Letter #621
Sigmund von HERBERSTEIN to Ioannes DANTISCUSEsztergom, 1531-05-07
| received Ghent (Gandavum), [1531]-05-29 Manuscript sources:
Auxiliary sources:
Prints:
| ||||||||||||
Text & apparatus & commentaryPlain textText & commentaryText & apparatus
Reverendissimo domino, domino
In curia
Reverendissime Domine, domine observandissime. Post mei et servitiorum meorum commendationem.
Hac nocte sunt mihi allatae cf.
Misi etiam litteras illas annexas ad
Ex
Eiusdem Vestrae Reverendissimae Dominationis deditissimus
[1 ] This fascicule probably contained Dantiscus’ letter to King Sigismund I dated April 4, 1531 from Ghent, together with an attached copy of Duke Ludwig X of Bavaria’s letter to Dantiscus and a Dantiscus’ letter – which has not come down to us – to queen Bona with the same date. Dantiscus sent this fascicule to Herberstein from Brussels through Leonardo Nogarola. The letters were delivered to the addressees on May 29 (see cf. AT 13 No. 100, p. 97-98, No. 175, p. 175, No. 167, p. 167-168 ⌊AT, XIII, No. 100, p. 97-98, No. 175, p. 175, No. 167, p. 167-168cf. AT 13 No. 100, p. 97-98, No. 175, p. 175, No. 167, p. 167-168 ⌋, cf. cf. GĄSIOROWSKI 1973 p. 265 ⌊Gąsiorowski, p. 265cf. GĄSIOROWSKI 1973 p. 265 ⌋)
[2 ] On March 25, 1531, Herberstein was summoned by Ferdinand I to Brno in Moravia in connection with his mission to Poland. On April 4 he received his instructions in Vienna, and set off for Cracow on April 15 ( cf. HERBERSTEIN 1855 p. 294 ⌊Herberstein 1855, p. 294cf. HERBERSTEIN 1855 p. 294 ⌋; cf. POCIECHA 4 p. 115-117, 356, note74 ⌊Pociecha, IV, p. 115-117, 356, note74cf. POCIECHA 4 p. 115-117, 356, note74 ⌋;)
[3 ] A reference to Royal Hungary or more precisely, to the western part of the Kingdom of Hungary under Ferdinand I’s rule, treated here as an integral part of the Reich.
[4 ] On April 26 in Neudorf, Herberstein was turned back from his journey to Cracow (cf. footnote 8!!!) and sent to Hungary ( cf. HERBERSTEIN 1855 p. 294 ⌊Herberstein 1855, p. 294cf. HERBERSTEIN 1855 p. 294 ⌋; cf. HERBERSTEIN 1560 f. D2v ⌊Herberstein 1560, f. D2vcf. HERBERSTEIN 1560 f. D2v ⌋; cf. POCIECHA 4 p. 116-117 ⌊Pociecha IV, p. 116-117cf. POCIECHA 4 p. 116-117 ⌋; cf. EFE 25 No. 240, p. 15 ⌊Elementa, XXXV, No. 240, p. 15cf. EFE 25 No. 240, p. 15 ⌋).
[5 ] According to Herberstein’s Selbstbiographie, on May 6 he and the envoys mentioned in the commented letter arrived in Visegrád, on the right bank of the Danube, about 20 km east of Esztergom (Gran). To reach Esztergom, from where the mentioned letter was dispatched on May 7, Herberstein had to turn back westwards. The likely reason seems to be the events linked to the attempted recapture of Gran (taken by Ferdinand I in 1530) by János I Zápolya’s supporters after the three-month truce signed in January 1531 had expired on April 22 (
cf. HERBERSTEIN 1855 p. 294 ⌊Herberstein 1855, p. 294cf. HERBERSTEIN 1855 p. 294 ⌋;
cf. HERBERSTEIN 1560 f. D2v ⌊Herberstein 1560, f. D2vcf. HERBERSTEIN 1560 f. D2v ⌋;
cf. AT 13 No. 162-163, p. 156-158 ⌊AT, XIII, No. 162-163, p. 156-158cf. AT 13 No. 162-163, p. 156-158 ⌋;
cf. POCIECHA 4 p. 117 ⌊Pociecha IV, p. 117cf. POCIECHA 4 p. 117 ⌋,
cf. cf.
[6 ] Wilhelm Freiherr von Rogendorf (Roggendorf) was first in service at the court of Emperor Frederick III. By the age of 13 he was at the court of archduke Philip von Habsburg the Handsome in the Netherlands and in Spain, and after his death (1506) he entered the service of Maximilian I. Initially a commander (Feldhauptmann) in Italy, but also an envoy to France and Ferdinand II (V) the Catholic. In 1515, with Johann Cuspinian and Lorenz Saurer, he was Emperor Maximilian I’s envoy
during negotiations with Vladislav II Jagiellon during the Pressburg-Vienna Congress. In 1516 he played a major role in the relief of Verona. In 1517 together with Dantiscus he conducted negotiations in Netherlands regarding to considered by Maximilian I new mariage of Sigismund I with Eleanor of Austria. In the same year he was appointed stadtholder of Friesia by Charles I von Habsburg. He was his and his brother Ferdinand I’s commissioner after the death of Emperor Maximilian I, responsible for taking over the inherited Lower Austrian Countries. As the highest field marshal of the German infantry, he fought on the borderland of Spain against the French, where he especially distinguished himself during the recapture of the town of Fuenterrabbia in 1524. In the same year, Charles V appointed him the commander-in-chief of the drabants (yeomen) of the royal guard, and he was chosen a knight of the Military Order of Calatrava, and finally the stadtholder of Catalonia, Roussillon and Cerdagne. In 1529, along with Count Niklas I zu Salm, he was among the commanders of the defense of Vienna under Turkish siege. In Augsburg in 1530, he held talks with
Dantiscus on the Teutonic Order’s claims to secularized Prussia, and during the expedition to Hungary against Zápolya in December of the same year, he unsuccessfully attacked Buda which was being defended by Lodovico Gritti. From 1527 he served Ferdinand I also as the court chief steward (Obersthofmeister), and in the early 1530s gained the reputation of an exceptionally influential person. In 1531, described by Ferdinand I as generalis or supremus capitaneus, together with Hieronim Łaski he conducted negotiations on Hungarian affairs (see letter No. 15, footnote 8). In 1534, Bernhard von Cles entrusted him with the presidency of Ferdinand I’s secret council. Rogendorf resigned from his duties before mid-1539. Against his will, in 1541 he was again appointed the commander in Hungary, for the purpose of capturing Buda. The operation was unsuccessful. Rogendorf was seriously wounded and died in the end of August of that year. His contacts with Dantiscus dated back to the Pressburg-Vienna Congress. Their friendship was consolidated in the 1520s when Dantiscus was staying at the court of Charles V in Spain. Rogendorf was a warm-hearted and widely liked man, enjoying the reputation of a very good Christian, a man of noble manners, righteous and devoid of greed
(cf. GOETZ p. 464-466, 471 ⌊Goetz, p. 464-466, 471cf. GOETZ p. 464-466, 471 ⌋;
cf. Heilingsetzer p. 386 ⌊Heilingsetzer, p. 386cf. Heilingsetzer p. 386 ⌋;
cf. ANKWICZ-KLEEHOVEN p. 81, 84 ⌊Ankwicz-Kleehoven, p. 81, 84cf. ANKWICZ-KLEEHOVEN p. 81, 84 ⌋;
⌊
p. 195
⌋;
cf. POCIECHA 1 p. 194-195 ⌊Pociecha, I, p. 194-195cf. POCIECHA 1 p. 194-195 ⌋;
cf. POCIECHA 4 p. 77, 108-110, 115, 117, 122, 165, 240 ⌊IV, p. 77, 108-110, 115, 117, 122, 165, 240cf. POCIECHA 4 p. 77, 108-110, 115, 117, 122, 165, 240 ⌋;
cf. AT 3 No. 433, p. 311-312 ⌊AT, III, No. 433, p. 311-312cf. AT 3 No. 433, p. 311-312 ⌋;
cf. AT 8 No. 231, p. 314-315 ⌊AT, VIII, No. 231, p. 314-315cf. AT 8 No. 231, p. 314-315 ⌋,
cf. AT 13 No. 27, p. 35, No. 33, p. 39, No. 55, p. 57-58, No. 58, p. 61, No. 76, p. 78, No. 97, p. 95, No. 105, p. 101, No. 111, p. 106-107, No. 120, p. 116, No. 162-163, p. 157-158, No. 201-202, p. 196-197, No. 208, p. 202, No. 238, p. 222, No. 386, p. 359 ⌊AT, XIII, No. 27, p. 35, No. 33, p. 39, No. 55, p. 57-58, No. 58, p. 61, No. 76, p. 78, No. 97, p. 95, No. 105, p. 101, No. 111, p. 106-107, No. 120, p. 116, No. 162-163, p. 157-158, No. 201-202, p. 196-197, No. 208, p. 202, No. 238, p. 222, No. 386, p. 359cf. AT 13 No. 27, p. 35, No. 33, p. 39, No. 55, p. 57-58, No. 58, p. 61, No. 76, p. 78, No. 97, p. 95, No. 105, p. 101, No. 111, p. 106-107, No. 120, p. 116, No. 162-163, p. 157-158, No. 201-202, p. 196-197, No. 208, p. 202, No. 238, p. 222, No. 386, p. 359 ⌋;
cf. AT 14 No. 541, p. 831-832; XVI/2, No. 544, p. 301; XVII, No. 450, p. 555 ⌊XIV, No. 541, p. 831-832; XVI/2, No. 544, p. 301; XVII, No. 450, p. 555cf. AT 14 No. 541, p. 831-832; XVI/2, No. 544, p. 301; XVII, No. 450, p. 555 ⌋;
cf. EFE 26 No. 694, p. 146, No. 700, p. 151 ⌊Elementa, XXXVI, No. 694, p. 146, No. 700, p. 151cf. EFE 26 No. 694, p. 146, No. 700, p. 151 ⌋
,
cf. EFE 36 No. 27, p. 45, No. 36, p. 55, No. 47, p. 67, No. 64, p. 91 ⌊XLVI, No. 27, p. 45, No. 36, p. 55, No. 47, p. 67, No. 64, p. 91cf. EFE 36 No. 27, p. 45, No. 36, p. 55, No. 47, p. 67, No. 64, p. 91 ⌋
,
cf. EFE 38 No. 416 ⌊XLVIII, No. 416cf. EFE 38 No. 416 ⌋
, Annexum V, p. 220;
cf. HERBERSTEIN 1855 p. 294, 314, 329, 331 ⌊Herberstein 1855, p. 294, 314, 329, 331cf. HERBERSTEIN 1855 p. 294, 314, 329, 331 ⌋;
cf. HERBERSTEIN 1560 f. D4v ⌊Herberstein 1560, f. D4vcf. HERBERSTEIN 1560 f. D4v ⌋;
cf. letter cf.
[7 ] A reference to the meeting in Visegrád (see footnote 11!!!) of the envoys of Ferdinand I and representatives of János I Zápolya (including Hieronim Łaski), aimed at signing a one-year truce between the two rulers. The truce, to which Suleiman I consented (see letter No. 15, footnote 8), was signed on May 17 and was to remain in force from May 1, 1531 to April 30, 1532. It was to be guaranteed by the sequestering of the castles of Esztergom (Gran) and Visegrád, then belonging to Ferdinand I, and Kežmarok and Eger, belonging to Zápolya, by the king of Poland and by Georg, Duke of Saxony. A separate document, and ultimately the arbitration of the king of Poland, was to specify the status of the castles taken by Zápolya between the end of the previous truce and May 1, 1531 (
cf. HERBERSTEIN 1855 p. 195 ⌊Herberstein 1855, p. 195cf. HERBERSTEIN 1855 p. 195 ⌋;
cf. AT 13 No. 111, p. 106-109, No. 161-163, p. 155-158, No. 238, p. 222-223 ⌊AT, XIII, No. 111, p. 106-109, No. 161-163, p. 155-158, No. 238, p. 222-223cf. AT 13 No. 111, p. 106-109, No. 161-163, p. 155-158, No. 238, p. 222-223 ⌋;
cf. EFE 25 No. 253, p. 22-25 ⌊Elementa, XXXV, No. 253, p. 22-25cf. EFE 25 No. 253, p. 22-25 ⌋;
cf. POCIECHA 4 p. 117-118, p. 356, footnote 74 ⌊Pociecha IV, p. 117-118, p. 356, footnote 74cf. POCIECHA 4 p. 117-118, p. 356, footnote 74 ⌋;
cf. cf.
[8 ] Vincenzo Pimpinella (1485-1534), humanist, Greek scholar, archbishop of Rossano (1525), in 1529-1532 the first resident papal nuntio in Vienna at the court of Ferdinand I. His task was to assist in the efforts to form an anti-Turkish league and in dealing with Hungarian matters, and to counteract the spreading of Protestantism. He was at the diet in Augsburg with Ferdinand I in 1530. In late 1531 inInnsbruck, he was the official witness of the negotiations that Hieronim Łaski (on behalf of János I Zápolya) onducted with Ferdinand I (cf. cf.
[9 ] Dantiscus most likely means the plan to surrender to Turkey, which some say the Hungarians were considering in order not to be ruled by two monarchs in dispute over the Kingdom of Hungary: Ferdinand I and János I Zápolya. This is the explanation Dantiscus included in his letter to King Sigismund I, written from Ghent on May 19, 1531, also informing him that Cornelis De Schepper’s mission to the Hungarian states on behalf of Emperor Charles V aimed to prevent those plans (see
cf. AT 13 No. 165, p.166 ⌊AT, XIII, No. 165, p.166cf. AT 13 No. 165, p.166 ⌋). It could be, however, that the mention in the commented letter is a reference to other plans considered by the Hungarians at the time, namely to the activity of a group gathered from 1530, initially around the archbishop of Esztergom (Gran), Paul Várdai, with the aim of reconciling the supporters of Ferdinand I and János I Zápolya, or ultimately even ousting both kings and electing a new ruler of united Hungary. In 1531 this initiative was undertaken by magnate Peter Pérenyi (see cf.