A Perennial Misunderstanding from Misunderstood Years: Was Lajos Helfenstein, Archbishop of Kalocsa (1382/83-1391) an „Adherent of Horvátis”?

Szilárd Süttő Institute of History [email protected]

Keywords: Louis Helfenstein, John Horváti, Elizabeth Kotromanić, Queen Mary, Nicholas Garai, Lorenzo de Monacis, 14. century, Archdiocese of Kalocsa, inter- nal strife, leagues, source criticism

The history of the years between the death of King Louis the Great (10 or 11 September 1382) and the accession of Sigismund (31 March 1387) was previ- ously discussed many times as the end of the Anjou- and the beginning of the Sigismund age, but always cursorily. The presentation of this period based on the holistic treatment of the available sources was an old debt of the Hungarian medieval studies. In the course of this work1 in many mistakes were detected which are difficult to change. We can see by means of one of these examples, that some theories repeated in the literature over and over again, do not stand up in the way of painstaking source criticism. Louis Helfenstein (1382/83–1391) archbishop of Kalocsa is said to have been „Kis-Károly egyik főpárthive” (one of the main adherent of Charles III of Naples – Gyula Schönherr, 1895), „Kis Károly párti volt” (he was the adherent of Charles III of Naples – Béla Bottló, 1932), „Nápolyi László táborához tarto- zott” (he belonged to the camp of Ladislaus of Naples – Bálint Hóman, 1936), and „Horvátiék híve volt” (he was the adherent of Horvátis – Elemér Mályusz, 1984)2. Even in 2009 was published the same about him: „Ezerháromszáz-

1 See results: SÜTTŐ Szilárd, Anjou-Magyarország alkonya. Magyarország politikai története Nagy La- jostól Zsigmondig, az 1384–1387. évi belviszályok okmánytárával, 1–2, Belvedere-monográfiák 2, (Szeged: Belvedere Meridionale, 2003) 2 SCHÖNHERR Gyula, Az Anjou-ház örökösei, szerk. SZILÁGYI Sándor, A magyar nemzet története 3, (Budapest: Athenaeum, 1895) 385–630., 397.; BOTTLÓ Béla, Dlugosz János Historia Polonicaja mint magyar történeti forrás 1385–1418, (Budapest: Sárkány-Nyomda Részvénytársaság, 1932) 9.; HÓMAN Bálint – SZEKFŰ Gyula, Magyar történet, 1–5, (Budapest: Királyi Magyar Egyetemi Nyomda, 1935–19362) 2, 331.; MÁLYUSZ Elemér, Zsigmond király uralma Magyarországon, (Budapest: Gon- dolat, 1984) 22.

— 517 — University of Miskolc Faculty of Arts – Research Almanac nyolcvanhét március utolsó napján Székesfehérvárott Himházi Benedek veszp- rémi püspök magyar királlyá koronázta Luxemburgi Zsigmond brandenburgi őrgrófot, címei szerint ekkor »Magyarország gyámját, kapitányát, elöljáróját«. A koronázást a már kialakult koronázási rendtől eltérően nem az esztergomi érsek végezte, mivel Demeter bíboros február 20-ai halála miatt az érseki szék betöltetlen volt, de nem is a rangban utána következő kalocsai érsek, mivel ő meg a Horvátiak híve volt.” (– On the last day of March 1387 Benedek Himházi, bishop of Veszprém, crowned Sigismund of Luxemburg, marquess of Branden- burg as Hungarian king, in Veszprém. At this time Sigismund was titulated as »guardian, captain and superior of Hungary«. Contrary to the coronation order, the coronation was not carried out by the archbishop of Esztergom, as the death of Cardinal Demeter on 20 February made the archbishop’s chair vacant, but not by the archbishop of Kalocsa the next in the rank, because he was an adher- ent of Horvátis.)3 ‒ Although not directly related to the subject, it should be noted, that before his coronation, Sigismund did not have any official Hungar- ian-related title, and in his charters he used various titles and their blends, most often addressing himself as the captain or lord of Hungary.4 At first we have to point out the lack of evidence of this misbelief. The en- emies of Elizabeth Kotromanić and her court is known from several sources, but Louis Helfenstein was not on the list. It may be mentioned Queen Elizabeth’s command to Zágráb (today Zagreb, Croatia, 14 August 1384), where Paul Horváti, archbishop of Zágráb, Stephen Csáktornyai Lackfi, Nicholas Szécsi, their relations and leaguemates are named as rebels.5 And in the „intitulatio”of a letter addressed to Pozsony (today Bratislava, Slovakia) from 16 May 1385, John Horváti, Nicholas Zámbó and Stephen Simontornyai Lackfi were on the

3 C. TÓTH Norbert, Luxemburgi Zsigmond uralkodása 1387–1437, Magyarország története, főszerk. ROMSICS Ignác, (Budapest: Kossuth Kiadó, 2009) 6, 21. 4 See. SÜTTŐ, Anjou-Magyarország, op.cit. I. 147. note 834. (12 November 1386: „dominus atque tu- tor” [SÜTTŐ, Anjou-Magyarország, op.cit. II. No. 769, 432–433.]; 29 November 1386: „capitaneus et antecessor” [Ibid. No. 770, 433.]; 4 January 1387 [Ibid. No. 773, 434–435.], before 6 January 1387 [Ibid. No. 774, 435–436.], 10 January 1387 [Ibid. No. 776, 436–437.], 14 January 1387 [Ibid. No. 778, 437–438.]: „capitaneus”; 15 January 1387 [Ibid. No. 779, 438.]: only marquess; 19 January 1387 [Ibid. No. 781, 439.]: „capitaneus et dominus”; 27 January 1387 [Ibid. No. 782, 439–440.]: „dominus et capitaneus”; 2 February 1387 [Ibid. No. 785, 441–442.]: „dominus, capitaneus et antecessor”; 10 February 1387 [Ibid. No. 786, 442–443.], 11 February 1387 [Ibid. No. 787, 443.]: „dominus et ca- pitaneus”; 1 March 1387 [Ibid. No. 789, 444–445.]: „dominus”; 5 March 1387 [Ibid. No. 790, 445– 446.]: „dominus et capitaneus”.) 5 „Paulus episcopus Zagrabiensis, Stephanus filius condam Stephani wayuode, Nicolaus de Zeech et fratres ac colligati eorumdem, tamquam perversi dolositate et rebelles”(see SÜTTŐ, Anjou-Magyaror- szág, op.cit. II. No. 213, 143–144.).

— 518 — A Perennial Misunderstanding from Misunderstood Years list.6 In an other letter of palatine Nicholas Garai, the main confidant of the Queen, dated from the same day, the rebels against the court were presented as his former enemies. He named Stephen and Ladislaus Horváti, two grandsons of Ákos Mikcs, that are sons of Stephen Mikcsfi: Stephen and Ákos, Ladislaus Gorbonoki and John Besenyő too.7 In the available sources there is no trace that Louis Helfenstein had anything to do with John Horváti or his league. The narrative sources of this era contain no reference to this supposed connection between the archbishop and the Horváti league. There is nothing like this in Lorenzo de Monacis’ work8 about Charles III of Naples. Louis Helfen- stein had Elizabeth Kotromanić, the Queen mother to thank for all, and Lorenzo de Monacis wrote on behalf of Queen Mary.9 He certanly would not have left such a betrayal unmentioned.10 Of course, it is not only on the basis of the argumentum ex silentio that this idea is suspicious. The archbishop’s family name is already eye-catching. It is

6 „Paulus, Dei et apostolice sedis gratia episcopus ecclesie Zagrabiensis; Stephanus, olym wayvoda; Nicolaus de Zeech, pridem iudex curie regie; Iohannes, nuper banus de Macho; Nicolaus Zambo, con- dam tavarnicorum regalium magister; et Stephanus, filius condam Dionisii wayvode ceterique ba- rones, fratres, proximi, amici, socii et adherentes nostre lige” (see Ibid. No. 393, 220–221). 7 „Nos, Nicolaus de Gara, regni Hungarie palatinus et iudex Comanorum, notum facimus universis, quod cum quedam discordie et disstensiones [sic!] inter nos ab una, ac venerabilem in Christo patrem, dominum Paulum, episcopum Zagrabiensem; necnon magnificos viros dominos Nicolaum de Zeech, pridem iudicem curie regie; ac Stephanum wayvodam; Stephanum filium Dionisii condam wayvode; Iohannem, olim banum Machoviensem; Stephanum et Ladislaum fratres suos; Nicolaum Zambow, pridem magistrum tavarnicorum regalium; magistros Stephanum et Akus filios Stephani filii Mychk condam bani; Ladislaum de Gorbonuk ac Iohannem Bissenum et universos eorum fratres, proximos, amicos, socios, colligatos, fautores et familiares ipsorum parte ex altera orte fuissent” (see Ibid. No. 392, 219–220). 8 Laurentius DE MONACIS, Carmen, seu historia de Carolo II. cognomento Parvo rege Hungariae, in Laurentii de Monacis Veneti Cretae cancellarii chronicon de rebus Venetis Ab U. C. ad Annum MCCCLIV. sive ad conjurationem ducis Faledro. Accedit eiusdem Laurentii Carmen de Carolo II. Rege Hungariae, et Anonymi Scriptoris de causis belli exorti inter Venetos, et Ducem Ferrariensem (ad Ludovici Antonii Muratorii Rerum Italicarum scriptorum tomum VIII. appendix), omnia ex MSS. editisque Codicibus eruit, recensuit, Praefationibus illustravit Flaminius CORNELIUS senator Venetus (Venetiis: ex typographia Remondiniana, 1758), 321–338. 9 To the special status of Mary see: Szilárd SÜTTŐ, „Als die Königin König hätte sein sollen. Die »pos- sessio reginalis« in einer königslosen Zeit Ungarns”, Publicationes Universitatis Miskolcinensis, Sectio Philosophica, 12(2007) Nr. 2. 117–122. 10 To the interpretation of Lorenzo de Monacis’ work see: Szilárd SÜTTŐ, „Ungarn in Lorenzo de Mo- nacis’ Pia descriptio miserabilis casus illustrium reginarum Hungariae. Notizen zum Werk”, Studia Historica Adriatica ac Danubiana. Periodico dell’Assoziazione Culturale „Sodalitas Adriatico-Danubi- ana”, Duino Aurisina (Trieste), 2(2009) Nr. 2. 51–88.; resp. SÜTTŐ Szilárd, „Volt-e kettős uralom Ma- gyarországon Kis Károly országlása idején? (Válasz Bertényi Ivánnak)”, Aetas, 21(2006) 2–3. sz. 232–246., 242–243.

— 519 — University of Miskolc Faculty of Arts – Research Almanac worth looking into how he came to Hungary. To put it bluntly, it could be said that it is not by accident, that ‘Helfenstein, the Conqueror’ is missing from the legendary Seven chieftains of the so-called Anonymus, the famous writer of the Gesta Hungarorum. So the later archbishop of Kalocsa ‒ or maybe one of his ancestors ‒ had to get to the country in some other way. He really came in a different way, and we have long known how. His father, Count X. Ulrich Helfen- stein from the Swabian land, had nothing to do with Hungary. But his mother, Mary of Bosnia, was a relative of Elizabeth Kotromanić, most likely her cousin.11 After his father’s death (1372), Louis was patronized by the Hungarian court. In 1381 an attempt was made to obtain the Patriarchate of Aquileia for him,12 but this endeavour failed. At the end of 1382 but no later than January 1383 he became the archbishop of Kalocsa in Hungary.13 So, there are some unavoidable questions. After the death of King Louis the Great why the foreign archbishop set himself against the court? Why would he have formed an alliance with the Horváti brothers and would he have been involved – at least indirectly – in the killing of Queen Elizabeth, who was his relative, benefactress and the only person, that bound him to Hungary? In Aga- tha Christie’s novels could happen such things like this, and on the last pages it would turn out why, but this is hard to believe in reality. At least not until those who are reiterating their views of this alliance between the archbishop and the Horváti league come up with the explanation expected on the last pages. Even if Louis Helfenstein had felt prompted to enter into an alliance with the Horváti league, the creation of this pact would have been hindered not only by the relational connections and the gratitude, but also by another common and trivial factor, namely money. A charter known for a long time dated 30 No- vember 1384 (see app.) by which Louis Helfenstein leases all the income of his archdiocese for five years, for annual 6000 forints, for the sake of studying abroad. This document clarifies the archbishop’s political affiliation, twice.14 First of all, the contracting party was palatine Nicholas Garai, who was the main confidant of the Queen and the deadly enemy of the Horvátis – which at that time meant, that they really want to kill each other, like the members of the Horváti league really cut Garai’s head off on 25 July 1386.15 In addition – and here appears the material factor – archbishop Louis did not charge the rent in

11 THALLÓCZY Lajos, „Bosnyák nemzedékrendi tanúlmányok”, Turul, 13(1895) 5–17. 12 Ibid. 16. 13 ENGEL Pál, Magyarország világi archontológiája 1301–1457, 1–2, (Budapest: MTA Történettudo- mányi Intézete, 1996) I, 65. 14 To the importance of the charter and the appraise of the behavior of archbishop Louis see: SÜTTŐ, Anjou-Magyarország, op.cit. I. 73., note 332. 15 To the political relations and history of this era see. SÜTTŐ, Anjou-Magyarország, op.cit. I. 9–155.

— 520 — A Perennial Misunderstanding from Misunderstood Years advance, but wanted to get it in three instalments per year, and the charter itself reassured Nicholas Garai of the first 2000 forints. Joining the enemies of the palatine he could not have expected, that he would recieve further instalments of the enormous amount he was entitled to. All in all, it can be ruled out that Louis Helfenstein was an „adherent of Horvátis”. There is the question, whether there is any lesson of the above that beyond the discussed case of Louis Helfenstein? Yes, it is double, but neither can be called new: nil novi sub sole. First of all, it has been proven, that the re- search results are only slowly reaching the level of the popularize literature. On the other hand, that it is impossible to vote against the facts, and the so-called centuries-old scientific consensus does not always have to be taken seriously.

Appendix

Nos, Lodovicus, Dei et apostolice sedis gratia archiepiscopus Colochensis et Bachi- ensis ecclesiarum unitarum, memorie commendantes tenore presentium signifi- camus quibus expedit universis, quod quia nos matura deliberatione prehabita causa studii pronunc [sic!] ad regna aliena transire intendamus, de pecuniaque seu expensis propredicto [sic!] negotio nostro sufficientibus indigeamus, et obhoc [sic!] dominium ipsius nostri archiepiscopatus plenarium demptis instrumentis ipsius ecclesie, que in nostra et capituli nostri potestate ac conservatorio et loco consueto relinquendo per idem capitulum servare commisimus et committimus, viro magnifico, Nicolao de Gara, regni Hungarie palatino, modo infrascripto pos- sidendum, tenendum et gubernandum committere disposuerimus. Ideo totum dic- tum dominium prescripti nostri archiepiscopatus, videlicet possessiones, villas, tenuta, districtus, terras, fenilia, aquas, piscaturas, silvas, nemora, tributa, hono- res et officiolatus et alias cunctas utilitates, proventus, fructus et reddittis [sic! instead of redditus], quovis nominis vocabulo vocitentur, ad prescriptum nostrum archiepiscopatum spectantia et pertinentes, a presenti festo beati Andree apostoli usque quintam revolutionem eiusdem festi annualem in feudum seu censum an- nualem dedimus et locavimus exintegro [sic!] palatino prenotato possidere et habere, eomodo [sic!], ut idem palatinus ratione conservationis dominii dicti archiepiscopatus singulis annis singulos sex milia florenorum aureorum, duo videlicet milia florenorum in festo beati Georgii, et similiter duo milia florenorum in festo nativitatis beate virginis, necnon modo simili duo milia florenorum in festo beati Andree apostoli nobis in presentia Mauritii filii Pauli, civis de Florentia, mercatoris Budensis, in eadem Buda dare et persolvere debeat et teneatur sine prorogatione, ipsum autem palatinum nunc super duobus milibus florenorum au- reorum, quos nobis ad presens persolvisse dinosscitur, videlicet de una pre- dictarum solutionum venturarum expeditum committendo. Promittimus, ut si

— 521 — University of Miskolc Faculty of Arts – Research Almanac aliquo predictorum annorum malum tempus et caristia evenerit, tunc eidem pa- latino de debito et solutione predicta huiusmodi anni, ut convenit, alleviationem et relaxationem faciemus. In cuius rei testimonium presentes eidem palatino con- cessimus litteras nostras privilegiales pendentis et autentici sigilli nostri muni- mini [sic! instead of munimine] roboratas. Datum in Buda predicta, in festo beati Andree apostoli prenotato, anno Domini millesimo CCCmo LXXXmo quarto.

The original: National Archives of Hungary, Diplomatic Archives 7350. Not entirely correct editions and regesta: LEDERER Emma, A középkori pénzüzletek története Magyarországon (Budapest: [a Mag- yar Tudományos Akadémia támogatásával] 1932), 258–259.; Monumenta diplomatica civitatis Bu- dapest, tomus tertius (1382–1439), ad edendum praeparavit L. Bernardus KUMOROVITZ (Budapest: Budapesti Történeti Múzeum, 1987), 22. sz. 9–10.; SÜTTŐ, Anjou-Magyarország, op.cit. II. 260. sz. 143–144.

Translated by Krisztina Süttőné Kaczeus

My major publications on the topic:

SÜTTŐ Szilárd, Anjou-Magyarország alkonya. Magyarország politikai története Nagy Lajostól Zsig- mondig, az 1384–1387. évi belviszályok okmánytárával, 1–2, Belvedere-monográfiák 2, (Szeged: Bel- vedere Meridionale, 2003)

Szilárd SÜTTŐ, „Der Dynastiewechsel Anjou–Luxemburg in Ungarn”, in Sigismund von Luxemburg. Ein Kaiser in Europa. Tagungsband des internationalen historischen und kunsthistorischen Kong- resses in Luxemburg, 8–10. Juni 2005, hrsg. Michel PAULY und François REINERT, (Mainz am Rhein: Verlag Philipp von Zabern, 2006) 79–87.

SÜTTŐ Szilárd, „Volt-e kettős uralom Magyarországon Kis Károly országlása idején? (Válasz Bertényi Ivánnak)”, Aetas, 21(2006) 2–3. sz. 232–246.

Szilárd SÜTTŐ, „Ungarn in Lorenzo de Monacis’ Pia descriptio miserabilis casus illustrium reginarum Hungariae. Notizen zum Werk”, Studia Historica Adriatica ac Danubiana. Periodico dell’Assoziazione Culturale „Sodalitas Adriatico-Danubiana”, Duino Aurisina (Trieste), 2(2009) Nr. 2. 51–88.

Szilárd SÜTTŐ, „Spuren einer vom niederen Adel ausgeübten Autonomie im Siebenbürgen des aus- gehenden 14. Jahrhunderts”, Gesta, 16(2017) 22–27.

— 522 —