The Congress of Visegrád in 1335: Diplomacy and Representation*
The Congress of Visegrád, held in 1335, was one of the outstanding diplomatic events in Central Europe in the fourteenth century. The present study, after outlining the general historical developments which characterized the kingdoms involved, namely Bohemia, Hungary and Poland, in the early decades of the fourteenth century, retraces the immediate preliminaries of the diplomatic summit, before all the efforts at eliminating the political and territorial conflicts which opposed Poland and Bohemia on the one hand, and Poland and the Teutonic order on the other hand, through the mediation of Charles I of Hungary, the senior ranking ruler of the region. The study examines all the chief agreements concluded during the conference, on the basis of all the available charters and the narrative sources, carefully accounting for the differences of viewpoints which characterize the narratives of chroniclers from the various countries. It comes to the conclusion that, contrary to Hungarian historiography, although the conference did have a commercial aspect, it was certainly not the main thrust of the events at Visegrád. Finally, the study makes an effort at establishing, upon the amounts of food consumed, the number of the respective retinues of the Polish and Czech rulers, and thereby determine whether the numbers involved could be regarded as average or whether they implied a conscious show of strength on the part of the two kings.
Keywords: Fourteenth-century diplomacy, Central European politics, princely retinues
The Congress of Visegrád was by far the biggest diplomatic event that took place in Central Europe in the first half of the fourteenth century.1 In the following pages we offer a summary of the events, based on the narrative and documentary sources, and make an effort at establishing the respective numbers of the Czech and Polish delegations.
The picturesque little town of Visegrád is located in the largest bend of the river Danube. The historical sources unanimously testify that here, in the autumn of 1335, the leaders of Central European kingdoms held an international conference, a so-called royal summit, in order to resolve international disputes. The meeting was held in the court of the Hungarian King Charles I of Anjou, the actual initiator of the conference. The upper castle on the hilltop was built during the reign of King Béla IV to provide a line of defence in the event of a new Mongol invasion. The strategic significance of this location led to the extension of the upper castle with a massive keep by the Danube, as well as the construction of a fortified wall that connected the upper and lower castles, turning the hillside into a formidable system of fortifications.
Interestingly enough, the Slavic origin of the name Visegrád (meaning “high castle”) does not refer to what is now the upper castle but to an older one built on a hill farther north. What was once a Roman fort later became an ispán’s castle, which the local Slavs called “high castle,” a name retained by the Hungarians even after the building’s dilapidation. Populated by German settlers, the village at the foot of the hill rapidly developed into a town in the second half of the fourteenth century, shortly after King Charles I of Anjou had relocated his seat from Temesvár (Timişoara, Romania) to Visegrád in 1323 and defeated his oligarchic opposition. It was here that the central court and the administration were established. The harmony of landscape and architecture that evolved at the foot of the hill inspired Charles of Anjou to envision what would become one of Central Europe’s most significant royal seats in the fourteenth century. The excavation of the buildings of the royal court destroyed under Ottoman rule has been ongoing since 1934. Archaeologists have uncovered the foundations of the palace built by the Angevins, where an assassination was attempted against Charles I in 1330. By 1335 the castle and the town were able to accommodate the Bohemian King John of Luxemburg, his son and heir Charles, Count of Moravia, Casimir III (the Great) of Poland, Prince Rudolf of Saxony and Boleslaw III, Duke of Silesia, representatives of the Order of Teutonic Knights as well as their entourage for over an entire month.2
In order to understand the reasons that led to the royal summit one needs to study the circumstances of the respective countries at the beginning of the fourteenth century. Although the spread of the Black Death and other epidemics in this period in a sense marked the closure of the Middle Ages in Western Europe, the culture of chivalry was at that time still in full bloom. The fourteenth-century history of the three Central European kingdoms, Bohemia, Poland, and Hungary, features a time of progress and development reflected in similar ways in each country. At the beginning of the century all three neighboring kingdoms had been experiencing frictions and social unrest. By the second half of the century the three leaders had managed to resolve internal conflicts and build up strong countries. In Bohemia and Hungary the old dynasties had died out almost simultaneously at the beginning of the 1300s, while in Poland, Władisław Łokietek – who belonged to one of the branches of the Piast dynasty – ascended to the throne. The demanding tasks that all three countries were about to face influenced as a matter of fact their relationship to one another. Władisław Łokietek I, Prince of Krakow (1306–1320), succeeded in unifying the fractured Polish territories and made himself king upon the approval of the pope in 1320, thus re-making the Kingdom of Poland (ruled from 1320 to 1333). In Hungary, once the lineage of the Árpád dynasty ended in 1301, Charles of Anjou (1301–1342) came to the throne and, like Łokietek, commenced his reign with dedication and a gift for leadership. The rulers of Poland and Hungary supported each other in their struggles against the oligarchs in their own territories, and this alliance would remain one of the pillars of Central European politics throughout the fourteenth century.3
With the end of the Bohemian Přemyslid dynasty in 1306, the rival of the Angevins, John of Luxemburg (1310–1346), ascended to the throne of Bohemia, which brought about stability in Czech–Hungarian relations as well. One indication of this is that Charles of Anjou, having suffered the untimely loss of his first two wives, married Beatrice of Luxemburg, sister of the king of Bohemia, in 1317. The death of Beatrice in 1319, however, put an early end to this marriage. Because John did not have any more sisters to marry, Charles resorted to asking his other neighbor, the Polish king, for a fiancée. His marriage with Elizabeth, daughter of the newly crowned Władisław Łokietek, in 1320 forged a strong alliance between Hungary and Poland. At the same time, King John provided further support to Charles’s campaign against Máté Csák, his major adversary – a favor Charles did not let go unreturned. With the subsequent worsening of Hungarian–Austrian relations, the ties between the two kings strengthened, thanks to the long-standing animosity between the Luxemburgs and the Habsburgs.4
Charles’s good relations with both countries were eclipsed, however, by the enmity between the Bohemians and the Poles. One of the causes of this conflict lies in the Luxemburgs’ claim to the Polish throne, who in this regard simply stepped into the shoes of their Přemyslid predecessors. According to the rules of contemporary international relations, such a claim was legally justifiable and involved the whole heritage of Wenceslas III (1305–1306). The realization of this goal, however, was hindered by the unsuccessful campaign of the Bohemian king on the one hand, and by the diplomatic policies of the Angevins, who supported Łokietek, on the other. As a result, John of Luxemburg reduced his claim to Greater Poland and yielded Pomerania to the Teutonic Order. The Piasts had intended to lay claim to Silesia, a one-time Polish territory, but by the beginning of the fourteenth century the majority of the Silesian rulers were already under the overlordship of the Luxemburgs.
After the death of Władisław Łokietek I in 1333, his son Casimir III ascended to the throne, which breathed new life into the relations of the three countries. Once in power, Casimir launched himself into the task of sorting out matters left to him by his father. Poland was not only burdened by the feud with the Luxemburgs but also by territorial disputes with the Teutonic Order. With the new king on the Polish throne, John of Luxemburg also took an interest in improving Bohemian–Polish relations, for he was in search of an ally against his long-time enemies, the Austrians and Emperor Louis of Bavaria, with whom he had disputes over the heritage of Henry, Duke of Carinthia. In 1334, in order to settle the dispute over the Polish territories, the parties involved decided to choose arbiters: the Polish king appointed Charles of Anjou, while the Teutonic Order appointed John of Luxemburg.5 This move served as a platform for the subsequent peace process. The Hungarian king—who, after the death of Łokietek, became the ranking ruler of the region—set to the task with great zeal and mediated between the old Bohemian king and the young Polish ruler. Chief among his motives was his long-term goal to lay claim to the Polish throne for the Angevin dynasty. With Hungary in the role of mediator, the conference at Visegrád thus marked the closure of a two-year process of diplomatic negotiations between Bohemia and Poland on the one hand, and Poland and the Teutonic Order on the other. The mechanism of diplomatic preparations seems to have been engineered from Visegrád, which meant the constant coming and going of deputies to maintain contact and secure the flow of information.6
As a first step Casimir signed a one-year ceasefire with Charles, Margrave of Moravia and son of the Bohemian King John, at Sandomir on May 28, 1335. In the treaty he included King Charles of Hungary along with two Polish dukes as bails to confirm the peace treaty with their charters.7 Afterwards, on August 24, John’s and Casimir’s deputies met in the Hungarian town of Trencsén (Trenčín, Slovakia). Casimir authorized his deputies to follow the advice of the representatives of the Hungarian king throughout the peace process. The deputies also had the right to assume financial responsibilities on behalf of the king up to 30,000 silver marks. The Polish politicians were well aware that reimbursement of the financially unstable Bohemian king would be the key to the solution. After all, with the exception of the financial aspect, the other points of the peace treaty, which revolved around the Bohemian king’s claims to the Kingdom of Poland, had already been clarified. Consequently, King John, along with his son, waived his rights concerning Poland, while the Polish king gave up his claim to overlordship over Bohemian-governed Silesia and Masovia (Plock). The agreement was documented in a charter issued by the representatives of Casimir and sealed by their own seals, upon the promissory note that the Polish king would confirm it as well.8 With that, the Bohemian delegation went to the Hungarian royal court in Visegrád, where the Bohemian–Hungarian agreement was soon signed. The copy, dated September 3 and issued and sealed by the Hungarian king, has survived in the Czech royal archives.9
The time was now ripe for the commencement of the negotiations between the arbiters and for the meeting of the three kings. At the beginning of November 1335, the 47-year-old Hungarian King Charles of Anjou invited and hosted his brother-in-law and ally, the 25-year-old Polish King Casimir III, the 39-year-old Bohemian King John of Luxemburg, along with his 19-year-old son Charles, Margrave of Moravia (the future Emperor Charles IV), and a great number of Polish, Silesian, and German princes as part of their delegations, as well as the representatives of the Teutonic Order, for over three to four weeks. Contemporary chroniclers soon realized the significance of this event and reported on it in several accounts in all the countries involved. These documents typically highlight one aspect of the event while leaving others in the background.
In contemporary Czech historiography, represented by the Chronicle of Francis of Prague, compiled in the first half of the fourteenth century, the attitude is illustrated by the very title of its relevant chapter: “How the King of Bohemia Alienated Poland.” The author answered the question in the following way. The king of Bohemia, in the company of his firstborn, Charles, and several noblemen, went peacefully to Hungary and visited its king, Charles. There he spent three weeks, in the course of which they mutually preserved the fidelity and concord which existed between them, and confirmed them by oath, whereupon the king of Bohemia and his retinue returned to his kingdom, loaded with gifts. He took with him to Prague Casimir, already king of Poland, to whom he had sold Poland for twenty thousand marks in the presence of the king of Hungary. Here the Polish king spent several days, seeing many honors lavished upon him, and then returned home, where he proclaimed the happy news of having obtained the right and title to the Kingdom of Poland. While still in Hungary, these three kings had sworn a mutual alliance against all princes (contra omnes principes). Part of this alliance was a promise that the daughter of the Polish king would be given in marriage to the brother-in-law of the king of Bohemia, namely the five-year-old son of Henry, duke of Bavaria, who was called John.10
Charles of Luxemburg, Margrave of Moravia and later Holy Roman Emperor, offers an account of the congress in his autobiographies, which amounts to a contemporary report on the event, given that he attended it in person. No wonder he does not go into details about the formalities of hospitality, nor does he provide insight into the dynamics of the talks; yet it comes rather as a surprise that he emphasizes the Bohemian–Polish–Hungarian alliance only, without discussing the arbitration process. In his work he mentions that his father was already in Visegrád when he arrived; he then goes on to explicate the above-mentioned familial relationships among the rulers, and finally describes the roots of the Bohemian–Polish dispute.11 It is worth citing his text verbatim: “After this had taken place, we took the road to Hungary to our father, whom we found in Visegrád on the Danube with King Charles I. This king had earlier been married to the sister of our father, but she had died, and now he was married to the sister of King Casimir of Krakow, with whom he fathered three sons: the first was Louis, the second Andrew, the third Stephen. In that place King Charles brought about a peace between our father and the king of Krakow, by the terms of which our father renounced the rights belonging to him over Lesser Poland, namely Gniezno and Kalisz and the other provinces of Lesser Poland. To our father and the kingdom of Bohemia the king of Krakow renounced in perpetuity for himself and his successors, the kings of Lesser Poland, all his claims to all the duchies of Silesia and Opole and the city of Wrocław. There had previously been dissension between them because our grandfather, King Wenceslas II of Bohemia, held the aforementioned Lesser Poland and the duchies of Krakow and Sandomierz, having married the only daughter of Przemysł, the king of Lesser Poland and duke of Krakow and Sandomierz. On his death this Przemysł gave his kingdom along with the duchies which he possessed to our grandfather and the crown of the kingdom of Bohemia in perpetuity. But the aforementioned Casimir was the princess’s uncle and said that he held the right to the kingdom of Lesser Poland, asserting that a woman did not have the right to inherit the kingdom. And thus for a long time war had continued between the kings of Bohemia and Casimir and his deceased father Władisław, who were the kings of Krakow or Lesser Poland. It was thus that this war was brought to an end by the mediation of the aforementioned king of Hungary. In this he allied himself and promised to aid our father against the duke of Austria, who had taken the duchy of Carinthia from our brother, and against the aforementioned Louis [ie. Wittelsbach]. The following princes were allied together: our father, the king of Hungary, and Duke Henry of Bavaria, who was married to our sister.”12
The fifteenth-century Polish chronicler Jan Długosz highlights this other aspect of the congress in his account: the actual reason why the kings gathered together in Visegrád had been to settle the dispute over those Polish territories seized by the Teutonic Knights. While he thus captured the essence of the event, he provided the text of the charter of peace as well: “When the time approaches for the royal arbitrators to pronounce judgment, the two kings agree to meet in Wyszehrad (!) Castle on St. Elizabeth’s Day and there deliver judgment. King Casimir goes there to present his case in person. King John of Bohemia is there too. The Knights, who have never implemented the condition whereby the town and castle of Brześć were to be transferred to a third party, either the Duke of Mazovia or the Bishop of Włocławek, are represented by [Henry] Reuss of Plauen, the Governor of Toruń and Świecie. Each side presents its case and the documents to back it. But the King of Bohemia behaves more as an advocate for the Knights, than as an arbitrator, and is especially concerned that his sale of Pomerania to the Knights, which had brought him a very sizeable sum in coin, silver and gold, should not be invalidated. The decision, when pronounced, is that Kujawy and Dobrzyn belong to Poland, and Pomerania to the Teutonic Knights. This is a bitter blow for Casimir, for it deprives him of part of his inheritance, but, knowing how weak he is and afraid lest he become weaker still should hostilities be resumed, for he has enemies enough already and is considering declaring war on Ruthenia, he accepts even the condition that the castle of Nieszawa, though belonging to Kujawy, is to remain with the Order, thus giving the latter control of both banks of the Vistula and enabling it to use the river as a waterway. It is further decided that all liegemen, whether of King Casimir or of the Order, who have been expelled from their properties, are to be allowed to return and have their properties and the favour of their liege lord restored to them; or, should they prefer, they may sell their properties and go elsewhere. These decisions are pronounced on November 26.”13
The text of a fourteenth-century chronicle has survived in the work of the fifteenth-century Hungarian chronicler János Thuróczy, which gives a presumably contemporary account of the formal details of the meeting of 1335. Unlike Długosz’s account, this document focuses primarily on formalities; but such a description is just as valuable for us as political information. Let it be quoted here word for word, also because this will be the starting point for our attempt to establish the numbers of the retinues present: “In the 1335th year of the Lord, around the festivities of Saint Martin, King John of Bohemia, his son Charles, and the king of the Poles came to the castle of Visegrád, to the court of King Charles, to seal their alliance with a peace treaty for all time. And so it happened. Out of the generosity of the Hungarian king 2,500 loaves of bread were provided for the lunch of the Czech king, as well as a good share of the royal meals, all in abundance, while the horses’ daily share of fodder was 25 garleta. For the lunch of the Polish king 1,500 loaves of bread and other foods, as well as 180 barrels of wine were provided. The king of Hungary presented the king of Bohemia with various sorts of jewellery: 50 silver jars, two quivers, two belts, a magnificent chess board, two invaluable saddles, a knife with a belt that are worth 200 silver marks, and an elaborate pearl-oyster. Because the king of Poland was to pay homage to the king of Bohemia, and because Charles of Hungary took the sister of the Polish king as his wife, King Charles gave him 500 marks of the finest gold so as to save him from paying taxes to the Bohemian king. It was resolved that in the event of an enemy attack on any one of these countries, the others would help the one in trouble. And this has been sealed by an oath among one another.”14
The official documents issued in Visegrád in the autumn of 1335 do little to nuance the descriptions of the chroniclers. Although the chronicles do contain a kernel of truth, the events that they describe often occurred in different places, at different times, and not in the way they suggest. In the above example the Hungarian chronicler falsely asserts that Poland, as a feudal subject, had financial commitments to Bohemia and that Charles offered the required amount to “ransom” his brother-in-law. On the basis of the documents connected more immediately to the conference, it is possible to draw a more realistic picture. We have seen that at the meeting in Trencsén the “ransom” to be paid to the Bohemian king had not yet been specified. At the Visegrád meeting in November, however, Casimir, facing financial difficulties at the time, had no choice but to haggle over the amount to be paid. He finally agreed to pay 20,000 threescore Prague groschen (20,000 Bohemian silver marks) to the Bohemian king in exchange for the latter’s renunciation of his title of king of Poland. King John, in turn, issued a charter of abdication to be deposited with the Hungarian king. Should Casimir fail to produce the amount missing, the Hungarian king had the choice of giving the deposited charter back to the king of Bohemia or supplying the missing 6,000 marks himself.15 As 6,000 silver marks amount to 500 golden marks, the chronicle cited above has preserved this aspect of the event; however, it is mistaken in identifying the Hungarian king’s collateral statement with the payment itself.16
The actual celebration of the treaty of alliance took place on November 19, the nameday of Elizabeth Piast, wife of the host king.17 Many charters were dated that day, as was the Bohemian–Polish peace treaty,18 one of the most important documents of the meeting. Another charter of the same date provided for the security of the road leading from Poland to Wrocław and the demolition of the castle of Boleslauitz (Bolesławiec).19 Yet another was a marriage contract among the allied dynasties (a usual protocol on such occasions) aimed at protecting the newly forged Bohemian–Polish alliance. Due to the lack of younger sisters to marry, Casimir offered his baby daughter Elizabeth to the six-year-old grandson of the Bohemian king, the only child of Duke Henry of Bavaria and Duchess Margaret of Luxemburg (John’s daughter). Due to the untimely death of the boy in 1340, the marriage was not realized.20
The signing of the peace treaty took place on the same day as the verbal declaration of the arbitration. A thorough study of the historical sources demonstrates that this was the most important underlying reason for the meeting of the kings. The adversaries had been conscientiously preparing for the decisive event of the arbitration proceedings. On September 21, 1335, the Teutonic Order had the charters underpinning their rights transcribed in the archives of the Grand Master of the Order at Marienburg (Malbork),21 while the Polish king had already submitted a lawsuit against the Teutonic Knights to the pontifical court of law in the summer of 1335.22 In Visegrád the arbitration process had already commenced in November with an investigation into the plenipotentiary powers of the representatives of the Teutonic Order. This procedure was inevitable because the Grand Master of the Order was absent from the meeting (as appears from the charter on the peace itself). Once the authorization documents had been approved, it came to the presentation of statements and charters by the two sides. We have no information on the charters presented by the Polish deputies, but the Teutonic Knights certainly had those from the archives at Marienburg in their hands, as well as a complete draft of the peace treaty that they had composed earlier on.23 The arbitration was first declared orally, definitely before November 21, which is the date of the charter addressed by Władisław, Duke of Leczyca and Dobrzyn, to John of Luxemburg. Władisław cites the decree of the court of arbitration, which decided that the territories of Dobrzyn, hitherto under the rule of the Teutonic Order, were to revert to Casimir the Great. The duke reasserts that he had ruled over these territories until the Teutonic Knights and John of Luxemburg seized the area following the war waged against Łokietek.24 According to the charter, after the arbitration Casimir the Great would restore to him the region of Dobrzyn, and the duke would not demand war indemnities from John of Luxemburg.25 Closely connected to this charter is another document issued by Casimir the Great on November 23, in which he requested King John of Bohemia to give back the region of Dobrzyn to Duke Władisław.26
After days of negotiations between the arbiters and the barons, the arbitration was set down in a charter dated November 26. It stipulated that Casimir ruled over Kujawy and Dobrzyn, while the Teutonic Order received Pomerania.27 In his letter dated December 3 the King of Bohemia informed the Master of the Teutonic Knights of the dispositions drawn up during the meeting and of the subsequent duties at hand. He also listed the charters which the negotiating parties had to issue with regard to the case: “To the venerable Lord Theoderic, Knight, Grand Master of the Order of the Glorious Virgin Mary of the German Hospital of Jerusalem, to the beloved friend, John, by divine grace King of Bohemia, the Count of Luxemburg sends greetings, grace, and blessings. Let it be known that, during the three weeks we spent at the court of the Lord King of Hungary, we arranged your affairs and those of the Order, as we could, precisely as your knights who were with us could have reported it. First, the Lord King of Poland ought to guarantee by documents the renunciation of the lands of Culmerland (Chełmno Lands) and Pomerania (Gdansk Pomerania) as well as sincere friendship towards you in the future. Item, the Lord King of Hungary and we ought to give testimonial documents on the aforementioned renunciation of the King of Poland and on the concord and agreement between you and the King of Poland. Item, the King of Poland ought to submit a supplication to the Lord Pope in order that the Pope shall make a confirmation of the donation of the lands of Culmerland and Pomerania to you and to the Order. Item, the King of Poland ought to give documents and receive documents from archbishops and other ecclesiastical and secular persons to the fact that damages of the past war shall not be avenged, and shall not be attacked in any ecclesiastical or secular court. Item, the King of Poland ought to order documents from the King of Hungary on the renunciation of the lands of Culmerland and Pomerania in his and his successors’ names, since his wife is the sister of the King of Poland. Done under our seal on the Sunday when “Ad te levavi” is sung in the year of the Lord 1335.”28
Although there is no indication as to where the letter was written, it is quite certain that it was not written in Visegrád. According to the dates mentioned in the charters, the kings convened around All Saints’ Day, which designates November 1 as the starting date of the conference. In his letter dated December 3 King John talks about a meeting lasting three weeks; but the peace treaty between the Teutonic Order and Poland, which took place on November 26 in the presence of all those invited, indicates that the meeting lasted a bit longer. According to the Prague chronicle cited above, John and Casimir arrived in Prague on December 6. Casimir drafted another charter, addressed to the Teutonic Order and dated May 26, 1336, declaring that he accepted the arbitration.29
In addition to the two main points of the meeting’s agenda (the peace treaties between Bohemia and Poland, and between Poland and the Teutonic Order), we also have information on the follow-up discussions between the three kings that took place after the arbitration process. The lack of written documents on these discussions does not mean that questions unrelated to the arbitration were not addressed. For instance, the alliance forged between Hungary and Bohemia on September 3 was clearly designed against the Austrian dukes.30 It seems certain that the idea of a prospective campaign against them was also conceived in Visegrád. The military events of the following year, presumably also orchestrated from Visegrád, show evidence of prior arrangements, although they have not been documented. Some historians therefore regard the Visegrád meeting as a cradle of war rather than peace.31
Although the meeting received a lot of attention from all sides, as we have seen above, each party tended to highlight its own points of interest. As the event represented a turning point in fourteenth-century Polish international relations, it is not surprising that Polish historiography has addressed it in most detail, primarily focusing on Polish–Teutonic and Polish–Bohemian relations.32 Such aspects remained in the background in the writings of Hungarian chroniclers and the Visegrád meeting has instead been widely understood as a crucible of economic alliances.33 This assumption was based on a decree issued by Charles I in Visegrád on January 6, 1336, which regulated routes of commerce and the customs tariff between Hungary and Bohemia.34 The text of the decree suggests that Charles and King John had thoroughly discussed the issue beforehand – almost certainly in November in Visegrád. The commercial agreement was an important preliminary to the military campaign against the dukes of Austria. Also, the towns in the territory of present-day Slovakia may have played a role in initiating this trade agreement. The meeting in Visegrád therefore did have an economic aspect; yet this should not be generalized into the main focus of the conference.35
Finally, it is worth touching briefly upon the rather anomalous description of the conference that has come down to us as part of the Hungarian Thuróczy Chronicle, cited above, which has hitherto defied historians’ efforts at interpretation. Moreover, a closer examination of the text may probably take us nearer to establishing the size of the princely retinues that came to Visegrád, and thus provide relevant new information to both Czech and Polish historians. According to the ruling opinion of Hungarian historiography, the chapters dealing with the last years of the rule of Charles I of Anjou were probably inserted into the chronicle composition in the time of Louis I, by the hands of a Franciscan friar, thought by some scholars to have been called John Kétyi.36 It was from there that Turóczy adapted it into his own chronicle in the fifteenth century. We have seen above that the 500 marks given by the king of Hungary exactly corresponded to the 6,000 silver marks of which King Charles gave a warranty to King John on behalf of Casimir the Great. Thus, the fourteenth-century Hungarian chronicler was apparently well informed about the financial aspects of the negotiations, which increases our confidence in the reliability of his other data. For the lunch of the Czech king 2,500 loaves of bread were distributed every day, along with an ample portion of the royal victuals. The fodder (pabulum) for the horses amounted to 25 garletas per day. The relevant figure of bread for the Polish king was 1,500 loaves, plus a share in the royal victuals, while 180 barrels (tunella) of wine were also on supply.
The text makes a clear distinction between the amounts of bread due to the retinues of the kings of Bohemia and Poland respectively. As for the amount of wine, the figure given in the text should perhaps be interpreted in the sense that it represents not a daily portion but the total amount consumed by all the participants during the conference. Although fodder turns up only with reference to the retinue of the king of Bohemia, it is highly improbable that the Poles’ horses received none. While the plural form (equis suis) could also be interpreted as including the horses of both kings’ retinues, it is more probable that it refers more precisely to bohemorum, meaning that it was the amount provided for the Czech horses, as the portions supplied for the Poles are listed in a separate sentence. It is only the bread portion which figures separately on both “menus.” It makes evident that the retinue of the Polish king was much smaller than that of his colleague from Bohemia. More can be learned, however, if we can convert the figures of consumption into numbers of persons and animals, thereby gaining important information on the probable numbers of retinues attending the Visegrád summit. It is certainly worth the effort, of course without surveying the entire history of bread in the Middle Ages, especially because we do not know whether we are dealing with leavened bread or with unleavened flatbread, and nor do we have information on the size of bread in 1335.37 We should therefore count in the simplest possible way. We will surely not be too wide of the mark if we take one kilogram as the weight of one loaf of bread, and count with half a kilogram as the daily portion, taking into consideration that it was a princely conference, and thus other victuals, mainly meat, were also abundantly on the offer, as is indeed stated by the chronicler. In this case, the Czech delegation would number 5,000 persons, as opposed to 3,000 on the Polish side.
We can base sounder calculations on the amounts of fodder consumed by the horses. These amounts are given by the Latin text in garleta, a unit which has been interpreted in Hungarian historiography in various ways: it was most commonly translated as either köböl or mérő.38 Whereas the köböl contained 64 liters on average, defining the mérő is much more difficult, for its size varied, although it was generally somewhat smaller than the köböl. The amount obtained by either way of counting, however, is out of keeping with the information we have on the quantities of bread. Moreover, the Latin term for mérő is metreta, and the equivalent of köböl is cubulus, not garleta.39 Neither translation, therefore, is good.
That the garleta was a measure of grain of Italian origin has been known for a long time.40 Its exact size, and thus the meaning of the word, was established beyond doubt by Jenő Szűcs, but his results failed to raise the scholarly interest they merit.41 The number of charter references, which has grown considerably since the publication of the charters from the era of King Sigismund began, support abundantly Szűcs’s calculations.42 After a thorough examination of the sources, Szűcs came to the conclusion that “one gerla of wheat corresponded in modern measures to 13,536 (or at least 11,589) quintals, an enormous quantity, which by its sheer dimensions evokes a good cartload.” This huge number is underpinned, according to Szűcs, by the fact that in a whole series of late medieval Hungarian texts the gerla (girla) is the equivalent of corus (“cart”). Accordingly, he drew the conclusion that “when János Kétyi comments with regard to the royal summit of Visegrád in 1335 that the daily amount of fodder for the horses of the king of Bohemia was 25 garleta of oats, this piece of information is entirely in keeping with those which maintain that the retinue of that king consumed 2,500 loaves of bread and 180 barrels of wine for lunch each day…”43
Now, it is easy to calculate that the 25 cartloads of fodder which the horses belonging to the retinue of the king of Bohemia consumed corresponded to 33,900 kgs. Then we have to turn to consumption itself, however, for, as our source gives no information on either the nature of fodder or the size and type of horses, we do not know whether we are dealing with hay or oats, or a mixed fodder, and whether it was smaller or larger horses which ate it.44 Unfortunately, we have no data on the consumption of fodder by horses from medieval Hungary, but later evidence can be used for estimation.45 Thus, the need for dry matter by a full-grown horse a day would oscillate—depending, of course, on the intensity of work done and on the quality of fodder—between 8 and 12 kgs. In my view, we do not run the risk of making a big mistake if we calculate with a daily amount of 6-7 kgs in the case of horses that were not required to do any hard work during the conference. They were also probably put out to graze on the bank of the Danube, and thus had access to green fodder as well. In this way, we would come to an average of 5,000 Czech horses. However, we also have to take into consideration that a nobleman may have had several horses, and that the fodder must have been of excellent quality, and so it is unlikely for the horses to have consumed 6-7 kgs a day. Yet by reducing the daily portion, our stock of horses increases, and we may end up with as many as seven or eight thousand. However we juggle the numbers, they remain very high, and it is still only the Czechs we have counted with. If we take everything into account, a minimum of 5,000 Czech retainers and 3,000 Polish ones must have meant an onerous burden for the small town of Visegrád, especially in view of a stay there which extended for a whole month. Moreover, these persons and animals had to be not only fed but also accomodated, and the fodder of 25 cartloads a day stored somewhere on the territory of the town. If we take these numbers seriously, and we have no reason not to, as they mutually support each other, then we have to accept the fact that in 1335 the royal court at Visegrád, in the widest sense of the term, was able to host and provision an army of about 8,000 horsemen.46 This certainly indicates a fairly developed logistical ability on the part of the contemporary Hungarian royal court.
In view of this, it is almost unnecessary to engage in the interpretation of the 180 barrels (tunella) of wine. It is, indeed, almost impossible, as the tunella could range anywhere from 50 to 900 liters, which makes any estimation of its actual size illusory. Hungarian historians used to translate tunella as átalag, a barrel used around Tokaj and in the neighboring northeastern counties, which contained roughly 75 liters.47 As a matter of fact, this figure fits neatly with the amounts of bread and fodder. As our source fails to reveal whether this amount belonged to the Czechs or the Poles, we have to suppose that it was the quantity consumed by all the participants in a single day. If we count with barrels of 75 liters, we come to a minimum of 13,500 liters. In the case of a mixed Czech–Polish entourage of 8,000 men, this would yield a per capita consumption of 1.7 liters a day; not too much for just hanging around for a month.
However, wine was certainly consumed not only by the Czechs and the Poles, but also by all those present, the Hungarian hosts and the representatives of the Teutonic Order included. The Hungarian chronicler, besides passing over the fact of the arbitration itself in silence, fails to mention the presence of the representative of the Order. True, the delegation of the latter was led not by the Grand Master but by Count Henry of Plauen, governor of the province of Chulm, but even he certainly had a retinue of his own. As mentioned above, it is only natural that the chronicler limited his narrative to facts which mattered from a Hungarian point of view, as did all the other writers, each of whom framed his own account of the summit from the standpoint of his home country. Yet today we can safely break with the narrowly nationalist approach of the medieval chroniclers and state that the prime cause of the Visegrád royal summit was to provide the occasion for the two arbiters, the kings of Hungary and Bohemia, to make their judgement in the dispute between Poland and the Teutonic Order. The mere fact that the Hungarian chronicler failed to realize this and left the presence of the Order unrecorded, by no means diminishes the value of his work, for he makes several other statements which were clearly based on either the information provided by an eyewitness or some kind of contemporary account. The list of those gifts offerred to the king of Bohemia by his hosts, for instance,48 is more likely to have been taken from a contemporary notice or register than from the narrative of an eyewitness.49 In my opinion, therefore, the chronicler drew on the accounts of the royal court, then still available, in which the expenses of the Hungarian king for 1335 were recorded. This would also account for the lacunae and oddities which can be observed in the text. The author converted columns of numbers into a narrative. As for the expenses of the delegation of the Order, they were probably missing from the royal accounts. Their provision was presumably made from other (their own) sources, which is far from surprising in view of the fact that, unlike Casimir III and John of Luxemburg, the Order was not an ally but merely one of the parties in an arbitration. This may be the reason why the Order remained unmentioned in the accounts on which the chronicler drew and which put into writing the expenses of the Hungarian king in connection with the summit.
Finally, one more question must be asked. Was the enormous size of the royal retinues attending the summit an exception or the norm? The retinue of Sigismund of Luxemburg which escorted him on his well-documented travels in Western Europe amounted occasionally to 1,000 to 1,500 persons,50 and that of the guests who gathered around him at Buda in 1412 also contained several thousand people.51 Prague and Krakow were too near to Visegrád for the kings of Poland and Bohemia to resist the temptation of taking a huge entourage with them. Was their enormous retinue the part of routine representation or did it amount to an extraordinary and purposeful display of strength? In order to answer this question, one has to remember on the one hand that from Bohemia two princes came, each with his own entourage. On the other hand, the kings of Bohemia and Poland engaged not only themselves but also their most powerful subjects in making the peace, and they could not terminate the negotiations without their knowledge and consent. We know that urban delegates were also present, for some of the documents have survived in the city archives of Breslau (Wroclaw). Altogether some forty individual partners can be shown to have participated in the negotiations, the Hungarian lords included. Naturally enough, each brought a retinue of his own, which, together, constituted a mass of some 10,000 people, organized into various hierarchical structures. In all probability, its constituent parts idled away their time by memorable amusements and hunts, excursions to Fehérvár and Buda, and, of course, by chivalric tournaments on the bank of the Danube, while the kings negotiated and made peace up in the Citadel or in the Solomon Tower.
The scope of this study does not allow for a survey of the effects of the decrees passed at the meeting. Suffice it to say that the treaty forged with the Teutonic Order created a precedent and would later serve as a cornerstone of peace. The arbitration concerning Pomerania proved that the parties were willing to settle international conflicts through diplomatic means. The alliance between the three Central European countries lasted for over half a century and provided each country with the right to conduct its international relations autonomously (with the Balkans, the eastern regions, Germany, and Italy). Visegrád would also play an important role in the maintenance and renewal of the alliance in the upcoming years as well. It was here that Charles I renewed the 1335 treaty with Charles, Margrave of Moravia, heir to the throne of Bohemia. The margrave promised that he would support the Hungarian king’s claim to the Polish throne and, in turn, the Hungarian king would relinquish his claims on Silesia if he or his sons ascended to the Polish throne. Casimir and his royal delegation visited Visegrad again in 1339 with the intention of bequeathing Poland to his sister’s son Louis. This agreement ensured that Louis was elected king of Poland in 1370. These events illustrate that throughout the Middle Ages Visegrád functioned as a place for conflict resolution and rightly became an emblem for Central European cooperation over the centuries to come.
Magyar Nemzeti Levéltár Országos Levéltára (Hungarian National Archives – MNL OL), Diplomatikai Fényképgyűjtemény (Collection of Photocopies – DF) Accessed September 5, 2013. http://www.mom-ca.uni-koeln.de/mom/CZ-NA/ACK/.
Anjou-kori oklevéltár [Charters of Angevin Hungary]. 32 vols. Edited by Tibor Almási, László Blazovich, Lajos Géczi, Gyula Kristó, Ferenc Piti, Ferenc Sebők, and Ildikó Tóth. Budapest–Szeged: n.p., 1990–2012.
Bárány, Attila. “Zsigmond király 1416-os angliai kísérete” [King Sigismund’s Retinue in England in 1416]. Aetas 19, no. 3–4 (2004): 5–30.
Beňko, Ján and Michal Barnovský, eds. Dokumenty slovenskej národnej identity a štátnosti I [Documents of Slovak National Identity and Statehood]. Bratislava: Národné literárne centrum – Dom slovenskej literatúry, 1998.
Bertényi, Iván. A 14. század története [The History of the Fourteenth Century]. Budapest: Pannonica, 2000.
Bertényi, Iván. Magyarország az Anjouk korában [Hungary in the Age of the Angevins]. Budapest: Gondolat, 1987.
Bogdán, István. Magyarországi űr-, térfogat-, súly- és darabmértékek 1874-ig [Cubic, Volume, Weight and Piece Measures in Hungary to 1874]. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 1991.
Bonfinis, Antonius de. Rerum Ungaricarum decades. 3 vols, edited by I. Fógel, B. Iványi, and L. Juhász. Lipsiae: B.G. Teubner, 1936.
Boronkai, Iván and Kornél Szovák, eds. Lexicon Latinitatis medii aevi Hungariae. 5 vols. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 1987–1999.
Bozóki, Lajos. “A fellegvár leírása és építéstörténete” [The Description and Construction History of the Citadel]. In A visegrádi fellegvár [The Citadel of Visegrád], edited by Gergely Buzás, 7–25. Visegrád: Magyar Nemzeti Múzeum Mátyás király Múzeuma, 2004.
Buzás, Gergely. “A visegrádi királyi palota története” [The History of the Royal Palace at Visegrád]. In A visegrádi királyi palota [The Royal Palace of Visegrád], edited by Gergely Buzás and Krisztina Orosz, 11–17. Budapest: Magyar Nemzeti Múzeum Mátyás király Múzeuma, 2010.
Chlopocka, Helena. “Galhard de Carceribus i jego rola w sporze polsko-krzyżackim w XIV w.” [Galhard de Carceribus and His Role in the Dispute between the Poles and the Teutonic Knights in the Fourteenth Century]. In Europa–Słowiańszczyzna–Polska. Studia ku uczczeniu Profesora Kazimierza Tymienieckiego [Europe–Slavdom–Poland. Studies in Honor of Prof. Kazimierz Tymieniecki], ed. Juliusz Bardach et al., 135–45. Poznań: Wydaw. Naukowe UAM, 1970.
Codex diplomaticus et epistolaris Moraviae: Urkunden-Sammlung zur Geschichte Mährens, 1334–1349. Vols I–II/7, edited by Joseph Chytil. Brünn: Winiker & Schickardt, 1858–1860
Codex diplomaticus Hungariae ecclesiasticus ac civilis. 11 vols, edited by György Fejér. Buda: Typis typogr. Regiae Universitatis Ungaricae, 1829–1844.
Codex diplomaticus Prussicus. Urkunden-Sammlung zur ältern Geschichte Preussens aus dem Königl. Geheimen Archiv zu Königsberg nebst regesten. Vol. 2, edited by Johannes Voigt. Königsberg: Bornträger, 1842.
Codex Diplomaticus Silesiae. Regesten zur Schlesischen Geschichte, vol. 29 (1334–1337), edited by Konrad Wutke. Breslau: Hirt, 1922.
Csukovits, Enikő. Az Anjouk Magyarországon I. I. Károly és uralkodása (1301–1342) [The Angevins in Hungary I. Charles I and His Reign]. Budapest: MTA BTK Történettudományi Intézet, 2012.
Csukovits, Enikő. “Egy nagy utazás résztvevői. (Zsigmond király római kísérete)” [Participants in a Great Journey. (King Sigismund’s Retinue in Rome)]. In Tanulmányok Borsa Iván tiszteletére [Studies in Honor of Iván Borsa], edited by Enikő Csukovits, 11–36. Budapest: Magyar Országos Levéltár, 1998.
Das virtuelle Preußische Urkundenbuch. Regesten und Texte zur Geschichte Preußens und des Deutschen Ordens. Accessed September 5, 2013. http://www1.uni-hamburg.de/Landesforschung/pub/orden1334.html.
Dlugossi, Ioannis. Annales seu cronicae incliti regni Poloniae. Liber nonus, edited by D. Turkowska. Warsaw: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 1978.
Długosz, Jan. The Annales of Jan Długosz, edited and translated by Maurice Michael. Charlton Mill, UK: IM Publications, 1997.
Draskóczy, István. A tizenötödik század története [The History of the Fifteenth Century]. Budapest: Pannonica Kiadó, 2000.
Dubravius, Ioannes. Historiae regni Bohemiae. Francofurti: Bibliopolae Wratislaviensis, 1687.
E. Kovács, Péter. “‘A Szent Koronára! Ez kedvemre telik.’ Zsigmond császár Luccában” [‘On the Holy Crown! This Is to My Liking!’ Emperor Sigismund in Lucca]. Századok 141 (2007): 355–56.
Engel, Pál. “Az ország újraegyesítése. I. Károly küzdelmei az oligarchák ellen (1310–1323)” [The Reunification of the Country. The Struggles of Charles I against the Oligarchs]. Századok 122 (1988): 89–144.
Engel, Pál. The Realm of St Stephen. A History of Medieval Hungary, 895–1526. London–New York: I.B. Tauris, 2001.
Engel, Pál. “Visegrádi kongresszus” [The Visegrád Congress]. In Korai magyar történeti lexikon (9–14. század) [Encyclopedia of Early Hungarian History (Ninth–Fourteenth Centuries)], edited by Gyula Kristó, 732–33. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 1994.
Grünhagen, Colmar and Hermann Markgraf, eds. Lehns- und Besitzurkunden Schlesiens und seiner einzelnen Fürstenthümer im Mittelalter. 2 vols. Leipzig: Verlag von S. Hirzel, 1881.
Hatos, Géza. A lovak takarmányozása háborús viszonyok között [The Foddering of Horses under Wartime Conditions]. Budapest: Pátria, 1942.
Hóman, Bálint. A Magyar Királyság pénzügyei és gazdaságpolitikája Károly Róbert korában [The Finances and Economic Policy of the Kingdom of Hungary in the Age of Charles Robert]. Budapest: Nap Kiadó, 2003 .
Iván, László. A visegrádi vár története a kezdetektől 1685-ig [The History of the Castle of Visegrád from the Beginnings to 1685]. Visegrád: Magyar Nemzeti Múzeum Mátyás király Múzeuma, 2004.
Knoll, Paul W. The Rise of the Polish Monarchy: Piast Poland in East Central Europe, 1320–1370. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press, 1972.
Koss, Rudolf. Arhiv Koruny Ceské. 2. Katalog listin z let 1158–1346 [The Archives of the Czech Crown. 2. Catalogue of Charters from the Years 1158–1346]. Prague: Zemsky Správný Výbor, 1928.
Mészáros, Orsolya. A késő középkori Visegrád város története és helyrajza [The History and Topography of the Late Medieval Town of Visegrád]. Visegrád: Magyar Nemzeti Múzeum Mátyás király Múzeuma, 2009.
Miskolczy, István. Magyarország az Anjouk korában [Hungary in the Age of the Angevins]. Historia Incognita. Máriabesnyő–Gödöllő: Attraktor, 2009.
Nagy, Balázs. “Magyar vonatkozások Luxemburgi Károly önéletrajzában” [Hungarian Aspects in the Autobiography of Charles of Luxemburg]. In Auxilium historiae: tanulmányok a hetvenesztendős Bertényi Iván tiszteletére [Studies in Honor of Iván Bertényi on his Seventieth Birthday], edited by Tamás Körmendi and Gábor Thoroczkay, 227–29. Budapest: ELTE BTK, 2009.
Nagy, Balázs and Frank Schaer, eds. Karoli IV Imperatoris Romanorum Vita ab eo ipso conscripta et Hystoria Nova de Sancto Wenceslao Martyre. Autobiography of Emperor Charles IV and his Legend of St. Wenceslas. Central European Medieval Texts. Budapest: CEU Press, 2001.
Ortutay, Gyula, ed. “Kenyér” [Bread]. In Magyar Néprajzi Lexikon [Encyclopedia of Hungarian Ethnography]. Vol. III, K–Né. 145–46. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 1980.
Perjés, Géza. Mezőgazdasági termelés, népesség, hadseregélelmezés és stratégia a 17. század második felében (1650–1715) [Agricultural Production, Population, Army Provisioning and Strategy in the Second Half of the Seventeenth Century]. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 1963.
Pór, Antal. “A történeti jelenetek korhű reconstruálásáról. Fejedelmi congressus Visegrádon, 1335. novemberben” [On the Faithful Reconstruction of Historical Scenes. A Princely Congress in Visegrád, November 1335]. Századok 27 (1893): 421–28.
Pór, Antal. “Tót Lőrinc, a királyi tárnokok és zászlótartók mestere (1328–1348)” [Lőrinc Tót, Master of the Royal Treasurers and Flagbearers (1328–1348)]. Századok 25 (1891): 347–77.
Rácz, György, ed. Visegrád 1335. Bratislava: International Visegrad Found, 2009.
Regesta diplomatica nec non epistolaria Bohemiae et Moraviae. 4 vols, edited by Karol Jaromir Erben and Joseph Emler. Prague: Typis Gregerianis, 1855–1892.
Reiszig, Ede. “Az Újlaki-család” [The Újlaki Family]. Turul 57 (1943): 1–13, 56–65.
Reliqviae manvscriptorvm omnis aevi, diplomatvm ac monvmentorvm, ineditorvm adhvc. Vol. V, edited by Johann Peter Ludewig. Frankfurt: n.p., 1723.
Sedlák, Vincent ed. Pramene k dejinám Slovenska a Slovákov IV. Pod vládou anjouovských kráľov [Sources on the History of Slovakia and the Slovaks IV. Under the Rule of the Angevin Kings]. Bratislava: Literárne informačné centrum, 2002.
Skorka, Renáta. “A bécsi lerakat Magyarországra vezető kiskapui” [Backstairs of the Vienna Depository towards Hungary]. Történelmi Szemle 54, no. 1 (2012): 1–16.
Szczur, Stanisław. “A lengyel diplomáciai testület Nagy Kázmér korában” [The Polish Diplomatic Corps in the Age of Casimir the Great]. In Visegrád 1335. Tudományos tanácskozás a visegrádi királytalálkozó 650. évfordulóján. Visegrád 1985. szeptember 30–október 1, edited by József Köblös, 97–102. Budapest: Pest Megyei Levéltár, 1988.
Stanisław Szczur. “Az 1335. évi visegrádi királyi találkozó” [The 1335 Royal Summit in Visegrád]. Aetas 1 (1993): 26–42.
Szczur, Stanisław. “Dyplomaci Kazimierza Wielkiego w Awinionie” [The Diplomacy of Casimir the Great in Avignon]. Nasza Przeszlosc 66 (1986): 43–106.
Szczur, Stanisław. Historia Polski: Średniowiecze [The History of Poland: The Middle Ages]. Krakow: Wydawnictwo Literackie, 2002.
Szende, László. “Piast Erzsébet, a hitves, az édesanya, a mecénás” [Elizabeth Piast, Wife, Mother, Patroness]. In Károly Róbert és Székesfehérvár [Charles Robert and Székesfehérvár], 78–100. Székesfehérvár: Székesfehérvári Egyházmegyei Múzeum, 2011.
Szűcs, Jenő. “A gabona árforradalma a 13. században” [The Revolution in Grain Prices in the Thirteenth Century]. Történelmi Szemle 27 (1984): 14–18.
Thurocz, Johannes de. Chronica Hungarorum I. Textus, edited by Erzsébet Galántai and Gyula Kristó. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 1985.
Thurocz, Johannes de. Chronica Hungarorum II. Commentarii 2. Ab anno 1301 usque ad annum 1487, edited by Elemér Mályusz, with the help of Gyula Kristó. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 1988.
Thuróczy, János. A magyarok krónikája [Chronicle of the Hungarians]. Translated by János Horváth. Budapest: Európa Könyvkiadó, 1980.
Veszprémy, László. “Csatamének, paripák és hátaslovak. A középkori hadilovakról” [Destriers, Coursers and Rounceys. On Medieval Warhorses]. In idem. Lovagvilág Magyarországon [The World of Chivalry in Hungary]. Budapest: Argumentum, 2008, 155–70.
Zachová, Jana ed. Chronicon Francisci Pragensis / Kronika Františka Pražského. Fontes rerum Bohemicarum, series nova [Prameny dějin českých, Nová řada]. Vol. 1. Prague: Nadace Patriae, 1997.
Zolnai, Gyula. Nyelvemlékeink a könyvnyomtatás koráig [Our Linguistic Relics until the Age of Printing]. Budapest: Magyar Tudományos Akadémia, 1894.
Zsigmondkori oklevéltár [Charters from the Age of Sigismund]. 12 vols, edited by Elemér Mályusz, Iván Borsa, Norbert C. Tóth, Tibor Neumann, Bálint Lakatos. Budapest: MOL, 1951–2013.
1* The present study is the revised version of: György Rácz, The Congress of Visegrád, in Visegrád 1335, ed. György Rácz (Budapest: International Visegrád Fund, 2009), 17–80.
A realistic assessment of the congress on the Hungarian side is Pál Engel, “Visegrádi kongresszus” [The Visegrád Congress], in Korai magyar történeti lexikon (9–14. század) [Encyclopedia of Early Hungarian History (Ninth–Fourteenth Centuries)], ed. Gyula Kristó (Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 1994), 732–33.
2 The most recent literature on the town, the castle and the palace: László Iván, A visegrádi vár története a kezdetektől 1685-ig [The History of the Castle of Visegrád from the Beginnings to 1685] (Visegrád: Magyar Nemzeti Múzeum Mátyás király Múzeuma, 2004), especially 24, 37; Lajos Bozóki, “A fellegvár leírása és építéstörténete” [The Description and Construction History of the Citadel], in A visegrádi fellegvár [The Citadel of Visegrád], ed. Gergely Buzás (Visegrád: Magyar Nemzeti Múzeum Mátyás király Múzeuma, 2004), 7–25; Orsolya Mészáros, A késő középkori Visegrád város története és helyrajza [The History and Topography of the Late Medieval Town of Visegrád] (Visegrád: Magyar Nemzeti Múzeum Mátyás király Múzeuma, 2009), 19–27; Gergely Buzás, “A visegrádi királyi palota története” [The History of the Royal Palace at Visegrád], in A visegrádi királyi palota, ed. Gergely Buzás and Krisztina Orosz (Budapest: Magyar Nemzeti Múzeum Mátyás király Múzeuma, 2010), 11–17.
3 On the contemporary situation of the three countries and their political history, I have used the following basic works, to which I make no reference henceforth: Paul W. Knoll, The Rise of the Polish Monarchy: Piast Poland in East Central Europe, 1320–1370 (Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press, 1972); Stanisław Szczur, Historia Polski: Średniowiecze [The History of Poland: The Middle Ages] (Krakow: Wydawnictwo Literackie, 2002); Pál Engel, The Realm of St Stephen. A History of Medieval Hungary, 895–1526 (London–New York: I.B. Tauris, 2001), 130–34, 136–37. On the details of Hungarian domestic policies, see Pál Engel, “Az ország újraegyesítése. I. Károly küzdelmei az oligarchák ellen (1310–1323)” [The Reunification of the Country. The Struggles of Charles I against the Oligarchs], Századok 122 (1988): 89–144. A modern, balanced survey on the reign of Charles I is Enikő Csukovits, Az Anjouk Magyarországon I. I. Károly és uralkodása (1301–1342) [The Angevins in Hungary I. Charles I and His Reign] (Budapest: MTA BTK Történettudományi Intézet, 2012).
4 On the marriages and family relations of Charles I in general see Csukovits, Az Anjouk 109–13.
5 May 15, 1334: Casimir, King of Poland, having taken the counsel of his barons listed, acknowledges King Charles of Hungary on his part, and John King of Bohemia on the part of the Teutonic Order, as arbiters elected to judge in and terminate his dispute with the said Order. Codex diplomaticus Prussicus. Urkunden-Sammlung zur ältern Geschichte Preussens aus dem Königl. Geheimen Archiv zu Königsberg nebst regesten, vol. 2, ed. Johannes Voigt (Königsberg: Bornträger, 1842), 194–95. See also: Das virtuelle Preußische Urkundenbuch. Regesten und Texte zur Geschichte Preußens und des Deutschen Ordens. 2.842 Accessed September 5, 2013, http://www.uni-hamburg.de/Landesforschung/pub/orden1334.html.
6 On Polish diplomatics see also Stanislaw Szczur, “Dyplomaci Kazimierza Wielkiego w Awinionie” [The Diplomacy of Casimir the Great in Avignon], Nasza Przeszlosc 66 (1986): 43–106; Idem, “A lengyel diplomáciai testület Nagy Kázmér korában” [The Polish Diplomatic Corps in the Age of Casimir the Great], in Visegrád 1335. Tudományos tanácskozás a visegrádi királytalálkozó 650. évfordulóján. Visegrád 1985. szeptember 30–október 1, ed. József Köblös (Budapest: Pest Megyei Levéltár, 1988), 97–102.
7 Original: Národni archív, Praha [National Archives, Prague], AČK, Inv. Nr. 162. Accessed September 5, 2013, http://www.mom-ca.uni-koeln.de/mom/CZ-NA/ACK/162/charter; published edition: Codex diplomaticus Hungariae ecclesiasticus ac civilis, 11 vols., ed. György Fejér (Budae: Typis typogr. Regiae Universitatis Ungaricae, 1829–1844), vol. VIII/4, 62–65; Regesta diplomatica nec non epistolaria Bohemiae et Moraviae, 4 vols., eds. Karol Jaromir Erben and Joseph Emler (Prague: Typis Gregerianis, 1855–1892) (hereafter: RBM), vol. IV, 62–63 (no. 164); Codex Diplomaticus Silesiae. Regesten zur Schlesischen Geschichte 1334–1337, vol. 29, ed. Konrad Wutke (Breslau: Hirt, 1922), 48 (no. 5459); Rudolf Koss, Arhiv Koruny Ceské. 2. Katalog listin z let 1158–1346 [The Archives of the Czech Crown. Catalogue of the Charters from the Years 1158–1346] (Prague: Zemsky Správný Výbor, 1928) 140–41 (no. 176) with the data of previous editions.
8 Original lost. Published edition: Johann Peter von Ludewig, Reliqviae manvscriptorvm omnis aevi, diplomatvm ac monvmentorvm, ineditorvm adhvc (Frankfurt: n.p., 1723), vol. V, 599. Following him: Codex diplomaticus et epistolaris Moraviae: Urkunden-Sammlung zur Geschichte Mährens, vols. VII/1–2 (1334–1349), ed. Joseph Chytil (Brünn: Winiker & Schickardt, 1858–1860), 56–57; Lehns- und Besitzurkunden Schlesiens und seiner einzelnen Fürstenthümer im Mittelalter, 2 vols., eds. Colmar Grünhagen and Hermann Markgraf (Leipzig: Verlag von S. Hirzel, 1881), vol. 1, no. 1; Hungarian abstract: Anjou-kori oklevéltár [Charters of Angevin Hungary] 32 vols, eds. Tibor Almási et al. (Budapest–Szeged: n.p., 1990–2012), vol. XIX, 234–35 (no. 523).
9 Original: Národni archív, Praha, AČK, Inv. Nr. 167. Accessed September 5, 2013, http://www.mom-ca.uni-koeln.de/mom/CZ-NA/ACK/167/charter. (Photocopy: Magyar Nemzeti Levéltár Országos Levéltára [Hungarian National Archives], Diplomatikai Fényképgyűjtemény [Collection of Photocopies, DF] 287 457). The latest edition is: Visegrád 1335, ed. György Rácz (Bratislava: International Visegrad Found, 2009) 83–85 (with English, Czech, Hungarian, Polish and Slovak translations of all the charters published in that volume). Earlier editions: RBM, vol. IV, 78–79 (no. 202); Codex Diplomaticus Silesiae, 57 (no. 5499); Koss, Arhiv Koruny České, no. 180; Hungarian abstract: Anjou-kori oklevéltár, vol. XIX, no. 539 (with the information on earlier editions).
10 Chronicon Francisci Pragensis / Kronika Františka Pražského, ed. Jana Zachová, Fontes rerum Bohemicarum, series nova, vol. 1 (Prague: Nadace Patriae, 1997) 159–160.
11 Karoli IV Imperatoris Romanorum Vita ab eo ipso conscripta et Hystoria Nova de Sancto Wenceslao Martyre. Autobiography of Emperor Charles IV and his Legend of St. Wenceslas, eds. Balázs Nagy and Frank Schaer, Central European Medieval Texts (Budapest: CEU Press, 2001), 80–83.
12 Hungarian translation and comments: Balázs Nagy, “Magyar vonatkozások Luxemburgi Károly önéletrajzában” [Hungarian Aspects in the Autobiography of Charles of Luxemburg], in Auxilium historiae: tanulmányok a hetvenesztendős Bertényi Iván tiszteletére [Auxilium Historiae: Studies in Honor of Iván Bertényi on his Seventieth Birthday], eds. Tamás Körmendi and Gábor Thoroczkay (Budapest: ELTE BTK, 2009), 227–29.
13 Ioannis Dlugossi, Annales seu cronicae incliti regni Poloniae. Liber nonus, ed. D. Turkowska (Warsaw: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 1978); Jan Długosz, The Annales of Jan Długosz, ed. and transl. by Maurice Michael (Charlton Mill, UK: IM Publications, 1997), 285–86.
14 „Anno domini millesimo tricentesimo tricesimo quinto circa festum sancti Martini Johannes rex Bohemorum cum Karolo filio suo, et rex Polonorum venerunt ad regem Karolum in Hungariam ad castrum Wyssegrad pro perpetue pacis concordia componenda, quod et factum est. Omni enim die ad prandium regis Bohemorum ex magnificentia regis Hungarie expendebantur duo millia et quingenti panes, et de cibis regalibus copiose, pabulum etiam equis suis per singulos dies viginti quinque garlete. Ad prandium vero regis Polonorum mille et quingenti panes, de cibariis etiam habundanter. De vino autem expense sunt centum et octoginta tunelle. Remuneravit autem rex Ungarie regem Bohemorum diversis et preciosis clenodiis, videlicet quinquaginta vasis argenteis, duabus pharetris, duobus baltheis, et una tabula pro scacis mirabili, duabus sellis inestimabilis precii, uno biccello valente ducentas marcas argenti, et una concha margaritharum mirabili opere composita. Item quia rex Polonie erat regi Bohemorum censualis, et quia rex Hungarie Karolus habebat sororem regis Polonie in uxorem, dedit ei rex Hungarie idem Karolus ad redimendum eum regem de solutione censuali regi Bohemorum quingentas marcas auri purissimi, et ibi ordinatum est, ut quemquam ipsorum regum vel regna eorum hostis invaderet aliquis, ceteri debeant in sui adiutorium et iuvamen festinare. Et istud fuit confirmatum inter eos magno federe iuramenti.” Johannes de Thurocz, Chronica Hungarorum I. Textus, eds. Erzsébet Galántai and Gyula Kristó (Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 1985), 152–53.
15 See the charter issued by King Casimir and his sureties, dated November 22, 1335. Original: Wroclaw, Wojewódszkie Archiwum Panstwowe, Archivum miasta Wroclawia [The State Archives of Wroclaw, Archives of the City of Wroclaw] no. 237; published editions: Codex Diplomaticus Moraviae, vol. VII, 69–70 (no. 89), dated November 12 following the previous editions; RBM, vol. IV, 85–86 (no. 221); Codex Diplomaticus Silesiae 62 (no. 5522); Anjou-kori oklevéltár, vol. XIX, no. 688, again with a wrong date, following Codex Diplomaticus Moraviae, although the Codex Diplomaticus Silesiae had already called attention to the errors in the previous editions (61, no. 5515).
16 The exact conversion/commutation of the monetary data was done by Elemér Mályusz in his commentaries to the critical edition of the Thuróczy Chronicle: Johannes de Thurocz, Chronica Hungarorum II. Commentarii 2. Ab anno 1301 usque ad annum 1487, ed. Elemér Mályusz, with the help of Gyula Kristó (Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 1988), 78–79.
17 On her life, and the important political role she played beside her husband, see László Szende, “Piast Erzsébet, a hitves, az édesanya, a mecénás” [Elizabeth Piast, Wife, Mother, Patroness], in Károly Róbert és Székesfehérvár [Charles Robert and Székesfehérvár] (Székesfehérvár: Székesfehérvári Egyházmegyei Múzeum, 2011), 78–100.
18 Original: Národni archív, Praha, AČK, Inv. No. 168. Accessed September 5, 2013, http://www.mom-ca.uni-koeln.de/mom/CZ-NA/ACK/168/charter. Published editions: Codex diplomaticus Moraviae, vol. VII, 71–72 (no. 91) on the basis of a copy and of previous editions, maintaining that the original is in Vienna; RBM, vol. IV, 87–88 (no. 223); Codex Diplomaticus Silesiae, 61 (no. 5518); Koss, Arhiv Koruny České, no. 181; Anjou-kori oklevéltár, vol. XIX, no. 707; Rácz, Visegrád 1335, 105–06. (English, Czech, Hungarian, Polish and Slovak translations, 107–16).
19 Original lost. Edition: Ludewig, Reliqviae, vol. V, 588–89. Following him, and each other: RBM, vol. IV, 88–89 (no. 225); Codex Diplomaticus Silesiae 62 (no. 5520).
20 The original is missing. Edition: Ludewig, Reliqviae, vol. V, 292–93 (dated 1305); Codex Diplomaticus Moraviae, vol. VII, 70–71 (no. 90, on the basis of previous editions); RBM, vol. IV, 86 (no. 222, on the basis of previous editions); Codex Diplomaticus Silesiae 61 (no. 5519);
21 Preußisches Urkundenbuch (1335–1342), vol. I/3, ed. Max Hein (Königsberg: Hartung, 1944), nos. 11–16; Das virtuelle Preußische Urkundenbuch 3. 11–16.
22 Helena Chlopocka, “Galhard de Carceribus i jego rola w sporze polsko-krzyżackim w XIV w.” [Galhard de Carceribus and His Role in the Dispute between the Poles and the Teutonic Knights in the Fourteenth Century], in Europa–Słowiańszczyzna–Polska. Studia ku uczczeniu Profesora Kazimierza Tymienieckiego [Europe–Slavdom–Poland. Studies in Honor of Prof. Kazimierz Tymieniecki], ed. Juliusz Bardach et al. (Poznań: Wydaw. Naukowe UAM, 1970), 135–45.
23 The articles of the peace treaty are known from a fifteenth-century copy: Das virtuelle Preußische Urkundenbuch 3. 27.
24 Original: Národni archív, Praha, AČK, Inv. Nr. 169. Accessed September 5, 2013, http://www.mom-ca.uni-koeln.de/mom/CZ-NA/ACK/169/charter. Judging by the place where it is kept now, it must have been the copy of John of Luxemburg. Published editions: Preußisches Urkundenbuch, vol. I/3, no. 30; RBM, vol. III, no. 2060; Codex Diplomaticus Silesiae 62. In the dating tricesimo tercio is an evident misspelling of tricesimo quinto.
25 Cf. Stanisław Szczur, “Az 1335. évi visegrádi királyi találkozó” [The 1335 Royal Summit in Visegrád], Aetas 1 (1993): 26–42 (31).
26 Original: Národni archív, Praha, AČK, Inv. Nr. 170. Published editions: Codex Diplomaticus Prussicus, vol. III, no. 31; RBM, vol. IV, 89 (no. 227); Codex Diplomaticus Silesiae 62 (no. 5523); Koss, Arhiv Koruny České, 145 (no. 182).
27 Original: Geheimes Staatsarchiv Preussischer Kulturbesitz Berlin–Dahlem XX. HA, Urkunden, Schieblade 109, no. 39 (MNL OL, DF, 288 349). Published editions: RBM, vol. IV, 89–90 (no. 228); Preußisches Urkundenbuch, vol. I/3, 32; Codex Diplomaticus Silesiae 63 (no. 5526); Anjou-kori oklevéltár, vol. XIX, no. 725.
28 Original: Geheimes Staatsarchiv Preussischer Kulturbesitz Berlin–Dahlem, vol. XX, Ha. StA. Königsberg 109.40 (MNL OL, DF, 288 350). Published editions: Rácz, Visegrád 1335, 156; Codex Diplomaticus Moraviae, vol. I/7, 75 (no. 98); Preußisches Urkundenbuch, vol. I/3, 33; Anjou-kori oklevéltár, vol. XIX, no. 739.
29 Preußisches Urkundenbuch, I/3, no. 64.
30 Iván Bertényi, Magyarország az Anjouk korában [Hungary in the Age of the Angevins] (Budapest: Gondolat, 1987), 108.
31 Iván Bertényi, A 14. század története [The History of the Fourteenth Century] (Budapest: Pannonica, 2000), 152..
32 For a brief historiography, see Szczur, “Az 1335. évi visegrádi,” 28–29.
33 On this view, see Bálint Hóman, A Magyar Királyság pénzügyei és gazdaságpolitikája Károly Róbert korában [The Finances and Economic Policy of the Kingdom of Hungary in the Age of Charles Robert] (Budapest: Nap Kiadó 2003 ) 66–68.
34 Original: Archiv města Brna [Archives of the City of Brno], A 1/1 – Archiv města Brna – sbírka listin, mandátů a listů, 1208–2000, sign. 93. (MNL OL, DF, 267 832). The editions are listed in Anjou-kori oklevéltár, vol. XIX, no. 6. The newest edition: Rácz, Visegrád 1335, 164–178. The charter was also translated into Slovak in two published versions: Dokumenty slovenskej národnej identity a štátnosti I [Documents of Slovak National Identity and Statehood], ed. Ján Beňko et al. (Bratislava: Národné literárne centrum – Dom slovenskej literatúry, 1998), 150–51; Pramene k dejinám Slovenska a Slovákov IV. Pod vládou anjouovských kráľov [Sources on the History of Slovakia and the Slovaks IV. Under the Rule of the Angevin Kings], ed. Vincent Sedlák (Bratislava: Literárne informačné centrum, 2002), 108–09. It has to be noted that the name “Laurencius Sclavus,” which figures in the charter, has been rendered as “Vavrincovi Slovákovi” in these translations, which is an evident mistake since the person in question, known as Lőrinc Tóth in Hungarian historiography, was a man of Southern Slav origins with ancestors from the county of Dubica (Croatia); see Antal Pór, “Tót Lőrinc, a királyi tárnokok és zászlótartók mestere (1328–1348)” [Lőrinc Tót, Master of the Royal Treasurers and Flagbearers (1328–1348)], Századok 25 (1891): 347–77; Ede Reiszig, “Az Újlaki-család” [The Újlaki Family], Turul 57 (1943): 1–13, 56–65, Table 65; consequently, the word sclavus should be interpreted in a general sense and by no means as synonymous with Slovak.
35 Hungarian historiography now interprets differently the opening of the trading route of Brünn (Brno, Czech Republic), which had taditionally been explained in terms of an effort to get round the staple right of Vienna. Renáta Skorka, “A bécsi lerakat Magyarországra vezető kiskapui” [Backstairs of the Vienna Staple towards Hungary], Történelmi Szemle 54, no. 1 (2012): 1–16.
36 Elemér Mályusz, “Krónika-problémák” [Chronicle Problems], Századok 100 (1966): 725–47; Gyula Kristó, “Anjou-kori krónikáink” [Our Chronicles from the Angevin Period], Századok 101 (1967): 467; idem, Magyar historiográfia I. Történetírás a középkori Magyarországon [Hungarian Historiography I. The Writing of History in Medieval Hungary] (Budapest: Osiris, 2002), 86.
37 “Kenyér” [Bread], in Magyar Néprajzi Lexikon [Encyclopedia of Hungarian Ethnography], vol. III, K–Né, ed. Gyula Ortutay (Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 1980), 145–46.
38 Antal Pór (“Tót Lőrincz, a királyi tárnokok és zászlótartók mestere,” 363) translated it as “köböl” (“köböl, Muth, korec”), while János Horváth rendered it as “mérő”: János Thuróczy, A magyarok krónikája [Chronicle of the Hungarians], transl. János Horváth (Budapest: Európa Könyvkiadó, 1980), 223.
39 István Bogdán, Magyarországi űr-, térfogat-, súly- és darabmértékek 1874-ig [Cubic, Volume, Weight and Piece Measures in Hungary to 1874] (Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 1991), 218–19, 328–29; Lexicon Latinitatis medii aevi Hungariae, 5 vols., eds. Iván Boronkai and Kornél Szovák (Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 1987–1999), vol. II, 430.
40 Gyula Zolnai, Nyelvemlékeink a könyvnyomtatás koráig [Our Linguistic Relics until the Age of Printing] (Budapest: Magyar Tudományos Akadémia, 1894), 90. The author lists its occurrences in linguistic relics in the forms gerla/garleta.
41 Jenő Szűcs, “A gabona árforradalma a 13. században” [The Revolution in Grain Prices in the Thirteenth Century], Történelmi Szemle 27 (1984): 14–18.
42 Zsigmondkori oklevéltár [Charters from the Age of Sigismund], 12 vols. (1387–1425), eds. Elemér Mályusz et al., (Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, Magyar Országos Levéltár, 1951–2013), vol. I, no. 2247; vol. III, no. 1591; vol. V, no. 1832; vol. VIII, no. 72; Lexicon Latinitatis Hungariae, vol. IV, 183.
43 Szűcs, “A gabona árforradalma,” 16. Since in his thorough manual of cubic measures István Bogdán does not include the data of Szűcs, nor does the latter make reference to his work, it is evident that Bogdán worked independently, yet he came to roughly the same results. See Bogdán, Magyarországi űrmértékek, 289, where he cites data of 1611, 1208, and 916 kgs, and finally opts for the latter as the most authoritative.
44 László Veszprémy, “Csatamének, paripák és hátaslovak. A középkori hadilovakról” [Destriers, Coursers and Rounceys. On Medieval Warhorses], in idem, Lovagvilág Magyarországon [The World of Chivalry in Hungary] (Budapest: Argumentum, 2008), 155–70.
45 Géza Perjés, Mezőgazdasági termelés, népesség, hadseregélelmezés és stratégia a 17. század második felében (1650–1715) [Agricultural Production, Population, Army Provisioning and Strategy in the Second Half of the Seventeenth Century] (Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 1963), 60; Géza Hatos, A lovak takarmányozása háborús viszonyok között [The Foddering of Horses under Wartime Conditions] (Budapest: Pátria, 1942), 25.
46 According to Mátyás Szőke (personal communication) there are archeological finds in Visegrád that could be interpreted as grain-storage pits.
47 Bogdán, Magyarországi űrmértékek, 155–56; Antal Pór, “A történeti jelenetek korhű reconstruálásáról. Fejedelmi congressus Visegrádon, 1335. novemberben” [On the Faithful Reconstruction of Historical Scenes. A Princely Congress in Visegrád, November 1335], Századok 27 (1893): 421–28; István Miskolczy, Magyarország az Anjouk korában [Hungary in the Age of the Angevins], Historia Incognita (Máriabesnyő–Gödöllő: Attraktor, 2009), 26–27.
48 It would be interesting to follow the traces, if any, of these gifts in later Czech tradition. The historians who dealt with the topic give the lists with variations: Antonius de Bonfinis, Rerum Ungaricarum decades, 3 vols., eds. I. Fógel et al. (Lipsiae: B.G. Teubner, 1936), vol. II, 213 (2. 9. 360); Ioannes Dubravius, Historiae regni Bohemiae (Francofurti: Bibliopolae Wratislaviensis, 1687), 562.
49 A Hungarian historian in the nineteenth century opined that the chronicler may have received his information from a tavarnicus, that is, a person employed in the provision of the court; Pór, “Tóth Lőrinc,” 363.
50 Enikő Csukovits, “Egy nagy utazás résztvevői (Zsigmond király római kísérete)” [Participants in a Great Journey (King Sigismund’s Retinue in Rome)], in Tanulmányok Borsa Iván tiszteletére [Studies in Honor of Iván Borsa] ed. E. Csukovits (Budapest: Magyar Országos Levéltár, 1998), 11–36; Attila Bárány, “Zsigmond király 1416-os angliai kísérete” [King Sigismund’s Retinue in England in 1416], Aetas 19, no. 3–4 (2004): 5–30; Péter E. Kovács, “‘A Szent Koronára! Ez kedvemre telik.’ Zsigmond császár Luccában” [‘On the Holy Crown! This Is to My Liking!’ Emperor Sigismund in Lucca], Századok 141 (2007): 355–56.
51 István Draskóczy, A tizenötödik század története [The History of the Fifteenth Century] (Budapest: Pannonica Kiadó, 2000), 150.
János Thuróczi, Chronica Hungarorum, 1488, Theobald Feger, Erhard Ratdolt. Augsburg, 165 (Széchényi National Library, Budapest, Manuscript Collection, Inc. 1143.)
Accessed September 3, 2013, http://www.corvina.oszk.hu/corvinas-html/hub1inc1143.htm.