Did French Architects, Builders, Stonemasons, and Sculptors Operate in the Hungarian Kingdom in the Second Half of the 12Th Century and in the 13Th Century?

Mediaevistik 31 . 2018 115

Michalina Duda Sławomir Jóźwiak Marcin Wiewióra Nicolaus Copernicus University

Did French Architects, Builders, Stonemasons, and Sculptors Operate in the Hungarian Kingdom in the Second Half of the 12th Century and in the 13th Century?

Abstract: Thanks to the wide use of the fruits of interdisciplinary research (history, archaeology, and art history) and a thorough analysis of written and architectural sources, it can be clearly demonstrated that, from at least as early as the end of the 12th century, architects, builders, stonemasons and probably also sculptors from what is now northern and eastern France were operating in the Kingdom of Hungary (though it is not known to what extent). It is impossible not to see a correlation between their activity and the very early appearance of the Gothic style in the territory of what was then Hungary. The architect–builder–designer–sketcher Villard de Honnecourt of Picardy, northern France, and his stay on the shores of the Danube are of particular interest. He was there most probably in the 1220s, but it is unfortunately difficult to say for certain which of the edifices he worked on considering those that were erected at the time in the Kingdom of Hungary. Research into Romanesque and Gothic construction in medieval Latin Europe encom- passes very many diverse, more or less interesting issues which can be considered. For example, one of the most neglected and demanding issues within this broad, interdisciplinary research field seems to be that of bringing in of foreign specialists from far away, such as architects, builders, stonemasons, and sculptors to build and decorate various edifices, including such religious examples as cathedrals, churches, and monasteries. Naturally, art historians have long been aware of transfers of technology and styles in medieval architecture, but in their research they have treated such issues always pe- ripherally to other topic. They have not devoted particular interest to the people behind such transfers. In addition, researchers in this field have unfortunately worked almost exclusively by comparing different, often arbitrarily-chosen or random similarities of style and architecture while disregarding information in the written sources, which is very scarce but still extant.1 Meanwhile, in examining such issues, it is not uncommon that searching only for more or less accurate architectural or stylistic analogues leads to investigative errors, or leads to conclusions which created myths. The great difficulty in the correct interpretation of the information in the preserved written sources is in many cases caused by their lack of accurate chronological references. It is perhaps this very

The online edition of this publication is available open access. Except where otherwise noted, content can be used under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License (CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0). For details go to http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ © 2018 Michalina Duda, Sławomir Jóźwiak, Marcin Wiewióra https://doi.org/10.3726/med.2018.1.07 116 Mediaevistik 31 . 2018 fact that has discouraged art historians and archaeologists from conducting a thorough analysis of such sources. Essentially, however, the combination of all the aforementioned investigative elements allows new, more convincing conclusions to be drawn regarding the long-distance travels of builders and artist–sculptors in the Middle Ages. The territory of the Kingdom of Hungary in the second half of the 12th and in the 13th centuries is in itself a particularly gratifying field for such research, given the existing physical and written sources. In as early as 1876, the French researcher Jules Quicherat, citing the results of excavations conducted in the late 1860s in Kalocsa (a city on the Danube in the Bács- Kiskun county in southern Hungary), paid particular attention to the relics of a second Kalocsa Cathedral erected, according to him, at the beginning of the 13th century (and demolished at the beginning of the 17th century). In this regard he noted that the ex- ceptional extent of architectural detail and building materials (capitals and consoles in the shapes of leaves, flowers, celandine and sorrel; and the use of green, red and white marbles), which would indicate the cathedral’s close similarity religious edifices in France in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries.2 What was of particular importance was a stone found on the site, which was probably part of an originally larger plaque, on which the following inscription was engraved in Gothic capitals: “MARTINVS RAVESV LAPICIDA IACET HIC.”3 In the nomenclature of the time, the noun “lapicida” could mean a stonemason, a brick mason, a sculptor, or even a builder.4 J. Quicherat concluded that the reading of the name on the plaque was slightly erroneous and suggested correcting it to “RAVESY,” which allowed him to claim that it was a reference to the French builder of the second cathedral of Kalocsa – Martin of Ravizy in the Burgundy-Franche-Comté region of the Nièvre department between Bourges and Di- jon.5 No later scholars questioned this proposition from J. Quicherat, while modern studies have shown that the construction of the second cathedral of Kalocsa began after 1202 (and probably somewhat before 1210), and is one of the earliest Gothic-style buildings erected in the Kingdom of Hungary. Martin of Ravizy would therefore have been among its French builders.6 Even assuming that he himself was not an “architect” (bearing in mind all the meanings of the noun “lapicida”), he may have been a master stonemason, brick mason or sculptor working in a wider team brought from France and led by the creator and designer of the cathedral. Analogues of such wandering builders (including common masons and bricklayers) in the second half of the 13th century are well known and well documented in southern Italy under the rule of the Angevins. In their construction works these rulers employed not only architects from France, but also skilled craftsmen (brick masons and stonemasons) of the same provenance.7 There is no doubt that in the first half of the 13th century, the architect–builder–designer–painter and perhaps sculptor, Villard de Honnecourt of Picardy, northern France, was active in the Kingdom of Hungary.8 All our knowledge about him comes from his extraordinarily expressive sketchbook, which is preserved only in part (33 parchment cards, i.e., 66 pages), and in which the author personally drew or copied – and com- mented on – various fragments or architectural details of buildings. He also included drawings of technical and mechanical devices, human and animal figures, as well as geometric shapes (a total of 325 drawings of his have been preserved).9 The very small number of unfortunately enigmatic references in the work clearly indicates that Mediaevistik 31 . 2018 117

Honnecourt traveled quite a lot, and not only across present-day France. Of particular relevance to the present analysis are two entries. On sheet 10v, beneath a drawing of a window, the author wrote: “This is one of the ribs of the windows spanning the nave [of the cathedral] of Reims, as they are between two pillars [of the eaves wall]; I was summoned to the land of Hungary when I sketched them because I liked [doing] it so much.”10 Elsewhere (sheet 15v) under a drawing of stone flooring panels (tiles?) of various patterns Honnecourt wrote: “When I was once [a certain time] in Hungary, where I spent many days, I saw the floor of a church rendered in this way.”11 In turn, on sheet 9v under a drawing and cross-section of one of the western towers of Laon Cathedral, the author stated: “I have been in many countries, as you can see from this book, [but] I have never seen such a tower as this one in Laon.”12 From the two cited key records it appears that Villard was summoned to Hungary by someone (as an architect, builder, expert?), and stayed there for some time. As may be expected, the biggest problems lie in determining the specific year (or years) of Honnecourt’s stay in Hungary and in demonstrating which edifices there he may have worked on. On both issues, the discrepancies between the proposals of scholars to date are very marked, which is principally due to Villard not having used any chronology in his work while having published very sparse information; what is more, nothing is known of him from other sources. By the end of the 19th century, the French scholar, Camille Enlart had already drawn attention to the evidence that Honnecourt must have had close contacts with the Cis- tercians. On sheet 17r of his sketchbook he drew a cross section of the presbytery of the largest Cistercian church in France at the time, at Vaucelles (west Normandy, in the department of Calvados), while on sheet 14v a schematic projection of a “quadrilateral” (“square”) church,13 which was considered in design works on an edifice described only as a Cistercian church (for which this second design was not new, having already been used in France before the middle of the 12th century).14 The fact that the consecration of the Cistercian church at Vaucelles took place in 1235 led C. Enlart to conclude that Hon- necourt had been involved in erecting it, and upon completion of the work in the same year (1235), summoned by the Cistercians, went to Hungary to help in the construction of their church and monasteries there. According to the French researcher, Villard stayed there for a long time, until 1250.15 It is difficult to question Honnecourt’s very proba- ble connection with the Cistercians as indicated by C. Enlart. Things are not so clear, however, when it comes to his propositions on chronology. It is sufficient to note that the drawing of the presbytery in the Cistercian church at Vaucelles appears later in the sketchbook than Villard’s earlier records concerning his stay in Hungary. The German art historian Max Hasak concluded, without precise justification, that Honnecourt appeared in territories of this kingdom on the Danube after the Mongol invasion (around 1244). He could not, however, identify any object there on which the French builder might have worked.16 Meanwhile, another French scholar, Fernand de Mély, took it without submitting any convincing evidence that Villard had travelled to Hungary in around 1250 after an alleged long stay in the Reich (for which there is no evidence).17 Essentially, for a long time, most German researchers were inclined to the idea that Honnecourt appeared in Hungary in around 123518 or 1233.19 Nevertheless, these dates were based more on conjecture than on evidence. 118 Mediaevistik 31 . 2018

Certain new opportunities to determine the chronology of Villard’s journey more precisely are provided by a Swiss clue centered around the cathedral in Lausanne. That is, on sheet 16r of his sketchbook, Honnecourt left a drawing of a rosette, which he furnished with the following comment: “This is the great round stained glass window of the church at Lausanne.”20 On just the previous sheet of Villard’s work (15v) were the drawings of the stone flooring tiles from an undetermined church in Hungary. The connection of these facts have prompted the researchers to claim that Honnecourt travelled to Hungary via Lausanne and that that trip took place at the same time.21 So if one could accurately determine the timeframe for the erection of the part of the Swiss cathedral on which the rosette was mounted (the southern wall of the transept), one could try to set a timeframe for Villard’s journey to Hungary. Modern scholars agree that the entire transept of Lausanne Cathedral, together with its large southern rosette, was completed by around 1215.22 Meanwhile, this proposal contradicts other findings. Researchers long ago drew attention to the glass painting artist (stained glass maker), Peter of Arras, who was mentioned in written sources and spent the years 1217–1234 in Lausanne. Naturally, he was associated with that rosette. At the same time, attempts were made to clarify when exactly it had been made. Francis Salet decided (more or less without justifications) that Peter of Arras drafted it in around 1226.23 Over time, art historians and archaeologists have tried to clarify this issue. François Forel suggested that the artist in question (if he was indeed the work’s author) had worked on the rosette in the years 1226–1234.24 Toward the end of the 20th century there was a tendency to consider this monument to be much older. In 1999 the archaeologist Werner Stöckli, on the basis of his own comparative analysis of architectural detail and individual glass panels, concluded that the rosette in Lausanne had been built in the first decade of the 13th century, and most likely around 1205. Here there is an immediate cause for doubt as to whether the author has not “aged” this date in order to fit into a previously made assumption of an early date for when the transept of the cathedral was built.25 In the same year (1999), the art historian Claudine Lautier, while examining iconography and seeking an analogous item for this monument, proposed the time of its creation as prior to 1220.26 In 2012 Alain Villes cautiously concluded that the rosette in Lausanne had been made in the 1220s.27 While there is justification for the thinking of this last author, there is a discrepancy between the presumed date for the building of the cathedral transept and the southern rosette (circa 1215), and the latter’s execution in the 1220s. Thus, alternatively, art historians and archaeologists suggest that the erection of this part of the cathedral is dated too early, or the stone construction for the rosette was already ready by the second decade of the 13th century, but the completion of the stained glass took much longer – until the 1220s. should be mentioned that from around 1215 (and from 1220 at the latest) the builder of the cathedral in Lausanne was Jean Cotereel, from northern France – Picardy, Flanders or Brabant.28 He may therefore have been a compatriot of Honnecourt’s. All the information mentioned above is important in that the rosette in the cathedral of Lausanne, which has survived to the present day (and no-one questions its 13th-century provenance), is quite different in its details from that which was reproduced in Villard’s sketchbook.29 It would seem, however, from his annotation to the drawing, that the author did not invent its appearance which would be contradictory to the reality. How can Mediaevistik 31 . 2018 119 we explain these discrepancies? Most probably, in his sketchbook Honnecourt produced a drawing of the original rosette (completed in the 1220s), but with time, in some unu- sual circumstances, the rosette underwent modification. Particularly noteworthy is the source of the information about fires in the city and cathedral. The first, in 1219, was not threatening and did not hold up work on the further expansion of the cathedral (it also does not appear to have caused any major damage to it). Of far more dire consequence was to be the fire that happened in 1235. It was followed by a long break in construction.30 In conclusion, these points should lead one to the conclusion that Honnecourt appeared in Lausanne in the 1220s (it is unfortunately difficult to specify this time more precisely)31 and it was then that he drew in his sketchbook the newly made rosette of the cathedral there. Its appearance, however, changed after the fire of 1235.32 So if it is correct to say that Lausanne was a waypoint on Villard’s route to Hungary, then he would have been in Hungary also in the 1220s. Another difficulty which needs to be addressed is an attempt to establish the construction of which edifices in the Hungarian Kingdom Hannecourt was involved in. Based on observations we made here earlier, the Cistercian thread in Villard’s activity should not be overlooked. For some time the attention of scholars has been focused on discoveries made in the southern wing of the transept of the Cistercian abbey church ruins in Pilisszentkereszt (20 km to the northwest of Budapest). Excavational research uncovered quite significant fragments of flooring made of stone panels decorated with various geometric motifs. However, what is particularly interesting is that at least two of the motifs used by the builders are very similar, even identical, to those that Honne- court put in his sketchbook during his stay in Hungary.33 It would appear, therefore, that in the 1220s Villard saw this church in person when it had been built to at least some extent. At the same time, from his comment (“when I was once [a certain time] in Hun- gary, where I spent many days, I saw in one church a flooring made in such a way”34), it would appear that he did not so much participate in its construction as, in some sense, he arrived at it ready-made. The Cistercian abbey in Pilisszentkereszt was founded in 1184. It was a branch of the French Acey. The actual construction of the church and monastery lasted from the late 12th century to the 1320s. In 1213, work on the church must have been very advanced, since the wife of King Andrew II of Hungary, Queen Gertrude of Andechs-Meran, who was murdered there in the same year, was buried there.35 What is particularly important is that the church and monastery in Pilissze- ntkereszt were erected entirely in the Gothic style from the outset. A workshop from Esztergom (40 km north of Budapest) operated there, and there is no lack of indirect architectural evidence that the complex of buildings there (the royal palace with chapel, and the cathedral) was, beginning at least as early as the 1190s, built in the Gothic style by building workshops directly from France.36 In Esztergom there were also found stone flooring tiles whose geometric motifs in at least two cases coincide with those presented in Villard’s sketchbook.37 In any case, the insightful and extremely comprehensive results of archaeological and architectural studies published by Ernö Marosi leave no doubt that the construction work on the castle motte (the royal palace, the chapel which stands to this day, and the cathedral) between the 1180s and the end of the second decade of the next century resulted in Gothic-style edifices which were not only inspired by what is commonly referred to 120 Mediaevistik 31 . 2018 as French art (the author simply indicated a sort of Cistercian–Burgundy transfer), but were also erected – as can be asserted with some certainty – by builders, stonemasons and sculptors from that cultural circle (Île-de-France, Champagne, Burgundy). Through a thorough analysis of preserved architectural details (sculptural ornaments of flora and fauna, keystones of capitals, portals, pillars, columns and inscriptions), the Hungarian researcher provided dozens of supporting examples.38 It is also impossible to ignore the fact that the Gothic style in buildings erected after the end of the 12th century in Esztergom appears earlier in the Kingdom of Hungary than in the territories of the whole of the Reich.39 Would this not attest to its transfer being direct from France?40 What other edifice in Hungary might Honnecourt have worked on? At this point our attention is drawn to the Cistercian church and monastery in Zirc (20 km north of Veszprém). This abbey was founded in 1182. It was affiliated to Clairvaux, from where the first monks arrived. The intensive development of the church and monastery began shortly after 1200 and lasted until the 1220s.41 Unfortunately, very little of the original building has survived to the present day, but a small stone plaque built into the wall of a later Baroque Abbey church with a dedication inscribed in Latin is noteworthy. Admittedly, it bears the traces of subsequent damage, alterations and having been painted over, but the following inscription in capital letters can be read: “+IN NO[M] I[N]E PATRIS ET FILII [ET SPIRITU]S S[AN]C[T]I HOC ALTARE FUNDATV[M] E[ST] P[ER?] AIMERIC REGE[M?] W GARINO.”42 As it turns out, the Hungarian king Emeric founded the altar in the monastery church in Zirc. Since the ruler died in 1204, this must have happened earlier. It can therefore be assumed that by the very beginning of the 13th century the eastern (presbytery) part of this church was already complete.43 However, the question arises who the mysterious Garinus, mentioned in the ablative case at the end of the inscription, was? The name is utterly French. Suffice it to say that the builder of the cathedral in Verdun (before 1160) was called Garin.44 It is no less interesting a fact that in the 12th century a Warinus erected the church of Saint-André-de-Rosans (in the Provence-Alpes-Côte d’Azur region of the department of Hautes-Alpes). This is evidenced by a preserved Mason’s mark in the form of his initials engraved in capital letters.45 What is more, this record is very similar to the one found on the dedicative plaque at Zirc. Unfortunately, the date of its beginnings cannot be more accurately determined, and all that remains of the church of Saint-André-de- Rosans to this day are ruins. It is an exaggeration to say that the three aforementioned cases would relate to one-and-the-same person, but the simple fact of the coincidence demands to be noted. In any case, one may speculate whether a French builder (stonemason?) named Garinus tried to immortalise his own name as the creator of the eastern part of the monastery church in Zirc and also as the creator of the monarch’s foundation plaque. Recently, the Hungarian art historian Imre Takács has been looking for the evidence of Honnecourt’s participation in the construction of the Benedictine monastic church in Pannonhalma (a city in north-western Hungary). Additionally, on the basis of a formal analysis of sculptural decor and architectural details, the researcher has attempted to determine the precise time of Villard’s stay in the kingdom on the Danube. What arguments did he call upon? The key evidence is apparently certain sculptural details on the famous “Porta speciosa” portal leading from the monastery to the church. I. Takács concluded Mediaevistik 31 . 2018 121 that the motifs of the leaves and grapes depicted on it are similar to those which Honne- court drew on sheets 5v and 29r of his sketchbook.46 The curve of the portal’s archivolt is also claimed to be particularly characteristic of Villard’s work. The Hungarian researcher saw the same sculptural motifs in the northern transept of the cathedral of Reims (while acknowledging that the construction of this part was already very advanced by the very beginning of the 1220s47). However, the dedication of the church in Pannonhalma is known to have taken place in 1224. Moreover, I. Takács used arguments of a general nature: the abbot of Pannonhalma, Uros (Urias), is supposed to have participated in the fifth crusade in 1217–1219, and the group of crusaders heading for the Holy Land included the Archbishop of Reims, Albéric (Aubry) de Humbert. In addition, the estate of Yolanda de Courtenay, the second wife (from 1215) of the King of Hungary, Andrew II, included the Duchy of Hainaut, which was relatively close to Villard’s Picardy family.48 All these observations have led the Hungarian researcher to claim that Honnecourt was in Hungary between the beginning of the 1220s and 1224, in which time he was focused on erecting the church in Pannonhalma.49 Regarding I. Takács’ idea, it is possible to cite a range of counter-arguments. The author paid no attention to the links between Honnecourt and the Cistercians (which scholars had noted by the end of the 19th century). He is not known to have ever had any contact with the Benedictines. As early as 1984, the Hungarian researcher E. Marosi pointed out that the dedication of the church at Pannonhalma in 1224 could at most have related to the crypt and the choir, as it continued to be built later.50 The conclusion drawn at this point was that the “Porta speciosa” would not have existed at that time. Neither I. Takács nor Jean Wirth, who generally agreed with the former idea, perceive any chronological link between Honnecourt’s stay in Lausanne and his stay in Hungary.51 An attempt to demonstrate such a link has been made above. From a methodical point of view, it is essentially an attempt to determine the time and place of residence of the builder/artist for a few years in the Middle Ages purely by finding similarities between a few architectural details (the “Porta speciosa” in Pannonhalma; the northern transept of Reims cathedral) and drawings in Villard’s sketchbook. In each of these three cases, the establishment of the exact year is a very relative concept. It is not even known if Honnecourt was a sculptor. How may therefore the completion of the “Porta speciosa” portal in Pannonhalma be attributed to him? What was the supposed time of his stay in Hungary? After all, Villard himself wrote that he had spent there “many days”, not many months or several years.52 This information should also be taken into account. At this point, it is necessary to look at the workshop of the sculptors who made the tomb of Queen Gertrude in Pilisszentkereszt. Of particular interest are the latest results of the stylistic analysis of the preserved fragments of figures adorning her sarcophagus. The Queen’s tomb itself was discovered on the main axis of the church during archaeological research conducted in 1967–1982. The first studies of the fragments of the sarcophagus, presented in 1971 by L. Gerevich, indicated close stylistic links between the discovered sculptures and the drawings in Honnecourt’s sketchbook.53 In the following years, further uncovered fragments of the sculptural decoration of the sarcophagus were successively published, which gradually expanded the available knowledge on the tomb of Queen Gertrude.54 The latest studies by I. Takács indicate that it may have been the work of 122 Mediaevistik 31 . 2018 a master closely associated with the workshop responsible for the artistic covering of the façade of Reims cathedral, and specifically the portal there with a representation of the Final Judgment and a sculpture of Pope Callixtus. The researcher recognised that the sculptor – the creator of Queen Gertrude’s tomb – had probably arrived in Hungary from Reims, where he had been active at the time when the construction of the northern portal of the cathedral had just begun. Takács used this, among other things, to explain why the sarcophagus’s sculptural décor lacked certain elements from the repertoire seen in the portal of the famous Champagne Cathedral – it was supposed that these elements had been inserted there only after the sculptor’s departure to Hungary. At the same time, the aforementioned researcher’s stylistic analysis of the figurative motifs on the sarcophagus and the chronology of the erection of the portal in the northern arm of the Reims cathedral’s transept led him to the thesis that the construction of Queen Gertrude’s tomb could be dated to the same time when Honnecourt reached Hungary, though it is difficult to say whether he had anything to do with this work.55 It is interesting that, in previous studies based on the same evidence, I. Takács concluded that Villard could not have participated in the construction of Queen Gertrude’s tomb, for it is supposed that it was initiated by her son (and co-regent), later Bela IV, and the work itself began around 1228. Honnecourt at that time is supposed to have no longer been in Hungary.56 In this respect, I. Takács’ viewpoint overlaps with the idea of the Swiss art historian J. Wirth.57 Did Villard actively participate in the construction of other edifices in Hungary? The aforementioned Gothic cathedral at Kalocsa cannot be forgotten. Scholars to date have also drawn attention to the “French” sculptors’ workshop of the Benedictine church rebuilt in the second decade of the 13th century in Somogyvár (in south-western Hun- gary).58 In this latter case, however, care must be taken in drawing conclusions, as actual or implied sculptural or architectural analogues alone are too fragile a premise on which to conclude French influences or workshops. This is very well expressed by the example of the Cistercian church which is preserved to this day in Kerz, Transylvania (in present-day Romania). Géza Entz, using a broad comparative method and an extensive argument (capitals, columns, vaults, windows, portals, sculpture), attempted to show that this church, allegedly built in the 1230s (before 1241), represented the pure Cistercian Gothic style transferred from the Île-de-France area to Hungary via Burgundy. Furthermore, he assumed that it was the oldest early-Gothic church in Transylvania, and was the model for other buildings of this type in the area.59 Later scholars accepted his proposal.60 Meanwhile, in 1996, Christoph Machat subjected this church to thorough studies using not only the appropriate comparative method and analysis of architectural detail, but also the results of archaeological discoveries (including numismatic artefacts obtained in said discoveries). On this basis, he showed that the erection of the church that exists in Kerz to the present day only began in the 1270s. It also shows no influences from France or Burgundy, but the influences from the Rhine do exist. During excavations of the interior of the present church, however, an older (early 13th-century?) church was discovered; nevertheless, the church was never finished.61 This shows that one must be very careful when drawing conclusions on the chronology of construction or architectural borrowings and influences solely on the analysis of a sculpting workshop or on any relatively arbitrary comparison of surviving artefacts. Mediaevistik 31 . 2018 123

There is, however, additional evidence for the possible discovery of French builders and sculptors in Hungary at the end of the 12th century and in the first half of the 13th century. It is difficult, after all, to overlook here the possible influence of individual rulers’ spouses from Romanesque quarters. Suffice it to say that the first wife (until 1184) of Bela III was Agnes de Châtillon, daughter of the famous Prince Renaud of An- tioch. Next (from 1186) was Margaret Capet, sister of King Philip Augustus of France. In turn, the first wife of King Emeric (from 1198) was Constance of Aragon, while the second wife of Andrew II was Yolanda de Courtenay (from 1215).62 In addition, the significance of these familial and genealogical relationships can, in some (unfortunately few) cases, also be tracked down. For example, the second wife of Bela III, Maragaret Capet, bestowed the ownership of properties in the town of Zsámbék on Aynard, a knight from Champagne in her retinue. His descendants, Egidius and Smaragdus, founded a Premonstratensian church and monastery there in around 1220. These were erected in the Gothic style in the 1230s and 1240s (the ruins of the church have survived to this day).63 In that case, should not the possibility be enter- tained that the owners (and founders) of these properties brought builders from France? It should also not be forgotten that the new Cistercian monasteries established towards the end of the 12th century and in the first half of the 13th century were direct affiliates of French abbeys and that their first monks were recruited from this area (Clairvaux, Pon- tigny, Troisfontaines, Acey).64 Would it be strange for them to bring specialists (both architects and sculptors) from their homeland to build them? This would be very nicely illustrated by the above example of Honnecourt. It is also known that many Hungarian church hierarchs (but also some noble laymen) studied in Paris towards the end of the 12th century and in the first half of the 13th century.65 One of the most important sacral buildings in the Kingdom of Hungary, and one that was built over a relatively long time, was the Romanesque-Gothic cathedral in Gyulafehérvár (today Alba Iulia in Transylvania, central Romania). The first to con- duct a comprehensive architectural analysis of this cathedral, which is preserved to this day, was the Hungarian art historian Géza Entz, in 1958. Unfortunately, the author was contradictory in his reflections in many places, and he also had serious problems determining the proper chronology of the various phases in the construction of this cathedral, thus casting doubt on his conclusions in many places. In general, however, he can be agreed with that the eastern part of the cathedral (the presbytery) was erected towards the end of the 12th century in the Romanesque style. These findings by G. Entz were assumed by I. Takács with minor reservations and corrections.66 Then, Gyulafehérvár cathedral was gradually expanded westwards in the Gothic style, so that by the time of the Mongolian invasion of 1241/42 only the western part of the nave with its façade and towers had not been completed. With some inconsistencies, Entz decided that in this earlier phase of construction (up to 1241) French architectural influences (Île-de-France, Burgundy) had prevailed. After this time, however, the expansion of the cathedral was continued westwards concurrently with reconstruction works (unfortunately, it is not known how great the destruction caused by the Mongol invasion was). At this specific point G. Entz saw a decidedly stronger German influence (Bamberg). In total, it is thought that the cathedral was under construction until 1269.67 124 Mediaevistik 31 . 2018

Is there unambiguous evidence that this cathedral was built by foreign builders (including the French)? Many architectural and sculptural details which G. Entz indicates as factors determining the cathedral belonging to the 13th-century period are not entirely convincing. It is true that the author argued that they would attest to the foreign origins of their creators, but in this he could not distinguish Germans from possible Frenchmen, not to mention the serious difficulties in specifying the chronology of their creation. More convincing evidence of the foreign origin of the cathedral builders is re- flected in relatively numerous stonemasons’ marks visible in its various parts. It can be agreed that, as G. Entz maintains, these were made by skilled workers (stonemasons) of foreign origin who were remunerated on the basis of the amount of work done, which was recorded with these marks. The Hungarian researcher assumed that most of such marks came from the second half of the 13th century and were made by stone workers from the Reich.68 However, this cannot be incontestably proven, especially since the marks are spread all over the cathedral and cannot be used to distinguish the builders who originally erected particular parts of the cathedral from those that extended or reconstructed them. They therefore do not provide the basis for reconstructing the chronology of the successive construction stages of the cathedral. It is important, however, to note the fact (to which G. Entz paid little attention) that as many as three successive bishops of Transylvania (i.e., pastors of the diocese and cathedral of Gyulafehérvár) were of French origin: Guillaume (Vilmos), 1204–1221; Raymond, 1222–1241; and Gallus, 1246–1269.69 Would not they seek to bring in architects, builders, stonemasons and sculptors from their former homeland? If you add to this I. Takács’s observation that the reconstruction of the cathedral may even have been begun by the bishop Adorjan (Adrian), who assumed his title in 1187, the situation becomes even more interesting. The Hungarian researcher pointed out that this Adrian may be the same one as the one mentioned ten years earlier in a group of students at the University of Paris – Hadrian. At the beginning of the 1180s, he was a preacher in Esztergom. I. Takács also pointed out similarities between the system of vaults erected in the royal chapel in Esztergom and that of the Gyulafehérvár cathedral, which would prove some connection between the workshops which constructed the two buildings.70 All these assumptions about the involvement of architects, builders and stonemasons from present-day France in the works are confirmed by written sources from the end of the 13th century. As a result of the civil war in 1277 the cathedral was seriously damaged (to what extent is not known, however). This resulted in its reconstruction,71 which lasted for some time, and one of the final phases of work is discernible in the content of two contracts as of 1 November 1287 and 31 May 1291which were signed by the bishop of Transylvania, Peter Monoszló, the Chapter and the executors of the work. The first of these documents obliged the master stonemason (or master brick mason) (“magister […] lapicida”) Johannes, son of Tynon of Saint-Dié (“de civitate sancti Ade- odati”) along with an unnamed assistant (“cum uno socio sibi adiuncto”), specializing in stone-working (“in poliendis lapidibus”), to perform works on the masonry in the vicinity of unspecified pillars near the bell tower (and in its interior, starting from the southern part), and to continue previously started work on erecting the cathedral wall at (and above) the gate through which the bishop used to come in and go out to his offices (“pallatium”). In total, Johannes was to receive 50 marks (half an English pound) in Mediaevistik 31 . 2018 125 instalments, and the bishop committed himself to gather the required materials (stone, lime, sand, water, wood, etc.),72 which indicates that the “magister lapicida” was also a brick mason. As can be seen, the information contained in the source is so enigmatic that it is difficult to say with certainty what part of the cathedral it referred to. G. Entz concluded that Johannes was working in the western part of the southern nave. Elsewhere, however, he suggested that his work was the southern transept with a square tower (which?) and the southern wall of the main nave.73 Later researchers generally decided, without attempt- ing to pinpoint the part of the cathedral which Johannes was to have worked on, that it was the south side, because just south of the cathedral is where the bishop’s palace cited in the document was situated.74 However, it is hard to accept G. Entz’s attribution of the richly decorated capital keystones and columns in the western part of the southern nave to Johannes.75 After all, the above-cited source does not in any way indicate that he was a sculptor. Besides this – and as it has been recently pointed out in the literature – one master stonemason and his assistant could not have executed construction work on such a large scope,76 especially since the sum the bishop was to pay for his services was not particularly large. However, what is particularly important in the light of the analyses carried out here is that both the “magister lapicida”, and probably his assistant, were from Saint- Dié (a city in present-day eastern France in the department of Vosges). The second contract (1291) was entered into between the bishop and Chapter and four carpenters (“carpentarii”) of German origin (“Syfridus de Crakow, Jacobus Albensis, Herbordus de Wrbow and Henc de Kelnuk”), whom G. Entz for unknown reasons referred to as “Saxons”.77 They were supposed to build roof structures over some precisely described fragments of Gyulafehérvár cathedral,78 whose precise location, however, also causes great difficulties today.79 To sum up the above research, it can be concluded that the attempt to answer the question of whether architects, builders, stonemasons and sculptors from what is present-day France operated in the 12th and 13th centuries in the Kingdom of Hungary is part of the much broader issue of the long-distance travels of builders and artists in the Middle Ages. At the same time, it is a question of transfer of styles, professionals and technology.80 Thanks to the wide use of the fruits of interdisciplinary research (history, archaeology, and art history) and a thorough analysis of written and architectural sources, it can be clearly demonstrated that, from at least as early as the end of the 12th century, architects, builders, stonemasons and probably also sculptors from what is now northern and eastern France were operating in the Kingdom of Hungary (though it is not known to what extent). It is impossible not to see a correlation between their activity and the very early appearance of the Gothic style in the territory of what was then Hungary. The architect–builder–designer–sketcher Villard de Honnecourt of Picardy, northern France, and his stay on the shores of the Danube are of particular interest. He was there most probably in the 1220s, but it is unfortunately difficult to say for certain which of the edifices he worked on from among those which were erected at the time in the Kingdom of Hungary. In any case, contrary to the suggestions of some researchers, it is not unambiguously proven that Villard contributed to the sculptural decor of the Benedictine church at Pannonhalma. 126 Mediaevistik 31 . 2018

Michalina Duda Nicolaus Copernicus University in Torun Faculty of History St. Bojarskiego 1 87-100 Torun [email protected] Sławomir Jóźwiak Nicolaus Copernicus University in Torun Faculty of History St. Bojarskiego 1 87-100 Torun [email protected] Marcin Wiewióra Nicolaus Copernicus University in Torun Department of Archaeology of Architecture St. Szosa Bydgoska 44/48 87-100 Torun [email protected]

Endnotes

1 Exceptions we could find in the American academy. By the 1980s, art historians consulting inscriptions and archival materials in their researches: Stephen Murray, Building Troyes Ca- thedral. The Late Gothic Building Campaigns. Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana Uni- versity Press, 1987, p. 1–112; Barbara Abou-el-Haj, “The Urban Setting for Late Medieval Church Building: Reims and Its Cathedral Between 1210 and 1240,” Art History 11 (1988): 17–31; Stephen Murray, Beauvais Cathedral: Architecture of Transcendence. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1989, p. 1–151. 2 Jules Quicherat, “Un architecte français du XIIIe siècle en Hongrie,” Revue Archéologique 32 (1876): 249–250. 3 Ibid., p. 250–251. Currently, this plaque stone is embedded into the wall of the modern-day Kalocsa cathedral. It is photographically reproduced in: Ernö Marosi, Die Anfänge der Gotik in Ungarn. Esztergom in der Kunst des 12.-13. Jahrhunderts. Budapest: Akademiai Kiadó, 1984, p. 317. 4 “Lapicida” – Glossarium Mediae et Infimae Latinitatis, cond. a Carolo du Fresne domino du Cange, vol. 5, Niort 1885, p. 27; Słownik łaciny średniowiecznej w Polsce, eds. Marian Plezia [et al.], vol. 5, Wrocław, Crakow, and Warsaw: Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolińskich, 1982, col. 1241–1242. 5 Jules Quicherat, “Un architecte” (see note 2), p. 250–251. 6 Géza Entz, “L’architecture et la sculpture hongroise à l’époque romane dans leurs rapports avec l’Europe,” Cahiers de civilisation médiévale 9/34 (1966): 209–220; Ernö Marosi, Die Anfänge (see note 3), p. 122, 125. 7 Cf. Émile Bertaux, “Les artistes français au service des rois angevins de Naples” (deuxième article), Gazette des Beaux-Arts 34/2 (1905): 89–114; eadem, “Les artistes français au service des rois angevins de Naples” (troisième et dernier article), Gazette des Beaux-Arts 34/4 Mediaevistik 31 . 2018 127

(1905): 313–325; Arthur Haseloff, Die Bauten der Hohenstaufen in Unteritalien, vol. 1, Leipzig: Hiersemann, 1920, p. 149 ff. 8 Obviously, there is a group of scholars, which does not recognize Villard as architect – see the discussion about him in e.g. Carl E. Barnes Jr., “An essay on Villard de Honnecourt, Cambrai cathedral, and saint Elisabeth of Hungary,” [in:] New approaches to medieval architecture, ed. Robert Bork, William W. Clark, Abby McGehee, Ashgate: Farnham, 2011, p. 77–92; Robert Bork, The Geometry of Creation: Architectural Drawing and the Dynam- ics of Design. Farnham: Ashgate, 2011, p. 31–41. 9 Basic information on Honnecourt and his work can be found in: Hans R. Hahnloser, Vil- lard de Honnecourt – Kritische Gesamtausgabe des Bauhüttenbuches ms fr 19093 der Pariser Nationalbibliothek. Graz: Akademische Druck- und Verlagsanstalt, 1972, 2nd ed.; Günther Binding, Norbert Nussbaum, Der mittelalterliche Baubetrieb nördlich der Alpen in zeitgenössischen Darstellungen. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1978, p. 1–20; Roland Bechmann, Villard de Honnecourt. La pensée technique au XIIIe siècle et sa communication. Paris: Picard, 1991; Jean Wirth, Villard de Honnecourt, architecte du XIIIe siècle. Geneva: Librairie Droz, 2015 (with a reproduction of all sketchbook sheets), p. 307–372). 10 “Vesci une des formes de rains des espaces de le nef teles com eles sont entre II. pilers; j’estoie mandes en le tiere de Hongrie qant io le portais, porco laimai io miex”. 11 “J’estoie une fois en Hongrie la u ie mes maint jor; la vi io le pavement dune glize desi faite maniere”. Accurate reproductions of these drawings along with the author’s descriptions can be found in: Roland Bechmann, Villard (see note 9), p. 91–92, 136–138; Jean Wirth, Villard (see note 9), p. 326, 336. 12 “J’ai este en mult de tieres, si com vs poves trover en cest liv[r]e; en aucun liu onq[ue]s tel tor ne vi co[m] est cele de Loo[n]” – Roland Bechmann, Villard (see note 9), p. 102–105; Jean Wirth, Villard (see note 9), p. 324. Scholars argue over whether this tower was erected shortly after 1205 or much later – cf. Günther Binding, Norbert Nussbaum, Der mittelalterliche Baubetrieb (see note 9), p. 10–12; Roland Bechmann, Villard (see note 9), p. 102–105. 13 Jean Wirth, Villard (see note 9), p. 334, 339; Günther Binding, Norbert Nussbaum, Der mittelalterliche Baubetrieb (see note 9), p. 4, 8–9; Roland Bechmann, Villard (see note 9), p. 107–112. 14 “Vesci une glize desquarie ki fu esgardee a faire en l’ordene d’Cistiaux”. 15 Camille Enlart, “Villard de Honnecourt et les Cisterciens,” Biblithèque de l’école des chartes 56 (1895): 7–8, 18–20. 16 Handbuch der Architektur, ed. Eduard Schmitt, Teil II: Die Baustile. Historische und tech- nische Entwickelung, vol. 4: Die romanische und die gotische Baukunst, H. 3: Der Kirchen- bau, ed. Max Hasak. Leipzig: Gebhardt, 1913, 2nd ed., p. 275. 17 Fernand de Mély, “Nos vieilles cathédrales et leurs maitres d’oeuvre,” Revue archéologique 11 (1920): 357. 18 Günther Binding, Norbert Nussbaum, Der mittelalterliche Baubetrieb (see note 9), p. 2, 4; Claudia Caesar, Der “Wanderkünstler”. Ein kunsthistorischer Mythos. Grazer Edition, Bd. 8, Berlin: LIT Verlag, 2012, p. 250. 19 Hans R. Hahnloser, Villard (see note 9), p. 393 ff. 20 “C’est une reonde veriere de leglize de Lozane”. Reproduced with detailed analysis in: Roland Bechmann, Villard (see note 9), p. 122–123; Jean Wirth, Villard (see note 9), p. 337, 130–131. 21 There are, however, contrary proposition. Alain Villes has suggested that since Villard’s drawing does not accurately reflect the rosette that exists today, he may have never visited Lausanne but only copied its likeness from elsewhere. – cf. Alain Villes, “La cathédrale actuelle: sa chronologie et sa place dans l’architecture gothique,” [in:] La cathédrale Notre-Dame 128 Mediaevistik 31 . 2018

de Lausanne, ed. Peter Kurmann, Lausanne: La Bibliothèque des Arts, 2012, p. 72. However, that author did not consider that by the 13th century the rosette may have already been modified. It is therefore difficult to accept his proposition as convincing. 22 Cf. Werner Stöckli, “La chronologie de la cathédrale de Lausanne et du portail peint. Une recherche selon les méthodes de l’archéologie du bâti,” [in:] Die Kathedrale von Lausanne und ihr Marienportal im Kontekst der europäischen Gotik, ed. Peter Kurmann and Martin Rohde, Berlin–New York: De Gruyter, 2004, p. 48–50, 58–59; Alain Villes, “La cathédrale” (see note 21), p. 97–98 (graphical reconstructions of the supposed chronology of the dynam- ics of the erection of the cathedral); Jean Wirth, Villard (see note 9), p. 255. 23 Francis Salet, “La cathédrale de Lausanne. A propos du septième centenaire de la consécration de 1275,” Bulletin Monumental 135/1 (1977): 40 (The author referred to unspecified older literature on the subject, but this information was not accompanied by any source reference). 24 François Forel, “Le carré central de la Rose de la cathédrale de Lausanne: à propos de l’étude d’Alice Mary Hilton,” Zeitschrift für Archäologie und Kunstgeschichte 47/3 (1990): 240 (the author unfortunately also did not cite the source of his knowledge of the subject). 25 Cf. above. 26 The ideas of these researchers were discussed by Sylvie Balcon in her review (cf. Sylvie Balcon [Review], La rose de la cathédrale de Lausanne. Histoire et conservation récente, Lausanne, Pavot, 1999, p. 213, Bulletin Monumental 160/2 (2002): 219–220). The author of the review referred sceptically to W. Stöckli’s proposition. 27 Alain Villes, “La cathédrale” (see note 21), p. 90. 28 Cf. Francis Salet, “Chronologie et architecture de la cathédrale de Lausanne (chronique),” Bulletin Monumental 122/1 (1964): 82–83; idem, “La cathédrale” (see note 23), p. 28, 36; Werner Stöckli, “La chronologie” (see note 22), p. 50 ff. Alain Villes, “La cathédrale” (see note 21), p. 81. However, there are also scholars who, citing unconvincing architectural similarities, assume that Cotereel may have been English by descent – cf. Marcel Grand- jean, “La cathédrale actuelle: sa construction, ses architectes, son architecture,” [in:] La Cathédrale de Lausanne, ed. Marcel Grandjean [et al.], Berne: Société d’histoire de l’art en Suisse, 1975, p. 45–174; Christopher Wilson, “Lausane and Canterbury: A Special Relation- ship Re-considered,” [in:] Die Kathedrale von Lausanne und ihr Marienportal im Kontekst der europäischen Gotik, ed. Peter Kurmann and Martin Rohde, Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2004, p. 122–123. 29 Both presented in: Roland Bechmann, Villard (see note 9), p. 122. 30 Francis Salet, “Chronologie” (see note 28), p. 81–82; idem, “La cathédrale” (see note 23), p. 28; Alain Villes, “La cathédrale” (see note 21), p. 87. 31 Francis Salet stated in his time (without referring to any specific source), that Honnecourt’s stay in Lausanne would have been closer to 1220 than to 1235 – cf. Francis Salet, “Chro- nologie” (see note 28), p. 82. 32 The source-related arguments which are presented here are completely ignored by art historians. For example, comparing only the drawing in Villard’s sketchbook with the rosette preserved to this day, different kinds of conjectures can be developed as to why these two representations differ. In this case, a whole range of arguments present themselves, such as: Honnecourt creating the image from memory; him making mistakes in the workshop; deliberate simplification of the image; a confusion of objects; or, for example, the fact that the genuine rosette was outdated and Villard decided to modernise it – cf. Jean Wirth, Villard (see note 9), p. 130–131. But could it not be – as we have attempted to demonstrate at this point in the article – that Honnecourt faithfully drew the rosette that he saw, but some time later it was simply damaged and rebuilt? 33 László Gerevich, “Pilis abbey, a cultural center,” Acta Archeologica Academiae Scientiarium Hungaricae 29 (1977), 158–197; Roland Bechmann, Villard (see note 9), p. 22, 136–138. Mediaevistik 31 . 2018 129

34 “J’estoie une fois en Hongrie la u ie mes maint jor; la vi io le pavement dune glize desi faite maniere”. Exact reproductions of these drawings and their descriptions are provided in: Roland Bechmann, Villard (see note 9), p. 91–92, 136–138; Jean Wirth, Villard (see note 9), p. 336. 35 Ernö Marosi, Die Anfänge (see note 3), p. 120, 125, 135–136, 162. 36 Ibid., p. 14, 35–36, 67–73, 133–136, 186–187. Besides the source evidence referred to here, the Hungarian researcher András Gergelyffy developed the view that the builders and sculptors of that place’s earliest Gothic churches and Cistercian monasteries travelled to France to study, which meant that they were Hungarians trained in those professions – cf. András Gergelyffy, “L’architecture cistercienne en Hongrie,” [in:] Évolution générale et développe- ments régionaux en histoire de l’art, ed. György Rózsa. Actes du XXIIe congrès international d’histoire de l’art, Budapest: Akademiai Kiadó, 1972, p. 485. There is no source evidence to justify this view. 37 Roland Bechmann, Villard (see note 9), p. 22, 138. 38 Ernö Marosi, Die Anfänge (see note 3), p. 35–36, 67–73, 133–136, 186–187. 39 Cf. Thomas Biller, “Das “wüste Steynhus” bei Oschatz in Sachsen – Frühe Gotik auf dem Weg nach Osten,” [in:] Architektur und Monumentalskulptur des 12.-14. Jahrhunderts (Architecture et sculpture monumentale du 12e au 14e siècle), ed. Stephan Grasser, Chris- tian Freigang, and Bruno Boerner, Bern, Berlin, and Bruxelles: Peter Lang, 2006, p. 257. 40 The issue of the transfer of the Gothic style from France to Central Europe at the turn of the 12th to 13th centuries will be addressed by the authors in a separate publication. 41 Ernö Marosi, Die Anfänge (see note 3), p. 123, 125, 42 Reproduction and reading of the text ibid., p. 235, 317. 43 Ibid., p. 123. 44 Cf. Fernand de Mély, “Nos vieilles cathédrales et leurs maitres d’oeuvre,” Revue Archéologique 13 (1921): 93; Les patrimoines des communes de la Meuse, ed. Marie-Thérèse Bastien, Frédéric Boiteux, Jean-Michel Althuser, et al, vol. 2, Les patrimoines des communes de France. Paris: Flohic, 1999, p. 1111. 45 “Les signes lapidaires dans la construction médiévale: études de cas et problèmes de méth- ode”, ed. Yves Esquieu and Andreas Hartmann-Virnich, Bulletin Monumental 165/4 (2007): 334, 351. 46 Reproduced in: Jean Wirth, Villard (see note 9), p. 316, 363. 47 Honnecourt of course worked in Reims, as evidenced by his sketches of one of the choir chapels (outside and inside) of the cathedral there, a projection of one of the nave’s spans (exterior and interior part – sheets 30v–31v) and a window and horizontal cross-section of an example of a nave pillar (sheets 30v–31v, 10v, 15v). It cannot be ruled out that Hon- necourt was there at least twice, but the exact dates of his stay in Reims are the subject of serious disagreements between researchers– cf. Roland Bechmann, Villard (see note 9), p. 85–95; Jean Wirth, Villard (see note 9), p. 228–243, 366–368. 48 This fact is apparently linked to another idea which has for some time been held by Hungarian researchers on the circumstances and time of Honnecourt’s stay in Hungary. Specifically, in 1217 Pierre de Courtenay succeeded to the throne of the Latin Empire of Constantinople. However, he failed to win the crown because he died on his way. Pierre’s claim was inherited by his son, Robert de Courtenay. He is thought to have set out on a journey to Constantinople in 1220, stopping, among other places, at the court of King Andrew II in Hungary. According to the idea of the researchers mentioned here, Robert’s entourage heading to the imperial city of Bosphorus also included Honnecourt – cf. Árpád Miko, Imre Takács, Pannonia Regia, Budapest: Magyar Nemzeti Galéria, 1994, p. 256; Imre Takács, “The French Connection: on the Courtenay Family and Villard de Honnecourt. A propos of a 13th Century Incised Slab from Pilis Abbey,” [in:] Künstlerische Wechselwirkungen in Mitteleuropa, ed. Jiři Fajt and 130 Mediaevistik 31 . 2018

Markus Hörsch, Ostfildern: Thorbecke, 2006, p. 17–18. In light of the analyses carried out here, it is with great circumspection that any reference should be made to the researcher’s idea mentioned herein regarding the journey of Villard to Hungary in the entourage of Robert de Courtenay in 1220. 49 Since the 1990s I. Takács has greatly modified his views on the issues presented here. Initial- ly, in relation to the “Porta speciosa” in Pannonhalma, he saw only stonemasons “educated” in France, probably working in Reims (sooner or later). He presented his proposal in such a way that it is difficult to know whether the author has in mind French sculptors or Hun- garians adopted into the craft in France. In any case, he linked Honnecourt to Pannonhalma with great initial circumspection, but it is not known on what basis he claimed he had gone there from Reims. – cf. Imre Takács, “Die Erneuerung der Abteikirche von Pannonhalma im 13. Jahrhundert,” Acta Historiae Artium Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 38 (1996): 33–34, 52, 63. In his further articles I. Takács creatively developed his ideas on this subject – cf. Imre Takács, “The French” (see note 48), p. 11–26; idem, “Transregional Artistic Cooperation in the 13th Century in Accordance with Some Hungarian Court Art Examples,” Acta Historiae Artium Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 49 (2008): 64–75. His proposals are generally accepted by the Swiss art historian J. Wirth – cf. Jean Wirth, Villard (see note 9), p. 262–266, 272. Generally, however, one must be cautious with respect to these ideas, as the amount of preserved source material has not grown in many years, while on the basis of these same foundations the researchers cited here are continually formulating new findings which are like stacked hypotheses, and difficult to accept. In any case, J. Wirth’s suggestion that Honnecourt might have been the architect of the abbey church in Pannonhalma is pure speculation for which no evidence whatsoever can be provided – cf. Jean Wirth, Villard (see note 9), p. 277. 50 Ernö Marosi, Die Anfänge (see note 3), p. 123, 125. 51 Cf. Imre Takács, “The French” (see note 48), p. 11–26; idem, “Transregional” (see note 49), p. 64–75; idem, “The Tomb of Queen Gertrude,” Acta Historiae Artium Academiae Scien- tiarum Hungaricae 56/1 (2015): 9 ff.; Jean Wirth, Villard (see note 9), p. 130–131, 259–266. 52 “J’estoie une fois en Hongrie la u ie mes maint jor; la vi io le pavement dune glize desi faite maniere” – Roland Bechmann, Villard (see note 9), p. 136–137. 53 László Gerevich, “Pilis abbey” (see note 33), p. 158–197. 54 Attention was paid to, among other things, the supposedly close ties between the architectural and sculptural work discovered in the tombstone on the one hand, and the workshop associated with the Cathedral of Chartres on the other – see Imre Takács, “The French” (see note 48), p. 16 ff. 55 Imre Takács, “The Tomb” (see note 51), p. 9–16, 46–47. 56 Imre Takács, “Fragmente des Grabmals der Königin Gertrudis,” [in:] Die Andechs-Meranier in Franken. Europäisches Fürstentum im Hochmittelalter (exhibition in Bamberg Histor- isches Museum 1998), Mainz: Phillip von Zabern, 1998, p. 103–109, 276–280. 57 Jean Wirth, Villard (see note 9), p. 262. 58 Ernö Marosi, Die Anfänge (see note 3), p. 123, 125. 59 Géza Entz, “Le chantier cistercien de Kerc (Cîrţa),” Acta Historiae Artium Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 9 (1963): 3–38; idem, “Die Baukunst Transsilvaniens im 11.–13. Jahrhundert” (I. Teil), Acta Historiae Artium Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 14 (1968): 23–25. 60 Cf. even Ernö Marosi, Die Anfänge (see note 3), p. 125–126. 61 Christoph Machat, “Zur Baugeschichte und Datierung der ehemaligen Zisterzienserabtei Kerz in Siebenbürgen,” [in:] Architektur Geschichten. Festschrift für Günter Binding zum 60. Geburtstag, ed. Udo Mainzer and Petra Leser, Köln: Bachem, 1996, p. 91–103. Mediaevistik 31 . 2018 131

62 György Györffy, Béla III., [in:] Lexikon des Mittelalters, ed. Gloria Avella-Widhalm [et al.], vol. I, Stuttgart-Weimar: Verlag J. B. Metzler, 1999, 2nd Ed., p. 1832–1833; Thomas von Bo- gyay, Emmerich, [in:] Lexikon des Mittelalters, ed. Gloria Avella-Widhalm [et al.], vol. III, Stuttgart-Weimar: Verlag J. B. Metzler, 1999, 2nd Ed., p. 1899–1900; Thomas von Bogyay, Andreas II., [in:] Lexikon des Mittelalters, ed. Gloria Avella-Widhalm [et al.], vol. I, Stuttgart- Weimar: Verlag J. B. Metzler, 1999, 2nd Ed., p. 602; Géza Entz, “L’architecture” (see note 6), p. 210; Ernö Marosi, Die Anfänge (see note 3), p. 84–85; On the relationship of the de Courtenay family with the Arpad dynasty, see also: A. Gabriel, Les rapports dynastiques franco-hongrois au Moyen Âge, Budapest: Imprimerie de l’Université, 1944, p. 33 ff.; Imre Takács, “Transregional” (see note 49), p. 65; idem, “The French” (see note 48), p. 11–26. 63 Géza Entz, “L’architecture” (see note 6), p. 217; Ernö Marosi, Die Anfänge (see note 3), p. 124–125, 176. 64 Géza Entz, “Le chantier” (see note 59), p. 8; idem, “L’architecture” (see note 6), s. 210; András Gergelyffy, “L’architecture” (see note 36), s. 481; Ernö Marosi, Die Anfänge (see note 3), s. 162. 65 Ernö Marosi, Die Anfänge (see note 3), p. 86, 175. 66 Imre Takács, “The first sanctuary of the second cathedral of Gyulafehérvár (Alba Iulia),” Acta Historiae Artium Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 53/1 (2012): 15–43. 67 Géza Entz, “La cathédrale de Gyulafehérvár (Alba Iulia),” Acta Historiae Artium Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 5 (1958): 1–40. 68 Ibid., p. 3, 30–32. However, it is not clear why the author, using quite loose connections, found that these stonemasons’ marks belonged to stonemasons of the regions of Hesse, Baden and Württemberg. After all, many analogues from the 12th and 13th centuries are also known to have originated from the territory of present-day France – cf. “Les signes lapidaires” (see note 45), p. 331–358. 69 Géza Entz, “La cathédrale” (see note 67), p. 20–21, 29. 70 Imre Takács, “The first sanctuary” (see note 66), p. 20. 71 Géza Entz, “La cathédrale” (see note 67), p. 27–28, 36. 72 “[…] magister Johannes lapicida filius Tynonis de civitate sancti Adeodati in propria persona coram nobis constitutus, ex pacto inito cum venerabili patre domino Petro episcopo praelato nostro obligavit se elevaturum murum ecclesiae nostrae videlicet ecclesiae beati Micaelis archangeli et ipsius muri adiacentia praeter columnas simul cum turri seu campanili intus et exterius cum lapidibus politis praeter interiorem partem turris a parte meridionali incipiens ab antiquo opere et continuans ipsi antiquo operi iuxta ostium, per quod dominus episcopus in ecclesiam intrare solet et in suum redire palatium in ea altitudine in toto, in qua murus ipsius ecclesiae supra dictum ostium per antiquum opus exstitit elevatus pro quinquaginta mar- cis […]. Nihilominus ab ipsa data praesentium praetactus magister Johannes cum uno socio sibi adiuncto in poliendis lapidibus statim absque medio aliquo debet ipsum opus inchoare et per totam hiemem absque aliquali intermissione laborare, lapides tamen, cementum, arenam, aquam et lignamina, si que erunt pro ipso opere necessaria, dominus episcopus deferri faciet et deponi iuxta ecclesiae fundamentum ponenda, ordinanda et locanda in opere prout debent laboribus magistri Johannis memorati” – Urkundenbuch zur Geschichte der Deutschen in Siebenbürgen, ed. Franz Zimmermann and Carl Werner, vol. 1 (1191–1342), Hermannstadt 1892 (henceforth: UGDS), no. 221, p. 156. In footnote 36 of his article, G. Entz cited the content of this document referring to the same source, but it is not known why he made a lot of errors in reading, and in certain places even falsified, the information contained in the source text – cf. Géza Entz, “La cathédrale” (see note 67), p. 39. 73 Géza Entz, “La cathédrale” (see note 67), p. 27–28, 32–33, 36. 74 Ernö Marosi, “Neuere Veröffentlichungen zur Geschichte mittelalterlicher Kunst in Un- garn,” Acta Historiae Artium Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 52 (2011): 262. 132 Mediaevistik 31 . 2018

75 Géza Entz, “La cathédrale” (see note 67), p. 32–33, 36 76 Cf. Ernö Marosi, “Neuere Veröffentlichungen” (see note 74) p. 263. 77 Géza Entz, “La cathédrale” (see note 67), p. 39. Although no such conclusion can be arrived at based on the content of the source material, the analysis by the document’s publishers indicates that all of them were Germans settled in Transylvania – cf. UGDS (see note 72) – publisher’s remarks, p. 555 ff. 78 UGDS (see note 72), no. 247, p. 179–180. Referring to the same edition, the source content of the document in footnote 36 of his article was published by G. Entz. It is difficult to explain, however, why his text contains so many errors of misreading. There are enough of them that certain passages of the document he cites are simply incomprehensible to the reader – cf. Géza Entz, “La cathédrale” (see note 67), p. 39–40. 79 Nevertheless, such attempts have already been made by researchers – cf. Ernö Marosi, “Neuere Veröffentlichungen” (see note 74), p. 263. 80 See interesting remarks about the significance of travelling of Castillian political and church elites all over Europe- including the construction sites of Gothic cathedrals and other edifices (particularly in France) – and the transfer of information about this subject matter in the context of the first phase of the construction of the Gothic cathedral in Tole- do in: Tom Nickson, Toledo Cathedral. Building histories in medieval Castile. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 2015, p. 45 ff.; see also p. 71 ff.