Stjepan Brodarić, diplomat na dvoru kralja Ivana Zapolje

John of Szapolyai needed qualified Humanist diplomats in order to retain his rule. One of his most reliable adherents was Stjepan Brodarić (István Brodarics). He often carried out negotiations in Poland where he had developed close relationship with the royal court. Brodarics also conducted missions in Venice, in the French court and in the Vatican. He participated in the negotiations with Ferdinánd of Habsburg, and he played a key role in the conclusion of the Treaty of Várad. It was also him who prepared the marriage between Szapolyai and Isabella of Jagiellon. His contemporaries regarded him as an outstanding diplomat.Kralj Ivan Zapolja I. trebao je kvalificirane diplomate, kako bi održao svoju vladavinu. Jedan od njegovih najvjernijih pristaša Stjepan Brodarić, koji je u kraljevo ime često vodio pregovore s Poljskom, gdje je s tamošnjim kraljevskim dvorom razvio bliske veze. Brodarić je također vodio misije u Veneciji, na francuskom kraljevskom dvoru, te u Vatikanu. Učestvovao je u pregovorima s Ferdinandom Habsburškim, te odigrao ključnu ulogu u zaključenju Varadskog mirovnog ugovora. Brodarić je bio taj, koji je ugovorio brak kralja sa Anom Jagelović. Njegovi su ga suvremenici smatrali izuzetnim diplomatom

The Union of the Estates in the Principality of Transylvania

The paper briefly describes the basis of the constitution of the Principality of Transylvania, the union of Estates. Among the antecedents, it reviews the late medieval alliances of the Estates that were made by the nations (nationes) living in Transylvania, highlighting that the three ‘political nations’ were not nations or ethnicities in the modern sense, but rather were separated by their privileges and legal status. Based on Latin and Hungarian sources, the author reveals the covenants as renewed in the Articles of Law and emphasized that the concept of Union was broadened in the seventeenth century so that it no longer served only to support the unity of the state but also guaranteed the maintenance of the privileges of the Estates. The most precise interpretation of the Union was set out in the Approbatae Constitutiones, a collection of laws compiled in 1653

State and Governance in the Principality of Transylvania

This study offers a brief survey of the Transylvanian state and the administrative structure of the Principality of Transylvania. First, it reveals the changes taking place in the operation of the Transylvanian diet after the fall of Buda (1541) — this authority developed from a partial diet into a general assembly. The formula used until 1690 by the assembly of the Transylvanian estates for naming itself had settled by the mid-16th century: states and orders of the three nations of Transylvania and of the Joined Parts of Hungary (status et ordines trium nationum regni Transylvaniae Partiumque Hungariae eidem annexarum). The author describes the unique legal status of the new state, the Principality of Transylvania as a “dual dependence”. On the one hand, as a vassal state, the Transylvanian state depended upon the Ottoman Empire, and on the other, in theory, it remained part of the Kingdom of Hungary — as was proclaimed in several public or secret agreements between the princes and the kings. The study shows how the estates could practice their right of free election of the prince and the difficulties of the method, it also discusses the peculiarities of the division of power between the estates and the prince, and it considers the union (treaty of alliance) of the Transylvanian estates as the constitution of the new state

Az erdélyi fejedelmek udvari reprezentációja = The court representation of Transylvanian princes

"Az erdélyi fejedelmek udvari reprezentációja" című OTKA pályázatom (2007-2011) négy szempontból vizsgálta a fejedelmek reprezentációját. 1. Meghatározta egyes fejedelmek udvari tisztségviselőit (névvel és a viselt tisztséggel). Meghatározta a fejedelmi beiktatások, házasságok, temetések katalógusát. 2. Elemezte a fejedelmi várak hatalmi szimbolikáját, térhasználatát. A vizsgálatok elsősorban a nyugati határ várait érintették. 3. A projektnek ez a része a kettős udvari rendszert, a fejedelmi és a fejedelemasszonyi udvarokat vizsgálta. A fejedelemasszonyok elkülönült udvara Brandenburgi Katalin idején már a fejedelmi udvarral rivalizált. 4. A projekt e szakaszában az Erdélyi Fejedelemség követségeinek reprezentációját vizsgáltam. Itt az ajándékozási kultúra, a hűség, a presztízs bizonyításának egészen új reprezentációs eszközeit kutattam. A projekt eredményeit konferenciákon, rádiós beszélgetésekben, két könyvben és számos publikációban tettem közzé. | My OTKA tender (2007-2011)named "" The court representation of Transylvanian monarchs"" examined four aspects of the representation of monarchs. 1. Determined the court officials of different monarchs / with their names and jobs/. Determined the catalogue of inaugurations, marriages and funerals of monarchs. 2. Analysed the symbolism and the use of space of the monarchs' castles. The analysis mainly focused on the castles of the western border. 3. This part of the project examined the double court system and the courts of monarchs and superioresses. In the reign of Catherine of Brandenburg the separeted court of superioresses already rivalled with the court of monarchs. 4. In this part of the project I examined the representation of the embassies of Transylvanian Principality. Here I searched the totally new methods of representation concerning the culture of presentation, loyalty and proving prestige. I made the results of the project common on conferences, radio conversations, two books and a lot of publications

Kelet-Európa és a Balkán 1000-1800 közt: intellektuális történeti konstrukciók vagy valós történeti régiók? = Eastern Europe and the Balkans 1000-1800: intellectually constructed historical notions or real historical regions?

A kutatás arra irányult, hogy újragondolja a "Kelet-Európa" és a "Balkán'" terminusok használatát, a trónutódlásra, a politikai rendszer típusára és a kormányzati infrastruktúrára koncentrálva. 1389 előtt a "Balkán" legszembetűnőbb vonása a világi kormányzat territoriális-hatalmi kereteinek erős diszkontinuitása, ami annak tudható be, hogy rövid időszakokat kivéve a régió egésze felett nem érvényesült egyetlen egységes politikai képződmény folyamatos uralma sem. 1389 után viszont éppen a több évszázados oszmán fennhatóság adja meg a térség történetének vezérfonalát, ami azonban nem szabad, hogy elhomályosítsa a kormányzat lényegi jellemzőit: a nem-állami, archaikus (családi, nemzetségi) kormányzási módok fontosságát és a regionalizmust. ?Kelet-Európa? vonatkozásában azt kell hangsúlyozni, hogy az elnevezés nem alkalmas az egész periódus leírására, mivel az 1200-1450 közt időben már élesen elvált egymástól az egykori Rusznak valamint a három nyugati keresztény királyságnak, azaz a korábban egy régióként kezelt, "Köztes-Európának" nevezett területnek a politikai struktúrája. A magyar, cseh, lengyel területeket célszerű már ekkor "Kelet-Közép-Európa" névvel illetni, míg a Moszkva központú Oroszországra a Kelet-Európa terminust alkalmazni. Ugyanakkor Kelet-Közép-Európa és Kelet-Európa átmosódásában a 16-17. században kirajzolódott egy olyan köztes régió, amit "Unitus Kelet-Európának" neveztünk, s amelynek legfontosabb területe Ukrajna volt. | The research aimed to throw new light on the plausibility of terms "Eastern-Europe" and "the Balkans". The analysis focused on the following main issues: succession to the throne, type of the regime, nature of government apparatus. Before 1389 the most important feature of the "Balkans" was the discontinuity of territorial-power structures due to the absence, at least for longer periods, of a continuous rule by a unifying political power. After that, however, the golden thread of the history of the Balkans is the Ottoman rule which should not conceal the salient features of government there, namely the importance of non-state (family and clan) structures as means of government, as well as the wide regional varieties. The use of the term "Eastern-Europe" is more problematic for the whole period covered because the government structures within the region called "Middle-Europe" (i.e. the name for the Rus and three Latin Christian kingdoms until 1200) became markedly different in the period between 1200-1450. Hungary, Bohemia, Poland can be labeled as the emerging East-Central-Europe while the territories with Moscow at their center can be called Eastern -Europe. In addition to that the emergence of a further region can be observed in the 16th -17th centuries as a result of the overlap of East-Central- Europe and Eastern-Europe. This region can be called "Uniate Eastern-Europe", the central territory of which was the Ukraine