Barbara’s unpopularity in the sourcesĽ other than a personal animosity between her and the authors, which then severely affects the objectivity of the source. Gender-related bias can also be a reason behind the mostly negative comments on Barbara by her male contemporaries. It is also somehow disappointing that Barbara is mentioned only twice in the Cilli chronicle, an otherwise relatively detailed family chronicle, although she was the most important female family member, a queen, and an empress as well, therefore achieving the highest rank in the social hierarchy among all the family members altogether. Nevertheless, the chronicler decided to allot more space for the notable male members of the family. Another problem is the unreliability of the sources regarding their chronology and their inaccuracy altogether. Here I am aiming especially at Windeke’s workĽ in which several details have already been disputed and denied by modern scholarship.7 Wilhelm Altmann, ed., Eberhart Windeckes Denkwürdigkeiten zur Geschichte des Zeitalters Kaiser Sigmunds (Berlin: Gaertner, 1893). 6 Franz Krones, ed., Die Freien von Saneck und ihre Chronik als Grafen von Cilli (Graz: Verlag von Leuschner und Lubensky, 1883). In the text I will refer to it as the Cilli chronicle. 7 Amalie FößelĽ “Barbara von Cilli. Ihre frühen Jahre als Gemahlin Sigismunds und ungarische KöniginĽ” in Sigismund von Luxemburg. Ein Kaiser in Europa. Tagungsband des internationalen historischen und kunsthistorischen Kongresses in Luxemburg, 8-10. Juni 2005, ed. Michel Pauly and François Reinert (Mainz: Verlag Philipp von Zabern, 2006), 100 (and n. 33); Peter Johanek, “Eberhard Windecke und Kaiser SigismundĽ” in Sigismund von Luxemburg. Ein Kaiser in Europa. Tagungsband des internationalen historischen und 5 6 The second type of sources I used in my research are the diplomatic or legal sources. Firstly I used Croatian editions of sources like Povijesni spomenici Zagrebačke biskupije,8 Listine o odnošajih između južnog Slavenstva i Mletačke Republike,9 Codex Diplomaticus Regni Croatiae, Dalmatiae et Slavoniae,10 Monumenta historica liberae regiae civitatis Zagrabiae metropolis regni Dalmatiae, Croatiae et Slavoniae11 and the journal Starine12 in which the charter regarding Barbara’s wedding is published. Furthermore I also used Hungarian editions of sources like Codex diplomaticus Hungariae ecclesiasticus ac civilis,13 Diplomatarium relationum reipublicae Ragusanae cum regno Hungariae,14 Codex diplomaticus domus senioris comitum Zichy de Zich et Vasonkeo,15 and the Levéltári Közlemények16 journal, as well as the Hungarian State Archives (MOL) online database 17 of kunsthistorischen Kongresses in Luxemburg, 8-10. Juni 2005, ed. Michel Pauly and François Reinert (Mainz: Philipp von Zabern, 2006), 151-152. 8 Andrija LukinovićĽ ed.Ľ Povijesni spomenici Zagrebačke biskupije [Monumenta historica episcopatus Zagrabiensis]Ľ vol. 5 (Zagreb: Kršćanska sadašnjostĽ 1992)Ľ henceforth MHEZ. 9 Šime LjubićĽ ed.Ľ Listine o odnošajih između južnog Slavenstva i Mletačke Republike [Charters related to the relations between the southern Slavs and the Republic of Venice], vol. 5, Monumenta spectantia historiam Slavorum meridionalium (Zagreb: Jugoslavenska akademija znanosti i umjetnostiĽ 1875)Ľ henceforth LjubićĽ Listine. 10 Duje Rendić-Miočević et al.Ľ ed.Ľ Codex Diplomaticus Regni Croatiae, Dalmatiae et Slavoniae. Vol. 18, Diplomata annorum 1395-1399 continens (Zagreb: Jugoslavenska akademija znanosti i umjetnosti, 1990), henceforth CD 18; Tadija SmičiklasĽ ed.Ľ Codex Diplomaticus Regni Croatiae, Dalmatiae et Slavoniae. vol. 3, Diplomata annorum 1201-1235 continens (Zagreb: Dionička tiskaraĽ 1905)Ľ henceforth CD 3. 11 Ivan Krstitelj TkalčićĽ ed. Monumenta historica liberae regiae civitatis Zagrabiae metropolis regni Dalmatiae, Croatiae et Slavoniae. vol. 2, Diplomata: 1400-1499 (Zagreb: Brzotiskom K. Albrechta, 1894), henceforth TkalčićĽ Monumenta. 12 Ferdo Šiši演Nekoliko isprava iz početka XV. stoljeća“ [Several documents from the beginning of the fifteenth century], Starine 39 (1938): 130-320. 13 Georgius FejérĽ ed.Ľ Codex diplomaticus Hungariae ecclesiasticus ac civilis, vol. 10, no. 4 (Buda: 1841), henceforth CDH. 14 József Gelcich and Lajos ThallóczyĽ ed., Diplomatarium relationum reipublicae Ragusanae cum regno Hungariae. Raguza és Magyarország összeköttetéseinek oklevéltára (Budapest: Magyar Tudományos AkadémiaĽ 1887), henceforth Gelchich, Diplomatarium. 15 Imre Nagy, ed., A zichi és vásonkeői gróf Zichy-család idősb ágának okmánytára. Codex diplomaticus domus senioris comitum Zichy de Zich et Vasonkeo, vol. 5 (Budapest, 1888), henceforth CDZ 5. 16 Elemér MályuszĽ “A szlavóniai és horvátországi középkori pálos kolostorok oklevelei az Országos Levéltárban” [The charters of Slavonian and Croatian Pauline monasteries in the National Archives of Hungary]Ľ Levéltári Közlemények 6 (1928): 87-203Ľ henceforth MályuszĽ Levéltári 6; Elemér MályuszĽ “A szlavóniai és horvátországi középkori pálos kolostorok oklevelei az Országos Levéltárban” [The charters of Slavonian and Croatian Pauline monasteries in the National Archives of Hungary], Levéltári Közlemények 10, no. 1-2 (1932): 92-123Ľ henceforth MályuszĽ Levéltári 10. 17 Collectio Diplomatica HungaricaĽ A középkori Magyarország levéltári forrásainak adatbázisa [Database of Documents of Medieval Hungary], online edition (DL-DF 5.1), http://mol.arcanum.hu/dldf/opt/a110505htm?v=pdf&a=start (last accessed: Mai 2014). 7 digitized sources and the Magyar Történelmi Tár,18 where the charters regarding Sigismund’s land donations to Barbara are published. The regestas of the Zsigmondkori oklevéltár19 were not of particular help to me themselves since they are published exclusively in Hungarian, but they were a helpful stepping stone because they provide remarks on the locations of the original documents and their published versions in the Croatian or Hungarian editions of sources. Although I used them in the said manner, they are not referenced in the text. Finally, in my research I also used archaeological and architectural evidence. 20 These sources fill the gaps in the traditionally utilized written evidence in a useful and hitherto less exploited way, and therefore they need to be mentioned here as well, as an important part of my research and a foundation for my conclusions. The excavation reports and reports on remains of still standing buildings, together with their analysis and interpretation, were an important source of information through which I could better understand Barbara’s wedding and her possible residences in Slavonia. This multidisciplinary approach, combining evidence on political and social history with information on material culture has opened up new perspectives in queenship studies and the history of princely and royal residences (Residenzenforschung) in general21 as well as my work in particular. Gusztáv WenzelĽ ed.Ľ “Okmányi adalék Borbála és Erzsébet magyar királynék birtokáról (1424-1439) [Charter evidence on the domains of the Hungarian queens Barbara and Elizabeth]” Magyar Történelmi Tár 12 (1863): 268-287. 19 Elemér Mályusz et al.Ľ Zsigmondkori oklevéltár (1387–1424) [Charters from the time of Sigismund], vol. 1–11 (Budapest: AkadémiaiĽ 1954–2009). 20 References to the excavation reports will be given at the points where they are discussed in detail. 21 Orsolya RéthelyiĽ “Mary of Hungary in Court Context (1521-1531)Ľ” Ph.D. dissertation (Budapest: Central European University, 2010); Karl-Heinz SpiessĽ "Fremdheit und Integration der ausländischen Ehefrau und ihres Gefolges bei internationalen FürstenheiratenĽ" in Fürstenhöfe und ihre Außenwelt. Aspekte gesellschaftlicher und kultureller Identität im deutschen SpätmittelalterĽ ed. Thomas Zotz (Würzburg: Egon VerlagĽ 2004)Ľ 267-290; Jeroen Duindam, "Early Modern court studies: an overview and a proposal," in Historiographie an europäischen Höfen (16.-18. Jahrhundert): Studien zum Hof als Produktionsort von Geschichtsschreibung und historischer RepräsentationĽ ed. Markus Völkel and Arno Stroymeyer (Berlin 2009)Ľ 37-60; Jan Hirschbiegel and Werner Paravicini, ed., Das Frauenzimmer. Die Frau bei Hofe in Spätmittelalter und früher Neuzeit (Residenzenforschung 11) (Stuttgart: Thorbecke, 2000). 18 8 Historiography Scholarship on Barbara of Cilli has been pursued in at least as many lands as she reigned over, but with varying intensity in space and over time. Starting with Croatian historiography, it has to be noted that very few works on particularly Barbara of Cilli exist among the Croatian scholarship. She is rather mentioned in historical overviews, usually in a negative light, and mostly, if at all, shadowed by the histories of her male relatives. What is also important is that the Cilli family altogether is not as researched by Croatian scholars as it should be, which might explain the underrepresentation of Barbara in Croatian history. 22 From the works pertaining to the second half of the nineteenth century, Barbara is mentioned sporadically and in a negative light in the work of Ivan Kukuljević Sakcinski.23 This work is particularly important as the main literature concerning the legends which linked Barbara to a figure from the Croatian folkloreĽ the “Black Queen”Ľ a character that would be worth revisiting in future scholarship. The most important historical overviews of the first half of the twentieth century in which the Cilli family, and therefore Barbara as well, can also find their place are the two works named Povijest Hrvata.24 Although shown in a black and white understanding of the world, Barbara is mentioned due to her appearance in sources which were the base for the 22 For a first comprehensive overview of the Croatian and Slovenian historiography of the counts of Cilli see Mia MarušićĽ “Hrvatska i slovenska historiografija o grofovima Celjskim” [Croatian and Slovenian historiography about the counts of Cilli], MA thesis (Zagreb: Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, 2013). 23 Ivan Kukuljević SakcinskiĽ “Događaji Medvedgrada” [The history of Medvedgrad]Ľ Arkiv za povjestnicu jugoslavensku 3 (1854): 31-76. 24 Vjekoslav KlaićĽ Povijest Hrvata: od najstarijih vremena do svršetka XIX stoljeća : knjiga druga : treće doba : vladanje kraljeva iz raznih porodica (1301-1526) [History of the Croats: from the earliest times to the end of the nineteenth century: book two: the third age: rule of kings from various families (1301-1526)], ed. Trpimir Macan (Zagreb: Nakladni zavod Matice hrvatskeĽ 1985)Ľ henceforth KlaićĽ Povijest Hrvata 2; Vjekoslav KlaićĽ Povijest Hrvata: od najstarijih vremena do svršetka XIX stoljeća : knjiga treća : treće doba : vladanje kraljeva iz raznih porodica (1301-1526)(drugi dio) [History of the Croats: from the earliest times to the end of the nineteenth century: book three: the third age: rule of kings from various families (1301-1526) (part two)], ed. Trpimir Macan (Zagreb: Nakladni zavod Matice hrvatskeĽ 1985)Ľ henceforth KlaićĽ Povijest Hrvata 3; Ferdo ŠišićĽ Povijest Hrvata. Pregled povijesti hrvatskog naroda 600.-1526. Prvi dio [The history of Croats. An overview of the history of the Croatian people. First part]Ľ reprint of the 3rd editionĽ ed. Jaroslav Šidak (Split: Marjan tisakĽ 2004)Ľ henceforth ŠišićĽ Povijest Hrvata. 9 narration of these books. In the second half of the twentieth century the most important works regarding the Cilli family are the article by Ivan Kampuš “Odnosi grofova Celjskih i zagrebačkog Gradeca”25, the book of Nada Klaić Zadnji knezi Celjski v deželah Sv. Krone,26 in which the author tries to shed a new light on the history of the Cillis, and the responding article by Tomislav Raukar “Grofovi Celjski i hrvatsko kasno srednjovjekovlje”.27 The works focus mainly on the last three male members of the Cilli family. Among the recent works on the Cilli family there is an article about Barbara as an alchemist28, and the works of Robert KurelićĽ his MA thesis “The uncrowned lion: rank, status and identity of the last Cilli”29 and the articles by the same author “Pregled povijesti grofova Celjskih”30 and “The Status of the Counts of Cilli as Princes of the Holy Roman Empire”31 should be mentioned. Worth mentioning are also two articles by Suzana Miljan32 that shed new light on the officials of the Cilli family. The latter one has a useful paragraph about Barbara’s castellans. Turning to the Slovenian historiography, although the Cillis had their main properties in the area of today’s SloveniaĽ and are deemed to be the Slovene national noble familyĽ there still is no monograph on the Cilli family, let alone Barbara herself. Up to the second half of Ivan KampušĽ “Odnosi grofova Celjskih i zagrebačkog Gradeca” [The relations between the Counts of Cilli and Gradec], Historijski zbornik 29-30 (1976-1977): 161-180. 26 Nada Klaić. Posljednji knezovi Celjski u zemljama Svete Krune (Zadnji knezi Celjski v deželah Sv. Krone) [The last Counts of Cilli in the territories of the Holy Crown] (Celje: Občina Celje : Zgodovinsko društvo v Celju, 1982). 27 Tomislav RaukarĽ “Grofovi Celjski i hrvatsko kasno srednjovjekovlje” [The Counts of Cilli and the Croatian late Middle Ages ], Historijski zbornik 36, no.1 (1983): 113-140. 28 Snježana Paušek-BaždarĽ “Kraljica Barbara Celjska kao alkemičarka u Samoboru“ [Queen Barbara of Cilli as an alchemist in Samobor], VDG Jahrbuch 15 (2008): 275-280. 29 Robert KurelićĽ “The uncrowned lion: rankĽ status and identity of the last CilliĽ” MA thesis (Budapest: CEUĽ 2005). 30 Robert KurelićĽ “Pregled povijesti grofova Celjskih” [Overview of the history of the Counts of Cilli]Ľ Historijski zbornik 59 (2006): 201-216. 31 Robert KurelićĽ “The Status of the Counts of Cilli as Princes of the Holy Roman EmpireĽ” Annual of Medieval Studies at CEU 12 (2006): 143-162. 32 Suzana MiljanĽ “Grofovi CeljskiĽ njihovi službenici njemačkog porijekla i Zagorsko kneštvo (comitatus Zagoriensis) krajem srednjeg vijeka (1397.-1456.)” [Die Grafen von CilliĽ ihre Beamten deutschen Stammes und das Fürstentum von Zagorje (comitatus Zagoriensis) zu Ende des Mittelalters (1397-1456)], DG Jahrbuch 19 (2012): 97-118; Suzana MiljanĽ “Grofovi Celjski i NijemciĽ službenici njihovih utvrda u Zagrebačkoj i Križevačkoj županiji u kasnom srednjem vijeku (1385.-1456.)” [Die Grafen von Zilli und die DeutschenĽ Beamten ihrer festungen in der Zagreber und Križevacer Gespanschaft im Spätmittelalter (1385-1456)], DG Jahrbuch 20 (2013): 11-22. 25 10 the twentieth century there were almost no works on the Cillis themselves; one could find them in the historical overviews or short discussions. The most important work from the end of the nineteenth century is the Celska kronika.33 In the twentieth century to highlight are the historical overview by Milko Kos34 and the discussion by Franjo Baš.35 A good overview on the history of the Cilli family can be found in the book by Janko Orožen and in the discussion by Peter Štih.36 In most of these works and other Slovenian historiography Barbara is not mentioned. This situation has changed in the past decade, with the growing interest for gender-related issues and a higher focus on women. Rolanda Fugger Germadnik has done much on the promotion and research of Barbara of Cilli in her works and is currently the leading Slovene expert on Barbara of Cilli.37 The aim of her recently published booklet Barbara of Celje is to clear the name of the “German Messalina”Ľ in order for her to finally find her rightful place in the Slovene historiography.38 A recent and important work by Nataša Golob “Barbara of Celje: In Search of Her Image”39 is also worth mentioning. Ignac OroženĽ Celska kronika [The Cilli chronicle] (Celje: Julius Jeretin, 1854). Milko Kos, Zgodovina Slovencev od naselitve do petnajstega stoletja [History of the Slovenes from the settlement to the fifteenth century] (Ljubljana: Slovenska matica, 1955). 35 Franjo BašĽ “Celjski grofi in njihova doba” [The counts of Cilli and their time]Ľ Celjski zbornik (1951): 7-22. 36 Janko OroženĽ Zgodovina Celja in okolice. Prvi del: od začetka do leta 1848 [The history of Celje and its surroundings. First part: from the foundation to the year 1848] (Celje: Kulturna skupnostĽ 1971); Peter ŠtihĽ “Celjski grofjeĽ vprašanje njihove deželnoknežje oblasti in dežele Celjske” [Die Grafen von CilliĽ die Frage ihrer landesfürstlichen Gewalt und des Cillier Landes]Ľ in Grafenaurjev zbornikĽ ed. Vincenc Rajšp (LjubljanaĽ 1996)Ľ 227-256. 37 Rolanda Fugger GermadnikĽ “Podobe Barbare Celjske (?1394-1451) v slovenskem zgodovinopisju” [The Image of Barbara Celjska (?1394-1451) in Slovene Historiography], in Ženske skozi zgodovino, Zbornik referatov 32. zborovanja slovenskih zgodovinarjev, Celje, 30. september – 2. oktober 2004Ľ ed. Aleksander Žižek (Ljubljana: Zveza zgodovinskih društev Slovenije, 2004), 37-48; Rolanda Fugger Germadnik, ed., Zbornik mednarodnega simpozija Celjski grofje, stara tema - nova spoznanja, Celje, 27. - 29. maj 1998 = Sammelband des internationalen Symposiums Die Grafen von Cilli, altes Thema - neue Erkenntnisse, Celje, 27. - 29. Mai 1998 (Celje: Pokrajinski muzej, 1999). 38 Rolanda Fugger Germadnik, Barbara of Celje, translation by Margaret Davis (Celje: Celje Regional Museum, 2013), 1-2. 39 Nataša GolobĽ “Barbara of Celje (Cilli): In Search of Her ImageĽ” in Art and Architecture around 1400. Global and Regional Perspectives = Umetnost okrog 1400. Globalni in regionalni pogledi, ed. Marjeta Ciglenečki and Polona Vidmar (Maribor: Faculty of Arts of the University of MariborĽ 2012)Ľ 103-118. 33 34 11 From the Hungarian older scholarship concerning Barbara it is worthwhile to mention the articles by Moriz Wertner40 which bring light on specific events regarding Barbara’s wedding, and from the more recent works one should mention the general work on Hungarian history by Pál EngelĽ41 the monograph on Sigismund containing valuable information on Barbara by Elemér Mályusz,42 and the article by Tamás Pálosfalvi. 43 From the German older historiography one should consider the dissertation De Barbara Celeiense, Sigismundi imperatoris altera coniuge44 from the eighteenth century and two others from the beginning of the twentieth century by Hans Chillian and Max Zawadsky.45 From the relatively newer scholarship one should take into account the discussion about the Cillis by Heinz Dopsch46 and the monograph on Sigismund by Jörg Hoensch,47 which mentiones Barbara in passing. Important works about Barbara to highlight are the article by Thomas Krzenck48 and the most recent works by Amalie Fößel49 focusing on Barbara and queenship in general. Moriz WertnerĽ “Eine unbekannte eheliche Allianz des Kaisers SigismundĽ” Monatsblatt der kaiserlichen königlichen heraldischen Gesellschaft “Adler” 2 (1886-1890): 258-262; Moriz WertnerĽ “Zur Genealogie der CillyĽ” Monatsblatt der kaiserlichen königlichen heraldischen Gesellschaft “Adler” 4, no. 5 (1896): 38-40. 41 Pál EngelĽ The Realm of St. Stephen: A History of Medieval Hungary, 895-1526 (London: I.B. Tauris, 2001). 42 Elemér MályuszĽ Kaiser Sigismund in UngarnĽ translation by Anikó Szmodits (Budapest: Akadémiai KiadóĽ 1990). 43 Tamás PálosfalviĽ “Barbara und die Grafen von CilliĽ” in Sigismund - Rex et Imperator. Kunst und Kultur zur Zeit Sigismunds von Luxemburg 1387-1437Ľ ed. Imre Takács (Mainz: Philipp von Zabern VerlagĽ 2006). 44 Iohannes Gotthelf MartiniĽ “De Barbara CeleienseĽ Sigismundi imperatoris altera coniugeĽ” Ph.D. dissertation (Leipzig: Ex officina Breitkopfia, 1759). 45 Hans ChilianĽ “Barbara von CilliĽ” Ph.D. dissertation (Leipzig: Philosophische Fakultät der Universität Leipzig, 1908); Max ZawadskyĽ “Die Cillier und ihre Beziehungen zu Kaiser Sigmund und König Albrecht”Ľ Ph.D. dissertation (Halle: Philosophische Fakultät der Vereinigten Friedrichs-Universität Halle-Wittenberg, 1911). 46 Heinz DopschĽ “Die Grafen von Cilli – Ein Forschungsproblem?” in Südostdeutsches Archiv 17/18 (1974/1975): 9-49. 47 Jörg K. HoenschĽ Kaiser Sigismund. Herrscher an der Schwelle zur Neuzeit 1368-1437 (München: BeckĽ 1996). 48 KrzenckĽ “Messalina”. 49 Amalie FößelĽ “The Queen’s Wealth in the Middle AgesĽ” Majestas 13 (2005): 23-45; FößelĽ “Barbara von Cilli”; Amalie FößelĽ Die Königin im mittelalterlichen Reich. Herrschaftsausübung, Herrschaftsrechte, Handlungsspielräume (Stuttgart: Jan Thorbecke Verlag, 2000). 40 12 Recently new attempts have been made to establish a new understanding of Barbara in the work of Daniela Dvořáková50 who also intends to write about Barbara’s coronationĽ and in the dissertation currently written by Márta Kondor on Sigismund’s rule and administration in the decade between 1410 and 1419.51 Queenship in medieval Europe What was it like to be a queen at the turn of the fourteenth century in Hungary? In the time when the last queen regent was strangled to death, and her daughter, the queen, died by falling off a horse while pregnant? The office of queenship started to be examined only in the last few decades, with the rise of feminism and sensibility to gender-related questions. Before this time, the queens were researched, if at all, only for their person and character. Since then, other circumstances like the queen’s householdĽ its structureĽ the queen’s resourcesĽ and her impact on the political and administrative history have come to the forefront; the queen is researched not only as the wife of the king, but as a person performing a role of authority.52 The problem of the visibility of queens in medieval sources and therefore in scholarship originated from limited visibility of women in the same sources altogether. Written usually by males for a male audience, the sources conceal a vital part of everyday medieval royal life, focusing mainly on politics and the king himself. The stereotypes in the sources make it also hard to see the real person, and not the motive of the person who wrote the source down behind it. The medieval queens, stripped of their title to being, at the end, Daniela DvořákovἠČierna kráľovná. Barbora Celjská: (1392-1451) životný príbeh uhorskej, rímskonemeckej a českej kráľovnej [The black queen. Barbara of Cilli: (1392-1451) insightful book about the life of the Hungarian, Roman-GermanĽ and Bohemian queen] (Budmerice; Bratislava: VydavateĢstvo RAK : Historický ústav SAVĽ 2013). Since the book has appeared rather recently and has not been accessible to me during my research timeĽ I did not have the opportunity to read it and integrate the author’s views in my study. 51 Márta KondorĽ “‘Double-hatted’ in the Middle Ages? Sigismund of Luxembourg and the First Decade of the Hungarian-German Personal Union (1410-1419)Ľ” Ph.D. dissertation (Budapest: Central European University). Manuscript. 52 J. L. Laynesmith, The Last Medieval Queens. English Queenship 1445-1503 (New York: Oxford University Press, 2004), 2, 4-5. 50 13 only women, were a means to an end; the prize one got additionally with a good dowry and with good family connections. But can the sources be reinterpreted differently? Can one figure out the whole story from the details that still are written down? Were the queens of the Middle Ages only scapegoats, waiting to be used, to bear children and secure the succession, or was there another side of the coin? Could the queen be a dangerous political player, a wealthy land-owner, with own ambitions and ideas, with a wish for authority? 53 The general qualities required from a queen were beauty, piety, chastity, mercy, and silence. Often queens of the Middle Ages are depicted kneeling beneath the cross or praying to the Virgin Mary. Can the visual sources be trusted in thinking that this person was really pious? And if she was notĽ if the narrative sources speak of a “faulty bitch and denier of God” (“feile Dirne und Gottesleugnerin”)Ľ54 how can that be interpreted? In the words of Anne Duggan: “Is it possible to extract a true history of royal and imperial women from the stereotypes – negative and positive – which pictorial image, narrative history, and literary topoi have constructed?”55 János M. BakĽ “Queens as Scapegoats in Medieval HungaryĽ” in Queens and Queenship in Medieval Europe, ed. Anne Duggan (Woodbridge, UK: The Boydell Press, 1997), 231. 54 KrzenckĽ “MessalinaĽ” 62. 55 Anne Duggan, ed., Queens and Queenship in Medieval Europe: Proceedings of a Conference Held at King's College London April 1995 (Woodbridge, UK: The Boydell Press, 1997), xv. 53 14 CHAPTER TWO Introduction Regarding the fact that no known sources mention the date or year of Barbara's birth, early scholarship had some significant problems with dating her marriage to Sigismund. Or rather, it is just the other way around: they dated her birth by the information given in the narrative sources about her wedding, relying blindly on the truth of the sources. 56 The Croatian scholarship did not deal with the Cilli family to the extent which this family would deserve due to their importance and wealth, and even if it did, a woman like Barbara did not get much attention. This is why the issue of the year of the wedding does not emerge in the few Croatian texts about the Cillis or in the historical overviews, or if it does 57, the opinion of the author usually gets overruled by the general dates that had been fixed due to the false information in the narrative sources Das Leben König Sigismunds and Die Freien von Saneck und ihre Chronik als Grafen von Cilli, which will be discussed in detail below. Another problem is also that the voice of Croatian scholars is not widely heard in the area of international scholarship, so even though the scholars from the nineteenth and the first half of the twentieth century did promote 1405 as the date of the wedding and were aware of the following charter, the fact that all their works were written in Croatian made it hard for their opinions to establish themselves outside of Croatia. Furthermore, it is interesting to see the division between Croatian and international scholars when dealing with the wedding; for the Croatian scholars Krapina is the undisputed place of the wedding, for international ones, See ChilianĽ “Barbara von Cilli”Ľ 16-18. Max Zawadsky, who wrote his dissertation a few years after Chilian, places the wedding in February 1406Ľ his foundation being the charters that mention Barbara as Sigismund’s consors, domina regina or serenissima princeps. See ZawadskyĽ “Die Cillier und ihre Beziehungen zu Kaiser Sigmund und König Albrecht”Ľ 20. Tadija Smičiklas wrote in his historical overview that the wedding took place in 1406. His work is written “according to the sources” – no references are available, as was the custom in his time. See Tadija SmičiklasĽ Poviest hrvatska. Dio prvi: od najstarijih vremena do godine 1526 [Croatian history. First part: from the oldest times to the year 1526] (Zagreb: Matica hrvatska, 1882), 473. 57 In agreement with my research Šišić places the marriage in the year 1405 in KrapinaĽ which means that at the end of the nineteenth and the beginning of the twentieth century, when he was active, this charter was known to scholars, or at least a few of them, but it has apparently been forgotten. See ŠišićĽ Povijest Hrvata, 228. 56 15 Krapina is the least likely place where the couple would have married. 58 As for the international scholarship, it is only due to recent research and conferences about Sigismund in 2005 and 2006 connected to the exhibition project “Sigismundus rex et imperator”Ľ jointly organized by Hungary and Luxembourg, that there has been a slight movement towards a more correct interpretation of the evidence.59 In the following pages I am going to analyze the events preceding Barbara’s wedding and the charter relating to it. The Cilli family and Barbara’s engagement to Sigismund Sigismund’s first marriage wasĽ like many others among the nobles of that timeĽ politically motivated. The king of Hungary, Poland, and Croatia, Louis of Anjou, wanted to secure the future of his kingdom and his three daughters, by marrying them into royal families, while secretly hoping that his wife bears him a son. Sigismund and Mary of Anjou, the youngest of Louis’ daughtersĽ got engaged in 1373; both were at that time under the age of seven, therefore in order to be able to celebrate a sponsalia de futuro, a form of engagement common in the royal strata, a papal dispensation was requested, which would also deal with the problem of close family relation, since the couple were cousins (Figure 2). For the marriage to be valid, only a consummation was missing, no other religious ceremony was necessary.60 Since the political situation in Hungary after Louis’ I death was more than complicated, with several pretenders to the throne and also several suitors approaching Mary Those who mention the wedding in Krapina are Gjuro SzaboĽ “Spomenici kotara Krapina i Zlatar” [Monuments of the districts of Krapina and Zlatar] Vjesnik Arheološkog muzeja u Zagrebu 13, no. 1 (1914): 111; Vjekoslav KlaićĽ “Krapinski gradovi i predaje o njima” [Castles around Krapina and their traditions] Vjesnik Arheološkog muzeja u Zagrebu 10, no. 1 (1909): 13; Ratko VučetićĽ “Prostorni razvoj srednjovjekovne Krapine” [The urban development of medieval Krapina], Radovi Instituta za povijest umjetnosti 24 (2000): 12; Ferdo ŠišićĽ Vojvoda Hrvoje Vukčić Hrvatinić i njegovo doba (1350-1416) [Duke Hrvoje Vukčić Hrvatinić and his time] (Zagreb: Izdanje “Matice hrvatske”Ľ 1902)Ľ 192. 59 PálosfalviĽ “Barbara und die Grafen von CilliĽ” 296; FößelĽ “Barbara von Cilli”Ľ 101. Pál Engel also correctly states that the marriage took place in 1405, but due to the general character of his overview, he does not support his statement with any sources, see Engel, The Realm of St. StephenĽ 207; Benda KálmánĽ ed.Ľ Magyarország történeti kronológiája [Historical chronology of Hungary]Ľ vol. 1 (Budapest: AkadémiaiĽ 1981)Ľ 241. 60 Oscar Halecki, Jadwiga of Anjou and the Rise of East Central Europe (New Jersey: Columbia University Press, 1991), 55, 59, 65. 58 16 before her sponsalia with Sigismund was consummated, it is difficult to say when the actual sponsalia de praesenti happened. It is known that on 12 May 1386 it was decided that the marriage would be consummated.61 Mary was fifteen at that timeĽ but such a “late” age of consummation should be understood in regard to the above mentioned political situation, rather than due to the necessity to wait for the bride to be more mature. With Mary’s tragic death in 1395 and the fact that Sigismund was king not by direct succession 62, but by marriage,63 and was otherwise a stranger in the Kingdom of Hungary, the need for a new wife seemed more than urgent. What is rarely mentioned is that Sigismund got engaged almost a year after the death of his wife, with Princess MargaretaĽ Duchess of Brzeg (Brieg)Ľ his cousin on his mother’s side.64 As Jörg Hoensch statesĽ the barons were carefully searching for a new wife for the king, weighing their political value, so one of the candidates was even the daughter of Charles DurazzoĽ the King of Naples and Sigismund’s political adversary. Sigismund’s engagement with Margareta was therefore an act of rebellion towards his powerlessness against the barons and a demonstration of his independence.65 Margareta was also a good choice being a descendant of the Piast dynasty, so Sigismund could have had a claim to the Polish throne.66 61 Halecki, Jadwiga of Anjou, 158. His father was the Holy Roman Emperor, but Mary's father was the king of Hungary, and she was crowned “king” after his death. Sigismund was crowned afterwardsĽ but his function was seen more as a prince consort. Another problem was that in an agreement from 1383 it was decided that if one of the Anjou sisters would die before another and without descendantsĽ the other one would inherit her sister’s throne. Since Mary’s sister was still alive and the ruler of Poland, and Mary died while pregnant, Sigismund found himself in a rather serious position; he was in need of a steady throne and a child to succeed him, preferably a male one. See Halecki, Jadwiga of Anjou, 220, 223. 63 Sigismund was elected king of Hungary on 31 March 1387 in his own right, during the uprising against Queen Regent Elizabeth and Queen Mary and while they were in captivity. After Mary’s death howeverĽ it seemed that many nobles thought that also his claim to the Hungarian throne was weakened. …Hungarorum primates ad sufficiendum sibi novum regem, quasi Sigismundus, coniuge mortua, rex eorum esse desierit, animos intenderant. See KlaićĽ Povijest Hrvata 2, 264, 312-313; Halecki, Jadwiga of Anjou, 240. 64 She was the daughter of Henry VIII, Duke of Brzeg and his wife Margareta of Masovia, who was the widow of Casimir IV, Duke of Pomerania, Sigismund's uncle. See Hoensch, Kaiser Sigismund, 91. 65 Hoensch, Kaiser Sigismund, 91. 66 Since his wife Mary had died and her sister had a legal opportunity to claim the Hungarian throne. 62 17 Figure 2. The family tree of Mary of Anjou and Sigismund of Luxemburg (Sara Katanec) Władysław the Elbow-High *1260 - † 1333 King of Poland ∞ Hedwig of Kalisz *1266 - †1339 Elizabeth Piast *1305 - † 1380 Regent of Poland ∞ 1320 Charles Robert of Anjou *1288 - † 1342 King of Hungary and Croatia Casimir III The Great * 1310 - † 1370 King of Poland ∞1325, 1365 1. Aldona of Lithuania 4. Hedwig of Żagán Louis I Anjou *1326 - † 1382 King of Hungary, Croatia and Poland ∞ 1353 Elizabeth Kotromanić of Bosnia * c. 1339 - † 1387 Daughter N.N. *1365 - † 1366 Catherine of Anjou *1370 - † 1378 Hedwig of Anjou *1374 - † 1399 King of Poland ∞ 1386 Władysław II Jagiełło *c.1351 - † 1434 Mary of Anjou *1371 - † 1395 King of Hungary and Croatia Elizabeth Piast (1.) * 1326 - † 1361 ∞ 1343 Bogislaw V, Duke of Pomerania Anna Piast (4.) *1366 - † 1425 ∞ 1380/82 Willliam, Count of Cilli *1361 - † 1394 Elizabeth of Pomerania *1347 - † 1393 ∞ Charles IV, Holy Roman Emperor *1316 - † 1378 Anna of Cilli 1380/81 - † 1416 ∞ 1402 Władysław II Jagiełło *c.1351 - † 1434 King of Poland Sigismund of Luxemburg * 1368 - † 1437 ∞ (1373)1385, ∞ (1401)1405 1. Mary of Anjou 2. Barbara of Cilli 18 Some authors claim that Margareta was born before 1384, so at the time of the engagement she would have been at least twelve years old; others say that in 1396 when the engagement occurred she would have been “very young”. Although apparently his choiceĽ several problems kept Sigismund from the new marriage: his bride-to-be was still underage, the marriage needed a papal dispensation because of the too close relationshipĽ and the bride’s family had trouble raising funds for the dowry.67 Because Margareta was still under age, the marriage was postponed for a couple of years. Although recent scholarship has mostly not been aware of this relationship or claimed that there was only an engagement which was broken off, there are indications that there was more to the story. According to a charter from 8 April 1401Ľ Margareta was addressed as Sigismund’s wifeĽ and was to be brought with an entourage to Hungary (pro conducenda serenissima principe domina Margaretha ducissa de Breega, conthorali nostra carissima).68 In explanation, the line of events would most likely have looked like this: After the dowry was settled in mid-May 1400, either the marriage happened per procurationem and Sigismund was waiting for his bride to come to Hungary to finalize the ceremony, or he was so sure that the marriage would happen now that the dowry had been settled, that he called Margareta his wife in spe.69 Scholars had a similar explanation when dating Barbara’s marriage to a later yearĽ and considering that their assumptions were wrong70, I would support that the marriage happened by proxy, since it was a custom between the spouses of royal lineage,71 rather than Sigismund’s wishful thinking. What happened after the charter from April 1401 is still disputed. Sigismund was imprisoned by the barons at the 67 Hoensch, Kaiser Sigismund, 91; According to Wertner, Margareta is mentioned twice in a charter from 17 May 1400 as a beneficiary, probably receiving funds for her dowry. Her brother Ludwig II is said to have gotten into financial troubles while equipping his sister for her betrothal (“da er unsere liebe Muhme das Fräulein seine Schwester nach unserem Wille gegen Ungarn ausrichteteĽ davon er darnach zu grossem Schaden kam…”). See WertnerĽ “Eine unbekannte eheliche Allianz”Ľ 259-260. 68 WertnerĽ “Zur Genealogie der Cilly”Ľ 38; WertnerĽ “Eine unbekannte eheliche Allianz”Ľ 258. For the edition of the charter see CDZ 5, 242-243. 69 WertnerĽ “Eine unbekannte eheliche Allianz”Ľ 261. 70 Fößel argues that Barbara was referred to as conthoralis after December 1405, but that it does not prove anything since Margareta was also called conthoralis. This old-new insight into Sigismund’s relationship with Margareta might shed new light on this whole matter. See FößelĽ “Barbara von Cilli”Ľ 101. 71 See Altmann, Medium regni, 201. 19 end of April, so some authors argue that the marriage had happened, but Margareta reached Hungary too late and died shortly after Sigismund’s releaseĽ leaving the king again in need of a new wife.72 Others claim that, according to an anniversarium from Brieg, Margareta died in the summer of 1401, and Sigismund, having been released in August and keeping Hermann of Cilli in mind as his savior, had the chance for another engagement with Barbara in the fall of the same year.73 Hermann of Cilli was a practical man, an important and wealthy count who wanted his family to gain power and grow out of the vassalage which the Habsburgs have put them under. Besides three (legitimate) sons, Hermann II of Cilli also had three daughters (Figure 3). He married his eldest daughter, Elizabeth, to Henry, count of Gorizia and his middle daughter Anna to Palatine Nicolas Garai74. According to the chronicle, the marriage of his middle daughter was an arrangement between him and Garai to free the king from prison and receive his daughter’s hand instead. In this way the Cilli family made alliances with wealthy and powerful families. As the Cilli chronicle states: The above mentioned count Hermann had also three daughters beside the three sons: the oldest he gave to the Count Henry of Gorizia. Then it occurred that several Hungarian nobles attacked and captured their lord and king, King Sigismund, and handed him over captured to the palatine, called Garai Nicolas, so that he may hold him captured in prison. Count Hermann of Cilli became aware of this and took care of it and sent to the Hungarian borderlands and negotiated there on the Drava River with the palatine about King Sigismund about how he could set him free; then he remembered the great love and favor, that Emperor Charles, the father of the mentioned King Sigismund, had for his forefathers, the counts of Cilli, and who raised their name in dignity and made them counts … And because of that he would have liked to help him out of his prison. And when this also happened, then the matter was negotiated, that Count Hermann of Cilli promised to give the hand of his middle daughter to the above mentioned palatine, and he set free the above mentioned King Sigismund, who would otherwise have died in prison.75 ZawadskyĽ “Die Cillier und ihre Beziehungen zu Kaiser Sigmund und König Albrecht”Ľ 15. WertnerĽ “Eine unbekannte eheliche Allianz”Ľ 261. 74 FößelĽ “Barbara von CilliĽ”96. 75 Krones, Die Freien von Saneck, 73-74. “Auch hat der obgenandt graff Hermann zu den dreyen suhnen drey töchter: die elter gab er graff Heinrichen von Görtz. Nun fügt sichĽ das etlich ungrisch hern ihren herrn und königĽ könig Sigmunden anfielen und fingenĽ und antworteten ihn gefangen dem grossgraffen, genandt Gara Niclas, das er ihn gefangen in gefangknus solt halten. Des (ward) graff Hermann von Cilli gewahr und nahm (sich) darumb an und sandt zu dem ungrischen gemercken und tädingt do an der Traa mit dem gross-graffen von 72 73 20 Among all of his children, he built up his hopes mostly upon Frederick, Barbara, and their cousin Anna. Frederick was to inherit all of the Cilli lands, titles, and glory76, Barbara was useful as a direct connection to the king of Hungary, and Anna was a link to the Polish king, his court, and influence. She was the daughter of Hermann’s cousinĽ William of CilliĽ and his wife, Anna, one of the daughters of the Polish king, Casimir The Great (see Figure 2 and Figure 3). Being the granddaughter of the last Piast king, she was to play a significant role in the game of succession. As her uncle, Hermann adopted her after her father died and her mother remarried, raising her in Celje together with Barbara and her sisters. Apparently she was chosen to be the next wife of the soon-to-be widowed Polish king Władysław II JagiełłoĽ and by none other than by his dying wife Hedwig of Anjou, in order to strengthen the Polish throne. When the widowed king sent for the girl in 1400, Hermann was more than happy to comply. The marriage took place on 29 January 1402.77 Since Sigismund owed his life to Hermann of Cilli, and because the Count was aware of the political and most likely also of the financial advantages of a royal marriage, they agreed on the engagement of the count’s daughterĽ BarbaraĽ with Sigismund probably already after the king’s release from prison in August 1401.78 In the chronicle of the Cilli family one of the few references mentioning Barbara is the one regarding this famous event. The chronicler states that: könig Sigmundts wegenĽ wie er ihn hett ledig mugen machen; dann er bedacht die gross lieb und gunstĽ die keyser CarlĽ des bemelten könig Sigmundts vatterĽ zu seinen vorfodern den graffen von Cilli hettĽ und sy an ihrem namen würdigkeit hett erhöht und zu graffen gemacht … . Und darumb hett er ihm auch gern aus seiner gefenknus geholffen. Als auch das beschah, do wardt die sach vertheidingt, das graff Hermann von Cilli dem ehegenandten gross-graffen ehelich zu geben sein mittere tochter versprach, und machet also den ehegenandten könig Sigmundt ledigĽ der anders in der gefengknus hett sterben mussen.” 76 Except in the years of the disagreement between the father and the son (1422-1425). See Viktor KučinićĽ Veronika Desinićka u svjetlu historije [Veronika of Desinić in the light of history] (Zagreb: Jugoslavenska štampaĽ 1939)Ľ 13-14. 77 Hedwig was Mary of Anjou's sisterĽ who was similarly crowned as “king” of Poland. She died shortly after her newborn child in 1399. Because the throne was empty and her husband had to be re-elected as king in his own right, a suitable new spouse was sought, possibly with hereditary rights, and so the granddaughter of a Piast king, Anna, was the perfect choice. Halecki, Jadwiga of Anjou, 257, 264-265; ZawadskyĽ “Die Cillier und ihre Beziehungen zu Kaiser Sigmund und König Albrecht”Ľ 16. 78 ChilianĽ “Barbara von Cilli”Ľ 16-17Ľ KlaićĽ Povijest Hrvata 2, 341, 383. 21 Since the Count Hermann of Cilli did good to King Sigismund and helped him flee from his hard prison, in which he should otherwise have died, that is why King Sigismund kept him in mind and did not want to leave such fidelity and great friendship unrewarded, and so King Sigismund asked Count Hermann of Cilli to give him his young daughter, named Barbara, to be his wife, which at first Count Hermann did not want to do. But the king himself managed to get consent from the Hungarian prelates and lords and they were pleased and begged him (the count) diligently for it. This happened, because all of the most powerful nobles in Hungary wrote to him and asked him for it. And so was the younger daughter of Count Hermann of Cilli given to King Sigismund as a wife.79 meaning that Hermann thought profoundly about giving Barbara’s hand to the kingĽ and finally did so only upon the plea of the Hungarian barons and the king himself. According to Vjekoslav KlaićĽ the couple might have met personally at that time alreadyĽ since Sigismund “went to HermannĽ where he got engaged to his daughter.” In this way he wanted to calm the nobles in Hungary who criticized Sigismund’s amorous and immoral life after Queen Mary’s death. Afterwards he returned to Hungary and called the barons and prelates to a meeting on 29 October in the city of Pápa.80 The place where Sigismund went in this assumption might refer to CeljeĽ especially since Klaić claims that Sigismund returned to Hungary afterwards. It is also notable that neither KlaićĽ nor any other Croatian scholar mentions MargaretaĽ even as his betrothed. There is a possibility that the consent that Sigismund got from the barons and prelates for his engagement, mentioned in the chronicleĽ was at the meeting in PápaĽ so Sigismund went to Celje only afterwards or plainly agreed with Hermann on the spot, not having to go to Celje at all. Windecke also speaks of the marriage as a result of gratefulness Krones, Die Freien von Saneck, 74-75. “Do nun graff Hermann von Cilli so gar wol an dem könig Sigmunden thet, und ihn aus seiner harten gefengknus geholffen hett, darin er anders hett sterben mussen, do bedacht nun könig Sigmundt hinwiederumb gegen ihm und wolt ihn auch solcher treu und grosser freundtschaft nicht unvergolten lassenĽ und bat aber könig Sigmundt graff Hermann von Cilli umb sein junge tochterĽ genandt Barbara, ihm die zu einer ehelichen gemahl zu geben, das aber graff Hermann am ersten nicht thun wolt. Nur allein der könig bracht es zuwegenĽ das ihm die ungrischen prelaten und herrn zusagten und wohlgefallen sy und ihn auch vleissig darumb baten. Das beschah, als wan ihn die mechtigsten herrn in Ungern all darumb schrieben und darumb bathen. Und also wardt graff Hermann von Cilli jüngere tochter könig Sigmunden zu einer ehelichen gemahl gegeben.” 80 KlaićĽ Povijest Hrvata 2Ľ 341. Smičiklas also argues that Sigismund went to Celje to get betrothed, see SmičiklasĽ Poviest hrvatska, 466. 79 22 for Sigismund’s release from prisonĽ or as he puts itĽ “repaying loyalty with loyalty”81, but as I stated above, this is not likely to have been true because as much as Sigismund needed a strong and wealthy ally in Hermann, Hermann equally needed the support in lands and money that he longed for from the king, so the engagement would most likely have been a mutual agreement with benefits for both sides. As Chilian wisely notes, Hermann could have had second thoughts about the marriage only in relation to the Habsburgs and the new position he would find himself in if he were to engage in an alliance with the king, and gratitude alone as a motive for Sigismund to be engaged to Barbara was not a strong enough reason. 82 As the history of the Cilli family shows, the Cillis tried to get out of the Lehensherrschaft of the Habsburgs for years, so Hermann’s decision could have only been a move in this direction.83 Pál Engel gives another perspective on the betrothal of the coupleĽ stating that Sigismund did this after he was released from prison in spite of the barons, who held him captive and demanded that he rid himself of his foreign counselors.84 Not only did he marry the daughter of a foreigner85, but he also made the foreigner, Hermann of Cilli, one of the wealthiest persons in the kingdom. It certainly may be that he did this out of a grudge, but the other reasons probably gave his decision the most weight. Again another opinion is that Sigismund wanted to reestablish family connections between Poland and Hungary with this marriage, since Barbara was a close cousin of 81 the new Polish queen (Figure 3).86 See n. 111. ChilianĽ “Barbara von Cilli”Ľ 16. 83 Johannes GrabmayerĽ “CilliĽ Grafen von (SanneggĽ Freie von)Ľ” in Höfe und Residenzen im spätmittelalterlichen Reich. Ein dynastisch-topographisches Handbuch, vol. 1, ed. Werner Paravicini (Ostfildern: Thorbecke, 2003), 52. 84 Engel, The Realm of St. Stephen, 207. 85 Although Hermann was by that time the owner of lands in southern Hungary and Slavonia, so technically a part of the kingdom, I would still argue that he was seen by the other nobles and barons as a foreigner. With the donation from 1397Ľ when Sigismund gave Hermann the city of Varaždin and the castles Vinica and VrbovacĽ the charter also stated that the Cillis were to have this more et ad instar ceterorum ipsius regni nostri Hungarie Baronum, giving them therefore the same status as the Hungarian barons had, but the Cillis were still seen as “nationalized” Hungarian nobles. See ZawadskyĽ “Die Cillier und ihre Beziehungen zu Kaiser Sigmund und König Albrecht”Ľ 12. 86 ZawadskyĽ “Die Cillier und ihre Beziehungen zu Kaiser Sigmund und König Albrecht”Ľ 16. 82 23 Figure 3. The Cilli family tree (Sara Katanec) Frederick I, Count of Cilli from 1341 *c. 1300 - † 1359/60 ∞ Diemut of Wallsee † 1357 Ulrich I, Count of Cilli *c. 1331 - † 1368 ∞ 1360 Adelheid of Ortenburg † 1391 Herman I, Count of Cilli *1332/34 - † 1385 ∞ 1361/2 Catherine Kotromanić of Bosnia *1336 - †c.1396 William, Count of Cilli *1361 - † 1392 ∞ 1380 Anna Piast *1366 - † 1425 Anna of Cilli *1380/81 - † 1416 ∞ 1402 Władysław II Jagiełło *c.1351 - † 1434 King of Poland Hans *1363 - † 1372 Herman IV *1385 - † 1421 Bishop of Freising illegitimate, additionally legitimized Ulrich II (1.), Count of Cilli *1405/06 - † 1456 ∞ 1434 Katarina Branković Herman IV *1436 - †1452 George *1438/9 †1443/5 Frederick II, Count of Celje *1379 - † 1454 ∞ c. 1405 1. Elizabeta Frankapan (*1386 - † 1422) 2. Veronika Desinić († 1425) 3. Veronika of Cyeszyn (Teschen) Frederick III (2.) Elizabeth II *1441 - † 1455 ∞ Matthias Corvinus John † after 1462 Herman II (1.) *1431 Elizabeth *1382 - †1426 ∞ Henry VI, Count of Gorizia *1376 - † 1454 Margareth (1.) *c. 1411/15 - †1480 ∞ 1430, ∞ 1444/5 1. Herman of MontfortPfanberg (†1435) 2.Władysław of Cyeszyn († 1460/63) George I (1.) *1433 Anna *c. 1340 - † after 1354 ∞ Otto IV, Count of Ortenburg † 1374/76 Herman II, Count of Cilli *1365 - † 1435 ∞ 1377 Anna of Schaunberg *c. 1358 - † 1396 Herman III, Count of Celje *1380 - †1426 ∞ 1403, ∞ 1422 1. Elizabeth of Abensberg († bef. 1423) 2. Beatrice of Bavaria Daughter N. N. † bef. 1474 Katarina *1334/40 - † 1389 ∞ 1352, ∞ 1366 1. Albert III, Count of Gorizia († 1365) 2. Johann II. Truchsess von Waldburg († 1424) Anna †1434 Johann III (1.) *1434 24 Barbara (1.) *1435 Anna *1384 - † after 1438 ∞ 1401/2 Nicholas II Garay *1367 - † 1433 Louis *1387 - † 1417 Barbara * 1392 - † 1451 ∞ 1405 Sigismund of Luxemburg *1368 - † 1437 Elizabeth of Luxemburg *1409 - † 1442 ∞ 1421 Albert II Habsburg *1397 - † 1439 Margaret † 1450 Anne of Habsburg *1432 - † 1462 George *1435 - † 1435 Elizabeth of Habsburg *1437/8 - † 1505 Ladislas V Posthumus *1440 - † 1457 A few months before the wedding, on 24 May 140587, Sigismund pledged the city of Čakovec in Međimurje to Hermann of Cilli for 48000 forints. It is not known if he did that in favor of his soon-to-be father-in-law to grant him a possession near his own in the Zagorje County or was he just looking for someone who had the much needed cash at his disposal, as Sigismund was preparing a campaign in Bosnia. On 3 August 1405 Sigismund confirmed Hermann’s rights to the city of VaraždinĽ and after the weddingĽ in the spring of 1406Ľ Hermann became ban of Dalmatia, Croatia, and Slavonia.88 Being related to a number of noble families, Barbara and her father Hermann were of great help to King Sigismund. By marrying Hermann’s daughter AnnaĽ the palatine became the king’s brother-in-law. The palatine’s sister was the second wife of Nikola IV FrankapanĽ the most powerful and important nobleman in medieval Croatia at that time, and his niece Elizabeth was the wife of Frederick of Cilli. The palatine had also family connections with the counts of Blagaj, and Nicholas with the Zrinski and Kurjaković families. With such important family connections, Sigismund became a desirable ally, so many nobles decided to take his side and acknowledge his supremacy during the years of war and campaigns in Bosnia. By 87 The charter is dated with the feast day of St. Helen, which was celebrated differently according to Latin or Orthodox Christianity. Klaić wrongly states that the date of the pledge was 21 August 1405, not only because of the difference between the calendars, but also because he probably miscalculated the date. This date also does not fit into his narrative, where he states that Sigismund prepared for the campaign in Bosnia in the first half of 1405, and the war beginning in the second. See the discussion on Bosnia below. Zawadsky calculated the date correctly as 23 August 1405, but did not take into account that the charter was issued in a Hungarian chancery, and that the Hungarian liturgical calendar was affected by the Orthodox calendar, therefore the correct date was 24 May for the year 1405. The charter was correctly dated and edited in ŠišićĽ “Nekoliko isprava iz početka XV. stoljeća”Ľ 251-252. … nos totum districtum Drava-Murakwz vocatum simulcum universis opidis, villis et totali territorio ac dominio eiusdem, necnon castris Chaaktornya et Strygo nuncupatis ac possessionem Bednya vocatam, cum omnibus eorum ac ipsius pertinenciis et quibuslibet utilitatibus ad districtum, castra ac possessionem huiusmodi rite spectantibus et pertinentibus, fideli nostro grato et sincere dilecto spectabili domino Hermanno comiti Cilii, Zagorie etc., necnon Friderico, Hermanno et Lodovico, filiis suis ipsorumque heredibus, pro quadraginta octo milibus florenis auri puri boni… datis ac assignatis… . For the other examples see KlaićĽ Povijest Hrvata 2, 375, 383; ZawadskyĽ “Die Cillier und ihre Beziehungen zu Kaiser Sigmund und König Albrecht”Ľ 20. 88 KlaićĽ Povijest Hrvata 2, 375, 383-384; ZawadskyĽ “Die Cillier und ihre Beziehungen zu Kaiser Sigmund und König Albrecht”Ľ 21. 25 helping the king with his political issues, every one of them could count on favors in return.89 Marrying Barbara therefore seemed to be a well planned political tactic. Bosnia and the events of 1405 The Cilli’s connections with Hungarian noble families were not the only thing from which Sigismund could take an advantage. As Barbara’s family tree showsĽ she was the granddaughter of Catherine Kotromanić of Bosnia (see Figure 3 and Figure 4). The descent of this noblewoman is still disputed; she might have been the sister of Elizabeth Kotromanić or the sister of Stephen Tvrtko I Kotromanić. Either wayĽ Barbara would have had royal blood. On one hand, she would have had the right to the throne of Hungary, being the grandniece of Elizabeth and through her being related to Louis of Anjou, as well as cousin of the late Queen Mary, and given Sigismund desperately needed stabilization to his claim for the Hungarian throne. On the other hand, Barbara would have had the right to the throne of Bosnia, being the grandniece of the self-proclaimed first king of Bosnia, which might be another motivation for Sigismund to pursue the Bosnian throne.90 Šišić argues that Sigismund even intended to crown Barbara and himself as Bosnian rulers, but his plans got hindered. 91 According to a letter of instructions the Republic of Ragusa issued to its envoys on 21 October 1410, the Major Council and the Senate (rogati) decided to give 1500 ducats as a gift domino nostro serenissimo et domine regine in ista sua coronatione regni Bossine.92 KlaićĽ Povijest Hrvata 2, 383-384. Klaić argues that Sigismund's motivation came from an agreement he made with the Bosnian King Stephen Dabiša in July 1393; Sigismund acknowledged Dabiša as the rightful Bosnian king and made peace with himĽ while Dabiša agreed that the Bosnian throne should pass to Sigismund after his death. Some authors claim that the meeting never happened. Dabiša died a few months after Queen Mary, but the Bosnian nobles would not accept Sigismund as their king. See KlaićĽ Povijest Hrvata 2, 306, 312-313. This might also be an interesting discussion for other scholars. 91 ŠišićĽ Povijest Hrvata, 229-230. The war in Bosnia was successful; Sigismund captured the castle Dobor and condemned all the captured Bosnian nobles to death. This move cost him however his claim on the Bosnian crown; after seeing how Sigismund dealt with them, the remaining Bosnian nobility reelected Stephen Ostoja as their king, and withdrew their allegiance to Sigismund. 92 Šišić took the information from Nicolae IorgaĽ ed.Ľ Notes et extraits pour servir a l'histoire des croisades au XVe siécle [Notes and extracts for use in the history of the Crusades in the fifteenth century], vol. 2 (Paris: Ernest Leroux, 1899), 126. Iorga took his information from Gelcich, Diplomatarium, 195-200 and Jovan RadonićĽ “Der 89 90 26 After Stephen Tvrtko I crowned himself king of Bosnia and Serbia in 1377, Bosnia became an independent state. He claimed to be king of Croatia and Dalmatia as well, and by reaching into this area, he and later rulers of Bosnia tried to make allies on different sides in order to support their cause. The Bosnian King Stephen Ostoja was a political opponent of King Ladislaus of Naples and an ally of the Republic of VeniceĽ hoping that after Ladislaus’ death he would inherit the rule over all of Croatia and Dalmatia. After Ladislaus’ coronation in Zadar, Ostoja decided to go to war with the Republic of Ragusa, which constantly refused to acknowledge his supremacy, but also refused to acknowledge Ladislaus as king. Ostoja demanded that Ragusa returns the lands he once gave it and to raise his banners in the city. After Ragusa refused and stayed loyal to Sigismund, a war began in the summer of 1403. Having a good relationship with the king, the citizens of Ragusa urged Sigismund to help them. When Ostoja saw that he would not win the war, he changed his tactics; since Sigismund proclaimed an amnesty for all of his opponents who would subject themselves to him, Ostoja chose to make peace with the king of Hungary. Angered by this decision, the Republic of Ragusa decided to work at deposing their Bosnian rival by cooperating with the man who put him on the throne, but was also annoyed with him: Duke (herceg) Hrvoje Vukčić Hrvatinić. Both sides would profit from such an alliance: Ragusa would place their protégé on the Bosnian throneĽ and Ragusa would recommend Hrvoje to Sigismund. Meanwhile other Bosnian nobles decided to depose Ostoja; in June 1404, Stephen Tvrtko II Tvrtković was elected kingĽ and Ostoja fled to one of his castles. 93 Grossvojvode von Bosnien Sandalj Hranić-KosačaĽ” in Archiv für slawische Philologie 19, ed. Vatroslav Jagić (Berlin: Weidmannsche Buchhandlung, 1897), 414. What is still unclear to me is why Iorga cites the instructions in LatinĽ although Gelchich recorded and edited them in Italian: “che li Bossignani sanno rinduti al signore et a facto concordio et che quisti gurni lo incoronarano del regno.” In translationĽ the Bosnians are subjects to the ruler who will, by agreement, be crowned king in the following days, and that the campaigns (against the Bosnians) would endanger the said coronation and the peace. I thank my dear colleague Josip Banić for the translation. FurthermoreĽ in Gelchich’s edition there is no mention of the amount of payment that should be granted to Sigismund. Since this matter is not really of my concernĽ but only Sigismund’s motives for pursuing the throne through Barbara, this issue remains to be solved by other scholars. 93 KlaićĽ Povijest Hrvata 2, 368-373. 27 Figure 4. The Kotromanić family tree (Sara Katanec) (the dashed lines represent possible relationship) Stephen I Kotromanić *1242 - † 1313 Ban of Bosnia ∞ 1284 Elizabeth Nemanjić of Serbia *1270 - † 1331 Stephen II Kotromanić *1292 - † 1353 Ban of Bosnia ∞ 1323/ legalized 1339 3. Elizabeth of Kuyavia Elizabeth Kotromanić *c. 1339 - † 1387 ∞1353 Louis I Anjou *1326 - †1382 King of Hungary, Croatia and Poland Catherine Kotromanić *1336 - †c.1396 ∞1361/62 Herman I, Count of Cilli *1332/34 - † 1385 Vladislav Kotromanić *1295 - † 1354 Co-regent of Bosnia ∞ Jelena Šubić *c.1306 - † c. 1378 Ninoslav Kotromanić * c.1288 StephenTvrtko I Kotromanić *1338 - †1391 Ban of Bosnia (1353-1377) King of Bosnia (1377-1391) ∞1374 Dorothea of Bulgaria † c.1391 Stephen Dabiša *after 1339 - †1395 King of Bosnia (1391-1395) ∞ Jelena (Gruba) Nikolić Stephen Tvrtko II Tvrtković * c.1375-1382 - †1443 King of Bosnia (1404-1409, 1421-1443) 28 Stephen Ostoja †1418 King of Bosnia (1398-1404, 1409-1418) In order to rid themselves of Ostoja’s influenceĽ most of his political moves were revoked. Tvrtko II, under the influence of Duke Hrvoje, made peace with the Republic of Ragusa, giving back all the lands the republic had lost in the recent war with Bosnia and giving it other formalities. However, King Sigismund was unhappy with the deposition of his subject in Bosnia, so he prepared for a war in the first half of 1405, raising funds and gathering an army. The war started in the second half of 1405, with Bosnia having allies in King Ladislaus and also in Ragusa, although not directly, but through the arms trade. Sigismund did not stay long in Bosnia: after having breached Bihać castleĽ he could not hold it, so his army withdrew.94 On their way home Sigismund married Barbara in Krapina. The friction continued during 1406 and 1407, with Sigismund trying to make an alliance with Venice, which was repeatedly turned down. Due to his illness, none of the campaigns in the second half of 1407 were successful, so he retreated again, probably to avoid fighting during wintertime and to go gather his strength for a war in 1408.95 The wedding: Problems with dating resolved? A charter from Krapina As mentioned aboveĽ scholarship had significant problems with establishing Barbara’s birth year as well as dating her marriage to Sigismund. Yet, a charter issued in Krapina in medieval Slavonia on 16 November 1405 by King Sigismund could help to find an answer to these questions (Figure 5).96 The most interesting part in this document is the narratio: After it was suggested to our heart by the highest flame to choose the right path so that in the future joy and long-lasting security should come forth not just for us, but even to all those faithful subjects to our rule, we have found it right that the famous young lady Barbara, daughter of lord Hermann, count of Cilli and Zagorje, should be joined to us as a spouse and should be joined in our rule as a queen according to the laws of marriage. Her we have made a consort of our wedding chamber and also so that we should continue this good beginning in a particularly praiseworthy and plausible way, we have decided to distinguish KlaićĽ Povijest Hrvata 2, 374-376. KlaićĽ Povijest Hrvata 2, 378-379; MályuszĽ Kaiser Sigismund in Ungarn, 139-140. 96 Ferdo ŠišićĽ “Nekoliko isprava iz početka XV. stoljeća” [Several charters from the beginning of the fifteenth century], Starine 39 (1938): 258; CDZ 5, 416-417. 94 95 29 her with the holy crown, as it is the custom for queens, in the royal city of Székesfehérvár on SundayĽ namely the feast of St. Nicholas the Confessor, the one which is coming now. 97 Although most of the things that are stated in the charter are figures of speech that are part of a customary formula, looking past the courteous expressions one can distinguish some essential information. In the charter King Sigismund announces to the provost and to the Buda chapter that he has married Barbara of Cilli, consummated the marriage, and that he plans to have her crowned on the upcoming Saint Nicholas’ Day in Székesfehérvár. He also invites the provost to witness and take part in the coronation, highlighting that he should send somebody in his stead if he himself cannot attend: Because of this, wishing to make your faithfulness a part of this kind of joy which has been desired by you for a long time as I truthfully suspect, we invite your faithfulness by means of the present letter and through our faithful and beloved Jacob, the brother of master Zeel, our castellan from Buda, to the place and on the date of the aforesaid coronation of our queen, entrusting to him to announce to your faithfulness the joy of this solemn occasion, also because we want that you should be present at the aforementioned coronation of our queen, either you or some designated people on your behalf should be obliged to be there in order to pay the due honors to us and to the queen and to show us the loyalty you owe us.98 From this part of the charter one can see that Barbara’s coronation was also an important and festive event, to which several other subjects of the king, who were not already with him as part of his court, were probably also invited, not only to honor their liege lord, but also the future queen. It is a pity that no written document of the crowning ceremony itself has been found. The fact that this invitation to the crowning was preserved is a wonder by itself. 97 CDZ 5, 417. Suggerente siquidem cordi nostro altissimo flamine partem bonam eligere, ut exinde nedum nobis, verum eciam cunctis regimini nostro subiectis fidelibus leticiaet tranquillitas perennis concrescat, inclitam virginem Barbaram, filiam domini Hermanni comitis Cyli et Sagurie, nobis in coniugem ac regnis nostris in reginam lege matrimonii duximus copulandam, quam thoro nostro regio sociavimus, hanc vero ut principium bonum laudabilius et utilius deducamus, in die dominica videlicet in festo beati Nicolai confessoris nunc proxime affuturo ad instar moris reginalis in regali civitate Albensi sacro diademate decrevimus insignire. Translated by the author. For the German translation of the same charter see WertnerĽ “Zur Genealogie der Cilly”Ľ 38-39. 98 CDZ 5, 417. Quapropter vestram fidelitatem huiusmodi gaudii per vos, ut verisimiliter estimamus, a diu desiderati, participes effici volentes, ad diem et locum premisse coronacionis reginalis per fidelem nostrum dilectum Jacobum germanum magistri Zeeli castellani nostri Budensis, testimonio presencium invitamus, committentes eidem huius solemnitatis gaudium vestris fidelitatibus enunciare, volentes quoque, ut vos seu nomine vestro certi ex vobis premisse coronacioni reginali interesse debeatis seu teneamini, nobis et eidem regine honores congruos impensuri, fidelitatemque debitam ostensuri. Translated by the author. 30 Figure 5. Charter from Krapina, 16 November 1405 (MNL OL DL 78655) The invitation is written on paper, which is easily degradable, instead of parchment, probably because dozens of such invitations were written and handed out – it was, after all, an invitation to a crowning – and parchment was more expensive. Traces of the big majesty seal are visible on the paper, giving the invitation a greater mark of importance. Also, looking at the writing, one can see that the cursive gothic script is hard for the modern eye to read because it was clearly written in haste, and, as stated above, not in only one copy, so the scribe did not pay attention to details or the neatness of the whole letter. The reason for this haste should also be taken into account. Was the rush necessary because Sigismund married Barbara on his way back from a campaign in Bosnia? Would it be different if the marriage had happened in Buda or Visegrád? Furthermore, the importance of this charter is even greater if one considers that no accounts of the royal household nor the marriage contract have been preserved,99 so this charter has a key position in further research of Barbara of Cilli. Similarly to the wedding to be discussed below in detail, hardly anything is known about Barbara’s coronation either. Since the ordo of the coronation was not preserved, Barbara’s coronation can only be compared to those of her successors in order to establish possible similarities. Barbara’s daughter Elizabeth was crowned with an unidentified diadem 99 FößelĽ “The Queen’s Wealth”Ľ 39. 31 by the bishop of VeszprémĽ while her husbandĽ AlbertĽ was crowned with the Holy Crown by the archbishop of Esztergom.100 The coronation of Beatrix of Aragon makes a good comparison, since the wedding and crowning ceremonies were written down and preserved. The circumstances of her ceremonies are also special: she met her betrothed Matthias Corvinus in SzékesfehérvárĽ probably because it was closer to NaplesĽ and the participants could afterwards continue to Buda where the wedding took place. After the reception101 the coronation followed. The king was wearing the royal insignia, therefore also the Holy Crown, and Beatrix took an oath and was crowned by the bishop of Veszprém with a golden crown ornamented with diamonds, rubies, and sapphires. The Holy Crown was only held above her shoulder during her anointment.102 In Barbara’s case, as will be discussed below, the wedding had most probably happened in Krapina, and because it would take some time to reach SzékesfehérvárĽ the king issued the invitations to the coronationĽ also inviting other nobles and high dignitaries that probably were not present in Krapina. As other scholars suggested that Barbara’s wedding also occurred in the second half of December, around Christmas,103 one should take into account that Barbara was not of direct royal descent; therefore a marriage by proxy, customarily performed when both parties were of royal descent, was not performed, so in order to be crowned queen, she had to be married to Sigismund first. As was already mentioned above, this charter would have been written in dozens of copies and sent throughout the kingdomĽ informing Sigismund’s subjects of the festive and important event that had happened and inviting the most noble of them to witness the future queen’s coronation. The proof of the existence of (at least) another charter like this one lies in the responding letter issued on 19 May 1406 by the Republic of Ragusa, in which the James Ross SweeneyĽ “The Tricky Queen and her Clever Lady in Waiting: Stealing the Crown to Secure SuccessionĽ Visegrád 1440”Ľ in East Central Europe 20-23 (1993-1996)Ľ 89. The bishops of Veszprém usually crowned queens consorts, while the archbishops of Esztergom crowned kings and queens regents. 101 The couple was married by proxy so a formal wedding ceremony was postponed. Beatrix was first crowned in Székesfehérvár on 10 December 1476 and then a formal wedding took place in Buda on 22 December. See Altmann, Medium regni, 201. 102 Altmann, Medium regni, 201. 103 KlaićĽ Povijest Hrvata 2Ľ 383; Fößel, “Barbara von CilliĽ”102. 100 32 Ragusans excused themselves for not attending the wedding and the coronation with the great distance and travel difficulties: We would have been very glad to be able to attend the wedding ceremony and the coronation of the said our lady queen and rejoice together with everyone else in the expected measure if God had wished it and if the obstacles and troubles of the voyage had been removed; even though we remain far away, we still partake of that joy in our minds, hoping that by divine grace and through your royal dispositions and arrangements it should become possible for us to come safely to your and your queens royal Majesties in order to rejoice and share your pleasure in these happy events.104 Since the treaty of Visegrád in 1358Ľ Ragusa was more or less an independent republic: the obligations towards the Kingdom of Hungary were to acknowledge its sovereignty, sing lauds to the current king in the city’s cathedralĽ bear the flag of the Kingdom and pay an annual tribute of 500 ducats. Such a favorable arrangement allowed Ragusa to pursue its own politics under the protection of the Hungarian Kingdom, but without it interfering into its affairs. Furthermore, even if this arrangement caused such a state, the issue of the great distance between the two powers also added to the decrease of interventions into the governmental affairs of the city. With this treaty, the Hungarian kings could claim their rights to Ragusa as hereditaryĽ and the Ragusans readily accepted this formalityĽ calling it “the king’s city” (civitas vestra). Pleasantries in the mutual communication served the purpose of reminding of both parties constantly that the king was the city’s “natural lord” (dominus noster naturalis) and that the Ragusans were the king’s “faithful and loyal servants” (fideles).105 In return, Ragusa asked the Kingdom to acknowledge its liberties and rights, especially the one to expand its territoryĽ which the Ragusans asked for several times during Sigismund’s reignĽ 104 Gelcich, Diplomatarium, 168. Ad quod festum nuptiarum et coronationis prefate domine nostre regine ubi Deo placuisse, cessantibus viarum discriminibus et impedimentis, valde gratum habuissemus, potuisse adesse ad congaudium modis exigentibus, quod tamen gaudium, liced ad remota simus in mentibus partecipavimus [sic], sperantes fruente gratia divina et vestris mediantibus regiis provixionibus et remediis, sic et taliter consequi et provideri, quod ad ipsas vestras regiam et reginalem maiestates feliciter poterimus venire ad congaudendum et de vestris prosperis eventibus colletandum. 105 See Gelcich, Diplomatarium, 167-168. 33 and to defend the city from its enemies.106 However, as can be seen in the discussion below, the Ragusans, as desirable political allies, often played a double game; if they could not openly support their prospective allies, they would supply them with arms or grant asylum in the city – whatever would suit their interests. It was partially also their right – even if the Hungarian kings did not appreciate it – since Louis I granted them rights to trade freely with Serbia and Venice, and later also Bosnia, all of which the Hungarian kings had disputes with or led wars against. By protecting the city’s economic interestsĽ the kingdom earned Ragusa’s loyalty – real and on paper.107 What is also important, and supplements the letter mentioned above, is the fact that Ragusa not only had to show its allegiance through visual and material benefits, but also through constant supplying of intelligence, strategic, and political information. Due to its favorable geostrategic position and its main expertise – trade – Ragusa was the perfect candidate; other than that it was the least thing that it owed to the kingdom. In this way both parties prospered; the city could further pursue its main economic activity and advance both economically and socially, while the king was always up to date with political movements of his enemies, had a great ally in Ragusa, and collected tribute, even if it was a rather small sum.108 Turning back to the document, in this part the writer partially summarizes Sigismund’s letter issued in Buda on 1 April 1406, and from the wording one can conclude that its content must have been similar to the charter issued in Krapina: We give thanks to the noblest and to your most kind royal majesty who with such kind and delightful encouragement has considered us, his faithful, worthy to be comforted and looked upon, and who has recognized our fidelity in mind and thought. May your said Majesty keep and retain us most firmly in the same fidelity and disposition and may we endure in it without any change to the worse and may we stand firm against all threats and enticements, as long as the walls of this, your city, by which we are protected, will stand. In accordance Lovro KunčevićĽ “The Myth of Ragusa: Discourses on Civic Identity in an Adriatic City-State (1350-1600)Ľ” Ph.D. dissertation (Budapest: Central European University, 2012), 78-82. 107 Zrinka Pešorda-VardićĽ “The CrownĽ the King and the City: Dubrovnik, Hungary and the Dynastic Controversy, 1382-1390Ľ” Dubrovnik Annals 10 (2006): 19-20. 108 Pešorda-VardićĽ “The CrownĽ the King and the City”Ľ 28. 106 34 with this your said royal majesty on account of its accustomed kindness, wishing us its faithful to share in your prosperity and joys, has let us know that it has joined in matrimony the most serene noble lady Barbara, the daughter of the illustrious lord Hermann, the Count of Cilli by divine disposition and following the counsel and the consultation of the prelates, barons, nobles and other inhabitants of the realm. When we heard this, we took great joy in it, because among all our other prayers we have always wished most ardently to learn that your Majesty has been joined in matrimony according to its wish ever since that day, when your said Majesty was deprived of its first spouse by divine will. And we are especially rejoiced by the fact that your Majesty has acquired a father-in-law, in whom it may certainly hope to find a helper with all laborious work and an assistant pleasant also to your faithful subjects. We pray to the Almighty that by his kindness he may grant to your descendance, which may last forever, grace according to the promise and the blessing given to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. And may your Majesty glory in this descendance for a long time and your faithful subjects always rejoice together with it.109 As can be seen from the excerpt, the Republic expresses its happiness about the marriage, wishing the king many descendants and all the help he can get from his father-in-law. In this letter Barbara plays only the role of the mother of future successors, which would have been her primary role if one ignores her political importance, and Hermann plays the main role, as the king’s right hand and faithful subject. Apart from only the best wishes for their king, the Ragusans also responded to other issues Sigismund most likely brought up in his letter. In that manner they inform him of a siege that Ladislaus of Naples has undertaken, stating the number of ships and men he had, and the outcome of his endeavor. 109 For the edition of the charter see Gelcich, Diplomatarium, 167-170. Regratiamur altissimo et vestre tam gratiosissime regie maiestati que tam dulcibus et amenis hortationibus dignatur nos suos fideles consolari et visitare, et fidelitatem nostram in mente et animo recognoscit. In qua fidelitate et animo habeat et teneat firmissime dicta vestra maiestas nos permansuros et dispositos ab ea omnibus postpositis dampnis, terroribus et blandiciis non declinare, donec muri civitatis vestre, quibus sumus protecti, nobis durant. Sequenter dicta vestra regia maiestas ex consueta benignitate ad nos suos fideles volens partecipare [sic] nobiscum suas prosperitates et gaudia significat dispositione divina ac cum consilio et deliberatione prelatorum, baronum, procerum ceterorumque regnicolarum serenissimam principem dominam Barbaram illustris domini Hermanni comitis Cilie natam, sibi matrimonialiter sociasse, quod cum audivimus, fuit nobis ad gaudium magnum valde, quia inter cetera vota nostra a die, quo dicta vestra maiestas voluntate divina primo fuit matrimonio-desollata, continuis, ardentibus desideriis expetivimus audiri ipsam maiestatem sibi grato matrimoniali consortio copullatam. Et in hoc quidem magis letamur, quod ipsa maiestas tallem sibi adinvenerit socerum, quem firmiter sperare possit, laborum suorum alleviatorem et suis regnicolis et fidelibus gratum et auxiliatorem, preces Omnipotenti fundentes, ut eius sequente benignitate gratiam prestet prolis perempniter durature, cum promissione et benedictione facta Habrahe, Ixahach et Jacob. Et in ipsam prolem ipsa m[aiestas] longo tempore valeat gloriari, vestri quoque subditi et fideles continuo collectari. Translated by the author. 35 One of the important, but not entirely contemporary, narrative sources that mentions the marriage of Barbara to Sigismund is Kaiser Sigismunds Buch by Eberhard Windecke. He was a merchant from Mainz who wrote a biography of King Sigismund and a chronicle describing his timeĽ probably after the latter’s death in 1437.110 In one place Windecke, who is prone to mistakes, states that Sigismund married Barbara on their way back from Bosnia to Hungary in 1408, a miscalculation which many later authors also followed: And during the same journey King Sigismund married Barbara, who was the daughter of Count Frederick [sic!] of Cilli, and he made her a queen. He married her out of the reason that the Count of Cilli had given one of his daughters to the Palatine of Hungary to free the king from prison, as the palatine had King Sigismund in his prison on command of the Hungarian lords, as you can find above and below in this book. That is why King Sigismund married the daughter. So was loyalty repaid with loyalty, and she was crowned and anointed a Hungarian and Roman queen. And so stayed the already mentioned king in Hungary, until the year 1410.111 Since Sigismund was on his way back from Bosnia in 1405 as well, because he led several campaigns there from 1405 to 1407, and a war in 1408, at that time supporting King Stephen Ostoja against his rival Stephen Tvrtko II Tvrtković112, the number of his visits to this region might have confused Windecke. Examining Sigismund’s itinerary for the year 1405 shows that he followed a circular route starting from Buda to the south, visiting Bosnia and returning across the eastern part of Slavonia, through Krapina towards SzékesfehérvárĽ and then back to Buda again (See Figure 6).113 Knowing this, it is easier to assume that the See Johanek, “Eberhard Windecke”Ľ 143-146. Wilhelm Altmann, ed, Eberhart Windeckes Denkwürdigkeiten zur Geschichte des Zeitalters Kaiser Sigmunds (Berlin: Gaertner, 1893), 21. “Und uf der selben reise nam konig Sigemont BarbaraĽ die des grofen Friderichs von Cilion [sic!] dochter wasĽ und er sie zü einer konigin machte. die nam er darumbeĽ das der grofe von Cilien dem grossen grofen von Ungern seiner döchter [eine] gebeten hette umb des koniges erlösung des gefengnißesĽ wenne der große grofe konig Sigemondus in sime gefengnisse hette von bevehelniße der lantherren zu UngerenĽ also du vor und noch in diseme büch vindst. darumbe nam konig Sigemont die dochter. do wart truwen mit truwe vergoltenĽ und uß ir eine Ungersche und Römsche koniginne gecrönet und gesalbet. also bleip der vor genant konig zü UngarnĽ biß das man zalt tusent 400 und 10 jor.” Windecke mentions the marriage once moreĽ but also puts it in the year 1408, so there is a low possibility that one of the notions is a lapsus calami. This is why many authors rely on his statementsĽ considering that he was part of Sigismund’s court and had most of the information at hand, as well as the fact that he wrote his book not so long after the events had happened. See Altmann, Denkwürdigkeiten, 19. Translated by the author. 112 See ŠišićĽ Povijest Hrvata, 228-230; Engel, The Realm of St Stephen, 233-234. 113 Pál Engel and Norbert C. TóthĽ ed.Ľ Királyok és királynék itineráriumai, 1382-1438 [The itineraries of kings and queens] (Budapest: Magyar Tudományos AkadémiaĽ 2005)Ľ 83-84. 110 111 36 wedding really took place in Krapina because it was the place where the invitation to the coronation was issued. As for the event itself, Windecke surely must have known that it happened on Sigismund’s return from BosniaĽ butĽ as I mentioned aboveĽ he wrote his chronicle some 32 years after the wedding took place, and this is not the only instance that his statements are not chronologically correct but the event happened nevertheless. In the late Middle Ages there was an increase in recording the years when events such like birthdays or weddings happenedĽ butĽ as can be seen by Barbara’s missing birth yearĽ most events were still not noted by the year, so it surely must have been hard for Windecke himself to remember all the dates correctly without further references. What is interesting additionally is that the date of Sigismund’s first marriage is known114, but his marriage with Barbara is not recorded anywhere besides this charter studied above. Was this so because his other marriage was not seen as important or because Barbara was not of royalĽ but “only” of noble descent? Or because the wedding, as I will explain in more detail below, did not take place in a royal residence, but on the estate of one of his subordinates? Or is all this just a coincidence and a product of historical events, i.e., the loss of certain evidence? Chilian, in his dissertation about Barbara, relies on Windecke as one of his most important sources. He states that Windecke’s “Zeitangaben uns keinen Anlaß zum Zweifel bieten”Ľ so he decides to date the marriage to the year 1408. He mentions that he is also aware of two charters, one from 1406 where Sigismund addresses Hermann as socer and one from 1408 where Barbara is mentioned as consors, both indicating that the marriage had happened earlier, but he decides to ignore them, explaining how these forms of addressing may have been an honorary reference to his future father-in-law and the marriage that would take place later.115 114 115 See the discussion about Queen Mary above. ChilianĽ “Barbara von Cilli”Ľ 17. 37 Moriz Wertner wrote at the end of the nineteenth century a short contribution to the genealogy of the Cillis. He also analyzed the charter from Krapina and translated it into German. I didn’t rely on his translation while writing mineĽ although it was helpful in the understanding of some details. In contrast, there are some parts which need to be further explained: he translates inclita virgo from the charter that refers to Barbara wrongly as “renowned virgin” and argues that because of this terminologyĽ Barbara would not have been Sigismund’s spouse on the day he issued the charter. He therefore places the date of the marriage somewhere between 16 November and 6 December.116 The problem with the virgo can be seen from the aspect of the Bible translators: they also had a problem with distinguishing the meaning of the term virgo as “virgin” or as “young woman”. For the various reasons already explained above, I would still argue that the author of the charter meant to say the latter one. 116 WertnerĽ “Zur Genealogie der Cilly”Ľ 38-39. 38 Figure 6. Map of Sigismund's travel route in 1405 (Sara Katanec) Vjekoslav Klaić also mentions the weddingĽ but places it around Christmas 1405 in Buda, adding that it is not known who performed the ceremony, when the wedding took place or how long the festivities (if there were any) lasted. He argues that Barbara was Sigismund’s wife before 28 December, because on that day a charter was issued with the consent of Sigismund’s conthoralis.117 The peculiarity lies in the fact that Klaić’s work was published before that of his contemporaryĽ Ferdo ŠišićĽ who was aware of the charter from Krapina and mentions it in his work. In his next workĽ published a few years after Šišić’sĽ Klaić reinterprets the wedding date and also places it in Krapina.118 Amalie Fößel, a scholar who has recently conducted a thorough research on Barbara, has made a great effort to reveal and describe in general the most important years of Barbara’s life and rulership.119 Although I agree mostly with Fößel, I think that she may have misinterpreted the charter from Krapina. In the charter Sigismund clearly states that he had already married Barbara by the time the charter was written, even that he had consummated the marriage (quam thoro nostro regio sociavimus). Sigismund does not require presents from the Buda chapter120, but the presence of its provost. For me it also seems plausible that the wedding took place in a royal residence, but the charter speaks differently, so one can either believe in it, or suspect the literacy of the scribe who wrote it, adding perfect tenses in places where there should be future ones121Ľ according to Fößel. Her opinion that the trip from Krapina, where the couple met, to Buda, where the wedding supposedly took place, was an opportunity for the couple to get to know each other122 seems like an attempt to romanticize KlaićĽ Povijest Hrvata 2, 383. Compare KlaićĽ Povijest Hrvata 2Ľ 383; Šišić, Vojvoda Hrvoje Vukčić HrvatinićĽ 192; KlaićĽ “Krapinski gradovi i predaje o njima”Ľ 13. 119 FößelĽ “Barbara von CilliĽ” 95-112. 120 FößelĽ “Barbara von CilliĽ” 101. 121 See n. 97. 122 FößelĽ “Barbara von CilliĽ”101. 117 118 39 the whole event: it sounds nice, but it is not really supported by evidence. Fößel is one of the few recent scholars who takes this charter into account, but, while trying to establish the wedding date, misses the fact of the coronation. She includes two other charters in order to indicate when Sigismund returned to Buda and when Barbara started to use her royal right of consent in charters in order to strengthen her argument that the wedding happened in Buda sometime between December 13 and 29, also supported by a previously unknown letter of congratulations issued in Venice.123 Fößel uses this letter of congratulations as another argument that the wedding had happened between the two already stated dates, and that the Serenissima congratulates Sigismund on his marriage issuing this letter on 15 January 1406, exactly a month after it had supposedly happened. However, if one follows the sources for this argument and tries to find the said charter, the trail124 leads to Klaić and the letter of congratulations issued in Ragusa, mentioned above. The cause of misunderstanding was that the “Republic” mentioned by KlaićĽ meaning RagusaĽ was misunderstood by Wakounig for Venice. How the authors came up with 15 January 1406 is still not clear to me, and the search for a charter issued on that date and with that content proves fruitless125; the charter from Ragusa was issued on 19 May 1406. Another argument against Venice would be the fact that Sigismund was in constant disputes with the Republic, trying for years to get them to sign an alliance agreement, but to no avail.126 The situation was especially sharp after 1403, when Sigismund heard rumors that See n. 56 at FößelĽ “Barbara von CilliĽ”102. Fößel takes as her source for this information the n. 103 in Marija WakounigĽ Dalmatien und Friaul. Die Auseinandersetzung zwischen Sigismund von Luxemburg und der Republik Venedig um die Vorherrschaft im adriatischen Raum (Vienna: Dissertationen der Universität Wien 212Ľ 1990)Ľ 37 and Wilhelm BaumĽ Kaiser Sigismund. Konstanz, Hus und Türkenkriege (Graz: Wien: Köln: StyriaĽ 1993)Ľ 57. Baum refers to Wakounig and Wakounig cites KlaićĽ Povijest Hrvata 2, 383. Klaić mentions only the charter from Ragusa as a letter of congratulations. I would dismiss the existence of a letter with this content from Venice and call it a simple mistake. If one looks at the review of Wakounig’s workĽ one can see that she made quite some factual mistakes in itĽ see Neven BudakĽ “Marija Wakounig: Dalmatien und Friaul. Die Auseinandersetzung zwischen Sigismund von Luxemburg und der Republik Venedig um die Vorherrschaft im adriatischen RaumĽ Beč 1990Ľ 154 str.” Historijski zbornik 45 (1992): 287-288. 125 There is a charter issued by the Republic of Venice on that date, but addressed to the count of Senj and the content has no traces of congratulations nor is even related to King Sigismund. See LjubićĽ Listine 5, 67. 126 KlaićĽ Povijest Hrvata 2, 376. 123 124 40 Venice would buy Dalmatia from his opponent, Ladislaus of Naples. Generally speaking, because Venice had different interests, it mostly supported Sigismund’s opponents and their supporters (e.g., in Bosnia, which was especially important to Sigismund) and refused to help his allies. In such an atmosphere it is unlikely that he would have written to them on such a matter, or that they would respond with congratulations, even only formal ones. On 3 August 1405 Venice once again refused Sigismund’s offer for an alliance against King Ladislaus and Duke Hrvoje, using other wars as an excuse, although secretly supporting his opponent Ladislaus.127 Other refusals of alliances followed shortly before the wedding, on 17 October and 20 October 1405Ľ and Sigismund’s demands for ships got no response.128 On the other handĽ Ragusa had mostly been Sigismund’s allyĽ adjusting its help as was suitable for the politics and economic interests of the city. That is why he turned to them for help in 1405 after Venice refused himĽ and Ragusa put itself at the king’s disposal.129 Therefore it was natural for the king to inform his subjects of changes in the kingdom, as it was for the subjects to express their congratulations. However, as I already stated, if the wedding had happened in Buda at this late date, it means, if one trusts the coronation invitation, that the coronation happened before the wedding, on December 6, which I deem highly improbable. In my opinion, the wedding should be dated into the middle of November, since all the charter evidence points to it and the chronology seems to be waterproof as well. ThusĽ one can also roughly estimate Barbara’s age at the time of the marriage. Knowing that for girls in the Middle Ages it was customary to be able to marry from the age of 12,130 Barbara’s birth year can be estimated to 1392.131 KlaićĽ Povijest Hrvata 2, 382. … rogamus maiestatem suam, quatenus velit excusatos nos habere, si non complacemus in hoc sue serenitati. See LjubićĽ Listine 5, 65-66. 129 KlaićĽ Povijest Hrvata 2, 382. 130 Halecki, Jadwiga of Anjou, 93; Fugger Germadnik, Barbara, 2. 131 See ChilianĽ “Barbara von Cilli”Ľ 16-18; Klaić already states that Barbara had nine years at the time of the engagementĽ see KlaićĽ Povijest Hrvata 2, 341. 127 128 41 In the itinerary of the couple Fößel also mentions their trip together from Krapina through Koprivnica and Đurđevac towards BudaĽ but leaves out Székesfehérvár, although it is known that Sigismund was there because there is a charter issued in Székesfehérvár only one day after the supposed coronation.132 Although Engel uses this charter from Székesfehérvár issued on 7 December 1405 as a part of Sigismund’s itineraryĽ which one couldĽ without further investigation, understand as a fact that Sigismund was there at that time, when going directly to the charter one finds that the issuer was not Sigismund, but one of his subjects, John MarótiĽ the ban of Macsó (Cro. Ivan MorovićĽ ban of Mačva). As he was Sigismund’s loyal and helpful servant, who fought in the Bosnian campaigns described below and even commanded one of Sigismund’s armiesĽ he was an important asset to his king and was surely in Sigismund’s entourage during his campaign to Bosnia in 1405Ľ which rested for a while in Krapina in order to return through Székesfehérvár to Buda.133 Otherwise there is no apparent reason why the ban of MačvaĽ a region in today’s SerbiaĽ would have been in Székesfehérvár and most probably that was the reason why Engel put this date into Sigismund’s itinerary. There is another charter which seems to support my theory of Sigismund and Maróti travelling together; a privilege issued by Sigismund on 28 November 1405, shortly after the wedding and also shortly before the coronationĽ in favor of the ban of Macsó.134 Although the charter is “only” the “usual” confirmation of an earlier donation made in 1403 in Székesfehérvár,135 there is a good reason to assume that Maróti asked for the privilege from the king in person,136 since festive events like weddings were a good opportunity to do so. Furthermore, it seems that a number of barons and nobles received similar privileges from Engel, Királyok és királynék itineráriumai, 84. For the edition of the charter see CDZ 5, 425-426. See KlaićĽ Povijest Hrvata 2, 372-373, 375, 380. 134 For the edition of the charter see ŠišićĽ “Nekoliko isprava iz početka XV. stoljeća”Ľ 259-263. The original charter with the seal can be found under DL 37588. 135 DL 37 587. Márta KondorĽ “Die Kanzlei im Feldlager. Die Tätigkeit der königlichen Kanzleien während der Kriegszüge Sigismunds in Bosnien (1410) und in Italien (1412-1413)Ľ” in Kommunikation im Krieg im Späten Mittelalter, ed. Robert Novotný, Petr Elbel, Alexandra Kaar (Wien-Köln-Weimar 2014), manuscript, n. 88. 136 I would like to thank my supervisor, Professor Katalin Szende, for the help and clarification with this issue. 132 133 42 Sigismund from mid-November to early December, indicating that this part of the elite was around him at that time, i.e., participated in the wedding and coronation.137 Finally, a charter issued by Sigismund on 3 December 1405, 138 only a few days before the coronation, indicates that Sigismund was indeed on his way from Krapina to Székesfehérvár. This document was issued in DombóĽ which could be identified with today’s DombóvárĽ Kastélyosdombó (Cro. Dombol) or Vásárosdombó (Cro. Dubovac) – all of them lie on a route towards Székesfehérvár. Although this charter is only an insert and the transcript does not specify the type of seal used, it was surely not written by any of the writing bodies, i.e., royal judical courts, which had the right to issue charters in the king’s name in his absence and without his knowledge. Therefore, Sigismund must have been present when it was issued, and he was somewhere in the area near Székesfehérvár. With all this in mind, the idea of the coronation happening on 6 December as announced in the charter from Krapina gets a strong support for further development and I stand by my argument that Sigismund was on 7 December 1405 in Székesfehérvár. A final thing that should be mentioned in connection to the wedding is the birth of ElizabethĽ Barbara’s only child. Since older historiography usually linked Barbara’s wedding with the year 1408 and the establishment of the Order of the Dragon 139, one other opinion should be heard. Klaić argues that Elizabeth was born around the end of November or beginning of December 1408, so in order to celebrate the birth of the child and the recent victory in Bosnia, King Sigismund and Barbara established the said Order on 12 December 1408.140 According to Barbara’s and Sigismund’s itineraryĽ both were at that time in Buda, so I would like to thank my colleagueĽ the Ph. D. student Márta KondorĽ for the help and clarification she provided for this issue. 138 DL 87 740. 139 ChilianĽ “Barbara von CilliĽ” 19; KrzenckĽ “Messalina”Ľ 48. 140 KlaićĽ Povijest Hrvata 2, 389. Krzenck states that Elizabeth was born on 28 February 1409, see Krzenck, “Messalina”Ľ 49. 137 43 such a line of events would be possible.141 The notion is important for the issues about Barbara’s authority discussed in the following chapter.142 The place of the wedding - Krapina One can assume from the charter that the wedding had happened shortly before the charter was issued, a time long enough to have a proper wedding and the bedding ceremony, and also that the wedding occurred in Krapina itself. Klaić and Šišić state in that manner that the wedding occurred on 15 November 1405, which was also a Sunday.143 Since the celebrations most likely would have lasted for several days, the day of the week would not be so important, but one still has to keep in mind that the royal strata often connected important royal festivities with church holidays or great saint’s feast daysĽ so a Sunday would probably be a proper day for a royal wedding. In comparison again with the coronation and wedding celebration of Beatrix of Aragon and Matthias Corvinus, their feast also lasted for several days. Since the coronation happened on 10 December, and the king is reported to have given a grand dinner party in Buda on 17 December, the wedding happening on 22 December, one can seeĽ taking also into account the days needed for travel between Székesfehérvár and BudaĽ that the festivities in Buda lasted for at least five days.144 After seeing the contents of this “coronation invitation”Ľ the question emerges why was this particular time and place chosen for the wedding ceremony? Some scholars call this wedding “one of the most important happenings in the history of Krapina”; the organization of the wedding itself would have required great resources and the participation of Krapina’s citizens and such an event could only be hosted in a fully developed town, which Krapina was according to the sources which mention it as an oppidum from the beginning of the fifteenth Engel, Királyok és királynék itineráriumai, 88-89, 169-170. Even if the said line of events is not correct and if Elizabeth's birth is to be postponed to the year 1409, this constellation seemed interesting to me, and is maybe also a topic for other scholars. 143 See KlaićĽ “Krapinski gradovi i predaje o njima”Ľ 13: ŠišićĽ Vojvoda Hrvoje Vukčić Hrvatinić, 192. 144 Altmann, Medium regni, 201. 141 142 44 century.145 Krapina was a castle in Zagorje County, which Sigismund personally gave into the possession of Count Hermann II of Cilli in 1399,146 maybe wanting to show his close connections to the family and acknowledge their importance to him. Croatian scholars have different opinions regarding Krapina in the Middle Ages. According to Neven Budak, although Krapina lay on an important east-west trade route and on the border with StyriaĽ it did not develop as fast as VaraždinĽ which lay on the more important north-south route. It gained a better position during the Angevin period, when Louis I issued a charter granting several privileges to Krapina in 1347. 147 Budak argues that in his privilege, Louis mentions only the castle in Krapina and its citizens living beneath it 148, but not the town or the market itself, and that the judge, called villicus in the privilege was more a rural than a town judge, highlighting the slow development of the suburb in this way.149 Other authors understand the term libera villa from the charter as the term for a market town that existed there already.150 The fact that Louis I granted the status of a royal market town and not that of a free royal city supports Budak’s opinion of the underdevelopment of Krapina. In contrast, according to the descensum volgariter zallas151 that the citizens owed the king, namely (among other things), imported and expensive spices like saffron, pepper, and salt VučetićĽ “Prostorni razvoj srednjovjekovne Krapine”Ľ 11-12. Erik FügediĽ Castle and Society in Medieval Hungary (1000-1437), Studia Historica vol 187 (Budapest: AkadémiaiĽ 1986)Ľ 126; Gjuro SzaboĽ “Spomenici kotara Krapina i Zlatar”Ľ 111; KlaićĽ “Krapinski gradovi i predaje o njima”Ľ 12. Some authors state that the Cillis got possession of Krapina and Zagorje County in 1397, see Neven Budak, Gradovi Varaždinske županije u srednjem vijeku: urbanizacija Varaždinske županije do kraja 16. stoljeća [Development of urban settlements in north-west Croatia (district of Varaždin) during the Middle Ages] (Zagreb: Nakladna kuća “Dr. Feletar”Ľ 1994)Ľ 50; Stjepan OrtnerĽ Povjest gradine i trgovišta Krapine [The history of the castle and the market town of Krapina] (Zagreb: F. BogovićĽ 1899)Ľ 29; Antun KozinaĽ Krapina i okolica kroz stoljeća (Krapina: Gradski muzej, 1960), 28. This was probably a mistake, because Sigismund did in fact issue two charters to Hermann II in 1397Ľ giving him the city of Varaždin and two castlesĽ Vinica and Vrbovac, which were all in Zagorje County. For the editions of both charters see CD18, 244-251. 147 The edition of the charter is available in Ortner, Povjest gradine i trgovišta Krapine, 199-200. 148 civibus et hospitibus nostris sub castro Crapina, Ortner, Povjest gradine i trgovišta Krapine, 199. 149 Budak, Gradovi Varaždinske županije, 49-50. 150 KlaićĽ “Krapinski gradovi i predaje o njima”Ľ 11. 151 The Croatian term for this is “zalaznina”. 145 146 45 (unam liberam de pipere et croco, ac sal dare debent), Krapina would have been an important center of international trade.152 The castrum in Krapina was built on a strategically convenient place, a plateau atop the valley of the Krapinčica River (Figure 7).153 It is mentioned in the sources in 1330, but scholars assume that it was built much earlier, because Krapina was a locus as early as the end of the twelfth century.154 Beneath the castrum a suburb formed which was well connected with the castle, and a good road connection encouraged its further growth. In the Middle Ages the ancient road that went through the valley of the Krapinčica River connected Zagreb with Ptuj and Celje in Styria, which importance will be elaborated below. 155 At the beginning of the thirteenth century Krapina was the seat of the archdeaconry156 and the center of Krapina County (comitatus de Crapuna), and when that name disappeared from the sources, another one appeared (castrum de Zagoria), referring to the center of Zagorje County, which was none other than Krapina. A charter issued in 1225 mentions the existence of a royal chapel inside the castrum.157 In the southeastern part of the castrum archaeological excavations found remains of another sacral object, namely the chapel of the Holy Trinity, which the Cillis built at the beginning of the fifteenth century.158 Excavations have also recovered remains of large hall facilities with traces of vaults and parts of two and three light windows, indicating the superior design of the chapel’s architectural ornaments.159 Due to the fact that the exact position of the former chapel is not known and that it does not appear in the sources afterwards, there is a possibility that the counts of Cilli built the latter one in its place, which, VučetićĽ “Prostorni razvoj srednjovjekovne Krapine”Ľ 10; Ortner, Povjest gradine i trgovišta Krapine, 199. VučetićĽ “Prostorni razvoj srednjovjekovne Krapine”Ľ 7. 154 KlaićĽ “Krapinski gradovi i predaje o njima”Ľ 10. 155 VučetićĽ “Prostorni razvoj srednjovjekovne Krapine”Ľ 9. 156 VučetićĽ “Prostorni razvoj srednjovjekovne Krapine”Ľ 9. 157 in loco Crapine …, in capella domini regis. See the charter in CD 3, 244. 158 VučetićĽ “Prostorni razvoj srednjovjekovne Krapine”Ľ 12. 159 Tatjana TkalčecĽ “Arheološka istraživanja na Starom gradu u Krapini 2008. g.” [Archaeological Excavations of Stari grad Krapina in 2008] Annales Instituti Archaeologici, vol. 5, no. 1 (2009): 95. 152 153 46 if the chapel was built early enough, may have been the site where the royal wedding took place. Another important sacral building was the parish church of St. Nicholas, which was built outside of the suburban settlement and south of the castrum, but on the main road, which formed a well connected central spatial structure. This church might have played the role of the seat of the archdeaconry, which would agree with the customary position of similar archdeaconry churches in Hungary.160 The choice of the patron saint is also interesting, considering that St. Nicholas was the patron of travelers and merchants, which may have been related to the trade and transportation significance of Krapina.161 According to the remains of the castrum, some scholars concluded that there would have been a large complex of buildings. The center of the castrum was formed around a natural cave on the north of the complex. The cave is about five meters high and five meters wide, showing traces of rib vaults and a wall dividing the room. Another wall closed the whole complex; both walls indicate the existence of doors. The front part of the cave has a square-shaped opening at the top in the shape of a chimney. 162 This might indicate the existence of a kitchen, where a fireplace with a chimney and a cooking space would have been. The room would have been big enough, and it was connected with the residential part below. Beneath the center of the castrum the Cillis built up the terrace on a lower plateau, where economic structures and residential facilities, namely a palace, were built.163 The southeastern part of the complex was reserved for devotional and sacral purposes. All over the castrum large numbers of artifacts were recovered, like ceramic vessels, stove tiles, bricks, VučetićĽ “Prostorni razvoj srednjovjekovne Krapine”Ľ 10. VučetićĽ “Prostorni razvoj srednjovjekovne Krapine”Ľ 10. 162 Emilij Laszowski, Hrvatske povjesne građevine. Knjiga 1. Mjestopisni i povjesni opisi gradova, kula, samostana, crkava i drugih povjesnih gradjevina domovine Hrvata: sa 112 slika [Croatian historical buildings. Part 1. Historical description of castles, towers, monasteries, churches and other historical buildings of the homeland of the Croats: with 112 figures] (Zagreb: 1902), 208. For a better visualization of the whole complex, see Tibor SzabóĽ A történelmi Magyarország várai [Castles of historical Hungary], http://jupiter.elte.hu/terkep+lista2.php (accessed: May 2014); for the picture of the cave see Ortner, Povjest gradine i trgovišta Krapine, 14. 163 Croatian “palas”Ľ by definition a residential building with a banquet hall in a medieval fortified town. 160 161 47 fragments of gothic sacral sculptures, frescoes, and animal bones.164 These might have been associated with elite activities, perhaps proof that the wedding took place in Krapina. The stove tiles show that the rooms were heated, and many animal bones support the statement that there must have been a kitchen in the upper part of the castle, and that the waste, as it was thrown out, slid downhill and was covered up by additional layers of earth. The excavations also showed that most of the finds date from the fifteenth century.165 Altogether the area of the castrum, over 250 meters in length covered around 2000 square meters (Figure 7 and Figure 8).166 In comparison with other castles in Zagorje County, like Lobor, Belec, and OštrcĽ also owned by the Cilli family at some pointĽ the castle at Krapina was much larger. Due to the fact that other castles in this county were much smaller and Krapina was spacious, easily accessible by road, and on the border, the choice for the administrative and defensive center of the county was clear.167 It was also a natural choice for Sigismund to give Krapina and Zagorje County in general to the Cillis, considering that their properties in Styria and in the area of the Sutla River bordered on Slavonia, and were a natural extension of their lands. The two regions also had a good road connection, and as the Cilli family based part of their wealth on revenues from transport and trade, it was in their interest to encourage the growth of their cities and market towns by giving them privileges. The main routes through Zagorje County led towards Ptuj. Since the Cilli family controlled all of the travel routes in Carniola and Styria, except for the ones to Ljubljana and Ptuj, they bypassed this city by redirecting all the traffic towards Celje, thereby making Krapina one of the most important stops along the way.168 Ivančica JanžekĽ “Krapina u srednjem vijeku” [Krapina in the Middle Ages]Ľ MA thesis (Zagreb: Filozofski fakultet Sveučilišta u ZagrebuĽ 2011)Ľ 19-20. 165 TkalčecĽ “Arheološka istraživanja na Starom gradu”Ľ 98. 166 VučetićĽ “Prostorni razvoj srednjovjekovne Krapine”Ľ 12. 167 SzaboĽ “Spomenici kotara Krapina i Zlatar”Ľ 106-110. 168 VučetićĽ “Prostorni razvoj srednjovjekovne Krapine”Ľ 11. 164 48 Figure 7. Krapina. Castle, nineteenth century (Croatian places in the collection of prints of the Croatian State Archives, http://arhinet.arhiv.hr/_DigitalniArhiv/GrafikeHrvatskihMjesta/Krapina2.htm) Another important fact is revealed in the already mentioned charter issued on 27 January 1399, with which Sigismund gave Count Hermann II of Cilli the whole Zagorje County, and which mentions, among the towns in this county, Krapina in the first place, highlighting its importance as the seat of the county. 169 Furthermore, even the Cilli chronicle170 testifies to the significance of KrapinaĽ referring to it as: “the main castle in ZagorjeĽ called Krapina”.171 Krapina was a place of great events once more in 1422, when KlaićĽ “Krapinski gradovi i predaje o njima”Ľ 12. See the edition of the charter in CD 18Ľ 413-418. About the Chronicle of the Cilli family see Chapter 1 and further below. 171 KlaićĽ “Krapinski gradovi i predaje o njima”Ľ 13; Franz KronesĽ ed.Ľ Die Freien von Saneck und ihre Chronik als Grafen von Cilli (Graz: Leuschner und LubenskyĽ 1883)Ľ 153. “ … das hauptgeschloss im SegerĽ genandt die Kreppen.” 169 170 49 Frederick of CilliĽ Barbara’s brotherĽ killed his wife Elizabeth (of the family which would later be known as the Frankapans) during the night they spent together in Krapina castle. 172 Figure 8. The castrum in Krapina (A történelmi Magyarország várai [Castles of historical Hungary], http://jupiter.elte.hu/krapina/krapinarajzok1.jpg) A – Romanesque fundament of the castle; B – workshops and economical buildings near the east wall of the castle; C – chapel of the Holy Trinity; D – gate tower of the upper castle courtyard; E – remains of the living quarters (palace); F – living space in front of the large cave (storage room for the food); G – western wall of the castle; H – northeastern tower of the castle; I – south defense wall of the upper courtyard; J – south defense wall of the lower courtyard; K – barbican of the lower courtyard and the gate of the lower castle; L – natural rock with the remains of medieval fortification features; M – defensive ditch around the northern part of the castle. 172 KlaićĽ “Krapinski gradovi i predaje o njima”Ľ 13. 50 There is also the issue of residences other than Krapina where scholars claim the wedding took place. In my opinion, they are weak substitutes. As Erik Fügedi suggestsĽ the Buda palace proved insufficient during the rule of Louis IĽ who preferred Visegrád as his residenceĽ or even DiósgyőrĽ since the castle had hunting grounds nearby173, and this continued as the status quo during Sigismund’s rule. During the 1370s Louis I ordered palace constructions, which demonstrates not only the insufficiency, but also the state of the palace area; it had to be a construction site for quite some time.174 Fügedi states that the issues with the old palace were also shown at the engagement ceremony for Sigismund’s daughter Elizabeth in 1411, so the building of a new palace was commissioned (in which Elizabeth later celebrated her wedding).175 If the palace was in bad condition in 1411, it most likely would have been in 1405 as well, so there was a good reason to hold the wedding in Krapina instead. What is also important is that in the fourteenth century the Angevin residence and court were in Visegrád and Buda only became the royal residence gradually after 1408, when Sigismund moved his government offices and his court there.176 Although the Angevins used the Buda palace for ceremonial purposes, and for a short time between 1347 and 1355 as a residence when the court moved there177, it finally developed into a residence only after Sigismund built the new palace. Accordingly, even if the arguments suggest Buda as the place of the wedding ceremonyĽ it could not have happened there. In comparisonĽ King Matthias’ wedding took place in Buda, most likely in the new palace wing that Sigismund built.178 István DraskóczyĽ“Die Besitztümer der ungarischen Königinnen im 15. Jahrhundert und DiósgyőrĽ” Majestas 13 (2005): 65. 174 Julianna Altmann et al., Medium regni – Medieval Hungarian Royal Seats (Budapest: Nap, 1999), 167. 175 FügediĽ Castle and Society, 130. 176 John M. Steane, The Archaeology of Power: England and Northern Europe AD 800-1600 (Stroud: Tempus, 2001), 49-51; Altmann, Medium regniĽ 121Ľ 167; Márta KondorĽ “HofĽ Residenz und Verwaltung: Ofen und Blindenburg in der Regierungszeit König Sigismunds – unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Jahre 14101419Ľ” in Kaiser Sigismund (1368-1437) – Urkunden und Herrschaftspraxis eines europäischen Monarchen (Forschungen zur Kaiser- und Papstgeschichte des Mittelalters. Beihefte zu J. F. Böhmer, Regesta Imperii 31), ed. Karel Hruza and Alexandra Kaar (Vienna; Cologne; Weimar: 2012), 215–233. 177 Altmann, Medium regni, 120, 167. 178 Altmann, Medium regni, 201. 173 51 CHAPTER THREE Barbara’s properties at the time of her wedding As was customary in the Middle Ages, after the wedding was consummated, the husband was supposed to bestow his new wife with a “morning present” (Ger. Morgengabe). The Morgengabe was a present given by the husband to his wife on the morning after the wedding. It usually included money and land donations, and was often agreed upon before the wedding took place. Such an agreement might also have happened in 1401 upon Sigismund's negotiations with Herman II of Cilli to marry his daughter, which was discussed above. The Morgengabe was a means of financial security for the wife in case the husband would die before her, since it did not count as a part of the deceased's estate, but as a part of the widow's property which she could keep.179 This was also the case with Sigismund and Barbara after their wedding. Although there would be no doubt that she received such a gift, further confirmation lies in a series of much later charters issued by Sigismund to her in the years 1424 and 1428. In these charters Sigismund either confirms his previous donations to Barbara or grants her other properties. Since charters related to the marriage agreements are rarely preserved, Barbara is the first queen of Hungary for whom such a Morgengabe including land donations is preserved.180 Considering these, wishing also to open with goodwill the royal bosom of our generosity to the Kingdom, we have given, granted, and bestowed our certain royal castle called Stupčanica (Soploncha) situated in our Kingdom of Slavonia, some time ago by the disappearance of seed (dying out of descendants) of the late Oswald called Poharos de Kapy passed down to our royal hands in a proper and legitimate manner, and other out of our particular disposition also with castles called the two Kalnik (Kemplek), and Kamengrad (Kwkaproncha) and with the town similarly called Koprivnica (Kaprwncha), and also the district Velika (Velike), and with the estates Garić (Garygh), Gračenica (Gersenche), and Palešnik (Palichna) in Križevci County (Crysiensi), and also the city of Zagreb (Montis Grecensis de Zagrabia) in See Jacob Grimm and Wilhelm Grimm, ed., Deutsches Wörterbuch, online http://woerterbuchnetz.de/DWB/?lemid=GM07409&mode=linking (last accessed: May 2014). 180 RéthelyiĽ “Mary of Hungary in Court ContextĽ” 35. 179 52 edition, Zagreb County, and also the entire tax on marten fur (marturina) of the said our Kingdom of Slavonia, in addition the town of Požega (Posegawar) with the castle and the county and also the tax on marten fur collected as usual in the same county; moreover the town of Virovitica (Vereuche) similarly with the county and the tax on marten fur and also the tithe of the same, with the whole properties and other pertaining things of the mentioned castles, counties, towns, districts, villages and properties; inspired by certain and reasonable causes, to the most serene noble lady Barbara, queen of the aforesaid kingdoms, our most beloved spouse, in order to preserve her status and rank, for as long as we live, and even after our death, if it would happen that we die before her, for the duration of her own life, under condition however, that she should remain a widow, bearing our name.181 From this charter, which was actually a donation charter to the Palatine Nicholas Garai, one can learn that the estates in Slavonia that Sigismund gives him are the same that he recovered from his wife in exchange for estates in central medieval Bohemia - and upon her request. This donation charter is important in order to see which estates and revenues the queen had at her disposal in Slavonia. Among the properties there were the castles Stupčanica, both Mali Kalnik and Veliki Kalnik, and Kamengrad with the town of KoprivnicaĽ the district of VelikaĽ the estates GarićĽ GračenicaĽ and Palešnik182 in the Križevci CountyĽ the city of ZagrebĽ the town of Požega with the castleĽ the whole Požega County and 181 Horum intuitu volentes eidem sinum Regalis nostre munificentie Regio aperire cum fauore, quoddam castrum nostrum Regale Soploncha vocatum in Regno nostro Sclauonie situatum dudum per defectum seminis condam Osvaldi dicti Poharos de Kapy ad manus nostras Regias rite et legitime devolutum, et alias ex speciali nostra dispositione simul cum castris utrisque Kemplek, et Kwkaproncha appelatis et ciuitate similiter Kaprwacha, ac Districtu Velice, et possessionibus Garygh, Gersenche, et Palichna in Crysiensi, ac ciuitate Montis Grecensis de Zagrabia in Zagrabiensi Comitatibus, necnon vniuersis mardurinis dicti Regni nostri Sclauonie, preterea ciuitate Posegawar cum castro Comitatuque ac mardurinis in eodem Comitatu exigi solitis; ceterum ciuitate Vereuche similiter cum Comitatu et mardurinis ac decimis ejusdem, cunctisque possessionibus et aliis pertinenciie dictorum castrorum, Comitatuum, oppidorum, Districtuum, villarum et tenutorum; ex certis et rationalibus causis animum nostrum moventibus, Serenissime Principi, domine Barbare Regine Regnorum predictorum, conthorali nostre carissime pro sui status et honoris conservatione vita sibi nobiscum comite, ac eciam post nostrum decessum, si nos prius quam ipsam mori contigat, ad tempora vite sue, eadem tamen sub nostro nomine viduitatem conseruante, donatum, dispositum, et collatum … For the edition of the charter see Gusztáv WenzelĽ ed.Ľ “Okmányi adalék Borbála és Erzsébet magyar királynék birtokáról (1424-1439) [Charter evidence on the domains of the Hungarian queens Barbara and Elizabeth]” Magyar Történelmi Tár 12 (1863): 271-274. 182 The estate Paližna (Palisna) or Palična (possessio PalichnaĽ Palychna) lay in the area around the stronghold of Garić (castrum Garić). It is the estate by which John of Palisna got his name. He was the prior of the monastery in Vrana and one of the protagonists of the uprising against Queen Mary and her mother the queen regent at the end of the fourteenth century. This estate probably got into Sigismund’s possession as a punishment of his unfaithful servant. See Hrvoje GračaninĽ “Ivan Paližna u povijesnim vrelima i historiografiji” [Ivan Paližna in Historical Sources and Historiography], Radovi Zavoda za znanstvenoistraživački i umjetnički rad u Bjelovaru 4 (2011): 237. 53 its tax on marten fur (mardurina), the town of Virovitica with the county and its tax on marten fur and the tithes (decima, Cro. desetina), as well as the tax on marten fur for the whole Slavonia. With the import and export customs of the thirtieth (tricesimaĽ Ger. Dreißigstzölle) the queen could count on during the whole year. Since the trade depended on external conditions, times of peace would also secure a steady income. In this matter Barbara was fully independent, since she could choose and appoint her own officials. The income from the mentioned domains was estimated to 8000 florins per year, and with the tricesima which was estimated to bring her 20000 florins per year, she had a total income of 28000 florins per year. Supposedly according to the customs of the kingdom, in her possession were also the island CsepelĽ ÓbudaĽ the town Kecskemét with the CumansĽ the castles Buják and Szanda in Nógrád CountyĽ and the market town of Tolnavár.183 Since Sigismund was in constant need of money, considering his war in Bosnia, campaigns against the Ottomans and Hussites, and often travels, Barbara was the person on whom he could most depend on to give him a loan. She managed to increase her wealth further by pledges agreed with her husband: he would receive the most needed money, and she would receive estates.184 What one can also learn from the charter is that Barbara could use the said estates in Slavonia and their revenues during her life with SigismundĽ and after his death she could use it as a widow’s property (Ger. Witwengut). With such a great income Barbara could manage her own court and her living costs independent from Sigismund. Most of the estates lied beyond the Drava River, in Slavonia, where they formed a unit with the estates of her family, previously donated by Sigismund. As some scholars explain, See MályuszĽ Kaiser Sigismund in Ungarn, 91-93; Márta KondorĽ “‘Double-hatted’ in the Middle Ages? Sigismund of Luxembourg and the First Decade of the Hungarian-German Personal Union (1410-1419)Ľ” Ph.D. dissertation (Budapest: Central European University), manuscript; KrzenckĽ “Messalina”Ľ 49; Fugger Germadnik, Barbara, 4; Martina Kalábovἠ“Venné majetky uhorských král’ovien v stredoslovenskej banskej oblasti do roku 1478” [Die Institution des Witwenguts der ungarischen Königinnen in der Mittelslowakei bis zum Jahre 1478], Historický časopis 52 (2004): 7; DraskóczyĽ“Die Besitztümer der ungarischen Königinnen”Ľ 66. 184 Sigismund started to take loans from Barbara only after 1425. For the help with Sigismund’s pledges I would like to thank my colleague János Incze who is writing his doctoral thesis on this topic. KondorĽ “Double-hatted”; FößelĽ “The Queen’s Wealth”Ľ 44; BakĽ “Queens as Scapegoats”Ľ 231. 183 54 Sigismund appointed Barbara’s father Herman in 1406 as Ban of Slavonia and CroatiaĽ in honor of the recent wedding and their new family alliance. Herman was ban until 1408185, and in 1409 Barbara took over the governance of the granted estates. In this way Herman could have taken care of the estates until Barbara could take the governance over. 186 This can perhaps be brought into connection with the recent birth of her only child Elizabeth in late 1408 or the beginning of 1409, discussed above. After she namely proved capable of bearing children to the king, she would have been granted more power, prestige, and responsibility. 187 Another explanation is that Barbara was, even at her marriage, still a young woman, so the important administrative business would have been postponed until she had the time to get skilled in politics, business, and law, as well as to learn languages.188 Since 1409 Barbara has appointed her castellans in Slavonia, but spent her time there only between 1407 and 1413, which is visible by the charters she issued at that time.189 Sigismund had to depart for Italy and later towards Aachen in late 1412, since he had been elected the new Holy Roman Emperor, so he appointed Barbara as regent (Statthalterin) of Hungary, leaving her with the counsel of Palatine Nicholas Garai and the Archbishop János Kanizsai. According to some scholars, in that time Barbara had her court at Kalnik and appointed Eberhard, the Archbishop of Zagreb, as her counselor.190 Although both Kalnik castles had a central position regarding her estates in Slavonia and were fairly close to her father’s castles in Zagorje CountyĽ one can Pál EngelĽ Magyarország világi archontológiája [The secular archontology of Hungary], vol. 1 (Budapest: MTA Történettudományi IntézeteĽ 1996)Ľ 20. 186 PálosfalviĽ “Barbara und die Grafen von CilliĽ” 296. 187 A similar event occured later in Poland, but would have most likely been a custom in the Middle Ages. After the death of his wife and Barbara's cousin AnnaĽ King Władysław II Jagiełło married twice more. His last wifeĽ Princess Sophia HalszańskaĽ was crowned as a queen two years after their marriageĽ only after realizing that she was pregnant. Other examples are given in Fößel’s work; one is the Empress Theophanu from the tenth century, wife of the Holy Roman Emperor Otto II, who got large estates in her marriage contract, but also other estates shortly before the birth of a childĽ like Barbara’sĽ also a daughter. The other is Bianca Maria Sforza from the fifteenth century, the second wife of Maximilian I. Although in the same position, she seemed to have been a sheer contrast to Barbara: she was not beautiful and not very intelligent, she could not fill her role as a queen, had no political influence nor money to maintain her court, or if she had it, she spent it unwisely, and – what is important for this issue – she remained childless. See FößelĽ “The Queen’s Wealth”Ľ 29-31, 33. 188 FößelĽ “Barbara von Cilli”Ľ 103. 189 PálosfalviĽ “Barbara”Ľ 296. See the appendix with charters issued by Barbara in KondorĽ “Double-hatted”. 190 KondorĽ “Double-hatted”; FößelĽ Die Königin im mittelalterlichen Reich, 369; KrzenckĽ “Messalina”Ľ 50; Fugger Germadnik, BarbaraĽ 8; ChilianĽ “Barbara von Cilli”Ľ 20. 185 55 hardly say with certainty if she resided there for a longer period or not. According to the charters issued in the period she actively visited her estates, Barbara was constantly moving from one castle to another, and from Kalnik itself she issued only one charter, not more than from other of her estates.191 The estates in Slavonia The castrum Mali Kalnik (Kiskemlék) lay on a rocky hill about 460 meters above sea level. It was a small stronghold protected by an entrance tower. The palace inside the stronghold was a two-story building which had narrow Gothic windows on the lower floor and wide Gothic windows with window crosses on the upper floor, which was most likely heated.192 The size of the windows and the heating indicates that this was the place where Barbara and her court would have had their chambers or simply where they resided most of the time. The stronghold was accessible only by a narrow and steep way between the rocks, separated from the main entrance by a drawbridgeĽ which increased the stronghold’s defense and security (Figure 9). The stronghold most likely also had a suburb on the rocky hill with detached wooden structures, and one at the bottom of the hill, with stables, warehouses and a court chapel.193 Today the hill on which the remains of the stronghold lay is popularly called “Pusta Barbara” (Eng. desolated), supposedly in remembrance of the chapel of St. Barbara that was in the vicinity of the stronghold, and which was used as a court chapel.194 FößelĽ “Barbara von Cilli”Ľ 105Ľ 109. Gjuro Szabo, Srednjovječni gradovi u Hrvatskoj i Slavoniji [Medieval castles in Croatia and Slavonia] (Zagreb: Tisak kraljevske zemaljske tiskare, 1920), 29, 83. 193 For a detailed description of the stronghold see Zorislav HorvatĽ “Ulazi u burgove 12.-15. stoljeća” [Gates in 12th-15th Century Burgs], Prostor 6, no. 1-2 (1998): 62-63; Zorislav HorvatĽ “Pozicije burgova tijekom 13.-15stoljeća” [Locations of Castles between th 13th and 15th Centuries], Prostor 16 (2008): 29. For a detailed description of the history of Mali and Veliki Kalnik see a book by Josip Buturac which the author could not reach. Josip Buturac, Povijest Gornje Rijeke i okolice [The history of Gornja Rijeka and its surroundings] (Gornja Rijeka: ŽupaĽ 1979). 194 Tomislav Đurić and Dragutin FeletarĽ Stari gradovi i dvorci sjeverozapadne Hrvatske [Old fortified cities and castles of northwestern Croatia] (Varaždin: NIŠRO VaraždinĽ 1981)Ľ 188. 191 192 56 Figure 9. Mali Kalnik. Approach route to the stronghold (Horvat, “Ulazi u burgove”, 61) The castrum Veliki Kalnik (Nagykemlék) lay in a strategically favorable positionĽ on a 500 meter high hill overlooking an ancient road that was used for passing the Hill Kalnička Gora, and six kilometers east of the castrum Mali Kalnik. The stronghold was built in the thirteenth century and was also the center of administration of the whole Kalnik estate. On the base of the stronghold there are remains of a chapel with a Romanesque ground plan. 195 Archaeological excavations have shown that inside the stronghold there was a freestanding residential building on three levels. The floors were connected with spiral stone staircases. On the first floor there were big windows with stone benches, probably indicating the living spaceĽ whereas on the façade of the second floor there was a lavatory supported by consoles. The ceiling has been constructed with wooden beams supported on stone consoles. In the hall at the entrance of the first floor there seems to have been a communication shaft; a small channel through which the visitor in the hall could have communicated with the resident on the first floor. By the remains one can see that this was a quality-made residence, and the carved (“cushion shaped”) stone blocks on the corners of the building indicate that the residential palace was built in the fifteenth century, since similar building styles can be found Zorislav HorvatĽ “Kapele u burgovima 13.-15. stoljeća u kontinentalnoj Hrvatskoj” [Chapels on 13 th-15th Century Burgs in Continental Croatia], Prostor 7, no.2 (1999): 190. 195 57 in fifteenth-century Bohemia. Also, similar traces can be found on the castle in Krapina, in the area where Frederick of Cilli adapted the tower with the chapel. Thus one can conclude that this particular building was, if not erected, then at least adapted for the stay of Queen Barbara. The palace area was also divided from the other areas of the stronghold, indicating a division between the royal and “common” residents.196 All of the mentioned suggests that Barbara would have a pleasant stay in this castrum, and by the quality of construction and the existence of a chapel, a more permanent stay would also be possible. Figure 10. Veliki Kalnik. Ground plan of the palace. Ground floor: ŽS – rock in the entrance hall. First floor: PI – exit into a small garden; D – communication shaft; S – See Zorislav HorvatĽ “Stambeni prostori u burgovima 13.-15. stoljeća u kontinentalnoj Hrvatskoj” [Residential Spaces in Continental Croatian Castles in 13 th-15th Century], Prostor 17 (2009): 38; Szabo, Srednjovječni gradovi, 94-97. 196 58 vertical rock; Z – lavatory; B – wall towards the tower on the highest part of the stronghold (Horvat, “Stambeni prostori”, 39). The castrum Kwkaproncha was often misunderstood by international scholars as the civitas Kaprwncha or even for other nearby locations.197 Nada Klaić seems to have solved the mystery of the location, by linking the medieval Kwkaproncha with the location of the medieval stronghold Kamengrad. Kamengrad was built on a hill by the streams Jagnjedovec and Koprivnica in the vicinity of the royal castrum Koprivnica (Kaprwncha, Kapronca) in the first half of the fourteenth century. In the charters it was recorded as Kuvar, since in this location was also a village named Kamen or Kameno selo.198 A such clarification gives Sigismund’s charter from 12 December 1407 where he addresses “all the citizensĽ inhabitantsĽ guests, tenants and people residing in the neighborhood of our castle Koprivnica and the castrum Kamen-Koprivnica” (Ku-Kaproncha).199 The toponym Garić is mentioned in the sources since the twelfth century. Throughout the Middle Ages it came to mark several terms: a place, an estate, a stronghold, a stream, a mountain, an administrative area, and the Pauline monastery.200 In the second half of the thirteenth century the Garić estate was divided into a biggerĽ royal estate and a number of Fugger Germadnik combines the two locations into the today’s Jagnjedovec near Koprivnica. The information is taken from FößelĽ who addresses only Kőkapronca as Jagnjedovec. She takes her information from the Zsigmondkori OklevéltárĽ which does not mention the contemporary name of the location. Fugger Germadnik, BarbaraĽ 4; FößelĽ “Barbara von Cilli”Ľ 105. 198 Kuvar is the Hungarian translation for “stone village” or Kameno seloĽ see Nada KlaićĽ Koprivnica u srednjem vijeku [The city of Koprivnica in the Middle Ages] (Koprivnica: Centar za kulturu: Muzej grada Koprivnice, 1987), 81. 199 Interestingly enoughĽ Klaić argues that Sigismund may have pledged Koprivnica and Kamengad while he was abroad, since he was in need of money, so that this would explain why Barbara was issuing charters from both of these estates. She was most likely not aware of the donation charter. KlaićĽ Koprivnica, 80-84. For a good overview over the history of Koprivnica and detailed bibliographical references see Ranko PavlešĽ “Razlozi i uvjeti nastanka Koprivnice i njeno mjesto među srednjovjekovnim urbanim naseljima” [Reasons and Conditions under which the Town of Koprivnica emerged; its Place among other Medieval Urban Settlements], Podravina 6, no. 11 (2007): 88-106. 200 For the detailed description of the Garić estate and administrative areaĽ as well as the strongholdĽ see Silvija PiskĽ “Toponim Garić u povijesnim izvorima” [The Toponym Garić in Historical Sources]Ľ Radovi Zavoda za znanstvenoistraživački i umjetnički rad u Bjelovaru 4 (2011): 1-14. 197 59 smaller estates of the Garić iobagiones castri.201 The castrum Garić was situated on a rocky hill upon the mountain Moslavačka goraĽ the via magna going along its bottom. It is mentioned in the thirteenth century as a stronghold under the king’s jurisdiction. The castrum and the Garić County often changed from royal into episcopal hands. 202 By the remains and upon archaeological excavations one can see that inside the stronghold there was a freestanding residential palace, which is ascribed to Eberhard, Archbishop of Zagreb, who was one of Garić’s owners before BarbaraĽ and probably built it around 1400. According to some scholarsĽ Eberhard left Garić to Barbara agreeably probably around 1412. Some argue that Eberhard was to watch over the young queen in this way since she was young and wanton, but she still behaved recklessly, which led to the dispute with the king in 1419.203 This late period of Barbara’s introduction into this estate might support my argument that this delay was owed to her still young age. The central part of the stronghold consists out of a long and narrow courtyard, three entrances, a defense tower, a detached central tower or palace, a cistern and a number of smaller or bigger buildings leaning against the walls.204 The design of the palace reminds of a defense-tower, enabling security as well as comfort and dwelling standards. The entrance was elevated, the windows were secured with bars, and the palace was at a certain distance from all surrounding walls. The inside of the palace was most likely a one room area on three floors connected with internal staircases. The rooms were heated by a fireplace and a tile stove, and there was also a lavatory on stone consoles. The stove tiles found during excavations show an excellent attention to details and a similarity to ones found in the Buda palace, in the part For a detailed description of the stronghold in Garić see Krešimir ReganĽ “Plemićki grad Garić” [The Aristocratic Town of Garić]Ľ Radovi Zavoda za znanstvenoistraživački i umjetnički rad u Bjelovaru 4 (2011): 3234. 202 Szabo, Srednjovječni gradovi, 105-106. 203 ReganĽ “Plemićki grad Gari攼 29-30; KlaićĽ Povijest Hrvata 3, 102-103. 204 ReganĽ “Plemićki grad Gari攼 36. 201 60 which is known to be rebuilt by King Sigismund.205 The windows on the first and second floor were rather big; they reached to the floor and were divided with stone mullions (so called “Bohemian windows”). The stone benches in the window niches enabled comfortable work in daylight.206 On the second floor there was a small chapel on consoles built probably for the archbishop. In the northern area of the stronghold there was a sturdy built defense tower which would enable the needed security for the palace in the middle of the stronghold.207 The interior of the palace indicates that it could accommodate the castellan of the current owner, but due to the prestigious equipment it would be also suitable for a noble resident. The presence of artwork conducted by Bohemian master craftsmen also indicates the high quality that was needed to equip such a royal property. Since the nearby Church of the Holy Virgin Mary of Garić was a popular pilgrimage place208Ľ and Garić had a good road connection, one can assume that this area was a prosperous and busy one. The remains of the stronghold in Garić show that this was a wellequipped and secure place to live. Zorislav HorvatĽ “Grijanje u srednjovjekovnim burgovima kontinentalne Hrvatske. Kamini, dimnjaci i kaljeve peći” [Heating in Medieval Burgs of Continental Croatia. FireplacesĽ chimneys and tile stoves]Ľ Prostor 2, no. 34 (1994): 229; ReganĽ “Plemićki grad Gari攼 44Ľ n. 114. 206 Zorislav HorvatĽ “Prozori na burgovima 13-15. stoljeća u kontinentalnoj Hrvatskoj” [Windows on 13 th-15th Century Burgs in Continental Croatia], Prostor 5 (1997): 52-53. 207 HorvatĽ “Stambeni prostori”Ľ 38; Zorislav HorvatĽ “Branič-kule na burgovima kontinentalne Hrvatske od 13. do 15. stoljeća” [Defense Towers of Continental Croatian Castles between 13 th and 15th Century], Prostor 15 (2007): 29Ľ 31; Zorislav HorvatĽ “Neki pomoćni prostori u starim gradovima kontinentalne Hrvatske. ZahodiĽ stubištaĽ pretprostoriĽ rovovi i sl.” [Some Accessory Spaces in Castles of Continental Croatia. Lavatories, Staircases, Anterooms, Shafts and the like], Prostor 3 (1996): 304-305. 208 PiskĽ “Pavlinski samostani”Ľ 156. 205 61 Figure 11. Garić. Left: Ground plan of the palace. Ground floor: U – entrance; K – fireplace. First floor: P – tile stove; L – chapel, the shrine from the eastern wall is missing; II. – access to the second floor. Right: Reconstruction of the east façade of the palace (Horvat, “Stambeni prostori”, 38). The toponym of Gračenica was recorded in the sources since the second half of the thirteenth century. Like GarićĽ it also marked several different terms: a streamĽ a settlementĽ an estate, an administrative area, and a stronghold. Because of the different forms of its name (Gresenche, Guersenicha, Grezinche…) it was often mistaken by the older scholarship for GarešnicaĽ a town which lay also nearby. The disctrict of Gračenica was very well connected with GarićĽ and since the main travel routes in the Middle Ages usually went through Garić and further towards Sisak and ZagrebĽ one can see that both Garić and Gračenica lay in a very good and important area. From the end of the thirteenth century Gračenica had a church and a main square where probably fairs were conducted, and from the end of the fourteenth century 62 Gračenica is named as a market town (libera villa). The town consisted of an upper and lower part, and had a stronghold which location is today not known and is still disputed.209 The location of the districtus Velike is still disputed among scholars. Some argue that it probably indicates the castle Kraljeva Velika (Velica Regalis) in the medieval Križevci County (Figure 12).210 Kraljeva Velika was the seat of a big estate (Cro. vlastelinstvo), comprising several villages (pakračkiĽ RogoznaĽ BenediktĽ ZadorĽ SibenikĽ posavskiĽ veličanstveni)Ľ and also the parish seat. In the fourteenth century instead of a smaller fort a big stronghold was built. In the fifteenth century, as its name indicates, it was a royal estate. Other scholars argue that the possible location of the said districtus Velike is Velike near PožegaĽ which could also be a logical position, since Barbara was also the owner of the town of Požega. The remains of the stronghold in Velika near Požega indicate that there was a twostoried defense tower and a palace in the building. The palace had a great hall fit for the gathering of a big number of people. In the defense tower there were fireplaces on both floors in the same corner, in order to use the same chimney. The kitchen was most likely on the ground floor, whereas on the first floor there would probably have been the living room. On the second floor which had a lavatory on consoles there was most likely the bedroom. It was also heated since the upper part of the fireplace hood went into the space of the second floor.211 Silvija PiskĽ “Toponim Gračenica u srednjem vijeku” [The Toponym Gračenica in the Middle Ages], Zbornik Moslavine 13 (2012): 29-34, http://issuu.com/muzejmoslavine/docs/zbornik_moslavine_13_final/33 (last accessed: May 2014). 210 The problem with this estate is that scholars are still disputing about the exact location, since there was also a castrum Welike or Velyke near Požega. This one however is mentioned only in later chartersĽ and since Kraljeva Velika can be linked to Sigismund who issued other charters relating to it, one can tell with high certainty that Kraljeva Velika is meant under the districtus Velike. Another opinion is that the estate Velika lay south of the Lobor estate, east of the Krapina or Zagorje County, which would logically neighbor the estates of the Cilli family. See Kamilo DočkalĽ “Srednjovjekovna naselja oko Streze. Prilog našoj srednjovjekovnoj topografiji” [Medieval settlements around Streza. A contribution to our medieval topography], Starine 46 (1956): 195-196; Kamilo DočkalĽ “Srednjovjekovna naselja oko Dobre Kuće. Prilog našoj srednjovjekovnoj topografiji” [Medieval settlements around Dobra Kuća. A contribution to our medieval topography]Ľ Starine 48 (1958): 157; Krešimir ReganĽ “Srednjovjekovne obrambene građevine porječja Krapine (II.)”[Medieval fortifications in the Krapina River basin], Kaj 46 (2013): 81-82. 211 HorvatĽ “Grijanje”Ľ 217; HorvatĽ “Pomoćni prostori”Ľ 302-303. 209 63 Figure 12. Velika near Požega. Left: reconstruction of the stronghold. Right: ground plan of the first floor of the great hall and second floor of the defense tower. P – palace; G – approach gallery; Z – console lavatories (Zorislav Horvat, “Zidine i braništa na utvrdama kontinentalne Hrvatske 12-15. stoljeća” [Walls and Battlements on Fortifications in Continental Croatia, 12th – 15th century], Prostor 4 (1996): 182; Horvat, “Pomoćni prostori”, 302). In 1403 Sigismund gives the village Rogozna to some of his subjects, separating it from the authority of Velike.212 The last mention of this village is in a charter from 23 November 1405, when Sigismund orders the castellans of Velyke not to affiliate this village to the castle again.213 From this we can assume that by the time Barbara got the districtus Velike, it would have been comprised out of a stronghold and five villages adjoining it. MályuszĽ Levéltári 6, 101 (no. 39); DL 34667. DočkalĽ “Srednjovjekovna naselja oko Dobre Kuće”Ľ 157; DočkalĽ “Srednjovjekovna naselja oko Streze”Ľ 195-196; MályuszĽ Levéltári 6, 102, no. 41. 212 213 64 The gradual increase in power As a queen and relating to Slavonia, Barbara is first mentioned in a charter she issued in Čakovec (Chakturnya) on 9 January 1408, where she receives the representative of the royal town of Gradec while her husband and father were absent. According to her charter, one can see that the Gradec emissary was concerned for not finding the king there, so she comforts him by ordering the representative and the citizens of Gradec to wait patiently for the return of her husband and to take meanwhile good care of their city. After the king’s return she would pay strong attention for the business of the city to be done in the best possible way.214 From this charter it can be seen that Barbara at this time still did not make any decisions, i.e. she postponed them all until the real legislator at that time, the king, would return to take over. On the other handĽ the charter is authenticated with Sigismund’s sealĽ “in the absence of her own seal” (Presentes autem absentibus nostris sigillis, sigillo prefati domini nostri Sigismundi regis facimus consignari).215 This may indicate that Sigismund started to trust her with the issues of the Kingdom, but not to that extent that she would yet be able to make her own decisions regarding the Kingdom of Slavonia. This would also support my previous argument that Barbara was entrusted with more power only after it was certain that she was pregnant. The child was a girl, which was not the perfect and awaited outcome, but Barbara proved to be fertile, so in the awaiting of another successor, she would have been awarded with more prestige and authority. Furthermore, up to the birth of Elizabeth, Barbara issued charters either from her father’s estates (like Čakovec was from 1405)Ľ or from other …ideo vestre fidelitati consulimus, eidem nichilominus firmiter mandamus, quatenus ipsius domini nostri regis adventum deo duce partes ad istas, salve fiende, vestris in propriis demorando, prestolantes, circa custodiam et conservacionem civitatis antefate curam vigilem et solertem medio tempore fideliter modo meliori quo poteritis adhibere studeatis… For the edition of the charter see TkalčićĽ Monumenta 13; KlaićĽ Povijest Hrvata 2, 387. 215 TkalčićĽ Monumenta, 13. 214 65 royal residences like Kosice or Buda. This also might indicate that she still was not introduced into her estates. On 12 July 1408 King Sigismund issued a charter in which he confirms the estates of the Garai brothers. In the charter it is highlighted that the seat of the ban is vacated (Dalmatiae, Croatiae praedictorum et Slavoniae regnorum nostrorum…banatus honoribus vacantibus), so it is certain that Herman had at that time no influence on the said provinces. This might be the time when Barbara’s role got more importantĽ when she got introduced into her estatesĽ and started gaining power. According to KlaićĽ the charter states that Sigismund issued it upon Barbara’s pleadĽ “since her older sister is married to the Palatine”Ľ and since Sigismund was occupied with the war in Bosnia from August, this charter might indicate that he left his wife the government of the Croatia and Slavonia already then.216 This might be only a polite formal phrase which repeated itself in many charters. However, if Barbara was already pregnant at that time, she might have had a better influence on Sigismund. In the fall of the same year Barbara issues again a charter from one of her father’s domains, namely from Samobor, on 28 September 1408. She settles a dispute between the citizens of Gradec and the representative of Kaptol. The inhabitants of Gradec and Kaptol, two opposing towns which would later form the city of Zagreb, fought constantly because of issues of revenue from the trade Gradec conducted, the ownership over the land, and political reasons. It was a struggle for limited resources in a limited space: The bishop and the chapter of Zagreb, i.e. the overlords of Kaptol, demanded taxes and services from the burghers of Gradec, from which the latter, as burghers of a free royal town, claimed to have been exempt217: …supplicibus nihilominus serenissimae Principis Dominae Barbarae dictorum Regnorum Reginae Consortis nostrae carissimae, filiae videlicet Spectabilis Viri Domini Hermanni Comitis Cilii, etc. Soceri nostri dilecti, cuius eidem Consortis nostrae precarae soror senior eidem Nicolao Palatino matrimonialiter extitit copulata…CDH 10Ľ 660-679; KlaićĽ Povijest Hrvata 2, 387; FößelĽ “Barbara von Cilli”Ľ 104. 217 Nada KlaićĽ Zagreb u srednjem vijeku [Zagreb in the middle ages]Ľ vol. 1 (Zagreb: Sveučilišna naklada LiberĽ 1982), 119-156. I would like to thank my friend and colleague Luka Rukavina for the help with this issue. For 216 66 And because we considered and it was entirely of our will, that the before mentioned one-sixteenth part of wine and of grain at the same time, when the most distinguished leader, our most beloved lord and husband, lord Sigismund by the same grace king of Hungary etc., decided and regulated about the already mentioned, by our said citizens and guests against the pious man, lord abbot of the previously mentioned church of the Holy Virgin Mary of Zagreb, namely in the presence of public hands, they would have restored fully and arranged effectively. Therefore we strongly instruct Your Fidelity and we command wishing entirely, that you are not allowed and must not in any way compel and commit our citizens to the previously mentioned payment of onesixteenth part of wine and grain, nor should you dare to lay your hands on the same wines, which, as we have prescribed, have to be deposited by our said citizens to you or your man in favor of the mentioned lord abbot publicly and you must not do otherwise for our sake.218 This charter shows that Barbara gradually got more and more rights and power to settle disputes, although she only confirmed Sigismund’s previous decision. This would prove to be the pattern in later charters as well.219 Although both charters are issued in the same year and deal with the problems of the inhabitants of Gradec, in the second one she refers to the city as “our city” (civitas nostra), and in the ones following this charter. This might indicate a change of her status as estate-holder during these eight months. Barbara’s first charter addressed to Koprivnica is issued in October 1412Ľ in which she confirms a privilege granted by Sigismund in 1411. This might indicate the date when she started to exercise authority in this city, but in others as well, as charter evidence proves. Probably not by coincidence is this the period when Sigismund leaves the country, and Barbara has to take over the rule in the kingdoms. Later, in April 1413, she will issue two more charters from Kamengrad. In the one from 6 April 1413 she orders that the estate Črni details on the disputes between Kaptol and Gradec in the time of the Cillis see Luka RukavinaĽ “Gradec u sukobu s plemstvom i crkvenim institucijama 1382-1458” [Gradec in conflict with the nobility and church institutions 1382-1458], MA thesis (Zagreb: Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences), manuscript. 218 Et quia nos id deliberavimus nostreque omnino existit voluntatis, ut predicta sedecima pars vini et frugum interim, quosque serenissimus princeps dominus et maritus noster carissimus, dominus Sigismundus eadem gracia rex Hungarie etc., de premissis personaliter deliberavit et disposuerit, per dictos cives nostros et hospites erga religiosum virum dominum abbatem ecclesie beate Marie virginis de Zagrabia predicta, apud videlicet manus communes, plenarie reponantur et effective collocentur. Fidelitati igitur vestre firmiter precipimus et mandamus omnino volentes, quatenus predictos nostros cives ad solucionem predictarum sedecimam partem vinorum et frugum compellere et astringere nullo modo debeatis, nec niteremini ad vestras recipere presumpmatis manus, sed ipsa vina, ut prediximus, per dictos cives nostros vobis vel homine vestro erga memoratum dominum abbatem videlicet apud manus communes plenarie reponantur et integraliter collocentur; aliud igitur pro nostra gracia non facturi. For the edition of the charter see TkalčićĽ Monumenta, 14. 219 See KondorĽ “Double-hatted”. 67 otok on the river Sava is given, against the decision of the testament, as a fief to the citizens of Gradec. In this way she decides once more in favor of her own estate. 220 In the charter Petar Šafar (Petrus dictus Saphar), a judge form Gradec, is mentioned again. Apart from gaining a higher position since the charter form Čakovec in 1408, he seems to be her confidant in the matters of the city of Gradec. This might indicate that Barbara got more accustomed to ruling and had people who supported and helped her in this matter. On 25 November 1412 Barbara issued a charter from the castrum GarićĽ relieving the Pauline monastery of Garić and their jobagiones from payment of any state tax, and prohibits the collectors of the tax on marten fur to disturb the Paulines. The privilege was confirmed a month later by King Sigismund. On the same day she also gave the same privilege to the monastery of Streza (Ztreza).221 On 15 February 1417 Barbara granted the tenant Nicholas and his brothers the predium (deserted village) Kameno from the estate of her castrum Kamengrad (Kwvar), which comprised six tenant plots (ad sex sessiones jobagionalies seu fundos curiarum se extendens cum terris arabilibus et pratis).222 According to calculations, this village with those six plots would have had 120 acres (Cro. jutro) of land. All of the peasant holdings had a fundus curie, a lot in the suburbs, but also a sessio jobagionalis, pieces of land outside of the villages, so arable lands, meadows, and forests. It is also important to highlight in connection with this document, that Barbara rewarded her subject with the largest village from her …precipimus et mandamus, quatenus rebus sic habentibus, prefatam insulam per vos, ut dicitur, dicto Stephano Farkasii arendatam, ab eo Stephano Farkasii removere et uni ex dictis civibus nostris dicte civitatis nostre secundum quod opus est et oportunum arendere et in feudum tradere debeatis vel vosmet cadem utmini secundum premissam testamentariam legacionem et disposicionem…For the edition of the charter see TkalčićĽ Monumenta, 16-17. 221 MályuszĽ Levéltári 10, 108; Silvija Pisk, “Prilog povijesti srednjovjekovnih pavlinskih samostana: prava i povlastice samostana Blažene Djevice Marije na Gariću (Moslavačka gora)” [Contribution to the history of medieval Pauline monasteries: the rights and privileges of the monastery of the Blessed Virgin Mary on Garić (Moslavina mountain)], Radovi 43 (2011): 160. PiskĽ “Toponim Gari攼 11. For the edition of the charter for the monastery of Streza see MHEZĽ 404. … dicto claustro ipsisque ac universis populis et iobagionibus ipsorum ad dictum claustrum spectantibus…mardurinali dicacione et solucione exempti et absoluti ac per omnia expediti sint et habeantur, quos expedimus, supportamus et per omnia absolutos perpetuis futuris temporibus reddimus, harum nostrarum vigore et testimonio litterarum. 222 DočkalĽ “Srednjovjekovna naselja oko Streze”Ľ 170. 220 68 Kamengrad estate, which was desolated at that time, and afterwards the whole estate started to crumble.223 Was it because of her misguidance or if Barbara tried ad that moment to resettle the area, one can only assume; however, a few years afterwards Barbara gives up her estates in Slavonia. Barbara did not have to stay in Slavonia to administer the interests of the Cilli family, since her father Herman was appointed ban again in 1423 and held that position up until his death in 1435.224 This is one explanation why she agreed to give up her estates in Slavonia and exchanged them for ones in northern HungaryĽ which is noted in Sigismund’s donation charter to Barbara from 22 Mai 1424 and repeated again in the charter from 28 November 1428Ľ where Sigismund pledges all Barbara’s previous domains to the Palatine Garai.225 And afterwards we have changed our provision concerning the above mentioned lady queen, following the freely expressed wish and the constant and persistent request by the above mentioned lady queen Barbara on account of the attacks of the TurksĽ the persecutors of Christ’s cross and our well known enemies, who kept invading those regions; similarly with other castles, counties, cities, districts, towns, properties, namely the castle Trenčín (Trynchen) with Trenčín County, and also with castles called Sučany (Zwcha), Vršatské Podhradie (Orozlankw)Ľ Považská Bystrica (Biztricia)Ľ Hrušov (Hracho)Ľ Strečno (Ztrechen) and Óvár (Owar), and with the place (locus) of the castle Budatín (Budyethyn) at that time according to a reasonable cause within its own building destroyed, desolated, and obliterated; in addition with the county and city and our castle Zvolen; also similarly with the cities called Brezno (Brezebanja) and Krupina (Carpona); moreover with our castles called Dobra Niva (Dobronya), Slovenská ġupča (Lypcha), and VígĢaš (Vegles) in the same Zvolen County, and with Šášovské Podhradie (Saaskw) in Tekov County; also with our mining towns namely Banská Bystrica (Bystriciensis) otherwise called Neusohl (Novizolio), and ġubietová (Libetha) being in the before mentioned Zvolen County, and also Kremnica (Crempnech)Ľ Banská Štiavnica (Sebnych)Ľ Nová Baňa (Kwnysperg), and Pukanec (Bakabana), and with all the towns, villages, properties and pertaining things and usefulness of the same castles, counties, cities, districts, urburae and our castles, in addition to those all before mentioned, the said lady queen Barbara of her own will and nobly and adequately has been contented with.226 KlaićĽ Koprivnica, 86-87. Engel, Magyarország világi archontológiája, 20. 225 MályuszĽ Kaiser Sigismund in Ungarn, 92. 226 … demumque propter insultus Turcorum, Crucis Christi persecutorum et nostrorum notoriorum emulorum ipsas partes continuo invadencium, de beneplacita voluntate ac instanti et continua peticione predicte domine Barbare Regine, mutata ipsa nostra dispositione ab eadem domina Regina; similiter cum aliis castris, comitatibus, Civitatibus, Districtibus, oppidis, possessionibus, videlicet castris Trynchen cum Comitatu Trynchiniensi, ac Zwcha, Orozlankw, Biztricia, Hracho, Ztrechen et Owar appelatis, ac loco Castri Budyethyn 223 224 69 Apart from the cities in the north of the kingdom, Sigismund gave Barbara the taxes of Krupina and Brezno, as well as a part of the urbura (tax given after revenues from mining) which together made up a sum of 8000 florins. On 1 February 1427 he took the thirtieth from her, but gave her the urbura on gold, silver, and lead instead, as well as the taxes on the production of coins. In March of the same year she received Diósgyőr as well. This new revenues would bring her according to some authors again 28000 florins227, but according to recent calculations the sum was however around 16000 florins.228 This was still much more than the 4000 to 9000 florins that the mentioned Bianca Maria Sforza had some decades later, and which were barely enough to manage her household and living expenses.229 As it could be seen from the text quoted above, Barbara states as the reason for this exchange the constant invasions of the Ottomans. They were in the area since they invaded Serbia in 1412. The Serbian despot asked Sigismund for help, so the Hungarian and Bosnian nobles united themselves and fought against the Ottomans. Duke Hrvoje Vukčić HrvatinićĽ although called upon, did not appear to help his neighbors, but used the situation to get even with a Bosnian noble. Although Hrvoje was at that time in the king’s mercyĽ being his daughter’s godfather and an ally altogetherĽ he quickly lost the king’s goodwillĽ was proclaimed a traitor and deprived of his lands. Barbara played her role in this occasion too: many cities and nobles complained about the duke to Sigismund who was at that time abroad, but to Barbara as well. On 1 June 1413 Barbara issues a charter, calling the nobles to arms tunc racionabilibus ex causis in suis edificiis rupti, desolati et aboliti; preterea Comitatu ac civitate et domo nostris Zoliensi; item similiter civitatibus Brezenbanja et Carpona denominatis; ceterum castris nostris Dobronya, Lypcha et Vegles nuncupati in eodem Zoliensi, ac Saaskw in Barsiensi; item Civitatibus montanarum nostrarum, videlicet Bystriciensis, alias Novizoli, et Libetha vocatis in predicto Zoliensi Comitatibus existentibus, item Crempnech, Sebnych, Kwnysperg et Bakabana, universisque oppidis, villis, possessionibus ac pertinenciis et utilitatibus eorundem Castrorum, Comitatuum, Civitatum, Districtuum, urburarum ac domus nostrarum, super quibus omnibus premissis dicta domina Barbara Regina sponte et liberaliter ac sufficienter extiterat contenta…WenzelĽ “Okmányi adalék Borbála”Ľ 272. 227 MályuszĽ Kaiser Sigismund in Ungarn, 92. 228 DraskóczyĽ“Die Besitztümer der ungarischen Königinnen”Ľ 66-67. 229 FößelĽ “The Queen’s Wealth”Ľ 30. 70 against Hrvoje. Cornered by his enemies, Hrvoje turned for help to the Ottomans. They invaded Bosnia in the summer of 1414, and were since then occasionally invading Croatian estates from there.230 Upon Sigismund’s return to Hungary in February 1419Ľ he prepared for a war with the Ottomans in the summer, but apparently it never came to a battle. Instead Sigismund arranged a truce with the sultan Mehmed I, for the duration of five years. 231 In May 1424 when Sigismund issued a donation charter to Barbara, giving her the towns in Upper-Hungary, Ottoman armies were already invading Bosnia under the leadership of the late sultan’s son Murad II. The war continued up to the summer of 1428. In order to reward his loyal servants and the leaders of his armies, Sigismund issued a charter on 7 July 1427 to, among othersĽ John MarótiĽ giving him the stronghold Velika in the Križevci County. Since he lacked the money needed to form and pay his troops, he pledged the stronghold Veliki Kalnik on 1 May 1428 to the Bishop of Zagreb John of Alben for 14000 florins.232 Considering that Sigismund was in constant need of money, at this time especially for his campaignsĽ it is plausible why he pledged also Barbara’s former possessions in Slavonia in the charter from 1428 mentioned above to the Palatine Garai. It is from this charter, already analyzed at the beginning of this chapter, that we know what domains Barbara had a right to as Sigismund’s spouse at the time of their weddingĽ and that she held them most likely up to the dispute with her husband upon his return to Hungary in 1419. KlaićĽ Povijest Hrvata 3, 79-81, 87. KlaićĽ Povijest Hrvata 3, 119-121. 232 KlaićĽ Povijest Hrvata 3, 131, 135, 137; Hoensch, Kaiser Sigismund, 284, 341-344; MályuszĽ Kaiser Sigismund in Ungarn, 139-140; Engel, The Realm of St. Stephen, 235-238. 230 231 71 CONCLUSION When looking from a political aspect, Barbara of Cilli was the most important female member of the entire Cilli family. Her lineage and legacy can be traced into many European royal houses. My thesis has focused only on a short period in the life of this woman and queen, but several important points have been made throughout the thesis, which I would like to summarize now. It is not only the individual facts that are brought forward and proven in new ways, but the relationship established between them that can bring new insights into research on Barbara and her times. Barbara was not Sigimund’s first choice after the death of his wifeĽ Queen Mary. A new wife was not sought after for love or companionship, she was sought after as a political means for Sigismund to prosper and accomplish his aspirations toward different thrones of Europe. Margareta of Brzeg, the woman to whom he was married by proxy and whose arrival to Hungary he awaited, would have been his link to the Polish throne. Since Sigismund got imprisoned, and Margareta apparently died sometime in the middle of 1401, Sigismund had to search, after his release, for a new wife again. The engagement with Barbara of Cilli was conducted shortly after Sigismund’s release. The negotiations were made and the dowry was agreed upon in Celje, where the new couple would have met for the first time. The bond was exclusively of political nature, with ambitious motives hidden behind both sides; on the one hand, for Sigismund, Barbara was a means to secure his rule, not only because she had Bosnian lineage and her father claims to the Bosnian throne which Sigismund desired, but with the issue of succession as well, since Queen Mary left him childless. On the other hand, Hermann of Cilli would prosper by means of lands and authority he could gain from Sigismund. The motive from the Cilli side can also be seen in the marriages that were arranged for Barbara’s sisters Elizabeth and AnnaĽ and for 72 her cousin Anna as well; with these marriages Hermann secured his influence, or at least his lineage, in the regions owned by the Count of Gorizia, namely Carinthia and Carniola, in the regions owned by the Palatine Garai, and also in Poland, since Anna became the Polish queen. By looking further into the genealogy of these families, one can see that the Cillis also got into family connections with the powerful Frankapan family, as well as with other Croatian nobility, securing thus also support in this region. Such strong family bonds enabled each party to prosper in its own way, following their ambitions and helping each other when necessary. The series of events connected to Barbara’s and Sigismund’s marriage can be reconstructed with a greater certainty than before as a result of the research presented here. The wedding happened in Krapina, some days before 16 November 1405, a time long enough to have a proper royal wedding. This is confirmed by a charter issued in Krapina on this date, which notes that the wedding has taken place and that Barbara’s coronation will followĽ on 6 December, in Székesfehérvár. Since the sources and literature most often state that Barbara was nine at the time of the engagement, one can surely put her birth year into 1392, thus meaning that she was thirteen when she got married to Sigismund. Knowing that the age of majority in the Middle Ages was twelve for girls, the additional year of waiting can be explained with Sigismund’s other occupations at that timeĽ like the constant negotiations for an alliance with Venice, and his monitoring of the succession situation in Bosnia. Considering that the sources confirm his activities in Bosnia on different campaigns also in 1405, and that Sigismund’s itinerary shows a circular movement over BosniaĽ through Krapina and Székesfehérvár, back to Buda, in my opinion there is no reason why one should doubt the said line of events. Barbara had to be married to Sigismund first, in order to be crowned as a queen of Hungary. Other indications confirm my thesis; in 1405 the royal residence was still VisegrádĽ and all the royal government offices were moved to Buda gradually from 1408 73 onwards. FurthermoreĽ the reason why the residence was in Visegrád was the insufficiency and bad shape of the palace in Buda. Also, in 1411 the palace in Buda was still considered in bad condition for the engagement of Barbara’s and Sigismund’s only daughter ElizabethĽ so a construction of a new palace was commissioned. All these factors indicate that there was no possibility that the wedding took place in Buda, which is most often mistakenly mentioned as the place of the wedding. Krapina was a castle in the possession of Hermann of Cilli, granted to him by Sigismund himself a few years earlier. It had rather a border location, connecting naturally the Cilli estates in Styria with the ones in Slavonia, and also bordering with the Hungarian estates. Sigismund could easily reach Krapina on his way back from a campaign in Bosnia where he was received on the estate he had given to his subject. Therefore I see no reason why the wedding could not have happened there. The castle in Krapina was, according to archaeological excavations, heated, had a kitchen, and a residential palace – everything proper for a king and his retinue. In the area of the castle there was a chapel built by the Cillis, and outside of the castle was the parish church of St. Nicholas; in both of these sacral buildings the wedding could have taken place. The assumption that the wedding happened in Krapina is also confirmed by Sigismund’s letter to the residents of RagusaĽ inviting them to the wedding and to the coronation; it can be seen from the Ragusans’ response letter that the sentences formulated by the notary of the Republic correspond to the ones in the invitation charter issued in November 1405 in Krapina. After the wedding Sigismund and Barbara were on their way to Székesfehérvár, where Barbara was crowned on the said Saint Nicholas’ Day. Although no coronation ordo is preservedĽ several other charters confirm Sigismund’s presence in or around Székesfehérvár before and after the time of the coronation. The first such document is a privilege issued to the ban of Mačva on 28 November by SigismundĽ confirming his old donations. Such a donation 74 could only be asked for from the king in person, and festive events like a wedding or a coronation could be a good occasion for such an action. A second charter was issued on 3 December 1405 in Dombó, a place which would correspond with three possible locations today, all of which lie on a travel route to Székesfehérvár. Although the charter is an insert, Sigismund must have been present when it was issued, since none of the writing bodies could have issued such a charter without him. A third charter was issued by the ban of MačvaĽ one day after the supposed coronation. Although Sigismund is not mentioned, he was around for sureĽ since there is no reason why the ban of MačvaĽ a region in today’s SerbiaĽ would be in Székesfehérvár at all, except if he was attending the coronation. Turning to Barbara’s properties related to the wedding, it is not sure when Barbara got introduced into them, but apparently because of her young age she did not have full authority over her landed properties for several years after the marriage. In my opinion, other than her young age and inexperience, a major issue was that she still has not produced an heir. According to the charters issued by her before the birth of Elizabeth, she only approved Sigismund’s decisions or transferred the decisionĽ if addressed to herĽ directly to Sigismund. Also, other than from the royal residences, from Slavonia she issued only charters from her father’s estatesĽ not her own. Only after 1409 Barbara started to decide on her ownĽ settle disputes, and exercise authority. Her estates together with their castles and revenues, according to archaeological excavations, proved comfortable and built and equipped worthy of a queen. Although it is not sure if she transferred her court to one of her estates after Sigismund left Hungary in 1412, she might have, since her castles were as comfortable and spacious, and especially well protected, as any other castle in Hungary. This might also correspond to the above mentioned statement that the Buda castle was under construction some time from 1411. 75 Barbara exchanged her estates in Slavonia, after they have been returned to her by Sigismund after their dispute in 1419, for mining towns and other estates in medieval northern Hungary. As a reason she stated the constant attacks of the Ottomans. This might be true, since there were Ottoman incursions to these regions since 1414. But as I have shown, her estates were very well protected, and not all of them were on the direct first line of attack. Another reason for the swapping of properties could be that her father was reinstated as ban of Slavonia a year before she asked for the exchange. Since the region was under his supervision already, and under the condition that the Ottomans were such a nuisance to her, she would have turned to another part of the kingdom, a rich part with good revenues, to spread her authority on and expand the power and influence of her family, but of her own as well, even more. This act would make her a perfect agent in the implementation of her family agenda. As I already stated, my research covered only a small span of Barbara’s life; there are still many things that need to be uncovered about her, or looked upon from another perspective. Some of the things that need to be dealt with are Barbara’s engagementĽ if it happened in Celje, in context with the architectural and archaeological evidence to support the idea that the king visited Celje; Barbara’s coronationĽ placed into context with other coronations of her female contemporaries; Sigismund’s intention to crown himselfĽ and therefore also Barbara, as king of Bosnia; the birth of Elizabeth in respect to other events; and a more detailed research and mapping of Barbara’s personal and queenly estates with the help of GIS tools. An approach to Barbara’s coronation will be taken by Amalie Fößel and Daniela Dvořákovἠand I hope that my contribution will also help them to establish a more correct vision of thisĽ but also other events during Barbara’s life and rule. I hope that my thesis will find its rightful place among other contributions to gender studies in general and studies on queenship in particular. The observations I made confirm, among other things, the importance of the properties given specifically to the queen in the 76 increase of her power and authority, the beneficent role of the signs of pregnancy in achieving greater authority for the queen, along with the importance of daughters as a means of securing political ambitions. They confirm furthermore that the specific character and ambition of each queen contributed to her gain of power, but that this position also bore the weight of standing in the spotlight, which for a woman in the Middle Ages was not the usual place to stand. The quotation from the introduction shows what such exercising of power and authority can do to a woman’sĽ and especially to a queen’s reputation. 77 SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY Primary sources Altmann, Wilhelm, ed. Eberhart Windeckes Denkwürdigkeiten zur Geschichte des Zeitalters Kaiser Sigmunds. Berlin: Gaertner, 1893. Collectio Diplomatica Hungarica. A középkori Magyarország levéltári forrásainak adatbázisa. [Database of Documents of Medieval Hungary]. Online edition (DL-DF 5.1). http://mol.arcanum.hu/dldf/opt/a110505htm?v=pdf&a=start (last accessed: Mai 2014). FejérĽ GeorgiusĽ ed. Codex diplomaticus Hungariae ecclesiasticus ac civilis, vol. 10, no. 4. Buda: 1841. Fugger, Johann Jakob. Spiegel der Ehren des Hoechstloeblichsten Kayser- und Koeniglichen Erzhauses Oesterreich. Ed. Sigismund von Birken. NürnbergĽ 1668. http://digi.ub.uniheidelberg.de/diglit/drwFugger1668/0438?page_query=459&navmode=struct&action =pagesearch&sid=266e5b3043ac3b63fe2c9d87c021c9cd (last accessed: May 2014). GelcichĽ József and Lajos ThallóczyĽ ed. Diplomatarium relationum reipublicae Ragusanae cum regno Hungariae. Raguza és Magyarország összeköttetéseinek oklevéltára. Budapest: Magyar Tudományos AkadémiaĽ 1887. Iorga, Nicolae, ed. Notes et extraits pour servir a l'histoire des croisades au XVe siécle [Notes and extracts for use in the history of the Crusades in the fifteenth century], vol. 2. Paris: Ernest Leroux, 1899. Krones, Franz, ed. Die Freien von Saneck und ihre Chronik als Grafen von Cilli. Graz: Leuschner und Lubensky, 1883. Laynesmith, J. L. The Last Medieval Queens. English Queenship 1445-1503. New York: Oxford University Press, 2004. LukinovićĽ AndrijaĽ ed. Povijesni spomenici Zagrebačke biskupije [Monumenta historica episcopatus Zagrabiensis]Ľ vol. 5. Zagreb: Kršćanska sadašnjostĽ 1992. LjubićĽ ŠimeĽ ed. Listine o odnošajih između južnog Slavenstva i Mletačke Republike [Charters related to the relations between the southern Slavs and the Republic of Venice], vol. 5. Monumenta spectantia historiam Slavorum meridionalium. Zagreb: Jugoslavenska akademija znanosti i umjetnosti, 1875. MályuszĽ ElemérĽ BorsaĽ IvánĽ C. TóthĽ Norbert and Neumann, Tibor. Zsigmondkori oklevéltár (1387–1424). [Charters from the time of Sigismund]. Vol. 1–11. Budapest: AkadémiaiĽ 1954–2009. MályuszĽ Elemér. “A szlavóniai és horvátországi középkori pálos kolostorok oklevelei az Országos Levéltárban” [The charters of Slavonian and Croatian Pauline monasteries in the National Archives of Hungary]. Levéltári Közlemények 6 (1928): 87-203. 78 MályuszĽ Elemér. “A szlavóniai és horvátországi középkori pálos kolostorok oklevelei az Országos Levéltárban” [The charters of Slavonian and Croatian Pauline monasteries in the National Archives of Hungary]. Levéltári Közlemények 10, no. 1-2 (1932): 92123. Nagy, Imre, ed. A zichi és vásonkeői gróf Zichy-család idősb ágának okmánytára. Codex diplomaticus domus senioris comitum Zichy de Zich et Vasonkeo. Vol. 5. Budapest, 1888. Rendić-Miočević Duje et al.Ľ ed. Codex Diplomaticus Regni Croatiae, Dalmatiae et Slavoniae. Vol. 18, Diplomata annorum 1395-1399 continens. Zagreb: Jugoslavenska akademija znanosti i umjetnosti, 1990. Smičiklas, Tadija, ed. Codex Diplomaticus Regni Croatiae, Dalmatiae et Slavoniae. Vol. 3, Diplomata annorum 1201-1235 continens. Zagreb: Tisak dioničke tiskareĽ 1905. ŠišićĽ Ferdo. “Nekoliko isprava iz početka XV. stoljeća” [Several charters from the beginning of the fifteenth century]. Starine 39 (1938): 130-320. TkalčićĽ Ivan KrstiteljĽ ed. Monumenta historica liberae regiae civitatis Zagrabiae metropolis regni Dalmatiae, Croatiae et Slavoniae. Vol. 2. Diplomata: 1400-1499. Zagreb: Brzotiskom K. Albrechta, 1894. WenzelĽ Gusztáv ed. “Okmányi adalék Borbála és Erzsébet magyar királynék birtokáról (1424-1439) [Charter evidence on the domains of the Hungarian queens Barbara and Elizabeth]” Magyar Történelmi Tár 12 (1863): 268-287. Secondary literature AltmannĽ JuliannaĽ Piroska BiczóĽ Gergely BuzásĽ István HorváthĽ Annamária KovácsĽ Gyula SiklósiĽ and András Végh. Medium regni – Medieval Hungarian royal seats. Budapest: Nap, 1999. BakĽ János M. “Queens as Scapegoats in Medieval Hungary.” In Queens and Queenship in Medieval Europe, ed. Anne Duggan, 223-233. Woodbridge, UK: The Boydell Press, 1997. BašĽ Franjo. “Celjski grofi in njihova doba” [The counts of Cilli and their time]. Celjski zbornik (1951): 7-22. BaumĽ Wilhelm. Kaiser Sigismund. Konstanz, Hus und Türkenkriege. Graz: Wien: Köln: StyriaĽ 1993. Budak, Neven. Gradovi Varaždinske županije u srednjem vijeku: urbanizacija Varaždinske županije do kraja 16. stoljeća [Development of urban settlements in north-west Croatia (district of Varaždin) during the Middle Ages]. Zagreb: Nakladna kuća “Dr. Feletar”Ľ 1994. 79 ChilianĽ Hans. “Barbara von Cilli.” Ph.D. dissertation. Leipzig: Philosophische Fakultät der Universität LeipzigĽ 1908. CsapodiĽ Csaba. “Az úgynevezett ‘Liber de septem signis’. Kyeser ‘Bellifortis’-ának budapesti töredékéről [The so called “Liber de septem signis”. A Budapest fragment of the ‚Bellifortis’ by Kyeser]Ľ in Magyar Könyvszemle 82 (1966), 217-236. DočkalĽ Kamilo. “Srednjovjekovna naselja oko Streze. Prilog našoj srednjovjekovnoj topografiji” [Medieval settlements around Streza. A contribution to our medieval topography]. Starine 46 (1956): 145-203. DočkalĽ Kamilo. “Srednjovjekovna naselja oko Dobre Kuće. Prilog našoj srednjovjekovnoj topografiji” [Medieval settlements around Dobra Kuća. A contribution to our medieval topography]. Starine 48 (1958): 85-167. DopschĽ Heinz. “Die Grafen von Cilli – Ein Forschungsproblem?” In Südostdeutsches Archiv 17/18 (1974/1975): 9-49. Duggan, Anne ed. Queens and Queenship in Medieval Europe: Proceedings of a Conference Held at King's College London April 1995. Woodbridge: The Boydell Press, 1997. Duindam, Jeroen. "Early Modern court studies: an overview and a proposal." In Historiographie an europäischen Höfen (16.-18. Jahrhundert): Studien zum Hof als Produktionsort von Geschichtsschreibung und historischer Repräsentation. Ed. Markus Völkel and Arno StroymeyerĽ 37-60. Berlin 2009. DvořákovἠDaniela. Čierna kráľovná. Barbora Celjská: (1392-1451) životný príbeh uhorskej, rímsko-nemeckej a českej kráľovnej [The black queen. Barbara of Cilli: (1392-1451) insightful book about the life of the Hungarian, Roman-German, and Bohemian queen]. Budmerice; Bratislava: VydavateĢstvo RAK : Historický ústav SAV, 2013. ĐurićĽ Tomislav and Dragutin Feletar. Stari gradovi i dvorci sjeverozapadne Hrvatske [Old fortified cities and castles of northwestern Croatia]. Varaždin: NIŠRO VaraždinĽ 1981. EngelĽ Pál. Magyarország világi archontológiája [The secular archontology of Hungary]. Vol. 1. Budapest: MTA Történettudományi IntézeteĽ 1996. EngelĽ Pál. The Realm of St. Stephen: A History of Medieval Hungary, 895-1526. London: I.B. Tauris, 2001. EngelĽ Pál and Norbert C. TóthĽ ed. Királyok és királynék itineráriumai, 1382-1438 [The itineraries of kings and queens]. Budapest: Magyar Tudományos AkadémiaĽ 2005. Fößel, Amalie. Die Königin im mittelalterlichen Reich. Herrschaftsausübung, Herrschaftsrechte, Handlungsspielräume. Stuttgart: Jan Thorbecke Verlag, 2000. FößelĽ Amalie. “The Queen’s Wealth in the Middle Ages.” Majestas 13 (2005): 23-45. 80 FößelĽ Amalie. “Barbara von Cilli. Ihre frühen Jahre als Gemahlin Sigismunds und ungarische Königin.” In Sigismund von Luxemburg. Ein Kaiser in Europa. Tagungsband des internationalen historischen und kunsthistorischen Kongresses in Luxemburg, 8-10. Juni 2005. Ed. Michel Pauly and François ReinertĽ 95-112. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern, 2006. Fugger Germadnik, Rolanda, ed. Zbornik mednarodnega simpozija Celjski grofje, stara tema - nova spoznanja, Celje, 27. - 29. maj 1998 = Sammelband des internationalen Symposiums Die Grafen von Cilli, altes Thema - neue Erkenntnisse, Celje, 27. - 29. Mai 1998. Celje: Pokrajinski muzej, 1999. Fugger GermadnikĽ Rolanda. “Podobe Barbare Celjske (?1394-1451) v slovenskem zgodovinopisju” [The Image of Barbara Celjska (?1394-1451) in Slovene Historiography]. In Ženske skozi zgodovino, Zbornik referatov 32. zborovanja slovenskih zgodovinarjev, Celje, 30. september – 2. oktober 2004. Ed. Aleksander ŽižekĽ 37-48. Ljubljana: Zveza zgodovinskih društev SlovenijeĽ 2004. Fugger Germadnik, Rolanda. Barbara of Celje. Translation by Margaret Davis. Celje: Celje Regional Museum, 2013. FügediĽ Erik. Castle and Society in Medieval Hungary (1000-1437). Studia Historica, vol 187. Budapest: AkadémiaiĽ 1986. GolobĽ Nataša. “Barbara of Celje (Cilli): In Search of Her Image.” In Art and Architecture around 1400. Global and Regional Perspectives = Umetnost okrog 1400. Globalni in regionalni pogledi. Ed. Marjeta Ciglenečki and Polona VidmarĽ 103-118. Maribor: Faculty of Arts of the University of Maribor, 2012. GrabmayerĽ Johannes. “CilliĽ Grafen von (SanneggĽ Freie von)”. In Höfe und Residenzen im spätmittelalterlichen Reich. Ein dynastisch-topographisches Handbuch. Vol. 1. Ed. Werner Paravicini, 51-56. Ostfildern: Thorbecke, 2003. GračaninĽ Hrvoje. “Ivan Paližna u povijesnim vrelima i historiografiji” [Ivan Paližna in Historical Sources and Historiography]. Radovi Zavoda za znanstvenoistraživački i umjetnički rad u Bjelovaru 4 (2011): 237-267. Halecki, Oscar. Jadwiga of Anjou and the Rise of East Central Europe. New Jersey: Columbia University Press, 1991. Hirschbiegel, Jan and Werner Paravicini, ed. Das Frauenzimmer. Die Frau bei Hofe in Spätmittelalter und früher Neuzeit (Residenzenforschung 11). Stuttgart: Thorbecke, 2000. HoenschĽ Jörg K. Kaiser Sigismund. Herrscher an der Schwelle zur Neuzeit 1368-1437. München: BeckĽ 1996. HorvatĽ Zorislav. “Grijanje u srednjovjekovnim burgovima kontinentalne Hrvatske. Kamini, dimnjaci i kaljeve peći” [Heating in Medieval Burgs of Continental Croatia. Fireplaces, chimneys and tile stoves]. Prostor 2, no. 3-4 (1994): 215-240. 81 HorvatĽ Zorislav. “Zidine i braništa na utvrdama kontinentalne Hrvatske 12-15. stoljeća” [Walls and Battlements on Fortifications in Continental Croatia, 12th – 15th century]. Prostor 4 (1996): 175-200. HorvatĽ Zorislav. “Prozori na burgovima 13-15. stoljeća u kontinentalnoj Hrvatskoj” [Windows on 13th-15th Century Burgs in Continental Croatia]. Prostor 5 (1997): 5253. HorvatĽ Zorislav. “Ulazi u burgove 12.-15. stoljeća” [Gates in 12th-15th Century Burgs]. Prostor 6, no. 1-2 (1998): 41-66. HorvatĽ Zorislav. “Kapele u burgovima 13.-15. stoljeća u kontinentalnoj Hrvatskoj” [Chapels on 13th-15th Century Burgs in Continental Croatia]. Prostor 7, no.2 (1999): 181-198. HorvatĽ Zorislav. “Branič-kule na burgovima kontinentalne Hrvatske od 13. do 15. stoljeća” [Defense Towers of Continental Croatian Castles between 13th and 15th Century]. Prostor 15 (2007): 26-41. HorvatĽ Zorislav. “Pozicije burgova tijekom 13.-15- stoljeća” [Locations of Castles between th 13th and 15th Centuries]. Prostor 16 (2008): 22-39. HorvatĽ Zorislav. “Stambeni prostori u burgovima 13.-15. stoljeća u kontinentalnoj Hrvatskoj” [Residential Spaces in Continental Croatian Castles in 13th-15th Century]. Prostor 17 (2009): 32-51. JanžekĽ Ivančica. “Krapina u srednjem vijeku” [Krapina in the Middle Ages]. MA thesis. Zagreb: Filozofski fakultet Sveučilišta u Zagrebu, 2011. Johanek, Peter. “Eberhard Windecke und Kaiser Sigismund.” In Sigismund von Luxemburg. Ein Kaiser in Europa. Tagungsband des internationalen historischen und kunsthistorischen Kongresses in Luxemburg, 8-10. Juni 2005. Ed. Michel Pauly and François ReinertĽ 143-155. Mainz: Verlag Philipp von Zabern, 2006. KalábovἠMartina. “Venné majetky uhorských král’ovien v stredoslovenskej banskej oblasti do roku 1478” [Die Institution des Witwenguts der ungarischen Königinnen in der Mittelslowakei bis zum Jahre 1478]. Historický časopis 52 (2004): 3-30. KálmánĽ Benda ed. Magyarország történeti kronológiája [Historical chronology of Hungary]. Vol. 1. Budapest: AkadémiaiĽ 1981. KampušĽ Ivan. “Odnosi grofova Celjskih i zagrebačkog Gradeca” [The relations between the Counts of Cilli and Gradec]. Historijski zbornik 29-30 (1976-1977): 161-180. KlaićĽ Nada. Koprivnica u srednjem vijeku [The city of Koprivnica in the middle ages]. Koprivnica: Centar za kulturu: Muzej grada Koprivnice, 1987. 82 KlaićĽ Nada. Posljednji knezovi Celjski u zemljama Svete Krune (Zadnji knezi Celjski v deželah Sv. Krone) [The last Counts of Cilli in the territories of the Holy Crown]. Celje: Občina Celje : Zgodovinsko društvo v CeljuĽ 1982. KlaićĽ Nada. Zagreb u srednjem vijeku [Zagreb in the Middle Ages]. Vol. 1. Zagreb: Sveučilišna naklada LiberĽ 1982. KlaićĽ Vjekoslav. “Krapinski gradovi i predaje o njima” [Castles around Krapina and their tradition] Vjesnik Arheološkog muzeja u Zagrebu 10, No. 1 (1909): 1-32. KlaićĽ Vjekoslav. Povijest Hrvata: od najstarijih vremena do svršetka XIX stoljeća : knjiga druga : treće doba : vladanje kraljeva iz raznih porodica (1301-1526) [History of the Croats: from the earliest times to the end of the nineteenth century: book two: the third age: rule of kings from various families (1301-1526)]. Ed. Trpimir Macan. Zagreb: Nakladni zavod Matice hrvatske, 1985. KlaićĽ Vjekoslav. Povijest Hrvata: od najstarijih vremena do svršetka XIX stoljeća : knjiga treća : treće doba : vladanje kraljeva iz raznih porodica (1301-1526)(drugi dio) [History of the Croats: from the earliest times to the end of the nineteenth century: book three: the third age: rule of kings from various families (1301-1526) (part two)]. Ed. Trpimir Macan. Zagreb: Nakladni zavod Matice hrvatske, 1985. KondorĽ Márta. “HofĽ Residenz und Verwaltung: Ofen und Blindenburg in der Regierungszeit König Sigismunds – unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Jahre 1410-1419.” In Kaiser Sigismund (1368-1437) – Urkunden und Herrschaftspraxis eines europäischen Monarchen (Forschungen zur Kaiser- und Papstgeschichte des Mittelalters. Beihefte zu J. F. Böhmer, Regesta Imperii 31). Ed. Karel Hruza and Alexandra Kaar, 215–233. Vienna; Cologne; Weimar: 2012. KondorĽ Márta. “‘Double-hatted’ in the Middle Ages? Sigismund of Luxembourg and the First Decade of the Hungarian-German Personal Union (1410-1419).” Ph.D. dissertation. Budapest: Central European University. Manuscript. KondorĽ Márta. “Die Kanzlei im Feldlager. Die Tätigkeit der königlichen Kanzleien während der Kriegszüge Sigismunds in Bosnien (1410) und in Italien (1412-1413)Ľ” in Kommunikation im Krieg im Späten Mittelalter, ed. Robert NovotnýĽ Petr ElbelĽ Alexandra Kaar. Wien-Köln-Weimar 2014. Manuscript. Kos, Milko. Zgodovina Slovencev od naselitve do petnajstega stoletja [History of the Slovenes from the settlement to the fifteenth century]. Ljubljana: Slovenska matica, 1955. Kozina, Antun. Krapina i okolica kroz stoljeća. Krapina: Gradski muzej, 1960. KrzenckĽ Thomas. “Barbara von Cilli – eine deutsche Messalina?” In Mitteilungen der Gesellschaft für Salzburger Landeskunde 131 (1991): 45-67. KučinićĽ Viktor. Veronika Desinićka u svjetlu historije [Veronika of Desinić in the light of history]. Zagreb: Jugoslavenska štampaĽ 1939. 83 Kukuljević SakcinskiĽ Ivan. “Događaji Medvedgrada” [The history of Medvedgrad]. Arkiv za povjestnicu jugoslavensku 3 (1854): 31-76. KunčevićĽ Lovro. “The Myth of Ragusa: Discourses on Civic Identity in an Adriatic CityState (1350-1600).” Ph.D. dissertation. Budapest: Central European UniversityĽ 2012. KurelićĽ Robert. “The uncrowned lion: rankĽ status and identity of the last Cilli.” MA thesis. Budapest: CEU, 2005. KurelićĽ Robert. “Pregled povijesti grofova Celjskih” [Overview of the history of the Counts of Cilli]. Historijski zbornik 59 (2006): 201-216. KurelićĽ Robert. “The Status of the Counts of Cilli as Princes of the Holy Roman Empire.” Annual of Medieval Studies at CEU 12 (2006): 143-162. Laszowski, Emilij. Hrvatske povjesne građevine. Knjiga 1. Mjestopisni i povjesni opisi gradova, kula, samostana, crkava i drugih povjesnih gradjevina domovine Hrvata: sa 112 slika [Croatian historical buildings. Part 1. Historical description of castles, towers, monasteries, churches and other historical buildings of the homeland of the Croats: with 112 figures]. Zagreb: 1902. LothaĽ Gloria. “SardanapalusĽ” Britannica Academic http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/524121/Sardanapalus (last May 2014). EditionĽ accessed: MályuszĽ Elemér. Kaiser Sigismund in Ungarn. Translation by Anikó Szmodits. Budapest: Akadémiai KiadóĽ 1990. Martini, Iohannes Gotthelf. De Barbara Celeiense, Sigismundi imperatoris altera coniuge. Dissertation. Leipzig: Ex officina Breitkopfia, 1759. MarušićĽ Mia. “Hrvatska i slovenska historiografija o grofovima Celjskim” [Croatian and Slovenian historiography about the counts of Cilli]. MA thesis. Zagreb: Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, 2013. MiljanĽ Suzana. “Grofovi CeljskiĽ njihovi službenici njemačkog porijekla i Zagorsko kneštvo (comitatus Zagoriensis) krajem srednjeg vijeka (1397.-1456.)” [Die Grafen von CilliĽ ihre Beamten deutschen Stammes und das Fürstentum von Zagorje (comitatus Zagoriensis) zu Ende des Mittelalters (1397-1456)]. DG Jahrbuch 19 (2012): 97-118. MiljanĽ Suzana. “Grofovi Celjski i NijemciĽ službenici njihovih utvrda u Zagrebačkoj i Križevačkoj županiji u kasnom srednjem vijeku (1385.-1456.)” [Die Grafen von Zilli und die DeutschenĽ Beamten ihrer festungen in der Zagreber und Križevacer Gespanschaft im Spätmittelalter (1385-1456)]. DG Jahrbuch 20 (2013): 11-22. OroženĽ Ignac. Celska kronika [The Cilli chronicle]. Celje: Julius Jeretin, 1854. OroženĽ Janko. Zgodovina Celja in okolice. Prvi del: od začetka do leta 1848 [The history of Celje and its surroundings. First part: from the foundation to the year 1848]. Celje: Kulturna skupnost, 1971. 84 Ortner, Stjepan. Povijest gradine i trgovišta Krapine [History of the castle and the market town in Krapina]. Zagreb: Tisak F. BogovićaĽ 1899. PálosfalviĽ Tamás. “Barbara und die Grafen von Cilli.” In Sigismund - Rex et Imperator. Kunst und Kultur zur Zeit Sigismunds von Luxemburg 1387-1437. Ed. Imre TakácsĽ 295-297. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern Verlag, 2006. Paušek-BaždarĽ Snježana. “Kraljica Barbara Celjska kao alkemičarka u Samoboru“ [Queen Barbara of Cilli as an alchemist in Samobor]. VDG Jahrbuch 15 (2008): 275-280. PavlešĽ Ranko. “Razlozi i uvjeti nastanka Koprivnice i njeno mjesto među srednjovjekovnim urbanim naseljima” [Reasons and Conditions under which the Town of Koprivnica emerged; its Place among other Medieval Urban Settlements]. Podravina 6, no. 11 (2007): 88-106. Pešorda-VardićĽ Zrinka. “The CrownĽ the King and the City: DubrovnikĽ Hungary and the Dynastic Controversy, 1382-1390.” Dubrovnik Annals 10 (2006): 7-29. PiskĽ Silvija. “Prilog povijesti srednjovjekovnih pavlinskih samostana: prava i povlastice samostana Blažene Djevice Marije na Gariću (Moslavačka gora)” [Contribution to the history of medieval Pauline monasteries: the rights and privileges of the monastery of the Blessed Virgin Mary on Garić (Moslavina mountain)]. Radovi 43 (2011): 149186. PiskĽ Silvija. “Toponim Garić u povijesnim izvorima” [The Toponym Garić in Historical Sources]. Radovi Zavoda za znanstvenoistraživački i umjetnički rad u Bjelovaru 4 (2011): 1-14. PiskĽ Silvija. “Toponim Gračenica u srednjem vijeku” [The Toponym Gračenica in the Middle Ages]. Zbornik Moslavine 13 (2012): 29-34, http://issuu.com/muzejmoslavine/docs/zbornik_moslavine_13_final/33 (last accessed: May 2014). RadonićĽ Jovan. “Der Grossvojvode von Bosnien Sandalj Hranić-KosačaĽ” in Archiv für slawische Philologie 19Ľ ed. Vatroslav Jagić (Berlin: Weidmannsche BuchhandlungĽ 1897), 380-466. RaukarĽ Tomislav. “Grofovi Celjski i hrvatsko kasno srednjovjekovlje” [The Counts of Cilli and the Croatian late Middle Ages ]. Historijski zbornik 36, no.1 (1983): 113-140. ReganĽ Krešimir. “Plemićki grad Garić” [The Aristocratic Town of Garić]. Radovi Zavoda za znanstvenoistraživački i umjetnički rad u Bjelovaru 4 (2011): 15-62. ReganĽ Krešimir. “Srednjovjekovne obrambene građevine porječja Krapine (II.)”[Medieval fortifications in the Krapina River basin]. Kaj 46 (2013): 77-107. RéthelyiĽ Orsolya. “Mary of Hungary in Court Context (1521-1531).” Ph.D. dissertation. Budapest: Central European University, 2010. 85 RukavinaĽ Luka. “Gradec u sukobu s plemstvom i crkvenim institucijama 1382-1458” [Gradec in conflict with the nobility and church institutions 1382-1458]. MA thesis. Zagreb: Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences. Manuscript. SmičiklasĽ Tadija. Poviest hrvatska. Dio prvi: od najstarijih vremena do godine 1526 [Croatian history. First part: from the oldest times to the year 1526]. Zagreb: Matica hrvatska, 1882. Spiess, Karl-Heinz. "Fremdheit und Integration der ausländischen Ehefrau und ihres Gefolges bei internationalen Fürstenheiraten." In Fürstenhöfe und ihre Außenwelt. Aspekte gesellschaftlicher und kultureller Identität im deutschen Spätmittelalter. Ed. Thomas Zotz, 267-290. Würzburg: Egon VerlagĽ 2004. Steane, John M. The Archaeology of Power: England and Northern Europe AD 800-1600. Stroud: Tempus, 2001. SzaboĽ Gjuro. “Spomenici kotara Krapina i Zlatar” [Monuments of the districts of Krapina and Zlatar]. Vjesnik Arheološkog muzeja u Zagrebu 13, No. 1 (1914): 103-204. Szabo, Gjuro. Srednjovječni gradovi u Hrvatskoj i Slavoniji [Medieval castles in Croatia and Slavonia]. Zagreb: Tisak kraljevske zemaljske tiskare, 1920. SzabóĽ Tibor. A történelmi Magyarország várai [Castles of historical Hungary], http://jupiter.elte.hu/terkep+lista2.php (accessed: May 2014). ŠišićĽ Ferdo. Vojvoda Hrvoje Vukčić Hrvatinić i njegovo doba (1350-1416) [Duke Hrvoje Vukčić Hrvatinić and his time]. Zagreb: Izdanje “Matice hrvatske”Ľ 1902. ŠišićĽ Ferdo. Povijest Hrvata. Pregled povijesti hrvatskog naroda 600.-1526. Prvi dio [The history of Croats. An overview of the history of the Croatian people. First part]. Split: Marjan tisak, 2004. ŠtihĽ Peter. “Celjski grofjeĽ vprašanje njihove deželnoknežje oblasti in dežele Celjske” [Die Grafen von CilliĽ die Frage ihrer landesfürstlichen Gewalt und des Cillier Landes]. In Grafenaurjev zbornik. Ed. Vincenc RajšpĽ 227-256. Ljubljana, 1996. TkalčecĽ Tatjana. “Arheološka istraživanja na Starom gradu u Krapini 2008. g.” [Archaeological Excavations of Stari grad Krapina in 2008] Annales Instituti Archaeologici, vol. 5, no. 1 (2009): 95-100. VučetićĽ Ratko. “Prostorni razvoj srednjovjekovne Krapine” [The urban development of medieval Krapina]. Radovi Instituta za povijest umjetnosti 24 (2000): 7-22. WertnerĽ Moriz. “Eine unbekannte eheliche Allianz des Kaisers Sigismund.” Monatsblatt der kaiserlichen königlichen heraldischen Gesellschaft “Adler” 2 (1886-1890): 258-262. WertnerĽ Moriz. “Zur Genealogie der Cilly.” Monatsblatt der kaiserlichen königlichen heraldischen Gesellschaft “Adler” 4, no. 5 (1896): 38-40. 86 ZawadskyĽ Max. “Die Cillier und ihre Beziehungen zu Kaiser Sigmund und König Albrecht”. Ph.D. dissertation. Halle: Philosophische Fakultät der Vereinigten FriedrichsUniversität Halle-Wittenberg, 1911. 87