His lovely wife? Someone else? Maybe a bacillus or a virus? Cerebrovascular accident? Or neither? Historians are looking for an answer to this. And the conspiracy theorists too.
It is no exaggeration to say that Mátyás Hunyadi is the most popular Hungarian king. He cuts all the others in his pocket, including St. Stephen. Isn't he, among other things, the Righteous One of all time, if that was the case in fact, if not. Today's "special words": King Mátyás is a real star. (He can't be an influencer, unfortunately. Although we fear that if he could, he would become an influencer with pallos, in addition to Insta-posts and YouTube videos.) And if someone is a star, then understandably many people are interested in him. Especially with regard to sensational life events. In the case of King Matthias, one such life event was his death. Also, the circumstances and cause of his death. From time to time, the news pops up that, hey, King Matthias was secretly murdered. Even though the learned historians sigh, grumble, and chirp in vain at this point, it's not so certain after all.
The desire for sensation makes the curtain flutter again and again to reveal a hand holding a dagger or a poison cup.
Which is… whose?
Well, the Hungarian historian Richárd Horváth gave a lecture on the mystifications and conspiracy theories surrounding the death of Matthias in the Korunk Akadémia's series of lectures. Who started by saying that people, including scientists, were overjoyed when the Internet appeared. Because they hoped that the magical tool would democratize human knowledge, there is no need to run around so much in order to spread knowledge, you just put the portion neatly on an internet page, people come, read it and voila, they know. However, several decades of experience show that, unfortunately, it was not knowledge that was democratized by the magic tool of the Internet, but stupidity. We would add to this, as a sort of nuance, that the possibility of knowledge has been democratized with the World Wide Web. Anyone who lives with it is great. But whoever chooses stupidity will stay that way.
Well, returning to the topic, the basic question is asked:
since when has the idea that Mátyás Hunyadi was murdered by someone been circulating in the public mind?
We emphasize: this is the position of the historical community, which relies primarily and above all on authentic historical sources when it takes a position. (Not that I read it online at that cute cat-and-dog flu product.) Well, it's been quite a while. There are several fantastic ideas circulating on the Internet and in some recesses of the public consciousness. One such theory is based on the text of György Szerémy (canon, Transylvanian voivode János Szapolyai and court chaplain of the Hungarian king, historian), according to which Palatine István Zápolya (i.e. Szapolyai) killed Mátyás by sending assassins to the king, who used three-edged Czech daggers they dipped into Mátyás's body. Here, the use of names also affects a person's attitude. Szapolyai, that's a nice name. But Zápolya? It sucks, doesn't it? He's clearly evil. Okay, check, that's bullshit.
According to another nice theory, when Mátyás was negotiating with the Romans in Vienna, at the end of the quaterka, the Romans closed the hall door on the Hungarian king, and after a while (when the king was thirsty), they offered him poisoned water. And hook, king! Okay, check, that's stupid too.
However, the most popular theory is that
according to which the king's lovely wife, Beatrix of Aragon, killed Mátyás Hunyadi.
The information does appear in the sources, but... On the one hand, as far as the European courts of the period are concerned, there are only Italian sources about the idea of killing the king. Let's say, this shouldn't be too surprising, since in Italy it happened that some unwanted head was removed with poison. Okay, the researchers got down to business, digging through Italian sources and finding quite a few that mention the idea of murder… in the minds of those people!
As for Hungarian historiography, the idea of murder first appears in one of the works of János Zsámboki (Johannes Sambucus), doctor of philosophy and medicine, and also a historian. And done. That's it. The researchers licked through the entire Hungarian historiography on Mátyás, from Antonio Bonfini to Bálint Hóman, Gyula Szekfű and András Kubinyi, and sure enough, they found not a single reference to the murder. However, they found something else: the overwhelming majority of sources state that Mátyás' death could have been caused by lung disease, stomach disease, or stroke. The scientists correctly add: the possibility of murder cannot be ruled out, but the probability is very low.
Okay, the matter is cleared up, everyone can go home. Well, that's not how it works in the democratizing world of knowledge (and stupidity).
In vain did the scientists sweat blood, in vain did they put a mountain of documents on the table... the conteo appeared again.
The last major campaign that Richard Horváth reported on took place in 2012, when a certain Dr. László Garamvölgyi (spokesman of the National Police Headquarters in civilian life!) published a monograph that promised to be a real sensation. (In any case, the good man is a very prolific writer, he has about 30 volumes.) The announcement stated that now, with the help of forensic methods, the author will prove that the great king was murdered, and that it was none other than the faithful his wife, Queen Beatrix. The book was published, with a very eye-catching title: Mátyás Hunyadi - They killed the king. Well, with such an entree, they probably bought the book like sugar. Finally, after the boring, dusty scientists, a cheeky detective comes and, lo and behold, he uncovers the late medieval treasure! And the scientists just whined. Where does this guy get his information? Didn't the Mátyás-era informers rise up!? In such cases, the profession can do three things: listen (understand, wave at the bullshit), declare that the attempt was nice, but a lot of bullshit (understand, give the conteos a slap), and conduct a civilized discussion on a scientific basis (understand, in the number of people takes his fellow man). At that time, Richard Horváth chose the third option, respect for him. It is a nice thing to consider our fellow human beings. Even when they talk and write nonsense.
One of Mr. Garamvölgyi's detective suggestions is the following: King Matthias died unexpectedly!
Okay, so what death isn't unexpected, even if it's preceded by years of agony? Sure, that's a layman's answer. What does the historian do in this situation? He starts and digs up the sources again. And lo and behold, it turned out that sources from 1486 report on the joy that the Hungarian royal court felt when Mátyás could walk and speak again. Oops! These symptoms clearly point to the already mentioned cerebrovascular accident, which obviously occurred before the date 1486, when the king could neither walk nor speak. So the building of the unexpected death hypothesis is already creaking. But there is other evidence. A group of historians made a very interesting map , on which it can be traced by years, where he went during the reign of King Matthias. And it can also be seen that Mátyás really traveled a lot within his empire and beyond its borders.
For example, 1468 is an interesting moment. The map (and the historical sources behind it) prove that after 1468, Mátyás never set foot in Transylvania again. (This is also a sensation, at least for us Transylvanians, but at least based on credible evidence.) And if we look at the map, say in 1478 and then in 1488, we can see that the "movement" of King Matthias was dramatically reduced. In 1487, he still occupies Bécsujhel, and from then on he hardly leaves Vienna, except for the nearby spas, presumably for medical treatment.
If a perpetual motion king moves less and less, doesn't that mean he's sick?
Comparing all this with other source data, the conclusion can easily be drawn: the death of King Matthias was not unexpected.
Mr. Garamvölgyi's other detective suggestion can even be called a classic: Beatrix of Aragon was lurking in the background, she killed the king! But we beg, so why? What interest could have guided the queen? The historian once again went to the sources. Already in Antonio Bonfini's work, we can read that Queen Beatrix did everything... to keep the king alive. Oops! It is true that after it was discovered that Beatrix was barren, the royal couple's relationship deteriorated, according to the sources. Well, Beatrix was anything but stupid. She knew exactly that she could only remain Hungarian queen as long as Mátyás was alive. Right, right?! That's why he did everything to keep the king from dying. Not a single source says that Beatrix usurped the throne. Which, given the mentality of the late Middle Ages, would have been an impossible mission in the first place, since
the Hungarian lords would have eaten the queen who claimed the throne alive. Because she was a woman.
Well, that's how we stand. Historians kindly and patiently repeat: it cannot be ruled out (!) that Mátyás Hunyadi was murdered. But according to our current sure knowledge, it is highly unlikely. What is very likely: the king was killed by a long illness.
As for conteos: due to one of the very unbeneficial effects of the democratization of knowledge stupidity, conteos can be eradicated, but we deal with them roughly like weed in the garden. They disappear for a while and then pop up again. So gardeners, historians and scientists will always have plenty to do.
