61 DUŠAN COUFAL AND ADAM PÁLKA Conflict after Compromise Regulating Tensions in Multi-Confessional Societies in the Fifteenth Century Forschungen zur Geschichte und Kultur des östlichen Mitteleuropa
Bibliografische Information der Deutschen Nationalbibliothek: Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek verzeichnet diese Publikation in der Deutschen Nationalbibliografie; detaillierte bibliografische Daten sind im Internet über http://dnb.d-nb.de abrufbar. © 2024, Sandstein Verlag, Goetheallee 6, 01309 Dresden Abbildung Umschlag: Marceli Januszewicz, Icon of the Mother of God from the Vilnius Church of the Holy Trinity, 1837/40, indian ink and water colour on paper (14,9 × 10 cm); National Museum in Warsaw, 145073/170; image in public domain, https://cyfrowe. mnw.art.pl/pl/katalog/709783 Gestaltung, Satz: Sandstein Verlag Druck: FINIDR, s.r.o., Český Těšín www.sandstein-verlag.de ISBN 978-3-95498-830-3 Gedruckt mit Unterstützung des Leibniz-Instituts für Geschichte und Kultur des östlichen Europa e. V. (GWZO) in Leipzig. Diese Maßnahme wird mitfinanziert durch Steuermittel auf der Grundlage des vom Sächsischen Landtag beschlossenen Haushaltes. Der Titel ist als Open-Access-Publikation verfügbar über www.sandstein-verlag.de, DOI: 10.25621/sv-gwzo/FGKoeM-61 Dieses Werk ist lizenziert unter der Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial 4.0 Lizenz (BY-NC). Diese Lizenz erlaubt unter Voraussetzung der Namensnennung des Urhebers die Bearbeitung, Vervielfältigung und Verbreitung des Materials in jedem Format oder Medium für nicht kommerzielle Zwecke (Lizenztext: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/deed.de). Die Bedingungen der Creative-Commons-Lizenz gelten nur für Originalmaterial. Die Wiederverwendung von Material aus anderen Quellen (gekennzeichnet mit Quellenangabe) wie z.B. Schaubilder, Abbildungen, Fotos und Textauszüge erfordert ggf. weitere Nutzungsgenehmigungen durch den jeweiligen Rechteinhaber.
Conflict after Compromise: Regulating Tensions in Multi-Confessional Societies in the Fifteenth Century EDITED BY DUŠAN COUFAL AND ADAM PÁLKA 61 SANDSTEIN
Contents Pavel Soukup and Dušan Coufal 7 Conflict and Compromise in Historiographical Perspective Introduction 22 I. Faith, Nationality, and Honor as a Stimulus of Conflict Adam Pálka 23 The Questionable Legality of Utraquism in Bohemia and Moravia after 1436 Václav Žůrek 40 The Selection of a Ruler as a Cause and a Solution to Conflict The Debate on the Election of a King in a Politically and Religiously Divided Kingdom Giedrė Mickūnaitė 60 Trice a Foreigner: Helena of Muscovy, Grand Duchess of Lithuania Přemysl Bar 76 Strategic Alliances and Religious Rivalries The Teutonic Knights and Lithuanian Dukes
98 II. Treaties of Compromise as (De-)Stabilizing Factors Dušan Coufal 99 The Oldest Religious Privilege of Sigismund of Luxembourg for the Hussites, and Its Critique by Thomas Ebendorfer Zdeněk Beran 118 Expressions of Persisting Conflicts in the Peace Treaties of post-Hussite Bohemia (1439–53) Sandra Schieweck-Heringer 133 Conflict Regulation on the Castilian-Naṣrid Frontier Norms and Practices 148 III. The Limits of Tolerance and Corporate Dynamics Robert Novotný 149 Bi-confessionalism in post-Hussite Bohemian Towns and its Legal Regulation Blanka Zilynská 168 The Conflict over Confession and Power at the University of Prague in the 1450s–60s 184 Appendix 185 Index
I. Faith, Nationality, and Honor as a Stimulus of Conflict
The Questionable Legality of Utraquism in Bohemia and Moravia after 1436 ADAM PÁLKA The Basel Compactata of 1436 are often perceived as a legal basis of communion in both kinds in the territory of Bohemia and Moravia. This notion may lead to a belief that as soon as the Compactata were concluded in the city of Jihlava, the practice of the lay chalice became automatically valid for those inhabitants of the two regions who were accustomed to this rite. However, if one closely examines the wording of the 1436 treaty, there is hardly any doubt that for the Bohemians and Moravians to receive the communion sub utraque specie (Utraquism), certain conditions were to be fulfilled first. Thus, a number of (mostly Catholic) contemporaries came to the logical conclusion that it was not the sealing and proclamation of the Compactata in July 1436, but the proper fulfilment of their key provisions which legalized Utraquism as such. Consequently, these people could pose a simple yet provocative question: what if such conditions have actually never been fulfilled and as a result, communion in both kinds has never become a permitted practice in the Bohemian Kingdom and Moravian Margravate? As with many other bones of contention related to the interpretation of the Basel Compactata, the question of their legality in relation to the lay chalice has been addressed insufficiently by historians,1 in spite of the various late medieval Catholic writings openly discussing it. Therefore, the aim of this contribution is to shed more light on the legal status of Utraquism after 1436. Attention is also paid to the Utraquists’ argumentation which polemizes against the Catholic objections, whether explicitly or implicitly. All in all, the study aims to deepen our understanding of how the Compactata turned out to be an imperfect peace treaty as they did not truly eliminate the long-lasting tension between Catholics and Utraquists due to their ambiguous and compromise wording.2 1 This question is not unknown, but there has been no real attempt to analyze it and demonstrate its scope. See Adam Pálka, “The Compactata of Basel in Enea Silvio Piccolomini’s Letters, Speeches and Official Documents,” Studia Mediaevalia Bohemica 11 (2019): 198; Thomas Woelki, “Theological Diplomacy? Cusanus and the Hussites,” in Wycliffism and Hussitism: Methods of Thinking, Writing, and Persuasion, eds. Kantik Gosh and Pavel Soukup, Medieval Church Studies, 47 (Turnhout, 2021), 423; see also below, the chapter by Dušan Coufal in this volume, 112–14. For the Compactata in general, see František Šmahel, Die Basler Kompaktaten mit den Hussiten (1436). Untersuchung und Edition, MGH Studien und Texte, 65 (Wiesbaden, 2019); Rudolf Říčan, “Georg von Poděbrad und die Kompaktaten,” Communio viatorum 8 (1965): 43–52; Winfried Eberhard, “Der Weg zur Koexistenz: Kaiser Sigmund und das Ende der hussitischen Revolution,” Bohemia 33 (1992): 1–43; Thomas Prügl, “Die Verhandlungen des Basler Konzils mit den Böhmen und die Prager Kompaktaten als Friedensvertrag,” Annuarium Historiae Conciliorum 48 (2016/2017): 253–57; Thomas A. Fudge, “The Hussites and the Council,” in A Companion to the Council of Basel, eds. Michiel Decaluwé, Thomas M. Izbicki, and Gerald Christianson, Brill’s Companions to the Christian Tradition, 74 (Leiden, 2017), 274–79; Adam Pálka, “The Basel Compactata and the Limits of Religious Coexistence in the Age of Conciliarism and Beyond,” Church history 92 (2023): 534–58. 2 Cf. Woelki, “Theological Diplomacy,” 413: “The Compactata [...] merely represented an essentially politically motivated, formulaic compromise. They were phrased so vaguely that both parties were able to read their own interpretations
I 24 Adam Pálka The Key Formulation in Cedula A In order to fully grasp the Catholic party’s point of view, we need to consider how the first part of the Compactata (Cedula A) addresses the lay chalice, specifically its permission to Bohemian and Moravian men and women accustomed to receiving communion in both kinds (illi et illae, qui talem usum habent). According to Cedula A—a document primarily included in Litterae super recognitione et firmatione compactatorum of July 5, 1436—such people will receive communion under both kinds provided that they “accept ecclesiastical union and peace truly and effectively and conform to the faith and rite of the universal church in everything else except for communion in both kinds.”3 In other words, it is necessary that Bohemians and Moravians intending to receive Christ’s blood from the chalice do not differ from the Catholics in anything but this very practice; those not having reached such a unity will not be worthy of the chalice. In addition, the key section of Cedula A is not the only one to mention the acceptance of full ecclesiastical unity from the Czech side. For instance, it is possible to find them in the Litterae executoriae issued by the general diet of Bohemia and Moravia. Here, the issuers claim that they accept ecclesiastical unity except for the chalice and promise to observe it in concordance with Litterae super recognitione et firmatione compactatorum.4 Concerning the legates of the council, there are actually two references in their Litterae executoriae to the Bohemians and Moravians being united with the Church.5 Similarly, the requirement in question appears in the legates’ Mandatum archiepiscopo Pragensi et Olomucensi ac Luthomysslensi episcopis.6 Naturally, the aforementioned passages also found their way into the two ratifications of the Compactata by the Council of Basel from January 15, 1437.7 Therefore, those wishing to remind the Utraquists of the “ecclesiastical unity requirement” could refer to a relatively large number of documents pertaining to the Compactata. An Overview of Catholic Statements As already mentioned, several Catholic intellectuals challenged their Utraquist counterparts by claiming that the chalice had never gained a legal status in Bohemia and Moravia, since the provision regarding ecclesiastical unity had never been fulfilled. In order to comprehend this better, we shall list all relevant Catholic utterances that have been discovered so far. Apart from one anonymous treatise, where the precise dating remains unknown, the list covers works written in the 1450s–60s. Still, further research may enlarge the list. into them.” Blanka Zilynská, “The Utraquist Church after the Compactata,” in A Companion to the Hussites, eds. Michael Van Dussen and Pavel Soukup, Brill’s Companions to the Christian Tradition, 90 (Boston, 2020), 241: “Yet the formulation of the Compactata was not unambiguous: both sides argued for their own interpretation of their contents, and thus the Compactata remained a source of controversy between the Hussites and Catholics both within the kingdom and abroad.” 3 Šmahel, Die Basler Kompaktaten, 172, 183: “Suscipientibus ecclesiasticam unitatem et pacem realiter et cum effectu, et in omnibus aliis, quam in usu communionis utriusque speciei, fidei et ritui universalis ecclesie conformibus.” 4 Ibid., 192. 5 Ibid., 197, 198. 6 Ibid., 201. 7 Ibid., 208, 210, 215.
The Questionable Legality of Utraquism in Bohemia and Moravia after 1436 25 I (1) Nicholas of Cusa, a letter to the Bohemian estates (1452): “These priests [i.e. Bohemian clergy] never achieved or observed those things which were to be done for the permission of that communion; on the contrary, regardless of the Compactata, they continued with things that were to be dismissed. Thus, due to their negligence, the permission for people having the custom never came into effect.”8 (2) Nicholas of Cusa, a reply to Utraquist priest Martin Lupáč (1452): “The Compactata prove that you were not allowed to receive communion by the authority of the Church if you previously were not in the Catholic Church by means of conformity to faith and rite. Thus, the Compactata, from which you can not deviate any further after their sealing, statements and your various writings prove that you usurped communion in both kinds illicitly without the authority of the Church. For the Compactata do not state that ‘by the authority of Christ and the Church, his wife, you received communion in the past or receive communion at present’, but provided there is conformity to faith and rite with the Catholic Church ‘those (men) and those (women) will receive communion’ in the future.”9 (3) Thomas Ebendorfer, Contra indultum Sigismundi (1455): “The Bohemians have continuously refused (to accept unity and peace), which is especially known about the Taborites [...]. From these it is evident that they are to be regarded not as conforming to the rites of the universal Church, but rather as persisting steadfastly in their inventions, and they are not capable, worthy, and deserving of the concession and permission of the Church, but contrarily, they are to be deprived of such grace and favor due to their ingratitude, indiscipline caused by many scandals, and the aforesaid singularity, as well as the schism awakened by them in the middle of the Church.”10 (4) Nicholas Tempelfeld, a treatise on obedience to king George (1459?): “Had the Bohemians and Moravians accepted peace, unity, and Catholic faith, and conformed to the rites of the general Church, those having such a custom would have been allowed to receive communion in both kinds by the authority of Christ and his Church. However, the Bohemians 8 Nicolai de Cusa Opera omnia, vol. 15, Opuscula III. Fasciculus I. Opuscula Bohemica, eds. Stephan Nottelmann and Hans G. Senger, (Hamburg, 2014), 63: “Illi tales sacerdotes nunquam ea, quae fieri debebant ad permissionem illius communionis, procurarunt aut observarunt, sed non obstantibus compactatis continuarunt illa, quae dimittere tenebantur. Ideo ex eorum neglegentia permissio etiam quoad personas, quae usum habebant, non est sortita effectum.” 9 Ibid., 66: “Compactata docent vos auctoritate ecclesiae non communicare potuisse, nisi prius fuissetis in ecclesia catholica per conformitate fidei et rituum. Docent itaque compactata, quae amplius declinare non potestis post sigillationes, allegationes et varia scripta vestra, quod sine auctoritate ecclesiae illicite communionem duplici specie usurpastis. Nam non dicunt compactata, quod ‘auctoritate Christi et ecclesiae sponsae eius communicastis in praeteritum aut communicatis in praesens’, sed praemissa conformitate fidei et rituum cum catholica ecclesia ‘communicabunt’ in futurum ‘illi et illae.’” For Cusanus’ Bohemian mission and polemic against Lupáč, see František Michálek Bartoš, “Cusanus and the Hussite bishop M. Lupáč,” Communio viatorum 5 (1962): 35–46; Hermann Hallauer, “Das Glaubengespräch mit den Hussiten,” Mitteilungen und Forschungsbeiträge der Cusanus-Gesellschaft 9 (1971): 53–75; Woelki, “Theological diplomacy,” 420–24. 10 Vienna, Austrian National Library, MS Cod. 4704, f. 292r: “Quod Boemi facere usque detractarunt, ut notum est de Thaboritis precipue [...] Ex quibus patet, quod huiusmodi non ut ritibus universalis se ecclesie conformales, sed in suis adinvencionibus pertinaciter persistentes verius sunt arbitrandi nec indulgencie aut permissionis ecclesie capaces, digni aut meriti, sed econtrario huiusmodi gracia et favore privandi propter eorum ingratitudinem, scandalosis permultis abusum et singularitatem predictam ac scisma in medio ecclesie per eos suscitatum.“ See also below, the chapter by Dušan Coufal in this volume, 112–14.
I 26 Adam Pálka and Moravians never accepted peace, unity, and Catholic faith, and therefore they shall not receive communion in both kinds by the authority of Christ and his Church.”11 (5) Enea Silvio Piccolomini, the final reply to the Bohemian ambassadors (1462): “Communion in both kinds was allowed for those who have the custom (i.e. communion in both kinds) and accept ecclesiastic unity in everything else except for the article of communion. However, as you never accepted Church unity and conformity, you were never worthy of the permission.”12 (6) An anonymous treatise in Prague manuscript I F 18 (date unknown): “Had they observed the Compactata, they would have been allowed to receive communion licitly and meritoriously [...] they never observed the Compactata, and for that reason they always received communion illicitly and sinned deeply and alas, they sin until this day by receiving communion; among them, some boast of the concession of the holy council, even though it does not benefit them because they do not observe the aforementioned Compactata.”13 “Communicants in both kinds are in threefold distinction. The first are those who practice it out of a concession of the Apostolic See or general holy council, and these practice it licitly and meritoriously, if there are any. However, there are no Bohemians like this, as emerged above, as they did not observe the Compactata.”14 Let us point out a few observations related to the quoted passages. First, the authors promoted the idea that the 1436 treaty between the Hussites and council had never been fulfilled by the former party. They expressed such a view by simply employing the words “never” or “not” (nunquam, non), the only exception being Ebendorfer who spoke of the Bohemians’ continuous refusal to act according to the Compactata. The alleged non-fulfillment of the Compactata and the illegality of Utraquism stemming from it were almost always clearly connected to the Compactata pas11 Die Denkschrift des Breslauer Domherrn Nikolaus Tempelfeld von Brieg ueber die Wahl Georgs von Podiebrad, ed. Johann Loserth (Vienna, 1880), 141–42: “Si Bohemi et Moravi pacem, unitatem et fidem catholicam receperint et se ritibus ecclesie universalis conformaverint, ipsi sub duplici specie auctoritate Christi et ecclesie sue usum illum habentes communicare poterint. Sed Bohemi et Moravi pacem, unitatem et fidem catholicam non receperunt, ergo ipsi sub duplici specie auctoritate Christi et sue ecclesie non communicabunt.” 12 Archiv český. Čili staré písemné památky české i moravské, vol. 8, ed. Josef Kalousek (Prague, 1888), 362: “Concessa est communio calicis usum habentibus et unionem recipientibus ecclesiasticam in omnibus aliis preterquam in articulo communionis. Sed unionem ecclessiasticam et conformitatem nunquam recepistis, non igitur indulti fuistis capaces.” Pius’ speech of 1462 has been frequently addressed by historians. See Rudolf Urbánek, Věk poděbradský, vol. 4, České dějiny, III/4 (Prague, 1962), 531–34; Frederick G. Heymann, George of Bohemia. King of Heretics (Princeton, 1965), 275–77; Otakar Odložilík, The Hussite King. Bohemia in European Affairs 1440–1471 (New Brunswick/New Jersey, 1965), 133; Šmahel, “Die Basler Kompaktaten,” 107; Pálka, “The Compactata of Basel,” 197–201. 13 Prague, National Library of the Czech Republic, MS I F 18, f. 303r: “Que compactata si servassent, licite sic communicare potuissent et meritorie [...] nunquam illa compactata servaverunt, et idcirco semper illicite communicando graviter peccaverunt et heu, usque hodie communicando peccant, inter quos aliqui de indulto sacri concilii gloriantur, cum tamen eis nichil proderit non servatis compactatis predictis.” This treatise has been referenced by Dušan Coufal, “Rukopis I F 18 a polemické dílo Jana z Hradce,” in Kříž z Telče (1434–1504). Písař, sběratel a autor, eds. Lucie Doležalová and Michal Dragoun (Prague, 2020), 220. 14 Prague, National Library of the Czech Republic, MS I F 18, f. 303r: “Communicantes sub duplici specie sunt in triplici differencia. Primi sunt, qui faciunt hoc ex indulto sedis apostolice aut sacri concilii generalis et hii hoc licite ac meritorie faciunt, si qui tales sunt. Non tamen tales sunt modo Bohemi quidam, ut supra patuit, cum non servarent compactata.”
The Questionable Legality of Utraquism in Bohemia and Moravia after 1436 27 I sage about the Bohemians and Moravians undertaking ecclesiastical unity and peace.15 Nevertheless, the treatise in I F 18 manuscript does not mention these words and speaks merely of the Utraquists not observing the treaty of 1436. Second, when claiming that the non-fulfillment of the Compactata led to Utraquism being illegal, the authors used a variety of strengthening words. For instance, Piccolomini and Ebendorfer directly claimed that the Bohemians and Moravians were not “worthy” (capaces/digni) of the liturgical concession in question, the latter accusing them of ingratitude. Similarly, Cusanus accused the Bohemian clergy of negligence, also mentioning an illicit usurpation of the chalice. The harshest criticism appears to be that of the anonymous author, for he labels the Utraquists as grave and long-standing sinners who wrongfully take pride in the Compactata. Interestingly, he does not deny that there may actually be Christians drinking from the chalice licitly, but he claims that none of the Bohemians belong to this category. Third, there are three remarkable uses of hypothetical situations: (1) Tempelfeld’s and (2) the anonymous writer’s conditional sentence in which they imagine what would have occurred differently if the Bohemians had fulfilled the Compactata, and more importantly, (3) Cusanus’s imaginative wording of the Compactata provision which aims to show that the 1436 treaty actually employs only the future tense in relation to Utraquism, thus not allowing this practice before the anticipated goal of ecclesiastical unity. Finally, it is important to raise the question whether the Catholics writers endeavored to put forward any substantial evidence supporting their claims. Simply accusing the Bohemian party of not accepting ecclesiastical unity or not observing the Hussite-council treaty may have appeared too facile, and therefore specific examples of the Utraquists’ inappropriate behavior would have certainly been welcome for potential recipients. Such a strategy can be attested in the case of Ebendorfer, Piccolomini, and the anonymous author. When Thomas Ebendorfer claims that the Bohemians, especially the Taborites, refused to accept the unity demanded by the Compactata, he presents numerous examples in support of his argument, such as the absence of holy water in churches, their prohibition of holy images, their disregard for ecclesiastical verdicts and penalties, the appointment of unsuitable priests to churches, singing liturgical songs in Czech, etc.16 15 Šmahel, Die Basler Kompaktaten, 172: “Suscipientibus ecclesiasticam unitatem et pacem realiter et cum effectu.” 16 Vienna, Austrian National Library, MS Cod. 4704, f. 292r: “Quod Boemi facere usque detractarunt, ut notum est de Thaboritis precipue, qui cerimonias circa divina usque in vasis sacris et vestibus in officio misse non receperunt. Et ut de ceteris sacramentis et ritu, ut confirmacionis, extreme unicionis, ac ministracione eorundem transeam quoad residuos, racionem invenire non valeo, qualiter ipsi aquam benedictam in eorum ecclesiis non servant, benediccionem salis, palmarum et candelarum, prout universalis observat ecclesia, ymagines non admittunt sanctorum, que scripture sunt laycorum, pro quibus habendis tam dire contra Leonem imperatorem decertavit ecclesia et triumphavit, et sacramentalem eciam qualiter confessionem modicum aut nichil vel saltem valde superficialiter frequentant, qualiter in execratis ecclesiis sangwine humano pollutis aut notorie excomunicatorum sepulturis divina misteria celebrant. Ecclesie censuras et summi pontificis, vicarii Cristi in terris, pro nullo ducunt, precipue quod quendam, qui se fecit per tumultum populi archiepiscopum Pragensem nominari et temere eundem archiepiscopatum in spiritualibus amministrantem sine legitima confirmacione paciuntur tumultuare, presbiteros ad animarum curam contra sanctorum patrum instituta mittere et instituere, synodos celebrare, sine missione peregrinas doctrinas predicare et suas opiniones, ymoverius errores, dogmatizare, scismata in ecclesia et sediciones excitare in populo et alia inconveniencia palam et notorie practicare et eundem quasi ydolum adorare. Circa eciam divina officia presbiteros detruncare consueverunt, dapnatos ab ecclesia hereticos canonisant, eciam martirium nomine celebrant et in vesti
Trice a Foreigner: Helena of Muscovy, Grand Duchess of Lithuania GIEDRĖ MICKŪNAITĖ In its popular understanding, marriage frequently serves as a token for conflict after compromise, the topic that the essays in this volume discuss. This stereotyped understanding might be applied aptly to the marriage of the Grand Duke of Lithuania Alexander Jagiellon (1461–1506) and Princess Helena of Muscovy (1476–1513).1 Typically of its time, this wedding was a diplomatic arrangement, set against the background of Lithuania’s huge territorial losses to Muscovy since the mid-fifteenth century. The agreement2 was concluded under the condition that Helena would retain her Orthodox faith after marrying the Catholic Alexander. Although cross-confessional marriages were generally exceptional in late medieval society, they had quite a regular precedent among the highest elites of the confessional border zones. Matrimonial policies and practices in Byzantium, where emperors married Latin wives and ‘exported’ Greek brides, have received continuous scholarly attention.3 However, examples of cross-confessional marriages in Central and Eastern Europe remain a topic of national historiographies. As for Lithuania, confessional “flexibility” seemed to be quite widespread in the marriages of grand dukes and the nobility in the Middle Ages.4 However, after the conclusion of the Union 1 Aleksandras Jogailaitis, LT/ Aleksander Jagiellończyk, PL; Elena, LT/ Helena Rurykowiczówna, PL/ Elena Ivanovna, RU/ Olena in Old Slavonic; herein I use Anglicized versions of the personal names as a compromise of numerous spellings in national traditions. 2 On Lithuania’s political and confessional situation in the fifteenth century, see Robert Frost, The Oxford History of Poland-Lithuania, vol. 1, 1385–1569 (Oxford, 2015), 309–25. For an overview of source evidence related to Helena and Alexander, see Giedrė Mickūnaitė, “United in Blood, Divided by Faith: Elena Ivanovna and Aleksander Jagiellonczyk,” in Frictions and Failures. Cultural Encounters in Crisis, ed. Almut Bues, Deutsches Historisches Institut Warschau. Quellen und Studien, 34 (Wiesbaden, 2017), 181–200. 3 For the Byzantine perspective on mixed marriages between Greeks and Latins, see Nicol Donald MacGillivray, “Mixed Marriages in Byzantium in the Thirteenth Century,” in Byzantium: Its Ecclesiastical History and Relationship with the Western World (London, 1972), 160–72 and Dionysios Stathakopoulos, Sister, Widow, Consort, Bride: Four Latin Ladies in Greece (1330–1430) (London, 2018). For the discussion of the cross-confessional exchange of brides, with more attention to the Catholic spouses of emperors, see Sandra Origone, “Marriage connections between Byzantium and the West in the age of the Palaiologoi,” Mediterranean Historical Review 10 (1995): 226–41. 4 See Stephen C. Rowell, “Pious Princesses or the Daughters of Belial: Pagan Lithuanian Dynastic Diplomacy, 1279– 1423,” Medieval Prosopography 15/1 (1994): 3–80; idem, “Whatever Kind of Pagan the Bearer Might Be, the Letter Is Valid. A Sketch of Catholic-Orthodox Relations in the Late-Mediaeval Grand Duchy of Lithuania,” Lithuanian Historical Studies 18 (2013): 47–65; Darius Baronas, “Julijona – Lietuvos didžiojo kunigaikščio Algirdo žmona ir jo vaikų motina,” Lietuvos istorijos metraštis 2 (2019): 5–39; Darius Baronas and Stephen C. Rowell, The Conversion of Lithuania. From Pagan Barbarians to Late Medieval Christians (Vilnius, 2015), 379–402.
Trice a Foreigner: Helena of Muscovy, Grand Duchess of Lithuania 61 I of Florence (1439) and the fall of Constantinople (1453), the issue of the confession of ruling elites was suspended, regaining its relevance only during the Reformation. Therefore, the heterodox marriage of Alexander and Helena was quite odd for Europe at the turn of the fifteenth century. What is more, it was rather unusual given the power positions of the spouses. On the one hand, in patrilineal societies it was “natural” for women, who moved to other countries, courts, and households, to be the “other” family member,5 and this otherness was bridged only through giving birth to children. However, looking at the marriage of Alexander and Helena through the lens of power and difference, one sees that the bride was quite an atypical “other”: already defined by gender as the weaker party, she remained such since the marriage remained sterile. Isolated within the marital court because of her Orthodox creed, Helena was considered a representative of Muscovy and supported in this role by her natal family. The compromise that Lithuania sought through this marriage was the conclusion of a lasting truce, while peaceful relations with Muscovy remained an aspiration. Muscovy endeavored to transform its power from the constant menace at the borders into a permanent confessional and political presence at the center, the Lithuanian grand ducal court. Therefore, in all the roles that sources and titles ascribed to Helena, she was a passive figure, even on the occasions when records spoke in her name. In this essay, I will focus on how the roles assigned to Helena were made manifest, and what countermeasures were undertaken against them. I consider Helena’s public visibility as an indicator in the dynamics of the political compromises and conflicts around her. Guided by the modes of how Helena was displayed and seen, given and deprived of voice, in what follows I arrange the source evidence more topically than chronologically; therefore, before proceeding further, I offer a very concise biography of the grand duchess. Born in 1476 to Ivan III of Moscow (1440–1505) and his second wife Sophia Zoe Paleologue (1455–1503), Helena was betrothed in 1494 to Alexander Jagiellon, grand duke of Lithuania, reigning from 1492. In 1495, their bi-confessional wedding was celebrated in Vilnius. In 1501, Alexander was elected and crowned king of Poland, but Orthodox Helena was denied royal coronation and queenship. In 1502, having learned of the papal insistence on Helena’s conversion, Ivan III waged war against Lithuania, declaring himself a defender of Orthodoxy. In letters to her Muscovite family, Helena pleaded for peace and against bloodshed in Lithuania. Alexander died in 1506 and was buried in Vilnius. Helena received lands close to the Muscovite border as her widow’s share. In 1511, she was detained upon an attempt to leave for Muscovy, taken to Vilnius, and ordered to stay in her manors in central Lithuania. Helena died on January 29, 1513, and was buried in the Orthodox Church of the Most Pure Virgin in Vilnius. Her grave does not survive.6 5 On the otherness of Hungarian queens, see János M. Bak, “Queens as Scapegoats in Medieval Hungary,” in Queens and Queenship in Medieval Europe, ed. Anne J. Duggan (London, 1997), 223–33; reprinted in János M. Bak, Studying Medieval Rulers and Their Subjects: Central Europe and Beyond, eds. Balazs Nagy and Gabor Klaniczay, Variorum Collected Studies Series (Aldershot, 2010), X. 6 For Helena’s biographies, see Elena F. Turaeva-Tsereteli, Elena Ivanovna vielikaya kniaginia litovskaya, koroleva polskaya. Biograficheskii ocherk v sviazi s istoriei togo vremeni (St. Petersburg, 1898); Józef Garbacik, “Helena (1476–1513),” in Polski Słownik Biograficzny, vol. 9 (Wrocław, 1960–1961), 359–62; Krystyna Chojnicka, “Helena, Wielka Księżna Litewska, Królowa Polski,” in idem, Narodziny rosyjskiej doktryny państwowej: Zoe Paleolog – między Bizancjum, Rzymem a Moskwą
I 62 Giedrė Mickūnaitė Shown and Seen Betrothed by proxy to Alexander in Moscow upon the condition that she would remain Orthodox in her marital home,7 Helena left for Lithuania with a large retinue and wagons of goods. The accoutrement list compiled upon her departure from Moscow on January 15, 14958 included not only the full wedding garb for the bride and textiles for the nuptial chamber, but also a Muscovite costume for the groom, not to speak of the gifts from the in-laws. Records have indicated the size of Helena’s provisions, and Russel E. Martin, having analyzed their value, concluded that “the exorbitant cost of this wedding, if accurately reported in the inventory, must have put a pinch on finances for quite some time afterward”.9 On February 15, 1495,10 Helena approached Vilnius, instructed and equipped to remain a Muscovite princess in her future role as grand duchess of Lithuania.11 As the bride neared the Lithuanian capital, the groom sent her a chariot driven by eight dapple-grey horses, but Helena refused to change vehicles and continued her journey on Muscovite wheels. Three miles out of the city, Alexander rode to greet his bride, and the nuptial train continued together as it entered Vilnius, splitting after passing through the city gates. Helena and her entourage diverted for the Orthodox Church of the Most Pure Mother of God. There she was greeted by Metropolitan Makarii and the bridal rituals were performed. Alexander proceeded to the Roman Catholic Cathedral of Sts. Stanislaus and Wladislaus to wait for his bride. Helena and her retinue, led by Priest Foma carrying an Orthodox cross, approached the cathedral, where the Bishop of Vilnius Albert Tabor stood holding a Latin cross, ready to conduct the Catholic wedding. (Cracow, 2001), 157–97; Margarita E. Bychkova, “Velikaya kniazhna Elena Ivanovna v Moskve i v Vil’no,” in Didysis Kunigaikštis Aleksandras ir jo epocha, eds. Dalia Steponavičienė and Robertas Petrauskas (Vilnius, 2007), 86–92. 7 The earliest direct reference to negotiations comes from a letter of Jan Zaberezinski to Ivan Yur’evich on November 11, 1492, Sbornik Imperatorskogo Russkogo Istoricheskogo Obshchestva, vol. 35, Pamiatniki diplomaticheskikh snoshenii drevnei Rossii s derzhavami inostrannymi (St. Petersburg, 1882), no. 17, 71; to be followed by a note in Lithuanian Chancellery of November 6, 1493, Lietuvos metrika, vol. 5, Užrašymų knyga 5 (1427–1506), eds. Algirdas Baliulis, Artūras Dubonis, and Darius Antanavičius (Vilnius, 2012), no. 307, 195; and finalized in the note of thanks to Alexander’s envoy Litovar Khrebtovich, Vilnius, June 11, 1494, Lietuvos metrika, vol. 6, Užrašymų knyga 6 (1494–1506), ed. Algirdas Baliulis (Vilnius, 2007), no. 34, 72. 8 A fragment of the four folios of the original list of accoutrements is preserved, and has been published by Anna L. Khoroshkevich, “Iz istorii dvortsovogo deloproizvodstva kontsa XV v. Opis’ pridanogo velikoi kniaznhy Eleny Ivanovny 1495 g.,” Sovetskie arkhivy (1984), www.vostlit.info/Texts/Dokumenty/Russ/XV/1480-1500/Elena_Ivanovna/opis_pridanogo_1495.htm [accessed June 12, 2020]. Two later copies of the list have been preserved in the Library of the Russian Academy of Sciences in St. Petersburg, MS 16.15.15, ff. 1r –26v (later seventeenth c.) and MS 32.4.21 “O Brakakh drevnikh”, ff. 6r –23v (later eighteenth c.). For the English discussion of the content of these lists, see Russell E. Martin, “Gifts for the Bride: Dowries, Diplomacy, and Marriage Politics in Muscovy,” Journal of Medieval and Early Modern Studies 38 (2008): 119–45. The accuracy of the copies should not be doubted, as the content coincides with the surviving fragment of the original, and other items are mentioned in the wedding report. See Sbornik, vol. 35, no. 35.I, 186. 9 Martin, “Gifts for the Bride,” 129. 10 Records say that Helena entered Vilnius on Sunday. Hence, it should have been February 17, 1495. 11 Sbornik, vol. 35, no. 31.III, 163.
Trice a Foreigner: Helena of Muscovy, Grand Duchess of Lithuania 63 I The Muscovite report, which is the only account on the ceremony,12 informs of two rites performed separately for the groom and the bride, and the two confused escorts balancing on the verge of conflict. While the Muscovites complained and recorded the “wrongs” of the Lithuanian party, the latter spoke of the wedding celebrated “as appropriate for such high lords”.13 Apparently, Helena did not understand the foreign rites of her own wedding and remained clad in her bridal outfit for four days in a row,14 as if she was not wed. Perhaps she did not recognize her husband as wed, since Alexander, who accepted the gifts brought from Moscow, did not wear the Muscovite groom clothes he was presented with. Hence Ivan’s idea—to have the wedding of his daughter in Vilnius which looked as if it was celebrated in Moscow—not only failed, but also exposed the foreignness of the bride and her entourage. That this foreignness was not appreciated in Helena’s marital home became evident from the fact that members of Alexander’s immediate family15 —Queen Mother Elizabeth, brother Cardinal Frederick,16 as well as sisters Barbara and Elizabeth— arrived to Vilnius only after the Muscovite guests had departed. Lithuanian narratives tell that they were received with honors, joy, and largesse, were introduced to Grand Duchess Helena, and left for Poland loaded with precious gifts.17 With celebrations over, efforts were made to diminish foreign appearance of the grand duchess. According to Russel E. Martin, who examined Helena’s accoutrement list, “[g]iven all the clothing she had brought with her, it appears she (or her father) intended all along that she would dress in Muscovite garb rather than adopt the fashions of her new homeland”.18 This interpretation indeed accords well with Ivan’s reproaches in the letter from May 1495: he accuses Alexander of ordering “to put his own dress on our daughter,” sending back Helena’s Muscovite courtiers, and replacing them with local Catholics.19 While Lithuania did observe the agreement mandating that Helena remained within her “Greek law”, and that all the local ladies of her entourage come from the Orthodox denomination,20 efforts were made to diminish the Muscovite presence at the court 12 Ibid., no. 35.I, 186. For English summaries and Orthodox interpretations of the wedding ceremony, see Martin, “Gifts for the Bride,” 127; idem, “Ritual and Religion in the Foreign Marriages of Three Muscovite Princesses,” Russian History 35 (2008): 363–65, and idem, A Bride for the Tsar. Bride-Shows and Marriage Politics in Early Modern Russia (Illinois, 2012), 35. 13 Polnoe sobranie russkihh letopisei, vol. 32, Khroniki Litovskaya i Zhomoitskaya i Bykhovtsa, ed. Nikolai N. Ulashchik (Moscow, 1975), 164. 14 Sbornik, vol. 35, no. 35.I, 187. 15 On the Jagiellonian family, see Uwe Tresp and Agnieszka Gąsior, “Eine ‘famose und grenzenlos mächtige Generation’. Dynastie und Heiratspolitik der Jagiellonen im 15. und zu Beginn des 16. Jahrhunderts,” Jahrbuch für Europäische Geschichte 8 (2007): 3–28. 16 On Frederick, see Natalia Nowakowska, Church, State and Dynasty in Renaissance Poland. The Career of Cardinal Fryderyk Jagiellon (1468–1503) (Aldershot, 2007), on his activities regarding Helena, see ibid., 134–38. 17 Polnoe sobranie, vol. 32, 164. 18 Martin, “Gifts for the Bride,” 36. 19 Sbornik, vol. 35, no. 36.II-III, 190–92. 20 On Helena’s court, see Krzysztof Pietkiewicz, “Dwór Litewski wielkiego Księcia Aleksandra Jagiellończyka,” in Lietuvos valstybė XII–XVIII a., eds. Zigmantas Kiaupa, Arturas Mickevičius, and Jolita Sarcevičienė (Vilnius, 1997), 94.
I 68 Giedrė Mickūnaitė fortunes similar to the Greek one for the Trojans;” 55 “she was not called a queen, but a Muscovite, did not have a dower in Poland, and did not live long there; she left for Lithuania and perished there.”56 Predictably, in Muscovy she was praised in every aspect. For example, the Book of Royal Degrees 57 states: “Helena stems from the root of the apostle-like Vladimir of the steadfast faith, and is related to him by the sixteenth degree. She inherited the true Christian law and love for pious deeds from her most devoted parents. She was indifferent to the Latin charms followed by her husband, whom she loved dearly, yet withstood in his unlawful will, and refused to adopt the Latin rite. She merited the beauty, glory, power, and perishable goods of this world for nothing else except for the love of God, and she always spoke with divinely-enlightened words. She pushed away all those who, despite the shame of God, flattered her, thus once again confirming her firm adherence to the Orthodox faith, and she expelled all Jews, the murderers of God, from the land of Lithuania.”58 While the expulsion of Jews in spring 1495, in the aftermath of Alexander’s and Helena’s marriage, invites for more thorough research,59 the non-perishable goods are closer to the focus of this essay. Records from the seventeenth and nineteenth centuries tell of two icons of the Mother of God believed to have been brought by Helena from Muscovy. Both were taken to Russia during the First World War and have been considered lost ever since. This loss is even greater since none of the nine icons listed among Helena’s accoutrements can be identified today, although it includes just two icons of the Virgin and Child.60 Perhaps this is not merely a numerical coincidence? According to historian Albert Wijuk Kojałowicz, SJ (1609–77), the Greek-Catholic Church of the Holy Trinity in Vilnius had a miracle-working icon of the Mother of God, which Helena had brought as part of her dowry. Its value can be estimated from the fact that the Muscovites 55 Albert Wijuk Kojałowicz, Historiae Lituanae pars posterior, seu de rebus Lituanorum, a coniunctione Magni Ducatus cum Regno Poloniae ad Unionem eorum Dominiorum libri octo (Antwerp, 1669), 264. 56 Dyaryusze sejmów koronnych 1548, 1553 i 1570 r., ed. Józef Szujski, Scriptores rerum Polonicarum, 1 (Cracow, 1872), 215. 57 On the genre, function, and contexts of the books, see “The Book of Royal Degrees” and the Genesis of Russian Historical Consciousness, eds. Gail Lenhoff and Ann Kleimola (Bloomington, IN, 2011). 58 Polnoe sobranie russkihh letopisei, vol. 21.2, Kniga Stenenaya tsarskogo rodosloviya (11–17 stepeni grani) (St Petersburg, 1913), 573. 59 Upon the orders of Alexander, Jews were expelled from the Grand Duchy of Lithuania in May 1495 (the decrees are known from references in other documents only) and invited to return in 1503 (the general privilege from April 1503, known from later transumpta, Sergei A. Bershadskii, ed. Russko-evreyskii arkhiv. Dokumenty i materialy dlya istorii evreev v Rossii, vol. 1, Dokumenty i registry k istorii Litovskikh evreev (1388–1550) (St Petersburg, 1882), no. 40, 63–64). Although the marriage and the expulsion were very close in time, scholars generally denied causality of the two events (e.g., Krzysztof Pietkiewicz, Wielkie Księstwo Litewskie pod rządami Aleksandra Jagiellończyka: studia nad dziejami państwa i społeczeństwa na przełomie XV i XVI wieku (Oświęcim, 2014), 191). Recently, however, Arvydas Maciulevičius has convincingly argued that the Muscovite interests to fight the Judaising heresy lay behind the expulsion, Arvydas Maciulevičius, “Kodėl 1495 m. iš Lietuvos Didžiosios Kunigaikštystės buvo išvaryti žydai? Apie žydų išvarymo sąsajas su judaizavimo judėjimu,” in Istorijos šaltinių tyrimai, vol. 5, ed. Artūras Dubonis (Vilnius, 2014), 57–83. For discussion of this issue in English, see Arvydas Maciulevičius, “The 1495 Expulsion of the Jews from Lithuania and the Judaising Movement in Russia: Was there a connection?” https://vu-lt.academia.edu/ArvydasMaciulevi%C4%8Dius [accessed July 7, 2023]. 60 St Petersburg, Library of Russian Academy of Sciences, MS 32.4.21, ff. 7r and 15v; Martin, “Gifts for the Bride,” 125.
Trice a Foreigner: Helena of Muscovy, Grand Duchess of Lithuania 69 I offered fifty Lithuanian noble captives in exchange for it in 1569.61 Later graphic reproductions, copies, photographs, and descriptions indicate that the icon featured Hodegetria and was covered with elaborate setting, parts of which might have dated to the fifteenth century (Fig. 1).62 Although photographs63 and lithographs of the icon reveal significant over-paintings, and written evidence attests to its major repairs,64 the size (approx. 116 × 71 cm)65 and iconography of the image are comparable to the “large gem-encrusted icon of the Mother of God and Child” intended for the nuptial chamber of the Muscovite bride.66 While it is impossible to tell whether the venerated icon was indeed the one listed among Helena’s accoutrements, references to its medieval setting and its ancient stones (four garnets and one amethyst all with the size of a big bean)67 enhance the credibility of the suggestion that parts of the icon’s jewelry were preserved from the Middle Ages. Copies of the icon suggest that the 1839 abolishment of the Church Union68 in the Russian Empire affected not only believers, liturgy, church buildings, and possessions, but also the icon, which was stripped of its medieval appearance and reworked to suggest a Muscovite provenance (Fig. 2). The association between Helena and the icon held in the monastic Church of the Annunciation in Supraśl 69 first appeared in the captions under the photograph from 1864 (Fig. 3),70 which read: “Image of the Mother of God brought to Lithuania by Helena Ivanovna, daughter of Grand Duke of Moscow Ivan III.” 71 In 1892, Abbot Nikolai Dalmatov (r. 1881–1906) indicated that the icon representing the Mother of God of Vladimir was painted on canvas fixed onto a wooden 61 Albert Wijuk Kojałowicz, Miscellanea rerum, ad statum ecclesiasticum in Magno Lituaniae Ducatu pertinentia (Vilnius, 1650), 15. Kojałowicz’s information has been repeated in Heinrich Scherer, Atlas Marianus sive Praecipuae totius orbis habitati imagines, vol. 3 (Munich, 1737), 123. 62 For a thorough reconstruction of the history and cult of the icon, see Rūta Janonienė, “Vilniaus Dievo Motinos ikona ir jos kultas Švč. Trejybės cerkvėje,” Menotyra 24 (2017): 1–16, on the setting, see ibid., 9–10 and 14. 63 The icon’s photograph has been published in Aleksandr Vinogradov, Putevoditel’ po gorodu Vil’ne i ego okresnostiam (Vilnius, 1904), 64 and 67. 64 Janonienė, “Vilniaus Dievo Motinos ikona,” 4. 65 Ibid. 66 Martin, “Gifts for the Bride,” 125; St Petersburg, Library of Russian Academy of Sciences, MS 32.4.21, f. 15v. 67 Janonienė, “Vilniaus Dievo Motinos ikona,” 9–10. 68 In 1596, the Union between the Orthodox and the Catholic Churces in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth was concluded in Brest Litovsk. For an in-depth study on its development and legacy, see Borys A. Gudziak, Crisis and Reform: The Kyivan Metropolitanate, the Patriarchate of Constantinople, and the Genesis of the Union of Brest, Harvard Series in Ukrainian Studies (New Haven, 2001). 69 The confessional status of the monastery has been disputed. Founded in 1498 (or 1495), it was established in the spirit of Florentine Union, and throughout the sixteenth century it shifted between Orthodoxy and Unianism depending on the position of the abbots and metropolitans. For a more thorough discussion, see Genutė Kirkienė, “Supraslio vienuolyno konfesinės priklausomybės ir pobūdžio klausimas XVI amžiaus pradžioje,” Lietuvos istorijos studijos 18 (2006): 39–50. In 1602, the monastery joined the Brest Union and remained within it until 1839, Marek Zalewski, “Krótka historia Supralskiego klasztoru,” in Supraśl 1913. Dokumentacja fotograficzna Józefa Jodkowskiego cerkwi Zwiastowania Najświętszej Marii Pannie (Warsaw, 2016), 169–72. 70 “Supraslio stačiatikių vienuolyno fotografijų rinkinys, 1864,” Vilnius University Library, digital collections, https://kolekcijos.biblioteka.vu.lt/supraslio-staciatikiu-vienuolyno-rinkinys [accessed June 23, 2023]. 71 Ibid.: “Obraz Bozhei Materi privezennyi v Litvu docher’iu Velikago Kniazia Moskovskago Ioanna III Elenoyu Ivannovnoyu.”
I 70 Giedrė Mickūnaitė Marceli Januszewicz, Icon of the Mother of God from the Vilnius Church of the Holy Trinity, 1837/40, indian ink and water colour on paper (14,9 × 10 cm); National Museum in Warsaw, 145073/170; image in public domain, https://cyfrowe.mnw.art.pl/pl/katalog/709783
Trice a Foreigner: Helena of Muscovy, Grand Duchess of Lithuania 71 I Icon of the Hodegetria of Vilnius, lithograph, 1874, Lithuanian National Museum of Art, LNDM G 804/13, image in public domain: www.limis.lt/valuables/e/805180/ 20000002960144?searchId= 24615199 Eleusa icon of Supraśl, photo 1864; Vilnius University Library, image in public domain, https://kolekcijos. biblioteka.vu.lt/objects/VUB01_ 000385233#00001
II. Treaties of Compromise as (De-)Stabilizing Factors
The Oldest Religious Privilege of Sigismund of Luxembourg for the Hussites, and Its Critique by Thomas Ebendorfer DUŠAN COUFAL The Viennese theologian and historian Thomas Ebendorfer of Haselbach (d. 1464) was one of the best experts on Hussitism in his time. As a legate of the Council of Basel, he was directly involved in the conclusion of the peace agreement between the Hussites, the council, and Emperor Sigismund at Jihlava in July 1436.1 Even after this date he remained a careful observer of events north of the border of the Austrian lands. This is evidenced by the tract Contra indultum Sigismundi, which Ebendorfer completed in Vienna on July 24, 1455, and which has so far escaped the attention of scholars.2 The unpublished work is known from a single manuscript now housed in the Austrian National Library.3 It is a draft, as the author added a number of marginal notes along the sides of the text mirror, by which he made stylistic and argumentative modifications and supplementations to it.4 From today’s perspective, the preservation of the work only in an autograph would suggest that it did not enter wide circulation. However, since the author mentions that he was asked to write the opinion,5 it is unlikely that he kept it to himself. 1 Cf. Alphons Lhotsky, Thomas Ebendorfer. Ein österreichischer Geschichtsschreiber, Theologe und Diplomat des XV. Jahrhunderts, MGH Schriften, 15 (Stuttgart, 1957), esp. 15–32; Christina Traxler, Firmiter velitis resistere. Die Auseinandersetzung der Wiener Universität mit dem Hussitismus vom Konstanzer Konzil (1414–1418) bis zum Beginn des Basler Konzils (1431–1449), Fortsetzung der Schriften des Archivs der Universität Wien, 27 (Göttingen, 2019), esp. 161–76; Dušan Coufal, Turnaj víry. Polemika o kalich na basilejském koncilu 1431–1433, Studie a prameny k dějinám myšlení v českých zemích, 20 (Prague, 2020), 505–33. The topic of Bohemians and Hussites in Ebendorfer’s historiographical works was discussed by Emma Scherbaum, “Das hussitische Böhmen bei Thomas Ebendorfer,” Österreich in Geschichte und Literatur 17 (1973): 141–53. 2 As far as I know, the work with the incipit “Sicut crebro luctus post gaudia” was registred only by Lhotsky, Thomas Ebendorfer, no. 165, 89. 3 Vienna, Austrian National Library, MS 4704, ff. 289r–300v. On the codex, which contains a number of Ebendorfer’s works on Hussitism from 1433 to 1462, Harald Zimmermann, “Einleitung,” in Thomas Ebendorfer, Diarium sive Tractatus cum Boemis (1433–1436), ed. idem, MGH Scriptores rerum Germanicarum NS, 25 (Hannover, 2010), XIII–XV. 4 It is also worth noting that some of the “chapters” of the work are not directly related to each other, but the author has left an empty space between them. 5 Vienna, Austrian National Library, MS 4704, f. 289v: “Ideo, ut quantum utilitatis, quantum incomoditatis, profectus et iusticie cristicolis et ipsi regno Bohemie ex prefato indulto aut lege provenire possit quantamque iusticiam contineat, salva omnium pace rogatus subnotabo.”
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTMyNjA1