Professor Radia Bernaoui
email: radiabernaoui@yahoo.fr

Peter Ohly
email: peter.ohly@gmx.de

Professor, Dagobert Soergel
email: dsoergel@buffalo.edu

Knowledge organization in the AgriFood sector in Algeria. Sharing information and communication through social media networks

Keywords: Knowledge organization, Agricultural sector, Information sharing, Communication, Social media networks, Algeria Organisation de la connaissance, Secteur agricole, Partage d'information, Communication, Me7 dias sociaux, Alge7 rie

come

Titre

Organisation des connaissances dans le secteur agroalimentaire en Alge7 rie. Partage d'informations et de communication via les re7 seaux sociaux.

Résumé

L'objectif de ce travail est de mettre en e7 vidence la production scientifique et technique des chercheurs et leur type de partenariat privile7 gie7 dans des projets de recherche pour le de7 veloppement innovant. Notre e7 tude traite des nouveaux dispositifs d'information, tels que les re7 seaux sociaux. Le travail se concentre plus spe7 cifiquement sur les outils de communication via les re7 seaux sociaux entre les chercheurs et les professionnels du secteur agroalimentaire. Le contro: le de l'information devient de plus en plus important. Il est devenu donc essentiel pour l'avantage concurrentiel de l'e7 conomie mondiale base7 e sur la connaissance. Ce qui conduit a; la cre7 ation d'avantages concurrentiels. Dans ce contexte pre7 cis, les plateformes sont conside7 re7 es comme des moyens donnant acce; s aux ressources et facilitant l'interaction entre les partenaires dans un processus d'innovation collectif.

INTRODUCTION

This paper argues for a radical improvement of the information and communication system in the AgriFood sector in Algeria in order to speed up the transfer of research results to practice  both farmers and food processing and distribution companies  in order to speed up innovation, increase productivity, and make the AgriFood sector in Algeria more completive in the global economy. The control of information is essential for competitive advantage in the global knowledge-based economy. Information has a decisive impact on decision-support processes, planning, management, and scientific research. Finally, information production, storage, distribution, and information exchange become major issues for any organization. In this context, [START_REF] Ambrosi | Vers des sociétés de savoirs partagés[END_REF] state that "there is not an information society but societies, plural, moving, emerging, changing." Our project lies in what we will do with the information, the risks and the potentials attached to it. It is important to express, to increase the creativity and to circulate the knowledge.

Knowledge management is a fundamental need to ensure sustainability and innovation for organizations. So we ask about the link between knowledge management and the innovation process. The accumulation of knowledge with a view to proposing new methods and means leads to an application of adaptive research that ends with the innovation of products or technical processes.

In the domain of agriculture, one part of the AgriFood sector, this is characterized by the rapid transition from a traditional activity requiring a large workforce to a sector of the world economy where technology and information play a vital role. Access to modern information and communication tools has become a necessity for farmers around the world, especially those in developing countries. Only if the results of agricultural research are translated into innovations and new processes for agribusiness, will we have an improvement and increase in production that supports a country's sustainable development. The same is true for food processing companies, one focus of this paper.

Research has most potential for impact if it is integrated into a validated and certified dissemination and valuation process. In the field of agronomic research in Algeria, we notice an important absence of an organized and visible national memory of the Algerian research system. The scattering of scientific production and institutional limitations make it difficult to promote research results. Algeria, with a useful agricultural area of only 3% of its territory, is facing an obstacle in terms of agricultural development. Establishing a national information system is important to address the problems of a lack of interactivity and visibility of the skills available in the field of agronomic research.

Algeria has significant intellectual resources (universities, schools, research institutions, researchers, lecturers, and university students), but how can we mobilize and use this intellectual capital as recommended by all development specialists. (Ermine, 2003, p. 34) summarized it as follows: "Considerable productivity gains, particularly in the design activities are now expected through better management of collective knowledge capital of the enterprise". Is there any synergy between research and development of AgriFood products?

The research sector is linked to the concept of value-added knowledge for the development of the country. (Bouchet, 2005, p. 9) states that "…"the knowledge economy articulates individual knowledge in networks in order to have a collective production that exceeds the sum of the parts. Fundamental and applied research translated into innovation of processes and products intended for uses to satisfy needs of all kinds". In this context it is important to create an information management system for Algerian agronomic research. In the area of agriculture we need -a highly educated technology generation system (researchers), -a relatively well educated technology dissemination system (extension agents,) and -a large technology utilization system (farmers) who have little or no formal education.

But in Algeria the dysfunction in communication impedes companies and research institutions due to the absence of information system and the lack of support for and a culture of sharing information. Scientific research alone is not sufficient to ensure sustainable development. It requires information platforms capable of managing and acquiring information. Substantial effort is needed to make visible the results of the Algerian scientific research focused on improvements in production and economic development. It is important to propose a model of an information system able to manage the intellectual capital of the agricultural sector and to generate value from intellectual assets. Information and communication technologies, especially such platforms, make it possible to exploit collaborative processes that underlie collective innovation [START_REF] Isckia | Ecosyste; mes d'affaires, strate7 gies de plateforme et innovation ouverte : vers une approche inte7 gre7 e de la dynamique d'innovation[END_REF].

Our question is: How can the scientific intellectual capital produced by research in Algeria come to the economy? And with which tools could companies and people in the AgriFood sector benefit from science in order to create innovations? How could new technologies generate prospects for innovation? Answering these questions requires a model of an information platform designed to make all these links between actors involved in research and development and in production. Today there are not only portals to share information, but also other channels, social media. To communicate and distribute research and development results to a large scientific and professional community in the AgriFood sector, we consider using Scientific Social Media.

For [START_REF] Reix | Information Systems Research: From History to Concept[END_REF], an information system is social capital and innovation. The aim of our paper is to discuss how social media is permitting processes along the new product development and how to create synergies between research and the economy sector. According to Sturialea and Scuderib (2013, p. 201), "development of digital technology and spreading of computer networks are transforming production processes, access, transfer and use of information. Communication technologies allow the maximum use and creation of new knowledge thanks to information sharing -from emails to forums and social networks".

So we want to know the extent to which researchers and practitioners in the AgriFood sector use social media as a communication tool. Do the researchers share their research results through social media? The scientific production communicated via social media would allow all communities in the AgriFood sector to follow the news on research results and participate in discussions online. This increases dissemination and sharing of current research between the units of research and the community of practitioners. Our hypothesis is that intellectual capital in the field of agronomic research helps AgriFood companies and people to improve in their production, while creating collective scientific and economic intelligence.

-Information system modelling

Some lack of sharing information resulted from insufficient diffusing technological innovations in agriculture. Many scholars in the field of innovation management have argued that innovation processes are essentially communication and information processing activities (e.g. [START_REF] Allen | Managing the Flow of Technology: Technology Transfer and the Dissemination of Technological Information within the R&D Organization[END_REF]Brown and Utterback, 1985;[START_REF] Ebadi | The effects of communication on technological innovation[END_REF][START_REF] Fidler | Communication and innovation implementation[END_REF][START_REF] Souder | Integrating marketing and R&D project personnel within innovation projects: an information uncertainty model[END_REF][START_REF] Tushman | Communication and technical roles in R&D laboratories: an information processing approach[END_REF].

Everett M. [START_REF] Rogers | Diffusion of innovation[END_REF] created a model to clarify the diffusion of innovation process through specific channels that are important for communication among the members of social system over time. To realize the creation of a collaborative space, we must go to the potential beneficiaries to know if they use information as a tool for development. This allows us to get a clear idea of the real information practices used daily by the Algerian scientific and professional community in the AgriFood Sector before offering them the proposal of a national information system on AgriFood research. For Rogers (2003, p. 5), communication is "a process in which participants create and share information with one another in order to reach a mutual understanding". We understand that social networks are part of the system of communication that has always been present over the centuries.

According the literature review of [START_REF] Alborsa | New learning network paradigms: Communities of objectives, crowdsourcing, wikis and open source[END_REF], many authors have analyzed the efficacy of various modalities of sharing in knowledge networks. Clarke and Cooper (2000) support the idea of knowledge management collaboration in a social context or ''shared context''. In a knowledge management system, human aspects must be considered, as well as those referring to information; establishing the culture of a community of practice can contribute to better use of research results in practice [START_REF] Adams | Communities of practice: Bridging technology and knowledge assessment[END_REF].

-Methodology

To answer our questions, we carried out two surveys using a mix of quantitative and qualitative methods.

1 A survey of researchers specialized in agronomic sciences to analyze their information practices especially whether and how they use collaborative tools, including social media, to build a community of shared knowledge.

2 A survey of practitioners in AgriFood companies (not including farmers) to measure knowledge management and the level of transfer of research results to AgriFood businesses so as.to understand how intellectual capital is transferred to food companies.

These two surveys will help us to think of a social media platform as an intelligence and development tool for the Algerian AgriFood sector. 250 questionnaires were distributed and the answers collected from September to November 2018. We had 154 returns (response rate 62%).

For the survey of practitioners 250 questionnaires were distributed and the answers collected from October to December 2018. We had 140 returns (response rate of 56%). The choice of companies was based on the Cevital Group "AgriFood business".

Cevital has been built in 2007 to create an industrial group on a global scale that is highly competitive and focused on exports. The Food Processing and Distribution business sector was set up in 2015, It is a leader in the Algerian AgriFood sector. It represents 80% of the activity in this business sector.

-DISCUSSION OF RESULTS: SOCIAL MEDIA IN THE AGRIFOOD SECTOR IN ALGERIA

3.1 Sharing of search results for researchers using social media networks

The survey of researchers analyzed their information behavior and evaluated their level of interest in sharing knowledge and the process of collective intelligence. These data are needed for the creation of a collaborative platform in social networks on agronomic research in Algeria.

Information behavior of researchers

In the analysis of informational behavior of researchers, we have mainly focused on the use of social media as information sources. 99% of our respondents declare they have a need for national social media. The main reasons for a national social platform are as follows:

-35% wish to contribute to a culture of knowledge sharing as a source of wealth creation.

-20% hope to impose a culture of collective intelligence for a knowledge economy.

-15% wish to establish contacts to individuals with shared interests (scientific, professional, political etc.).

-15% believe they create added value for the industrial sector.

-14% find it great to establish a collaborative platform for knowledge and knowledge management.

Most researchers have the same intention of sharing information and making sense out of shared findings to obtain economic goals.

Motivation of sharing knowledge with other researchers

The results show researchers' tendency to manage their scientific production with others. It is mainly required by the reinforcement of competence centers that develop collaborative research projects (36%) and the implementation of search tools for activities (list of experts by domain, expertise profiles, etc.; 33%). We notice that the dissemination in agricultural information permits the creation of exchange networks for development and sharing research results.

But only 21% of researchers intend to exchange information between national and international research institutions. And a very low rate of 9% considers facilitating exchange and collaborative work with other researchers (management of a common agenda, copublication and shared edition of documents, etc.) These results demonstrate a partitioning in terms of integration into associative networks. There is a significant risk in not participating in the development of agronomic research projects at the national and international level. The insufficient diffusion of scientific output due to institutional silos and the lack of contact between researchers leads to redundancies in scientific projects. There is also a problem of integration of Algerian scientists and research teams in international exchange networks.

Motivation of sharing knowledge with companies

This attitude is very important for researchers, following the results of this survey. They express an important interest in establishing a relationship with the economic sector. Accordingly, different motivations are reported:

-41% express interest in the transfer of new products or processes to the economic world.

-27% think of pooling AgriFood companies and agronomic research institutions.

-17% believe in establishing exchange networks between research and the economic sector.

-14% encourage practitioners and scientists to communicate with each other and identify their needs.

The degree of motivation of researchers in sharing research results with companies seems to signal an implementation of the research policy that allows the evaluation of results in terms of innovation, publication, partnership agreements and transfer skills. These motivations are aimed at creating synergies between national research programs and between the research and the economy sectors.

Reasons of collaboration of researchers by social media platforms

Currently, the world of technology implies a major change in the field of research. In a very short time, new technologies of information and communication (ICTs) have become an inevitable part of scientific production and research projects. In the Algerian AgriFood sector, very few academic studies on information system needs have been undertaken. The aim of this study is to discuss the scientific and professional network collaboration. What role do they play in sharing information between researchers and practitioners in the AgriFood Sector?

The majority of researchers (96%) hope to share information in a social media platform. The reasons are rather divers. Most of the respondents (49%) aim for visibility of researchers at the international level. 22% demand the construction of a collective communication space favoring remote work in groups. 17% demand sustainability for the shared intellectual capital. Only 12% request a system for finding Algerian experts (peers or partners) based on their expertise and skills.

Contact with researchers via social networks

Most respondents (90%) are in contact with other researchers by using social networks. Table 1 shows the preference type of social networks that scholars are most in touch with. 41% have a contact with their colleagues via professional social networks. The social networks try to be productive with university and research labs. It is a use of collaborative spaces, initiatives and teams working in a specific areas research, followed by 31% which are using personal social networks. This kind of a tool allows the scientific work of researchers to be known to users who are not registered and will never subscribe to scientific networks, such as Academia.edu or ResearchGate. However, 20% are more interested in social network platforms. These platforms suggest establishing profiles of other researchers in order to collaborate for their scientific project and to share their research results for a better visibility and citation.

These results can be summarized in this way, academic institutions are a catalyst for social interaction, exchange of information and co-production of knowledge: The activities characterize the social networks. Scholars are interested in three types of social networks in an academic institution: The social networks for the general public (personal social networks) which allow to manage the relationship of the institution to a large number, in particular to young researchers; academic social networks (professional social networks), which make available pedagogical or research content in different ways, and internal social networks (social network platforms) that allow increased collaboration between actors federated by a common project.

Kind of researcher contact via social networks in percent

Professional social networks 41%

Personal social networks 31%

Social network platforms 20%

No answer 8% This implies discussions of the different social media networks according to the detailed answers of the researchers.

General social networks

Social media is a social communication technology, it can be described as online technologies and practices that people use to share opinions, insights, experiences, and perspectives. Social media can take many different forms, including text, images, audio, and video. These sites typically use technologies such as blogs, message boards, podcasts, wikis, and vlogs or video blogs to allow users to interact [START_REF] Cann | Social media: A guide for researchers[END_REF]. We asked about some general social networks which are considered sometimes useful for researchers with companies because we suspect there is a strong interaction between the economic sector and the domain of science.

In terms of general social networks, the most used by researchers are Google+ (26%), LinkedIn (25%) and Instagram (12%) (Table 2). Our conviction is that if institutions of research already practice them, they must progress in the management of their content and their image, and this in particular by creating new skills or even new professions within their teams. So, the collaboration is done by using Instagram for free photo sharing together with other social networking services, including Facebook, Twitter, Tumblr and Flickr and as well using LinkedIn, a professional networking site that allows to create business contacts; or is done by manipulating Google+ to link to Googles' Blogger and YouTube.

Academic social networking sites

The subject of our research concerns a new hybrid model of media that originates online in the form of websites. We are examining the "social media" in the agronomic sector with respect of their potential to share scientific research results with the economic sector. The results of our survey reveal that three tools are predominantly used by researchers: ReseachGate (28%), Academia.edu (20%) and Sciencefeed (19%) (Table 3). These academic social media can expand scientific and professional opportunities for communication and technology transfer in the AgriFood sector for research and practice.

Among all the academic social networking sites (ASNS) that have evolved in recent years, Academia.edu and ResearchGate are considered as professional social networks of researchers. They are combining characteristics of social networks with the publication of studies and are adjusted to the needs and comportment of academic researchers (Ovadia, 2014). These sites allow uploading academic articles, abstracts, and links to published articles. They track demand for published articles, and engage in professional interaction by the acquisition of knowledge, belonging to a peer community. ScienceFeed platform allows users to post microblogs, sentences on scientific headlines, new findings, ideas related to science, controversies, and conferences. Community members can follow the feeds of fellow members and comment on topics in which they are interested in real-time for communication and transfer of ideas.

Academic / scientific social networks in percent

ResearchGate 28%

Academia.edu 20% ScienceFeed 19% ScieVee 12%

Research Blogging 11%

MyExperiment 9%

No answer 0,3%

Discussion groups

For discussion in group by social networks, researchers are really interested in focus groups for sharing knowledge. They are more inspired by the mailing lists that facilitate exchange, communicate news and research updates (43%). The groups, forums, question/answers are represented by 29% interest. These collaborative tools allow participating in online discussion forums and providing question and answer debate. Next come blogs of researchers (blog platforms and wikis) with 28% attention (Table 4).

Discussion group in percent

Mailing lists 43%

Groups, forums, question/answer 29% Blogs of researchers (blog platforms and wikis) 27%

No answer 0,4% The need of knowledge management in companies is expressed by a strong interest (76%) as far as knowledge management is set up within the practitioners' company. These data relating to the implementation of a knowledge management strategy within AgriFood companies show a professional awareness of the benefits of good knowledge management.

For the practitioners' perceptions of the benefits of knowledge management strategy in a company, we found the following responses.

-23% It is necessary to capitalize and develop the internal best practices, skills and memory of the company.

-22% Companies must develop an electronic information management system for existing documents.

-12% It is important to ensure a better knowledge of the environment and to protect and to control the intellectual capital of the company.

We notice an important interest for the implementation of a knowledge management strategy. Practitioners are aware of the benefits of good knowledge management. Proposing an information system means a transmission of knowledge and the awareness of the whole environment for the visibility and sharing information. This implies that a collaborative approach is essential to implement, while connecting all stakeholders through this platform.

Weaknesses are also revealed by the practitioners regarding the benefits of knowledge management strategy in a company. 8% mentioned that it is essential to promote more usage of information technologies (e-mail, Intranet, etc.), to improve the quality of services, productivity and increase efficiency, and to strengthen training within the company. 6% reported interest in improving decision-making. Apparently there is a weakness of internal and external collaborative work. This lack of communication between practitioners and external collaborators for knowledge transfer impoverishes the construction of a capital of competence. In addition, the weak tendency to access to discussion forums and news further reduces contacts and exchanges between practitioners. Collaborative work and relationships are new forms of organization and communication that can contribute to new business process performance and economic development. For the same purpose of implementing a knowledge management strategy, practitioners are neglecting the reinforcement of training within the company for the improvement of productivity and efficiency.

3.2.2. Sharing information in companies: Social media networks 97% of practitioners share information via social media networks. Table 5 illustrates the types of social networks that practitioners are most in touch with. They are in contact with their colleagues via professional social networks by the same rate as researchers (41%). 37% use the social network platforms, and 19% are more interested in personal social networks.

As a conclusion, we notice a level of interest in using the different types of social networks which is similar to the researchers.

Kind of practitioners' contact via social networks in percent

Professional social networks 42%

Platforms for social networks 37%

Personal social networks 19%

No answer 2,7% The circulation and sharing of knowledge provides a level of dissemination and circulation of knowledge and information from which emerges an economic intelligence. Our survey data show that 51% of practitioner respondents are in contact with researchers via social networks. Hence, the impact of these new technologies should be the subject of a knowledge sharing strategy. But, curiously, we find that 35% of the practitioners do not report a usage of general social networks (Facebook, Twitter, etc.). In addition, contacts and collaborations with researchers focus on the usage of two main tools: LinkedIn and Google+, with 24% and 21% (Table 6). Referring to new information practices, this type of exchange is frequently used in social networks. From this point of view, these data reveal how many respondents lack knowledge about collaborative tools that can affect the partitioning of research activities and the isolation of practitioners.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, we understand that the lack of collaboration and communication tools leads not only to partitioning of research activities and isolation of researchers, but also a lack of synergy between research and development. This creates difficulties to be at the same level as developed countries; especially with respect to the increase of universal knowledge. The model created by Everett M. Rogers illuminates us that the diffusion of the innovation process through specific channels is important for communication among the members of social system over time. To realize the creation of a collaborative space, we must go to the potential beneficiaries to know if they use information as a tool for development. This allows us to get a clear idea of the real information practices used daily by the Algerian scientific and practitioners' community in the field of the AgriFood Sector before offering them the proposal of a national social media platform as an information system for agricultural research.

Following the results of our study, we notice a strong interest of researchers for discussion groups using mailing lists, virtual community groups, forums, and blogs of researchers. This helps to increase collaboration for some issues of research by a direct discussion. In this way, we can propose on the one hand in the short term a social media platform for the AgriFood sector in Algeria, the use of tools such as blogs that offer an informal space where new ideas and research can be reviewed and discussed in a same field. So using blogs is a way to liberate the practitioners to share knowledge with their colleagues and to use the results of scientific research for innovation. "Firms believe such initiatives can break knowledge silos and lead to higher employee productivity. " (Singh et al., 2014, p. 50).

They permit to have information about research from online sources, blogs, comments and building positive relationships with others researchers. The benefits can contain more active collaboration, opportunities to share the results with the economic sector, profit from the experience of others and drawing in expertise to help with research processes (use of techniques, methods, analysis…).

For the long term, we propose a comprehensive platform for the AgriFood sector as an open access tool for agricultural innovation. This platform, perhaps modeled after information systems in medicine, should include a wide range of research results  original documents, reviews addressed to researchers, analyses recommending best practices, data sets  in order to manage, to share information and knowledge data and to support collaboration with researchers, industry practitioners, and farmers.

So, it could increase the impact associated with the results of research that produces new innovations to resolve development problems. Therefore, open access to knowledge and data will motivate agricultural innovation and accelerate the progress of reaching a sustainable development.

  For the survey of researchers the choice of research institutions was based on the current Organization of Agricultural Research and Higher Education in Algeria, the most important in teaching and research in Algeria. Our investigation took place in two governmental institutions: -INSA (Higher National Agronomical School of Algiers), founded in 1905, is an Algerian institution of higher education and scientific research in agronomy). It promotes INSA's relationship with its socio-economic environment and initiates partnership programs. -INRAA (National Institute of Agricultural Research of Algeria) is under the supervision of the Ministry of Agriculture, Rural Development and Fisheries, created in 1966. It develops partnerships between INRAA and national economic operators in the AgriFood sector.

Table 1 : Kind of researcher contact via social networks

 1

Table 2 : Social networks via general public

 2

Table 3 : Academic social networks

 3

Table 4 : Discussion group

 4

	3.2 Sharing knowledge for practitioners using social media networks
	3.2.1. Need of knowledge management in companies

Table 5 : Kind of practitioners' contact via social networks

 5

3.2.3. Contact of practitioners with researchers via social networks

Kind of practitioners' contact with researchers via social networks in percent

	LinkedIn	17%
	WhatsApp	15%
	Facebook	14%
	Instagram	14%
	Twitter	13%
	Google+	8,8%
	YouTube	8%
	Viadeo	7,1%
	Snapchat	2,4%
	Pinterest	1,4%
	No answer	0,6%

Table 6 : Kind of practitioners' contact with researchers via social networks

 6

Colloque international ISKO-France 2019


Enea Silvio Piccolomini

Michael Von Cotta-Schönberg

Silvio Enea

; Piccolomini

Sylvius Aeneas

Silvius Aeneas

Piccolomini

Michael V Cotta-Schönberg

Oration "Petivistis ex Caesare" of

In 1451, Emperor Friedrich III sent Bishop Enea Silvio Piccolomini, high-ranking imperial diplomat, to attend a meeting of the Bohemian estates Beneschau (Benesov). Piccolomini's mission was to communicate the emperor's refusal to accept the Bohemian demands for the person of their king, Ladislaus the Posthumous, a boy of 11 years, then in the emperor's wardship. In his oration, the "Petivistis ex Caesare", Piccolomini told the Bohemians why fulfilment of their demands would not be in their own best interests, and why it was advantageous for them that Ladislaus stay in the emperor's wardship. He also assured them that when Ladislaus came of age, the emperor would favour the Bohemian claims over those of the Hungarians. And finally, he told the Bohemians, to their faces, that their threat to choose another king could not be taken in earnest. While on this mission, Piccolomini also had occasion to visit the Hussite community at Tabor, and to have a lengthy discussion with the governor of Bohemia, Georg Podiebrad, on political and religious matters.

Foreword

In 2007, I undertook a project of publishing the Latin texts with English translations of the orations of Enea Silvio Piccolomini / Pope Pius II. Altogether 80 1 orations (including papal responses to ambassadorial addresses) are extant today, though more may still be held, unrecognized, in libraries and archives.

At a later stage the project was expanded to include ambassadors' orations to the pope, of which about 40 are presently known.

I do not, actually, plan to publish further versions of the present volume, but I do reserve the option in case I -during my future studies -come across other manuscripts containing interesting versions of the oration or if important new research data on the subject matter are published, making it appropriate to modify or expand the present text. It will therefore always be useful to check if a later version than the one the reader may have previously found via the Internet is available.

I shall much appreciate to be notified by readers who discover errors and problems in the text and translation or unrecognized quotations.

12 September 2019 MCS 1 81 orations, if the "Cum animadverto" is counted is a Piccolomini-oration, see oration "Quam laetus" [18], Appendix Sigla and abbreviations

II. TEXT AND TRANSLATION

1.

Emperor's refusal to release the boy king Ladislaus from his wardship [1] 2.

Disadvantages to the Bohemians had their request been accepted [2-3] 3.

Why it is better for Ladislaus to remain in the emperor's wardship [4-5] 3.1. Friedrich III is both emperor and Ladislaus' close relative [4] 3.2. Hungarian legal claims on Ladislaus are better than those of the Bohemians [5] 4. Bohemian threats to elect another king not taken seriously [6] 5. Conclusion [7] 7

I. INTRODUCTION 1. Context 1

Emperor Friedrich's decision to have his ward, Ladislaus the Posthumous, accompany him on his coronation journey to Rome in 1452 caused a flurry of political activity in Bohemia, Hungary and Austria. As the only male heir of his father, Albrecht II, Ladislaus was Archduke of Austria and had been recognized as King of Hungary and King of Bohemia. At the time, he was only 11 years old and the ward of his uncle, the emperor -who himself had been the ward of one of his Habsburg uncles during the time of his minority, as stipulated by the house rules of the House of Habsburg. In Ladislaus' countries there was uneasiness and even outright dissatisfaction about their king and prince being in the emperor's wardship, and indeed the Hungarians had earlier, by military means, tried to force the emperor to surrender their boy-king and had even petitioned for the pope's support in the matter. 2 In March 1451, ambassadors from Bohemia came to the imperial court in Wiener Neustadt to request of the emperor that the boy-king be released to them. 3 Afterwards an imperial embassy was dispatched to Prague to announce the refusal of the Bohemian petition. Among the ambassadors was the emperor's top diplomat, Enea Silvio Piccolomini. 4 The meeting was to be held in Prague, but had to be moved to Beneschau (Benesov) because of an outbreak of the plague in the capital. During their journey, the imperial ambassadors took the opportunity to visit the Hussite centre in Tabor, and in this context Piccolomini formed an understanding of the Hussite movement and its cause which would be useful to him on later occasions. 5 He also had a long conversation with the Bohemian governor, Georg Podiebrad. 6 The governor impressed him as an intelligent politician with whom it might be possible to reach an understanding for the improvement of relations between Bohemia and the papacy, and specifically regarding the thorny question of communion under both species.

Piccolomini gave a vivid description of his contacts with Podiebrad and the Hussites in a long letter to Cardinal Juan Carvajal of 21 August 1451. 7 In the letter, he wrote only briefly about the main business of the imperial embassy, stating that when it arrived in Beneschau, he had -over three days -meetings with various personalities and groups from the Bohemian nobility. The nobles were persuaded to have a later meeting with an apostolic legate, Cardinal Nikolaus of Kues, concerning religious issues, viz. the Hussite schism. Concerning Ladislaus, Piccolomini did not mention his own oration, but only wrote that the meeting was held for the sake of the embassy and so that each party, i.e. the Bohemians and the emperor, would understand the position of the other. 1

In the first version of his Historia Austrialis from late 1453/beginning of 1454, 2 i.e. two or three years later, Piccolomini wrote about the events in Beneschau:

In the meantime, the Bohemians, as is their custom when they have to act in common, summoned a meeting in Prague, but when the plague broke out they moved it to Beneschau. It was rumoured that they would petition the emperor to send Ladislaus to their kingdom and that they would elect another king if their request was refused. The emperor sent legates to soften their agitated minds. We ourselves were among the legates. ... There, the imperial legates were heard and with kind words they put an end to all the excitement. 3 4 In the second/third version of the Historia Austrialis from 1455-1458 5 Piccolomini wrote:

In the meantime, the Bohemians, as is their custom when they have to act in common, summoned a meeting in Prague, but when the plague broke out they convened in Beneschau. It was rumoured that they would petition the emperor for their king and that they would elect another king if their request was refused. As this would be an impediment to the emperor's journey to Italy, ambassadors 6 were sent. They were Enea, Bishop of Siena, Prokop, 7 a Bohemian knight, and two noblemen from Austria. Their task was to soften the agitated minds of the Bohemians so that they would not prematurely ask for the boy who could not at the time be of any profit to the kingdom. .... There, the imperial legates were 1 WO, III, I, p. 28: Quia vero conventus ille nostri causa tenebatur, ut videret quae cesar ad petitiones regni responderet, fuimus tribus diebus in tractatu cum eis quartaque demum die et illi nostram intentionem ad ultimum intellexerunt et nos illorum propositum cognovimus dimissumque concilium est 2 HA, I, p. xvii 3 Dum haec aguntur, Bohemi suo more de verbis [rebus] acturi communibus conventum apud Pragam indixere, sed cum ibi pestis crassaretur, ad Villam, quam Benedicti appellant, convenere. Fama erat eos Ladislaum petituros ad regnum mitti; nisi obtinerent, alium regem quesituros. Eo missi legati a cesare sunt, qui feroces eorum animos lenirent. Nos quoque inter eos fuimus... Ibi legati caesaris auditi benigne omnem turbam amoverunt. 4 HA, I, pp. 99-100. The editors point out that according to the acts of the diet, the estates were not satisfied with Piccolomini's vague promises on the emperor's behalf, but sent new petitions to the emperor, cf. also Palacky: Geschichte, 4, 1, p. 267 ff, 500 5 HA, I, p. xx 6 Heinrich Truchses and Albrecht von Ebersdorf, cf. Palacky: Würdigung, p. 244 7 Prokop von Rabstein, friend and former colleague of Piccolomini heard, and with kind words they put an end to all the excitement. The Bohemians should wait until Ladislaus attained his majority and not doubt that he would come to them first 1 when he was released from the wardship. The mission won the favour of the Bohemians who asked for the king more out of a sense of duty than because they really wanted it. 2 In another work, the Historia Bohemica, which he finished in the summer 1458, shortly prior to his election as pope, 3 Piccolomini wrote:

But when Friedrich had decided to travel to Italy to receive the imperial crown, the Bohemians, the Hungarians, and the Austrians again sent embassies to the emperor, putting pressure on him and demanding Ladislaus. All their demands were denied. The Bohemians were to hold an assembly on this question in Prague, and they appeared to be very upset and wanting to elect another king unless their demands were met. The emperor decided to send legates to them, adding us to their number. The representatives from the provinces had been summoned to Prague, but as the plague broke out there, they met in Beneschau. Georg Podiebrad presided over their numerous assembly. We addressed them as follows: "You have requested of the emperor ... [here follows the text of the oration as given below]". The oration inspired confidence and was accepted favourably. Our colleague, Prokop made it even more acceptable as he translated it into their language for the benefit of those who did not understand Latin. Then we were asked to leave the assembly, but shortly afterwards we were called back and given this answer: "Thank the emperor for sending this embassy and for having stated his preference for the Bohemians over the others when the king will be released." They accepted the good counsel received. They would send young noblemen to join and serve the emperor on his journey to Italy. They 1 And not to the Hungarians who had rival claims on Ladislaus who was their king, too 2 HA, II, pp. 443-444: Inter haec Bohemi suo more de rebus acturi communibus conventum regni apud Pragam indicunt. Sed cum pestifera lues eo supervenisset, apud Villam quam Benedicti appellant, convenere. Fama fuit eos regem repetituros; nisi obtinerent, alium quesituros. Id caesaris iter in Italiam remorari videbatur. Mittuntur erga ad eos legati Aeneas episcopus Senensis, Procopius eques Bohemus et duo ex Austria viri nobiles, qui feroces lenirent animos, ne pupillum ante annos expeterent, dum nullo usui regno esse posset. Expectarent pubertatem neque dubitarent illum, cum dimitteretur, ad eos imprimis venturum. Grata hec legatio Bohemis fuit, quippe qui magis ex debito quam ex animo regem petebant 3 HB, I, p. 02 would await his return peacefully, and wished happiness, prosperity and the favour of Heaven on him. 1 2 Some years later, Piccolomini, now Pope Pius II, wrote in his Commentarii:

Meanwhile the Bohemians, after many vain efforts to get Ladislas for their king, convened a national council at Prague to discuss their affairs. They declared that unless Albert's son, the heir to the kingdom, was sent to them, they would choose another king for themselves. Aeneas was therefore despatched, together with several other noblemen, to meet with them. A terrible plague was then raging through Prague, so the council was transferred to the village of Beneschau. There Aeneas addressed a public assembly where he delivered a message from the emperor. He explained that the boy-king needed a guardian; he could be in no better hands than the emperor's; moreover, it would not be long before they saw their wishes fulfilled. This speech soothed their anger and they promised not to call anyone else to the throne. 3 One of Pius' two contemporary biographers, Campano wrote:

Immediately after his return to Friedrich he was sent to the Bohemians who would have taken up arms if he did not hurry. Ladislaus, King of Hungary and Bohemia, was still a young boy, being the son of Friedrich's brother. 4 Fear of plots as well as the fact that the boy was too young to govern and at risk of coming to harm caused Friedrich to keep him at court and to give him guards so that he would not be abducted. However, the Bohemians thought that it was an unworthy treatment of the boy to guard him and keep him away from his paternal kingdom. Therefore they threatened to gather troops and go to war unless they were given a proper explanation why the emperor did as he did. [In his oration 4 He was not the son of Friedrich's brother, but of his cousin, Albrecht II especially referred to the danger of poison which actually, due to a Bohemian plot, killed the boy some years after when he had been sent off by his uncle. 1 2 And Platina, the other contemporary biographer, wrote: When he returned to the emperor, he was immediately sent as ambassador to Bohemia to settle a conflict which had arisen between him and the Bohemians. When the Bohemians had been pacified... 3 In his Würdigung der alten böhmischen Geschichtschreiber from 1830, Franz Palacky examined the oration on the basis of documents kept in the Wittingauer Archive. 4 One of the documents was a translation (in his own hand) of the oration into Bohemian by Prokop von Rabstein who acted as Piccolomini's interpreter at the assembly. This translated version differs significantly from the text of the oration as given by Piccolomini, see below. It begins with a praise of peace in general, based on a quotation from Isaiah, 5 and continues with a praise of the willingness of the estates to recognize Ladislaus as their king. Then it communicates the emperor's refusal to hand over Ladislaus, justifying it with the boy's tender age. Finally, it promises that the emperor's wardship over the boy-king will only last some years more, and that the emperor will send him to Bohemia first, before Austria and Hungary.

According to Palacky the estates were dissatisfied with this vague answer and demanded a written statement concerning the length of the wardship and guarantees that it would not be extended.

In his written reply, Piccolomini referred to the rules of the House of Habsburg concerning wardship over princes in their minority. As for a guarantee that the prince would be sent first to Bohemia, he could only point to the emperor's own promise.

1 Zimolo, pp. 19-20: Extemplo ubi ad Federicum pervenit, ad Boemos mittitur, arma sumpturos nisi properasset. Cum enim Ladislaum Pannoniae ac Boemia regem admodum puerum fratris filium Federicus metu insidiarum et quod regno immaturo adhuc esset atque injuriae obnoxius apud se educaret, adhibitis custodibus ne clam subduceretur, Boemi indignum rati custodiri accersirique a regno patrio regem, coactis copiis bellum, nisi dimitteret, comminabantur. Horum conatus statim compescuit, ratione adhibita cur ita fieri oporteret, maxime iniecto metu veneni, quo paucis post annis dimissus a patruo puer fraude boemica absumptus est 2 The causes of Ladislaus's death in Prague, at the age of 18 are not known except that he died of a sudden illness. Pius certainly thought -and wrote -that he had died by poisoning, suspecting the regent, Georg Podiebrad, of the deed 3 Zimolo, p. 102: Ad Caesarem tandem reversus, ab eo statim orator in Bohemiam mictitur, ad tollendam omnem controversiam, que inter eum et Bohemos orta erat. Pacata Bohemia ... 4 Archiv Cesky, II, 303-309; Palacky: Würdigung, p. 244; Geschichte, p. 268 5 Isaiah, 32, 8. Cf. Palacky: Geschichte, p. 267, i.e. peace. Interestingly, Piccolomini himself re-used this quotation from Isaiah 9 months afterwards, in the oration "Moyses vir Dei" [19], to Pope Nicolaus V Upon this, the estates sent a new petition to the emperor, demanding a more precise answer, and threatening with violence if their demands were not met.

Palacky concluded that the divergence between the documents examined by him and Piccolomini's own reports from the meeting undermines Piccolomini's credibility: his arguments concerning the financial state of the kingdom, the political problems connected with the appointment of a regent during the king's minority, and the threats to elect another king were irrelevant in view of earlier promises and guarantees made by the Bohemians to the emperor. Also Piccolomini's remarks concerning the success of his mission were evidently untrue. 1 In his Geschichte von Böhmen, from 1857, Palacky gave a similar, but more measured account of the events in Beneschau. 2 Georg Voigt (1862) based his description of the imperial embassy to the Bohemians on the studies of Palacky and concluded that Piccolomini's own report was a lie and that the text of his oration inserted in the Historia Bohemica was pure phantasy, 3 and he repeated Palacky's contention that the text of the oration as reported by Piccolomini himself was both unsuitable and insulting to the Bohemians.

The observations of Palacky, as taken up by Voigt, raise the question which version of the oration, the one in the Historia Bohemica or the one as translated by Prokop von Rabstein is the correct one.

Concerning this issue, the following observations may be made: Firstly, Piccolomini usually revised the texts of his orations after they had been delivered. Mostly, the changes were of vocabulary and style, and rarely of substance. There is no doubt that Piccolomini himself thought he had an author's right to make such revisions and that he considered the last, revised version as the final literary product -notwithstanding the fact that the text of the original version would be the proper historical document. If he had revised the text of the "Petivistis" before inserting it into the Historia Bohemica he would simply be following his own pattern of literary production, and only if he had changed it substantially would he really merit any criticisms by historians.

Secondly, since it is clear and well documented that Piccolomini gave an oration -or at least made some kind of address -in Beneschau in 1451, the text of this oration or address must have existed before the writing of the Historia Bohemica in 1458. Indeed, the text of the oration is extant individually and outside the context of the Historia in a humanist collective manuscript, the Cod. 3471 of the Österreichische Nationalbibliotek, ff. 13f-13v. There are only very small discrepancies between that text and the text in the Historia, but they are there and indicate a very slight revision of the text before its publication as part of the Historia. Theoretically, it may have been the other way round: the text in the collective manuscript may have been copied from the Historia with some minute changes of style, but this is less credible, for why would Piccolomini revise the text after it had been published in the Historia Bohemica?

Thirdly, Piccolomini himself stated, in the Historia, that in translating his text Prokop had revised it so that it would be more palatable, suitable and pleasing to Bohemian ears: Prokop, our colleague, made it even more acceptable when he translated it into their language for the benefit of those who did not understand Latin.1 It is not easy to understand why Palacky and Voigt disregarded this remark by Piccolomini, as it clearly documents Piccolomini's awareness -and indeed his acceptance -that the text as translated by Prokop not only differed somewhat from his own, but that it was also more acceptable to the Bohemians.

Fourthly, the assertions of Palacky and Voigt that Piccolomini's mission was not the success that he himself claimed it to be also merit consideration. The fact that the Bohemians sent a new petition to the emperor asking for guarantees concerning the length of his wardship may be considered as the sign of a not unmitigated success. But Piccolomini's satisfaction with the results of his mission would probably not be caused by the immediate effects of his oration with regard to the wardship, but by the general results of his negotiations with Georg Podiebrad and others. Indeed, it is quite reasonable to assume that these negotiations were essential to the establishment of an understanding between Podiebrad and the emperor which would result in the emperor's acceptance of Podiebrad's appointment as full regent, gubernator, of the Kingdom of Bohemia in 14522 and in Podiebrad's support of the emperor in his conflict with the Austrians in that same year -though events then moved so fast and were handled so ineptly by the emperor that Podiebrad could not reach Wiener Neustadt in time to aid the emperor militarily, had he really wanted to. 3 This view is supported by later historians.

In 1905, Adolf Bachman wrote:

Jetzt in Beneschau suchte er [Piccolomini] in klug berechnender Darlegung und mit dringenden Vorstellungen die böhmischen Stände zu weiterem geduldigen Zuwarten, bis der junge Ladislaus mündig wäre, zu bewegen, und sonst den römischen König, seinen Herrn, gegen alle die verschiedenen Anklagen zu verteidigen, die auf dem Landtage erhoben wurden. 1 In his Geschichte Böhmens, the modern historian, Jörg K. Hoensch wrote, in 1987:

Zu den im Juli 1451 in Beneschau (Benesov) geführten Verhandlungen wurde auch der päpstliche legat Eneas Silvius Piccolomini 3 (Verfasser einer Historia Bohemiae und als Pius II. von 1458 -1464 Papst) hinzugezogen; sie erbrachten immerhin eine gewisse Annäherung der Positionen, so dass sich Friedrich III. zur Anerkennung Georgs als "Gubernator Böhmens" bis zur Regierungsfähigkeit Ladislavs bereit erklärte." 4 Georg Podiebrad's modern historian, Frederick G. Heymann, in his description of Piccolomini's mission to Bohemia and his negotiations at the meeting in Beneschau, states that Piccolomini could inform the King that his refusal to release Ladislav before the boy's having come of age, reiterated in an elaborate address which he, Aeneas, had presented to the Czech diet, had met with little serious protest, owing essentially to the help given by George. Probably he had emphasized his impression that George was a man of growing strength, and not a fanatic but one with whom it would be possible to negotiate. Thus the King was now more ready than before to grant George's factual leadership of the Czech nation his recognition. 5 In conclusion, the text of the "Petivistis" may quite reasonably be assumed to be identical with or or very similar to the text as delivered by Piccolomini in Latin at the meeting in Beneschau, and his mission may quite well be considered successful in as much it as it contributed to strengthening the understanding -or alliance -between the Bohemian regent and the emperor.

Themes

The main theme of the orations was the Bohemian demand for King Ladislaus' person and the emperor's refusal.

In his argumentation for the emperor's decision Piccolomini brings forward two sets of reasons: Sending the boy-king to Bohemia would not profit the Bohemians because, since he could not govern effectively,

• it would be necessary to set up of tutelary government with a number of political complications and rivalries as consequences.

• Moreover, the cost of establishing a royal court would be high and would have to be paid for by the Bohemians.

On the other hand, keeping the boy in the emperor's wardship was a quite reasonable course of action, since

• Ladislaus was still a very young boy,

• the emperor was his uncle and closest relative, and

• the emperor's preeminent position made him the most suitable guardian for an underage king.1

Finally, Piccolomini explicitly stated that the Bohemian threat to elect another king if Ladislaus was not sent to them was not credible and would therefore not impact on the emperor's decision. It must be kept in mind that Piccolomini had actually had political consultations with leaders and groups of the Bohemian nobility, including Georg Podiebrad, for three day before the session where he delivered his oration. It is difficult to believe that this highly experienced diplomat would not have good reasons for making such a statement publicly.

Date, place, audience and format

According to Palacky, the oration was delivered in the beginning of August, at Beneschau. 1 Piccolomini arrived in Beneschau on 18 July 2 and had three days of negotiations before delivering the oration. Therefore, the date of 22 July is probably more correct.

The audience was an assembly of Bohemian nobles, including Georg Poediebrad.

The format was an ambassadorial address on behalf of Emperor Friedrich III.

Text 3

The oration "Petivistis ex Caesare" was not included in the Collected Orations of Pius II, compiled in 1462 under his direct supervision. It is therefore not extant in the seven manuscripts containing that collection.

The text, however, is extant

• individually in a humanist Sammelhandschrift in Vienna, and • as part of the Historica Bohemica.

Individually

• Wien / Österreichische Nationalbibliothek 3471, ff. 13r-13v (W)

The text was not published by Mansi in his collection of Pius' orations, presumably because he did not have access to any manuscript containing the text.

It has been edited at least once, in

As part of the Historia Bohemica

Piccolomini also included the oration in his Historia Bohemica (HA), the standard edition of which will be undoubtedly be the edition by Hejnic and Rothe: In this edition are listed the manuscripts and former editions of the HA, cf. I, pp. 486-494

Present edition

For principles of edition (incl. orthography) and translation, see Collected Orations of Pope Pius II, vol. 1, ch. 9-10.

Text:

The edition is based on the manuscript in Vienna and the Historia Bohemica as edited by Hejnic & Rothe, with collation of Müller's edition.

Pagination

Pagination is from the manuscript in Vienna (W).

Disadvantages to the Bohemians had the request been accepted

[2] But let us imagine, for a moment, that Ladislaus were to come to Bohemia now: how would that benefit the kingdom? Would he dispense justice to litigants? Would he reform the state? Would he lead armies against the enemies? Would he be able to carry out the duties of war and peace? No, such things cannot be achieved by someone who himself requires a governor. If he came, this is what would happen first of all: royal splendour would be restored, the palace would be lavishly refurbished, court officers would be appointed, and a royal court would be established after the pattern of the king's ancestors. For this, huge sums would be needed. But I hear that you have no treasury, and that there is no income from taxes and customs. So, you would have to rely on your own resources: you would have to pay the costs yourselves; you would have to ensure the upkeep of the king and satiate the insatiable court and ministers.

4. Bohemian threats to elect another king not taken seriously [6] Your ambassadors have talked about finding another king. 1 The emperor considers that this was said in order to scare him, not because you really mean it: your unbroken loyalty until now makes that course very unlikely. It would also be quite inappropriate in view of the benefits bestowed upon you by Ladislaus' ancestors, and quite unmerited by someone of his innocent age. Besides you should, as wise men, carefully consider whom you would prefer to Ladislaus. As you are aware, his mother´s family has produced four Roman emperors. And if you look at his father's family, the House of Austria has held the imperial dignity five times. Anybody who is not satisfied by such fame and nobility must of necessity seek out obscurity. To this must be added the power, the friendships and the clienteles. He has Austria, your neighbour. Moravia and Silesia obey him. And though the Hungarians may be considering a change of regime, they will remain loyal. The emperor, on whom your kingdom depends, will support his own blood and defend the rights of his own family. The dukes of Bavaria and Saxony, the margraves of Brandenburg and almost all the princes of Germany are closely related to Ladislaus. If this orphan boy is molested, all of Germany is molested, too.

Conclusion

[7] I do not doubt that it is quite superfluous to remind you of these things, but this is what the emperor has commanded me to say. He will bring his ward with him to Italy. When Ladislaus comes back and attains his majority, the emperor will send him to you first -if you remain loyal to him. In the meantime, he admonishes you to gravely and sincerely look after the interests of the Kingdom of Bohemia and its orphan king.

Table of volumes in Collected Orations of Pope Pius II. 12 vols. Edited and translated by Michael von Cotta-Schönberg Table of contents

	I.	INTRODUCTION
		1.	Context
		2.	Themes
		3.	Date, place, audience and format
		4.	Text
			4.1. Individually
			4.2. As part of the Historia Bohemica
			4.3. Present edition
		5.	Sources
		6.	Bibliography
		7.

  At cum Fridericus imperialis coronae suscipiende gratia Italiam petere statuisset, rursus Bohemi, Hungari et Austriales legationibus seorsum missis imperatorem fatigavere Ladislaum reposcentes. Postulata omnibus negata sunt. Ad Bohemos, qui ea de re conventum Prage habituri erant ac ferocius agere videbantur regem alium electuri, nisi mos eis gereretur, legatos mittere placuit, quibus et nos additi sumus. Provinciales, quibus apud Pragam dies statuta fuerat, crassante illic peste, in Beneschavia convenere. Quos in frequenti conventu presidente Georgio Pogiebratio in hunc modum allocuti sumus: "Petivistis ex Caesare [here follows the oration as given below]." Vero similis oratio visa neque sine favore excepta est. Acceptiorem Procopius, noster collega, reddidit, qui patrio sermone latine lingue ignaris verba nostra interpretatus est. Iussi sumus ex conventu paululum abire. Mox revocatis responsum datum: Reddite imperatori gratiae, qui eam legationem misisset atque in dimittendo rege Bohemos preferre ceteris. Accipere se bene consulta consilia. Missuros ex nobilitate sua primarios juvenes, qui cesarem Italiam petentem sequantur eique ministrant. Expectaturos quiete reditum, quem felicem faustumque superum benignitate futurum exoptent 2 HB, I, pp. 486-496

Aeneas] 1 3 CO, I, 21, 2 (Meserve, I, p. 101)

  Unverkennbar hatte er sich dabei der indirekten Förderung Podiebrads zu erfreuen. Die Stände wiederholten ihren Wunsch, den jungen König bald in ihrer Mitte zu haben, ohne die gewohnten Drohungen. ... Man darf es wohl in gewissem Masse dem Berichte Enea's, freilich auch dem Drange der Sachlage zuschreiben, wenn König Friedrich, im Begriffe seine Romfahrt zu unternehmen, bald darauf selbst die böhmischen Stände aufforderte, Georg von Podiebrad, den er mit der Verwaltung des Königreichs betraut habe, in dieser Würde anzuerkennen, so wie er schon vordem die oberste Gewalt im Königreiche Ungarn dem Kriegshelden Johannes Hunyadi überlassen hatte. 2

•

  Aeneas Silvius Piccolomini: Historia Bohemica. Herausg. J. Hejnic & H. Rothe. 2 vols. Köln, 2005 [with a parallel translation into German]

Oratio Aeneae, episcopi Senensis, jussu Friderici Caesaris, ad Bohemos Ladislaum regem postulantes 1

  [1] {13r} Petivistis ex Caesare, viri Bohemi, Ladislaum, quondam regis 2 vestri filium, ad vos mitti. Idem Hungari, idem Austriales importunis precibus exigunt. Si vobis mos geritur, illos offendere necesse est. Si preces aliorum audiantur, contemnere vestras oportet. Si necessarium sit alterum ex duobus, vestram amicitiam praeferret 3 imperator. Vetus est enim majorum suorum cum Bohemica gente foedus. Et acceptorum ultro citroque beneficiorum memoria recens. Sin virtus claritasque pensitenda est, quis Bohemico nomini non invideat, cujus victorias tempestate nostra plures numerare licet, quam reliquae gentes omnibus saeculis comparare potuerint. Verum Caesari hoc tempore in hanc electionem haudquaquam necessarium descendendum 4 videtur, quando ea pueri aetas est, quae neque vobis neque Hungaris usui esse potest.

1 Oratio … postulantes : AEneae Sylvii Oratio ad Bohemos MU 2 quondam regis : regis quondam HB, MU

3

praeferet HB 4 haudquaquam … descendendum : descendere haudquaquam necessarium HB, MU Oration

of Enea Silvio, Bishop of Siena, at the command of Emperor Friderich, to the Bohemians requesting King Ladislaus 1. Emperor's 1 refusal to release the boy king Ladislaus from his wardship [

  1] Men of Bohemia, you have requested of the emperor that Ladislaus, 2 son of your former king,3 be sent to you. But the Hungarians and the Austrians make the same insistent requests. So, if the emperor agrees to your request, he must of necessity offend the others. And if the emperor agrees to the requests of the others, he must set aside yours. Should he have to choose between these alternatives, the emperor would prefer his friendship with you because of the old alliance between his ancestors and the people of Bohemia, and because of the memory of mutual services in recent times. And if we look at courage strength, and fame, all must envy the Bohemians who in our time have won more victories than other peoples have ever done. But the emperor considers that it is not necessary to make such a choice at this time since the boy is too young to be useful to you as well as to the Hungarians.[2] Esto, veniat in Bohemiam Ladislaus: quod inde regno emolumentum cedet? Illene jus litigantibus dicet? Statum reipublicae reformabit? Adversus hostes copias ducet? Belli pacisve munera obibit? Nihil horum praestare potest, cui rectore 1 opus est. Illud in primis ejus adventus faciet: regis pompa ducenda est, ornanda regia, adhibendi ministri, curia more progenitorum apparanda. Ad haec grandi pecunia opus. Vobis nullum aerarium esse audio, nullos census, nulla vectigalia publica. Ad vestras igitur opes recurrendum. Vos praestare sumptus; vos regem alere; vos inexplebilem curiam et insatiabiles ministros explere oportebit.

Palacky: Würdigung, pp.

244-246 2 Palacky: Geschichte, IV, 1, pp. 266 ff.3 Voigt, II, p. 27: Nun hat Enea in seine böhmische Geschichte eine Rede hineinphantasiert, and later: Dieser Bericht wäre also eine Lüge

HB, I, Acceptiorem Procopius, noster college, reddidit, qui patrio sermon latine lingue ignaris verba nostra interpretatus est

Hoensch, p. 157

See Palacky's own observation in eschichte,IV, 1, pp. 265,[288][289] 302, 305, 311

In a note Bachmann here refers, i.a., to Piccolomini's "angebliche Rede"

Bachmann, II, p. 423

At this conference Piccolomini represented the emperor, not the pope

Hoensch, p. 157. See alsoSeibt, p.

540-5415 Heymann, p. 53

These arguments were developed further by Piccolomini in his oration against the Austrian insurgents against the emperor, the oration "Sentio"[20]

Palacky: Würdigung, p.

 2 Heymann, p. 503 Concerning the textual transmission of Pius II´s orations, see Collected orations of PopePius, vol. 1, ch. 5

Friedrich III (Habsburg) (1415-1493): Duke of Austria (as Friedrich V) from 1424. Elected King of Germany and Holy Roman Emperor in 1440, crowned in Rome in 1452

Ladislaus the Posthumous (Habsburg) (1440 -1457): Archduke of Austria from 1440, King of Hungary from 1444 and King of Bohemia from 1453 until his death

Albrecht II of Habsburg (Habsburg) (1397-1439): Archduke of Austria. King of Hungary and Croatia from 1437. Uncrowned King of Bohemia. Elected Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire in 1438, but died the next year

recte tutela MU

If the emperor would not hand over Ladislaus

Sources

This oration is devoid of references to biblical, classical and other authors.