(PDF) Bohemians and Moravians in the Lig

(PDF) Bohemians and Moravians in the Light of the 1515 Meeting in Vienna.
Academia.edu uses cookies to personalize content, tailor ads and improve the user experience.
By using our site, you agree to our collection of information through the use of cookies.
To learn more, view our
Privacy Policy.
Bohemians and Moravians in the Light of the 1515 Meeting in Vienna.
BOGUSŁAW DYBAŚ
ISTVÁN TRINGLI
DAS WIENER FÜRSTENTREFFEN VON 1515
DAS WIENER
FÜRSTENTREFFEN

21st -Century Studies in Humanities
Reichte eine Doppelvermählung im Wiener Stephansdom im Jahre
1515 aus, um die Habsburgermonarchie innerhalb eines Jahrzehnts VON 1515
hervorzubringen? Wie sah ein Gipfeltreffen im 16. Jahrhundert aus?
Die Referenten der Tagung, die am 500. Jahrestag der Hochzeitsverträge
BEITRÄGE ZUR GESCHICHTE
veranstaltet wurde, suchten Antworten auf diese Fragen. Ihre Beiträge DER HABSBURGISCH-
werden in diesem Band vorgestellt.
JAGIELLONISCHEN
DOPPELVERMÄHLUNG
Herausgegeben von

BOGUSŁAW DYBAŚ
ISTVÁN TRINGLI

ISBN 978-963-416-158-5

9 789634 161585

21st -Century Studies in Humanities

Editor: Pál Fodor

DAS WIENER FÜRSTENTREFFEN
VON 1515
BEITRÄGE ZUR GESCHICHTE DER
HABSBURGISCH-JAGIELLONISCHEN
DOPPELVERMÄHLUNG
Herausgegeben von

BOGUSŁAW DYBAŚ
und
ISTVÁN TRINGLI

Research Centre for the Humanities,
Hungarian Academy of Sciences

Budapest, 2019

00_Tringli_Cimnegyed_02-21.indd 3 2019. 03. 05. 15:36:21

Die Publikation des Bandes wurde unterstützt:

Das Werk einschließlich aller Teile ist unheberrechtlich geschützt. Jede Verwertung
außerhalb den engen Grenzen des Urheberrechtsgesetzes ist ohne die Zustimmung
des Verfassers und des Herausgebers unzulässig und strafbar. Dies gilt insbesondere
für Vervielfältigungen, Übersetzungen, Mikroverfilmungen und die Einspeicherung
und Verarbeitung in elektronischen Systemen.

ISBN 978-963-416-158-5
ISSN 2630-8827

Herausgegeben vom Humanwissenschaftlichen Forschungszentrum
der Ungarischen Akademie der Wissenschaften
Verantwortlicher Herausgeber: Pál Fodor
Druckvorbereitung:
Institut für Geschichtswissenschaft des Zentrums
für Humanwissenschaften der UAW
Leitung: Éva Kovács
Umschlag und Umbruch: Bence Marafkó
Druck: Prime Rate Kft., Budapest

00_Tringli_Cimnegyed_02-21.indd 4 2019. 03. 05. 15:36:21

INHALT

VORWORT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Bogusław Dybaś – István Tringli

WIENER FÜRSTENTAG – 1515. ERFOLG ODER
NIEDERLAGE FÜR DIE POLNISCHE DIPLOMATIE? . . . . . . . . . 33
Krzysztof Baczkowski

UNGARN UND DAS OSMANISCHE REICH ANFANG
DES 16. JAHRHUNDERTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
Pál Fodor – Géza Dávid

THE OTTOMAN THREAT IN THE AGE OF THE
CONGRESS OF VIENNA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
Piotr Tafiłowski

IM OSTEN NICHTS NEUES? KERNRÄUME DER POLITIK
MAXIMILIANS I. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125
Manfred Hollegger

BOHEMIANS AND MORAVIANS
IN THE LIGHT OF THE 1515 MEETING IN VIENNA . . . . . . . . 149
Antonín Kalous

DIENSTLEISTER DER DYNASTIE. DIE NEUE
ARISTOKRATIE VON KÖNIG WLADISLAW II. UND DER
WIENER FÜRSTENTAG . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161
Tibor Neumann

„…NACH VERMUGEN DES TRACTATS ZU PRESSPURG…“.
DER PRESSBURGER VERTRAG (1491) ALS EIN
WIEDERSPRUCHSVOLLES ELEMENT�� 189
Bence Péterfi

00_Tringli_Cimnegyed_02-21.indd 5 2019. 03. 05. 15:36:21

FÜRSTEN UND GRAFEN DES HEILIGEN
RÖMISCHEN REICHES. DIE LITAUISCHEN HOCHADELIGEN
UND IHRE RÖMISCHEN TITEL IM KONTEXT DES WIENER
FÜRSTENTAGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213
Rimvydas Petrauskas

DER HEILIGE STUHL UND SEINE POLITIK
GEGENÜBER MITTEL- UND O STEUROPA
ZUR ZEIT DER WIENER VERTRÄGE IM JAHRE 1515 . . . . . . . 225
Janusz Smołucha

DER WEG DES UNGARISCHEN HOFS
ZUR DOPPELHEIRAT 1515 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235
István Tringli

JAGIELLONEN UND HABSBURGER –
RIVALITÄT UM DOMINANZ IN MITTEL- UND OSTEUROPA
IM 15. UND 16. JAHRHUNDERT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 261
Jacek Wijaczka

THE TOWN OF PRESSBURG AND THE ROYAL SUMMIT
IN 1515 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 293
Judit Majorossy

JAGIELLONIAN–HABSBURG MARRIAGE POLICY
AND CULTURAL TRANSFER. THE QUESTION
OF HOUSEHOLD AND COURT ORDINANCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . 349
Orsolya Réthelyi

REPRÄSENTATION DER BÜRGERLICHEN UND STÄDTISCHEN
IDENTITÄT IM SPÄTMITTELALTERLICHEN PRESSBURG . . . . . 369
Juraj Šedivý

00_Tringli_Cimnegyed_02-21.indd 6 2019. 03. 05. 15:36:21

1515 UND DIE LITERARISCHE AUFARBEITUNG JOHANNES
CUSPINIAN VS. RICCARDO BARTOLINI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 399
Christian Gastgeber

KINDEREHE UND HEILIGENKULTE? EINE FRAGE ZUR
DARSTELLUNG DER WIENER DOPPELHOCHZEIT . . . . . . . . 429
Ivan Gerat

POLITIK, WISSENSTRANSFER UND HUMANISTISCHE
SELBSTDARSTELLUNG. DER WIENER KONGRESS VON
1515 IM POMPONIUS MELA-KOMMENTAR DES JOACHIM
VADIANUS (WIEN: SINGRIENER 1518) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 439
Elisabeth Klecker

Abbildungsverzeichnis und Bildnachweis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 465

Orts- und Personennamenregister . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 467

Autorenverzeichnis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 477

00_Tringli_Cimnegyed_02-21.indd 7 2019. 03. 05. 15:36:21

BOHEMIANS AND MORAVIANS
IN THE LIGHT OF THE 1515 MEETING
IN VIENNA*
Antonín Kalous

The meeting of the Emperor Maximilian and the three kings, the King of
Hungary and Bohemia Wladislas, his son King Louis, and Wladislas’s brother
the King of Poland Sigismund in Vienna is well known in Czech historiogra-
phy as well as in the contemporary sources. The Czech (or Bohemian and
Moravian) sources, however, do not contribute much to the general narrative
of the Viennese summit. Despite their limited number, however, they might
be telling – in particular concerning the specific political and social situation
in the Kingdom of Bohemia. This study will attempt to elucidate the position
of the meeting within Czech history and the position of Bohemians and
Moravians at one of the most glorious events of the early sixteenth century in
Central Europe.
When a late-medieval topic, and more precisely, a topic from the end of the
fifteenth or early sixteenth centuries, is supposed to be treated, the basic narra-
tive account as well as event history might still be taken from the work of Fran-
tišek Palacký, the most prominent Czech historian of the nineteenth century.1
The reason for this is the fact that the early-twentieth-century project of České
dějiny (Czech history) was never completed in its intended form and even if

* This text was written within the project Centre of Excellence of the Grant Agency of the
Czech Republic, No. 14–36521G, Centre for Cross-Disciplinary Research into Cultural Phe-
nomena in Central European History: Image, Communication, Behaviour.
1 Franz Palacký, Geschichte von Böhmen. Vol. 5 (2 parts) (Prag 1865–1867) for the years
1471–1526.

149

TRINGLI konyv.indb 149 2019. 02. 21. 13:59:00

ANTONÍN KALOUS

there was a continuation written in the 1970s and 1980s, the period of 1464–
1526 is not covered by the great narrative and positivistic historiography.2 The
only synthetic works that are available are the five volumes of Jagellonský věk
( Jagiellonian age) by Josef Macek3 and the newly written more narrative ac-
count by Petr Čornej within the successful and now completed project of Velké
dějiny zemí Koruny české (The Great History of the Lands of the Bohemian
Crown).4 Palacký as well as Čornej mention the 1515 meeting in the context of
Czech politics and the general political development of the region at the start
of the sixteenth century.5 Josef Macek, in contrast, had a different approach.
He instead analysed the structure of society and, in this case, the royal court.
The meeting in Vienna is thus seen rather in the context of courtly representa-
tion and political communication. The narrative account, which is based on
Cuspinian’s report, is provided in his rather popular book Tři ženy krále
Vladislava (The Three Wives of King Wladislas).6
The sources for the 1515 summit are not that numerous, as one would ex-
pect, when the King of Bohemia travels out of the country for a meeting with
the highest representatives of the neighbouring countries.7 Naturally, the rea-
son might be that for the Czechs not much changed: the King had been out of
the country for quite some time and briefly visited Bohemia and Moravia for
the last time in 1509 and 1510. On the other hand, the nobility as well as the
towns, which were in conflict with the estates and land diets, saw the visit of
their King to Vienna as being closer to the kingdom than usual, as Wladislas

2 Rudolf Urbánek, České dějiny. Vol. 3, Věk poděbradský (4 parts). (Praha 1915–1962) for
the years 1438–1464; and Josef Janáček, České dějiny. Doba předbělohorská. Vol. 1 (2 parts)
(Praha 1968–1984) for the years 1526–1547, whose approach is different, not positivistic,
rather focused on structures and economic and social developments.
3 Josef Macek, Jagellonský věk v českých zemích. 4 vols. (Praha 1992–1999) for the years
1471–1526 and the fifth volume published separately as Josef Macek, Víra a zbožnost jagel-
lonského věku. (Praha 2001).
4 Petr Čornej – Milena Bartlová, Velké dějiny zemí Koruny české. Vol. 6, 1437–1526,
(Litomyšl/Praha 2007).
5 Palacký, 1867, 333–337; Čornej – Bartlová, 2007, 589–596.
6 Josef Macek, Tři ženy krále Vladislava. (Praha 1991) 209–216.
7 An earlier study on the Czech sources of 1515 was by Jan Vysloužil, Der Wiener Kon-
greß des Jahres 1515 im Spiegel tschechischer Quellen und Literatur. Wien an der Schwelle zur
Neuzeit. Wiener Geschichtsblätter 29, Nr. 3 (1974) 79–86.

150

TRINGLI konyv.indb 150 2019. 02. 21. 13:59:00

BOHEMIANS AND MORAVIANS IN THE LIGHT OF THE 1515

resided in Buda, and as an opportunity to negotiate and to push forward their
matters with the King. Even though the talks in Vienna were not successful for
either of the sides, the Viennese meeting continued to appear in the letters of
the Czech nobility in this context.8
Letters exchanged between the highest burgrave of Prague Zdeněk Lev z
Rožmitálu and the members of other significant noble families elucidate the
nature of the conflict between the towns and the nobility. The latter was repre-
sented by the traditional families and the holders of land offices, whereas the
former were represented most significantly in terms of town representatives by
Duke Bartholomew, a grandson of the late King George. The delegation of the
city union led secret negotiations at the court in Buda in 1512 and drew Bar
tholomew to their side in 1513 hoping that he would win the King’s favour for
them.9 The conflicts, which were quite common from the time of the negotia-
tions on the Land Ordinance, which was published in 1500, continued until it
was finally agreed on the St. Wenceslas treaty in 1517. Duke Bartholomew,
who incidentally died just before the meeting in Vienna, was a frequent subject
of the letters of the nobility, as he was seen as a traitor to the cause. Zdeněk Lev
wrote, for example, to Petr z Rožmberka concerning negotiations of the city of
Prague and Duke Bartholomew in Buda in November 1514. He mentioned
the negotiations of the King and the Emperor, but knew no details.10 As late as
January 1515, he reported in a letter to the same addressee the same – danger-
ous negotiations of the Prague envoys in Buda and their visits to Moravia, as
well as rumours of the congress of the King and the Emperor, who were plan-
ning to convene, but once again, no details.11
The burgrave and Petr z Rožmberka reported on the talks between the
King and the Emperor already in July 1514. Supposedly, there were people,
who wanted to hinder the connection of the sovereigns, but they, i.e. Zdeněk

8 The letters published in Archiv český were studied and used in the context of the Vien-
nese summit by Krzysztof Baczkowski, Zjazd wiedeński 1515. Geneza, przebieg i znaczenie.
(Warszawa 1975); newly published as Krzysztof Baczkowski, Kongres wiedeński 1515 roku.
(Oświęcim 2015).
9 Cf. Josef Macek, Jagellonský věk v českých zemích. Vol. 3 (Praha 1998) 349–372.
10 Archiv český (AČ), vol. 7, red. Josef Kalousek (Praha 1887) 108–111, Nr. 118.
11 AČ 7, 112–113, Nr. 120.

151

TRINGLI konyv.indb 151 2019. 02. 21. 13:59:00

ANTONÍN KALOUS

Lev and Petr, would do their best to help the King. They even sent their own
man to Buda to negotiate with the Archbishop of Esztergom Tamás Bakóc, the
Palatine Imre Perényi, and the Bishop of Pécs György Szatmári, etc. Naturally,
their interest was related to the conflicting situation between the nobility and
the cities.12 The letters of the Moravian land captain Jan z Lomnice a na
Meziříčí still reported on the intentions of Duke Bartholomew to travel to
Buda and help the towns.13 Quite telling is the correspondence of October
1514. In his letter to Petr z Rožmberka of 4 October 1514, Jan described the
negotiations led by Johannes Cuspinian in Buda; his information is second
hand, Cuspinian talked to Jan Mrakeš in Vienna about his stay in Buda and
this was recounted to the Moravian land captain. The estates should have the
possibility to decide about Queen Anne, the daughter of Wladislas, Jan Mrakeš
reported. Cuspinian also negotiated the plan to take the royal children to Vi-
enna to be brought up there. Reportedly, King Wladislas decided to send his
children to Bratislava (Pressburg, Pozsony) after the Hungarian land diet on
the day of St. Lucas and keep them there. Cuspinian even told the King that
the Emperor would like to help the young King Louis acquire the Roman king-
ship. King Wladislas liked and supported the idea and informed Cuspinian
that the Emperor should follow up on the plan and fulfil the promise. When
the Emperor wanted to send further councillors to Buda to negotiate, Wladis-
las told Cuspinian that it would not be necessary.14 In another letter, that was
signed by Petr z Rožmberka, Zdeněk Lev z Rožmitálu and Jan z Lomnice and
sent to the informer Jan Mrakeš, the high representatives of the Bohemian and
Moravian nobility pondered over the idea of negotiating a royal marriage. In
their eyes, it was not appropriate for such an important decision to be negoti-
ated by a simple man, “by a doctor”. They would have liked it to be negotiated
“by distinguished people”, so naturally they were voicing the pride of the land
nobility. Responding to what they learned previously, they voiced a desire that
King Louis would become King of the Romans and did not object to the royal
children being taken to Bratislava, as they would not be in the hands of the

12 AČ 11, red. Josef Kalousek (Praha 1892) 160–162, Nr. 1223.
13 AČ 11, 162–163, Nr. 1225.
14 AČ 11, 173–176, Nr. 1235.

152

TRINGLI konyv.indb 152 2019. 02. 21. 13:59:00

BOHEMIANS AND MORAVIANS IN THE LIGHT OF THE 1515

Emperor, if King Wladislas died. As for Queen Anne, her possible wedding
would be discussed at the land diet of Bohemia.15
It is clearly seen in this correspondence that the nobles of Bohemia were
rather protecting their interests not only against the towns and Duke Bar
tholomew, who are mentioned quite often, but also within the kingdom: they
did not want to be left out of the decision about the royal children, the heirs to
the throne.
In May and June 1515 the letters are clearer in terms of the summit, even
though still unsure about the date and the participation. Zdeněk Lev wrote to
Adam z Hradce, his son-in-law, about his possible journey to the King on 25
May claiming that it is not yet certain,16 a month later he described to Petr z
Rožmberka his travel plans: he planned to go through Blatná (4 July), his fam-
ily estates, and Jindřichův Hradec (10 July).17 The dates seem too late, but the
delay of the Emperor must have been known in Bohemia well in advance. An-
other representative of the Bohemian diet, Kryštof (Christopher) ze Švamber-
ka (who probably finally did not go) learned from a letter from the diet dated
on 16 June that he was chosen to join the King either in Vienna or in Bratisla-
va, wherever he might be, on 13 July.18 In mid-July the nobles were in need of
information concerning the Viennese summit and were impatiently awaiting
reports from the meeting of the sovereigns, as a letter of another member of
the Švamberk family dated on 19 July shows.19
Detailed information from Vienna was sent on 29 July, this being toward
the end of the meeting. Zdeněk Lev z Rožmitálu informed the afore-men-
tioned Petr z Rožmberka about the events of the summit. He had arrived in
the city on 14 July, two days later the Emperor met all the kings and the follow-
ing day they entered Vienna together with the daughter of King Wladislas and
met Mary, the granddaughter of the Emperor. On 22 July, Anne, the daughter
of the King, was crowned by the Emperor and wearing the crown, joined the
holy mass in St. Stephen’s Church, as all the other kings did. After the mass the

15 AČ 11, 180–182, Nr. 1239.
16 AČ 7, 114–115, Nr. 122.
17 AČ 7, 115–116, Nr. 123.
18 AČ 15, red. Josef Kalousek (Praha 1896) 111, Nr. 201.
19 AČ 15, 111–112, Nr. 202.

153

TRINGLI konyv.indb 153 2019. 02. 21. 13:59:00

ANTONÍN KALOUS

Emperor and Anne took their wedding vows: if none of the grandsons of the
Emperor would marry her, the Emperor himself would wed her after a year
and three months. On the same day, the wedding of Louis and Mary also took
place at St. Stephen’s and it was administered by the Archbishop of Esztergom.
Zdeněk Lev then reported that the friendship among the majesties was rein-
forced and they all knighted a number of people. In his words, the church was
so full of people that there was a danger of being suffocated; the sovereigns
were accompanied by “two cardinals, two archbishops, bishops and numerous
princes, and I cannot report all the numbers now, but I should have it written
down for there were some who made the lists, also the heralds”. On 25 July
there was an “Italian tournament”, and hunting and other pastimes, “so that it
was impossible to negotiate anything else then just what was between the Em-
peror and the kings”. On 29 July, the Emperor left for Wiener Neustadt joined
by King Louis, who was clad in armour; two days later all the kings were sup-
posed to follow the Emperor to his residence. Zdeněk Lev then reported on
the plans of the kings: Sigismund was planning to go back to Vienna and then
to his kingdom travelling through Moravia, Wladislas and Louis, on the other
hand, planned to return to Hungary directly stopping in Sopron for a period
of time. Further negotiations with King Wladislas concerning “Bohemian mat-
ters” were planned for 30 July, but the burgrave of Prague was definitely unsure,
for the programme of the kings was quite demanding.20 When Zdeněk Lev
returned to Blatná, he wrote to Kryštof ze Švamberka mentioning that he had
asked Petr z Rožmberka to spread the report he wrote earlier – he did not re-
port anything new.21 The demanding programme of Wladislas can be illustrat-
ed in the letters published in his chancery. Even though the documents were
published in Vienna, during the meeting with the Emperor, the Czech nobles
were the relatores of the charters, whereas before and after, the letters were
commissioned personally by the King himself.22

20 AČ 7, 116–118, Nr. 124, quotation on p. 117. Also, Petr Čornej (ed.), Království dvojího
lidu. České dějiny let 1436–1526 v soudobé korespondenci. (Praha 1989) 269–271, Nr. 142.
21 AČ 7, 118–119, Nr. 125.
22 Charters available through http://www.monasterium.net, accessed on 30 March 2015,
from various Czech archives. With the chancery note ex commissione propria regie maiestatis on
4 July (Bratislava), 20 July (Vienna), 6 August (Sopron); relatores of others were Zdeněk Lev z

154

TRINGLI konyv.indb 154 2019. 02. 21. 13:59:00

BOHEMIANS AND MORAVIANS IN THE LIGHT OF THE 1515

The correspondence of the Bohemian nobility – apart from the actual de-
scription of the Viennese summit – reveals several distinct phenomena. The
nobles were well aware of the consequences of the meeting and wanted to be
present in the decisive meetings and negotiations. It was, after all, their deci-
sion as an estates community concerning the successors to the throne. They
were also ready to control the backstairs negotiations of the King searching for
any opportunity to have a conversation with their sovereign about the matters
of the kingdom. The happy occasion of the royal wedding was intended to be
used for other purposes as well, but – as Zdeněk Lev reported – not much
time was left for anything but the negotiations of the Emperor and the kings.
One might ponder over the last remarks of Zdeněk Lev in his letter from
Vienna: he wrote that everything was written down for him. Where is this re-
port? Could there be any other, more detailed, account? He could have referred
to what Johannes Cuspinian or Riccardo Bartolini were writing, but it rather
seems that he was referring to his own report, that is, a report that he had com-
missioned. Unfortunately, no such report is known (but there is still a chance
that it might be hidden somewhere). The only trace that could be presented is
the short note, which Tomáš Pešina z Čechorodu wrote in his Mars Moravicus
in 1677. It is not clear what precisely he saw, he, however, referred to a short
volume of the Prague chapter archives. In his words, the reporter, who might
have been Ladislav ze Šternberka, chancellor of the Crown, wrote an account
much more precise and longer than Cuspinian.23 Pešina, unfortunately, did not
transcribe or did not preserve in other way the manuscript of the report.
Contemporary historiography is a valuable source of information on the
Viennese meeting. Two works might be used in this sense, namely Historiae

Rožmitálu on 26 July (Vienna), Ladislav ze Šternberka on 27 July (Vienna), Duke Charles on
31 July (Vienna).
23 Thomas Joannes Pessina de Czechorod, Mars Moravicus. (Praga 1677) 935, “Fuse hunc
conventum describit, Cuspinianus rebus omnibus praesens, Isthvanffi, Sambucus, Daubravius;
sed omnium fusissime quidam Bohemus anonymus, quem puto Ladislai Sternbergij Regni Bohe-
miae Cancellarij, ibidem quoque praesentis, scribam fuisse; hominem, ut apparet, valde accura-
tum; qui Cuspiniano longe explicatius, rerum singulis diebus gestarum Diarium, quod habeo,
conscripsit.” Pešina’s comment was noted by Vysloužil, 1974, 138. See the modern catalogue
which does not mention any such manuscript, Antonín Podlaha, Catalogus codicum manu
scriptorum, qui in archivio capituli metropolitani Pragensis asservantur. (Pragae 1923).

155

TRINGLI konyv.indb 155 2019. 02. 21. 13:59:00

ANTONÍN KALOUS

regni Boiemiae libri XXXIII by Johannes Dubravius, an Olomouc humanist,
canon of the chapter and a later bishop, and Staré letopisy české, a number of
manuscripts of Utraquist writings of annalistic character from Prague, collect-
ed and edited for the first time by František Palacký. In the first case, Johannes
Dubravius was active as a canon and member of the court of the then Bishop
of Olomouc Stanislaus Thurzo.24 Even though historians did not accept
Dubravius’ historiographical work without hesitation, as it was actually com-
posed as a series of advice to Emperor Maximilian II, published in 1552 in
Prostějov, it does have its value. This is not so much in terms of chronology, but
in terms of the description of contemporary events, which might be seen as
authentic and revealing not only facts, but also how these events were under-
stood. Dubravius portrayed the meeting in Vienna with great glory and fo-
cused mostly on the wedding itself. He knew about the doubts concerning the
spouse of Anne – in his text – commented on by the Emperor. As for the role
of the Bishop of Olomouc, Dubravius mentioned that King Sigismund when
travelling to and from the summit crossed through Moravia and was solemnly
accepted by the Bishop at two of his residences, first in Kroměříž and then in
Vyškov.25 Moreover, he wrote about the royal visit to Kroměříž and Vyškov in
an undated letter to Thurzo.26 These visits could also be attested to from the

24 On Dubravius and his history, Eduard Petrů in: Ivo Hlobil – Eduard Petrů, Huma-
nism and the Early Renaissance in Moravia. (Olomouc 1999) 55–96; Peter Wörster, Hu-
manismus in Olmütz. Landesbeschreibung, Stadtlob und Geschichtsschreibung in der ersten
Hälfte des 16. Jahrhunderts. (Marburg 1994) 155–178.
25 [ Johannes Dubravius,] Historiae regni Boiemiae… libri XXXIII. (Prostannae 1552)
liber 32, fol. CCIr–CCIIv.
26 Martin Rothkegel (ed.), Der lateinische Briefwechsel des Olmützer Bischofs Stanislaus
Thurzó. Eine ostmitteleuropäische Humanistenkorrespondenz der ersten Hälfte des 16. Jahr-
hunderts. (Hamburg 2007) 134–139, Nr. 19, on the basis of the mention of the Viennese mee-
ting, the letter is dated to the second half of 1515, on p. 138: “Inde nimirum est, ut praeterita
tempora omittam, quod hoc praesenti anno invictissimus Poloniarum rex Sigismundus, simi-
lem cui pertulit aetas [nec] consilio nec Marte virum, transiturus in Pannoniam te praecipue in
regno adhuc suo delegerit, cum quo ius hospitalitatis primum sanciret in arce tua Cremsirensi,
in qua profecto tu iustis omnibus hospitalibus erga maximum regem functus officiis, assidere-
que iusso tuae mensae cuncto illo episcoporum et palatinorum procerumque senatu, distributis
insuper per hospicia perque domos oppidi tuae familiae familiaribus, qui nullo homine, nulla
aetate, nullo ordine praeteritis, sed et per equos, quorum prope duo millia erant, vinum, epulas,

156

TRINGLI konyv.indb 156 2019. 02. 21. 13:59:00

BOHEMIANS AND MORAVIANS IN THE LIGHT OF THE 1515

Polish side27 as well as from Moravia by a short note in an Olomouc chronicle,
which mentioned the royal visit to the city of Olomouc.28 The Bishop, who
took part in the meeting and was greeted by a master of the Viennese Univer-
sity Wolfgang Heiligmaier in Vienna on 17 July,29 had to travel from Vienna
earlier to be able to welcome the King to his castle in Vyškov.
The other case, Staré letopisy české, is much more complicated. František
Palacký, the first editor, collected a number of manuscripts, out of which he
selected individual notes and stories related to the particular years. As he was
working with a number of manuscripts, he frequently merged stories from
more manuscripts, or disregarded texts, which he deemed unoriginal. And
this is the case of the description of the meeting of 1515. There are three man-
uscripts, which contain a detailed account of the meeting,30 which – as Palacký
rightly observed – is not an original work of the author of Staré letopisy české,
as the text was transcribed from a printed volume. The book these manu-
scripts copied was a work published by Mikuláš Konáč z Hodiškova, a Prague
humanist and printer, who in 1515 published a book entitled Sjezd císařské
velebnosti v Vídni a na[j]jasnějších tří králuo jich milostí.31 This print is well

foenum, avenam et quacunque alia re usus esset, liberalissime dispensarent, dum tamen et sic
quoque, in tanta munificentia, dubitares, an per omnia officio tuo satisfeceris, audisti ab uni-
versa propemodum gente, quando redeuntem consimili et rerum copia et liberalitate acciperes
in arce tua, cui Viscovo nomen est, a nemine alio benignius lautiusque se in illa peregrinatione
fuisse tractatam.”
27 Baczkowski, 2015, 139, 172; Xawery Liske, ed., Dwa dyaryusze kongresu wiedeńskiego
z roku 1515, in: Scriptores rerum Polonicarum, vol. 4, Archiwum Komisyi Historycznej, vol. 1
(Kraków 1878) 89–182, here: 162–163.
28 Beda Dudík (ed.), Olmützer Sammel-Chronik. (Brünn, 1858) 4, “1515. Sabbatho post
Laurentj Ist der Polnische Sigismundus Von Wien gen Olmuz khomen. Die Zeit wahren Bey-
samen zue Wien Kayser, König, Fürsten Unndt grosse Herren.”
29 Cf. Rothkegel, 2007, 127–133, Nr. 17a, b.
30 Knihovna Národního muzea, Prague, sign. III B 12 (Staré letopisy české, ms. L), fol.
237v–245r; sign. IV E 28 (ms. K), fol. 315r–326v; and only part of the text (due to the missing
folios of the manuscript) is preserved in Národní knihovna, Prague, sign. XIX A 50 (ms. M),
fol. 454v–456v.
31 Mikuláš Konáč z Hodiškova, Sjezd císařské velebnosti v Vídni a na[j]jasnějších tří
králuo jich milostí, v kterémž se mnoho divného i pamětihodného pokládá. (Prague 1515).
The print is known in two copies, Knihovna Národního muzea, Prague, sign. 25 F 12; and
Knihovna Strahovského kláštera, Prague, sign. DR IV 23. I have used the second copy which

157

TRINGLI konyv.indb 157 2019. 02. 21. 13:59:00

ANTONÍN KALOUS

known among historians, who dealt with the work of Mikuláš Konáč and this
text was always described as a translation of the Latin work of Johannes Cus-
pinian.32 There were also doubts as to the accuracy of Konáč’s translation
practice and Kopecký showed several examples from this text, where he claims
Konáč left out certain passages that concerned the courtly life, lists of names,
etc., and certain passages were even extended or completely re-written.33
When publishing the text in Czech and in Prague, Konáč took out some of the
lengthy descriptions of ceremonies and lists of courtiers, who were not known
in Bohemia. Naturally, he paid more attention to his King, i.e. King Wladislas,
and his children. What is remarkable, however, is the fact that when he left out
the text of Cuspinian completely – and that was in two longer passages (first,
from the first meeting of the Emperor and the kings to their coming to the
city; second, the closing of the summit, announcing the treaty and departure
of all the guests) – he diverted to the text of Riccardo Bartolini’s Hodoeporicon.34
Konáč probably saw those passages as more appropriate and fitting for his
purpose. In one shorter passage, for example, he only inserted Bartolini’s text

is available through http://www.manuscriptorium.com, accessed on 3 April 2015. On Konáč
see, in particular, Milan Kopecký, Literární dílo Mikuláše Konáče z Hodiškova. Příspěvky
k poznání české literatury v období renesance, (Praha 1962) on the 1515 text, pages 108–111;
most recently, Petr Voit, Mikuláš Konáč z Hodíškova. Inspirace k úvahám o humanismu.
Česká literatura 63, Nr. 1 (2015) 3–39.
32 Johannes Cuspinianus, Diarium, in: Marquard Freher – Burkhard Gotthelf Struve
(ed.), Rerum Germanicarum Scriptores varii, qui res in Germania & imperio sub Friderico III.
Maximiliano I. impp. memorabiliter gestas illo aevo litteris prodiderunt, vol. 2 (Argentorati
1717) 588–612; I have used for a comparison the edition of 1515, since this was the text Konáč
could have had at hand, [ Johannes Cuspinianus], Congressus ac celeberrimi conventus caes-
aris Max. et trium regum Hungariae, Boemiae, et Poloniae in Vienna Panoniae, mense Iulio,
anno MDXV facti brevis ac verissima descriptio, [Vienna], 1515, available through http://
mek.oszk.hu, accessed on 12 April 2015. On the authorship, Kopecký, 1962, 108–111; Voit,
2015, 9, 32; cf. also the official list of early printed books, Knihopis, now also online http://
db.knihopis.org or http://aleph.nkp.cz, Konáč’s print Nr. K01666.
33 Kopecký’s analysis, however, imposes certain Marxist interpretations of the text as well as
the activity of Konáč, nevertheless, he did notice the differences.
34 Riccardo Bartolini, Hodoeporicon, in: Freher–Struve, 1717, 613–672; I have used
a 1515 print, Riccardo Bartolini, Odeporicon, idest Itinerarium reverendissimi in Christo
patris et domini d. Mathei sancti Angeli cardinalis Gurcensis [etc.]. (Vienna 1515) available
from http://www.digitale-sammlungen.de, accessed on 12 April 2015.

158

TRINGLI konyv.indb 158 2019. 02. 21. 13:59:00

BOHEMIANS AND MORAVIANS IN THE LIGHT OF THE 1515

into Cuspinian’s – the imposition of the crown on Queen Anne’s head is de-
scribed in more detail by Bartolini, thus Konáč deemed it useful for the Czech
edition.
In summary, the Czech (or Bohemian and Moravian) sources illustrate
clearly the involvement of the Bohemian and Moravian participants in the
summit in Vienna in 1515. The traditional privileges of the estates community
had to be protected. The internal political matters of the kingdom, however,
seemed to be the most significant element in the discussions. The local political
struggles dominated the minds and deeds of the delegates of the cities as well
as of the nobles. The land officials who were present in Vienna reported more
broadly on the meeting. The volume that contained this description, however,
is lost or perished completely. Lesser interest in the Jagiellonian rulers thus
meant that the crucial source, a detailed report in Czech, was not preserved
beyond the seventeenth century. The only detailed description that is now
available for Czech readers and which was even incorporated into contempo-
rary history writing is the Czech adaptation of Johannes Cuspinian’s Diarium
with inserted passages taken from Riccardo Bartolini’s Hodoeporicon by the
Prague humanist and printer Mikuláš Konáč z Hodiškova. What remains,
then, as the most significant Czech source is the correspondence of the Bohe-
mian and Moravian nobility, which illustrates the noblemen’s interests and in-
tentions within the local power struggles and not so much the summit itself.

159

TRINGLI konyv.indb 159 2019. 02. 21. 13:59:00