John, Archbishop of Esztergom

After the death of Ugrin Csák, the Cathedral Chapter of Esztergom requested (postulatio) Pope Innocent to appoint John as their new archbishop in the summer of 1204. The dying Emeric also supported their choice. In accordance with the canon law (jus canonicum), the canons' procedure was necessary as John was already consecrated as bishop. In this case, the pope had the right to transfer the prelate from a diocese to another one.[16] The dispute over the fill the position of Archbishop of Esztergom became a precedential event in the legal history of the Church, as the case and the following papal decretal ("Bone Memorie") appears among the glosses in English canonist Lawrence Somercotes' Tractatus.[18]

The cathedral chapter refused to invite the bishops of the suffragan dioceses of the Archbishopric of Esztergom to participate in the election process, referring to the canon law. According to the chapter's narration, the bishops were invited by the provost to ensure uniform approval, but they refused to attend and write an approval letter to Pope Innocent. Thus the canons did not recognize the bishops' right to vote, but their subsequent approval rights. In response, four suffragan bishops – Kalán of Pécs, Boleslaus of Vác, Kalanda of Veszprém and John of Nyitra (Nitra) – wrote a letter to the pope, where they claimed the archbishops were elected jointly by the chapter and the bishops in accordance with the spirit of customary law since King St. Stephen[19] (the Archdiocese of Esztergom had six suffragan dioceses during that time; Katapán, Bishop of Eger kept himself away from the conflict, while the Diocese of Győr was in the status of sede vacante since early 1204).[20] The four bishops, in addition of his origin outside the ecclesiastical province of Esztergom, also recalled John's activity as Archbishop of Kalocsa, when he had repeatedly attacked the privileges and acquired rights of Esztergom, causing unrest and destabilization.[16] They argued John was inadequate to protect these prerogatives and they were afraid of possible revenge for previous grievances.[21] In the same time, the canons sent their delegation to Rome to request the confirmation of John's nomination (as the canon law has forbidden the translation of bishops). The delegation consisted of the provost of Pressburg, the treasurer of Esztergom and two royal envoys – the abbot of Bakonybél and magister Peter (possibly identical with chronicler Anonymus), to strengthen John's position and emphasize the friendly relationship between him and Emeric.[22]

Pope Innocent III (fresco)

However the political situation changed when Emeric died on 30 November 1204. Duke Andrew, who governed the kingdom as his nephew's regent, had a tense relationship with Innocent, who has always been opposed to his rebellions against his brother. Andrew immediately sent a letter with discourteous tone to the pope to inform him about developments and to promise that he will continue Emeric's launched measures, including the support of John's candidacy. He urged the pope to transfer John "without delay".[23] By that time, on 22 November 1204, Pope Innocent III ordered both sides to send their representatives to Rome to deadline of 7 February 1205.[21] The pope was infuriated by the fact that John had celebrated the coronation of Ladislaus III, violating the privileges of Esztergom (which also strengthened the arguments of the canons' representatives). Innocent postponed the decision to February 1205 and encouraged the parties to conclude a compromise, thus the pope refused to confirm John's nomination for the time being.[23]

Upon hearing of the pope's decision, some members of the Cathedral Chapter of Esztergom gathered and withdrew their support from John, who also lost his strongest promoter, King Emeric. Around December 1204 or January 1205, they elected Kalán Bár-Kalán for the position of Archbishop of Esztergom. His candidacy was also supported by Duke Andrew,[16] but the majority of the canons and the suffragan bishops (excepting John of Nyitra) did not recognize the legitimacy of the election. Andrew sent a letter around February 1205 to Innocent to request the confirmation of Kalán, who was considered Andrew's loyal partisan during his struggles against the late Emeric. Formerly Kalán had numerous scandals; for instance, he was accused of incestuous relationship with his niece, but the investigation conducted by his six fellow bishops cleared him. Nevertheless, Innocent refused to confirm Kalán's election, because of shortcomings in the election process. In his letter to the chapter (22 June 1205), Innocent ordered the canons to elect or unanimously nominate their archbishop within a month, and obtain the support of the suffragan bishops too, "if it is required" in Hungary. If they fail to do it, the pope himself will appoint an archbishop to administer the province, as the letter wrote.[24] In June 1205 (before receiving the pope's order), the chapter summoned and nominated John as archbishop again, in accordance with the 22 November 1204 instructions. Three suffragan bishops, Boleslaus, Kalanda and Peter, Bishop-elect of Győr expressed to support John without reservations, while John of Nyitra was forced to write a letter to Innocent, in which he stated that he will withdraw his support from Kalán if the pope does not accept his protegee's nomination. Among the prelates, only Kalán contested the outcome of the election, even Andrew (now as king) acquiesced in that decision.[25] Following that the chapter sent their five-member delegation to the Roman Curia, also delivering the king's support message. However Kalán's supporters again nominated their patron, excluding the rivals from the controversial procedure. They referred to Innocent's second letter (it has since arrived to the realm), which provided for the holding of new election. John's supporters lost their eligibility for election, when rejected to attend, they argued.[24]

Pope Innocent III listened to both candidates' representatives and issued a papal decretal on 6 October 1205, called "Bone Memorie". He decided the conflict over the archbishopric of Esztergom in favor of John and confirmed his election.[26] The pope argued there was no "one undoubtedly suitable candidate", but John was supported with convincing proportions both times during the assemblies. The pope also emphasized that he did not intend to appoint a foreign prelate. John was allowed to relocate his pallium from Kalocsa to Esztergom. On 14 October, Innocent sent a letter for reassurance of the Chapter of Kalocsa. He assured the canons that the archdiocese' dignity and rights will not undermined.[27] John was succeeded as Archbishop of Kalocsa by Berthold, Queen Gertrude's brother in the following year.[7] The case of John's election became part of the 13th-century decretal collections through Compilatio tertia (contains the documents of the first twelve years of the pontificate of Innocent III) and Liber extra.[28] The next time when an archbishop was transferred to an equal archdiocese occurred in 1396, when English prelate Thomas Arundel was translated from York to Canterbury.[29]

Ironically, John became a dedicated defender of the church privileges of Esztergom after his election, when he confronted with the influential Berthold in numerous occasions. The queen's brother was tacitly supported by his brother-in-law King Andrew II in his efforts. Upon John's request, Pope Innocent confirmed his dignity's right of the coronation of the Hungarian monarch in 1209.[30] However Berthold used his family relationships and influence in the royal court to put John under pressure. Amidst these circumstances, John was inclined to reach agreement in 1211: the two archbishops entrusted Robert, Bishop of Veszprém and Peter, Bishop of Győr to prepare a convention draft and submit to the Roman Curia.[31] The proposal contained that the right of coronation should belong to the role of archbishop Esztergom, except in case of deliberate rejection, obstacle, deteriorated health condition or sede vacante, when the process must be performed by the archbishop of Kalocsa. The so-called "second coronations" (during festive events) must be celebrated jointly. In addition, the document attached the collection of tithe after the coinage to Esztergom, but John had to waive his all right (i.e. superintendence over the royal churches, abbeys and provostries, ecclesiastical jurisdiction over the royal officials) in the territory of the church province of Kalocsa, in accordance with the proposal. The theses of the document was promoted by Andrew II himself too.[30]

However the canons of Esztergom sharply protested against the agreement. They sent their legation to Rome to ask the pope to refuse to confirm the document. On 12 February 1212, Innocent issued a bull dedicated to Andrew, John and the chapter, in which he refused to countersign the document, referring to its "harmful consequences" for the Kingdom of Hungary. The pope also rejected the intention of Andrew to create a suffragan diocese of Szeben (today Sibiu, Romania) under the supervision of Berthold to the place of the eponymous provostry, which administratively affiliated to the Archdiocese of Esztergom. This purpose was strongly opposed by John and William, Bishop of Transylvania.[32] Nevertheless, John had several conflicts of jurisdiction with Berthold in the following years (for instance, in 1215, according to a letter from Pope Innocent),[33] who left Hungary only in 1218, when he was appointed as Patriarch of Aquileia.[7] In 1219, Pope Honorius III rebuked John, because he unduly exercised jurisdiction over royal churches in the archdiocese of Kalocsa, in violation of the privilege of the newly elected Ugrin Csák, Archbishop of Kalocsa. Honorius emphasized in his rescript that "the equal [archbishop] can not have power over the equal [archbishop]".[32]

John also had a tense relationship with Robert of Veszprém since the 1210s. Robert was the main preparer and submitter to the draft, which sought to reduce the privileges of Esztergom, despite that John was his metropolitan archbishop. They had conflicts in the subject of superintendence over the provostry of Óbuda, and the jurisdiction over the clerical staff in the royal court (mostly resided in Óbuda), in addition to the right of coronation of the queen consorts.[32] The debate has been intensified during the marriage of Andrew II and his second spouse Yolanda de Courtenay in February 1215. Their wedding was celebrated in Székesfehérvár and John crowned Yolanda queen consort. In response, Robert sent a complaint to Pope Innocent III, because the coronation of the queens consort in Hungary had been traditionally the privilege of his see, according to his narration. After Robert's personal visit in Rome, the pope sent two legates, cardinals Pelagio Galvani and Stefano di Ceccano to Hungary in order to investigate the complaint and confirmed the privilege of the See of Veszprém in April 1216. The decision was confirmed by Honorius in 1220 too.[34] John had disagreement in 1221 with Desiderius, his successor in the post of Bishop of Csanád, over the collection of tithe after the coinage in the diocese. Honorius ruled in favor of John.[34]

John's relationship with Andrew II and his courtiers was ambiguous and fluctuating due to his former pro-Emeric standpoint and the confrontation against Berthold of Merania. After his accession to the throne, Andrew introduced a new policy for royal grants, which he called "new institutions" in one of his charters.[35] He distributed large portions of the royal domain—royal castles and all estates attached to them—as inheritable grants to his supporters, declaring that "the best measure of a royal grant is its being immeasurable".[36] In addition to the Hungarian lords, his "new institutions" altered the relations between the royal court and the prelacy, whose secular influence has decreased due to the increasingly enormous wealth of the laic power sphere.[34] Furthermore, the employment of Jews and Muslims to administer the royal revenues led Andrew into conflict with the Holy See and the Hungarian prelates.[37] John "deeply dissaproved" Andrew's policy, according to the narration of a royal charter. Despite that his archdiocese was granted the village of Gerla (today Gerlachov, Slovakia) in 1206, which belonged to Bars Castle before that. However, around the same time, Andrew confiscated the estate of Tardos in Esztergom County from the chapter due to John's behaviour. The controversial relationship between the royal court and the archdiocese is well represented by that royal donation, when Andrew gifted annually 100 silver denari to the chapter to commemorate his coronation since 1206. As another example, the king granted the port tariff of Kakat (present-day Štúrovo, Slovakia) to the archdiocese in 1215.[38]

Contemporary depiction of Queen Gertrude

Queen Gertrude has gained considerable influence in the royal court. Andrew granted large domains to her brother Bishop Egbert in the Szepesség region (now Spiš, Slovakia), while Berthold was made Ban of Croatia and Dalmatia in 1209.[39] Andrew's generosity towards his wife's German relatives and courtiers discontented the local lords. When the king departed for a new campaign against Halych in summer 1213,[40] taking advantage of his absence, Hungarian lords who were aggrieved at Queen Gertrude's favoritism towards her German entourage captured and murdered her and many of her courtiers in the Pilis Hills on 28 September.[35][40] John's participation in the assassination is unclear. His involvement in the murder is mentioned by Italian scholar Boncompagno da Signa's tractate Rhetorica novissima, Alberic of Trois-Fontaines' Chronica and Matthew of Paris' Chronica Majora and Historia Anglorum.[41] These works unanimously note John's famous phrase in his letter to Hungarian nobles planning the assassination of Gertrude: "Reginam occidere nolite timere bonum est si omnes consentiunt ego non contradico", can be roughly translated into "Kill Queen you must not fear will be good if all agree I do not oppose". The meaning is highly dependent on punctuation: either the speaker wishes a queen killed ("Kill Queen, you must not fear, will be good if all agree, I do not oppose") or not ("Kill Queen you must not, fear will be good, if all agree I do not, oppose").[41] Historian László Veszprémy considers the anecdote first appeared in the Annales iuvavenses (or "Annals of Salzburg") after an oral spread among the lower clergymen. On the other hand, Tamás Körmendi argues the ambiguous letter was subscribed as a result of a subsequent insertion. It is possible that Boncompagno heard the story in the Roman Curia and incorporated it into his rhetoric dissertation and textbook (published in 1235, the first written source of John's alleged letter). Both Boncompagno and Alberic mention that Andrew accused John of participating in the murder before the Holy See. However Pope Innocent, pointing out the correct use of commas, acquitted the archbishop from the charges. These references emphasize the letter's unintended ambiguity and, thus, John's approval of murder.[41] Körmendi emphasizes the historiographical doubts regarding the authenticity of the letter, as John retained his influence in the upcoming years after the assassination.[38] It is also unlikely that John's proverb was revealed after his active political role, as the anecdote's other protagonist Pope Innocent III died on 16 July 1216. Furthermore, Körmendi argues the preservation of the letter would have been irrational step, moreover the majority of the Hungarian nobility were illiterate during that time.[42] Already 19th-century historian László Nogáll doubted the authenticity of the anecdote.[43]

Andrew at the head of his crusader army (from the Illuminated Chronicle)

Andrew sent a letter in 1214 to Pope Innocent, requesting him to authorize John to anoint his younger son Coloman as king of Halych. Coloman was crowned by John with the pope's authorization possibly in early 1216. Pope Honorius mentioned in a letter in 1222 that John had crowned Coloman "with the blessing of the Holy See", but the circumstances of the ceremony are unknown.[44] Around the same time Andrew II requested Innocent to exempt John from the obligation to participate in the Fourth Council of the Lateran as he intended to fulfill his father's vow to lead a crusade and wished to leave his family and the realm in the care of Archbishop John. Innocent refused that as John took part in the ecumenical council in 1215, along with Berthold, six Hungarian and three Dalmatian bishops.[45] When Pope Honorius III once again called upon Andrew to fulfill his father's vow to lead a crusade in July 1216, the king, who had postponed the crusade at least three times (in 1201, 1209 and 1213), finally agreed. Departing from Hungary in July 1217, Andrew II appointed John as regent to govern the kingdom during the Fifth Crusade. The land of Tardos was returned to the Archdiocese of Esztergom on this occasion.[45] However John proved to be incapable to prevent the spread of anarchic conditions. When he returned to Hungary by late 1218, Andrew complained to Pope Honorius that his kingdom was "in a miserable and destroyed state, deprived of all of its revenues." [46] A group of barons had even expelled Archbishop John from Hungary.[47] According to Andrew's letter, John was obedient to morality rather than rebelled lords' demands and "wickedness", thus he was imprisoned and exiled "in the midst of great injustice and shame", while his wealth was confiscated by "these tyrants". John spent months of exile until Andrew's return. The king emphasized John and his canons' steadfast fidelity and bravery.[48] As compensation, Andrew donated the vineyards of Pográny (today Pohranice, Slovakia) and other landholdings (for instance, Gamás, Kapoly and Lulla) in Somogy County to John in 1218. The Chapter of Esztergom was granted the land of Alvinc (today Vințu de Jos, Romania) and its udvornici in the next year.[48]

John consecrated Bartholomew le Gros, who arrived to Hungary with Queen Yolanda, as Bishop of Pécs in 1219. The canons of the cathedral chapter of Pécs attempted to prevent Bartholomew's installation by stating that he was too young for this position. Pope Honorius punished John with sanctions because of his involvement in the appointment, prohibiting the free use of the archdiocese's income and his right of consecration in the Diocese of Pécs. Accordingly, John had to ask for permission to cover the necessary expenses from the pope's two appointed trustees, bishops Thomas of Eger and his old antipode Robert of Veszprém. However an official inquiry ordered by the Holy See ascertained that the new bishop had already attained 30 years, the age required by canon law. After that John was acquitted of the charges and regained the right to financial supervision. In the same year, the consecration of Cosmas, Bishop of Győr also proved to be problematic, as Honorius withdrew John's right to appoint the next bishop in Győr.[49]

It is possible that John was present in England on 7 July 1220, when Thomas Becket's remains were moved from his first tomb to a shrine, in the recently completed Trinity Chapel. The event was attended by King Henry III, the papal legate Pandulf Verraccio, the Archbishop of Canterbury Stephen Langton and large numbers of dignitaries and magnates secular and ecclesiastical throughout from Europe. Alongside Langton and Guillaume de Joinville, Archbishop of Reims, an unidentified Hungarian archbishop among the guests is referred by Walter of Coventry in his work Memoriale, when described the events.[50] This archbishop may have been John, at whose seat in Esztergom there was a provostry erected in the honour of Thomas Becket.[51] Due to John's advanced age, historian Gábor Thoroczkay considers Walter's narration refers to Ugrin Csák of Kalocsa, who was much younger than John.[52] Beside John or Ugrin, Desiderius of Csanád also attended the celebration, who was robbed by burghers of Pavia on his way back.[53]

John gradually retired from public life since the early 1220s, while Ugrin Csák, also a former chancellor, has gained influence in the royal court. During the resistant movement which led to the issue of the Golden Bull of 1222 by Andrew II, John remained passive, even when Pope Honorius urged the Hungarian prelates to apply ecclesiastical censures against those who had claimed that they did not owe loyalty to Andrew, but to Béla, the king's eldest son and heir. John died in November 1223.[52]