Recess of Vienna 1535

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Recess of Vienna 1535 is a treaty on the legal status of possessions of the Prince Archbishopric of Salzburg in Austria. It was completed in Vienna on October 25, 1535 . The contract partners were Cardinal Archbishop Matthäus Lang von Wellenburg as sovereign of Salzburg and King Ferdinand I. The treaty is described in its introduction as "the comparison between the Roman royal majesty as Archduke of Austria and the Lord Cardinals and Archbishop of Salzburg". It is also called the Vienna Recess .

  • Recess of Vienna: contract text and enclosures

  • Original cover of the contract with leather straps

  • Inside envelope

  • At the beginning of the text, the contracting parties are named with their titles

  • Sheet 3

  • Sheet 20

  • Final sheet of the contract with the seals

  • Negotiation document address

  • Negotiation document sheet 1

  • Negotiation document sheet 2

  • Summary sheet 1

  • Summary sheet 2

  • Summary sheet 3

The contract contains a comparison ( recess ) that includes the rights and obligations of both parties. In it, “Austria” is understood to mean Lower Austria including Styria and Carinthia (as opposed to Upper Austria or Front Austria ). The Salzburg possessions in Styria are mainly affected.

There are two additional agreements to this contract, which are documented in connection with the contract text:

  • A treaty concerning the borders between the Lower Austrian provinces, the legal status of the Salzburg enclaves and the personal appearance of the archbishop before the Landschrannen of Styria and Carinthia.
  • A treaty concerning the precedence of the princes from the House of Austria before the Archbishop of Salzburg at the imperial assemblies .

The contract is formulated in German and written on paper. It is in the Austrian State Archives (with a copy, two summaries and a negotiation report) .

prehistory

Starting position

In the early and high Middle Ages, the countries in the southeast of the Alps were contested border areas. This is especially true for Styria and its south-eastern parts, which means Styria and Lower Styria with the March of Styria and the Mark of the Drava River . These areas initially belonged to Carantania . From the 8th to the 10th century, the Avars and Hungarians were opponents of the Frankish Empire . For support in securing the border , but also for reclamation and missionary work , large parts of the conquered area were lent or donated to fiefs and institutions of the Catholic Church . This also gave the Salzburg archbishops militarily and economically important possessions in Styria. A donation by Emperor Ludwig the Germans to the Salzburg bishops is documented for November 20, 860 : In addition to the city of Steinamanger and other possessions in Pannonia and Carantania, this donation comprised 24 churches and farms, including an estate "ad Sulpam" (on the Sulm ) near Leibnitz . Some of the properties that have now been donated had already been lent to the Salzburgers.

894 Hungarians in were Danube and - Tisza - Plain broke in and threatened by their military campaigns ( Hungarian invasions ) the southeast flank of the Frankish empire. In 907 what was then Carantania was temporarily occupied by the Hungarians from the east to the Styrian border mountains ( Fischbacher Alpen , Glein- , Stub- and Koralpe ). The course of the Mur was at times considered the border between the Franconian Empire and Hungary. In 955, the battle on the Lechfeld under King Otto I pushed back the Hungarian influence in these southeastern parts of the then East Franconian-German Empire .

The archbishopric of Salzburg was like other church institutions in the Lower Styria great possessions, but had additionally (in the home country) sovereign rights

In the recaptured areas, the Salzburg bishops received additional areas, including in western Styria around the city of (Deutsch-) Landsberg . On March 7, 970, Emperor Otto I gave the Archbishop of Salzburg the Nidrinhof , Slavic Udulenidvor (court in the lowlands) at the then St. Mark's Church , later Ulrich's Church near (German) Landsberg with 50  king hooves (according to other information 5000 yoke ), to which the forest "Susil" ( Sausal ) and the place Leibnitz belonged. For this donation alone, this corresponds to an area of ​​20-25 km².

In the 11th century, this property increased through donations to the Sulm near St. Martin . Further donations were made by Emperor Heinrich III. on July 3, 1056 with three king hooves at Groß St. Florian to Bishop Baldwin and in 1059 by five king hooves by King Henry IV , also with Groß St. Florian. In the literature it is assumed that the Salzburg area in western Styria essentially, but not as a single whole, extended to the sources of the Laßnitz and Sulm on the ridge of the Koralpe.

In the Middle Ages, Salzburg owned an area of ​​around 300 km² on the Sava in the area around Rann , the "Hauptmannschaft Rann".

The Salzburg areas consisted of a number of separate, more or less large estates. They were administered by Salzburg offices in Styria and other areas of what was then Inner Austria or were further granted as fiefs: The Vice Cathedral Office in Friesach administered properties near Baierdorf , Fohnsdorf , Bischoffeld , Nenhersdorf (south-east of Leoben ); the Vizedomamt Salzburg in Gröbming und Haus , the Vizedomamt Leibnitz administered Pettau , furthermore Rann with Lichtenwald, Reichenburg and Pischätz (in the area of ​​Rann, built and expanded under the Salzburg rule), Straßgang , Pirka , Hautzendorf , Lebern , Windorf and a number other goods in western Styria . Fiefs are documented for Schwanberg, Rein, Gleinz and many other smaller farms, tithe and other economic assets.

Salzburg bishops as landlords in Styria: sovereign imperial princes or Styrian vassals ?

The Salzburg bishops had been recognized as sovereign rulers (in their archbishopric Salzburg, as imperial princes) since the 13th century . However, it was not clear what constitutional basis the Salzburg rule had in those areas that lay outside of the geographical Salzburg mainly in Styria. The topic was called the "Salzburg Question":

  • If the Salzburg possessions had (only) been fiefdoms or free property , they would have been part of Styria . The Salzburg archbishops would have been fief takers and landlords in Styria, just like many other people ( estates ). As masters of these possessions, they would have been followers (vassals) of the Styrian dukes. The areas would have been under the sovereignty of the sovereigns of Styria, thus the Habsburgs . The Salzburg archbishops had duties towards the Styrian rulers (e.g. recognition of taxes approved by the state parliaments, military successes ).
  • But if these areas had also belonged to Salzburg with regard to sovereignty ( sovereignty rights ), they would have been part of Salzburg . It would have been about Salzburg exclaves in Styria. The Salzburg archbishops would also have been sovereigns in these areas , they would have assumed a different position for the army organization of Styria (second instead of third army shield ), this would have reduced the military power of the Styrian dukes. Economic income and taxes would have directly benefited the Archbishopric of Salzburg.

The Habsburgs, as Dukes of Styria, as Vogt of the ecclesiastical possessions of Salzburg, had a legal position on the basis of which they could take measures (so-called “regulations”, e.g. in tax or military matters) that the estates or parliaments of their own accord never would have been possible.

The legal situation has been assessed differently over centuries: The Salzburg question was already an issue around 1170, after Emperor Friedrich Barbarossa had confiscated the entire Salzburg Archdiocese and thus also its Styrian possessions in 1169 and on September 7, 1170 Archbishop Adalbert von Leibnitz unsuccessfully initiated a synod of his diocese tried to convene, also in 1211 various discrepancies are documented. In 1291/92 Salzburg supported an uprising against Duke Albrecht I with the Landsberger Bund without success and also appeared as an opponent of the Habsburgs in the following years.

On October 30, 1458 was between Emperor Friedrich III. and Archbishop Sigmund I. von Volkersdorf a treaty was concluded that exempted the archbishop from appearing in person before Landschrannen, court courts and provincial assemblies of the principalities of Steyer, Carinthia and Carniola and subjected the subjects of Salzburg to the Salzburg judges. This agreement was renewed on an interim basis in 1517 and confirmed in 1533. This proves that at least at that time an obligation to appear was actually considered, which would have identified the archbishop as a member of the Styrian estates. If he had been the undisputed sovereign , he would not have had to be exempt from this duty first. On the other hand, it is published that the archbishops acted as sovereigns in the area around Pettau at least until 1479, they exercised the blood spell, had taxation rights, military sovereignty and awarded fiefs. In 1230 the sovereign received 30 marks for the bailiwick . This area was characterized with the words, "... was in Styria, but was not subject to it" . It was not considered unusual in the Middle Ages that the property of a fiefdom lay in the realm of another sovereign and was taken as a fiefdom: the Styrian Hohenwanger family also had the Hungarian rule of state honor ( Landsee ).

Even before the Vienna recession, attempts had been made several times to resolve the disputes: In an agreement dated October 31, 1523 in Wiener Neustadt (“Wiener Neustädter Rezess”), a temporary standstill was agreed. In a contract dated November 16, 1528 (also called the “Recess of Vienna”), the establishment of an arbitration court had been agreed.

Temporal environment

In the 15th and 16th centuries, the financial and organizational demands on the sovereigns of Styria increased due to the dispute with Hungarians for rule in Austria, the threat from the Turks , from peasant uprisings in Upper Styria and also the Windische Peasant War , which continued into the Styria expanded. This led to a reorganization of the financial and military systems, to which all landowners in the affected areas should contribute. The Leibnitz General Parliament in 1462 had established a new defense order and reorganized the Styrian military administration by dividing the Land of Styria into quarters. Representatives of the Prince Archbishopric of Salzburg defended the view that the Salzburg possessions are part of Salzburg, that there is extraterritoriality towards Styria and that there are therefore no obligations towards the sovereigns of the Province of Styria. The special taxes ("Turkish taxes") introduced (partly with the support of the Pope) to finance the defense against the Turks as well as in other countries of the empire did not apply to the Salzburg possessions in Styria, although the sovereigns took the view that the church assets were originally intended to maintain the Faith and it would be permissible to use part of it again to ward off the Turks in order to preserve it. In this context, the church property was regarded as the ruler's chamber property, which could be used for other purposes (for defense purposes) in an emergency. The financing of the Turkish wars was affected by special taxes such as the third (1524), the confiscation of church treasures (1526) or the fourth (1529).

During this time, the power of the Salzburg bishops was due to a dispute between Archbishop Bernhard and Emperor Friedrich III. weakened. One of the economic bases of the property, the wine trade (with the transport over the Koralmzug to the north) lay fallow. In the course of this dispute, Salzburg castles in Styria were occupied by troops Matthias Corvinus , who ruled parts of Austria and Styria from 1477 to 1490. The Salzburg bishops were only able to take back Landsberg Castle, which had been conquered by the troops of Emperor Maximilian I during the conflict , at great expense in 1494. It became increasingly difficult for Salzburg to defend its claims to sovereignty over its "foreign rulers".

There had been disputes ("incessant friction") between Salzburg and the Styrian provinces , which in 1528 expressly refused to recognize the Salzburg archbishop as sovereign in Styria. In addition, it was a goal of the Habsburgs to free their territories from the enclaves of other sovereigns (such as the Lords of Salzburg, Bamberg , Gorizia , etc.).

In 1532 Central and Lower Styria were devastated by the Turkish army, which withdrew to the south after the unsuccessful siege of Güns via Eastern Styria and the Murtal. The Turkish threat had shown the importance of the fortified castle hill Graz, a joint approach by the decision-makers in Styria had proven necessary. The economic situation of the Salzburg possessions was bad in the long run. In the 16th century, their losses "only caused damage" to the archbishopric.

The negotiations between the deputies of the Prince Archbishop and the royal councilors in Vienna began on July 8, 1535.

content

With the recession of Vienna, the Salzburg archbishops recognized the sovereignty of the Styrian rulers for their inner Austrian possessions. The position as manorial power (and thus also the position of the subjects) was not affected, nor was the ecclesiastical administration of these areas, which was mainly carried out by the diocese of Lavant .

The contract regulates the following topics:

  • The sovereign sovereignty over the Salzburg possessions in Styria remains “forever” with the sovereigns of Austria.
  • The Austrian princes allow the other Salzburg rights to exist.
  • The courts set up by the Salzburgers remain the lower decision-making authority, but the courts of the sovereign are the last authority.
  • The archbishops remain responsible for decisions between Salzburg judges and other officials.
  • The Salzburg fiefdoms in the Austrian states are to be kept according to fiefdoms and old custom.
  • Ban and eight , as well as criminal jurisdiction for capital crimes and the right of blood jurisdiction should be handled by the Salzburg organs as before, but they are to be received by each new archbishop from the hands of the sovereign. For Pettau, these rights were to be received by the archbishopric vice cathedral in Leibnitz and exercised by the city judge of Pettau.
  • The receipt of all rights was released from payments (taxes).
  • The Salzburg possessions and subjects bear the same share of all taxes as the other Styrian country people and knighthoods, cities and markets are not excluded. Examination and collection are to be carried out by Salzburg officials.
  • Salzburg vice domes, captains and court masters have to appear at the Styrian state parliaments like other country people and have a seat and vote in the Styrian state parliament. However, the archbishops are exempt from this and can be represented by their officials.
  • The Salzburg subjects are allowed to trade in their own products unhindered in the Austrian states.
  • No Salzburg subject may be withdrawn from his rightful judge.
  • Border and competence disputes are settled by a separate commission.

The Salzburg Vizedome in Leibnitz and Friesach , their captains and court masters , remained responsible for appeals against decisions of the first court instances (courts in cities and markets, mountain court in Hüttenberg ) . On February 3, 1590, Prince Archbishop Johann Jakob Khuen von Belasy confirmed to Markt Landsberg that it had been entitled to the “Hohait des Judgment and Signing” “since time immemorial”. This legal status was confirmed by Emperor Ferdinand II on May 8, 1627, from which this market derived a right to blood jurisdiction until the 18th century , which it was not officially denied until 1750.

Effects

The Vienna recession brought the Habsburgs undisputed sovereign rights in the Salzburg areas of Austria. It is one of those measures which made the (inner) Austrian states into unified closed territories. A similar contract had already been concluded on January 27, 1535 with the Bamberg Bishop Weigand von Redwitz about the Bamberg possessions in Carinthia . Further contracts followed, such as 1536 contracts for compensation payments because of an attack by Salzburg farmers on Schladming and because of the damage caused by the war with Hungary.

Salzburg areas in Inner Austria outlined in yellow (Friesach, Hüttenberg in Carinthia) and sometimes also labeled AS (Pettau).

For the archbishops of Salzburg the sovereign position of the exclaves no longer existed, but their religiously and economically well-founded position in south-east Austria was only temporarily affected by the recession of Vienna. The contract is seen as one of the occasions on which Archbishop Wolf Dietrich von Raitenau sold a large part of the Styrian possessions, the Vice Dome Office Leibnitz, in 1595. The Landsberg rule was bought back under Archbishop Paris von Lodron in 1630, initially leased to the previous owners of the Kuenburg family and from 1635 was again under direct Salzburg administration. The rule was upgraded. She also had to take on tasks that had previously been assigned to the Leibnitz Vice Cathedral. The possessions belonging to it were scattered as far as the Sausal and the surrounding area of Marburg . There were over 200 farms and as many winegrowers' farms, which made the Landsberg rulership an important economic factor in Styria again, regardless of whether Leibnitz, the seat of the former Vice Cathedral, no longer belonged to it: this place and its castles remained with the bishops of the Diocese of Graz-Seckau, which had one of their seats in Seggau Castle near Leibnitz.

As part of the organizational forms of the Roman Catholic Church, Salzburg's influence in south-eastern Austria continued for centuries. This z. B. by the fact that large areas of Carinthia (such as the Lavant Valley ) and Styria were in the area of ​​dioceses that had been founded as Salzburg's own bishoprics and from Salzburg at least until the reforms of the church organization (diocesan organization , parish regulation) under Emperor Joseph II . influenced remained: the dioceses of Gurk , Lavant and Seckau . Other, at least indirect, connections between areas of western Styria and Salzburg consisted in the fact that Admont Abbey , which was founded as an own monastery in Salzburg (on the basis of donations from St. Hemma von Gurk ) , received donations in this area, which were confirmed by Salzburg's archbishops. In addition to the dissolution of the manorial organization, the Admont Abbey held patronage rights and other church rights in parishes in the area until 1981 , for example in Sankt Oswald in Freiland . The ecclesiastical province of Salzburg also encompasses the territory of Styria in the 21st century.

After the recession of Vienna, the prince-archbishopric of Salzburg was bound by the economic rules of the state of Styria. B. Grain to be exported to Salzburg, this required a permit (a "passport letter") of the Austrian-Styrian administrative authorities, z. B. the court chamber, which was not always granted. There were always disputes about the issue of such documents. Also about jurisdiction, such as those with the Landsberg citizens about blood jurisdiction and other rights. Since the Salzburg archbishops remained important sponsors of the Habsburgs, such as Archdukes Karl II. And Ferdinand (from 1596 sovereign of Inner Austria), they were able to at least partially assert their economic interests even after the recession of Vienna.

The differences of opinion on the legal status of the Salzburg possessions in Styria could not be completely eliminated even by the recession of Vienna: On December 16, 1783, almost 250 years later, the Landsberg manor was confiscated as part of the reforms under Emperor Joseph II . This was done on behalf of the Inner Austrian Gubernium by the district chief of Marburg , who had appeared in person. The occasion was an order from the government agency to collect the income of foreign dioceses and to hand it over to the payment offices (the tax offices at that time). With a letter of January 13th, 1784 the seizure was lifted and the confiscated 1392  fl 28½  kr was repaid. The government erroneously assumed that Landsberg was a church property whose income was dedicated to pastoral care . However, the Salzburg administrative offices were able to prove that the rulership was an integral part of the sovereign imperial duchy of Salzburg and that the prince-archbishop's income was due to the prince-archbishop like any other count, lord or knight. As a result, Landsberg, as the manorial lordship of the Prince Archbishopric (Archbishopric) of Salzburg , was not affected by the confiscation of those goods that were directed towards the assets of the Archdiocese of Salzburg.

The ambiguities only came to an end with the secularization of the Prince Archbishopric of Salzburg in 1803.

Web links

Commons : Rezess von Wien 1535  - Collection of images, videos and audio files

Individual evidence

  1. ^ A b Albert Muchar: History of the Duchy of Styria. Publishing house Damian and Sorge, then: Leuschner and Lubensky. Graz 1844–1874. Volume VIII. P. 408.
  2. ↑ a b Erich Marx: The Salzburg Vizedomamt Leibnitz. In: Communications from the Society for Regional Studies in Salzburg. Edited by the Society for Salzburg Regional Studies. Salzburg 1979. p. 43. (Publication of the dissertation of the same name at the University of Salzburg in 1972, extensive bibliography on p. 136–142.).
  3. ↑ Signature in the archive information system: AT-OeStA / HHStA UR AUR 1535 X 25 (HHStA: House, Court and State Archives, UR: Documents, AUR: General series of documents).
  4. ↑ a b c Helmut-Theobald Müller (ed.), Gernot Peter Obersteiner (overall scientific management): History and topography of the Deutschlandsberg district. ( District topography ) Graz-Deutschlandsberg 2005. ISBN 3-901938-15-X . Styrian Provincial Archives and District Authority Deutschlandsberg 2005. In the series: Great historical regional studies of Styria. Founded by Fritz Posch. 1st volume, general part. Pp. 221-223.
  5. ^ Robert Baravalle: The Deutschlandsberg castle. Graz writing and office calendar 1932 for family and office. 148th year. Verlag Leykam Graz 1932 p. 226.
  6. ^ Marx: Vice Cathedral Office. Pp. 4-10.
  7. ↑ Gerald Fuchs, Ingo Mirsch: The forerunners of the S 35 Brucker Schnellstraße . Traffic routes between Graz and Bruck an der Mur in Styria. Find reports from Austria, material booklets. Series A (FÖMat A), special issue 14th published by the Federal Monuments Office , Department of Ground Monuments . ISSN as stated in the book 1993-1271 (wrong, correct ISSN  1993-1255 ) Vienna 2011. p. 32.
  8. ↑ Werner Tscherne : From Lonsperch to Deutschlandsberg. Self-published by the municipality of Deutschlandsberg, undated (1990). P. 45.
  9. ^ Robert Baravalle: Castles and palaces of Styria. An encyclopaedic collection of the Styrian fortifications and properties, which were endowed with various privileges. Graz 1961, Stiasny publishing house. P. 78.
  10. ^ Herwig Ebner : Castles and palaces in Styria. Part III. Graz, Leibnitz, West Styria. Birken-Verlag, 2nd edition Vienna 1982, ISBN 3-85030-028-5 . P. 17.
  11. ^ Marx: Vice Cathedral Office. P. 7.
  12. ↑ a b Map of the possessions in Styria at: Marx. The Vice Cathedral Office Leibnitz. Dissertation at the University of Salzburg in 1972, Appendix 2.
  13. ^ Wilhelm Knaffl: From Deutsch-Landsberg's past. Verlag Leykam, Graz 1912. p. 26.
  14. ↑ Hans Pirchegger: The Lower Styria in the history of their dominions and Gülten. Book series of the Southeast German Historical Commission. Volume 10. Oldenbourg, Munich 1962. p. 251.
  15. ^ A b Alois Lang: The Salzburg fiefdoms in Styria until 1520. Publications of the Historical Commission for Styria, Part I Graz, Verlag Leuschner & Lubensky 1937. Part II Graz 1939, III. Part of Graz 1947.
  16. ^ Pirchegger: Lower Styria. The property of the Archbishopric of Salzburg an der Drau. Pp. 57-68.
  17. ^ Pirchegger: Lower Styria. The property of the Archbishopric of Salzburg on the Sawe. Pp. 251-258.
  18. ^ Marx: Vice Cathedral Office. P. 10.
  19. ^ Lang: Salzburg fiefdom , III. Part, p. 679. No. 109 (Schwanberger)
  20. ^ Lang: Salzburg fiefdom , III. Part, p. 668. No. 74 (Lembsniczer)
  21. ^ Lang: Salzburg fiefdom , III. Part, p. 661. No. 47 (Gleinczer, in the Ennstal near Vischarn )
  22. ^ Knaffl: past. P. 27, with a reference to the Golden Bull 1213 .
  23. ↑ a b Marx: Vice Cathedral Office. P. 12.
  24. ↑ Burkhard Seuffert, Gottfriede Kogler: The oldest Styrian state parliament files 1396-1519. Part I 1396-1452. In the series: Sources on the constitutional and administrative history of Styria. Edited by the Historical State Commission for Styria. Volume III. Verlag Stiasny Graz 1953. p. 6.
  25. ↑ Seuffert, Kogler: Landtag files , p. 22.
  26. ^ Knaffl: past. Verlag Leykam, Graz 1912. p. 81.
  27. ↑ Muchar: History. Volume VIII, pp. 401 and 408.
  28. ^ Pirchegger: Lower Styria. P. 64.
  29. ^ Pirchegger: Lower Styria. P. 88.
  30. ↑ a b Marx: Vice Cathedral Office. P. 39.
  31. ^ Marx: Vice Cathedral Office. P. 40.
  32. ^ Marx: Vice Cathedral Office. Pp. 39-40.
  33. ^ Marx: Vice Cathedral Office. P. 21.
  34. ↑ Franz Pichler: The tax burden on the Styrian population through the state defense against the Turks.  ( Page no longer available , search in web archives )  Info: The link was automatically marked as defective. Please check the link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. In: Communications from the Styrian State Archives. Volume 35–36, years 1985/1986. Pp. 94-95.@1@ 2Template: Toter Link / www.verwaltung.steiermark.at  
  35. ^ "Pfaffenhab is my chamber property", attributed to Emperor Maximilian I : Hermann Wiesflecker : Emperor Maximilian I .: The Empire, Austria and Europe at the turn of the modern era. Volume V .: The emperor and his environment: court, state, economy, society and culture. Oldenbourg Verlag, Munich 1986. ISBN 3-486-49891-6 . (Parallel edition: Verlag für Geschichte und Politik, Vienna 1986, ISBN 3-7028-0236-3 ) p. 156.
  36. ↑ Othmar Pickl : Treasury, Church and State in Inner Austria in the Age of Reformation and Counter-Reformation (16th / 17th century). In: Hermann Kellenbenz , Paolo Prodi: Treasury, Church and State in the Confessional Age. Writings of the Italian-German Historical Institute in Trento . Volume 7. 27. Study week 21. – 25. September 1987. Duncker & Humblot, Berlin 1994. ISBN 3-428-08250-8 , p. 94 and p. 106.
  37. ↑ a b Baravalle: Deutschlandsberg Castle. P. 230.
  38. ↑ Tscherne: Lonsperch. Pp. 60-61.
  39. ↑ a b Tscherne: Lonsperch, p. 75.
  40. ↑ a b c Muchar: History. Volume VIII, p. 407.
  41. ^ Müller, Obersteiner: District topography. P. 64.
  42. ^ A b Thomas Winkelbauer : Freedom of the class and the power of princes. Countries and subjects of the House of Habsburg in the denominational age. Part 1. In: Herwig Wolfram (Ed.): Austrian History 1522–1699. Ueberreuter Verlag, Vienna 2003. ISBN 3-8000-3528-6 . P. 39.
  43. ↑ Muchar: History. Volume VIII. P. 403.
  44. ^ Marx: Vice Cathedral Office. P. 71.
  45. ^ Knaffl: past. P. 18.
  46. ↑ Muchar: History. Volume VIII, pp. 408-409.
  47. ^ Knaffl: past. Pp. 81-82.
  48. ^ Knaffl: past. Pp. 18-19.
  49. ^ Knaffl: past. Pp. 95-96.
  50. ↑ Historical Lexicon of Bavaria : Bamberg, Hochstift: Territory and structure: "possessions in Carinthia". (accessed June 12, 2012).
  51. ↑ Signature in the archive information system: AT-OeStA / HHStA UR AUR 1535 I 27
  52. ↑ Signature in the archive information system: AT-OeStA / HHStA LA ÖA Salzburg 5-4
  53. ^ Marx: Vice Cathedral Office. P. 44.
  54. ^ Marx: Vice Cathedral Office. P. 45.
  55. ↑ Tscherne: Lonsperch , p. 80.
  56. ^ Marx: Vice Cathedral Office. Pp. 48-49.
  57. ↑ Tscherne: Lonsperch , pp. 152–156.
  58. ↑ Gerhard Deissl: The Vordernberger Radmeister community from the beginnings to the Josefinic reforms. Representation of an organizational form in the Styrian mining industry. Mining, metallurgy, transport, trading in pennies and iron distribution channels. Dissertation at the University of Graz, 2009. pp. 768–774.
  59. ^ Knaffl: past. Pp. 144-149.