John of Moravia and John Sobieslaw

Excursus 1 John of Moravia and John Sobieslaw

This excursus will focus on the complicated issue of identifying Margrave John Henry’s two frequently confused sons: John of Moravia and John Sobieslaw.1 As mentioned in the overview of the literature presented in the opening chapter (“From John Sobieslaw to John of Moravia”), the research to date has concluded that John Sobieslaw became bishop of Litomyšl (1380–1387) and later patriarch of Aquileia (1387–1394). By contrast, I shall attempt to demonstrate that it was actually his illegitimate half-brother John who made a successful ecclesiastical career for himself. Naturally, we are left with no choice but to seek an answer directly in the sources. However, these generally do not provide us with an unambiguous answer. The situation is particularly complicated because of the identical names: whenever John is spoken of as bishop of Litomyšl, or as patriarch of Aquileia, the sources always describe him—if at all—only as Johannes, or as the son of John Henry, or as brother to Jobst and Prokop, but this can apply to both Johns. A large degree of circumspection is therefore required. First, let us briefly outline what we actually know about John Sobieslaw,2 focusing in detail only on the period which is important for us (the second half of the 1370s) and on sources which can potentially shed light on his conduct during this period. John Sobieslaw was born as the second son3 of Margrave John Henry, probably between 1355 and 1357,4 with 1357 appearing to be the most likely possibility.5 The second name “Sobieslaw,” which was quite unusual at the time, might have been a nickname designed to distinguish him from his older illegitimate half-brother John. He was the only one of the margrave’s sons to be brought up at the imperial court in Prague, because of his planned

1 This chapter is a revised and extended version of my article Schmidt, “Jan z Moravy.” 2 The following short account of John Sobieslaw as margrave of Moravia is based on Mezník, Lucemburská Morava; Štěpán, Moravský markrabě Jošt; Elbel, “Jan Soběslav.” 3 John Sobieslaw is often mentioned as the youngest son by the historical literature; however, the sources explicitly refer to him as the second-born. See CDM IX, 324, no. 420: “… Johanni, dicto Sobezlao, secundogenito nostro …” (24th March 1366). This is pointed out by Elbel, “Jan Soběslav,” 710. 4 The dating is based on records of gifts donated by the Brno city council to the Margravine Margaret of Opava for successful parturitions between 1353 and 1358. See Knihy počtů města Brna z let 1343–1365, ed. Bedřich Mendl, Knihy městských počtů z doby předhusitské 1 (Brno: Československý státní ústav historický, 1935), ad indicem. The individual records were ana- lysed in detail by Mezník, Lucemburská Morava, 168. 5 See Štěpán, Moravský markrabě Jošt, 19, on the basis of Knihy počtů města Brna, 249.

marriage to the daughter of Charles IV, which was necessitated by the lack of a proper heir to the throne. That changed with the birth of Wenceslas in 1361, which meant that the original plan lost its meaning. Despite that, however, John Sobieslaw remained at the Prague court, accompanied the emperor on his trips throughout the Empire and took part in Charles’s second Roman ex- pedition in the years 1368–1369.6 Meanwhile, his older brother Jobst and younger brother Prokop grew up in Moravia. John Henry divided the government of Moravia between these three sons in three testaments, with the first-born Jobst becoming its ruler, while John Sobieslaw and Prokop had to content themselves with the title of margrave and a number of scattered towns, castles and villages. After the death of his father, John Henry († 1375), John Sobieslaw took possession of his inheritance in Moravia, where he immediately got into a dispute with his brother Jobst, which he settled by handing over part of his property to him in exchange for 2,000 shocks groschen and a weekly remuneration.7 This agreement was perhaps only intended to ensure him a much-needed regular income. Shortly after that, in February 1377, a new contract was concluded with Jobst, which evidently cancelled out the previous agreement from the year before and according to which John Sobieslaw received estates that John Henry had be- queathed to him in a testament.8 Financial motives might also explain John Sobieslaw’s attacks on the estates of the Olomouc bishopric, which Bishop John of Neumarkt complains about in his letters.9 Nevertheless, from what the sources tell us, it is clear that John Sobieslaw took up his duties as margrave and entered into public life: in 1376, he took part in a meeting of the provincial court in Brno,10 and a year later, like his brother Jobst, he confirmed an earlier

6 During Charles’s second descent into Italy, Margrave John Sobieslaw is often cited as a witness on the charters issued by the emperor. References in RI VIII, and Acta Karoli IV. Imperatoris were collected by Veldtrup, “Johann Propst von Vyšehrad,” 71, note 129; Obůrková, “Druhá římská jízda Karla IV.” 7 See the arbitration sentence in CDM XI, 17–18, no. 16 (12th January 1376); John Sobieslaw’s ratification ibid., 18–19, no. 17 (13th January 1376). 8 CDM XI, 60–61, no. 69 (17th February 1377); Wenceslas IV’s confirmation ibid., 62, no. 70 (22nd February 1377). For an interpretation of both agreements between Jobst and John Sobieslaw, see Mezník, Lucemburská Morava, 216–219. 9 Briefe Johanns von Neumarkt, 305–306, no. 222; 310–311, no. 226; 314, no. 230; 315, no. 231; “Cancellaria Johannis Noviforensis episcopi Olomucensis (1364–1380). Briefe und Urkunden des olmützer Bischoffs Johanns von Neumarkt,” ed. Ferdinand Tadra, AfÖG 68 (1886), 91–92, no. 104. 10 Die Landtafel des Markgrafthumes Mähren (1344–1466). Brünner Cuda, ed. Josef Chytil et al. (Brno: Nitsch & Grosse, 1856), lib. 6, 113, no. 223 (19th January 1376).

Ondřej Schmidt - 9789004407893 Downloaded from Brill.com09/27/2021 03:47:15AM via free access John of Moravia and John Sobieslaw 215 charter by King Wenceslas II for the Premonstratensians of Želiv,11 issued a privilege for the burghers of Olomouc12 and in 1378 donated some kind of courtyard in Ivančice.13 According to research to date, the last mention of John Sobieslaw as Moravian margrave is a charter for Olomouc from the summer of 1377.14 However, there is another charter, dated early May 1379—and unknown to historiography—in which there is a reference to “Zdeněk de Krzyzenicz, marshal of the Moravian margrave Sobieslaw.”15 Among other things, this charter convincingly demonstrates that in the spring of 1379 John Sobieslaw had still not embarked on a spiritual career. John Sobieslaw appears for the last time in a text concerning the settlement of a dispute between Jobst and John of Neumarkt, Bishop of Olomouc, probably from the summer of 1380, one article of which refers to Jobst’s “brothers Sobieslaw and Prokop and other inhabitants of Moravia” alongside one another.16 If there were to be any violation of the treaty on their part, John of Neumarkt was to complain to King Wenceslas. It is obvious that John Sobieslaw was still Moravian margrave at that time. Now let us move on to the illegitimate John, of whom we know for sure that he was the son of Margrave John Henry and later became provost of Vyšehrad.17 For the moment, we will focus only on his time in office as provost of Vyšehrad (1368/1369–1380)18 and, more specifically, on a dispute between the Vyšehrad chapter and the Cistercians of Zlatá Koruna in the years 1377–1396 over twenty-two villages in the district of Prachatice (in South Bohemia), in which

11 NA, Premonstráti Strahov, no. 60 (1st April 1377); no. 61 (21st September 1377). 12 CDM XI, 73–74, no. 84 (4th July 1377). 13 Jobst’s agreement with the transaction is preserved in NA, Archiv České koruny, no. 1215 (10th July 1378). 14 CDM XI, 73–74, no. 84 (4th July 1377). It was probably this document which led Štěpán, Moravský markrabě Jošt, 128 to the conclusion that John Sobieslaw entered upon an ecclesiastical career in the second half of 1377. 15 APH, AMK, sign. 390-XII/31, XV/32: “… Sdenco miles de Krzyzenicz marssalcus illustris principis march[i]onis Morawie Sobesslai …” Cf. Archiv pražské metropolitní kapituly, vol. 1, 129–130, no. 460; RBMV I/1, ed. Věra Jenšovská (Prague: Academia, 1967), 46, no. 134 (1st [?] May 1379). I have not been able to find more information about this figure in the sources. 16 CDM XI, 169, no. 187: “… fratri sui Sobie.[slaus] et Procopius vel alii inhabitatores prin- cipatus Moravie …” The document is undated; terminus post quem is 10th May 1380. According to Mezník, Lucemburská Morava, 221–222, it is possible to date the charter to the summer of 1380. 17 Chronicon Benesii de Weitmil, FRB IV, 491: “Interim eciam [John Henry] ex quadam libera genuit filium, postea prepositum Wissegradensem factum, cui nomen Iohannes …” 18 The fact that John was provost of Vyšehrad between 1368 and 1380 has already been demonstrated convincingly by Veldtrup, “Johann Propst von Vyšehrad,” 71–73.

Ondřej Schmidt - 9789004407893 Downloaded from Brill.com09/27/2021 03:47:15AM via free access 216 Excursus 1

John played a certain role.19 A fairly extensive collection of documents has been preserved in connection with the case, which was brought before the papal court, and by analysing them we are able to shed new light on the “rela- tionship” between the two Johns.20 From the whole corpus of extant documents there is one in particular which is important for us at this point. This is the final verdict of the papal auditor Bertrando, Bishop of Gubbio, from 5th December 1393, which incorporates earlier documents relating to the dispute.21 The verdict has been preserved in a document which also contains a provision by the same auditor from 16th December 1394 concerning the amount of the costs that the provost of Vyšehrad was sentenced to pay, and it is certified by the mark and signature of the public notary and also by Bertrando’s seal. The older supplication from the period prior to 1380 inserted into the verdict recapitulates in detail the course of the initial phase of the trial and speaks of the then provost of Vyšehrad, John, who assumed his office in 1369.22 Another part of the verdict then men- tions the same Provost John who later became bishop of Litomyšl and eventually (at the time the verdict was written, i.e. 1393) patriarch of Aquileia.23 Here it is perfectly clear that this is a reference to John “the Bastard”; after all, John Sobieslaw was still margrave of Moravia in 1380.24 The fact that John

19 For the dispute, see Braniš, Svatá koruna, 16–19; Kadlec, Dějiny kláštera, 29–32; Praxl, “Das Wyschehrader Landgut,” 228–229; Charvátová, Dějiny cisterckého řádu, vol. 2, 90–92; Štěpán, Moravský markrabě Jošt, 128. Historical research puts the beginning of the dispute in the year 1379/1380 and assumes that the Cistercians of Zlatá Koruna did not dare to speak up against the occupation by Dietrich of Kugelweit during the lifetime of Charles IV, who was supposed to have given his protection to these usurpations. Nevertheless, a charter from 1377, preserved in the papal registers, clearly demonstrates that the beginning of the dispute is to be put in the last years of the emperor’s life. See MVB IV, 667–668, no. 1172 (20th March 1377). This was already pointed out by Veldtrup, “Johann Propst von Vyšehrad,” 77. 20 Documents regarding the dispute are edited in UB Goldenkron, passim. The most de- tailed account of the process is that by Kadlec, Dějiny kláštera, 29–32. 21 NA, ŘC Zlatá Koruna, no. 1019, edited in UB Goldenkron, 221–242, no. 113. 22 UB Goldenkron, 226–227, no. 113: “… dominus Johannes nunc praepositus Wissegradensis in vitium praefatae spoliationis et occupationis scienter succederent ac vitium huius modi spoliationis continuantes et in eodem succedentes, et idem dominus Johannes sciens dictas villas […] ad dictos abbatem et conventum et eorum monasterium tempore suae assecutionis praepositurae praedicto videlicet ab anno domini millesimo trecenti- simo LXIX. et citra …” 23 UB Goldenkron, 231, no. 113: “… dicto Johanni tunc praeposito postea vero episcopo Luthomislensi et successive patriarchae Aquilegiensi …” 24 The editor of UB Goldenkron, Mathias Pangerl, has already interpreted the wording of the charter in the same way; however, he considered this Provost John to be John Sobieslaw. See ibid., 160, no. 88, note 2. Paradoxically, it was with reference to this document—but

Ondřej Schmidt - 9789004407893 Downloaded from Brill.com09/27/2021 03:47:15AM via free access John of Moravia and John Sobieslaw 217 had become provost in the winter of 1368 is not an obstacle, because—as was shown above—he did not actually take up his office until the following year, after his return from Rome. The verdict from 1393 is not, however, the only source which explicitly states that Provost John became bishop of Litomyšl and subsequently patriarch of Aquileia; we can also cite other sources preserved in connection with this case. The former provost John is first mentioned in the Zlatá Koruna collection of documents in the autumn of 1380 as the new bishop of Litomyšl,25 in an undated supplication addressed to the pope which was incorporated into a charter by the papal auditor Peter Gasconis from 16th November 1380. We can find other references in a citation charter by the same papal auditor drawn up on 31st January 1390.26 Here too several earlier documents are inserted: first, an earlier supplication from the procurator of the monastery of Zlatá Koruna, in which John is still called provost of Vyšehrad27 and which thus probably originates from the period prior to 1380, and also a later supplication to the new pope Boniface IX in which John is referred to as the former provost, who had been promoted to the bishopric of Litomyšl by the previous pope.28 This supplication is also incorporated into a later citation charter by the next papal auditor, Bishop Bertrando, from 5th March 1393.29 John finally appears as patriarch of Aquileia in a charter by the same auditor, Bertrando, from 11th July 1393 for “John, patriarch of Aquileia, former provost of Vyšehrad.”30 Among other things, the letter contains another older inserted supplication to Urban VI, which also speaks of a John who was promoted to the see of Litomyšl.31 John is once again described as patriarch and

in contradiction with its text—that Štěpán, Moravský markrabě Jošt, 128 and 148, note 48, stated that John Sobieslaw replaced the bastard John in the office of provost of Vyšehrad in 1377. 25 UB Goldenkron, 160, no. 88: “… idem dominus Johannes praepositus per eiusdem [i.e. Urban VI] sanctam beatitudinem ad ecclesiam Luthomuslensem est promotus et cuidam Wilhelmo [i.e. William of Landštejn] de dicta praepositura est provisum …” 26 UB Goldenkron, 190–195, no. 102. 27 UB Goldenkron, 191, no. 102: “… venerabilem virum dominum Johannem praepositum ecclesiae sancti Petri Wissegradensis prope Pragam …” 28 UB Goldenkron, 191, no. 102: “… idem dominus Johannes tunc praepositus per felicis re- cordationis dominum Urbanum papam sextum […] ad ecclesiam Luthomislensem fuerit promotus et cuidam Wilhelmo de dicta praepositura extitit provisum …” 29 UB Goldenkron, 208, no. 110. 30 UB Goldenkron, 215, no. 112: “… domino domino Johanni miseratione divina patriarchae Aquilegensi olim praeposito ecclesiae Wissegradensis prope Pragam …” 31 UB Goldenkron, 216, no. 112: “… praefatus dominus Johannes per sanctitatem vestram ad ecclesiam Luthomislensem extitit promotus …”

Ondřej Schmidt - 9789004407893 Downloaded from Brill.com09/27/2021 03:47:15AM via free access 218 Excursus 1 former provost of Vyšehrad in a papal bull from 15th May 1394.32 The document also contains a brief summary of the foregoing dispute, and even that speaks of a John who was elevated from the provostry to become bishop of Litomyšl.33 Another papal bull, issued after John’s death on 17th December 1394, again in- forms us of the stages in John’s ecclesiastical career: once again, it refers to Patriarch John (already “of good memory”), formerly provost of Vyšehrad, who was later promoted to the see of Litomyšl in the course of the dispute.34 John appears for the last time in connection with the dispute in a papal bull from Boniface IX from 10 January 1395, which repeats the above information in different words.35 On the basis of this analysis, we can thus formulate the following thesis with very little hesitation: John “the Bastard,” as an illegitimate son destined for a career in the church, became provost of Vyšehrad in 1368/1369, bishop of Litomyšl in 1380 and eventually patriarch of Aquileia. In contrast to that, we do not have any direct or indirect evidence that John Sobieslaw embarked upon an ecclesiastical career. The sources always speak only of Bishop or Patriarch John, of the son of John Henry, or of the brother of Jobst and Prokop, which can apply to both Johns.36 In addition, as Dieter Veldtrup has already

32 UB Goldenkron, 250, no. 115: “… venerabilem fratrem nostrum Johannem patriarcham Aquilegiensem tunc clericum secularem et praepositum ecclesiae sancti Petri Wissegradensis prope Pragam …” 33 UB Goldenkron, 251, no. 115: “… et deinde dictus praedecessor [i.e. Urban VI] de persona dicti patriarchae tunc praepositi ecclesiae Luthomislensi tunc vacanti providit, praefi- ciendo eum praedictae ecclesiae Luthomyslensi in episcopum et pastorem …” 34 UB Goldenkron, 266, no. 118: “… bonae memoriae Johannes patriarcha Aquilegensis tunc etiam clericus secularis existens et se praepositum dictae ecclesiae praetendens eidem Theoderico [i.e. Dietrich of Kugelweit] in vitium successisset […] per praedictum prae- decessorem [i.e. Urban VI] ecclesiae Aquilegensis tunc pastore carenti de persona dicti Johannis patriarchae tunc Luthomislensis episcopi auctoritate apostolica proviso, et per dictum Johannem patriarcham eadem praepositura dimissa …” 35 UB Goldenkron, 279, no. 120: “… bonae memoriae Johannes patriarcha Aquilegensis tunc praepositus dictae ecclesiae primo …” 36 Here, a comparison with the royal bastards John Volek and Nicholas of Luxembourg suggests itself. In fact, in relation to their half-siblings—in the first case to Queen Elisabeth and in the second to Charles IV—they were both referred to as frater or germanus. See e.g. Chronicon Aulae Regiae, FRB IV, 261: “… Johannes, Wencezlai regis sexti filius licet illegitti- mus, regine ex patre germanus …” Chronicon Benesii de Weitmil, FRB IV, 523: “… Nicolaus, patriarcha Aquilegensis, filius quondam Iohannis regis Boemie a latere, fraterque domini imperatoris …” Dokumente zur Geschichte des Deutschen Reiches und seiner Verfassung 1350–1353, ed. Margarete Kühn, MGH Const 10 (Weimar: Harrassowitz, 1979–1991), 420–421, no. 566: “… Nicolaus patriarcha Aquilegen[sis], princeps et frater noster carissimus …” (1st August 1353). Therefore, it is not an obstacle if John “the Bastard” is referred to as Jobst’s and Prokop’s brother.

Ondřej Schmidt - 9789004407893 Downloaded from Brill.com09/27/2021 03:47:15AM via free access John of Moravia and John Sobieslaw 219

demonstrated, in the vast majority of cases, John Sobieslaw was consistently referred to in the sources as “Margrave John, called Sobieslaw,” or else only as “Margrave Sobieslaw.” From the whole collection of ca. 50 references to John Sobieslaw up to 1380, only six or, more precisely, seven of them refer to him only as “John.”37 Furthermore, we even have a record of him from as late as 1377 which clearly demonstrates that he never considered entering the priesthood, since he was counting on having heirs in the future.38 At the end of the same year, he was also included in the last testament of his uncle Charles IV as a po- tential heir to the throne of Bohemia in the event of the death of his cousins— Wenceslas IV, Sigismund and John of Görlitz—and older brother Jobst with their legitimate sons.39 Another piece of evidence is an entry in one of the Aquileian chronicles, which goes up to the early fifteenth century, describing in detail the circum- stances of John’s election as patriarch. Whereas other chronicles from the Italian setting either devote very little attention to John’s family background, making do with the epithet “of Moravia,”40 or describe him erroneously as “margrave of Moravia,”41 here we can explicitly read that Patriarch John was born out of wedlock.42 This reference was later picked up on by some of the

37 RBM VII/5, ed. Milena Linhartová and Bedřich Mendl (Prague: ČSAV, 1963), 870, no. 1437 (20th June 1363); CDM X, 137–142, no. 118 (26th March 1371); 146–147 and 148–155, nos. 121 and 123 (12th May 1371; Latin and German confirmation of the previous charter); 143–145, no. 119 (18th April 1371); 235–236, no. 219 (19th March 1374); L[udwig] Schlesinger, “Eine Erbtheilungs- und Erbfolgeordnungsurkunde Kaiser Karls IV.,” Mittheilungen des Vereines für Geschichte der Deutschen in Böhmen 31 (1892/1893), 9 (21st December 1376); Fritz Quicke, “Un testament inédit de l’Empereur Charles IV (18 Octobre 1377),” Revue belge de philologie et d’historie 6 (1927), 274 (18th October 1377). See Veldtrup, “Johann Propst von Vyšehrad,” 72–73 and notes 134–137. 38 CDM XI, 60–61, no. 69: “… wir und unsre erben, die wir gewynnen werden […] fur uns und unsere erben …” (17th February 1377). This passage was—with a different intention— pointed out by Mezník, Lucemburská Morava, 216–217. 39 Quicke, “Un testament inédit,” 274 (18th October 1377). For Charles IV’s testaments, see Kavka, Vláda Karla IV., vol. 2, 201–203, 210; Bobková, Velké dějiny, vol. 4/a, 432–435. 40 Additamenta nunc primum edita, RIS XVI, col. 84: “Joannes de Moravia patriarcha electus …” 41 Historia Belli Forojuliensis, AIM III, col. 1215: “… reverendissimus in Christo pater et dominus dominus Joannes marchio Moraviae electus fuit et provocatus in patriarcam sanctae Aquilejensis ecclesiae.” The most probable explanation is that the chronicler automati- cally connected the margravial title of John’s father, John Henry, with the son. This would also correspond to the better position of bastard children in Italy. Furthermore, he might have been influenced by John of Moravia referring to himself on several occasions as Moravian margrave. 42 Nonnullorum Patriarcharum Vitae, MEA, appendix, no. V, 16: “… elegit eis unum, Johannem de Moravia, fratrem marchionis, et fratrem regis Bohemiae; non tamen legitimum, sed

Ondřej Schmidt - 9789004407893 Downloaded from Brill.com09/27/2021 03:47:15AM via free access 220 Excursus 1

Italian Baroque historiography which considered John to be a bastard.43 It is true that John had a very negative reputation in the patriarchate, so within this context we have to concede the possibility that the chronicler mentioned John’s illegitimate origin simply because he felt an aversion towards the foreign “German prelate”; even so, this remark cannot be ignored. Moreover, in this particular chronicle, Patriarch John appears in a somewhat more favourable light than in other Friulian narrative sources.44 The proposed identification of the illegitimate John with the patriarch of the same name is also supported by the very epithet “of Moravia.” In the notarial instrument and then the papal confirmation from 1368, the bastard John as the new provost of Vyšehrad is described as “Johannes de Moravia,”45 which, according to Dieter Veldtrup, “is a direct reference to his illegitimate origin.”46 Although as Aquileian patriarch John used only the name “John” in the intitulationes of his charters, he was publicly known by the designation “John of Moravia,” as is confirmed by many contemporary and later sources.47 Once again, the identification of the Vyšehrad provost John of Moravia with the Aquileian patriarch John of Moravia is quite clear.

spurium.” Cf. UPenn, ms. 934, Vitae episcoporum et patriarcharum, fol. 36v. Nevertheless, the chronicle incorrectly stated that the patriarch was the brother of the Bohemian king when he was only his cousin. 43 Valvasone di Maniago, Successi della Patria, 40; De Rubeis, Monumenta Ecclesiae Aquilejensis, col. 978. 44 See the chapter “John of Moravia in the Written Tradition” in this book. 45 MVB III, 687–689, no. 1073. For the charter, see above on p. 44. 46 Veldtrup, “Johann Propst von Vyšehrad,” 73: “Daβ in ihr [i.e. in the cited charter] der Propst Johannes de Moravia genannt wird, ist zudem geradezu ein Hinweis auf dessen uneheliche Abkunft; auch sein illegitimer Onkel Nikolaus, später Patriarch von Aquileja, wurde in den offiziellen Verlautbarungen seiner Zeit immer als Nikolaus de Luxemburg angesprochen.” An early modern parallel to this phenomenon was the practice of confer- ring the title de Austria on illegitimate sons within the Habsburg dynasty. See Sterneck, “K postavení levobočků,” 699. 47 See Capitula contra patriarcham Johannem; BCG, ACG, Quaderni delle Deliberazioni, reg. 20, fol. 29r: “… patriarcha Johannes de Moravia …” MAN, AC, Fondo diplomatico, vol. 15, no. 91: “… Johannem de Moravia …” BCC, ACC, Archivio storico del Comune di Cividale del Friuli, Sezione antica, Camerari, b. 1139, fol. 22r: “… Johannis de Moravia …” “Il libro degli anniversari del capitolo,” 458–459: “… Iohannes de Moravia patriarcha Aquilegensis …” “Il libro degli anniversari di San Domenico,” 704: “… Iohannes de Morawya magnificus ecclesie Aquilegiensis …” (similarly also the second redaction of the necrology); Cronaca Carrarese di Galeazzo e Bartolomeo Gatari, RIS n.s. XVII/1a, 398: “… misser Zuane de Moravia, patriarcha d’Aquilea …” Nonnullorum Patriarcharum Vitae, MEA, appendix, no. V, 16: “… Johannes de Moravia, patriarcha Aquilegensis …” Additamenta nunc primum edita, RIS XVI, col. 84: “… Joannes de Moravia, patriarcha …”

Ondřej Schmidt - 9789004407893 Downloaded from Brill.com09/27/2021 03:47:15AM via free access John of Moravia and John Sobieslaw 221

Furthermore, it is worth mentioning one other type of source which may help to identify the two Johns: necrologies. Margrave John Sobieslaw appears in two Olomouc necrologies in a manuscript from 1522, which drew upon an older template from the years 1380–1411. Unfortunately, these necrologies do not give the date of death, only the day on which requiem masses were cel- ebrated for the soul of the deceased. It is also quite surprising that although the necrologies are contained within the same manuscript, each of them gives a different date (23rd and 24th September).48 On the basis of this, we can perhaps assume that John Sobieslaw died sometime in the autumn. More important, however, is the fact that the necrology only gives the description “Moravian margrave,” without any kind of spiritual title. This once again con- firms that John Sobieslaw never embarked upon an ecclesiastical career. Rather more problematic information is given by Thomas Pešina of Čecho rod († 1680). In his work Phosphorus Septicornis he compiled a digest of a now lost necrology created in the first quarter of the fifteenth century within the Prague chapter. For 30th October he then gives the anniversary of “Joan. Sobieslavvek Patriarchae Aquil. fratris Jodoci March. Morav.”49 This piece of information appears problematic for a number of reasons. For one thing, he gives the wrong date for Patriarch John’s death (actually 13th October), but more importantly he describes him using the nickname “Sobieslawek,” although in the medieval sources the margrave was always written as “Sobieslaw.” It is therefore quite possible that the Prague canons in the fifteenth century were praying for the soul of Patriarch John, but this nickname “Sobieslawek” seems

48 Zemský archiv Opava—pobočka Olomouc, Metropolitní kapitula Olomouc, sign. E II 12, fol. 29r: “Eodem die [i.e. 24th September] habetur memoria Sobeslai marchionis Moravie …” Ibid., fol. 110r: “Eodem die [i.e. 23rd September] agitur memoria pro domino Sobieslao marchione …” For this so-called third Olomouc necrology, see the preface by Beda Dudík in “Über Nekrologe der Olmützer Domkirche,” ed. Beda Dudík, AfÖG 65 (1884), 511–513. I am grateful to Dr. Petr Elbel for pointing this source out to me. 49 Pešina z Čechorodu, Phosphorus Septicornis, 702. For the lost Prague necrology, see Dieter Veldtrup, “Ein ‘luxemburgisches’ Anniversarbuch? Auszüge aus einer vergessenen Memorialüberlieferung des Prager Veits-Domes,” in Manipulus Florum. Aus Mittelalter, Landesgeschichte, Literatur und Historiographie. Festschrift für Peter Johanek zum 60. Geburtstag, ed. Maria-Theresia Leuker, Mark Mersiowsky and Ellen Widder (Münster et al.: Waxmann, 2000), 99–150; the entry was reprinted and commented on ibid., 132–133, no. 155. Cf. also Martina Maříková, “Aniversária jako součást liturgického provozu pražské metropolitní kapituly a hmotného zajištění jejích členů v době předhusitské,” in Trzecie polsko-czeskie forum młodych mediewistów. Commemoratio praeteritorum—społeczności średniowieczne wobec przeszłości, ed. Hanna Krzyżostaniak, Jakub Kujawiński and Marzena Matla (Poznań: Instytut Historii UAM, 2012), 151–163; Maříková, Finance, 74–83. There are no further references to John of Moravia in other necrological sources from the Prague chapter. See ibid., appendix, table no. 24, 712.

Ondřej Schmidt - 9789004407893 Downloaded from Brill.com09/27/2021 03:47:15AM via free access 222 Excursus 1 to have been added by Pešina himself, who was behind the confusion of these two Johns, as will become clear. In fact, as demonstrated by Dieter Veldtrup, Pešina also added a similar “explanatory” comments of his own to the original text at other points in his digest.50 Of course, we might equally consider the opposite case: that it was indeed John Sobieslaw who was mentioned in the original necrology, which Pešina cor- rupted into “Sobieslawek,” adding only the putative patriarchal title. This possibility appears more likely for two reasons. First and foremost, this fact would fit in with the structure of the Prague necrology, where the whole Moravian Luxembourg secundogeniture was essentially recorded in its entirety.51 As the legitimate son of John Henry, it would thus have been perfectly logical for John Sobieslaw—unlike his illegitimate brother—to have a place there. The second indirect piece of evidence might be an unidentified record from the Carthusian monastery in Královo Pole (now part of Brno), where, according to an inde- pendent Baroque tradition, the commemoration “Sobicolai Secundogeniti” was preserved on 30th October, i.e. the same as in the Prague chapter.52 The importance of this tradition should not be underrated, since John Sobieslaw was regarded as the co-founder of this spiritual institution, who also affixed his seal to its foundation charter in 1375.53 Equally, it is also necessary to concede the possibility that Pešina took the necrological or other records of the Královo Pole charterhouse as his starting point and added the relevant date of 30th October to his digest from the Prague necrology.54 However, this would appear to be less likely. So if we were to attempt to clarify the life of John Sobieslaw within the framework of the probable, for the reasons outlined above we might regard the date of his death as 30th October 1380. The following year, the first war between

50 See Veldtrup, “Ein ‘luxemburgisches’ Anniversarbuch?,” 105–106. 51 See Veldtrup, “Ein ‘luxemburgisches’ Anniversarbuch?,” 104; Maříková, Finance, 78. 52 Carlo Giuseppe Morozzo, Theatrum chronologicum sacri Cartusiensis Ordinis lectori ex- hibens. Ordinis eiusdem primordia, et consuetudines, priores magnae Cartusiae, Ord. Gen. cardinalium purpuras, episcoporum infulas, scriptorum athenaeum, piorum fastos, singu- larum denique per orbem Cartusiarum erectiones, Ordinis antiquitate digestas (Turin: Io. Sinibaldus, 1681), 270: “… vt adnotantur in monumentis eiusdem Cartusiae.” This source was also brought to attention by Veldtrup, “Ein ‘luxemburgisches’ Anniversarbuch?,” 133, no. 155. 53 The foundation charter with the well-preserved seals of John Henry, Jobst, John Sobieslaw and Prokop is kept in MZA, E 6—Benediktini Rajhrad, sign. D g 1, no. 408, edited in CDM X, 268–271, no. 258 (13th August 1375). See further Jan, “Rodové fundace,” 132–133. 54 As pointed out by Mezník, Lucemburská Morava, 285, the fact that Pešina did indeed make use of some manuscript from the Královo Pole charterhouse is evident from his work Mars Moravicus, 447.

Ondřej Schmidt - 9789004407893 Downloaded from Brill.com09/27/2021 03:47:15AM via free access John of Moravia and John Sobieslaw 223

Jobst and Prokop broke out, very likely caused by a dispute over acquiring the property of John Sobieslaw. For that matter, there is agreement on that point in research to date, which assumes that John Sobieslaw gave up his estates in connection with his accession to the episcopal see of Litomyšl.55 In view of the poor condition of the source base for this period, we know very little of the first margravial war, which might also explain the lack of any contemporary reports of the death of John Sobieslaw: no Moravian chronicle from this period is avail- able to us; the later catalogue of the Olomouc bishops56 and second Olomouc necrology57 only take note of events linked with the Olomouc bishopric; and charters from the years 1380–1381 are also in short supply. Indeed, there are also many ambiguities surrounding the death of Margrave Prokop, who left a much greater mark on the historical memory of Moravia than John Sobieslaw. The date of his death (24th September 1405) is first given by Pešina’s work Mars Moravicus58 and contemporary sources make no mention of where he was laid to rest. His tomb in the church of the Holy Trinity at the Carthusian monastery in Královo Pole was only discovered by chance in 1975, and its attribution to Prokop is only hypothetical. According to much later reports, which are riddled with contradictions, Prokop was interred either with the Brno Augustinians (i.e. as John Henry and later Jobst were), or in the church of the Královo Pole charterhouse.59 We could go even further: what if it was not actually the tomb of Prokop which was uncovered, but that of John Sobieslaw? The only thing that might contradict this possibility would be an anthropological analysis of the skeletal remains, which showed that they belonged to the body of a man aged roughly fifty years old,60 which would rule out John Sobieslaw. Given that our knowledge of the death and burial of

55 See Nejedlý, Dějiny města Litomyšle, vol. 1, 175; Dvořák, Dějiny Markrabství moravského, 129; Mezník, Lucemburská Morava, 223–224; Elbel, “Jan Soběslav,” 711, 713. It is also implied by Štěpán, Moravský markrabě Jošt, 156, 170. 56 “Granum catalogi praesulum Moraviae,” AfÖG 78 (1892), 41–97. 57 “Über Nekrologe der Olmützer Domkirche,” AfÖG 65 (1884), 487–589. 58 Mezník, Lucemburská Morava, 284 and 474, note 315; cf. Pešina z Čechorodu, Mars Moravicus, 447. 59 Dana Cejnková, Karel Maráz and Irena Loskotová, “Výzkum hrobek moravských Lucem burků Jošta a Prokopa v Brně,” in Pocta Janu Janákovi. Předsedovi Matice moravské, pro- fesoru Masarykovy univerzity věnují k sedmdesátinám jeho přátelé a žáci, ed. Bronislav Chocholáč and Jiří Malíř (Brno: Matice moravská, 2002), 565–581; cf. also Dana Cejnková, “Die Erforschung der Grüfte der mährischen Luxemburger Jost und Prokop in Brünn,” in La Maison de Luxembourg en Moravie / Die Luxemburger in Mähren (1350–1411) (Luxembourg: Ministère de la culture, de l’enseignement supérieur et de la recherche, 2001), 65–66. 60 See Cejnková, Maráz and Loskotová, “Výzkum hrobek,” 578; Cejnková, “Die Erforschung der Grüfte,” 70.

Ondřej Schmidt - 9789004407893 Downloaded from Brill.com09/27/2021 03:47:15AM via free access 224 Excursus 1

Margrave Prokop rests on such fragile foundations, the lack of reports of the death of John Sobieslaw is not particularly surprising. Jaroslav Mezník explains the first war between the Moravian Luxembourgs from the early 1380s with reference to the fact that, according to the last testament of John Henry from 1371, in the event of John Sobieslaw’s death his estates were to go to the younger Prokop,61 but since John Sobieslaw (according to Mezník) had not died but had only given up his inheritance in connection with his accession to the Litomyšl bishopric, it was Jobst who laid claim to his property.62 If, however, we accept the thesis of the death of John Sobieslaw, this puts the facts in an entirely different light. Above all, it is clear that Prokop had an unambiguous legal right to the estates of John Sobieslaw; however, Jobst— with his rapacious and ambitious nature—had no intention of putting up with this. The outcome of the war also corresponds to this hypothesis, because in the end it was Prokop who acquired most of the estates of John Sobieslaw.63 Finally, it is also necessary to draw attention to one recent “archaeological” discovery which seems to refute the whole of our previous construction. In 2009, a reliquary case with two seals was found in the altar of the church of St. Martin in Žirovnica, Slovenia. Matjaž Ambrožič concluded that the first of them belonged to Gotepold, bishop of Pedena in the 1130s, while the owner of the second was supposedly the patriarch of Aquileia John “Sobieslav.” The author reads—or rather interprets—the legend of the seal as follows: “Aq[vi] lie[n]se + [e]piscop[vs] Ioann[es] [S]obie[s]l[av].”64 Right at the outset it should be said that there is significant damage to the legend, making an unequivocal reading of it difficult.65 In my opinion, the interpretation proposed by the author is impossible for a number of reasons. For one thing, it is unimaginable that the patriarch of Aquileia would have described himself as episcopus in the fourteenth century. Since the sixth century, all of the prelates who occupied the see of St. Hermagoras called themselves by the Latin term patriarcha. The text of the legend arouses further doubts from the grammatical and graphical point of view: the adjective “Aqviliense” is neuter in gender, which does not correspond with the word “episcopvs”;

61 CDM X, 141, no. 118. For John Henry’s testaments, see Mezník, Lucemburská Morava, 199– 201; Štěpán, Moravský markrabě Jošt, 30. 62 Mezník, Lucemburská Morava, 223–224. 63 Margrave Prokop was seen as the clear winner of the first margravial war by both Mezník, Lucemburská Morava, 224, and Štěpán, Moravský markrabě Jošt, 178. 64 Matjaž Ambrožič, “O cerkvenih pečatih z ozirom na relikvijska pečata v p. c. sv. Martina v Žirovnici,” Arhivi. Glasilo Arhivskega društva in arhivov Slovenije 34, no. 2 (2011), esp. 239– 240; a German summary ibid., 241–242. 65 See the reproduction of the seal in Ambrožič, “O cerkvenih pečatih,” 240.

Ondřej Schmidt - 9789004407893 Downloaded from Brill.com09/27/2021 03:47:15AM via free access John of Moravia and John Sobieslaw 225 similarly, the form of the word “Sobieslav” appears extremely unlikely. Finally, there is one more argument which contradicts Ambrožič’s interpretation: as the author correctly states, the seals which were found were undoubtedly intended to certify the authenticity of the relics. This would imply that the owner of the seal must have been present during the closing of the reliquary case and subsequent consecration of the altar. However, Žirovnica is situated in north-western Slovenia, quite far from Friuli, and, according to John’s itinerary, there is no record of any stay by him in that region. On the contrary, it clearly shows that between 1388 and 1394 the patriarch resided exclusively in the ter- ritory of Friuli, with the only exception being his journey to Bohemia in 1391.66 In addition—and this is worth emphasizing—there is no other record of this seal having been used by Patriarch John. John of Moravia seems to have made use of two seals in the office of patriarch, both of which had a depiction of the eagle of Aquileia.67 On the basis of all this, I would argue that the seal did not belong to Patriarch John of Moravia at all, and that, if it did, then its legend could certainly not have read as Matjaž Ambrožič suggests.68 Thus, in view of the counterarguments put forward, not even the seal discovered in Žirovnica can serve as proof for identifying Margrave John Sobieslaw with the Aquileian patriarch John.

66 See Excursus 3 in this book. 67 John’s Aquileian seals are preserved e.g. in MNL, OL DL 42398 (10th August 1388); KLA, Allgemeine Urkundenreihe, sign. A 560 (21st November 1391); HHStA, St. Paul, Benediktiner, sub dato (5th June 1392); ARS, Zbirka listin, sign. 1063/5342 (8th December 1388); sign. SI AS 1063/285 (29th January 1392); sign. SI AS 1063/4382 (28th December 1393); sign. SI AS 1063/4383 (28th December 1393). There is a number of John’s letters containing an impression of his seal in BCG, ACG, Lettere autografe, vol. 347. A letter from John, dated 24th July 1388, with his secret seal on the dorsum can also be found ibid., no. 122; however, it is under a paper cover, so it is not possible to distinguish the seal clearly. The same goes for the (probably identical) secret seal owned by John and attached to his letter in BCC, ACC, Antica cancelleria del comune—fondo Lorenzo D’Orlandi, b. 24, no. 34 (4th February [1388]). Since both documents were issued in Moravia, one can assume that in both cases the secret seal from the period of John’s Litomyšl episcopate was used; such a seal was described and documented between 1380 and 1388 by Pakosta, Typologie pečetí, 36–37 (description), 39 (reproduction). Nevertheless, this secret seal can by no means be identified with the one found in Žirovnica, as their proportions differ significantly: according to Pakosta, John’s secret seal has a diameter of 25 mm while the “Žirovnica seal” measures 43 mm. See Ambrožič, “O cerkvenih pečatih,” 239. 68 It cannot be identified with any of the seals of the Aquileian patriarchs collected by Costanza Pecoraro, “Appunti di sfragistica medievale. I sigilli dei patriarchi d’Aquileia conservati nel Museo archeologico cividalese,” Forum Iulii 23 (1999), 97–112. Moreover, they are all (including the secret seals) considerably larger in size than the Žirovnica one. It is more likely that the seal belonged to some auxiliary bishop of the Aquileian patriarch, whose participation in the ordination of the altar could quite logically be assumed.

Ondřej Schmidt - 9789004407893 Downloaded from Brill.com09/27/2021 03:47:15AM via free access 226 Excursus 1

With regard to John’s seals, there is seemingly one more “difficulty.” In this connection, Oldřich Pakosta rightly pointed out that “it is necessary to recon- sider” whether a bastard of the margrave of Moravia really could inherit the coat of arms of his father.69 In fact, we know that the Moravian chequered eagle was present both on John’s Litomyšl seals and on his Aquileian deniers. The symbol of the Luxembourg secundogeniture thus undoubtedly constituted an important means of representation and identification for John of Moravia. For a comparison, we might look to another prominent Luxembourg bastard who was John’s predecessor on the throne of Aquileia, Nicholas of Luxembourg, son of King John of Bohemia. On all the types of deniers he coined as patriarch, there appears a crowned lion, the symbol of the kingdom of Bohemia.70 The coat of arms with the Bohemian lion is also to be found on a palace in Udine (nowadays Via Savorgnana 12), believed to have been painted during the reign of Patriarch Nicholas.71 Therefore, as Nicholas of Luxembourg used the coat of arms of his father regularly, we should probably not be surprised that John of Moravia as the illegitimate son of the margrave of Moravia did likewise. We must therefore conclude, in accordance with previous findings, that there is no source which supports the assertion of the historiography that John Sobieslaw gave up the rank of margrave in 1380 and subsequently embarked upon a religious career, becoming bishop of Litomyšl and later patriarch of Aquileia. Instead, he seems to have died on 30th October 1380 as margrave of Moravia. In contrast, it is evident from the previous argumentation that, when it comes to the promotion of the provost of Vyšehrad, John “the Bastard” (John of Moravia), to the see of Litomyšl and then of Aquileia, the sources scarcely permit any other solution. Explained in this new way, the lives of the two Johns not only cease to be inconsistent with the sources, but also make much more sense.

69 Pakosta, Typologie pečetí, 35, note 42. 70 See Italian Coins, vol. 1/1, 97, nos. 250–252; Gambacorta and Zaoral, “Akvilejské mince,” 109–110. For that matter, the coat of arms of the kingdom of Bohemia also appears on the seal of John Volek, illegitimate son of King Wenceslas II and bishop of Olomouc. However, in this case it was clearly not intended as his personal symbol, having a rather different function. See Hlobil, “Přemyslovec Jan Volek,” 480–481. For comparison, Hurwich, “Bastards in the German Nobility,” 709, 710, 712 and 724, note 106 also records several bastards of the Swabian counts of Zimmern and Montfort who were allowed or granted the right to bear the coat of arms of their fathers. However, this was by no means the case with all bastards. Apparently, there was no strict regulation in this regard; by custom, all that seems to have been required was permission from the bastard’s father/family. 71 See Tomáš Krejčík, “Český lev v Udine,” Genealogické a heraldické informace 17 (2012), 135–137.

Ondřej Schmidt - 9789004407893 Downloaded from Brill.com09/27/2021 03:47:15AM via free access John of Moravia and John Sobieslaw 227

There is one last question which remains to be answered: how did the mis- take of confusing these two brothers with the same name find its way onto the pages of modern historiography? The only contemporary author from the Bohemian milieu to refer to John of Moravia in his chronicle was Beneš Krabice of Weitmile, who merely stated briefly that he became provost of Vyšehrad.72 However, Beneš Krabice’s work only went up to 1374 and he died the following year,73 which means that logically he could not have known the next stages of John’s ecclesiastical career. Nevertheless, his chronicle was to take on consid- erable importance for the later historiographical tradition. In his Chronicle of Bohemia, the renowned fabricator Wenceslas Hájek of Libočany († 1553) only copied the information from Beneš’s chronicle about the birth of the illegitimate son John in 1341. In another part of his work, he then briefly stated for the year 1375 that after the death of John Henry, Moravia was divided up between Jobst and Prokop.74 Surprisingly, there is no mention of John Sobieslaw here. These details were eventually copied from Hájek by the Olomouc bishop John Dubravius († 1553), who incorporated them into his own work.75 The scholarly Jesuit historian Bohuslav Balbín († 1688) likewise founded his own interpretation, or rather the few notes he made about the Moravian Luxembourgs, on the account by Beneš Krabice of Weitmile. He too states that John Henry fathered an illegitimate son called John, later provost of Vyšehrad, but, unlike Hájek, he also knows of all three other sons including John Sobieslaw. However, he does not expand upon this information in any way.76 In addition, there was also a parallel Olomouc tradition, based on the catalogue of the Olomouc bishops, which features John as the brother of Jobst

72 Chronicon Benesii de Weitmil, FRB IV, 491: “Interim eciam [John Henry] ex quadam libera genuit filium, postea prepositum Wissegradensem factum, cui nomen Iohannes …” 73 See Nechutová, Die lateinische Literatur, 163–164. 74 Václav Hájek z Libočan, Kronika česká, ed. Jan Linka (Prague: Academia, 2013), 727, 816. 75 [Jan Dubravius], Historiae Regni Boiemiae, de rebvs memoria dignis, in illa gestis, ab initio Boiemorum, qui ex Illyria venientes, eandem Boiemiam, in medio propemodum superioris Germaniae sitam, occupauerunt. Libri XXXIII, ex fide tandem narrationeque historica scripti, absolutique, et in lucem iamprimum aediti, sat videlicet citô, si sat bene (Prostějov: Io. Guntherus, 1552), fol. 141v. 76 Bohuslav Balbín, Epitome Historica Rerum Bohemicarum. Quam Ob Venerationem Chris tianae Antiqvitatis, Et Primae In Bohemia Collegialis Ecclesiae Honorem, Boleslaviensem Historiam Placuit Appellare. In ea, pleraque in historiis nostris incerta, controversa, obscura; multa item ab aliis praeterita, summa fide, diligentia, claritate, et brevitate quinque libris explicantur et statuuntur. Adjecti sunt libri duo, VI. et VII., de antiquissimo Boleslaviensis ecclecia collegio; deque origine et miraculis magnae Dei Matris, quæ ibidem in basilica sua summa Populi veneratione colitur (Prague: Typis Universitatis Carolo-Ferdinandeae, 1677), 383.

Ondřej Schmidt - 9789004407893 Downloaded from Brill.com09/27/2021 03:47:15AM via free access 228 Excursus 1 and Prokop, who attempted to secure the episcopal see of Olomouc with their support.77 This information was subsequently copied by the humanist Augustine of Olomouc († 1513)78 and from there, with almost identical wording, it made it into the work of Bartholomew Paprocký of Hloholy († 1614).79 It is this tradition that also gave rise to the inscription under the portrait of John which Charles of Liechtenstein-Castelcorn, Bishop of Olomouc, commissioned around the year 1667 as part of a portrait gallery depicting his predecessors.80 Thus far, however, it had not occurred to anyone directly to associate the un- successful pretender to the Olomouc bishopric by the name of John with John of Moravia or John Sobieslaw. It would appear to be “thanks” to the Prague dean Thomas Pešina of Čecho rod that the erroneous interpretation concerning the two Johns found its way into modern works of history; he seems to have been the first to state explicitly, under the influence of the Series by Augustine of Olomouc, that the Moravian margrave John Sobieslaw pursued an ecclesiastical career, becoming bishop of Litomyšl and eventually patriarch of Aquileia, and at the same time to identify him incorrectly as the youngest son of John Henry (the youngest was, in fact, Prokop).81 As it turned out, these few words of his were to have a very long life …

77 “Granum catalogi praesulum Moraviae,” AfÖG 78 (1892), 91. 78 Augustini Olomucensis episcoporum Olomucensium series, 125. 79 Bartoloměj Paprocký z Hlohol, Zrdcadlo Slawného Margkrabstvii Morawského, w kterémž geden každý Staw, dáwnost, wzáctnost, y powinnost swau vhléda (Olomouc: Haeredes Milichtalleri, 1593), fol. 577r. 80 For the portrait gallery of the bishops of Olomouc, see Radmila Pavlíčková, “Olomouc a Brno—dvě biskupské rezidence (K vlivu funkcí šlechtického sídla na ikonografický pro- gram výzdoby interiérů),” SPFFBU—F 46 (2002), 31–44. The inscription was transcribed by Antonín Breitenbacher, “Legendy na obrazích olomouckých biskupů v kroměřížském zámku,” in XII. výroční zpráva arcibiskupského gymnasia v Kroměříži za školní rok 1921–1922 (Kroměříž: Arcibiskupské gymnasium, 1922), 16, no. 29. 81 Pešina z Čechorodu, Mars Moravicus, 48: “… tertio filio Joanne-Sobeslao sacris ordinibus initiato; quem primo Litomyslensem, deinde Olomucensem Episcopum fuisse creatum, postea et ad Aquilegiensis patriarchatus apicem evectum legimus.” The fact that Pešina drew on Augustine of Olomouc’s work is evident i.a. from the word apex, identical in both versions.

Ondřej Schmidt - 9789004407893 Downloaded from Brill.com09/27/2021 03:47:15AM via free access