Income and expenditures of the Hungarian Royal Chamber during the first ruling years of King Vladislaus Jagiellon: Analysis of an accounting register from the years 1494-1495

At the very end of the Middle Ages, the accounts kept at the court of the Hungarian sovereigns, along with most of the Hungarian royal archives, were destroyed. Unfortunately, only fragments of the originally rich material are available today. By far the most important source from this group is traditionally considered to be the rare preserved income and expenditure account of the Hungarian king, namely the kingdom, from 1494-1495, the original of which is now stored in the National Szechenyi Library in Budapest, Hungary. The manuscript contains an overview of the income of Hungarian throne for the two accounting periods and a concurrent inventory of the ruler court‘s expenditure, with a final balance sheet written by an official of the Hungarian royal treasurer, Bishop Sigismund Ernuszt of Pecs. The aim of the study will be to present, at least in general, the source - well known especially to Hungarian historians - and the interpretative pitfalls associated with it. The importance of the accounting register from 1494-1495 is also illustrated by the fact that it has recently been published twice in the form of a source critical edition (Kozak 2019; Neumann 2019).

Until recently, the income and expenditure account of the Hungarian royal treasury from 1494-1495 generally served as a source documenting the decline in royal income after the death of Matthias Corvinus and the takeover of the government by the new Jagiellonian dynasty (see, e.g. Soltesz 1905; Fogel 1913, pp. 13-28; Hermann 1975). However, as Tibor Neumann (2019, pp. 8-25, 50-67) has newly shown with a detailed analysis of preserved accounting and other related sources, reality was much more complicated. In order to understand the interpretative potential and limits of the surviving accounting register, the following questions need to be asked: 1. What is the manuscript, what were the circumstances of its origin (including the general historical context)? 2. What did the structure of the income of Hungarian kings in the second half of the 15th centurylook like? 3. Which of these royal incomes were registered (and which were not) in the surviving register? The idea that the account book from 1494-1495 sums up all the income (and expenditure) of the Kingdom of Hungary and the Hungarian royal court, which can be easily summed up to provide an uncomplicated picture of the financial condition of the late medieval Hungarian state, seems hardly sustainable in light of the newest findings.

The system of financial management of the Kingdom of Hungary, as it operated in the mid-1490s, was the result of reforms enforced during the reign of King Matthias Corvinus. Their aim was to maximize the income part of the sovereign’s budget (Kalous 2009, pp. 90-4). The chief architect of the renovation of the financial and tax system was John Ernuszt, a Viennese Jew, and from the mid-15th century, a Buda burgher who worked his way up to head of the office of Hungarian royal treasurer (thesaurarius). The above-mentioned Sigismund Ernuszt, bishop of Pecs and royal treasurer of Hungary from 1494-1496, was one of his sons. The treasurer's office was directly subordinated to the ruling monarch; during the reign of Matthias Corvinus, the influence of the estates on its operation was greatly reduced. It was an extensive, centralized institution at the end of the Middle Ages. The royal treasurer had a vice-treasurer (vicethesaurarius) at his disposal, a number of scribes, secretaries, and accountants. He also used the services of a system of tax collectors (in numbers approaching one to two hundred persons). Collectors (dicatores proventuum) were sent, usually in twos, to individual counties that formed the backbone of the kingdom’s administrative system. In addition to the office of the central treasury, ispans of salt, mining and coin chambers, as well as crown tax administrators, that is thirtieth (tricesima, tricesimatores), which was a fixed customs duty on foreign trade, were under the authority of the treasurer. Research has so far identified a total of 450 officials who were in the service of the Hungarian royal treasurer between 1458 and 1500 (Kubinyi 1957, p. 29).

We can reasonably assume that the accounting system introduced during the office of the Hungarian royal treasurer was quite sophisticated, and that besides the main accounting records there were numerous, variously extensive specialized registers (e.g. Neumann 2019, pp. 20, 62), as it was around 1500 in Jagiellonian Poland, for example (Kozak 2014, pp. XV-XIX; Boldyrew & Boldyrew 2014). Unfortunately, we can only get an idea of what it was like thanks to a few preserved pieces of accounting records. The extent of the preservation of the accounting sources associated with the operation of the Hungarian royal court was fundamentally affected by a catastrophe in 1526, during which almost the entire (medieval) archive of Hungarian rulers was destroyed. After the Battle of Mohacs, when the young Jagiellonian King Louis fell on the run, the country plunged into chaos. Queen Maria of Habsburg had the most valuable archive, including the Hungarian crown archive, loaded onto ships to protect everything essential in the northwest of the country in Bratislava, which was, as it was judged, outside the reach of the Ottoman sultan’s troops. Unfortunately, somewhere in the bend of the Danube near Esztergom, the ship with the archive sunk to the bottom of the river. Written documents of royal authorities from before 1526 have thus mostly been preserved in the archives of recipients - church institutions, towns, aristocratic family archives - and authorities with notarial powers (Kalous 2009, pp. 94-6). From the presumed extensive, internally structured accounting agenda of the Hungarian royal treasurer (or for the older period of its institutional predecessors), only one comprehensive volume of accounting records was preserved from the time when the Hungarian royal treasury was headed by Bishop Sigismund Ernuszt. This is the aforementioned volume documenting royal income and expenditures for the years 1494-1495. Only a fraction of accounting records from 1525 and 1526 is available today, which treasurer Alexius Thurzo was in charge of managing (Engel 1809; Fraknoi 1877). In addition, a balance sheet from the years 1522-1523 is available to researchers; this is from when the personally absent Jagiellonian King Louis, who was in the Bohemian lands at the time, was represented by Palatine Stephen Batori (C. Toth 2010, pp. 231-58).

The oldest completely preserved (covering two complete accounting periods) account, recording the income and expenditure of the Hungarian crown, and thus the Hungarian monarch and his court, is represented by the register from 1494 to 1495, when Pecs Bishop Sigismund Ernuszt, son of John Ernuszt, architect of financial administration reform from the time of King Matthias Corvinus, was in charge of the operation of the Hungarian royal treasury. This account book was preserved thanks to a combination of lucky coincidences. An important coincidence is that the account register is not likely to have been deposited in the royal archives as other volumes arising from the activities of the royal treasury. It is not a ‘standard’ product of a continually maintained accounting agenda, but rather a retroactively (artificially) created cartulary of a certain portion of royal income and expenses of the given accounting period, which was intended to serve primarily in the investigation of Sigismund Ernuszt and his deputy, vicetreasurer Emeric Dombai, accused in the summer of 1496 of extensive embezzlement of the monarchs’ finances. While the original register from the time of Ernuszt’s office as royal treasurer probably ended at the bottom of the Danube, a copy of it remained, which was most likely compiled, as convincingly demonstrated by Tibor Neumann (2019, p. 57), in just two to three weeks between mid-July and mid-August 1496.

The case of the fall of royal treasurer Sigismund Ernuszt has repeatedly attracted the attention of historians (recently, e.g. Kubinyi 2001, pp. 316-18; Fedeles 2011, pp. 34-7). Most recently, Tibor Neumann (2019, pp. 8-18, 50-60) attempted to analyse the events of the time. The basic outline of the story is roughly as follows. Sigismund Ernuszt, holder of an extraordinarily profitable bishopric, was one of the leading barons of the kingdom and a person close to the ruling monarch. At a certain point, he, Chancellor

Thomas Bakoc, and the first among Hungarian dignitaries, Palatine Stephen Szapolyai, became persons to whom the Hungarian estate society projected all the disagreements it had with the ruler. At the end of spring and the beginning of summer of 1496, the controversial moments focused primarily on the issue of the collection of certain taxes. The departure of Sigismund Ernuszt from the office of royal treasurer was in fact an attempt by the royal court to unblock negotiations and induce the estates gathered at the assembly to approve the collection of a special tax, namely the one-florin tax {contributio unius floreni). However, the monarch’s compromise did not lead to the desired goal. On the contrary, tensions increased, Bishop Ernuszt was accused by the nobility of misusing taxes already levied by the Hungarian assembly, and the accumulated frustration even resulted in a violent uproar in early July. In mid-July 1496, the King seemed to comply with the pressure of the nobility and instructed Bishop Ernuszt to present the accounts to prove that the tax collection and the use of the funds thus obtained was correct. The composition of the committee of inquiry, which was not exactly impartial to the accused, led to the accusation of Sigismund Ernuszt and his deputy (vice-treasurer) Emeric Dombai for the embezzlement of royal finances. King Vladislaus, who had little room for maneuver, had to sacrifice his servant in the end. Ernuszt and Dombai were arrested. Dombai, who was subsequently indicated as the chief architect of the embezzlement, was unable to pay his way out and remained imprisoned in the fortress of Timisoara. Ernuszt was interned at the Siklos Castle in Baranya County under the supervision of the ispan of Temes, Joseph Somi, and his rights (including property rights) concerning his clerical functions were suspended. However, he managed to negotiate a ransom for his release. Ludovicus Tubero mentioned the sum of 280,000 florins. Antonio Bonfini, a contemporary of the day, even mentioned a fabulous 400,000 florins. Both amounts are likely to be exaggerated but the cost of freedom was probably not negligible. Additionally, at the end of October 1496, the townspeople of Levoca informed the city council of Bardejov that Bishop Ernuszt was to set out on a journey to Buda with a caravan of nine wagons loaded with gold and valuables. After paying the fine, Sigismund Ernuszt was released, and he was also allowed to take charge of the administration of the diocese. However, until his death in 1505, he no longer held any royal office; his career at court was finished. At the time King Vladislaus strengthened his position, gaining finances as well as (in terms of an exemplary hard procedure) respect within the Hungarian estate society.

The foregoing indicates that there is one circumstance that must be considered essential, that is the fact that the preserved accounting register from 1494 to 1495 is not a list of all the income and expenditures of King Vladislaus. In fact, it is ‘only’ a record of income and expenditure of the monarch that: 1. Fell under the authority of the Hungarian royal treasurer; 2. Were also subject to the supervision of the Hungarian estates (Kozak

2019, pp. 22-3; Neumann 2019, pp. 18-19, 61). Therefore, the sum of the registered amounts with the subsequent income and expenditure balance sheet of the budget is by no means a reflection of the whole of the Kingdom’s fiscal potency, it merely captures one part, albeit a very significant part. This was already pointed out in the late 1950s by Andras Kubinyi, who also offered an analysis of the structure of the content of the account register. He also noted that, relatively (compared to the traditional estimates for the period of the reign of Matthias Corvinus), the lower amounts entering the royal treasury in 1494-1495 reflect the fact that, despite the assumptions supported by the suggestive title ‘Registrum omnium proventuum regalium’, it does not record all the financial sources of the monarch and their management (Kubinyi 1958, pp. 46-8).

Ernuszt’s codex is therefore no more than an account of taxes approved by the Hungarian estates, which fell within the jurisdiction of the royal treasurer. Moreover, it is a secondary compilation from other accounts kept during the office of the treasurer for the purposes of the commission, whose task was to investigate the economy of the use of tax funds, the collection of which was subject to the consent of the Hungarian assembly. It was not by chance that the one-florin tax was at the centre of interest, because King Vladislaus’s (repeated) demand for its approval by the estates triggered a wave of displeasure in the spring and summer of 1496, and became, as we already know, a formal cause to charge tax officers with embezzlement. It was also the record of the one-florin tax that largely determined the structure of the analysed account book, as the register is divided into two main, unequally extensive blocks corresponding to two ‘accounting years’. The first year began on 30 January 1494, on the day of the appointment of Bishop Ernuszt to the office of royal treasurer, and ended on 15 July 1495. The second year started after this date and ended with the end of 1495. While the first ‘year’ lasted about a year and a half, the second ‘year’ was only about six months. The reason was, as Tibor Neumann pointed out, the mechanism of collection and processing of the one-florin tax. The second one-florin tax during Ernuszt’s term of office was approved by the Hungarian assembly in June 1495, with the first income from it expected after 15 July 1495. This was the reason for the start of a new ‘accounting year’. Similarly, the third approved one-florin tax from the time of Ernuszt’s office (which could not yet be concluded at the time of the bishop’s investigation) was approved by the estates in October 1495, with the fact that it was to be collected after 1 January 1496. This is why the second ‘accounting year’ ended with the end of the calendar year of 1495. ‘Accounting years’ are therefore an artificial element created for the purpose of compiling a register for the needs of the investigating estates commission (Kozak 2019, pp. 22-3; Neumann 2019, pp. 19-21, 61-3). The issue that makes it difficult to interpret the data in the register is that according to the logic of the administration of the one-florin tax, royal treasury clerks also included other categories of income and expenditure in the codex within one or another ‘accounting year’, guided by the effort to balance the income and expenditure side for each of the two separate accounting periods. This often disrupted the chronological sequence of recorded data and the natural link between certain income and expenditure items. Moreover, the day-to-day running of the treasury did not make any distinction between money that came from income approved by the estates and funds that the monarch obtained from other sources. Since it was not always technically possible to separate the two groups, from time to time the surviving register also contains royal income whose collection was not under the influence of the estates. However, the record of this income is fundamentally random and unsystematic in the preserved source (Neumann 2019, pp. 22M, 64-6).

As in other European monarchies of the period under review, the incomes of Hungarian monarchs can be divided into two basic groups: 1. Taxes, the collection of which was subject to the consent of the estates; 2. Regular royal income, the collection and utilization of which was not influenced by the estates. The mentioned one-florin tax, which was levied by the nobility from Hungary and Transylvania, fell under the first group at the end of the 15th century. The core of the one-florin tax was the older direct tax (lucrum cameras) levied from a precisely specified number of tax units - serf gates (porta). In the case of Slavonia, however, ravaged in the first half of the 1490s with domestic wars, mainly by repeated Ottoman raids, the tax burden was lower; only half a florin, that is the half-florin-tax (contributio medii floreni) was paid from a predefined number of serf gates. The first group included a special tax of Transylvania Saxons and the urban extraordinary tax. The second group consisted of a mix of income, which included ordinary royal taxes from cities, a regular tax from Saxon cities in Transylvania (census), profits of the royal treasury from salt and coin chambers and ore mining, twentieth (vigesima), thirtieth (tricesima) and the Transylvania fiftieth (quin-quagesima), taxes levied by specific ethno-political units of the Cumans and Jazygians, and finally, income that the monarch had from his own royal domains (Kalous 2009, pp. 92-4; Neumann 2019, pp. 21-2, 63-4).

The register therefore records the one-florin tax and the half-florin-tax, collected and accounted for in the years 1494-1495. The first ‘accounting year’ also registered income from royal cities (particularly the extraordinary tax), amounts levied for the king from Transylvania by Saxons and Szekelys, money paid to the treasury from the Jews (taxa ludeorum), or additional payments from the previous accounting period. The provisor of Buda sent a one-off amount collected from the Cumans and the Jazygians, which basically substituted the one-florin tax, by which the Cumans and the Jazygians were set free. In the second ‘accounting year’, income other than from the one-florin tax is almost absent (a total of eight records are the sum of all possible income that cannot be broken down into coherent chapters). While in the first ‘accounting year’ the one-florin tax accounted for more than half of the income recorded in the register, in the second ‘accounting year’ it represented almost the entire income component of the monarch’s budget. However, we must reiterate that the surviving register only records part of the income, namely that which the Hungarian estates had the right to control and which fell under the authority of the Hungarian royal treasurer. This means that all the king’s income from Croatia and the rest of Dalmatia, sums managed by the captains of Senj and the provisors of Belgrade, or the ispan of Temes as the captain general of the Lower Parts, are missing, as the treasurer had no direct influence on their collection. Similarly, income that the monarch received from his own royal domains, administered for him by the provisor of Buda Castle, the castellan of Komarom and the castellan of Tata, was not under the immediate supervision of the royal treasurer. Tibor Neumann also pointed out that in addition to income received by the king in the form of payment in kind, some of the income managed by the royal treasurer was absent from the register - specifically income that the king had from the salt monopoly, mining and coinage (Neumann 2019, pp. 22, 64). These were not negligible amounts, as shown by research of the time of the reign of King Matthias Corvinus, when the average yields of salt, mining and coinage chambers amounted to up to 140,000 florins (Kalous 2009, p. 93).

Income that was subject to control by the estates and fell under the jurisdiction of the Hungarian royal treasurer was estimated in the preserved register by authorized officials from the royal treasury at 197,484 and a half florins in the first, and 136,634 florins in the second ‘accounting year’. In total, the amount slightly exceeded the sum of 313,939 florins in the period 1494-1495. Just the one-florin tax accounted for 106,158 and a half florins in the first ‘accounting year’, and 125,629 florins in the second. The system of accounting records was not particularly complicated, the income and expenditure components were free of complicated rubrication and originally appeared to form a simple series of chronologically ordered entries. A higher degree of formalization of records de facto only occurs in the case of the record of the one-florin tax, or the half-florin-tax (for Slavonia). In this case, the scribe rubricated the sections according to individual counties (Slavonia and Transylvania were treated collectively). Each ‘county account’ had a fixed structure: 1. Planned amount of the tax; 2. Sums actually levied to the royal treasury (after deducting the costs of the salaries of the county staff); 3. Settlement of the said remuneration for collectors and county court and administrative officials; 4. Record of unpaid tax with a brief explanation of why it was not paid. In addition to actually levied sums (see above), we therefore also have ideal expectations of the collection of the one-florin tax and half-florin-tax. For the first ‘accounting year’, the treasury office planned a tax revenue of 206,585 florins, and up to 219,586 florins for the second year. The actual revenue of this tax authorized by the estates was thus de facto only half of the planned amount (namely 51% and 57% respectively). There are multiple reasons for this situation. The owners of some estates held royal documents that exempted them from paying the tax. The collection of part of the tax was delegated directly to other persons as a form of payment of their claims against the royal treasury. Some of the taxpayers at the time were rebels against the royal authority. Others were unable to honour their obligations simply because their estates suffered from hold-outs of various armies in recent years. Antonin Kalous (2009, p. 94) offered the hypothesis that Vladislaus’s predecessor, King Matthias Corvinus, simply overstepped the kingdom’s fiscal policy and sucked the country dry, which naturally resulted in a decline in tax revenues after his death. It is true that the sums are not always perfect in the source, which can be attributed to the rush in which the register was compiled. However, we can undoubtedly get a basic idea of the amount of registered income.

Expenditure recorded in the 1494-1495 accounting register reveals the tendency of the compilers to show the dissatisfied estates that a substantial part of taxes approved by them were actually used by the monarch (and the royal treasurer) to defend the kingdom against an internal and external enemy, and as compensation for important representatives of the estates society, including the Hungarian palatine, the voivode of Transylvania, or aristocrats at the head of the south Hungarian banates. A large part of the records is thus related to expenses for the operation and reconstruction of forts on the Hungarian-Ottoman border. However, they particularly document the course of military actions both against the Ottoman neighbour, and opposition lead by Bosnian Duke Lawrence Ujlaki. In November 1494, the army of King Vladislaus attacked the footholds of Ujlaki and his allies, in the middle of December, good-walled Ujlak (Ilok in present-day Croatia) was captured, where the monarch and his entourage publicly celebrated thereafter this military victory. In early 1495, Lawrence Ujlaki was besieged at the castle of Nemetujvar (Giissing in present-day Austria), where he surrendered in the hopeless situation. At the end of February 1495, he and other geneats had to humble themselves before the triumphant king (Fedeles 2012). Accounting records provide valuable information on ammunition and weapon supply (on land and water), and more generally logistics and tactical leadership of military campaigns. There is also evidence of accolades, in which young noblemen were awarded the title of knight. Details of the circumstances of the ceasefire with the Ottoman Empire, which occurred in the King’s presence in 1495 in Pecs, the residential city of Bishop Ernuszt (Baczkowski 1997, pp. 335-7), are also interesting. The variety of types of expenditure items is much more diverse, however. Among other things, the pages of the account book depict the daily government ‘functioning’ of the Hungarian-Bohemian Jagiellonian personnel union, because Vladislaus Jagiellon was not only a Hungarian (and Croatian) monarch, but also King of Bohemia. The income and expenditure balance sheet is passive. Expenditure exceeded income by 20-30 thousand florins (depending on the corrections of subtotals). However, this in itself does not say much about the real status of ‘state’ finances at the given time. The real (total) amount of Hungarian income of King Vladislaus was, as we know, different (higher). On the other hand, the expenditure was certainly also higher than that shown in the preserved accounting register. Caution is therefore appropriate.

The income and expenditure register of the King (Kingdom) of Hungary for the years 1494-1495, from January 1494 to the end of December 1495, is undoubtedly an extraordinary source in terms of its significance. At the same time, it is a tricky material whose interpretation is not always easy. It is not the product of a continuously maintained accounting agenda. In fact, it is a compilation of various (other) accounting registers, compiled by officials of the Hungarian royal treasury in the summer of 1496 in association with the investigation of the (then already former) royal treasurer Sigismund Ernuszt, accused by the Hungarian estates of financial embezzlement. Despite the suggestive title‘Registrum omnium proventuum regalium’, only some of the income and expenditure of the Hungarian monarch was recorded on the pages of the analysed account book. The records were adjusted multiple times to meet the need to present before the investigating estate commission the correct settlement of a key income item, namely the one-florin tax approved by them. The numerical data offered by the accounting source can therefore not be accepted separately and uncritically. The historical context and the knowledge that the 1494-1495 account book is a mere (albeit significant) piece of the mosaic is also a key factor here.


Baczkowski, K. (1997). Europa wobec problemu tureckiego w latach 1493-1495.

Studia Historyczne, 40, pp. 313-40.

Boldyrew, A. & Boldyrew, A. (2014). Royal bills as the source of the history of taste and food in Poland of the last Jagiellons. Basic sources and research possibilities. Piotrkowskie Zeszyty Historyczne, 15, pp. 11-27.

C.Toth, N., ed. (2010). Politikatorteneti forrdsok Bdtori Istvan elso helytartosdgdhoz (1522-1523). Budapest: Magyar Orszagos Leveltar.

Engel, J. Ch.,ed. (1809). Fragmentum libri rationarii super erogationibus aulae Regis Hungariae Ludovici II. de anno 1526. In Engel, J. Ch., ed. Monumenta Ungrica. Viennae: Antonins Doll, pp. 185-236.

Fedeles, T. (2011). “Eztdn Pecs tiinik szemunkbe”. A vdros kozepkori historidja (1009-1526). Pecs: Pro Pannonia.

Fedeles, T. (2012). A kirdly es a Idzado berceg. Az Ujlaki Lorinc es szovetsegesei elleni kirdlyi hadjarat (1494-1495). Szeged: Szegedi Kozepkorasz Muhely.

Fogel, J. (1913). II. Uldszlo udvartartdsa (1490-1516). Budapest: Magyar Tudomanyos Akademia.

Fraknoi, V., ed. (1877). IL Lajos kiraly szamadasi konyve (1525. januar 12—julius 16). Magyar Tbrtenelmi Tar, 22. Budapest: Magyar Tudomanyos Akademia, pp. 45-236.

Hermann, Zs. (1975). Ällamhäztartäs es a penz erteke a Mohäcs elo'tti Magyarorszägon (Megjegyzesek Thurzo Elek költsegvetesi elöiränyzatähoz). Szäzadok, 109, pp. 301-36.

Kalous, A. (2009). Matyäs Korvin (1443-1490). Uhersky a cesky krai. Ceske Budejovice: Veduta.

Kozäk, R, ed. (2014). Ucty dvora prince Zikmunda Jagellonskeho, vevody hlohovskeho a opavskeho, nejvyssiho hejtmana Slezska a Luzic, z let (1493) 1500-1507: Kritickä edice pramene. Rationes curiae Sigismundi lagellonici, ducis Glogoviensis et Opaviensis, Silesiae et Lusatiarum summi capitanei, de annis (1493) 1500-1507: Editio critica. Praha: Scriptorium.

Kozäk, P., ed. (2019). Ücty budinskeho dvora krdle Vladislava II. Jagellonskeho (1494-1495). Praha: Scriptorium.

Kubinyi, A. (1957). A kincstäri szemelyzet a XV. szäzad masodik feleben. Tanulmdnyok Budapest mültjäbol, 12, pp. 25-49.

Kubinyi, A. (1958). A kirälyi kincstartok oklevelado mü'ködese Mätyästdl Mohäcsig. Leveltäri Közlemenyek, 28, pp. 35-60.

Kubinyi, A. (2001). Ernuszt Zsigmond pecsi püspök rejtelyes haläla es hagyatekänak sorsa (A magyar igazsägszolgältatäs nehezsegei a közepkor vegen). Szäzadok, 135, pp. 301-61.

Neumann, T, ed. (2019). Registrum proventuum regni Hungariae. A Magyar Kirdlysäg kincstartojänak szämadäskönyve (1494-1495). Budapest: Magyar Tudomänyos Akademia.

Soltesz, G. (1905). Az 1494. es 1495. evi kirälyi szämadäsok müvelödestörteneti vonatkozäsai. Budapest: Barcza Jozsef.

< Prev   CONTENTS   Source   Next >