Settlement history
The settlement borders the Gömör-Tornai karst, and lies along the extensive pastures of the Keleti-Turóc valley. On the opposite north and northeast side, it is bordered by the Rőce Mountains and the Vas Hill, which, as part of the Gömör-Spiš Ore Mountains, was an area rich in minerals and raw materials. Its geographical characteristics allowed it to be the richest settlement in the area at an early stage and the favourable location unhindered its further successful development.
The first written mention of the settlement dates from 1243, in which it is revealed that Kövi and the nearing settlement of Licince (Lice) were written out from the estates of the castle of Gemer (Gömör) and were donated to Detre (Szár) and Philip, sons of Matthew. Based on this, as there are no earlier sources from the area, we can assume that the forming of the settlement could be dated to the second half of the 12th century.
The above-mentioned source from 1243 contains the perambulation, according to which at that time Kövi was the only settlement in the county with several smaller mining colonies on its border. According to the perambulation, in the 13th century Kövi was bordered on the west by the estates of the Zách family, Šivetice (Süvété) and Prihradzany (Kisperlász), on the south-east by the north-western border of Licince and on the south-west by Skerešovo (Szkáros). Its northern border extends all the way to the spring of the Eastern-Turóc stream, touching the borders of Ratkovské Bystré (Ratkóbisztra) and Revúca (Nagyrőce). Kövi incorporated a larger estate body, so the early settlement included the present-day settlements of Sirk (Szirk), Rákoš (Gömörrákos), Nandraž (Nandrás), and Turčok (Turcsok). Such a divaricated border could be already formed in the 12th century, but the territory might have been of importance earlier also. The borders of the settlement extended deep into the Rőcei Mountains to the east, about which a 1321 perambulation of Murány Castle informs us.
The extensive boundaries of the settlement suggest that it played a central role in the newly formed estate body attributed to Detre (Szár) and his brother, Philip. The north-western part of this large area was formed by the Kövi estates, which stretched all the way to the Rőce Mountains, to the southwestern part of the karst. We can learn about the prominent position of the settlement from a source dated 1273, from which we find out a lot not only about the early period of the settlement, but also about the history of the colonisations dating back to the 13th century and playing an important role in the development of the settlement. The diploma attests that in the same year Detre (Szár) invited foreign settlers to Kövi’s territory, who received outstanding rights from the landlord in exchange for a successful colonization. Deducing from the name of Herbord, the area’s later colonizer and magistrate of the settlement, we can assume that the new settlers were Germans who were given 50 acres of arable land including pastures and forests for each settlement created. In addition, the diploma shows that Detre’s aim was to make the best possible use of the south-western parts of his estates, with an emphasis on agricultural activity. Among the rights and obligations of the new settlers was that each settlement had to submit to the landowner an eighth of the annual church tax, so the new settlers were given the opportunity by the landlord to build their own church and elect their own priest. The latter privilege points out that the said decrees affected not only Kövi, but also all the newly established small settlements on its border. Less than 50 years later, north of Kövi, in addition to today’s Gömörrákos settlement, another village, Nandrás, was established. The village of Vigne was also considered a new settlement in the area, which, according to Bálint Ila, was in the area of today’s Leváre (Lévárt) settlement and was located south of Kövi and Držkovce (Deresk). Based on the etymology of the name of the settlement, which is certainly derived from the Slavic word vyhňa (blacksmith’s stove), it can be assumed that it might be one of the settlements engaged in mining activities, so it might have been located northwest of Kövi. Richard Marsina in his 1994 work places the village in this area, more precisely as one of the estates of Turcsok settlement.
Most certainly, due to the prioritised colonization measures and the improving economic situation, the former church of the settlement was rebuilt. The early church was probably built before 1273.
Detre (Szár) invited the new settlers to the western part of his estate at the same time when Nicholas, lord of Jolsva and Murány castles in the areas bordering Kövi to the north, became Lord Chief Justice in 1271, and at the same time Detre lost the battle fought for the lands of Süvéte and Perlász against Jób, bishop of Pécs. This was probably the reason he later expanded his estates towards the East-Turóc Valley, and started building his castle on the border of Rákos, to the north-west, not far from Kövi, thus strengthening the significance of the area in the centre of his extensive estates. Despite how much privilege the settlement received from Detre in the early period, it did not rise to town rank later.
It is clear from later written documents that the settlement of Kövi was the centre of the north-western estates of Detre (Szár) and his descendants. Between 1318 and 1320, Detre’s grandchildren divided their estates along Sajó, Murány and Turóc, of which Kövi and its territories, Kövi Castle, Gömörrákos, Nandrás and Vigne first fell into the hands of Dominic Bebek, then of his brother Nicholas Bebek, then two years later became John and Peter Csetnek’s property.
Another source discussing the tenure related to the settlement is a document from 1346, which testifies for the exact distribution of the estates of John and Peter Csetneki. According to the document, the sole owner of Kövi Castle and the surrounding settlements later became John Csetneki. Peter acquired most of the villages between Csetnek and the Sajó River, including a part of Štítnik (Csetnek), Ochtina (Martonháza), Rochovce (Rozsfalva) and Slavošovce (Nagyszabos). John owned the estates of the two settlements, Honce (Kisgnecs) and Gočaltovo (Gacsalk), in the eastern and western neighbourhoods of Csetnek, as well as the already mentioned Kövi settlement together with the castle and the estates of Nandrás, Vigne and Gömörrákos. Certainly, the indicated distribution of the estates was the result of an earlier decision based on use, dating before 1346.
The first written source related to John Csetneki talks about his period in the captivity of Matthew Csák, being placed in the Trenčín provincial lord’s cell during the campaign fought by the Kingdom of Hungary against the Austrian princes in 1336-1337. John was still in captivity in 1339, but not long after that he was released, and 10 years later we find him again in the royal armies. As his brother Peter and his nephews, Stephen and George Bebek, he also prepared for Naples with the Hungarian royal troops, but not having enough capital for such a large-scale campaign, he had to pledge the settlement of Gacsalk.
About the fact that John Csetneki had a personal connection with the settlement of Kövi we are informed not only by a detailed overview of his estates, but also by a 1358 record of his mansion. John was no longer alive that year, and his brother Peter wanted to own his estates. This was opposed by his brother Dominic Bebek’s sons, George and Stephen Bebek, who brought their opposition all the way to the king, who referred the matter to the Jászó convention. Representatives of the convention visited Peter, who was found in Kövi, the centre of his estate, in the manor of John. They firmly forbid him to arbitrarily occupy the territories of John Csetneki and called on him to share the deceased’s estate fairly with his brother’s sons, furthermore to involve representatives of the Bebek family in their agreement. This marked the beginning of many years of litigation, for Peter did not hand over the lands easily, nor did he want to comply with George’s request, which called for a review of the documents containing the individual estates and the division of the lands among the sons of Benedic. Eventually, under the pressure of the family, Peter stepped back (George must have had conclusive documents at his disposal) and, according to their agreement, George Bebek received Kövi’s half along with its assets. The total value of the estates had to correspond to a quarter of all the domain of John Csetneki. According to the agreement, if this is not met, other holdings should be added. In 1359 a final decision was reached and the settlement of Kövi was divided into two parts in front of four credible people, the locum-tenens of the king and the representatives of the Eger convention. George Bebek received 16 of the 32 households south of the manor house of the late John, as well as a mill on the Turóc creek, with all its equipment and possessions, except for the mansion belonging to the parish, which was left in the possession of the local church by both parties. After it turned out that half of Kövi’s estates were not equivalent to a quarter of all the domains of John Csetneki, Peter also handed over to George the present-day settlement of Gömörrákos.
The arrangement lasted from 1359 to 1367, until the death of Peter. Not surprisingly, after his death, another lawsuit ensued for the acquisition of the estates belonging to the family member who died without a male heir. The lawsuit mainly affected Kövi and the areas near Keleti-Turóc. Péter’s estates were divided by the descendants of the Bebeks of Pelsőc on one hand, and the descendants of the son of Peter’s brother, Nicholas Kun on the other. The descendants of Peter’s brother, László, spoke out against this in 1404 and 1437. The opposition ended unsuccessfully, and as we can see from the 1427 conscription, the Bebek family had a majority in Kövi, so they owned a total of 87 households. Imre Bebek owned 46 households, while his brother Miklós Bebek owned 41. As you may first notice, in less than 100 years Kövi’s population almost tripled (in 1359 there were a total of 32 households in Kövi). Based on the number of households counted in 1427, Kövi, together with Rožňava (Rozsnyó), Jelšava (Jolsva) and Gemer (Gömör), was the largest medieval settlement in the county.
Murals of the church in Kövi
The murals in the sanctuary of the church came to light in 2011 thanks to the work of restorers Peter Koreň, Juraj Gregorek and Martin Vojtko. Based on the surviving depictions in the attic of the church, on the nave’s side of the chancel arch, it can be assumed that all the interior of the church was originally decorated with murals; however, the first exploration also raised the question of how much of the original representations survived under the thick plaster layer. The exploration yielded surprising results for several reasons. Although to this day only half the murals covering the church have come to light, certainly the undiscovered wall surfaces also hold curiosities for research.
The murals that have survived in the attic of the church, seen on the inside of the chancel arch, testify since their discovery to the church’s decorative richness. Early researchers probably did not delve deeper into the murals because the remaining apostolic figures in the presumably Last Judgment scene do not in the least testify to the functioning of a high-quality, significant workshop. The figures, which can be examined up close, praise the work of a local master, and in the form and execution of the figures, in the statics of the figures, and in the rough faces and hands, we presume the work of a local workshop. As it turned out, the assumption was correct, but presumably the simpler, more provincial execution of the scene is explained solely by its location, as it was located at one of the highest points of the nave, which was difficult to see with the naked eye. A special apostolic gallery has been uncovered in the sanctuary of the church, the shaping and workmanship of the figures reveal a unique, outstanding quality in the area. Most of the apostolic figures appearing in the semi-circular sanctuary hold a book or a ribbon in their hand so that they cannot be identified by their attributes. Three of the figures received prominent position and special decorations. The figures on the east wall of the sanctuary bear a halo decorated with exclusive prints, a crown and a sword-carrying belt, holding well-recognizable attributes in their hands, so that although the murals are fragmentary, their globus cruciger, sword and axe can be easily seen. Thus, we hypothesize that the figures of the three Hungarian kings (St. Stephen, St. Ladislaus, and St. Imre) may be in the embrace of the apostles. The other apostles were also painted with special care, each receiving an individualized face, and the painter decorated their plastic halo with special patterns and prints. Above the apostolic gallery runs an ornamental strip divided by decorative heads enclosed in a rectangular frame (Pictures 3-6). In the plinth zone, special geometric shapes and drapery-like decoration alternate. On the south side of the sanctuary was a large sitting room in which three bishop-saints were seated. On the sanctuary-side of the chancel arch, according to well-established iconography, the five wise and five foolish virgins were depicted, housed in round medallions (Picture 7).
Five separate murals unfold on the north wall of the nave in light of the excavations to date. The individual scenes are placed in standalone frames, and like the church in Gömörrákos, we can find separate and less connected depictions here. One of the most significant and unique in this region is the large depiction of Mettercia (Picture 8). The composition, although still only partially explored, is very similar to the depictions seen in the churches of Marosszentanna or Feketegyarmat. The murals show St. Anne with Mary and the child Jesus on her lap. Anne places her outstretched hands on the heads of two female figures (certainly the heads of the two sisters of Virgin Mary, also named Mary). The rest of the mural is fragmentary and can only be explored later because the gallery blocks it for now, but by analogy the scene might continue even further with the depiction of donors (as a kind of Cloaked Mary type scene) as well as with additional angelic figures. This is a particularly important representation, as we have not been able to encounter a similar iconographic formula in Gömör so far.
In addition to the display of Mettercia, there is again a special mural. A female figure sitting in a strange cloudy mandorla, alongside angels (?) next to the mandorla (Picture 9). An exact analogue of the scene can be discovered in the church of the neighbouring Gömörrákos, where the depiction of the mandorous female figure is completed with additional saints. Until now, the research has considered the figure of Gömörrákos as a mandorous, glorified figure of the Virgin Mary. But examining the mural in Kövi, it is clear that the long hair of the female figure falls on her shoulders and completely covers her dress. Based on this, examining the mural of the Rákos church, we can reach a similar conclusion. A direct analogy of the two murals can be found in the sanctuary of the church in Keszthely, where the figure of Mary Magdalene can be seen in a cloud-like frame completely identical to the Gömör depictions. In the case of the Keszthely mural, her person is unquestionable, as the whole body is covered by her hair. In the case of the murals in Kövi and Gömörrákos, Mary Magdalene wears an outfit covering her entire body, her hair was only symbolically highlighted, but it is clearly a longer shower of hair that gently covers the dress.
In the central zone of the north wall of the nave is another scene of the supposed worship of the Three Kings, which can be recognized from the visible details of the well-known iconographic formula. In front of the figure of Mary, who sits on a high throne, an older man kneels with a gift in his hand. Unfortunately, part of the scene has not yet been uncovered, so we can only give a more accurate description of the mural later. Similarly, we should mention the two female figures fragmentarily uncovered under the porch, as well as the bare, lined-up figures found on the nave’s side of the chancel arch, and depictions of resurrected souls that may have been part of the monumental image of the Last Judgment in the attic (Pictures 10-11).
The south wall of the nave is very fragmentary, but during the research here was found a prominent depiction of the Christological cycle, the burial of Christ. It is a very intimate depiction, that has only partially surfaced for the time being, but future explorations promise exciting new results.