The archaeology and material culture of queenship in medieval hungary 1000 1395 1st edition christop

The Archaeology and Material Culture of Queenship in Medieval Hungary, 1000–1395

1st Edition

Christopher Mielke

Visit to download the full and correct content document: https://ebookmass.com/product/the-archaeology-and-material-culture-of-queenship-in -medieval-hungary-1000-1395-1st-edition-christopher-mielke/

The

Christopher Mielke

Archaeology and Material Culture of Queenship in Medieval Hungary, 1000–1395

QueenshipandPower

SeriesEditors

CharlesE.Beem,UniversityofNorthCarolina,Pembroke, NC,USA

CaroleLevin,UniversityofNebraska,Lincoln,NE,USA

Thisseriesfocusesonworksspecializingingenderanalysis,women’s studies,literaryinterpretation,andcultural,political,constitutional,and diplomatichistory.Itaimstobroadenourunderstandingofthestrategiesthatqueens—bothconsortsandregnants,aswellasfemaleregents— pursuedinordertowieldpoliticalpowerwithinthestructuresofmaledominantsocieties.TheworksdescribequeenshipinEuropeaswellas manyotherpartsoftheworld,includingEastAsia,Sub-SaharanAfrica, andIslamiccivilization.

Moreinformationaboutthisseriesat

http://www.palgrave.com/gp/series/14523

ChristopherMielke

TheArchaeology andMaterialCulture ofQueenship inMedievalHungary, 1000–1395

ChristopherMielke

Beverly,WV,USA

ISSN2730-938XISSN2730-9398(electronic)

QueenshipandPower

ISBN978-3-030-66510-4ISBN978-3-030-66511-1(eBook)

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-66511-1

©TheEditor(s)(ifapplicable)andTheAuthor(s),underexclusivelicensetoSpringer NatureSwitzerlandAG2021

Thisworkissubjecttocopyright.Allrightsaresolelyandexclusivelylicensedbythe Publisher,whetherthewholeorpartofthematerialisconcerned,specificallytherights oftranslation,reprinting,reuseofillustrations,recitation,broadcasting,reproductionon microfilmsorinanyotherphysicalway,andtransmissionorinformationstorageand retrieval,electronicadaptation,computersoftware,orbysimilarordissimilarmethodology nowknownorhereafterdeveloped.

Theuseofgeneraldescriptivenames,registerednames,trademarks,servicemarks,etc. inthispublicationdoesnotimply,evenintheabsenceofaspecificstatement,thatsuch namesareexemptfromtherelevantprotectivelawsandregulationsandthereforefreefor generaluse.

Thepublisher,theauthorsandtheeditorsaresafetoassumethattheadviceandinformationinthisbookarebelievedtobetrueandaccurateatthedateofpublication.Neither thepublishernortheauthorsortheeditorsgiveawarranty,expressedorimplied,with respecttothematerialcontainedhereinorforanyerrorsoromissionsthatmayhavebeen made.Thepublisherremainsneutralwithregardtojurisdictionalclaimsinpublishedmaps andinstitutionalaffiliations.

Covercredit:RolfRichardson/AlamyStockPhoto

ThisPalgraveMacmillanimprintispublishedbytheregisteredcompanySpringerNature SwitzerlandAG

Theregisteredcompanyaddressis:Gewerbestrasse11,6330Cham,Switzerland

FormyMother,Elizabeth.

Myinterestincleverwomenovercomingadversityisinspiredbybearing witnesstoyoursuccessinthesame.

Acknowledgments

Thisworkwouldnothavebeenpossiblewithoutmyfamily,friends, colleagues,advisers,andinstitutionalpartners.Tostart,Iwouldexpressly liketothankCentralEuropeanUniversity’sDepartmentofMedieval Studiesfortheirsupportthroughoutthisentireventure—Idonotthink thisworkcouldhavebeendoneanyotherplace.Iwouldalsoliketo expressthankstotheAmericanResearchCenterinSofia,theERASMUS program,andtheGermanAcademicExchangeService(DAAD)fortheir supportwhiledoingthisresearchaspartofmydoctoraldissertation.I amalsogratefultotheMedievalAcademyofAmerica—theirawardofthe CharlesT.WoodDissertationGrantin2015allowedmetodonecessary fieldworkforthisstudy.

MyspecialthanksaretoJózsefLaszlovszkyandAliceChoykefortheir workinsupervisingthiswork.Iamalsogratefultomyotheradvisers, suchasJánosBak,KatalinSzende,GáborKlaniczay,GerhardJaritz,Béla ZsoltSzakács,RobertaGilchrist,AleksPluskowski,andmanyothers.

Foraidinginthetransitionfromdissertationtomonograph,Iwould liketothankmyfriendsandcolleagueswhohelpedwiththetranslations andcopyediting.ZsuzsannaEke,BarbaraLitzlfellner,MagdalenaDebna, andSvetlanaTsonkovaallprovidednecessarydoublecheckingandtranslationhelpforworksIconsultedinHungarian,German,Polish,and Russian,respectively.MyfriendsJustinHagerandJosephSherrenhelped reviewsomeofthechaptersaftertheywereassembledintoabookform withtheaimoftryingtomakethismorereadable.

Iwouldfinallyliketothankmyfamily—myparentsLisaandTom Mielke,mygrandmotherMarilynKinsey,mysisterJenniferLinhartWood, andherhusbandBryanTalenfeld.Theirlove,support,andkindnessmade thisworkpossibleduringthemanytimesIthoughtitwassomething insurmountable.

ListofFigures

Fig.1.1ThedeathofPrinceEmericandtheblindingofVazul. The HungarianIlluminatedChronicle ,National SzéchényiLibrary,Budapest,Cod.Lat.4045

Fig.2.1TheÁrpáddynastyintheeleventhcentury29

Fig.2.2TheBirthofSt.StephenThe HungarianIlluminated Chronicle ,NationalSzéchényiLibrary,Budapest,Cod. Lat.40431

Fig.2.3TheGiselaCross,ca.1006.Schatzkammer,Munich Residenz37

Fig.2.4St.StephenIandGiselafoundingtheCathedralofSS PeterandPaulinÓbuda.The HungarianIlluminated Chronicle ,NationalSzéchényiLibrary,Budapest,Cod. Lat.40441

Fig.2.5ModernmonumenttoGiselabasedonher eleventh-centurytombstone45

Fig.2.6GravestoneofTutaofFormbach,AbbeyofSuben48

Fig.2.7TheHolyCrownofHungary,eleventh-centurytotwelfth century60

Fig.2.8TheAdelaideCross,front,ca.1080s(Source StiftSankt PaulamLavanttal.©FotoStiftSt.Paul,GerfriedSitar)65

Fig.3.1TheÁrpáddynastyinthetwelfthcentury72

Fig.3.2TheCouncilofArad.The HungarianIlluminated Chronicle ,NationalSzéchényiLibrary,Budapest,Cod. Lat.40483

Fig.3.3AgnesofBabenbergintheBabenbergerStammbaum attheStiftsmuseumKlosterneuburg(Photograph byIMAREALKrems)89

Fig.4.1TheÁrpáddynastyinthethirteenthcentury93

Fig.4.2CrownofAnnaofAntioch.HungarianNationalMuseum95

Fig.4.3ClothingfragmentsfromthetombofAnnaofAntioch. FromGyulaForster, III.Bélamagyarkirályemlékezete (1900)98

Fig.4.4RingofAnnaofAntioch.HungarianNationalMuseum100

Fig.4.5ThebetrothalofMargarettoBélaIIIofHungary. GrandesChroniquesdeFrance,BritishLibrary,Royal16 GVI,f.341106

Fig.4.6TheElisabethkleid.AndechsAbbey117

Fig.4.7TheAndechsfamilyintheHedwigCodex(DigitalImage CourtesyofGetty’sOpenContentProgram)120

Fig.4.8SealofYolandaofCourtenay,drawingbytheauthor126

Fig.4.9CoinageofAndrewIIfeaturingYolanda.From LászlóRéthy, CorpusNummorumHungariae (1899–1907)127

Fig.5.1SealofMariaLaskarina.HungarianNationalArchives, OLDF686136

Fig.5.2CoinageofBélaIVfeaturingMariaLaskarina. FromLászlóRéthy, CorpusNummorumHungariae (1899–1907)137

Fig.5.3BélaIVandMariaLaskarinacrowningStephenV.The HungarianIlluminatedChronicle ,NationalSzéchényi Library,Budapest,Cod.Lat.404145

Fig.5.4FirstSealofElizabeththeCuman.FromSándorSzilágyi, AMagyarNemzetTörténete (1895)147

Fig.5.5SecondsealofElizabeththeCuman.HungarianNational Archives,OLDF63612148

Fig.5.6CoinageofLadislasfeaturingElizabeththeCuman. FromLászlóRéthy, CorpusNummorumHungariae (1899–1907)150

Fig.5.7BurialCrownfromMargaretIsland.HungarianNational Museum.1847.43.a152

Fig.5.8SecondSealofIsabellaofNaples.HungarianNational Archives,OLDF1119160

Fig.5.9SealofFenennaofKujavia.IllustrationfromGyörgyPray, Syntagmahistoricumdesigillisregum,etreginarum Hungariae (1805)166

Fig.6.1TheHungarianAngevinDynastyinthefourteenth century173

Fig.6.2FirstsealofAgnesHabsburg.DrawingbyNándor Malachovsky,fromSándorSzilágyi, AMagyarNemzet Története (1895)175

Fig.6.3LostwindowofAgnesofHabsburg.FromMartin Gerbert, MonumentaAugustaeDomusAustriacae (1772)179

Fig.6.4InsidecoverofthePrayersandBenedictionsofMuri. SarnenBenediktinerkollegium,CodexMS.69185

Fig.6.5CryptatKönigsfelden.FromMartinGerbert, Monumenta AugustaeDomusAustriacae (1772)188

Fig.6.6SealofMariaofBytom.HungarianNationalArchives, OLDF1814191

Fig.6.7TheburialofMariaofBytom. TheHungarian IlluminatedChronicle ,NationalSzéchényiLibrary, Budapest,Cod.Lat.404194

Fig.6.8ThebetrothalofElizabethofPoland. TheHungarian IlluminatedChronicle ,NationalSzéchényiLibrary, Budapest,Cod.Lat.404195

Fig.6.93illustrationsofthelifeofElizabethofPoland. The HungarianIlluminatedChronicle ,NationalSzéchényi Library,Budapest,Cod.Lat.404197

Fig.6.10TheattemptonthelifeofthekingandqueenbyFelician Záh. TheHungarianIlluminatedChronicle ,National SzéchényiLibrary,Budapest,Cod.Lat.404198

Fig.6.11GreatsealofElizabethofPoland.HungarianNational Archives,OLDF3137200

Fig.6.12CoinageofCharlesIRobertfeaturingElizabeth ofPolandandherinitials.FromLászlóRéthy, Corpus NummorumHungariae (1899–1907)202

Fig.6.13ReliquaryaltarownedbyElizabethofPoland.The CloistersCollection,1962.62.96206

Fig.6.14DrawingofthecapitalfromSt.MaryGateattheChurch ofOurLadyinBudafeaturingElizabethofPoland. DrawingbyJosefKeintzel,1876.FromJózsefCsemegi, Abudavárif˝otemplomközépkoriépítéstörténete (1955)212

Fig.7.1GreatsealofElizabethofBosnia.FromGyörgyPray, Syntagmahistoricumdesigillisregum,etreginarum Hungariae (1805)228

Fig.7.2ReliquarySarcophagusofSt.Simeon,Zadar230

Fig.7.3PossibleformerroodscreenfeaturingLouisIofHungary andElizabethofBosnia.DrawingfromSándorMárki, MáriaMagyarországkirálynéja1370 –1395 ,(1885)236

Fig.7.4GreatsealofQueenMary.FromGyörgyPray, Syntagma historicumdesigillisregum,etreginarumHungariae (1805)242

Fig.7.5ThirdSignetRingofQueenMary.FromGyörgyPray, Syntagmahistoricumdesigillisregum,etreginarum Hungariae (1805)245

Fig.7.6CoinageissuedbyQueenMary.FromLászlóRéthy, CorpusNummorumHungariae (1899–1907)247

Fig.7.7OrbfoundinroyaltombatOradea.HungarianNational Museum.1934.415.b251

Fig.7.8TheFlorianPsalter,folio53v,c.1395–1405.National LibraryofPoland256

AListofQueensIncludedinthisStudy

QueenLifeandDeathConsort

Saroltaof Transylvania (d.1008?)PrinceGéza(r.975–997)

GiselaofBavaria(c.985–1065)St.StephenI(r.997–1038)

TutaofFormbach(d.1055?)PeterOrseolo? (r.1038–1041/1044–1046)

N.N.ofHungary(d.?)SamuelAba(r.1041–1044)

Adelaideof Brunswick (1022–1048/49)AndrewI(r.1046–1060)

AnastasiaofKiev(d.1096?)AndrewI(r.1046–1060)

RichezaofPoland(d.?)BélaI(r.1060–1063)

JudithofSwabia(1047–1094?)Salomon(r.1063–1074)

SynadeneSynadenos(d.after1079/1080)GézaI(r.1074–1077)

Adelaideof Rheinfelden (d.1090)St.LadislasI(r.1077–1095)

FeliciaofSicily(d.before1112)Coloman(r.1095–1116)

EuphemiaofKiev(d.1138)Coloman(r.1095–1116)

N.N.OfCapua(d.?)StephenII(r.1116–1131)

Adelaideof Regensburg (d.?)StephenII?(r.1116–1131)

HelenofSerbia(d.1146?)BélaII(r.1131–1141)

EuphrosyneofKiev(1130?–1193?)GézaII(r.1141–1161)

AgnesofBabenberg(1154–1182)StephenIII(r.1161–1173)

MariaKomnene(d.?)StephenIV(r.1163–1165)

Anna(Agnes)of Antioch (d.1184)BélaIII(r.1173–1196)

(continued)

QueenLifeandDeathConsort

MargaretofFrance(1158–1197)BélaIII(r.1173–1196)

Constanceof

Aragon (1179–1222)Emeric(r.1196–1204)

Gertrudeof

Andechs-Meran (d.1213)AndrewII(r.1205–1235)

Yolandaof

Courtenay (d.1233)AndrewII(r.1205–1235)

BeatriceofEste(d.1245)AndrewII(r.1205–1235)

MariaLaskarina(d.1270)BélaIV(r.1235–1270)

Elizabeththe

Cuman (d.1290?)StephenV(r.1270–1272)

IsabellaofNaples(d.1303)LadislasIV(r.1272–1290)

FenennaofKujavia(1276–1295)AndrewIII(r.1290–1301)

AgnesofHabsburg(1281–1364)AndrewIII(r.1290–1301)

MariaofBytom(d.1317)CharlesIRobert (r.1308–1342)

Beatriceof Luxemburg (d.1319)CharlesIRobert (r.1308–1342)

ElizabethofPoland(d.1380)CharlesIRobert (r.1308–1342)

Margaretof Luxemburg (d.1349)LouisI(r.1342–1382)

ElizabethofBosnia(d.1387)LouisI(r.1342–1382)

Maryb.1370(r.1382–1395)SigismundofLuxemburg (r.1387–1437)

Introduction

ThisbookaimstodocumenthowmedievalqueensintheHungarian kingdomusedmaterialcultureandstructuredspaceasexpressionsof theirownpower.Thelivesoftwenty-sevenwomenarepresentedherein ordertounderstandhowtheyusedobjects,images,andspaceintermsof theirownagencyandcapacityforaction.Thisconcernfortheindividual experienceisatrickyoneasreconstructingindividuallivesthrough materialcultureisextremelydifficultandinsomecasesimpossible. MostHungarianqueenshavebeenunderstoodonlythroughwritten evidence—charters,chronicles,hagiography,etc.Thepastmillenniumof Hungarianhistoryhasbeenwaveafterwaveofdestructionandmostof themedievalarchivesareinanincrediblyfragmentarystate;theyshould notbetakenasthefinalwordontheagencyofthemedievalqueens. Thisdestructionalsoappliestothematerialcultureandspacesofthe queens,butthefew,fortunatesurvivalsareworthyofinvestigationin theirownright.

Thisworksaimstounderstandwhothesewomenwereandhowthey expressedtheirpowerthroughover150objects,images,andspaces.In ordertounderstandthecontextthattheseobjectsappearin,thisbook isdividedchronologicallyintosixchapters.Themainquestionsasked ofthismaterialwillbe:Howispowerrelatedtotheofficeofqueenship manifestedinthepreservedmaterialandarchaeologicalrecord?Towhat

©TheAuthor(s),underexclusivelicensetoSpringerNature SwitzerlandAG2021

C.Mielke, TheArchaeologyandMaterialCultureofQueenship inMedievalHungary,1000–1395,QueenshipandPower, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-66511-1_1

extentareartifactsremnantsofthequeen’spersonal(i.e.,asmother, wife,daughter)orherofficialduties?Howcanthequeen’spresencebe detectedatarchaeologicalsitesassociatedwithher?Theultimategoalof thisstudyistoprovideadifferent,morenuancedviewofthenarrative thatmedievalqueensinHungarywerepassiveanddependentfigures. Theevidencepresentedhereshowsthattheyunderstoodandusedthe mediaofobjects,images,andspacestodisplaytheirownpowertopublic andprivateaudiences.

PowerandMedievalQueenship

Oneofthepotentialproblemsofbiographyasameansofwriting women’s’historyisatendencytofocustoomuchon“greatwomen” wholeftwrittendocuments.1 Yet,inBianchini’sstudyonBerenguelaof Castile(r.1217–1246),theauthormakestwopoints:first,allwomen’s historyismeaningfulandworthrecovering.Thesecondpointisthat studyingthesewomenbreaksthestrangleholdonpoliticalhistorybeing primarilyassociatedwithmaleactorsandactions.2 Withtheactiveagency ofthemedievalqueensinmind,itisofutmostimportancetodefinewhat constitutedpowerforthesewomenandtounderstandhowthispower isevidentinthematerialrecord.Ontheonehand,theconclusions ofZsoldosandSzakácsreflecttheideathatHungarianqueenswere essentiallypowerless;theinstitutionofthequeenwasentirelydependent ontheking,andthesmatteringofarthistoricalobjectsrelatedtothem thatsurviveseemtobesingularexamplesthathadlittlechancetomake alargerimpactonbroaderartisticformsinHungary.3 Nonetheless,this apparent“invisibility”isoneofthehallmarksofaqueenconsort;ifa womanwastobeagoodqueen,wife,andmother(notnecessarilyinthat order)hergoals,intents,andmotiveshadtobeinherentlysubordinated tothatoftheking.TheHungarianKingdomisnoexceptioninhaving

1 JudithBennett, HistoryMatters:PatriarchyandtheChallengeofFeminism (Philadelphia:UniversityofPennsylvaniaPress,2010),24–25.

2 JannaBianchini, TheQueen’sHand:PowerandAuthorityintheReignofBerenguela ofCastile (Philadelphia:UniversityofPennsylvaniaPress,2012),3.

3 AttilaZsoldos,The AzÁrpádsandTheirWives:QueenshipinEarlyMedievalHungary, 1000 –1301 (Rome:Viella,2019),180–182;BélaZsoltSzakács,“Akirálynékm˝uvészete –am˝uvészettörténészekkirálynéi”[TheArtoftheQueens—TheQueensoftheArt Historians],inJuditMajorossy,ed. Egytörténelmigyilkosságmargójára:MerániaiGertrúd emlékezete,1213 –2013 [TotheMarginofaHistoricalMurder:CommemorateGertrude ofAndechs-Meran,1213–2013](Szentendre,2014),217–226,317–318.

queenswhosoughttobreaktheseboundariesandmakepowerplaysof theirown,butitisanexceptioninpossessinganefficientbureaucratic systemwiththekingatthecenter.Thiscentralizedcharacterofthe Hungariankingdomandtheregionaltendencytominimizethepresence ofwomeninpublicdocumentsmeansthatitisnosurprisethatatfirst glanceitappearsmedievalHungarianqueenshadnopower.Itisworth examiningwhat“power”meantforamedievalqueenandhowthe Hungariancasestudieseitherconformtoordefyexpectations.

AnotherofthechiefclaimsofZsoldoshasbeenthatsincethe HungarianqueensintheÁrpádianperiodobtainedincomeonanadhoc basis,theywereprobablynotverypowerful.4 Fößel,however,hasdemonstratedinherstudyofGermanqueensandempressesthataqueendid notnecessarilyneedtohavewealthinordertobepowerful.5 Tobesure, accesstowealthmeantthataqueenwasabletoenterintolavishbuilding andartisticprograms,generousendowmentsofthechurch,andcommissioningcertainbooksinordertobolstertheirownimageandrecordtheir versionofevents,suchasinthecaseofthe EncomiumEmmaeReginae .

6 Atthesametime,ifaqueenfoundherselfwithoutfunds,sheoften involvedherselfinmarriagenegotiations,issuingcharters(thoughthese oftenconcernedmonetarymatters),letterwriting,andeducationofthe royalchildren.Forinstance,inthetwelfthcentury(aperiodwherethere islittlematerialcultureassociatedwiththequeens),thewidowedqueen EuphrosyneofKievwasinstrumentalinnegotiatingamarriagebetween herdaughterandthesonofthedukeofBohemiaatatimewhenHungary desperatelyneededmilitaryallies.7 Huneycuttobserves“Thepowerof amedievalqueenrestedonaperceptionofinfluenceratherthanany institutionalbase,andthelossofthatperceivedinfluencecouldspell disaster.”8 4 Zsoldos, TheÁrpádsandTheirWives ,182–185.

5 AmalieFößel,“TheQueen’sWealthintheMiddleAges,” Majestas 13(2005):31–34.

6 AlistairCampbell,ed., EncomiumEmmaeReginae (Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity Press,1998).

7 FerencMakk, TheÁrpádsandtheComneni:PoliticalRelationsBetweenHungaryand Byzantiuminthe12thCentury (Budapest:AkadémiaiKiadó,1989),89.

8 LoisL.Huneycutt,“IntercessionandtheHighMedievalQueen:TheEstherTopos,” in PoweroftheWeak:StudiesonMedievalWomen,ed.JenniferCarpenterandSally-Beth MacLean,etal.(Urbana&Chicago:UniversityofIllinoisPress,1995),138.

Manyaspectsofthequeen’spowerarepreservedinmaterialand visualcultureinwaysthatcontemporariesunderstood.Thequeen’sseal isdirectlyrelatedtoherissuanceofcharters;itwasasgoodashavingthe issuerhandoverthedocumentinperson.Coinswithherimageimprinted onthemnexttotheking’sshowherownimageenhancingthatofthe king’sandthekingbestowinghisstatusonher,bothinandoutsidethe realm.Itemswornonthebodywouldindicateherrankandstatusto thosefortunateenoughtobeinherphysicalpresence.Imagesinpublic space(i.e.,stonecarvingsorfrescosinchurches)andheraldicbanners madethequeen’spresenceknownwhenshewasinremotelocations. Objectsdonatedtothechurch,books,andimagesinilluminatedchronicleshadamuchmorerestrictedaudience,butnonethelessrepresented moreprivateorcontemplativeactswithpoliticalovertones.Giftsgiven toandfromthequeenshadapurposeandmeaningfarbeyondthemere exchangeoftrinkets;whenrecorded,theyareusuallypartofaninternationalmeetingofprincesandwerethusextremelypoliticalinnature. Gravemonumentstestifiedtothelegitimacyandlineageofthequeen aswellasamarkerofemotionalattachmentonthepartofthedynasty. Finally,theresidences,monasteries,andconstructionprojectsassociated withthequeenmarkedherplaceinthelandscapeinthecentersofpower aswellasinremotesituations.Inalltheseways,thequeen’spresenceand powerweredisplayedinwaysthatdidnotalwaysmeritamentioninthe writtenrecordbutthatwerenonethelessunderstoodbycontemporaries. Itshouldalsobenotedthatwhilemanyofthecaseswillinvolvethe queen’sactiveparticipationandanexertionofherownpower,there willbeseveralinstanceswherethequeen’simageisusedwhensheis nottheplanner,creator,orexecutor.Forexample,oncoinage,onsome publicmonumentsandinsomeilluminatedmanuscriptsherpresenceis there,butthequeenhasherselfbecomeanobjectofmaterialculture.In somecases,herappearanceisusedagainsther;the HungarianIlluminatedChronicle blamesGiselaofBavaria(d.1065?)forblindingVazul (d.1031)andexilinghisthreesonsandtheimageofthiseventshows herhusbandmourningtheirsonwhileVazulisbeingblindedinthe background(Fig. 1.1).9 However,thequeen’simageandpersoncould

9 KláraGárdonyi-Csapodi,“DescriptionandInterpretationoftheIllustrationsinthe IlluminatedChronicle,”in TheHungarianIlluminatedChronicle:ChronicadeGestis Hungarorum,ed.Dezs˝oDercsényi(Budapest:CorvinaPress,1969),75;J´anosM.Bak,

Fig.1.1 ThedeathofPrinceEmericandtheblindingofVazul.The Hungarian IlluminatedChronicle ,NationalSzéchényiLibrary,Budapest,Cod.Lat.404

strengthentheimageofthekingandthedynastyingeneral.Burials ofEnglishqueenswereusuallyattendedwithgreatceremonyasthe queenwasnotonlythekeytodynasticcontinuitybutinmanycases agoodqueenwasalsoinstrumentalinconveyingdynasticlegitimacy, usuallyhingingonherownhighstatusbackground.10 Thefewinstances wheremoreisknownoftheburialofaHungarianqueen(suchasthe caseofAgnes/AnnaofAntiochinSzékesfehérvár)indicatethatqueens wereburiedwiththehighestqualitytextilesaswellasamajorsymbolof theiroffice(acrown).Thequeens’presenceoncoinagewascertainly notanecessity,yetwhenHungariankingsbegintodepictbustsof themselvesoncoinage,queenssoonafterappearedaswell.Thequeen’s involvementinthesedepictionsispassiveatbest(andsometimesposthumous).Nonetheless,itshowsthattheimageofthequeencarriedenough symbolicweighttomeritparticulartreatmentintheseinstances.

LiteratureReview

Manystudieshaveinfluencedthefocusandscopeofthiswork,andthus, thisworkaimstoshedlightonthesepreviousworks,firstonqueenship studiesinthecontinent,andthenonspecificworksrelatedtoHungarian queens.Thefocusherewillbeonsecondaryliteraturemosthelpfulin raisingquestionsabouttheactionsandagencyofHungarianqueens.

Oneoftheseminalworksthathasinfluencedmymethodologyis Nolan’s QueensinStoneandSilver .Thisbookisastudyofthevisual cultureofqueenshipintwelfthandthirteenthcenturyFrance,primarily throughtheexaminationofsealsandtombsfromthatperiod.11 John Steanehastwobooksthatdealwithhowpowerisexpressedinthe

“QueensasScapegoatsinMedievalHungary,”in QueensandQueenshipinMedieval Europe ,ed.AnneJ.Duggan(Woodbridge:BoydellPress,1997),225–226.

10 JohnCarmiParsons,“‘NeverWasaBodyBuriedinEnglandwithSuchSolemnityand Honour’:TheBurialsandPosthumousCommemorationsofEnglishQueensto1500,” in QueensandQueenshipinMedievalEurope ,ed.AnneDuggan(Woodbridge:Boydell Press,1997),319–320.

11 KathleenNolan, QueensinStoneandSilver:TheCreationofaVisualImageryof QueenshipinCapetianFrance (NewYork:PalgraveMacmillan,2009),1–15.

materialrecord,concentratingonmedievalEngland.12 Bothvolumesare thoroughandwhileSteane’sfocusonthequeensisminimal,hisworks nonethelessshowthepotentialforunderstandinghowpowercanbe displayedvisuallyandspatiallythroughrelevantmaterialculture.Thetwovolume ReassessingtheRolesofWomenas‘Makers’ofMedievalArtand Architecture arguesthatbothartistsandpatronswereseenascreators— thus,thecreationofaworkofartnotonlyreflectsaclearexerciseof power,butwomenwhocommissionedsuchpieceswereconsideredas theirauthors.13 Earenfightrecentlypublishedanoverviewonmedieval queenshipinanattempttocreateabroadoverviewonthechanging natureofthequeen’spower.14 Richardson’sstudyonthespacesthat queensoccupiedincastlesusesbothaccessanalysisaswellasanexaminationoftheimageryintheirpersonalrooms.15 Regrettably,thereisnot enoughdataavailableforHungarianroyalcastleseveninthesixteenth centurytomakesuchastudyfeasibleatpresent.Crossleytracedpatterns ofanarchitecturalprograminwhichwomenconnectedtotheAndechsMeranfamilyinCentralEurope(particularlyinBohemiaandPoland) emulatedthechurchatMarburgthatservedastheburialplaceforSt. ElizabethofHungary(d.1231).16 Proctor-Tiffany’sstudyanalyzesthe itemsrelatedtoClémenceofHungary(d.1328),queenofLouisXof France(r.1314–1316)includingthegiftsshegave;Barthacontinued toresearchthisqueen,notonlyhergiftsbutalsoher“Hungarian”identity.17 Theintentoftheeditedvolume MedievalQueenship was,asthe

12 JohnSteane, TheArchaeologyoftheMedievalEnglishMonarchy (London&New York:Routledge,1999);JohnSteane, TheArchaeologyofPower:EnglandandNorthern Europe,A.D.800 –1600 (Stroud:Tempus,2001).

13 ThereseMartin,“ExceptionsandAssumptions:WomeninMedievalArthistory,”in ReassessingtheRolesofWomenas‘Makers’ofMedievalArtandArchitecture ,ed.Therese Martin(Leiden&Boston:Brill,2012),30–31.

14 TheresaEarenfight, QueenshipinMedievalEurope (NewYork:PalgraveMacmillan, 2013).

15 AmandaRichardson,“GenderandSpaceinEnglishRoyalPalacesc.1160–c.1547: AStudyinAccessAnalysisandImagery,” MedievalArchaeology 47(2003):131–165.

16 PaulCrossley,“TheArchitectureofQueenship:RoyalSaints,FemaleDynastiesand theSpreadofGothicArchitectureinCentralEurope,”in QueensandQueenshipin MedievalEurope ,ed.AnneJ.Duggan(Woodbridge:BoydellPress,2002),263–289.

17 MariahProctor-Tiffany,“PortraitofaMedievalPatron:TheInventoryandGift GivingofClémenceofHungary”(Ph.D.diss.:BrownUniversity,2007);Annamária Bartha,“MagyarországiKlemenciakapcsolataiMagyarországgal”[ClémenceofHungary’s

editornotes,to“dissectthewaysinwhichqueenspursuedandexploited meanstopower,andhowtheiractionswereinterpretedbyothers.”18 The focuswasthusonstrategiesandmeansofactionintheexamplesprovided, ratherthanfocusingonparticularbiographies.Anothereditedvolume answeredsimilarquestionstotheParsonsvolume,thoughitschronologicalframeworkislongerandtherearemorevariedcasestudies.19 Allof theseworksshowthepossibilityandpotentialforactiononthepartof medievalqueens.

Fornon-Hungarianspeakers,twoarticlesinthelasttwoaforementionedvolumesbyBakarethemain(oftenonly)sourceformedieval Hungarianqueens:onedealswiththerolesandfunctionsoftheÁrpádianandAngevinqueenswhiletheotheraddressestheiruseasscapegoats forvariouscalamitiesandcircumstances.20 Thesearticlesaregreatfundamentalsourcesthathighlighthowqueenswereononehandabletowield poweroftheirownbutthatontheotherhand,therewereexternalforces influencingtheactionsofthequeens.QueensofHungarycouldbescapegoats,agentsofforeigninfluenceandimmigration,intercessors,owners ofextensiveestates,andalsothekings’wives.21 Hisworkstartswith evidencefromchronicleswhichtendtodiscussthevarious(usuallynegative)moralaspectsofthequeenswhilechartersrevealsomethingoftheir estates;littleisknownofthepersonalinteractionsbetweenthequeen andherfamily.Itisalsoworthnotingthatmostofthequeenscamefrom abroad.Intheeleventhcentury,mostofthequeenscamefromGerman RelationshipwithHungary],in Francia-magyarkapcsolatokaközépkorban [Frenchand HungarianContactsintheMiddleAges],ed.AttilaGyörkösandGergelyKiss(Debrecen: UniversityofDebrecenPress,2013),181–193;AnnamáriaBartha,“Magyarországi Klemenciakegytárgyai”[ClémenceofHungary’sObjectsofDevotion,” FiatalKözépkoros RégészekVI.KonferenciájánakTanulmánykötete [StudyVolumeofthe6thConferenceof YoungMedievalArchaeologists]VI(2015):169–179.

18 JohnCarmiParsons,“Introduction:Family,Sex,andPower:TheRhythmsof MedievalQueenship,”in MedievalQueenship,ed.JohnCarmiParsons(Stroud:Sutton PublishingLimited,1993),2.

19 AnneDuggan,ed. QueensandQueenshipinMedievalEurope (Woodbridge:Boydell Press,2002).

20 JánosM.Bak,“RolesandFunctionsofQueensinÁrpádianandAngevinHungary (1000–1386A.D.),”in MedievalQueenship,ed.JohnCarmiParsons(Stroud:Sutton PublishingLimited,1993),13–24;Bak,“QueensasScapegoatsinMedievalHungary,” 223–233.

21 Bak,“RolesandFunctionsofQueensinÁrpádianandAngevinHungary,”14,20.

orPolishneighbors,inthetwelfthcenturymorecamefromtheMediterraneanandRussianlands,whiletowardtheendofthetwelfthcentury therewasagreaterinterestinFrenchandSpanishmatches.Afterthe MongolInvasion,importantmarriagesweremadewithNaplesaswellas neighboringstateslikeAustria,Poland,Bohemia,andBosnia.Theonly exceptionstothisaretheHungarianwifeofSamuelAba(r.1041–1044) andElizabeththeCuman(d.1290?),wifeofStephenV(r.1270–1272).

Thoughthesearethemostinternationallyknownworks,thereisalong traditionofresearchontheHungarianqueens.Intheeighteenthcentury, aposthumousworkbySchierfocusedonthegenealogyanddescentofthe ÁrpádianqueensfromGiselaofBavaria(d.1065)toAgnesofHabsburg (d.1364).22 In1892,aseminalworkwaspublishedbyWertneronthe FamilyHistoryoftheÁrpáds.EachmemberoftheÁrpádDynastyhad theirownentry;thisworkcontinuestobeamajorstartingpointformost researchers.23 WhileWertner’sworkcontainsseveralerrors(particularly withregardtoroyalwomen)itisnonethelessafoundationalpieceinits scope.

Inthepastfiftyyears,severalimportantworkshavefocusedonthe livesofparticularqueens.Vajaycontinuedthegenealogicalresearchof earlierhistorians,answeringcertainquestionsabouttheidentitiesof variousfemalefiguresinthefirstcenturiesoftheHungariankingdom.24 VajayalsoelaboratedonadissertationwrittenbyKerblontheByzantineprincesseswhoweremarriedorbetrothedtovariousmembersof theÁrpádDynastyintheeleventhandtwelfthcenturies.25 Thereare twoeditedvolumesonGiselaofBavaria,thefirstwifeofSt.Stephenof Hungary;onewithnewcontributions,theotherrepublishedpreviously writtenworksabouther.Itisnocoincidencethatbothwerepublishedin

22 XystusSchier, ReginaeHungariaeprimaestirpis (Vienna,1776).

23 MórWertner, AzÁrpádokcsaláditörténeti [AFamilyHistoryoftheÁrpáds] (Nagybecskerek:Pleitz,1892).

24 Tonameonlyafew:SzabolcsdeVajay,“GroßfürstGeysavonUngarn.Familie undVerwandtschaft,” Südostforschungen XXI(1962):88–101;“Agatha,MotherofSt. Margaret,QueenofScotland,” DuquesneReview 7/2(1962):71–80;“Mégegykirálynénk…?I.Endreels˝ofelesége”[AnotherofOurQueens…?TheFirstWifeofAndrew I]. Turul 72(1999):17–23.

25 RaimundKerbl,“ByzantinischePrinzessinneninUngarnzwischen1050–1200und ihrEinflußaufdasArpadenkönigreich(Ph.D.dissertation:UniversityofVienna,1979); SzabolcsdeVajay,“ByzantinischePrinzessinneninUngarn,” UngarnJahrbuch 10(1979): 15–28.

Veszprém,thefavoredcityofthequeenandthesiteofthebishopricshe founded.26 LaszlovszkydevotesasectionofavolumeonmedievalEnglish andHungariancontactstoMargaretofFrance(d.1197),thesecond wifeofBélaIII(r.1173–1196).27 AconferenceheldinSzentendre upontheeight-hundredyearanniversarycommemoratedthemurderof QueenGertrudeofAndechs-Meran(d.1213).Thevolumeofessays presentedonherandhercontemporarieswaspublishedthefollowing year.28 MuseumsinBudapestandBarcelonacooperatedonanexhibition cataloguewhichfeaturedacollectionofessaysonthetopicofIberian andHungariandynasticalliances,particularlyfocusingonConstance ofAragon(d.1222)andYolandaofHungary(d.1251),Queenof Aragon.29 Honnemanwroteanarticleonthetangledhistoriographic traditionrelatedtothelastÁrpádianqueen(AgnesofHabsburg,d.1364) andherstepdaughterElisabethofTöss(d.1336)thathasprovenessential.30

Severalscholarshavepublishedontheartisticprogram,pilgrimage, andburialsiteofElizabethofPoland(d.1380),consideringthemany

26 ZsuzsaV.Fodor,ed. Gizellaéskora:felolvasóülésekazÁrpád -korból [GiselaandHer Era:ASessionofReadingsfromtheAgeoftheÁrpáds](Veszprém,1993);JánosGécsi, ed. Gizellakirályné985 -k.1060 [QueenGisella,ca.985–1060](Veszprém,2000).

27 JózsefLaszlovszky,“Angol-Magyarkapcsolatoka12századmásodikfelében” [English-HungarianRelationsintheSecondHalfoftheTwelfthCentury]. Angol -Magyar kapcsolatokaközépkorban [English-HungarianContactsintheMiddleAges]I,ed.Attila Bárány,JózsefLaszlovszky,andZsuzsannaPapp(Máriabesny˝o:Attraktor,2008),153–165.

28 JuditMajorossy,ed. Egytörténelmigyilkosságmargójára:MerániaiGertrúd emlékezete,1213–2013 [TotheMarginofaHistoricalMurder:CommemorateGertrude ofAndechs-Meran,1213–2013](Szentendre,2014).

29 RamonSarobeandCsabaTóth,eds. Királylányokmessziföldr˝ol:Magyarországés Katalóniaaközépkorban [PrincessesfromAfar:HungaryandCataloniaintheMiddle Ages](BudapestandBarcelona:HungarianNationalMuseum&HistoryMuseumof Catalonia,2009).

30 VolkerHonemann,“AMedievalQueenandHerStepdaughter:AgnesandElizabethofHungary,”in QueensandQueenshipinMedievalEurope ,ed.AnneJ.Duggan (Woodbridge:BoydellPress,2002),109–119.

survivingmaterialsassociatedwithher.31 TheBosnianprincessElizabethKotromani´c(d.1387),hasreceivedsomeattentionrecentlyaswell; Dautovi´chasanarticleonherinBosnian.32 Alaterprimarysource, TheMemoirsofHeleneKottaner ,givemanyspecificdetailsonthe personallivesofafifteenth-centuryqueen,ElisabethofLuxemburg(d. 1442).33 ThemagnificentcatalogueassembledbyRéthelyiontheHabsburgprincessMary(d.1558)deservesmentionhere;thoughMary,the wifeofLouisII(r.1516–1526)livedafterthetimeframeofthispresent study,thisresearchhasnonethelessproveduseful.34

Finally,inthetwenty-firstcentury,Zsoldospublishedseveralworks basedonthecharterevidenceoftheHungarianqueens.Heevenreconstructedchartersthatnolongerexistfromlaterdocumentsthatmake referencetothem.35 Assemblingallthecharterevidenceavailable,he 31 EvaSniezynska-Stolot,“QueenElizabethasPatronofArchitecture,” ActaHistoriae Artium 20(1974):13–36;EvaSniezynska-Stolot,“TanulmányokŁokietekErzsébetkirályném˝upártolásaköréb˝ol(Ötvöstárgyak)”[StudiesontheScopeoftheArtPatronage ofQueenElizabethŁokietek(GoldsmithWork)], M˝uvészettörténetiÉrtesít˝ o 30(1981/4): 233–254;EvaSniezynska-Stolot,“TheArtisticPatronageoftheHungarianAngevinsin Poland,” AlbaRegia 22(1985):21–27;MarianneSághy,“Dévotionsdiplomatiques:Le pèlerinagedelareine-mèreÉlisabethPiastàRome,”in LaDiplomatiedesÉtatsAngevins auxXIIIeetXIVesiècle ,ed.ZoltánKordéandIstvánPetrovics(RomeandSzeged:2010), 219–224;BrianMcEntee,“TheBurialSiteSelectionofaHungarianQueen:Elizabeth, QueenofHungary(1320–1380),andtheÓbudaClares’Church,” AnnualofMedieval StudiesatCEU 12(2006):69–82;LászlóSzende, PiastErzsébetésudvara(1320–1380) [ElizabethPiastandHerCourt,1320–1380](Ph.D.diss.:ELTE,2007).

32 DženanDautovi´c,“Bosansko-ugarskiodnosikrozprizmubrakaLudovikaIVelikog iElizabetek´cerkeStjepanaIIKotromani´ca”[RelationsBetweenBosniaandHungary ThroughthePrismoftheMarriageBetweenLouistheGreatandElizabeth,theDaughter ofStjepanIIKotromani´c], Radovi XVII/3(2014):141–157.

33 MayaBijvoetWilliamson,trans.&ed., TheMemoirsofHeleneKottaner (Cambridge: D.S.Brewer,1998).

34 OrsolyaRéthelyi,etal. MaryofHungary:TheQueenandHerCourt,1521–1531 (Budapest:BudapestHistoryMuseum,2005);OrsolyaRéthelyi,“MaryofHungaryin CourtContext(1521–1531)”(Ph.D.diss.:CentralEuropeanUniversity,2010).

35 ImreSzentpéteryandAttilaZsoldos, AzÁrpád -házihercegek,hercegn˝okésakirálynék okleveleinekkritikaijegyzéke [TheChartersofthePrinces,PrincessesandQueensofthe ÁrpádHouse,aCriticalEdition](Budapest:HungarianNationalArchive,2008),183–188;AttilaZsoldos,“TheProblemofDatingQueens’ChartersoftheÁrpádianAge Eleventh-ThirteenthCentury,”in DatingUndatedMedievalCharters ,ed.MichaelGervers (Woodbridge:BoydellPress,2002),151–160.

hasenabledustounderstandthefullnatureofactivityforÁrpádianagequeens.Unfortunatelythepicturethatemergesisratherbleak;he acknowledgesthattheHungarianqueenshadtheirowncourts,theirown staff,andtheirownproperty,butthatallthiswasdependentontheking. Theyonlybroughtinnewcustomswiththeconsentofthekings.36 The relativeweaknessofthequeenshasalsobeennotedinthearthistorical realm.Szakácsidentifiedthreeperiodswheretheinfluenceofthequeen wasfeltinamuchlargercontextoutsidetheroyalcourt:theChristianizationperiodintheearlyeleventhcentury(withthemarriageofKing StephentoGiselaofBavaria),theearlyGothicperiod(withthemarriage ofBélaIIItoMargaretofFrance),andfinallytheearlyItalianRenaissance (withthemarriageofMatthiasCorvinustoBeatriceofAragonin1476).

Ultimatelythough,inhisopinion,“theartofthequeensistheartofthe kings,”andasidefromafewpiecesthatsurvive,thesewomenasagroup didnothaveasignificantimpactonmedievalHungarianart.37 Nonetheless,bytakingasystematicoverview,thisbookbuildsoffofthisresearch byincorporatingmaterial,written,visual,andspatialevidencetobetter understandthetruenatureofthequeen’spowerinmedievalHungary.

AgencyTheoryandObjectBiography

Scottadvocatesthathistoryshouldanalyzegenderconstructionsaswell astheexperiencesofwomenintandem;thepurposeisthustoexpose howgendersinterplayandoperateratherthansimplylistingdeedsof certainwell-knownwomen.38 Thecombinedtheoreticalapproachesof agencytheoryandobjectbiographycanaddresstheseaspectsmutually. Theconceptofagencyrealizesthepowerofindividualstoactwithin socialrulesandnormsaswellastoreinforceandreinventthesesame

36 Zsoldos,The ÁrpádandTheirWives ,180–186;AttilaZsoldos,“Gertrúdésa királynéiintézményazÁrpád-koriMagyarKirályságban”[QueenGertrudeandQueenshipintheKingdomofHungaryDuringtheArpadianPeriod].JuditMajorossy,ed. Egytörténelmigyilkosságmargójára:MerániaiGertrúdemlékezete,1213 –2013 [Tothe MarginofaHistoricalMurder:CommemorateGertrudeofAndechs-Meran,1213–2013] (Szentendre,2014),17–24.

37 Szakács,“Akirálynékm˝uvészete–am˝uvészettörténészekkirálynéi,”217–226,317–318.

38 JoanScott, GenderofPoliticsandHistory (NewYork:ColumbiaUniversityPress, 1999),27;Bennett, HistoryMatters ,25.

aspectsofsociety.39 Thisprocessisdialectical,forsocietalconventions andmoresarealsoresponsibleforshapingtheactionsofindividuals.40

Queensinparticularweredefinedbysocialcustomsoftheirtimeand placeandthewritingsofcontemporariesseemobsessedwithhowwell queensactedaccordingtopre-existingstereotypes.Agencytheoryaidsin understandingconstructionsofgenderandpowerthatthesequeenshad toworkwithin,butalsohowindividualqueenshadtheirownstrategies andpursuedtheirownagendawithinthesesetrules,andhowtheysometimesbroketheserules.Thus,thepowerassociatedwithastudyofagency isfundamentallyatransformativetypeofpower41 ;ratherthansociety makingthesewomenandpre-determiningeverystepoftheiractions, thisstudyfocusesonhowqueensusedpre-existinggendernormstotheir advantage;agencyisfundamentally“…notathingbutan opportunityto act ”inthisscheme.42 Centraltotheissueofunderstandinghowqueens hadpotentialforaction,itwillbenecessarytobetterunderstandtherelationshipqueenshadwiththematerialculturetheyemployedaswellas thespacestheylivedinandweresurroundedby.Dornansuggestsan approachtoagencythatmoves“…betweenanexplorationofstructural eventsandpatternsofpractice,betweenhistoricallyuniquemicroprocessesandmoremacroscale,long-termprocesses,andbetweenafocus onobservableconsequenceandlessobviousintentionality.”43 Thelives ofthesequeenswillbeexaminedbothintermsoftheirownindividual,

39 MatthewJohnson,“ConceptionsofAgencyinArchaeologicalInterpretation,” JournalofAnthropologicalArchaeology 8(1989):189–211;Marcia-AnneDobresand JohnRobb,eds. AgencyinArchaeology (London&NewYork:Routledge,2000);John C.Barrett,“Agency,theDualityofStructure,andtheProblemoftheArchaeologicalRecord,”in ArchaeologicalTheoryToday ,ed.IanHodder(Cambridge:PolityPress, 2001),141–164;LeoKlejn,“NeitherArchaeologyNorTheory:ACritiqueofJohnson,” Antiquity 80(2006):435–441;MatthewJohnson, ArchaeologicalTheory:AnIntroduction (Oxford:Blackwell,2010).

40 Johnson, ArchaeologicalTheory ,237.

41 Barrett,“Agency,theDualityofStructure,andtheProblemoftheArchaeological Record,”155.

42 JoanM.Gero,“TroubledTravelsinAgencyandFeminism,”in AgencyinArchaeology ,ed.Marcia-AnneDobresandJohnRobb(London&NewYork:Routledge,2000), 37.

43 JenniferL.Dornan,“AgencyandArchaeology:Past,Present,andFutureDirections,” JournalofArchaeologicalMethodandTheory 9/4(2002):325.

uniquesetofcircumstancesandexperiencesoveraspanofnearlyfour hundredyears.

In1986,Kopytoffproposedthatthosestudyingmaterialculturecan askthesamequestionsofobjectsthatonedoesincreatingabiography.44 Ratherthanmerelymakingnotesaboutthedatesofuseand deposition,thiskindofanalysisrepresentsamorethoroughexamination ofanobject’slifecourse—fromitsconceptiontoits“birth,”thenits use,re-use,recycling,alteration,orchangingfunction,nextitsdisposal, destruction,or“death,”andthenfinallyitsafterlifeeitherinwritten memory,asamuseumpiece,orsomethingelse.Oneofthekeyadvantagestothisapproachisthatratherthanappearingasastaticobjectused onceandthendisposedof,objectbiographycoversmanyaspectsofthe object’shistoryandhowviewsofitchangedovertime.45 Centraltothis theoreticalapproachisthefundamentalrelationshipbetweenpeopleand things.Thelifestoryofcertainobjectsservesasadirectproxyinmany casesforthebiographiesofpeople.46 Furthermore,comparingthedata acrossthecenturiesandatdifferentmomentsintheirliveswillallow greaterdepthofanalysis.Asmallcaveatshouldbemadehereinthat thisapproachmaybemoresuccessfulforcertaintypesofobjectsthan others.Forexample,sincecoinagewassowidelycirculated,itwouldnot makesensetohaveaparticularbiographyforeachtypeofcoinbasedon itsfindcontext;itismoreeffectivetoanalyzecoinageaspartofalarger iconographicprogram.Othertypesofobjects(e.g.liturgicalobjects)are bettersuitedforthisapproach.Religiousimagesandobjectswereseenas channelstothesupernaturalworld,andtheextensivedocumentationon thehistoryofcertainobjectsdonatedtothechurchdescribestheintent (perceivedorotherwise)ofthedonoraswellastheobject’safterlife.This

44 IgorKopytoff,“TheCulturalBiographyofThings:CommoditizationasProcess,” in TheSocialLifeofThings:CommoditiesinCulturalPerspective ,ed.ArjunAppadurai (Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1986),66–67.

45 ChrisGosdenandYvonneMarshal,“TheCulturalBiographyofObjects,” World Archaeology 31/2(1999):170.

46 OnesuchexampleisJanetHoskins, BiographicalObjects:HowThingsTelltheStories ofPeople’sLives (NewYork:Routledge,1998),7–10.

approachalsoworksformedievalbuildings,bothintermsofgrandreconstructionprojectsaswellasinminorrenovationswhichtookplaceover generations.47

Asacodatotheconceptofthebiographyemployedhere,partof theanalysiswillexaminethelifecoursenotonlyofobjects,butalsoof thewomeninquestion.Oneoftheobservationsmadeinthestudyof countessesJeanneandMargueriteofFlandersstates:

“[A]nyattempttounderstandtheexperienceofwomenintheMiddleAges mustpositionthematthecenterofamatrixcomprisedofgender,social status,maritalstatus,ageandpersonality.Inasocietystratifiedsexually aswellassocially,amyriadofcombinationsofgenderandstatusexisted toinformattitudestowardswomen,andinfluencedtheirrelationshipto power.”48

Biographiesoftheseobjectsrunparalleltovariousaspectsofthequeen’s life.Birth,childhood,marriage,motherhood,widowhood,death—these areallpointswhereinthelivesofthequeensvariedconsiderablyinterms oftheirresources,theirpotentialtoact,theirsymbolicpower,andtheir extendedsocialnetworks.Understandingamedievallifecoursemeans incorporatingallofthesedifferentphasesratherthanfocusingonparticularepisodes.49 Unmarriedprincesseswereusuallydependentontheir malerelativesforincomeandmeansofexpressingpower.Queenconsorts inHungarywereusuallydependentontheirhusbandsandacombination offunding,personalinterest,personalrelationships,andsocialnetworks determinedaqueen’spotentialforaction.Widowsactedwithmoreindependenceprovidedtheyhadthenecessaryresources.Indiscussinghow imperialwidowsineleventhandtwelfthcenturyByzantiumwerebetter abletopromotetheirownprogramsofpatronage,Hill’swittyremark “Widowshadmuchmorefun,”certainlyringstrueinthisregard.50 These intersectingtheoreticalframeworksshedlightonhowmaterialculture

47 RobertaGilchrist, MedievalLife:ArchaeologyandtheLifeCourse (Woodbridge: Boydell,2012),12.

48 ErinL.Jordan, Women,Power,andReligiousPatronageintheMiddleAges (New York:PalgraveMacmillan,2013),117.

49 Gilchrist, MedievalLife:ArchaeologyandtheLifeCourse ,1.

50 BarbaraHill, ImperialWomeninByzantium1025 –1204 (NewYork:Longman, 1999),179.

andstructuredspacecouldexpresscertainaspectsofaqueen’spotential foraction.

Methodology:ReginalObjectsandSpaces

Thisprojectincorporateshistorical,archaeological,andart-historicaldata and,assuch,thereisaneedforanintegratedapproachinunderstanding howtheyreflectthepowerofqueensinboththeprivateandpublic spheres.Choosingtheobjects,images,andspacesforanalysishingedon threepoints:first,thetypeofobjectorsiteundergoinganalysis,secondits relationshipwiththequeen(forexample,didshefund,orderordonate theobjectherself,isitanobjectwithherimageonit,etc.),andthird,how thisrelationshipbetweenthequeenandthematerialorsitewasestablishedinthescholarlyliterature.Charters,chronicles,inventories,wills, andlettershaveallbeenconsultedhere.

Thisprojectoperatesfromthepremisethatwomenwereactiveagents intermsofculturalpatronage,politicalpower,religiousdevotion,and controloftheroyalhousehold.Assuch,thefocuswillnotonlybeon theobjectsthemselvesbutthewomenconnectedtothem.Sofar,there hasbeenlittlescholarlydiscussiononthisdialogueofmateriality(i.e.,the mutualrelationshipwithobjectsandspaceintermsofdisplayofpower) thatqueensengagedin.51 Whilethisrelationshipcannotbereconstructed initsentirety,thereareenoughtracestodetectcertaincharacteristic patternswhilestillmakingallowancesforthepersonalpreferencesofthe queensthemselves.

“Official”Objects—Seals,Coinage,andHeraldry InherformidablestudyontheCapetianqueens’sealsandtombs,Nolan espousestheuseofsemioticsinanalyzingseals.Sheexamineswhat objectsthequeensareholding,andthesortofvisualstatementsthe queensmakethroughassociatedimagery52 ;thisapproachwillalsobe

51 ThemosthelpfulstudieslinkingpeoplewithobjectshavebeenNolan, Queensin StoneandSilver (2009);Steane, TheArchaeologyoftheMedievalEnglishMonarchy (1993); ThereseMartin,ed., ReassessingtheRolesofWomenas‘Makers’ofMedievalArtand Architecture ,Vol.I&II(Leiden&Boston:Brill,2012);Richardson,“GenderandSpace inEnglishRoyalPalacesc.1160–c.1547”:131–165.

52 Nolan, QueensinStoneandSilver ,15.

utilizedinstudyingHungarianqueensontheirseals,oncoinagewith theirportraits,andmanyotherrepresentations.In TheArchaeologyofthe MedievalEnglishMonarchy ,Steaneusessymbolsofpowerasaprimary meansofanalysis.53 Thepresenceofobjectssuchascrowns,scepters,and orbsaswellasothersymbolsareofutmostimportance.Someaspectsof powerareevidentlikeinthecaseofstrongqueenswhoappearconsistentlywithafullbackontheirthrone(forexample,ElizabethofPoland), whilethereareotherqueenswhoonlysitonastoolwhowerenotnearly inasstrongaposition,perhapsduetoastrainedmaritalrelationship(for example,IsabellaofNaples).Howtheseimagesofpowerchangeover timeareconsideredintermsofwhichpartofthequeen’slifecoursethey appearin—i.e.asqueenconsort,asregent,asdowagerqueen,etc.The queenisusuallydepictedseatedonathrone,butwheresheisnotholding anobject,iconographicanalysiswillaidinunderstandingthecultural significanceofthegesturesshemakes(i.e.,handsclaspedtoherchest, anarmoutstretched,etc.).54

Forcoinage,historicalsourcesarenecessarytoclarifytheidentityof thequeenappearingonthecoin.55 Thereareseveralqueenswhoappear oncoinsalongsidethekings,andsotheanalysisofthequeensinthis contextwillfocusmoreonherimage.Sealsandcoinsaretreatedseparatelybecausetheirpurposesaspublicandofficialobjectsiscompletely different,therangeandtypeofaudiencewasdifferent,andtheconnectionbetweenaqueenandthecoinsheisdepictedonismuchmore difficulttoestablish.BrubakerandTobleridentifyafewbarometers reflectingthepoweroftheByzantineempresswhensheappearsoncoins intheLateAntique/EarlyMedievalperiod:whethertheempressison theobverseorreverseofthecoin;herpositioninrelationtoherhusband and/orson;andtheabsenceoftheempressinperiodswhereitwas traditionaltohaveherdepictedonthecoin.56 Thisstudywillnotonly

53 Steane, TheArchaeologyoftheMedievalEnglishMonarchy ,13ff.

54 FrançoisGarnier, Lelangagedel’imageauMoyenÂge (Paris:Léopardd’Or,1982–1989),Vol.IandII.

55 LászlóRéthy, CorpusNummorumHungariae:MagyarEgyetemesÉremtár ,Vol I–II(Budapest:MagyarTudományosAkadémiaKiadása,1899–1907);LajosHuszár, MünzkatalogUngarnvon1000bisheute (Budapest:Corvina,1979).

56 LeslieBrubakerandHelenTobler,“TheGenderofMoney:ByzantineEmpresseson Coins(342–802),”in GenderingtheMiddleAges ,ed.PaulineStaffordandAnnekeB. Mulder-Bakker(Oxford:Blackwell,2001),43–44.

examinequeenconsortswhoappearoncoins,butalsocoinageissuedby QueenMarywhoruledfrom1382to1395.

ClothingandRegalia

Thereareseveralcrownsincludedinthisstudy.Whilemodernregaliais fairlystandardizedandcomposedofseveralkeyimplements,itwasmore fluidintheMiddleAges.Crownsweregivenandexchangedatwill,and oftentheonesthatsurvivewereeithergiftedtomonasteriesandnot melteddown,oronesthatwerekeptandpassedalongfamiliallinesas heirlooms.Duetotheirvisibilityfromadistanceandpersonalconnection,thecrownremainsthemostsignificantindicatorofthestatusofa queen.Otherregaliasuchassceptersandorbsweremadeanewasnecessary;forinstance,theHungariancoronationscepterisoneofthefew piecesofregaliafromthebeginningsoftheHungarianStatedatingback totheeleventhcentury,whileaneworbwasmadeintheearlyfourteenth centuryaftertheearlier,Árpád-eraorbwaslost.57 Whileregaliawasan importantaspectofthequeenintermsofpublicpresentationandidentity(forinstance,atthecoronationceremonyorherburial),itspersonal naturerepresentsaproblemintermsofthematerialthatsurvives.So littleisknownofthequeens’coronationsthatitisdifficulttoknowwhat herfullsetofregaliawas.Thecrownsthatdosurviveprovideanexcellentclue.Otherreflectionsofqueenlypower,suchasascepteroranorb, willmostlybeanalyzedfromvisualsources.Whiletheimageofthequeen wearingacrownandwieldingascepterandseatedonathroneisastrong indicatorofherownstatus,thereisalsothestatusofherhusband,her family,andherlineagetoconsideraswell.

Clothinginthemedievalperiodwasinstrumentalinconstructingsocial identity,indicatingclass,andexpressingsocio-politicalrelationships.58 Formostmedievalwomen,clothingwornonthebodywasameansof controllingthebodythroughconcealment,thoughfashioncouldoften

57 JánosBak,“DerReichsapfel,”in InsigniaRegniHungariae ,ed.ZsuzsaLovag,185–194(Budapest:HungarianNationalMuseum,1986);ÉvaKovácsandZsuzsaLovag, The HungarianCrownandOtherRegalia (Budapest:HungarianNationalMuseum,1986), 82–94.

58 EricJ.Goldberg,“ReginanitenssanctissimaHemma:QueenEmma(827–876), BishopWitgarofAusgburg,andtheWitgar-Belt,”in RepresentationsofPowerinMedieval Germany:800–1500 ,ed.BjörnWeilerandSimonMaclean(Turnhout:Brepols,2006),71.