Secular Power and Sacral Authority in Medieval East-Central Europe 9789048531325

Citation preview

Secular Power and Sacral Authority in Medieval East-Central Europe

Central European Medieval Studies The series focuses on the geographical centre of the European continent, but also a region representing various historically changing meanings and concepts. It challenges simplistic notions of Central Europe as a periphery to the medieval ‘West’, or, equally, a border between barbarity and civilization; an area of a lively convergence of different ethnic groups, and a socially and culturally framed common space; a point where different ‘Others’ met, or an intermediary ‘bridge’ between the Roman Catholicism and Latinity of the West, and the Slavic Orthodoxy and Hellenism of the Byzantine East. Series Editor Dr. Nada Zečević, University of Eastern Sarajevo Editorial Board Dr. Kateřina Horníčková, University of South Bohemia Dr. Cosmin Popa-Gorjanu, 1 December 1918 University Alba Iulia Dr. Zsolt Hunyadi, University of Szeged Dr. Anna Adamska, Utrecht University Dr. Trpimir Vedriš, University of Zagreb

Secular Power and Sacral Authority in Medieval East-Central Europe

Edited by Kosana Jovanović and Suzana Miljan

Amsterdam University Press

Cover illustration: Tabula Peutingeriana, representation of Tarsatica (nowadays Rijeka, Croatia) Cover design: Coördesign, Leiden Lay-out: Crius Group, Hulshout Amsterdam University Press English-language titles are distributed in the US and Canada by the University of Chicago Press. isbn 978 94 6298 166 9 e-isbn 978 90 4853 132 5 (pdf) doi 10.5117/9789462981669 nur 684 © Kosana Jovanović & Suzana Miljan / Amsterdam University Press B.V., Amsterdam 2018 All rights reserved. Without limiting the rights under copyright reserved above, no part of this book may be reproduced, stored in or introduced into a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means (electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise) without the written permission of both the copyright owner and the author of the book. Every effort has been made to obtain permission to use all copyrighted illustrations reproduced in this book. Nonetheless, whosoever believes to have rights to this material is advised to contact the publisher.



Table of Contents

Acknowledgements 9 Foreword 11 Kosana Jovanović and Suzana Miljan

Folklore of the Medieval Kings of Hungary

17

Variations on Nobility in Central and South-Eastern Europe

29

The Changes of Office of Ban of Slavoniaafter the Mongol Invasion in Hungary (1242-1267)

37

The Reconstruction and Role of Roadsin the Formation of a Medieval Cultural Landscape

49

From Castle-Warrior to Nobleman

61

Late Medieval Village in Turopolje (Slavonia)

71

Economic Development and Transformation of the Pauline Monasteriesnear Senj under the Frankapan Patronage

85

The Society of the Noble Judges in Northeastern Hungaryduring the Reign of King Sigismund (1387-1437)

97

Preliminary Research Report János M. Bak

An Introduction Katalin Szende and Ivan Jurković

Judit Gál

The Example of Episcopal Estates of Dubrava, Ivanić and Čazma Maja Cepetić Rogić

Case Study of a Family of Slavonian Lesser Nobility Éva B. Halász

The Example of Donja Lomnica Nikolina Antonić

Kristian Bertović

István Kádas

Development of Ragusan Diplomatic Servicein the First Half of the Fifteenth Century Father and Son at the Court of Duke Sandalj Hranić Valentina Zovko

111

Croatian Students at the University of Prague in the Fifteenth Century 129 Silvie Vančurová

A Contribution to Medieval Croatian Diplomatics

137

Peter of Crkvica, a Man Who Could Be Trusted

153

The Nobility of the Despotate of Serbiabetween Ottoman Empire and Hungary (1457-1459)

167

List of Contributors

179

Cyrillic Charters of Croatian Nobility from the Franciscan Monastery on Trsat in Rijeka Neven Isailović

The Career of a Middle-Ranking Cleric and Diplomat in the Kingdom of Hungary in Mid-Fifteenth Century Tomislav Matić

Miloš Ivanović

Index 181

List of Figures and Tables The Reconstruction and Role of Roadsin the Formation of a Medieval Cultural Landscape Figure 1 Map of Episcopal estates of Dubrava (1), Ivanić (2) and Čazma (3). Situation in the second half of the thirteenth century 51 Figure 2 Map of ancient road directions 52 Figure 3 Map of medieval road directions 56 Figure 4 Map of ancient and medieval road directions 58

From Castle-Warrior to Nobleman Figure 1 Genealogy of descendants of comes Pezk (the people who were granted nobility are in bold)

70

Late Medieval Village in Turopolje (Slavonia) Figure 1 Position of the site Šepkovčica and toponmys Jarčenica and Dvorno mjesto within the boundaries of Donja Lomnica Figure 2 Plan of the archaeological site Šepkovčica Figure 3 Well, pits and ditch

76 78 82

Development of Ragusan Diplomatic Servicein the First Half of the ­Fifteenth Century Table 1 Comparison of the Benedict’s and Marin’s embassy to Duke Sandalj Hranić Kosača of Bosnia Table 2 Letters to Benedict de Gondula and his answers

125 126

A Contribution to Medieval Croatian Diplomatics Table 1 List of the Cyrillic Croatian documents in the Archive of the Franciscan monastery on Trsat Figure 1 Example of late Cyrillic majuscule: charter of Count John Nelipčić from 1434 (Samostanski arhiv Trsat, Miscellanea II) Table 2 External and philological characteristics of the Cyrillic Croatian documents in the Archive of the Franciscan monastery on Trsat Table 3 Internal characteristics (formal structure) of the Cyrillic Croatian documents in the Archive of the Franciscan monastery on Trsat

144 146 148 151

Acknowledgements The editors of this volume would like to express their gratitude to the Department of History of the Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences in Rijeka (Croatia), the Department of Historical Research of the Institute of Historical and Social Sciences of the Croatian Academy of Sciences and Arts in Zagreb (Croatia), and the University of Rijeka Foundation for their financial and logistical support of the workshop. There were many individuals who offered their support and expertise, however, several of them stand out. Thus, the editors would like to give thanks to János M. Bak, Nenad Ivić, Ivan Jurković, Damir Karbić, Marija Karbić, Zoran Ladić, Jóseph Laslovszky, Katalin Szende, and Marina Vicelja Matijašić for their support in the shaping of this volume and setting the tone of the workshop. However, Nada Zečević of the Amsterdam University Press deserves our deepest gratitude for her patience, guidance and enthusiasm about the work on this volume. Finally, it ought to be mentioned that this volume was set under the program of the project ‘Sources, Manuals and Studies for Croatian History from the Middle Ages to the End of the Long Nineteenth Century’ (no. IP-2014-09-6547) of the Croatian Science Foundation.

Foreword Kosana Jovanović and Suzana Miljan The present volume bears the title Secular Power and Sacral Authority in Medieval East-Central Europe. The volume encompasses a collection of papers presented at the international conference entitled Second medieval workshop in Rijeka held at the Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences in Rijeka (Croatia) on 10th and 11th October 2014. The main goal of this volume is to enable scholars, who are at the start of their careers, to present their research on a broad spectrum of medieval themes and problems, in new methodologies, which have a strong base in tradition. It should be emphasized that a lot of work on this volume owes to a strong collaboration with the Department of Medieval Studies of the Central European University in Budapest or with the scholars who have been associated with them. Budapest is still the best forum for gathering of young and experienced scholars, and the idea of a Medieval Workshop in Rijeka is to further that bond. Since the papers presented in this volume are dealing mostly with social elite in Hungary, Croatia, Bosnia and Serbia, we have chosen to define the area as East Central Europe, without any nineteenth- or twentieth-century connotations, as explained by Nora Berend in the recent volume on the region.1 All of the articles offered in this volume have generated from the debates during the workshop, and have been submitted a year later. Here we present a selection of them, with a focus on social elites which were in the position to exercise secular or sacral power. The social elites at the centre of all of the presented studies in this volume are the ones pertaining to various types of nobility, both of secular and sacral origin, power and authority. Nobility is a social group which left the most traces in medieval sources. In the course of the medieval period nobility experienced development, diversification and even evolution. The process can be traced in the sense of terminology and practice. Social reality was reflecting their difference according to status, origin, political power, 1 For the whole development of debate, cf. Nora Berend, ‘The Mirage of East Central Europe: Historical Regions in a Comparative Perspective’, in Medieval East Central Europe in Comparative Perspective. From Frontier Zones to the Lands in Focus, ed. by Katalin Szende & Gerhard Jartiz (London/New York: Routledge, 2016), pp. 9-23.

12 

Kosana Jovanović and Suzana Mil jan

wealth, education, mobility, etc., making nobility one of the most researched medieval social groups. Many historiographies and historians have been dealing with it, so it would be an impossible task to give a complete general overview, and instead we will try to point to a diversity of topics expressed by previous scholarship influencing later research such as studies published in this volume. The historiography on nobility, after observing that Marc Bloch’s research of medieval social system was lacking previous regional studies, decided to focus more precisely on these aspects. Therefore, the new period started with the research of Georges Duby on the region of Mâcon and their nobility.2 These smaller territorial units and their nobility have been, to our knowledge, researched most in the English historiography. For example, many English shires were the focus of a number of studies, showing both similarities and diversities in status, origin, political power, wealth, education, mobility.3 Anne Duggan went on to define the three elements as post-Roman nobility: noble birth, military power and royal service, 4 while Régine Le Jan explained that the change in Carolingian elite occurred when their mobility was traded for putting down roots.5 In the course of historical development, as it seems, at least in the French case, the thirteenth century was the period when the noble society has changed to accommodate themselves to new social and economic conditions and ideas.6 With historical development in the course of the medieval period, the transformation of nobility also started, or more precisely, a growth from 2 Georges Duby, La société aux XIe et XIIe siècles dans la région mâconnaise (Paris: Armand Colin, 1953). 3 See, for instance: Nigel Saul, Knights and Esquires: The Gloucestershire Gentry in the Fourteenth Century (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1981); Susan M. Wright, The Derbyshire Gentry in the Fifteenth Century (Chesterf ield: Derbyshire Record Society, 1983); Michael J. Bennett, Community, Class and Careerism: Cheshire and Lancashire Society in the Age of Sir Gawain and the Green Knight (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983); Simon Payling, Political Society in Lancastrian England. The Greater Gentry of Nottinghamshire (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991); Christine Carpenter, Locality and polity: a study of Warwickshire landed society, 1401-1499 (Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press, 1992); Eric Acheson, Gentry Community. Leicestershire in the Fifteenth Century, c. 1422-c. 1485 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992), etc. 4 Anne J. Duggan, ‘Introduction: Concepts, Origins, Transformations’, in Nobles and Nobility in Medieval Europe. Concepts, Origins, Transformations, ed. by Anne J. Duggan (Martlesham, Suffolk: Boydell & Brewer, 2000), pp. 1-14. 5 Régine Le Jan, ‘Continuity and Change in the Tenth-Century Nobility’, in Nobles and Nobility in Medieval Europe. Concepts, Origins, Transformations, ed. by Anne J. Duggan (Martlesham, Suffolk: Boydell & Brewer, 2000), pp. 53-68. 6 Georges Duby, ‘The Transformation of the Aristocracy’, in Georges Duby, Chivalrous Society (Berkeley/Los Angeles/London: University of California Press, 1981), pp. 178-185.

Foreword

13

social elite and aristocracy to nobility occurred. Lesser nobility had the noble status, but under certain conditions. These can be found in the cases of ministeriales of the bishop of Salzburg, who again experienced transformation and by the end of the mid-fourteenth century they entered either to the ranks of Herrenstand or Ritterstand.7 They were not the only conditional nobles in the Middle Ages. In reflection to those ground-breaking studies a number of regional ones developed over time. Hungarian historian Ferenc Maksay tried to compare the number of noblemen in the West and the East. Thus, the Kingdom of Hungary in the medieval period belonged to the lands of numerous nobilities.8 Similar development can be traced in medieval Poland, too.9 Thematically, the volume is opened by the presentation of Professor János M. Bak and his paper based on the folklore of medieval kings of Hungary. His paper has been chosen to be put before the central part of the volume since he held a keynote lecture at the workshop, but also because he still represents the best of both worlds – innovation and tradition at the same time. He offers new methodologies, alongside his experience and keeping tradition in historical research. His paper not only sets the tone for the whole volume, but also represents the overall influence over the European scholars and historiography on the medieval research in general. Kings themselves were presenting both secular power and sacral authority, which can be found in their styling in various European kingdoms: King of Kingdom(s) by the grace of God. As rulers, leaders and commanders of nobles, they at the same time enabled the latter to participate in a much lesser level in sacrality of secular authority. The core of this volume represents eleven selected papers and studies presented in a chronological order, starting with the period of late antiquity to the end of the fifteenth century, so that to facilitate their reception within a wider audience. As shown in the featured papers the diversification of research topics aims to demonstrate the variety of research interests of these young scholars. Each author in their work then acknowledges the previous scholarship, and most importantly expands it further with new 7 John B. Freed, ‘The Archiepiscopal Ministerialage’, in John B. Freed, Noble Bondsmen: Minsterial Marriages in the Archdiocese of Salzburg 1100-1343 (Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press, 1995), pp. 25-43. 8 Ferenc Maksay, ‘Sok nemes országa’ [The Country of Numerous Nobles], in Mályusz Elemér Emlékkönyv [Collection of Papers in Honour of Elemér Mályusz], ed. by Erik Fügedi, Éva H. Balázs and Ferenc Maksay (Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 1984), p. 290. 9 Janusz Bieniak, ‘Knight Clans in Medieval Poland’, in The Polish Nobility in the Middle Ages, ed. by Antoni Gąsiorowski (Wrocław: Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolinskich, 1984), pp. 123-176.

14 

Kosana Jovanović and Suzana Mil jan

methodological approaches. Introduction to the main part of the volume was given by Professors Katalin Szende and Ivan Jurković, who offered a general overview of the presented papers with commentaries on the structure and aim of the studies. On the example of nobilities of East Central Europe, the authors have shown that the nobility was diversified according to status, origin, political power, wealth, education, mobility, etc. The status and origins of nobilities and their political power, whether on the larger or lesser scale has been done by Judit Gál on the case of individuals who were viceroys of kings of Hungary, Miloš Ivanović, whose Serbian nobility tried to survive in the turbulent period of the fifteenth century, or of István Kádas, whose noble judges also represented royal power on much lesser scale, that of a county administrative structure. Since the latter’s social group were lesser nobles, many other articles offer insight into that question. Castle warriors are probably best represented in this volume, especially those of Turopolje. Though employing different methodologies, both Éva B. Halász and Nikolina Antonić give new insight into the mentioned territory by combining genealogy, written sources and archaeological finds to shed light on this often overlooked part of the Kingdom of Hungary-Croatia. Similar social group to castle warriors were praediales who lived on the Episcopal estates in Slavonia. Their status can be compared to that of ministeriales of the bishop of Salzburg, which, hopefully, will be researched more extensively in the future by a new generation of researchers. The article of Maja Cepetić Rogić deals with these Episcopal estates and the role of roads. Hence, problems of medieval mobility can be seen on many levels. Unquestionably, mobile were the students who went abroad for their study, as shown in the research of Silvie Vančurová. Mobility and education went hand in hand, as seen in the work of Tomislav Matić. Physical mobility was seen in the cases of father and son at the court of Sandalj Hranić, since they spent a certain amount of time there, being absent from Dubrovnik, as demonstrated by the work of Valentina Zovko. Finally, the paper of Kristian Bertović represents a fresh look on the Pauline order and returns the topic back also to the subject of sacrality as an element of noble power. In Hungarian historiography, certainly the best researched orders are Paulines, due to research of Beatrix Romhanyi. However, the situation in Croatian historiography is not the same, therefore Bertović’s work on the two Pauline monasteries near Senj reopened the topic of medieval patronage and the economic growth of the Pauline order in Croatia. Some of their documents were written on the Glagolitic scripture, which can be explained with the concept of the ‘Culture of three scripture

Foreword

15

and three languages’. Since one of these scriptures was Cyrillic and the language of it vernacular, it brings us finally to the contribution of Neven Isailović on the Cyrillic charters of Croatian nobility, nowadays kept in the Franciscan convent of Trsat, by which another important issue, that of relationship between aristocracy and mendicant orders is touched upon. All of the authors featured in this collection of papers belong to the circle of Central European historiographies, and their work represents an innovation and new approaches in researching problems on contemporary movements in their respective scholarships. The idea of cooperation within methodological approaches, as well as diverse research topics of the medieval social elite, aims to put on the map a new generation of medievalists, who can then equally participate in sharing their research and results on the unique activity of the European medieval civilisation with their West European colleagues.



Folklore of the Medieval Kings of Hungary Preliminary Research Report* János M. Bak

Having studied royal inauguration rites and related subjects, I often asked myself how much of all that display reached the subjects. If these symbolic signs and actions were to serve the legitimization of rule, then it was important that those who were ruled take cognizance of them and in some way or another ‘hear’ (and decode!) the message. Few students of these subjects raised this question – and even fewer found answers to it. A major exception was Marc Bloch, who had the good luck of finding records about the number of people who came to Reims to be healed by the king’s touch: here we have an indication of how many Frenchmen ‘knew about’ the king’s divinely granted healing power. There are similar records for England as well.1 Perhaps the popularity of ‘pilgrimages’ to Nürnberg at the occasions of the showing of the imperial insignia as relics (Heiltumsweisungen) – of which the Holy Lance contained one, indeed – in the later Middle Ages could be counted as another proof of the widespread perception of the holiness of rulership and the importance of its signs and symbols.2 But, alas, no such obvious evidence seems to exist from other parts of Europe. Thus, we know very little about the ‘mute majority’s’ knowledge and understanding of all this, although that was the main purpose of the exercise. As a kind of replacement, I intend to study the memoria of rulers in what may be termed folklore. As a first round in exploring possible sources for the folkloric ‘reception’ of royal status and character, I started looking at the veneration of kings of Hungary: the legends around a holy ruler, the tales * An earlier version of this report was published in Russian translation in the memorial volume for I.A. Gurevich: Obrazi proshlogo. Sbornik pamiati A.Ia. Gurevicha (Sankt-Petersburg: Tsentr Gumanitarhikh Initsiativ, 2011), pp. 464-473. The present version owes much to the discussion and conversations at the Second medieval workshop in Rijeka; I am grateful for all the suggestions and information. 1 Marc Bloch, The royal touch; sacred monarchy and scrofula in England and France, trans. by J.E. Anderson (London, Routledge & K. Paul, 1973), esp. pp. 56-77. 2 See: Annamaria Böckel: Heilig-Geist in Nürnberg. Spitalstiftung & Aufbewahrungsort der Reichskleinodien (Nürnberg: Böckel, 1990).

18 

János M. Bak

and anecdotes about one late medieval king and a little jingle referring to another. All, or at least most, of the elements of these ‘memories’ are wellknown from folk tales and similar matters (songs, images) from several other cultures; the question, therefore, is, how and why these topics were attached to the three kings for which I found evidence: King St. Ladislas from the eleventh century, a little bit about Wladislas I from the mid-fifteenth, and quite a lot on Matthias I ‘Corvinus’ from the late fifteenth century. Ladislas (1077-1095) seems to have become the object of widespread veneration in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. Based on extensive research on this subject, Gábor Klaniczay presented and analyzed the evidence on his image as a dynastic as well as popular hero.3 While there is no good reason to assume a cult before his canonization in 1192, even for the elevation of the king’s body a number of miracles are recorded. That his graveside in Várad (Oradea) became one of the major sites for ordeals4 – implying the ‘knowledge’ of saint’s ability to intervene in finding justice5 – also proves of wide reception of his holiness. However, the great number of churches dedicated to him and, above all, his appearance on images even in small parish churches also act as evidence for popularity in his case. There is an episode, recorded in that part of the chronicles that is often styled as Gesta Sancti Ladislai, which seems to have found a widespread resonance among the people of the thirteenth to fourteenth centuries.6 In a battle with the ‘Cumans’ (whichever nomadic raiders they might have been), Ladislas saw a pagan riding off with a girl in his saddle. Though wounded, he pursued him, but could not catch up with the enemy. He then called out to the girl to drag the Cuman off his horse – which she did. Yet, when Ladislas aimed his lance at her abductor, she begged him to spare him. ‘From this is clear that there is no faith in women.’ The hero, however, wrestled with the Cuman and finally (in some images the girl, seemingly having changed her mind) cut the heel of the pagan and the king killed him. We know about some fifty frescoes (not all surviving) painted 3 Gábor Klaniczay, Holy Rulers and Blessed Princesses: Dynastic Cults in Medieval Central Europe, trans. by Éva Pálmai (Cambridge: CUP, 2002), pp. 173-194: in the following, I am summarizing his findings and arguments. 4 The only surviving Hungarian record of this kind of proof is the Registrum Varadiense examinum ferri candentis ordine chronologico digestum, ed. János Karácsonyi and Samuel Borovszky (Nagyvárad: Nagyváradi pürspökség, 1903), for the early thirteenth century. 5 One of the miracles connected to the king’s grave was also about justice: a comes who accused a miles of having stolen a silver plate, proved to be a liar, by not being able to lift the plate from the sarcophagus: Vita Sancti Ladislai regis, cap. 10, ed. by Emma Bartoniek, in: Scriptores rerum Hungaricarum tempore ducum regumque stirpis Arpaduianae gestarum, ed. by Emericus Szentpétery, 2 vols. (Budapest: MTA 1937-1938) (henceforth: SRA), 2, pp. 524-525. 6 Comp. chron. s. xiv, ed. by Alexander Domanovszky, cap. 103; SRA 1, pp. 368-369.

Folklore of the Medieval Kings of Hungary

19

in churches all around historic Hungary and Croatia, depicting this event. That they survived mainly in the frontier regions of Transylvania and the North is most probably because the centre of the country was devastated and repopulated in early modern times and the churches vanished. Students of the iconography have detected in these pictures archaic mythical references to the cosmic fight of good and evil, ideas about the Magic Horse, and elements of ballads on evil, betrayal, and murderous mistresses, to say nothing of the obvious glorification of fight against pagan enemies, an experience by no means abstract for the people of the Kingdom. Frequently, the rescued maiden rests in the lap of the saint, to add a ‘romantic’ (and, if you so wish, knightly) dimension to the story.7 Surely, these – mostly fourteenth-century – frescoes were commissioned by the noble patrons and clergy of the churches, but here one can argue along the hypothesis of Gurevich (and of Roman Jacobson’s notion of ‘folkloric censorship’) that they chose an imagery that appealed to, and was well understood on several levels by, the parishioners. While the saint’s legend (and following it, the richly illustrated Hungarian Angevin Legendary)8 contains only one miracle from his lifetime – when the starving army was ‘sent’ a herd of deer and buffalo upon the holy king’s prayer9 – there survived quite a few more in one form or another. It is a well-known feature that strange natural phenomena are explained in folk belief by being connected with supernatural events and/or with a legendary hero. There are several connected to St. Ladislas. Not far from Văleni (Magyarvalkó) in Transylvania a deposit of a great number of small stones (actually 3-4 million years old fossils) are associated with a miracle brought about through the king’s prayer: Once, his troops were pursuing Cumans, who took sizeable loot and were leaving the country. When the raiders saw the Hungarians behind them, they threw away handfuls of gold coins, counting on the greed of their pursuers. Indeed, the warriors dismounted and began to collect the coins. Ladislas prayed to God to intervene and, lo and behold, the gold was changed into stone; the troop returned to the chase and successfully reached and defeated the fleeing enemy. (There is another variant in Western Hungary, where the raiders are Petchenegs.) Here as so often, elements well known from other traditions 7 See Klaniczay, Holy Rulers, pp.  190-194 and 388-394, summarizing also the extensive literature on the subject. Now see also Maja Cepetić, ‘The Cult of St. Ladislas in Continental Croatia’, in Slovakia and Croatia: Historical Parallels and Connections, ed. by. Martin Homza et al. (Bratislava, Zagreb, 2013), pp. 308-315. 8 See Béla Zsolt Szakács, A Magyar Anjou Legendárium képi rendszerei [Image Systems of the Hungarian Anjou Legendary] (Budapest: Balassi, 2006). 9 Vita S. Ladislai regis, cap. 6; SRA 2, p. 520.

20 

János M. Bak

are embedded in the story: throwing magic objects behind you while fleeing and the transformation of gold into stone (or vice versa) are widespread motives of folktales. As usual with folk belief, we do not know when and by what means these associations came about. In this case, however, we have at least a date ante quem: Pelbart of Timişoara (Temesvár; d. 1504) already referred to this miracle as well known in a sermon about the holy king.10 There are some 30 locations (among them Nitra, Püspökszentlászló, Erdőbénye, Kővágótöttös, and Turda in Transylvania), that claim that their well sprang up where the battle ax or lance of the king – or even the hoof of St. Ladislas’s steed – hit a rock and is still giving water.11 This motive is, of course, Biblical (Ex. 17: 1-7), but also a folktale element. Then, according to tradition, a deep canyon near the town of Turda, called Cheile Turzii (Tordai hasadék, Thorenburger Schlucht), was brought about miraculously upon the king’s prayer, when he and his men were fleeing from a Cuman attack and God split the mountain to save His warriors. The track of the hoof of his horse is still pointed out at Patkóskő (‘Hoof-stone’) near-by. Quite puzzling is the legend about the ‘herb of St. Ladislas’. The story goes that pestilence broke out in Hungary and the king was desperate for he could not help his people. He prayed to God and an angel appeared to him telling that he should shoot an arrow and where it lands, there will be the medicinal herb against the plague. So he did, and thus a plant, scientifically called Gentiana cruciformis was found and helped to overcome the disease. For the connection of the king with this herb, I know about the first written evidence only in the Hungarian appendix of the 1584 edition of the botanical handbook of Carolus Clusius by Stephen Bythe. Then the story appeared many times in the literature of the following centuries and ended up in a famous poem by János Arany (1847) which found its way into school books and calendars, and from there, back into folklore. The herb is well known to our very days, though rare in present-day Hungary, and is discussed in a patriotic site on the Internet.12 But there is more of a mystery here. The name of the herb, Gentiana, originates in the ancient legend that an Illyrian king, Gentius (181-168 b.c.) discovered this plant and used it to heal the plague.13 That it was the cruciata 10 Sermones Pomerii de sanctis, II. [Pars aestivalis]. Augsburg 1502; Sermo XVII; annotated on-line ed. by Edit Madas: http://emc.elte.hu/pelbart/pa017.html (accessed 15 October 2014). 11 At least according to a website: http://www.szellemvilag.hu/szentjeink-csodai/szent-laszlokiraly-csodai (accessed 15 October 2014). 12 http://www.temesvarigabi.eoldal.hu/ (accessed 15 October 2014). 13 Pliny (Nat. hist. 35, 34) knew about Gentius as the f irst discoverer, though not about the plague; by the time of Albertus Magnus, the king’s name was forgotten and the learned Dominican though that the discoverer was a king “of nations” (gentium), see De vegetabilibus,

Folklore of the Medieval Kings of Hungary

21

species is not mentioned in medieval texts, but the cruciform flower clearly came in handy for connecting it to a Christian miracle. It was, indeed, called ‘cross-herb’ (Hung. keresztfű) before having been associated with the king. Now: was the Gentius legend known in the times when the herb came to be attached (by who and when?) to the holy king and to the plague; or is it a mere coincidence that folk medicine in different parts of the world discovered the use (against the plague?) of the herb while parallel but independent of it the legend of the Illyrian came down and was then applied to it? Or was this connection made and known in medieval Hungary-Croatia – maybe having survived on the Adriatic Coast and filtered north? I doubt that this can be ever ascertained, but it merits some thought about the unfathomable relationship between oral tradition and written-learned culture. So, as stated above, all the elements are known from other peoples’ folklore. Why were they attached to Ladislas? Surely, his predecessors, such as St. Stephen I, were at least as much important rulers and also canonized as saints by the Roman Church. Apparently, our (historians, later chroniclers, and so on) perception of ‘success’ is not identical with that of the contemporaries or the wide strata of the population. Or of those, unknown ‘tradition-carriers’ (storytellers, minstrels, etc.), who made them popular. To put it crudely: King Stephen’s Christianizing the people with violence and subjecting them to church control (and the paying of tithes!) were not unequivocally ‘good things’ to be remembered in tale and lore. But the valiant fighter against raiding enemies and pestilence that hurt ‘the people’ inspired popular memory much more and in more than one form. However, this is not the only motive here: late Árpádian kings of the thirteenth century and then Angevin rulers very consciously promoted the cult of St. Ladislas for reasons of their own, such as dynastic continuity, chivalresque cultural elements and others. There is no surviving evidence that any other king of Hungary of the Central Middle Ages would have been included in the memory of wider circles – even though Louis I of Anjou (1342-1382), a great sponsor of the cult of St. Ladislas, was the only Hungarian ruler called ‘the Great’. With one strange exception. Antonio Bonfini, the Italian Humanist historian at the court of King Matthias Corvinus, wrote (in the 1490s) a long paragraph about Louis, ascribing to him features that in tradition survived only for Matthias – see below. He credits the Angevin with having visited his subjects in disguise to find out whether the common folk were being overtaxed ed. by Ernst Mayer, Carl Jessen (Berlin: Reimer, 1867), p. 521. I am grateful to Bendek Láng for helping me to find the literature on this matter.

22 

János M. Bak

or mistreated by judges, and even what they think about their king.14 (In contrast, Bonfini does not record these otherwise widely ‘remembered’ features of his sponsor.) It seems that, for whatever reason, the Italian transferred the memoria of Matthias of a good hundred years later back to the fourteenth century. To be sure, there is no evidence that this ascription of the ‘ruler in disguise’ (more on this later) to Louis was in any way popular. The most ‘folklorized’ (if there is such a word) ruler of the medieval kingdom was certainly Matthias I Hunyadi, called Corvinus (1458-1490). The proverb ‘Matthias is dead – justice is gone’ has been found written on a document from the early sixteenth century,15 and this aspect of his memory lived on through the centuries. It is likely that already at his election (1458) Matthias, the son of the hero John (János) Hunyadi, found his way into ‘folk song’, having been greeted by a jingle, reportedly sung on the streets; something along this: Matthias has now been elected To be king of Hungarians He was sent from heaven to us By God to be our savior.16

True, István Benczédi Székely, who also knew about a little folktale connected to Matthias, recorded this a hundred years later, but it may be authentic. 14 Ne plebs ac rustica multitudo gravioribus quam par est tributis ac portionis a questoribus et prefectis onerabatur […] dissimulato saepe habitu veluti callidissimus explorator, vicos et oppida lustravit persecrutaturus mores publicanarum et prefectorum et eorum inuirias ex plebis querimoniis recogniturus […] Quin etiam saepissime subornatus de moribus regis percunctabatur et e’ simplicium responsis sese ipse quandoque castigavit. Antonio Bonfini, Rerum Hungaricarum decades 2.10.475-4 (ed. by József Fógel, László Juhász, Béla Iványi [Budapest, Leipzig, 1936], vol. 2, p. 248). Of course, since these features are ‘wandering motives’ (see below), he may have taken them from literary sources; still, the ascription to Louis the Great is puzzling. Remarkably, Bonfini used here the very same words for the commoners as in his report about the Matthiasnostalgia (below, with footnote 24). 15 Attila T. Szabó, ‘Meghalt Mátyás király…’ [King Matthias is dead…], Magyar Nyelvőr 82 (1958), pp. 235-236. A Slovak version seems to have been noted even earlier. 16 István Benczédi Székely, Chronica ez Vilagnac Yeles dolgairol [Chronicle of the famous matters of this world], printed in Cracow 1559. Tibor Kardos (‘Huszita típusú kantilénáink’, Irodalomtörténeti Közlemények 55 [1953], pp. 81-95, here 82-83) wanted to see in this a Hussite type cantilena. It is, indeed, similar to jingles of schoolchildren reported to be chanted on the streets of Prague. The election of Hunyadi’s young son is reflected in other tales as well, one of them resembling the mythical election of Přemysl, first duke of the Czechs. Which, of course, goes back to Antique examples. One more research subject.

Folklore of the Medieval Kings of Hungary

23

The tales, legends, anecdotes, and jests connected to the king are numerous. In her survey of the folklore of Matthias, Ildikó Kriza listed several genres and types from the written and oral tradition down to the nineteenth and twentieth century.17 Many survive also in the tradition of the neighboring people, Slovaks, Slovenes, Ukrainians, Serbs, and of the German townsmen of Northern Hungary 18 in often quite different forms.19 Most of them are stories with parallels in the literature and folklore of Europe and beyond. As an example, let me take one of the most popular tales about Matthias, that about the king and the mayor of Kolozsvár (now Cluj-Napoca). It runs thus (abbreviated):20 Once when the king went to Transylvania, he slid out from the camp and coming to Kolozsvár, hung around in the city. The mayor lived across from the butcher shop, where he was sitting. That mayor used to have the peasants carry firewood to his house and made them cut it up. So, one of his henchmen chanced upon Matthias and said to him: ‘Come on big-nose to carry wood!’ Said King Matthias: ‘What’s the pay?’ Replied the henchman: ‘A dog you get,’ and hit him on the back and chased him to the pile of wood. As he got there, he sees the mayor lying around. Said the king: ‘What do you give if I help carrying in the wood?’ Said the mayor: ‘Shut up, you son of a bitch and carry if you don’t want to get blue on the back!’ And another henchman of the mayor made sure he did. Poor Matthias had to carry the wood, but on three pieces he wrote his name with red chalk. 17 Ildikó Kríza, ‘Rex iustus – rex clarus (Mátyás király a néphagyományban)’ [King Matthias in Folk Tradition], in Hunyadi Mátyás. Emelékkönyv halálának 500. évforulójára, ed. by Gyula Rázsó et al. (Budapest: Zrínyi, 1990), pp. 363-410 with extensive bibliography. 18 Actually, in South Slav folklore Matthias’ father, John (János) Hunyadi – Janko – features in many heroic songs, often together with the famous Kraljević Marko. Alas, no Hungarian parallels have survived, though some literary pieces from the sixteenth century may contain fragments of such heroic songs (Kriza, ‘Rex iustus’, pp. 398-399). In Slovenia Matthias was seen as ‘Redeemer’, that is from Habsburg supremacy, and engendered quite strange texts and images. 19 See, for example, Ivan Grafenauer, Slovenske propovedke o Kralju Matjažu [Slovenian Tales on King Matthias] (Ljubljana, 1951); Jan Komorovky, Král’ Matej Korvin v ludovej prozaickej slovesnosti [King Matthias in popular prose literature] (Bratislava, 1957); Zenon Kuzelya, Ugorskii Korol Matvii Korvin v slavianskii ustnii slovesnosti [King Matthias Corvinus of Hungary in Slavic Oral Culture] (L’vov, 1906); most recently: István Lukács, ‘King Mathias Corvinus in the Collective Memory of the Slovenian Nation’, Studia Slavica AcScH 55 (2010), pp. 371-379 with extensive bibliography. A comparative inquiry in these variations would also be a worthwhile exercise. 20 Translated from Gáspár Heltai, Chronika az magyaroknac dolgairul (Kolozsvár, 1575, repr. Budapest 1981), pp. 396-398. I am not marking the left-out passages by […] for reasons of easier reading.

24 

János M. Bak

Then he slid out of town and joined the army in the mountains. On the third day, they moved down to Kolozsvár. Having spent a few days there, he called the mayor and the councilors. As they arrived, he asked them: ‘How is the wall doing? Is it being built? Is there any oppression of the poor by anyone, or isn’t there?’ Replied the mayor: ‘We live in peace under the benevolent protection of your majesty and there is no oppression of the poor here’. Says the king to his guards: ‘Go to the mayor’s house, break up the woodpile and you will find three logs with my name in red chalk. Bring them here. And bring also the henchmen of the mayor’. So it happened … Then the king asked the mayor: ‘Tell me where you have this wood from?’ The frightened man stuttered: ‘The peasants had to bring it.’ The king asked: ‘And who cut them up?’ The mayor fell silent but the king insisted. ‘Well, the poor of the town did it.’ ‘And who carried it to your courtyard?’ Then he turned to one henchman: ‘You brigand, do you see my big nose? Brigand, my back still aches from your strikes!’ And he turned to the lords and told them the whole story … [Then follows a long speech of the king about the relation of lord and peasant, about the latter having to serve but not to be at the mercy of the former and the obligation of nobles to be fair lords, and so on. To be sure, more in the style of the Christian preacher than that of a folktale, JMB.] Then he turned to the mayor and said: ‘You false and cruel judge, you would deserve the gallows for having done this injustice and committed robbery in front of my eyes. But I won’t do this to the shame of my hometown [Matthias was born in Cluj, JMB], but in three days time your head will be cut off. And you, brigand henchman, torturer of the people will have your right hand with which you hit me cut off in three days and then with a rope on your neck you be hanged till you die. And you, poor-men-chaser brigand, you should be taken on the third day to the pillory and beaten well with three sticks and then chased out of the city and leave my country for if you are found in the country ever after, you will end on the gallows. And all this was done like that.

A number of typical features of folktales are present in this story: the dialogues, repetition of words, the threefold question and threefold reply, punishment of the three men in three kinds, and so on. Elements of this tale are ‘wandering motifs’ and can be found attached to very different rulers. The ‘ruler in disguise’ is most widespread, from Harun-al-Rashid of Thousand and One Nights, through Henry IV of France – known for his saying about wanting to have all peasants chicken in the

Folklore of the Medieval Kings of Hungary

25

Sunday soup21 – to Tsar Peter the Great. But, as far as I know, not only ‘good kings’ were credited with such exploits, but such otherwise unpopular figures as John Lackland, the ‘treacherous’ brother of the Lionheart and enemy of Robin Hood. I hope to be able to explore this in a wider comparison including the different characters of the ‘undercover rulers’ activities. Some (so Harun) mainly play tricks on the subjects, others, similar to Matthias, right wrongs. Besides the stories about ‘Matthias the Just’, like the one above, there are others, in which the king teaches the rich or the glutton a moral lesson by some trick, rather similar to medieval exempla. Still others show the wise – or clever – king, some of these however, are more funny than edifying, somewhat similar to the jokes in the widely popular Salomon and Marcolf dialogues22 or the jests of Nasreddin Hodzha.23 Finally, there are anecdotes about the king’s gallant exploits, in which the handsome hunter is finally recognized to be the monarch. And so on and so forth. Virtually all of these have in common with folktales that at the end the good are rewarded and the bad punished or shamed. What can we say about all these features being attached to King Matthias? While there may have been some funny or remarkable episodes recorded during his lifetime, in his case it was above all ‘nostalgia’ that made him enter folklore. As early as a few years after the king’s death, Bonfini described the feelings of all parts of Hungarian society after the king’s demise. He wrote: The commoners and the mass of peasants, who were forced to pay the taxes four times annually because of the many and great wars, and had always complained about the unjust heaviness of the burden, now lament and are afraid of the pillage, destruction, and arson threatening their lands from everywhere. If they could redeem the king from the netherworld, they would pay even six times.24 21 He is the one credited of saying: Si Dieu me prête vie, je ferai qu’il n’y aura point de laboureur en mon royaume qui n’ait les moyens d’avoir le dimanche une poule dans son pot! 22 See: Salomon et Marcolfus: kritischer Text mit Einleitung, Anmerkungen, Übersicht über die Sprüche, Namen- und Wörterverzeichnis, ed. by Walter Benary (Heidelberg : Winter, 1914). This collection about the clever commoner and the wise (but often tricked) Biblical king was mentioned already by Notker of St Gall around 1000 a.d. and was available in German since the twelfth century. It was printed in Hungarian translation in the same year as Heltai’s Chronicle. 23 On him, see: Enzyklopädie des Märchens. Handwörterbuch zur historischen und vergleichenden Erzählforschung, 6 (1990), pp. 1127-1152. 24 Populi cum rustica manu, quae quotannis prae bellorum magnitudine multitudineque quaterna vectigalia pendere cogebantur,et iniquissimam tributorum gravitatem gerebantur, nunc gemunt et populationes, vastationes agrorum et incendia undique imminentia reformidant.

26 

János M. Bak

The Protestant writer, preacher and printer Gáspár Heltai, in a comment on the stories about the just and wise king, echoed the Humanist’s words: During his lifetime, the whole country was swearing upon King Matthias how proud, haughty, irate, and never satisfied he was. That he would skin and devour the country with his many taxes and big exactions as he was raising money even four times a year, and so on. But as soon as he was dead, everyone started to praise him because right away peace began to fall apart in the kingdom. The Turks also rose up and the country fell from one trouble into another. Then all came to realize what a fine ruler King Matthias had been. And then people started to say: If only Matthias were alive, even if he’d tax us seven times a year.25

Clearly, as Heltai registered, the folkloric image of the just king, the ruler who taught the lords lessons of fairness, emerged after his lifetime, in an age when the country faced ever more difficult times – and finally, just a few decades later, was divided by the Ottoman and Habsburg Empires. As that of the ‘last national king’, the image of Matthias was elaborated upon by writers until modern times, and has been a subject that traveled back and forth between written and oral traditions. Kriza suggests that Heltai’s tales (there are seven on King Matthias) were on the one hand sources of popular storytelling, but at the same time authentic records of an already extant oral tradition. As mentioned above, one of the tricky exchanges between king and peasant was recorded even somewhat earlier, in the Chronicle of István Benczédi Szabó.26 Heltai surely wrote down what he had heard being told about Matthias (making his ironic comments about the change of the image), but at the same time, with the spread of printing and literacy, helped to disseminate these texts and, indeed, writers and poets elaborated on them. Then, hundreds of years later, folklorists encountered them told by rural or urban story-tellers.27 What was first? The written word or the oral tradition? And how do they criss-cross each other? Si ex inferis regem revocare fas esset, sexterna solvere pollicerentur. Bonfini, Rerum Hungaricarum decades, 4.8.280-82 (ed. as above, vol. 4, Budapest 1941 [in fact 1945], p. 169). 25 Heltai, Chronika, p. 396 (in the repr.). 26 Bencédi Székely, Chronica. 27 The modern urban, mainly commercial ‘folklore’ of the Corvinians – from Hunyadi mineral water through Corvin department store and movie theatre to Matthias Renaissance Restaurant is another story; it was very nicely presented in 2008 in a side-show of the major Matthias the King exhibition in the Historical Museum of Budapest.

Folklore of the Medieval Kings of Hungary

27

Finally, I know about one case, where there does not seem to be evidence for any learned or printed version of a ‘folk memory’ of a king. I understand that already the great innovator of Hungarian literary language, Ferenc Kazinczy (1759-1831) noted the uniqueness of this song. Here, too, the elements of the text and its context are common across the world, but the attachment to the person is particular and puzzling. Strangely enough, it is the short episode of the young Polish king’s, Władisław Jagiełłończyk’s – for his tragic death in battle also called Warneńczyk – reign in Hungary from 1440 to 1444, which seems to have found its way into folk memory. A song, collected in the southern Hungarian city of Mohács (but known elsewhere as well) most likely refers to the conflict between Wladislaw’s adherents and the opposing (Habsburg) side, in fact a civil war of several years after his coronation. In 1440, a number of Hungarian magnates posthumously crowned the child of King Albert, also called Ladislas,28 while others elected the Polish ruler.29 The great corpus of Hungarian folk music, edited by Béla Bartók and Zoltán Kodály, contains a song or jingle, sung or chanted by children playing a teasing game, well known as ‘bridge play’ in many variants all around Europe. Two groups oppose each other, they exchange challenging words and then one has to run through a ‘bridge’ (two kids holding their hands above the head of the runners) of the opposing side. The ‘pillars of the bridge’ try to catch them and cut their line. It goes like this: Ki népei vagytok Lengyel László jó királyunk Az is ellenségünk! Micsoda ellenség? Hidam lábát eltöretted, meg se csináltattad Fenyőfábú mëgcsinálom, mëg is aranyozom.

Whose people are you? Our good king is Polish Ladislas! He, too, is our enemy! What kind of enemy? You broke the feet of my bridge and never repaired it I repair it with pine lumber, and will also gild it.30

28 In Hungarian, Ladisla(u)s and Władisław (in fact he same name in two variants, the former being the imported form of the latter) are called László (or, for differentiating from the Polish and Czech version: Ulászló). Of course, the choice of the name for the child was a reference to the holy king of the founding dynasty. He, as posthumous child, was commonly called ‘Ladislas the Orphan’ (árva László) in contrast to Wladislas the ‘Lengyel László’ (Polish Ladislas); see below. 29 On the historical context, see my ‘Ein – gescheiterter – Versuch Ungarn zum Ständestaat zu verwandeln’, in Ecclesia, cultura, potestas. Studia z dziejów kultury i społeczeństwa. Księga ofiarowana Siostrze Profesor Urszuli Borkowskej OSU, ed. by Pawel Kras (Cracow: Societas Vistulana, 2006), pp. 451-464. 30 Magyar Népzene Tára [Corpus of Hungarian Folk Music], vol. 1, Gyermekjátékok [Children’s plays], ed. by György Kerényi (Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 1951), no. 428, p. 801. Some 30 variants

28 

János M. Bak

Kodály took this fragment and elaborated it into a famous choral work,31 in which he added an identification of the opposing sides – not unwarranted by the history of the Habsburg-Magyar confrontations – calling one ‘Magyar people’ and the other ‘German people’. He closed it with an elegiac last line by ‘the Germans’: Hol vennétek sáraranyat, koldus magyar népe? – Where would you get shining gold, you beggar Magyar people? The ‘bridge-play’ itself and the typical exchanges between the two sides may very well go back to early medieval times, when bridge-tolls were demanded by those passing. Or even further, as some suggest, to the mythical memory of (human) sacrifice at the building of bridges comparable to the ones about the walled-in woman in castle-building.32 However, as far as I could establish (without being familiar with the entire ethnographic material), this is the only known folksong with such an unequivocal reference to a medieval king.33 How and when Władisław Warneńczyk became associated with this kind of ritual confrontation, cannot, of course, be established.34 It may have something to do with his having ‘vanished’, fallen in battle in a far-away land … But, at least among the children of Mohács, he was not forgotten.

(with only a few hinting at the Polish king) are listed and discussed in Alajos Kiss, ‘A LengyelLászló játékok’ [The Polish-Ladislas plays], in Emlékkönyv Kodály Zoltán 70. születésnapjára, ed. by Bence Szabolcsi and Dénes Bartha (Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 1953, Zenetörténeti tanulmányok 1), pp. 373. 31 See Zoltán Kodály, Chöre für Kinder- und Frauenstimmen (Budapest: Editio Musica, 132005), pp. 140-147. 32 See, e. g., the ballad of ‘Kőműves Kelemenné’, in Ninon A. M. Leader, Hungarian classical ballads and their folklore (Cambridge: CUP, 1967), pp. 19-44. 33 The editor of the Magyar Népzene Tára suggested that the ‘Polish Ladislas’ may refer to St. Ladislas who indeed grew up in Poland (and, according to the author of the Gesta principum Polonorum, ‘had almost become a Pole in his ways and life’; lib. ii, cap. 27), but there is no evidence that he would have ever been called ‘a Pole’ in Hungary; see above all, István Mészáros, ‘Népi gyermekjátékaink “Lengyel” László királya’ [The ‘Polish’ Ladislas in Our Popular Children’s Plays], Ethnográfia – Népélet 74 (1963), pp. 272-278. 34 It may be interesting to note that a Slovak (and a similar Ruthenian) ‘bridge-play’ begins with the line: Poslala nás králowná (‘The queen sent us…’ [to build a bridge]), which has been suggested to refer to Queen Elisabeth of Luxemburg – the opponent of Władisław! – whose faithful captain in Upper Hungary, Jiskra, kept most of what is now Slovakia on the Habsburg side. Thus, researchers dated that version into the same decade as the one on the Polish Ladislas and probably remembering the confrontation’s other side; cf. János Melich, ‘Adalékok a magyarországi hídjátékokról’ [Contributions on the Bridge-Plays in Hungary], Ethnográfia – Népélet 50 (1939), pp. 90-111 (here pp. 96-97) also with extensive references to eighteenth-century, records of the Slavic text.



Variations on Nobility in Central and South-Eastern Europe An Introduction Katalin Szende and Ivan Jurković

The research on nobility investigates certain lifestyles, strategies, and activities of social elites in Croatia, Bosnia, Serbia, and Hungary from the mid-thirteenth to the late fifteenth century. This time frame covers a period from the formation of the landed nobility as a distinct social group in these territories to the emergence of an even more distinguished group among them, the aristocracy (barones). Although thematic sessions of a conference from where these articles derived can hardly lay claim for completeness, this group of papers offers a remarkable cross-section of the many facets of this complex social category. The contributions by eleven young historians and archaeologists tackle – through well researched examples based on the analysis of written and non-textual primary sources – all those issues that were essential for the social distinction that the nobility embodied: ownership of land on some scale, performing military duties, holding offices in the governance and jurisdiction of a certain area, gaining access to diplomatic circles, which were, by the beginning of the fifteenth century, being dominated by highly-educated individuals, as well as being patrons of churches and monasteries. All this, of course, in addition to the descent from particular lineages or kinships. In the following we shall highlight some important points from the five articles along these lines. The ownership of land was an indispensable – and in the most literal sense of the word fundamental – prerequisite of the eminence of the nobility. In case of the bans of Slavonia and Dalmatia-Croatia tackled by Judit Gál’s article, it was taken for granted that only members of families with substantial landed properties qualified for these offices, and all three officeholders in the mid-thirteenth century – Denis Türje, Stephen Gutkeled, and Roland Rátót – stemmed from kindreds with huge ancestral estates and undisputed pedigree. On the contrary, rights and claims for nobility had to be acquired through merits and virtue by members of a specific group, the castle warriors (iobagiones castri) of Slavonia, the protagonists in Éva B. Halász’s study. Families of this legal standing were ‘survivors’ of an earlier system based on the military service performed in connection with

30 

K atalin Szende and Ivan Jurković

specific strongholds, from which their right to landownership derived. The article shows, through the detailed example of a relatively well-documented family, how castle warriors could become nobles of the kingdom. Part of these efforts was to extend ownership rights through purchasing land in the neighbourhood of one’s own property. The most concrete and basic level of noble landownership, namely the fields and meadows owned by another group of castle warriors, the nobility of Turopolje, is presented by Nikolina Antonić. Members of this group lived in the broad neighbourhood of Zagreb, the former centre of their services. This is where, within the area of the former village of Donja Lomnica (one of the oldest villages of the castle warriors of Turopolje) the archaeological material used by the author was excavated. The features discovered during highway construction must have belonged to the outskirts of the village, and were probably connected with breeding and feeding animals. The central, residential part of the settlement did not fall into the sample area; nevertheless, one can infer that although the owners of these lands managed to preserve their royal privileges, their everyday life and economy did not differ substantially from that of the peasants. The social and material aspects of this research, and a broad range of evidence such as charters, toponyms, as well as pits, postholes and pottery were integrated into an insightful interdisciplinary analysis. Descendants of iobagiones castri, this time in north-eastern Hungary, in the Gömör and Ung counties, also formed part of the stratum of noble judges (iudices nobilium) analysed by István Kádas, but they were not the only constituents of this social group. As the study clearly shows, holders of this office differed from region to region and from county to county concerning their descent, social contacts, and the number of tenant peasants on their properties. The most controversial situations of property ownership emerged in the short but extremely turbulent period in 1457−1459, the last few years of the Despotate of Serbia. Miloš Ivanović’s article describes how in this critical period the donation of property got completely out of control, and how huge estates changed hands as their owners changed sides. Donations affected the status of land as well, from pronoia (state property given under specific terms) to baština (hereditary property with full right of disposal). The advancing Ottoman state that controlled increasing chunks of the former Serbia also took advantage of the nobility’s wish to secure their material interests and promised timar properties (fiefs in return for military service) to those noblemen – especially members of the lower or middling nobility – who were willing to cooperate with the new regime.

Variations on Nobilit y in Centr al and South-Eastern Europe

31

As the examples quoted above also demonstrate, noble landownership was intrinsically connected to military service and to the nobleman’s loyalty to his sovereign. When, for instance, descendants of comes Pezk, the castle warrior family presented by Éva B. Halász, supported Ladislas of Naples who proved to be an unsuccessful pretender against King Sigismund, their properties were mercilessly confiscated. Loyalty was a key issue in case of the bans of Slavonia as well, who were in charge of the military forces of their province: when Ban Roland Rátót offered part of his army in support of Prince Stephen’s Bulgarian campaign in 1266, King Béla IV, who disapproved of his son’s action, dismissed Roland from his office. Conversely, fighting for the right cause brought just reward: Nicholas, son of Mike, one of the Slavonian castle warriors, earned his elevation to noble status by joining the Slavonian ban’s army in Louis I’s 1346 campaign against Venice under Zadar. His relative Valentin fought two generations later in Pipo of Ozora’s retinue, similarly against the Venetians in 1412, and also gained noble standing for his branch of the family in return. Joining the retinue of barons or well-to-do middling nobles and serving them as castellans was an occasion for noble judges to show their military prowess. The Frankapan family, the protagonists of the research carried out by Kristian Bertović, also excelled many times on the battlefield. The study in the present volume, however, discusses another facet of their activity, the patronage of the Paulines, the only Hungarian foundation among the several dozens of religious orders in Latin Christianity. This order was especially favoured by the kings of Hungary-Croatia in the late fourteenth and the fifteenth century. Therefore, it can even be regarded as a particular kind of loyalty by this mighty family of Croatian aristocrats that they joined the circle of patrons of these communities of hermit-monks. Furthermore, to ensure efficient government in their lands, the Counts Frankapani promoted not only Latin, but also Glagolitic and Cyrillic literacy through the agency of the Paulines and Franciscans. Namely, similarly to other Croatian aristocrats, as can be seen from the study of Neven Isailović, the Cyrillic documents produced in the centre of medieval Croatia were, during the times of the Ottoman threat, safely stored away in the Franciscan monasteries in Senj and, later Trsat: monasteries that the Frankapani established, donated, and protected. Similarly to the cases of dramatic changes in property ownership, the agony of the Serbian state provides us with the most telling examples concerning the nobility’s exposure to warfare. In fact, the despotes of Serbia were obliged to send auxiliary troops to the sultans during the decades of Ottoman advance on the Balkans, and these troops mainly consisted of

32 

K atalin Szende and Ivan Jurković

noblemen. This close contact often resulted in Serbian noblemen entering Ottoman service and deserting their sovereigns. Taking sides was further complicated by the involvement of the Bosnian ruling family, and the intervention of the Hungarian army, which divided the Serbian nobility into a pro-Ottoman and a pro-Hungarian faction. In the light of these struggles, the lack of strong resistance by the defenders of Smederevo, the last capital of medieval Serbia, appears as a sign of resignation and adjustment to a system which proved to be superior in its military capacities. Office-holding and participation in local or state-level governance was another route to advancement and distinction. Whereas joining the king’s army on his campaigns (at least when those were proclaimed defensive) was a duty for the nobility, being elected for offices by the king or by the local noble community were rather an honour and an opportunity. One of the offices that had been considered almost ‘menial’ was that of the noble judges, who performed auxiliary tasks in county jurisdiction, like administering summons or inquiring in the field. However, as István Kádas’ research has shown, this was not a low-prestige office per se, but one that could potentially contribute to the social advancement of the noblemen performing it. In particular counties the same persons, or often the next generation, i.e. their sons or nephews, could become vicecomites, officials who were in fact running the county jurisdiction in the name of the comites to whose retinue they belonged. The castle warriors in the Slavonian counties likewise held offices in the castle district or in the county of their residence, and this paved their paths to nobility. Already in their ‘archaic’ status they had a chance to become comes terrestris, the head of a castle district, but they reached even higher as homo bani, a trustworthy representative of Slavonian society, after their elevation to noble rank. The bans of Slavonia and Dalmatia, the overlords of the castle warriors discussed above, held offices of much higher authority and appreciation, but were also exposed to greater rivalry and royal favour. This is why it was so exceptional that those three persons whose activities Judit Gál analysed held their offices for three, six, and eleven years, respectively. Furthermore, they became the long arm of King Béla IV’s authority in two Dalmatian cities, Split and Trogir, where they also held the office of comes, the leader of the local community. Such an encroachment on the ancient privileges of these cities against their right to elect their own leader revealed a strong degree of royal control. Even higher power and authority was at stake in Serbia where the crisis situation offered a chance for noblemen outside the ruling Lazarević and Branković dynasties to ascend to the highest offices. This was how, for

Variations on Nobilit y in Centr al and South-Eastern Europe

33

instance, Stepan Ratković, a consistent supporter of the pro-Hungarian party, could become the Great Logothete (chancellor) of Serbia in 1457. The other highly influential aristocrat in these turbulent times, Voivode Michael Anđelović, made a different choice: he allied himself with the pro-Ottoman faction, and although keeping his bonds with the Orthodox Church, managed to retain his prominence the Ottoman Empire where his brother was already in high rank as grand vizier Mahmud Pasha. It would be hard to find a more striking example of how the high nobility was forced to take sides. Looking up to the Church, Byzantium, and Venice, Dubrovnik adopted a number of their diplomatic practices (systematically run archives, written instructions, and ambassadors’ reports). As shown by Valentina Zovko, the Republic assigned diplomatic tasks to members of its elite. The men in question are father and son Marin and Benedict of the family of Gundulić (de Gondula), who held not only the title of noblemen of Ragusa, but also of royal knights of the Kingdom of Hungary-Croatia. By analysing their diplomatic activities at the court of Duke Sandalj Hranić in Bosnia and Hum, Zovko concluded that certain differences were to be observed in the approaches taken by father and son. Taking into consideration the methods and routines he employed when on his diplomatic mission during the Ragusan-Bosnian war (1403), Marin f its neatly into mediaeval framework. Owing to his diplomatic successes in the times of the War of Konavle (1430−1431), Benedict can, on the other hand, be considered the forerunner of the modern era of Ragusan diplomacy. It was not only the Ragusan commune that benefitted from their missions. Father and son also reaped the benefits of a job well done, as can be seen from their ascent in the power structures of the Ragusan Republic. But, for one’s career to take off, the person in question was expected, both by the secular and the ecclesiastical authorities at the turn of the fourteenth to the fifteenth century, to be highly educated. Education was of particular/crucial importance for the members of the lower classes, as it provided them with greater employment opportunities, especially in the governing bodies of the local secular or ecclesiastical power structures. Therefore, it is not surprising that some students of the Universities of Prague and Krakow came from Croatian lands. Even less bewildering is the fact that some of those students were descendants of the castle warriors, the lesser landowners. Namely, the castle warriors could, with the help of the Church, invest in their sons’ education. As observed by Silvie Vančurová, two Croatian students, Anthony of Rovišće and George, son of Michael of Drenova, were signatories of the letter that Jan Hus sent to the

34 

K atalin Szende and Ivan Jurković

Pope in 1411. The diplomatic career of Peter of Crkvica, also from a noble community, but in the neighbouring county of Križevci, is the subject of Tomislav Matić’s paper. Despite not bringing his studies to a close, the sole fact that he had been a student in Krakow and had successfully acted as envoy on behalf John Hunyadi and Bishop John Vitez enabled him to become a lector and canon in the Chapter of Várad (Oradea). Obviously, during the fifteenth century, the noblemen were not only mobile in spatial terms, but also contributed to the acceleration of social vertical mobility in the Hungaro-Croatian Kingdom. The aforementioned co-operation of the Frankapani and the Pauline order takes us to more peaceful waters, although the life of most Pauline monasteries was also terminated by the Ottoman advance. Waters are mentioned here not only in metaphorical sense, because the two monasteries discussed here – the Holy Savior in Ljubotina and St. Helen in Vlaška draga – were indeed built by the Adriatic sea in the vicinity of Senj. This was a highly unusual location for an order originally established as hermits in the valleys of land-locked hills. However, the monks managed to adapt well to the local circumstances of the littoral landscape, and became well embedded in local society. Besides the Frankapani, their main patrons, the Paulines were patronized by the lesser nobility and the burghers of Senj as well. Bertović also points out the peculiarity of the two sites chosen by the monks. Both communities settled in comfortable walking distance from the city of Senj, one of the most important Adriatic ports that connected medieval Slavonia and the central parts of Hungary with the sea. The importance of Senj increased particularly after the Kingdom of Hungary-Croatia lost the Dalmatian communes such as Zadar, Trogir, and Split to Venice in the early fifteenth century. Being so close to the veins of commerce challenged the Pauline hermit tradition, and brought this order closer to the lifestyle and economy of the mendicant orders during the fifteenth century. The landscape and the main road from Senj to Hungary across Slavonia played an important role in the life of the monasteries mentioned above. Landscapes and roads in Slavonia are the focus of a further study: the analysis of Maja Cepetić Rogić. She raises the question of continuity between the Roman and medieval road networks and routes on the territory of three estates of the Bishopric of Zagreb, Dubrava, Ivanić, and Čazma and summarizes her results in the form of a map. Her work stands somewhat apart from the unifying theme of the nobility in this section of the volume, but not from the issue of landownership and landed estates. Another aspect that unites this study with the others discussed previously (especially those by Nikolina Antonić and Kristian Bertović) is its interdisciplinary character,

Variations on Nobilit y in Centr al and South-Eastern Europe

35

namely that the author uses, besides the not too copious written evidence, the results of archaeological excavations, and the information provided by the features of the landscape. What can the reader take home from these studies? Besides offering a rich stock of factual knowledge and references to a broad range of primary sources that can well be utilized by other researchers to answer different questions, the authors also share with us their insights into the workings of particular sections of the nobility as a social group. The historian can follow the strategies of various persons or families to social, political, and economic advance, the making or breaking of family or group solidarities, and the ways of establishing new lineages. Using the Church in promoting one’s esteem in the present world and leading to salvation in the other was very much part of this strategy. One can also speculate further on the interplay of the factors discussed above, how property, landed wealth, office-holding and military as well diplomatic service complemented each other in these strategies, and how their significance may have changed with the employment of mercenaries and highly educated officials. In sum, these studies can and should be compared to and integrated with the manifold development of the nobility in medieval Europe.



The Changes of Office of Ban of Slavoniaafter the Mongol Invasion in Hungary (1242-1267)* Judit Gál

The article examines the changes of the office of ban of Slavonia (totius Sclavonie) regarding their relationship with Dalmatia, especially with cities of Trogir and Split between 1242 and 1267. This period begins with the Mongol invasion, which forced King Béla IV to flee to Dalmatia. After the Mongol invasion, the royal policy particularly changed towards this territory, and the bans of all Slavonia gained power, because besides this office, they held the title of the duke of Slavonia. Moreover, they extended their rule over the secular administration of Trogir and Split, the two most important cities for the royal court of Hungary. This article will examine the period of the office of ban, when the royal power was relatively strong in Dalmatia, whose end corresponded with the end of the office of Ban Roland. Thus, the focus is on the period of three bans (Denis Türje, Stephen Gutkeled, Roland Rátót) during the reign of King Béla IV.

The formation of the ban’s authority The authority of bans stemmed from the kings of Hungary, and they were akin to viceroys in the territory, which they governed in the name of the king. Bans had great judicial power and military roles in Slavonia.1 Besides the power entrusted to them by the kings, they could expand their authority. As it will be seen in the following lines, they acquired the secular leadership of Dalmatian towns, and formed their own private system of patron-client relationships ( familiaritas) from the mid-thirteenth century.2 The increase * This work has been supported in part by the Croatian Science Foundation under the projects ‘Sources, Manuals and Studies for Croatian History from the Middle Ages to the End of the Long Nineteenth Century’ (IP-2014-09-6547) and in Hungary by the National Research, Development and Innovation Office under the project ‘NKFIH, K 115896’. 1 Gyula Kristó, A feudális széttagolódás Magyarországon [The Feudal Disintegration in Hungary] (Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 1979), pp. 120-121. 2 Ibidem, p. 124.

38 

Judit Gál

of the authority was traceable in the financial administration of Slavonia. The beginning of the coinage of bans can be dated to 1255, and the seat of the chamber was first Pakrac, then Zagreb from 1255 onwards.3 Bans minted ban’s deniers, which were high quality silver coins imitating the pennies of Friesach. 4 Although it was a significant change in the economic history of Slavonia, it did not influence Dalmatia at all. The coinage in Dalmatia was independent both from Slavonia and other parts of the Kingdom, because there were mostly Venetian silver and Byzantine gold coins spread there. The first coins minted in Hungary and distributed in Dalmatia can be connected with the Angevin rule in the fourteenth century.5 The first ban, known after King Coloman obtained Croatia and Dalmatia, was Cledin, mentioned in a document dated in 1116;6 between that year and 1241 thirty-nine bans of Slavonia (Croatia, Dalmatia) are known. One of the most important characteristics of this period was that until King Béla III had taken back Dalmatia from Byzantium in 1180 the bans held their offices for several years, after that the length of the bans’ tenure of office became significantly shorter. Between 1116 and 1242 the average time of a ban’s tenure was less than two and a half years.7 According to Gyula Kristó, the short tenure of office served royal interests, because it did not allow bans to gain too much power, and the rivalry between the barons could have also contributed to quick changes of the office-holders.8 This process reached its peak after the coronation of King Emeric (1196), because until 1242 one can hardly find a ban holding his office for longer than a year.9 After King Béla III again obtained the former territories of Hungary in Dalmatia, a new office was established to give support to the ban of Slavonia: the ban of the maritime region (banus maritimus). The first office-holder was Ban Maurice appointed around 1182.10 The ban of the maritime region 3 Pál Engel, The Realm of St. Stephen. A History of Medieval Hungary, 895-1526 (London: I.B. Tauris, 2001), p. 154. 4 Bálint Hóman, Magyar pénztörténet 1000-1325. [History of Hungarian Numismatics] (Budapest: MTA, 1916), pp. 335-336. 5 Ibidem, p. 330. 6 György Györffy, Diplomata Hungariae antiquissima accedunt epistolae et actae ad historiam Hungariae pertinentiam (ab anno 1000 usque ad annum 1196) (Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 1992), p. 401. 7 Attila Zsoldos, Magyarország világi archontológiája 1000-1301 [The Secular Archontology of Hungary, 1000-1301] (Budapest: MTA, 2011), pp. 41-45. 8 Kristó, A feudális széttagolódás, p. 119. 9 Zsoldos, Archontológia, pp. 41-45. 10 Codex diplomaticus regni Croatiae, Sclavoniae et Dalmatiae, ed. by Tadija Smičiklas et al., 18 vols. (Zagreb: JAZU, 1904-1934) (henceforth: CD), vol. 2, p. 180.

The Changes of Office of Ban of Sl avonia

39

was appointed by the ban of Slavonia. Many theories have been created by both Hungarian and Croatian scholars regarding the continuous existence of the institution, because of only scarce data on the office of bans in the thirteenth century. Vjekoslav Klaić thought that the office of ban of the maritime region was established in 1225,11 and György Györffy that the institution existed permanently from 1243.12 On the other hand, Ferdo Šišić emphasized that the institution was permanent only from the 1260s,13 and Gyula Kristó posited that it was not a permanent office until the 1270s.14

The territory under ban’s rule Between 1116 and 1164 the territorial authority of the bans covered that region which before Coloman’s coronation in Biograd na Moru was a part of the kingdom of the previous Croatian dynasty (the Tripimirovići). The first bans’ authority did not extend to the territory between the Rivers Sava and Drava. The extension of the territorial power of ban, according to Gyula Kristó, could have happened probably after Byzantium seized the Dalmatian territories in 1166 and before King Béla III took these lands back in the 1180s.15 During this period the territory was significantly diminished, so the bans received Slavonia instead of the lost Dalmatian lands. The first signs of an extended authority of ban in Slavonia can be found at the end of the twelfth century.16 György Györffy emphasized that the extension happened around 1190.17 The formation of the territory of the ban of totius Sclavonie reached an important milestone around the 1220s.18 From the beginnings of the Árpadian rule the bans of Croatia usually held another title in Hungary.19 11 Vjekoslav Klaić, ‘Hrvatski bani za Arpadovića (1102-1301.)’ [Croatian Bans of the Árpádian Age], Vjestnik Kr. hrvatsko-slavonsko-dalmatinskog zemaljskog arkiva 1 (1899), p. 243. 12 Györffy György, ‘Szlavónia kialakulásának oklevélkritikai vizsgálata’ [Critical Analysis of the Formation of Slavonia], Levéltári Közlemények 41 (1970), p. 238. 13 Ferdo Šišić, Pregled povijesti hrvatskoga naroda [The Overview of the History of the Croatians] (Zagreb: Matica hrvatska, 1962), p. 242. 14 Kristó, A feudális széttagolódás, pp. 126-127. 15 Ferenc Makk, The Árpáds and the Comneni. Political Relations between Hungary and Byzantium in the 12th Century (Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 1988), p. 114. 16 Kristó, A feudális széttagolódás, p. 88. 17 Györffy, ‘Szlavónia’, pp. 228-229. 18 Attila Zsoldos, ‘Egész Szlavónia bánja’ [The Ban of totius Sclavonie], in Analecta Mediaevalia, vol. 1, ed. by Tibor Neumann (Budapest: Argumentum Kiadó, 2001), pp. 269-281. 19 The office of ban was mentioned as banus Sclavonie for the first time around the 1210s, before this period Slavonia did not appeared in the title of ban.

40 

Judit Gál

Sometimes they were also holders of other important offices, like Beloš and Ampudinus, count palatines.20 Moreover, it was fairly often the case that the bans of Croatia were comites of counties of southern Hungary. Holding different offices at the same time could not be related only to personal ambition; moreover, as Attila Zsoldos’s research pointed out, it could have been connected to the formation of the Banate of Slavonia. Zsoldos emphasized that between 1183 and 1224 bans of Slavonia were often comites of the counties of Zala or Somogy, and in some cases, of Bács, Varaždin, Vas and Szolnok. Zsoldos pointed out that the territories south of the River Drava belonged to the Kingdom of Hungary before King Ladislas I had obtained Croatia in 1091. The counties of Zala and Somogy also covered territories south of the River Drava from the second half of the eleventh century, and they had jurisdiction over these lands until the mid-1220s. The holding of the ban’s office and being comes either of Zala or Somogy could have been a solution for that situation when both the aforementioned comites and bans of Slavonia had rule over the same lands.21 Zsoldos also emphasized that this practice disappeared almost at the same time as the title of banus totius Sclavoniae first appeared in the sources. After the unification of Dalmatia, Croatia and Slavonia under ban’s jurisdiction the southern territories of Zala and Somogy started losing their close relationship with the county and by the end of the thirteenth century the southern border of Zala and Somogy withdrew to the bank of River Drava.22 The territory of the Banate did not have firm borders until the mid-thirteenth century.23 Then the sources testify that in the 1250s the River Drava became the northern border of the territory. The phrase of ultradravanus or ultra Dravam appeared in the sources regularly from the 1230s,24 and the expression can be correlated with the term of tota Sclavonia. Both of them denoted the same territories which covered the lands from River Drava to Dalmatia.25 This tota Sclavonia in the title of the ban’s office was a political not a geographical definition, and covered not only Slavonia, but Croatia and Dalmatia, too. 20 Zsoldos, Archontológia, p. 41. 21 Zsoldos, ‘Egész Szlavónia’, pp. 276-277. 22 Ibidem, p. 278. 23 Kristó, A feudális széttagolódás, p. 90. 24 CD 3, pp. 116-120. 25 Gábor Szeberényi, ‘Remarks on Government of Dalmatia in the Twelfth Century. A Terminological Analysis’, Specimina Nova Pars Prima Sectio Mediaevalis 4 (2007), p. 33; Márta Font, ‘Megjegyzések a horvát-magyar perszonál unió középkori történetéhez’ [Notes on the Medieval History of the Personal Union of Hungary-Croatia], in Híd a századokfelett. Tanulmányok Katus László 70. születésnapjára [Bridge Over the Centuries. Studies in Honor of László Katus on His Seventieth Birthday], ed. by Péter Hanák (Pécs: University Press, 1997), pp. 11-25.

The Changes of Office of Ban of Sl avonia

41

The Banate of Slavonia was a unified region regarding the secular administration of the territories in thirteenth century, and the bans governed it in the name of the king of Hungary. The same cannot be said regarding the ecclesiastical administration of the territory. The Bishopric of Zagreb was subordinated to the Archbishopric of Kalocsa whose territory did not belong to Slavonia.26 The church organization of the banate was divided into two well-defined parts. The Archbishopric of Split was a metropolitan see, and bishoprics of those territories which were under Hungarian rule were its suffragans. The other ecclesiastical part of the Banate was the Bishopric of Zagreb, whose territory covered Western Slavonia and the territory between River Drava and River Mura.27 The only attempt for unification of the ecclesiastical administration of the Banate was connected with Duke Coloman (1226-1242), when the bishopric of Zagreb was flourishing. He ruled a large territory, because he seized a part of Bosnia, too. Coloman tried to transform the ecclesiastical organization of his territories in 1240, when he claimed to unify the rich and prosperous bishopric of Zagreb and the archbishopric of Split. The attempt was unsuccessful, because Pope Gregory IX required the agreement of the archbishop of Kalocsa and since he did not want to lose his authority over Zagreb, he refused to give permission for the organizational reforms.28

The transformation of the office of ban between 1242 and 1267 During the examined period five bans were appointed to govern Slavonia, Croatia and Dalmatia. The first one was Denis Türje, who was the ban of Slavonia between 1241 and 1244, and he was the office-holder when King Béla was forced to flee to Dalmatia. He held the title of duke of Slavonia

26 Kristó, A feudális széttagolódás, p. 91. 27 Gábor Szeberényi, ‘A zágrábi püspökség Szlavónia megszervezésében játszott szerepének egyházszervezeti vonatkozásai’ [The Role of the Diocese of Zagreb in Organizing Slavonia in Context of the Ecclesiastical Organization], Az Illyés Gyula Pedagógiai Főiskola Társadalomtudományi Tanszékének Közleményei 1 (1999), p. 41. 28 On Coloman’s reform and the flourishing of Slavonia and Zagreb, see Ivan Basić, ‘O pokušaju ujedinjenja zagrebačke i splitske crkve u XIII. stoljeću’, Pro tempore 3 (2006), pp. 25-43; Györffy, ‘Szlavónia’, p. 234; Danko Dujmović and Vjekoslav Jukić, ‘The Koloman Renaissance in North Western Croatia – An Unfinished Project’, Starohrvatska prosvjeta 37 (2010), pp. 171-182; Vladimir P. Goss, ‘Bishop Stjepan and Herceg Koloman and the Beginning of the Gothic in Croatia’, Hortus Artium Medievalium 13 (2007), pp. 51-63.

42 

Judit Gál

too, after the death of Duke Coloman in 1242.29 Later Gyula Kán (1245)30 and Rostislav Mihajlović (1247) succeeded him in the off ice, but apart from the mentioning of their names nothing else is known about their activities.31 The latter was the husband of Princess Anne, daughter of King Béla IV. After Rostislav, Stephen Gutkeled became the ban of totius Sclavonie in 1248 and he was in the office until 1259. He was one of the most powerful among the bans of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. During his tenure of office, the coinage of the ban’s deniers had started. Stephen also took the offices of city count of Trogir and Split. It should be mentioned that he was not the first example of a city count of Split who was of Hungarian origin, because few years before his tenure, Archbishop Hugrin was appointed by King Béla IV in 1245. Hugrin’s case was special regarding the fact that the king pressured the citizens to elect his own official, not only as the ecclesiastical leader, but as a secular leader of the city, too.32 Hugrin held this title for three years, until his death.33 The length of his tenure of office and the royal encroachment in the election showed the changing of royal policy towards the secular administration of Dalmatian towns, because the royal court in Hungary did not interfere directly with the count’s election. In addition, it should be mentioned that this was the period in Dalmatia, around 1244, when Split and Trogir disputed over certain land possessions, and the royal court favoured the side of Trogir.34 This conflict probably influenced the king’s decision regarding Hugrin’s election for a secular office in order to increase the royal control of the city. A year after Hugrin’s death (1248), Ban Stephen (1248-1259)35 became the city count of Split.36 Count Stephen’s name was frequently mentioned among the officials of the city in 1250-1251 in the documents issued in 29 Regesta regum stirpis Arpadianae critico-diplomatica, 2 vols., ed. by Imre Szentpétery and Iván Borsa, (Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 1923-1987) (henceforth: RA), vol. 1, pp. 718, 781, 787, etc. 30 RA 1, p. 823. 31 RA 1, p. 853. 32 Thomae archidiaconi Spalatensis Historia Salonitanorum atque Spalatinorum pontificium, ed. by Damir Karbić, Mirjana Matijević-Sokol and James Sweeney (Budapest: CEU Press, 2006) (henceforth: Historia Salonitana), p. 350. 33 Grga Novak, Povijest Splita [The History of Split], 2 vols. (Split: Matica hrvatska, 1957), p. 279. 34 Nada Klaić, Trogir u srednjem vijeku [Trogir in the Middle Ages] (Trogir: Muzej grada Trogira, 1985), pp. 127-135; Ivo Babić, Prostor između Trogira i Splita [The Space between Trogir and Split] (Trogir: Muzej grad Trogira, 1984), p. 77. 35 Ban Stephen was also mentioned once as ban of the maritime region in 1249 (CD 4, p. 391). 36 Arhiv Hrvatske akademije znanosti i umjetnosti (henceforth: AHAZU), Ostavština Ostavština Ivana Lučića Luciusa, Lucius XX-12/14, fol. 94-96.

The Changes of Office of Ban of Sl avonia

43

Split.37 However, to identify the city count and ban as the same person was not a simple task, because the documents do not mention Stephen holding both of the offices at the same time, but mention him only as city count of Split.38 In my opinion, there are some indications which strongly support the idea that this was the same individual. First, Count Stephen was not only elected for a year at a time, as it was the custom before, but he held his title constantly, like Archbishop Hugrin did. The intention of the royal court and ban as its prolonged hand caused changes in the election, in spite of the city privileges and its prerogatives. The second piece of evidence, that supports this theory is a charter issued by Count Michael of Split in 1251. In the year when he was appointed to the office in the intitulation (intitulatio) of his charter, Michael is mentioned as the city count of Split by the grace of God, the royal majesty and Ban Stephen’s agreement.39 This titulation is without precedents. It testifies the royal and ban’s intervention in the election of the secular leader of the city, although it was a fundamental right of the citizens given by royal privileges. 40 The fact that his election was made with the agreement of Ban Stephen also supports that Stephen could have been the city count before Michael, and he intended to maintain his influence in the secular administration of the city. From 1252 until 1258 Stephen was again the city count of Split, but from that time onwards he was mentioned in the documents as ban of Slavonia and count of Split. 41 The last mentioning of Stephen as the count of Split can be found in charter issued in Split on 3 September 1258. 42 Split was not the only city whose secular leadership was under the ban’s authority in this period. A document from 1253 testifies that Stephen was also the city count of Trogir. 43 According to the sources, he had this title until the end of 1257. 44 Ban Stephen probably left his offices in Split and Trogir at the same time, however due to lack of sources, we cannot precisely identify the dates. Stephen, like Denis Türje, was also the duke of Slavonia; he was mentioned as dux totius Sclavonie for the first time in King Béla IV’s charter in 1254. 45 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45

CD 4, pp. 445-446, 449. CD 4, pp. 446, 455. Dei gracia et regie maiestatis et consensu Stephani ban comes Spalatensis (CD 4, p. 461). CD 2, pp. 37, 49, 95, etc. CD 4, pp. 510, 571, 587; CD 5, pp. 3, 86, etc. ‘Serie dei Reggitori di Spalato’, Bullettino di Archeologia e Storia Dalmata 8 (1885), pp. 150-152. AHAZU, Lucius XX-12/4, fol. 2-5. CD 5, p. 56. CD 4, p. 613.

44 

Judit Gál

Roland Rátót succeeded Stephen in the office of ban from around 1261 until 1267. While Ban Stephen Gutkeled was also the duke of Slavonia, Roland did not hold the dual office, because Béla, son of King Béla IV, became the duke of the territory in 1261 and held that title until his death (1269).46 However, Roland’s tenure of office had some similar characteristics with Stephen’s. His first mention as city count of Trogir can be dated back to 10 September 1262, and except for 1263, he was the count of the city until the end of 1267. 47 His last mention can be found in a document issued on 10 October 1267. 48 Roland also followed Stephen’s pattern as he became the city count of Split, too. It is unknown when Ban Roland took the office in Split, the first mention of his name as the ban of Slavonia and the city count of Split can be found in a charter issued in Split on 6 August 1262. 49 The last document which mentioned him as the count of Split was issued on 30 June 1268.50 The last mention of his name as the city count of the two cities issued after September 1267 is slightly different from the examples described above. Ban Stephen was mentioned as comes Spalatensis during the first two years of his tenure, later between 1252 and 1258 his title, depending on the city where the document was issued, included both the title of ban of all Slavonia and city count of Split or Trogir. Ban Roland in the documents issued both in Split and Trogir was mentioned as ban and city count, except after the aforementioned month. During that period, the documents referred to him as dominus Rolandus egregius comes,51 or Rolandus inclytus comes.52 The changes of his title can be explained with internal affairs of the Kingdom especially between 1262 and 1267 with the fights between King Béla IV and Stephen, the young king. In 1266, when the young king led his army against Bulgaria, Roland gave one part of the ban’s contingent in order to help the mission. This step infringed King Béla IV’s interests and around the summer of 1267 the king removed the ban from his office.53

46 Kristó, A feudális széttagolódás, p. 49. 47 Franjo Rački, ‘Notae Joanni Lucii’, Starine JAZU 13 (1881), pp. 212-213. 48 CD 5, p. 443. 49 CD, Supplementa 1, p. 206. 50 CD 5, p. 470. 51 CD 5, p. 440. 52 CD 5, p. 447. 53 Zsoldos Attila, Családi ügy. IV. Béla és István ifjabb király viszálya az 1260-as években [Family Affair. The Struggle between King Béla IV and Stephen the Young King in the 1260s] (Budapest: MTA, 2007), pp. 97-99.

The Changes of Office of Ban of Sl avonia

45

Conclusions The office of ban of Slavonia, including the territories of Slavonia, Croatia and Dalmatia, changed after the Mongol invasion when King Béla IV had been forced to flee to Dalmatia. The first sign of the changing royal policy towards the administrative structures in Dalmatian cities can be related to Archbishop Hugrin’s election for the city count of Split. The case was particularly surprising because that was the first time when the royal court of Hungary actively encroached upon the election of the city count of Split, more precisely the king ordered the citizens to elect Hugrin. Moreover, the election of someone for both archbishop and count almost at the same time was a thoroughly unknown act in Split. During the examined period, both Ban Stephen and Ban Roland followed Hugrin’s pattern, and considered the office of city count of Dalmatian towns important enough to stress their own election. Moreover, they were not only the city counts of Split for several years persistently, but they were also the counts of Trogir almost simultaneously. Both Stephen and Roland left their offices in Split and Trogir probably at the same time. The beginnings of each office of city counts are unidentifiable because of the lack of sources, but it was close to the beginning of their office as bans of Slavonia. However, the ending of service of ban for Ban Stephen and Roland was different; Stephen left both his offices around the beginning of 1258 while thereafter he held the office of ban for more than a year, while Roland held the offices of city count after he was removed from the office of ban. What is more interesting is that after Stephen had left his municipal offices, two bans of the maritime region were elected. First it was Butko (1259)54 and then Alexander (1259).55 In my opinion, the appointment of the new ban of the maritime region and Stephen’s departure from the offices of city counts of Split and Trogir could be connected. The ban of the maritime region was not a persistently functioning office, the title-holders were appointed ad hoc in order to substitute for the ban in Dalmatia. It can be assumed that Stephen for some unknown reason had left his offices and functions in Dalmatia, and appointed the bans of the maritime region for these tasks precisely. Ban Roland’s case is particularly interesting, since he still held offices of city counts although he had been removed from the office of ban months before. His case could be the proof that the offices 54 CD 5, p. 124. 55 Alexander held several offices during his lifetime; he was the viceban of Slavonia, comes of the county of Zagreb and Podgorje. See: Zsoldos, Archontológia, p. 46.

46 

Judit Gál

were not connected to each other during the examined period. Considering the fact that Roland had lost his authority in Slavonia, his office in the Dalmatian towns could be only titular. During the examined period one particular change can be found regarding the office of city counts of Split and Trogir. Previously the royal court did not affect the election of the counts of the Dalmatian towns directly. Moreover, the right to elect their own count was one of the most important prerogatives of the city privileges, confirmed by the kings of Hungary. These counts were usually elected for one year and their election was the task of the general assemblies of the cities. During the examined period, first Archbishop Hugrin, then the two bans of all Slavonia held the offices of city counts for several consecutive years, and their election could have been directly connected to the royal and ban’s influences. While the election of count was a municipal right according to the city privilege, we can find Count Michael of Split from this period, whose power originated from the agreement of royal majesty and Ban Stephen in 1251, which again shows a particular change in the characteristics of the office. What could be the reason behind the change of the royal policy and the revaluation of the office of city counts? In my opinion, this process can be connected to several factors. First, the role and power of bans of all Slavonia increased during the examined period. Before the mid-thirteenth century the bans did not hold their offices for a long time as the royal court did not want them becoming too powerful. During this period, Ban Denis spent three years in his office, Ban Stephen almost eleven years, and Ban Roland approximately six years. Moreover, the former two bans also bore the title of duke of Slavonia for a certain period of their tenure. It can be stressed, as Gyula Kristó previously assumed, that their power increased and they personally influenced the election of the counts in order to maintain, centralize, and enlarge their rule in accordance with the royal aims. Moreover, King Béla IV’s policy could have been an example for these bans, as he appointed Archbishop Hugrin as city count of Split without being observant of the royal privileges of the city. Nevertheless, there could have been some reason why the importance of the office of city counts increased for the royal court and the officials of Hungary. In my opinion, the answer can be found in the changes of the urban society in Dalmatia; the communal development and organization of the commune, which began around the twelfth century,56 became more 56 Ludwig Steindorff, Die dalmatinischen Städte im 12. Jahrhundert. Studien zu ihrer politischen Stellung und gesellschaftlichen Entwicklung (Vienna: Böhlau, 1984), pp. 157-159.

The Changes of Office of Ban of Sl avonia

47

intensive around the mid-thirteenth century.57 That was the time when the first statute of Split was put down in writing under the rule of podesta Gargano de Arscindis in 1239.58 The formation of a commune included a separation of the ecclesiastical and secular powers. While for most of the period examined the Church dominated the life of cities,59 in the second half of the thirteenth century the two powers started to separate. For example, the election of the (arch)bishops was not only the right of the Church, but together the citizens and the canons elected the ecclesiastical leader of their city. Participation in the election was important because besides the role bishops played, they held their offices for life and the city count was given a rule only for a year.60 While the laity influenced the election, the archbishops also took part in secular cases and in the life of the city.61 In Split, the archbishops were closely connected to the royal court.62 After Hugrin’s death, the next bishop, a certain Friar John, was elected in 1248 only by the suffragans of Split without the participation of the citizens. Although John was never consecrated, the next archbishop, Roger, was appointed by the pope.63 According to the writings of Archdeacon Thomas, his contemporary, Roger kept away from the secular administration.64 It was probably a sign of change among the secular and ecclesiastical powers of Split. By the end of the century, the election of the archbishops was exclusively the right of the Chapter.65 In Trogir, the social topography of the city expressed the changing position of the Church. In the second half of the thirteenth century the commune started transforming the main square of the city, which had been dominated by ecclesiastical buildings until that time.66 The above changes that reshaped the role of the Church in the cities probably affected the royal policy. It can be pointed out that the royal 57 Novak, Povijest Splita, 279; Irena Benyovsky Latin, Srednjovjekovni Trogir. Prostor i društvo [The Medieval Trogir. Space and Society] (Zagreb: Hrvatski institut za povijest, 2009), p. 41. 58 Novak, Povijest Splita, p. 279. 59 Ivan Strohal, Pravna povijest dalmatinskih gradova [Legal History of the Dalmatian Cities] (Zagreb: Dionička tiskara, 1913), pp. 305-310. 60 Novak, Povijest Splita, p. 373. 61 Klaić, Trogir u srednjem vijeku, p. 74. 62 Judit Gál, ‘Qui erat gratiosus aput eum. A spliti érsekek az Árpádok királyságában’ [The Role of the Archbishops of Split in the Kingdom of the Árpáds], in Magister historiae, ed. by Mónika Belucz and Judit Gál (Budapest: Eötvös Loránd Tudományegyetem, 2014), pp. 62-63. 63 Rogerije iz Apulije, Carmen miserabile, ed. by Mirko Sardelić (Zagreb: Matica hrvatska, 2010), p. 106. 64 Historia Salonitana, p. 362. 65 Novak, Povijest Splita, p. 373. 66 Irena Benyovsky, ‘Trogirski trg u razvijenom srednjem vijeku’ [The Square of Trogir in the High Middle Ages], Povijesni prilozi 16 (1997), pp. 12-14.

48 

Judit Gál

policy regarding the issue of grants issued to the Church in Dalmatia was influenced by the communal development, and the kings of Hungary accommodated themselves to the intentions of the citizens.67 In my opinion, this examination also shows that the royal policy was informed by the social changes in Dalmatia, which could have led the bans and the king to focus on the election of the city counts more than before.

67 Judit Gál, Hungarian Horizons in the History of the Church in Dalmatia: The Role of the Royal Grants to the Church, unpublished MA thesis (Budapest: Central European University, 2014).



The Reconstruction and Role of Roadsin the Formation of a Medieval Cultural Landscape The Example of Episcopal Estates of Dubrava, Ivanić and Čazma* Maja Cepetić Rogić 

In one of the first stages of my research, which dealt with segments of the cultural landscape1 of the three estates of the Bishopric of Zagreb (Dubrava, Ivanić and Čazma) from the late eleventh to mid-fourteenth century, it became clear that roads played a massive role in formation of the landscape. Therefore, this article attempts to reconstruct the routes of medieval roads and trails that passed through this geographical area situated about 50 kilometres to the east of Zagreb. The assumption was that the identification of a network of regional and local transport routes, in ancient times and during the medieval period, is very important for determining the position of settlements and fortifications, and the logic of their positions. With the information that could be drawn from the scholarship, historical sources and archaeological materials, at least answers to an important question about the continuity or discontinuity of certain points of settlement could be suggested. A reconstruction of the ancient and medieval roads and paths was done in order to be able to define the potential impact of the ancient routes on the formation of medieval settlements, but also on the way the medieval roads and paths had impacted on their further development. At * This work has been supported by the University of Rijeka under the project SREBAK, number 13.04.1.2.02. 1 Cultural landscapes are illustrative pictures of the evolution of human society and settlement over time, under the influence of the physical constraints and/or opportunities presented by their natural environment and of successive social, economic, and cultural forces, both external and internal. World Heritage Cultural Landscapes, UNESCO-ICOMOS Documentation Centre, February 2009, www.icomos.org/landscapes/Declarados%20PM%20y%20 bibliograf%EDa.pdf (accessed 17 March 2015). Briefly, they are a result of the interaction between humankind and its natural environment; in my research I look at it as any change (by humans) which affects the appearance of the environment, regardless of whether something new is created (construction) or something already in existence is reshaped (demolition, renovation).

50 

Maja Cepe tić Rogić 

the same time, it was possible to survey the relationship between ancient and medieval traffic routes in the area of the research. Although papers on the subject of ancient and medieval road routes of the wider geographical area exist, they only partially cover the space that has been the focus of this research.2 In this article, as the basis for further research, I present only the basic information with the most important conclusions and a map, all of them based on published historical sources, and the archaeological sites and finds (from Antiquity and the Middle Ages) in the area of the three episcopal estates stated previously. The episcopal estate of Dubrava is mentioned for the first time in the charter of Archbishop Felician of Esztergom (1134) which is also the first written document of medieval Slavonia.3 Although Čazma and Ivanić, as well as two other estates, are not explicitly mentioned in the charter, according to the one issued in 1163, which defines the south-east border of the estate of Dubrava, it is almost the same as the south-east border of the later formed Episcopal estate of Čazma (mentioned for the first time, with its borders, in 1200). 4 So, a final conclusion is that the episcopal estate of Dubrava, with the land and forest which King Ladislas I granted to the diocese of Zagreb, contained the later separate episcopal estates of Čazma and Ivanić. Therefore, this territory, once called by one name – Dubrava, should be considered the property of the bishops of Zagreb from the moment 2 Stjepan Pavičić, ‘Moslavina i okolina’ [Moslavina and its surroudings], Zbornik Moslavine 1 (1968), pp. 58, 100, 131; Zvonko Lovrenčević, ‘Rimske ceste i naselja u bilogorsko-podravskoj regiji (I)’ [Roman Roads and Settlements in the Bilogora and Podravina Region (I)], Arheološki pregled 21 (1980), pp. 233-248; Idem, ‘Rimske ceste i naselja u bilogorsko-podravskoj regiji (II)’ [Roman roads and settlements in the Bilogora and Podravina region (II)], Arheološki pregled 22 (1981), pp. 195-208; Hrvoje Petrić, ‘Prilog poznavanju srednjovjekovnih puteva u središnjoj Hrvatskoj’ [Contribution to Knowledge on the Medieval Roads in Central Croatia], Radovi Zavoda za hrvatsku povijest 26 (1993), pp. 17-26; Lovorka Čoralić, Put, putnici, putovanja: ceste i putovi u srednjovjekovnim hrvatskim zemljama [Roads, Travellers, Travelling: Roads and Paths in the Medieval Croatian Lands] (Zagreb: AGM, 1997), pp. 15-50, 201-237; Silvija Pisk, ‘Kolomanov put u Moslavini – prilog poznavanju komunikacija i spomeničke baštine u Moslavini’ [The Coloman’s Road in Moslavina – Contribution to Knowing about the Communications and Cultural Heritage in Moslavina], Historijski zbornik 58 (2005), pp. 29-38; Ranko Pavleš, ‘Cesta kralja Kolomana’ [The Coloman’s Road], Podravina 13 (2008), pp. 65-75; Hrvoje Gračanin, ‘Rimske prometnice i komunikacije u kasnoantičkoj južnoj Panoniji’ [Roman Roads and Communications in the Late Antique Southern Pannonia], Scrinia Slavonica 10 (2010), pp. 9-69; Idem, Južna Panonija u kasnoj antici i ranom srednjem vijeku (od konca 4. do konca 11. stoljeća) [The Southern Pannonia in the Late Antiquity and Early Middle Ages (from the End of the Fourth to the Eleventh century)] (Zagreb: Plejada, 2011), pp. 29-48. 3 Codex diplomaticus Regni Croatiae, Dalmatiae et Slavoniae, ed. by Tadija Smičiklas et al. (Zagreb: JAZU, 1904) (henceforth: CD), vol. 2, pp. 42-43. 4 CD 2, 97, pp. 354-355.

The Reconstruc tion and Role of Roads

51

Figure 1 Map of Episcopal estates of Dubrava (1), Ivanić (2) and Čazma (3). Situation in the second half of the thirteenth century

Basis: topographic map 1:25 000

of the establishment of the diocese of Zagreb in the last decade of the eleventh century (Figure 1).5

Ancient road directions The emergence of the ancient road network in the southern Pannonia region is equal to the period of the early Roman Empire. Within the Pannonian 5 Maja Cepetić, ‘Granice srednjovjekovnih biskupskih posjeda Dubrave, Ivanića i Čazme’ [The Borders of the Medieval Episcopal Estates of Dubrava, Ivanić and Čazma], Starohrvatska prosvjeta 3/40 (2013), pp. 217-233. The Ivanić Estate was part of the Dubrava Estate, at the latest, until the second half of the thirteenth century (CD 6, p. 625), because in 1201, according to the description of the borders, it was still within the border of the Dubrava Estate (CD 3, pp. 9-10, 12). Čazma was already mentioned as a separated estate in 1200 (CD 2, pp. 354-355).

52 

Maja Cepe tić Rogić 

Figure 2 Map of ancient road directions

– – – –  Assumed directions –  Defined directions Basis: topographic map 1:25 000

road network an important role was also played by river traffic, which took place on the Sava and Drava rivers; two important main traffic routes followed these two rivers, connecting West and East – the ancient ‘posavski’ (the Sava River) and the ‘podravski’ (the Drava River) traffic corridors. An ancient traffic route from present-day Varaždin, through Komin (Pyrri) and Ščitarjevo (Andautonia), to Sisak (Siscia) was also an important connection between the two key ancient roads of the southern Pannonia region.6 The number of local routes between the three ancient main road directions is not negligible in spite of the fact that they are not recorded in ancient sources such as Itinerarium Antonini Augusti, from the third century, Itinerarium Burdigalense, from the first half of the fourth century, and Tabula Peutingeriana, from the fourth-fifth century. The area of the later Episcopal estates of Dubrava, Ivanić and Čazma was cross-linked with a network of local ancient roads as indicated by the archaeological excavations in 6 Gračanin, Južna Panonija, p. 29.

The Reconstruc tion and Role of Roads

53

the last fifty years.7 In determining the ancient road network, in terms of methodology, the most important role is played by archaeological finds and investigations of the ancient sites. In the area of medieval Episcopal estates of Dubrava, Ivanić and Čazma, according to the current state of research, it is possible to establish and assume a map of ancient local road directions (see Figure 2). East-West directions: (1) The road leading from what is today’s Bjelovar towards the East by the way of Veliko Korenovo, across the Česma River to the present-day village of Narta, and along the south bank of the Česma River by the present-day villages of Blatnica, Štefanje, Sišćani, Komuševac to Čazma.8 (1a) Some scholars point to a branch southwest of Bjelovar, which went in a westerly direction from Veliko Korenovo through Gudovac, Prgomelje, Bolč and Majur to Cirkvena.9 (1b) Also, it is possible that a certain branch diverged from Draganac towards the south, through Kabal and Farkaševac, leading to Cirkvena on the north,10 where it would join the east-west connection going through Rovišće, Cirkvena and Sveti Ivan Žabno, leading to the west, and to the main transversal route Aqua Viva-Pyrri-Andautonia. (2) The road leading from Čazma, along the Glogovnica River towards the west and northwest, to what is nowadays Stara Marča.11 An assumed extension probably went from Stara Marča in the east towards Lupoglav 7 Registar arheoloških nalaza i nalazišta sjeverozapadne Hrvatske [Register of the Archaeological Finds and Sites of the Northwestern Croatia], 2nd edition, ed. by Goran Jakovljević et al. (Bjelovar: Muzejsko društvo sjeverozapadne Hrvatske, sekcija arheologa i preparatora, 1997), pp. 207-239. Additionally: Goran Jakovljević, Registar arheoloških nalaza i nalazišta Bjelovarskobilogorske županije [Register of the Archaeological Finds and Sites of the Bjelovar-Bilogora County] (Bjelovar: Gradski muzej Bjelovar, 2012). I would like to mention that in the Pannonian part of today’s Croatia the most frequent type of Roman roads are glareae stratae with up to half a metre of compressed gravel. See Ivan Milotić, Rimska cestovna baština na tlu Hrvatske [The Roman Road Heritage in Croatia] (Zagreb: Hrvatsko društvo za ceste, Via Vita, 2010), p. 409. 8 Registar arheoloških nalaza, pp. 225 (no. 859), 226 (no. 861), 209 (no. 778), 235 (no. 909), 233 (no. 900), 222 (no. 844). In all the places mentioned there are archaeological traces of the ancient road. Downstream from the present bridge over the Česma River Lovrenčević mentioned the foundations of the old bridge firmly constructed of brick and stone (‘Rimske ceste (II)’, pp. 198-199). 9 Lovrenčević, ‘Rimske ceste (II)’, pp. 200-203. 10 Ibidem, p. 200. 11 On the southeast part of today’s village Stara Marča the written source mentions a via antiqua (CD VIII, pp. 388-390) what implies a direction that went along the lower course of the Glogovnica River, from Čazma to the northwest; Lovrenčević states that to the south of Marča,

54 

Maja Cepe tić Rogić 

in the west where there have been several archaeological finds from Antiquity close by.12 We should not neglect the fact that this possible vicinal direction is only about 15 kilometres away to the northeast of present-day Ivanja Reka, the main river crossing of the ancient transverse direction Aqua Viva-Pyrri-Andautonia across the Sava. North-South directions: (3) The road leading from Čazma towards southeast, by the present-day villages of Gornji Miklouš and Samarica (on the east rim of Moslavačka Gora), leading to the ancient Varianae (around Kutina). With that route the area of Čazma was probably linked to the north ‘Posavina’ (Sava River) direction, leading from Siscia, through Varianae towards Aquae Balissae and Mursa to the east.13 (3a) There is also a possibility that an ancient road went along the west side of Moslavačka Gora because medieval written sources mention an old, ancient (?) road coming from the west rim of Moslavačka Gora heading towards medieval Čazma.14 Although the geographic area is very suitable for a road (slopes of the hills by the Česma river valley), the area is not archaeologically explored enough to confirm the existence of the road. (4) Also, there is an indication of the direction from Čazma to the north, towards Dubrava,15 heading further northwards to connect with the Bjelovar-Rovišće-Cirkvena-Sveti Ivan Žabno local road (providing a connection towards the west, and the main transverse direction Aqua Viva-Pyrri-Andautonia). One can conclude that Čazma, at the time of Late Antiquity at the latest, was the intersection of at least two local roads. Also, archaeological findings in the narrower area of today’s urban part of Čazma indicate the existence in Marčani, we can see ‘really good traces of an old road about two kilometres in length’ (‘Rimske ceste (II)’, p. 204). 12 Registar arheoloških nalaza, pp. 46 (no. 6-7 – Božjakovina), 55 (no. 57 – Lupoglav), 59 (no. 77 – Prečec), 62 (no. 96 – Velika Ostrna), 55 (no. 56 – Leprovica). 13 Registar arheoloških nalaza, pp. 219 (no. 827 – Gornji Miklouš), 233 (no. 896 – Samarica); Jakovljević, Registar, p.  91 (no.  233 – Samarica). Lovrenčević omits the direction ČazmaGrabovnica, but leaves open the question of how the route would reach Garić to the south (‘Rimske ceste (II)’, p. 204). 14 CD 11, pp. 424-426. 15 Registar arheoloških nalaza, pp. 211 (no. 786 – Čazma), 212-213 (no. 793 – Dereza); Jakovljević, Registar, p. 35 (no. 112 – Čazma).

The Reconstruc tion and Role of Roads

55

of a late Roman cultural layer.16 However, without further archaeological research it is impossible to make any final conclusion about Čazma in the period of Late Antiquity.

Medieval road directions Mostly due to historical circumstances of the area between the Sava and Drava rivers, the ancient heritage appears rather sparse. The ancient roads mostly retained their directions in the Middle Ages, but we should keep in mind that certain directions, the ones in flood plains or in swamps, mostly disappeared.17 We could assume that the remaining ancient routes played an important role in the migration of the Slavs and also Avars and Franks in their campaigns, and finally Hungarians who inherited them as they moved to the south at the end of the eleventh century. Also, the continuity of the ancient routes could have been secured only if someone maintained them, which indirectly indicates that this area was populated in the period of the early Middle Ages. It should be noted that in ancient times Siscia was a major intersection, while during the Middle Ages that role was taken over by Zagreb in the south and Varaždin in the north of Slavonia. As Slavonia was a part of the Kingdom of Hungary-Croatia from the end of the eleventh century, a good quality traffic communication with the centre of the Kingdom was necessary. The methodology of reconstructing the medieval road network, in comparison to the reconstruction of the ancient one, differs primarily in terms of the source of information. Whereas when researching the ancient network, it was necessary to rely only on archaeological material, in examining the medieval network great help is also provided by written sources – mostly grants noting the boundaries of the properties (terra, possessio) ‘owned’ by the Bishop’s praediales, in particular from the mid-thirteenth century. 16 The exhibition ‘Antičko naslijeđe Čazme’ [The Ancient Heritage of Čazma] (21 November 2011-5 April 2012) pointed to numerous ancient findings that are from the narrow area of today’s settlement, which proved that the area was inhabited during Late Antiquity. Vjekoslav Štrk, Antičko naslijeđe Čazme [The Ancient Heritage of Čazma], exhibition catalogue text (Čazma: Centar za kulturu – Gradski muzej, 2011), pp. 3-31. The ancient building material was also recognised by Nevenka Prosen, ‘Arheološko iskapanje tvrđe u Čazmi’ [The Archaeological Excavation of the Castle in Čazma], Ljetopis JAZU 64 (1957), p. 225; Anđela Horvat, ‘Pogled na značenje Čazme i čazmanskog kraja u minulim vjekovima’ [A View on the Meaning of Čazma and its Area in the Past Centuries], Vijesti muzealaca i konzervatora Hrvatske XII/4 (1963), p. 99; Jakovljević, Registar, p. 36 (no. 116). 17 Gračanin, Južna Panonija, p. 46, footnote 149.

56 

Maja Cepe tić Rogić 

Figure 3 Map of medieval road directions

Places: (1) Dubrava, (2) Ivanić, (3) Čazma, (4) Sišćani, (5) Narta, (6) Križevci – – – –  Assumed directions –  Defined directions Basis: topographic map 1:25 000

In defining those boundaries different types of roads (via, magna via, via publica, cholnik, via regis…) were very often used as spatial determinants, which indirectly points to their importance in the context of a broader perception of the space/environment of an individual, or of the society in general (see Figure 3).18 18 For further information see Maja Cepetić, Biskupski posjedi Dubrava, Ivanić i Čazma u 12. i 13. stoljeću: teritorijalna organizacija, naselja i spomenici [Episcopal Estates of Dubrava, Ivanić and Čazma in the Twelfth and Thirteenth Century: Territorial Organisation, Settlements and Monuments], unpublished doctoral thesis (Zagreb: University of Zagreb, 2015). The theme of the medieval road network of the estates of Dubrava, Ivanić and Čazma is too wide to elaborate upon here.

The Reconstruc tion and Role of Roads

57

The ancient road which almost certainly maintained continuity during the Middle Ages, having a large impact on the area, is an east-west road that ran, more or less, along the southern bank of the Česma River. In favour of that claim one can list a series of medieval archaeological finds and sites arranged along the entire route.19 Also, the geographic characteristics of the hilly terrain, spreading towards the southern region, offer the possibility for high-quality agriculture in the river valley, and also a secure position for the settlements up in the hills. This is likewise supported by the number of parish churches that appear in the list of parishes in 1334, located along the aforementioned medieval traffic route.20 This could point to an earlier origin of the settlements that were, in the first half of the fourteenth century, as terminus ante quem, developed and populated enough to take on the function of a parish seat. Also, a number of privileged Episcopal settlements (liberae villae, oppida) are located just along the route – Čazma, Sišćani and Narta.21 The narrower area of the present-day Čazma has been recognised as a road intersection of the two ancient vicinal routes and it is possible to conclude that it also held that role in the period of the Middle Ages. This had a positive impact on the development and the importance of the settlement and supports the fact that, although the settlement (villa) in 1232 was called new (Novus Chasma),22 due to its favourable and strategically important position, the settlement at that place may have existed before the second quarter of the thirteenth century when Bishop Stephen II (1225-1247) founded the Collegiate Chapter. Čazma rose to become one of the most important settlements of medieval Slavonia, carrying the role of the administrative, economic, cultural and religious centre in the narrower regional framework. According to the analysis of the medieval urban grid we can assume that Čazma was a longitudinal settlement, formed along a large road that passes through the village in an east-west direction. The crossing of two major roads situated between the 19 Registar arheoloških nalaza, pp. 225 (no. 860, 864 – Narta), 209 (no. 778 – Blatnica), 236 (no. 913 – Štefanje), 227 (no. 868 – Sišćani), 213 (no. 797 – Komuševac), 217 (no. 823 – Gornji Draganec), 212 (no. 790, 791 – Čazma). 20 The Church of St Stephan, Štefanje (Rakytnycza); the Church of All Saints, Narta (Nard); the Church of Saint Mary, Gornji Draganec (de Chasma, … in campo …). All those churches were situated in the Čazma Archdeaconry. See Josip Buturac, ‘Popis župa Zagrebačke biskupije 1334. i 1501. godine’ [The List of Parishes of the Zagreb Diocese in 1334 and 1501], Starine 59 (1984), p. 94. 21 CD 7, p. 327: super liberam villam Chasmensem (1299); CD 18, p. 93: libera villa Zyschan (1396); Georg Heller, Comitatus Crisiensis. Veröffentilchungen des Finnisch-Ungrischen Seminars an der Universität München (München: Universität München, 1978), p. 162 (Narth oppidum, 1507). 22 CD 3, p. 370: in novo Chasma, in villa videlicet quam nos fecimus congregari.

58 

Maja Cepe tić Rogić 

Figure 4 Map of ancient and medieval road directions

Ancient road directions (– – – – assumed, – defined) Medieval road directions (– – – – assumed, – defined) Basis: topographic map 1:25,000

castrum on the west and the Dominican Church of St Mary Magdalene on the east formed a square as the main centre of the settlement suitable for the market, while the other nucleus of the village can be assumed, given the position of the Cathedral Chapter Church of St Spirit, to be on its east side.23 The directions of roads, or their position in a given area, determined the positions of the fortifications (castra) within the settlements (Čazma, Ivanić) or of the fortresses used as turnpikes, which were primarily used for the collection of trade charges during transits; they were mostly situated on the main communication routes, in the main urban centres, in the market towns and on the river crossings.24 Indirectly, those from the area of comitatus Ivanich were mentioned in 1335 when King Charles Robert gave them to 23 See Cepetić, ‘Biskupski posjedi’, pp. 284-293. That spatial organisation of the settlement is still visible in the second half of the eighteenth century. See Mirko Valentić, Ivana Horbec and Ivana Jukić, Hrvatska na tajnim zemljovidima 18. i 19. stoljeća [Croatia on Secret Maps of the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Century], vol. 7 (Zagreb: Hrvatski institut za povijest, 2003), map of the section 13. 24 Čoralić, Put, putnici, putovanja, pp. 141-142.

The Reconstruc tion and Role of Roads

59

the Bishop of Zagreb.25 Later, in 1405, in the charter of King Sigismund to the citizens of Ivanić, one finds Lupoglav and Gumnik mentioned explicitly as turnpikes, situated in the border areas of the aforementioned comitatus.26

Conclusion It is well known that the Romans built roads that were almost perfectly able to overcome all natural ‘obstacles’, and their routes can be rightly considered as ideal ones. Therefore, it is logical that in medieval times, when some of the ancient transport routes were run-down or were completely obliterated, medieval travellers followed more or less closely their general direction, as the analysis of ancient and medieval road networks in the area of the Episcopal estates of Dubrava, Ivanić and Čazma has confirmed. In the context of settlements, developments during the High Middle Ages benefited the already populated points located on or near the intersections of major roads. Also, one of the most important facts in the process of settling and development was a good geostrategic location, which is, along with the already mentioned intersections or the vicinity of trade routes, also one of the parameters favourable to the further development of the settlements during the Middle Ages. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that roads had a significant role in the formation and the perception of the (cultural) landscape in the time of the Middle Ages. According to this, roads inevitably leave their mark on the cultural landscape influencing the settling, the spatial layout of the settlements, and their further development throughout history.

25 CD 10, pp. 244-245: ac singulis pontibus secundum diversas vias diversos in Iwangh. 26 Rudolf Horvat, Ivanić-Grad, spomenica izdana uz otkriće spomen-ploče Đuri Stjepanu Deželiću [Ivanić-Grad, Memorial Issued to the Unveiling of the Memorial Plate to Đuro Stjepan Deželić] (Ivanić-Grad: Odbor za otkriće spomen-ploče Đ. S. Deželiću, 1931), p. 28.



From Castle-Warrior to Nobleman Case Study of a Family of Slavonian Lesser Nobility* Éva B. Halász

In the Árpadian period the society of the Kingdom of Hungary was divided into several groups. Each group had its own particular status, including complex systems of services and rights, which were characteristic exclusively to a particular group. At the edges of this spectrum one can find both nobles and tenant-peasants or serfs. The system functioned in such a manner that nobles had most of the rights and offered few of the services, while serfs had no rights at all. However, between these two extreme points there were several other individuals, who bore various statuses; some types of liberties were connected to certain duties. Until the fourteenth century this diversity of social statuses disappeared, and society was divided into two big groups: nobles and tenant peasants (Lat. iobagio).1 However, in Slavonia, though it was a part of medieval Hungary south of the River Drava, this social process was a bit different: members belonged to one among the types of these special liberties, the strata of the so-called castle-warriors (Lat. iobagiones castri, Hung. várjobbágyok), successfully ‘survived’ these changes, and during the fifteenth century they were mentioned in the charters as nobles belonging to a castle (Lat. nobiles castri, Hung. várnemesek).2 * This work has been supported in part by the Croatian Science Foundation under the projects ‘Sources, Manuals and Studies for Croatian History from the Middle Ages to the End of the Long Nineteenth Century’ (IP-2014-09-6547). 1 Ilona Bolla, A jogilag egységes jobbágyságról Magyarországon [The Legally Alike Serfdom in Hungary] (Budapest: Nap Kiadó, 1998), 7-207. For the history of the castle warriors in Hungary north of the river Drava see: Attila Zsoldos, A szent király szabadjai [The Freemen of the Holy King] (Budapest: MTA Történettudományi Intézete, 1999). 2 The change between the names castle-warriors and castle nobles occurred in the beginning of the fifteenth century in the castle district of Križevci, probably around 1408. In the charter of the comes terrestris from 7 May 1408 some people are mentioned as iobagiones castri (Diplomatarium comitum terrestrium Crisiensium (1274-1439), ed. by Éva B. Halász and Suzana Miljan (Budapest/Zagreb: Magyar Tudományos Akadémia – Hadtörténeti Intézet és Múzeum – Szegedi Tudományegyetem – Magyar Nemzeti Levéltár Országos Levéltára Magyar Medievisztik, 2014) [henceforth: Diplomatarium], no. 28), but in the document of the chapter of Čazma the same ones are written as nobiles castri (Magyar Nemzeti Levéltár Országos Levéltára Diplomatikai Levéltár (henceforth: MNL OL, DL), no. 38715). The members of some families in the fourteenth century are mentioned as castle-warriors and in following centuries as castle nobles. The descendants of John, son of Ladina, are styled as nobiles iobagiones castri de genere Hegen in

62 

Éva B. Hal ász

The castle-warriors and castle nobles were closely connected to their own comitatus. The word comitatus meant two different things in the Latin sources of the medieval Kingdom of Hungary. On the one hand, it was the name of each unit of the castle-system (Hung. várispánság). In the centre of this unit stood a castle, and the person who was its head was called comes, and was in charge of the appertaining estates. On the other hand, comitatus was also the term for larger territorial unit which formed the administrative system of the Kingdom (Hung. megye); it contained all the lands and possessions regardless whether they belonged to ecclesiastical or secular lords or even royalty. The head of the royal county was called comes as well, and in the early period he was actually the same person who was the head of the respective castle district. However, in many cases royal counties contained more than one castle district. Until the fourteenth century some castle districts merged into another comitatus, and vanished completely (for example, the castle district called Karakó became the part of the royal county named Vas at the western borders of the Kingdom). Castle-warriors among other groups like castrenses belonged to a castle district, but they were the most prominent among them. The status of the castle-warriors was similar to other special types of conditional liberties owned by others, but it had some specific elements; scholarship distinguishes four of them. The most important aspect was their military service, and the fact that the castle-warriors held the offices in the castle district. This distinguished them from other groups which were to be found in the castle system, since others had service obligations with work (as castrenses) or were people who served with military services, but were not considered as castle-warriors. Finally, a distinguishing factor was paying taxes and ownership of properties.3 Naturally, the castle-warriors wanted to become nobles of the Kingdom (nobiles regni), to have liberties without any service, because their status the charter of comes terrestris Andrew, son of Martin (17 March 1377, Diplomatarium, doc. 21). Later, in 1418, some members of this family are mentioned as nobiles castri (Diplomatarium, doc. 47) The change of the terminology occurred probably previously in the castle district of Kalnik, in the second half of the fourteenth century. The sons of Isaac are mentioned as nobiles castri in 1368. Arhiv Hrvatske akademije znanosti i umjetnosti, Diplomata Latina (henceforth: AHAZU, D), V-78; MNL OL, Diplomatikai Fényképgyűjtemény (henceforth: DF), 230523). But since this charter is a transcript, maybe the writer lost the word iobagiones inadvertently from the phrase nobiles iobagiones castri. 3 For the four characteristics of the castle warriors in Hungary (north of the river Drava), see: Zsoldos, A szent király, pp. 46-89. The status of the castle warriors in castle district Križevci see: Éva B. Halász, ‘A körösi várjobbágyok 13-15. században’ [The Castle-Warriors of Križevci from the Thirteenth to the Fifteenth Century], in Középkortörténeti tanulmányok 7 (2012), pp. 313-323.

From Castle-Warrior to Nobleman

63

was sometimes uncertain; they could not have assurance of their rights in every case.4 If the king donated their lands to a magnate, the castle-warriors were transferred from the jurisdiction of the ruler to the jurisdiction of the new owner. The special status of the castle-warriors was a problem, and sooner or later the magnate wanted to terminate it. In this case the castle warriors lost their special liberty and became tenant peasant (iobagio).5 The question is how could they reach the complete liberties, the status of the nobiles regni? The castle-warriors were not equal in every aspect of life: all of them had similar liberties and similar duties, but there were big differences in their economic status – there were richer and poorer castlewarriors. The richer ones had more facilities to buy, more land, and better weapons. More land meant more income and bigger personal authority among the other castle warriors. A better weapon meant bigger possibility of merit in the wars, and furthermore, it was important if a castle-warrior wanted to be a member of a magnate’s household as familiaris. The richer one who had greater personal authority had more chance of being the head of the castle-district, to be comes terrestris and probus vir (judge chosen by contestants were those castle-warriors who were known as honest and trustworthy). The office of comes terrestris again meant economic profit for him and his family. The success and the authority of a person extended the success and the authority of his family and the chance of ennoblement. In the following, an example of a successful castle-warrior family from Slavonia, more precisely, from the county of Križevci, will be presented; one line of the family belonged to the nobility of the realm from the 1340s, and another line was ennobled in the 1410s. The history of family shows all of the characteristics which were important as means for elevation from the castle-warriors to the rank of noblemen. The ancestor of the family was called Pezk, and he was the head of the castle district (comes terrestris) of Križevci sometime before 1269. In 1269, he lost all of his charters concerning his estates and asked the comes of county Križevci to give him a new document. Comes Martin of Križevci gave a privilege, which states that on the basis of the oral statement of the previous 4 In the fourteenth century, there were several litigations against the noble status of the castle warriors and nobles northern to the river Drava. Most of them lost their status and properties and became serfs (Zsoldos, A szent király, pp. 172-180). 5 King Sigismund donated the castle-district of Rovišče to Martin Ders in 1393. The people who belonged to the castle district from this period onwards were under his jurisdiction, and not the royal. The Ders family wanted to deprive the castle warriors from their special conditional liberty. See more: Árpád Nógrády, ‘A Szerdahelyeik és a rojcsai prediálisok’ [The Family of Szerdahely and the prediales of Rovišće], Történelmi Szemle 153 (2001), pp. 73-82.

64 

Éva B. Hal ász

owners, the present owner of the land called Obrež (Obres) next to River Petrovinec (Tetreunc) was comes Pezk.6 Because in this charter he is written as comes, surely he held the office of comes terrestris before the date of the issued charter. Pezk had two sons: Saul and Matthew. Matthew in the 1270s bought several lands, most of them laid around Poljana (today very likely Poljana Križevačka).7 The original property of the family was situated next to the bought lands and with the adjacent terrae they could extend their property. Within the castle-warriors of Križevci four kindreds (generationes) can be found: Hegen, Prelsa, Cvet and Matthew. Three of them were named after the thirteenth-century comites terrestres. According to the later sources, the family of comes Pezk belonged to the Matthew kindred. Maybe our Mathew and the denominator of the kindred can be identified as the same person. From the archontology of the individuals who were at the head of the castle district, one can observe that Križevci had comites terrestres named Hegen, Prelsa and Cvet, but not Matthew.8 However, the list is not complete, because of the scarce extant sources. It was not unusual that each family had more than one comes terrestris in the later and better documented period. It is also possible that the authority of the father (Pezk) and the name of the son (Matthew) were mixed in the collective memory, when the kindred started to use their names. Matthew and his brother Saul divided their estates before the 1270s and the lands, which Matthew bought after that, belonged only to him and his descendants. I will discuss the successors of Saul later. 6 Hrvatski državni arhiv, Documenta medievalia varia (henceforth: HDA DMV), no. 22 (MNL OL, DF 218519). 7 First, in 1276 he bought land, which was situated next to creek Glogovnica and his own land (prima meta incipit ab occidente a terra eiusdem Mathey). The sellers were castle-warriors of Križevci (Diplomatički zbornik kraljevine Hrvatske, Dalmacije i Slavonije. Codex diplomaticus regni Croatie, Dalmatie ac Slavonie, ed. by Tadija Smičiklas et al., 18 vols. (Zagreb: JAZU 1904-1990) (henceforth: CD), vol 6, doc. 161, pp. 174-175). In 1277 Matthew bought from sons of Zlobk, sons of Chornk and sons of Visebor totam portionem terre cum silva, from Grobyna and Ratk totam terram ipsorum portionem cum silva eorum Dobouch nuncupat, from Wlkman, Drask and Paul, sons of Marelk quandam particulam terre eorum. The pieces of land were around Poljana. In the perambulation a road is mentioned, which tendit de Polana versus Crisium (CD 6, doc. 170, pp. 184-185). There is mentioned charter in the Regestrum of archives of family Orsić dated 1267, but the original of it was very likely the previous one, but the composer of the regestrum made a mistake with the numbers of the date (CD 5, doc. 920, p. 455, Jakov Stipišić and Miljen Šamšalović, ‘Isprave u Arhivu Jugoslavenske Akademije’ [Charters in the Archive of Yugoslav Academy], Zbornik Historijskohg instituta JAZU 2 (1959), pp. 289-379; 3 (1960), pp. 563-643; 4 (1961), pp. 465-554; 5 (1963), pp. 533-578). Later, on 25 April 1277, Mathew asked the Chapter of Zagreb to edit a document again about the above-mentioned sale (CD 6, doc. 180, pp. 198-199). 8 Diplomatarium, p. 140.

From Castle-Warrior to Nobleman

65

The next member of the family is Mike, son of Matthew. His life is very well documented. He was homo bani in 1334 with two former comites terrestres, Guy and Demeter, son of John.9 He was mentioned in a document in 1338 as a judge chosen by litigants (Hung. fogott bíró, Lat. probus vir).10 In the following year, he was comes terrestris, the head of the castle-district.11 This was also the peak of his career. Otherwise, Mike filed litigation against Lucas, son of Martin, in front of Comes Stephen of Križevci, son of Ban Paul, and Demeter, son of Ivan, who was comes terrestris of Križevci in 1340. The problem occurred because Lucas caused some injuries to Mike’s tenant peasant, and robbed some clothes (a tunic) and three pigs from another tenant peasant. After the investigation by the authorities of the county the decision was made that Lucas was guilty and they confiscated all of his estates. One third of them went to Mike; two thirds to the judges.12 Ban Mikcs of Slavonia confirmed this decision later that year and obtained the two-thirds of the estates.13 The ban offered that part to Mike to buy for a price of 27 marks, which he actually did. It is interesting that the amount was so high, because the usual amount was approximately from two to ten marks in the transactions of estates belonging to the castle-warriors.14 The office of comes terrestris must have been very fruitful for his economic status, given that he could spend so much money in this single transaction. The new land was in Poljana, as were the other estates of the family, and Mike was mentioned as one of the neighbouring landowners. It is very likely that he died sometime in the period of 1343-1344. He had three sons: Gregory, Paul and Nicholas. Nicholas is mentioned in the sources from 1344.15 He played a very important role in the life of his family, because he was elevated to the rank 9 28 June 1334 (CD 11, doc. 66; Anjou-kori oklevéltár. Documenta res Hungaricas tempore regum Andegavensium illustrantia. Budapest/Szeged 1990 (henceforth: Anjou-oklt.), vol. 18, no. 606. 10 20 November 1338 (CD 10, doc. 308, pp. 423-424; Anjou-oklt. 22, no. 578). 11 Diplomatarium, doc. 5. 12 Diplomatarium, doc. 6. 13 21 Oct 1340 (CD 10, doc. 410; Anjou-oklt. 24, no. 612). 14 For example, Demetrius, son of John, with his sons spent six marks in 1339 (Diplomatarium, doc. 5). Two parts of land of Aderian, son of Scudden, were worth two marks in 1344 (Diplomatarium, doc. 7). 15 In this year, he sold their estate called Glogoncamellék (Glogoncza Melenky) The problem is that this charter is extant only in the form of regesta, in the Elenchus of the archives of family Orsić and several documents, which served there, are misdated and sometimes not complete. The names of the sellers are not written in this case. Nicholas and his sons gave a possessio, called Glogoncamellék in 1384, because Martin, son of Erdő (Erdow) and George, son of George killed his son, Bogdan. We do not know if the two estates are the same or not (CD 16, doc. 369, pp. 489-490).

66 

Éva B. Hal ász

of nobles in 1346 by Ban Nicholas Hahót of Slavonia. When King Louis I of Hungary led a military campaign against the Venetians, who besieged the city of Zadar, Nicholas also participated as a member of the ban’s army (sub nostro vexillo), and, furthermore, he was wounded there. The ban edited the charter about this ennoblement in the military camp near the city of Zadar.16 Although the document mentions only Nicholas, seven years later, Prince Stephen of Slavonia extended the benefits to Nicholas’ brother Gregory.17 The third son of Mike, Paul was not mentioned in the ban’s privilege, nor in the charter of the prince, but he was later considered as a noble. In 1358 Nicholas, Gregory and Paul ended the lawsuit with Lucas, son of Martin, which was ongoing since 1340. Lucas declared in front of the Chapter of Zagreb that the estate of Poljana belonged to Mike’s sons.18 In 1377 Nicholas had a conflict with his brother Paul about the estate of Obrež (Ebres),19 and in 1381 he bought a mill on the River Glogovnica, close to another mill belonging to the family.20 Nicholas had four sons: Paul, Peter litteratus, Andrew and Bogdan. Bogdan was murdered before 1384, because in this year Angela, daughter of Martin, son of Erdő (Erdow), and George, son of George, gave a piece of land called Glogoncamellek to Nicholas and his sons as a compensation for the Bogdan’s murder (homicidium).21 In the 1390s the members of the family asked Queen Mary to protect them and their land against the illegal attacks. The queen ordered the ban of Slavonia to protect the family and their properties against all odds, especially against the castle-warriors of Križevci.22 In the beginning of the fifteenth century, Paul and Andrew, sons of Nicolas, supported Ladislas of Naples, King Claimant to the Crown of St. Stephen. Since the rebellion was unsuccessful, many noble estates of the supporters of the losing party were 16 Nos attendentes et circumspicientes fidelitates et fidelium serviciorum merita ac effusiones sanguinum Nicolai filii Myke nobilis iobagionis castri Crisiensis, qui, dum excellentissimus princeps dominus Lodovicus Dei gratia inclitus rex Hungarie scitatum Venetorum capitalium inimicorum suorum ante Jadram constitutum die sabati post festum beatorum Petri et Pauli apostolorum una cum sua et suorum banorum ac nostra potencia et gente expugnari fecisset, vulnera mortifera per ictus sagittarum pro exaltacione honoris regiminis sub nostro vexillo viriliter in se resumpmere non formidavit on 6 July 1346 (CD 11, doc. 231, pp. 309-310). 17 27 November 1353 (CD 12, doc. 158, pp. 212-213). 18 11 June 1358 (MNL OL, DL 35865). 19 Nicholas had to take an oath, that ipse quandam villam Ebres vocatam populis decorari fecisser et nullus iobagio per predictum Myke, patrem eorum ad eandem adductum in eadem haberetur; 26 February 1377 (CD 15, doc. 186, pp. 259-260). 20 26 June 1381 (AHAZU, D-VI-57, MNL OL, DF 230613; CD 16, doc. 169). 21 2 November 1384 (CD 16, doc. 369, pp. 490-491). 22 1 March 1395 (MNL OL DL 35901, Zsigmondkori oklevéltár, vol. 1, ed. by Mályusz Elemér et al. (Budapest 1951-) (further ZsO), vol. 1, no. 3849).

From Castle-Warrior to Nobleman

67

confiscated, and thus, Paul and Andrew were among them. King Sigismund gave these estates to Thomas, son of Stephen, who was an Episcopal vicar of Zagreb. Furthermore, Vicar Thomas donated some of these lands to the hospital of St. Cosmas and Damian, which he founded in Čazma. The family got back most of them in 1420s.23 After this the family lived the normal, quiet life of noble families, but in the second half of the fifteenth century they had a prolonged litigation with the masters of hospital in Čazma about some of these lands. In these documents, the line of Paul, son of Nicholas is styled as de Miketinc.24 However, comes Pezk had also another son: Saul. In the following lines, we shall discuss the fate of Saul’s descendants in the castle-district of Križevci. Saul was mentioned for the first time in 1276, when his brother Matthew bought a piece of land, which was close to their common estate.25 Saul and his son, Fabian, were mentioned in the sources only a few times, as owners of estates and homines bani. In 1340 Fabian was a trustee of the comes terrestris in the litigation between his relative, Mike, son of Matthew, and Lucas, son of Martin.26 The descendants of Fabian and the descendants of the comes terrestris Demeter (of the Matthew kindred) conducted a division of estates in 1380, when the successors of Demeter gave three particulas possessionarias in Raven to the grandsons and great-grandsons of Fabian.27 Since the charter does not mention the grounds on which they were basing the ownership, we can assume that these two families were connected by marriage. Valentin, son of George, was a retainer of Pipo Scolari, one of the most prominent supporters of King Sigismund, and fought against the Venetians. His lord asked the ruler to ennoble Valentin and his family in December 1412.28 His brother Paul was called litteratus in the sources and he was several times a trustee of the comes terrestris,29 and, after the 23 First, in 1412 Paul got Raven and three mills a vineyard in Poljana back from Vicar Thomas. His brother, Andrew was excluded from the possession of them (13 December 1412; MNL OL, DL 49382, ZsO 3, no. 3072). After, on 1 July 1421, Andrew gave back some parts of the estates (MNL OL, DL 49381; ZsO 8, no. 703). 24 See the uncertainly dated and truncated charter of Ban Peter Berislavić of Slavonia and the contained and transcribed documents: Nadbiskupijski arhiv u Zagrebu, Kaptolski arhiv, Archivum capituli Zagrabiensis, Acta Antiqua 125/8; MNL OL, DF 257245. 25 Ubi terre Mathey emptoris et Pauli (recte: Sauli) fratris sui conmetatur (CD 6, doc. 161, pp. 174-175). 26 23 September 1340 (Diplomatarium, doc. 6). 27 4 November 1380 (Diplomatarium, doc. 23). 28 8-15 December 1412 (AHAZU, D-VIII-22, MNL OL, DF 230922). For the problem of dating, see: ZsO 3, no. 3051). 29 7 May 1408 (Diplomatarium, doc. 28), 5 August 1411 (Diplomatarium, doc. 35).

68 

Éva B. Hal ász

ennoblement, homo bani, too.30 The other brother, Demetrius, was a priest (sacerdos). After the ennoblement, the family became an integral part of the noble society of Slavonia.31 Was this a favourable development for the castle-warriors? From the castledistrict Križevci seven ennoblements are known from the charters (one from the thirteenth century, two from the fourteenth century and four from the fifteenth century). There were surely much more, but the extant documents mention only these seven cases. First, in 1225, King Béla IV ennobled certain Chakan, son of Mergen, with other castle-warriors. In this early example only the military merit and the names of the castle-warriors are known, but the charter is considered to be suspicious.32 The first known ennoblement from the fourteenth century was the ennoblement of the mentioned Nicholas, son of Mike. In 1387 Queen Mary elevated to the ranks of noblemen a canon of the Chapter of Zagreb, called Gregory of Raven, and his relatives. Gregory took part in the liberation of the queen (pro liberatione nostre maiestati), but the details of his role are not specified.33 In the fifteenth century first the Čeberkovac family (1405) was ennobled by King Sigismund. The king elevated two lines of the family, the descendants of Abraham and the descendants of Giles. The two ancestors were more likely brothers than cousins.34 The latest case is the one of the Martinovac family from 1417, but here the reasons of the ennoblement are unknown. The members of the family gave several lands to Master Benedict, because he asked King Sigismund to elevate the family nexu servitite iobagionatus Crisiensis.35 Seven lines of the family are mentioned in the charter, but the connections between them are unknown to us. It is unknown when exactly the status of the descendants of comes terrestris Demeterius changed, but most likely it happened in the 1410s.36 30 6 July 1422 (AHAZU D-IX-6, MNL OL, DF 231028). 31 In 1413 they are mentioned as nobiles regni, when they bought lands from nobiles castri on 6 May 1413 (Diplomatarium, doc. 38). 32 1225 (CD 3, doc. 221, pp. 247-248, Az Árpád-házi királyok okleveleinek kritikai jegyzéke. Regesta regum stirpis Arpadianae critico-diplomatica, 2 vols., ed. by Imre Szentpétery and Iván Borsa (Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó 1923-1987), no. 574). There is one more charted, edited by King Béla IV, which is the same, naturally except of the names (CD 3, doc. 222, pp. 248-249; Az Árpád-házi, no. 577). And it is a little bit early for our story because the castle of Križevci is mentioned for first time in 1223, when King Andrew II donated possessio (terra) named Laga to fratribus sancti Sepulchri, which was connected to the castle (que pertinebat castri Kris). CD 3, doc. 207, pp. 232-233. 33 AHAZU, D-VIIA-117, MNL OL, DF 230779. 34 27 February 1405 (AHAZU, D-VIIB-49, MNL OL, DF 230857). 35 5 July 1417 (Slovenský národný archív. Archives of family Eszterházy of Csesznek. Documents arranged by elenchus of József Muraközy 22/27, MNL OL, DF 282149, ZsO 6, no. 642). 36 They are mentioned as nobles for certain in 1417 (MNL OL, DL 100408, ZsO 6, no. 734).

From Castle-Warrior to Nobleman

69

All of the ennoblements have some typical elements. One of them is military merit, except in the case of Canon Gregory and the Martinovac family; the others were ennobled surely because of this reason. Because Canon Gregory played an unknown role in the liberation of Queen Mary, it is possible that it was also some kind of military action. The reasons for the other ennoblements are unknown. The members of the family gave lands to Benedict, son of Clemens, in front of the ban of Slavonia, because he asked King Sigismund to ennoble the whole family, but the reasons for this act were not written down in the charter. The other important element is personal authority. One or more people from the family had great personal authority. In the families, there were some comites terrestres (Nicholas, son of Mike; descendents of comes terrestris Demetrius, the brothers and descendants of Valentin), canon (canon Gregory) or litteratus (Čeberkovci family, the brothers and descendantsof Valentin). In the Martinovci family, Benedict son of Clemens, who acquired the nobility for his family, was called magister. Comes terrestris was the head of the castle-district, the canon and litteratus were educated men within the society. The third element is the economic status of the family. The richer families had more opportunity to become noble. Among other families of the castlewarriors, the ennobled families were rather rich, as we have seen above. King Sigismund ended the existence of the castle-district of Križevci with a charter from 1 June 1430. Michael of Raven, prothonotary of Križevci and John Ostfi of Poganac asked the ruler to elevate all of the castle-nobles of Križevci to the status of nobles of the realm. The king raised them all to the rank of nobles and thus afterwards were not any castle-warriors, belonging to the castle district of Križevci.

Ilka 1447

George 1417-1421

≈ George dictus Ax

Peter Jacob 1421-1447 1417-1421

Paul 1408-1431

Demetrius Jacob 1411-1421 1380

Gregory 1380

Ilka 1424

Valentin 1411-1415

Stephen

Gregory

George 1380

Fabian 1339-1340

Paul

Saul 1276

Fabian 1380

Stephen 1380

Nicholas 1380

John 1380

Bogdan †1384

Peter 1372-1395

comes Pezk 1269

Anne

Clement 1424

Dorothy

Susko 1423

Helen 1423

≈ Nicholas dictus Crusher

Ladislas 1423-1478 ≈ Barbara

Paul 1384-1424

Nicholas 1344-1384

Figure 1 Genealogy of descendants of comes Pezk (the people who were granted nobility are in bold)

Dorothy 1423

Andrew David 1384-1433 1395-1415

Gregory 1353-1358

Nicholas Nicholas 1395-1413 1390-1413

Paul 1358-1390

Mike 1334-1343

Matthew 1276-1277

70  Éva B. Hal ász



Late Medieval Village in Turopolje (Slavonia) The Example of Donja Lomnica Nikolina Antonić

The research of late medieval villages is a relatively recent topic in Croatian medieval archaeology. Highway excavations, by enabling the research of the biggest areas that researchers ever had the opportunity to investigate, contributed to this interest. Still, highway excavations face certain problems – both the site of the excavations and the length of the excavated site are determined by the right-of-way of the highway. As a consequence, some of these sites face difficulties of interpretation. Although the investigated areas are big, they are still limited and often do not give enough data to make general conclusions about the layout of the late medieval village. On the example of village of Donja Lomnica, with the help from written sources,1 onomastics and ethnographic data2 we can try to gain some more information about the functioning of the village system of a certain area. These results can be only partial, but different kinds of sources combined together can point to possible guidelines that could lead to better understanding of archaeological finds and historical and onomastic sources. Turopolje is an area south of Zagreb; that is south of the river Sava that marks its northern border. On the other side, it is bounded by the Samoborsko Gorje hills to the west, the confluence of the Kupa and Sava rivers to the southeast, and the Vukomeričke Gorice hills to the southwest. The whole area measures approximately 600 square kilometres, and it consists 1 Monumenta historica nobilis communitatis Turopolje olim ‘Campus Zagrabiensis’ dictae (henceforth: MHNC), 4 vols., ed. by Emilij Laszowski (Zagreb: Plemenita općina Turopolje, 1904-1908). 2 Very valuable historic and ethnographic data for Turopolje, was gathered first by Emilij Laszowski and his associates Janko Barlè, Velimir Dežalić and Milan Šenoa. This data is published as a two-volume book: Emilij Laszowski, Povijest plemenite općine Turopolje nekoć Zagrebačko polje zvane [A History of the Noble Community of Turopolje once called Zagreb Field], 2 vols. (Zagreb: Tiskom Antuna Scholza, 1910). Ethnologists have afterwards been interested in Turopolje primarily because of its traditional wooden houses and churches. Thus, traditional stories, customs, and land holdings in Donja Lomnica and the surrounding villages were written down by Vojko Miklaušić, Plemeniti puti [The Noble Ways] (Donja Lomnica: Matica hrvatska, ogranak Velika Gorica, 1994).

72 Nikolina Antonić

of three parts. A plains area in the north (traditionally called ‘polje’ [field]), a mountain area called Vukomeričke Gorice (‘vrhovlje’ [peaks]) on the south, and Veliki Turopoljski lug (a marshy area) on the southeast.3 Turopolje was situated in Slavonia, a constituent part of the medieval Kingdom of Hungary-Croatia. As a result of special historic circumstances, the medieval as well as modern history of the region was most known because of the noble community of Turopolje. Its members were iobagiones castri, castle warriors of the castle of Zagreb, who managed to preserve their privileges long after the disintegration of the castle system. They owed military service to the king and, in return, they owned their land hereditarily and were exempt from taxes. 4 This particular form of social structure was important for the character of landed estates, for their ownership, and for land-use patterns and the settlement system. At the same time, Turopolje is an area with strong local tradition. Many of the old customs are kept alive thanks to the members of the noble community, which was renewed in 1991 as a cultural organization. Moreover, it can be argued that some elements of the traditional way of life in the Turopolje area survived up to the early modern and modern period, probably because of natural conditions and perhaps because of the social and settlement structure.

Information about the village from the written sources Donja Lomnica is situated ‘in the Field’. It is one of the oldest villages of the castle warriors of Turopolje, recorded in the written sources for the first time in 1279.5 Donja Lomnica means ‘lower’ Lomnica, in contrast to Gornja (‘upper’) Lomnica. Both settlements are named after the Lomnica-Odra River, depending on which bank they stood.6 From 1279 until 1502 there are approximately 45 charters that refer to the territory of Donja Lomnica. There are contracts of sale, donations, charters dealing with filial quarters, court processes, restitution of land, pledges, and one last will. This number of documents is a valuable source for historical research. It can also be helpful in environmental reconstruction since these documents contain 3 Ivan Garaj, ‘Mikroregija Turopolje’ [Microregion Turopolje], Kaj 5-6 (1974), p. 195. 4 Erik Fügedi, The Elefánthy. The Hungarian Nobleman and His Kindred (Budapest: CEU Press, 1998), pp. 37-38; Martyn Rady, Land, Nobility and Service in Medieval Hungary (London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2000), pp. 79-82. 5 MHNC 1, p. 35. 6 Laszowski, Povijest plemenite općine, vol 2, p. 310.

Late Medieval Vill age in Turopol je (Sl avonia)

73

information about the types of properties and sometimes the boundaries of the possessions. In general, possessions in Turopolje (the ones that belonged to the castle warriors)7 could be property belonging to the whole community – mainly forests, property of one kindred (more characteristic of the earlier period), property of one family inside the kindred, and individual property.8 The owners could be inhabitants of the village in question or people from other villages. The latter was not an unusual case, but more of a standard practice. The first factor that became clear in the charters dated to the period of the mid-thirteenth to mid-fourteenth century is that they do not specify the type of possession within the boundaries of the village.9 It is impossible to distinguish what kind of land existed just from the written sources because the land is always referred to just as terra, with some variations as terra seu possessio. This term was used for different kinds of land depending on the context. It signifies a generic term, which in practice stands for private property of an individual, a family, or kindred. A good example is the charter from 1228, which is a contract of sale in which twelve people are selling parts of their lands (terra) to comes P. It is stated that two or more of them own one piece of land (thus, being family property). In perambulations, on the other hand, the borders are determined on the lands of individual owners – et ibi terminatur ad sinistram terra Scorosa cum terra Nycolay, ad dexteram terra Petri – or with the land that belongs to the kindred – terram Iunose et toti generacioni sue.10 The term terra can also stand for the land of the whole village (for example, terra nobiles campi de Lumnicha).11 Thus, the main characteristic of these types of mentions is that the land belonged to one person or to a group of people, and it does not signify the size of the land, or even the question of which settlement or settlements this land belonged to. However, the charters of the late medieval period are more detailed and precise about the nature of property which was the focus of a transaction 7 It should be noted that not all villages of Turopolje were inhabited by the castle warriors. Some of them were property of the king who donated them to different nobles; some were property of different church orders, or citizens of Gradec. 8 Laszowski, Povijest plemenite općine, vol. 2, pp. 101-102; Marija Karbić, ‘Property and Family in the nobilis communitas Campi Zagrabiensis’, manuscript submitted for the project ‘Nobility in East and Central Europe’ (head researcher: János M. Bak). 9 MHNC 1, pp. 1-51. There are 51 charters altogether for the early period for the whole area of Turopolje. 10 MHNC 1, p. 4. 11 MHNC 1, pp. 8-9.

74 Nikolina Antonić

or donation. The term terra arabilis for plough land is mentioned for the first time in 1335 12 and in 1373 the term sessio appears for a plot where there is a dwelling unit.13 First they start to appear sporadically and then become standardised. These two terms remain the basic ones. The term terra campestris, the land in the field, is rarely used alone, more often in combination – terra arabilis seu campestris. However, the term terra is still used parallel with new terms. But in this period if a land is marked just as terra (which is almost the exclusive case in perambulations when the adjacent plots of land of different owners are described), it is more common that it refers to land used for agricultural functions, plough land. Two more terms should be mentioned. One of them is an estate, possessio. It can be a synonym for the village or it can signify private property. In the last case, the smaller units are often referred to as part of the estate, i.e., portio possessionaria. Possessio and portio possessionaria which are not that helpful in reconstruction because they are the terms that could include terra arabilis, terra campestris, sessio or other units of one estate, for example, woods, meadows, etc. These later charters often include the measurements of the land. Five terms appear: aratrum, dieta, wereten/wreten, sulcus, and meet/met. Most of them are common medieval measurements that can be found in the charters of the Kingdom.14 If one takes into consideration the origin of these words (aratrum – plough, sulcus – furrow, dieta – from the Latin word for day, dies, meet is just measurement), it is clear that the name originated from the amount of land that could be ploughed in one day. But, the problem with medieval measurements is that they were not standardised, but local. Therefore, if they are not recalculated for a specific area, which is the case here, it is not possible to know their sizes exactly. The same is true for a specific local measurement, wereten or wreten.15 12 MHNC 1, p. 52. 13 MHNC 1, pp. 91-96. 14 István Bogdán, Magyarországi hossz- és földmértékek a XVI. század végéig [Hungarian Lengths and Measurements until the End of the Sixteenth Century] (Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 1978), pp. 140-141, 151-166, 174, 219-220, 266-267, 346, 348, 350-354; Zlatko Herkov, ‘Prinosi za upoznavanje naših starih mjera za dužinu i površinu’ [Contributions for Understanding of Our Old Measurements for Width and Length], Zbornik Odsjeka za povijesne znanosti Zavoda za povijesne i društvene znanosti Hrvatske akademije znanosti i umjetnosti 7 (1974), pp. 91-95. 15 This term originated from Dalmatia, but it did not spread further than the county of Zagreb. Ethnographic data that might be useful in further investigations should be recorded. The traditional way of marking the land in Lomnica was: the width of earth that one plough can plough was called brazda (furrow). After the sixth furrow, the ploughman would make a ditch. That ditch would be the mark of a measurement called slog. Thus, slog was the bigger unit while

Late Medieval Vill age in Turopol je (Sl avonia)

75

Still, even if the exact size of a specific plot of land is unknown, data from the charters may indicate the general characteristics of the size of the lands in Turopolje during the medieval period. Documents provide many examples of how the land transactions functioned within the framework of the noble community. The land was constantly being divided among members of the family. Also, it was often sold or inherited by people from the same or different villages or towns or divided as a filial quarter. This meant constant parcelling of the land. Since these villages were densely populated the parcels could not have been too big.

Toponyms as indicators of space Unfortunately, there are not many charters that can help with placing the plots in accurate positions in space. Two of them explicitly testify about the placement of some houses around the River Lomnica in late fourteenth (1391) and fifteenth century (1461).16 This can be supported by toponyms. First, along the Lomnica River still exists a toponym Jarčenica, also mentioned in the charter from 1425 as terra Iarchenica, the property of Peter, son of Paul called the Devil (in Croatian vernacular Wrag).17 On that land, just along the Lomnica River exists one more toponym – Dvorno mjesto. In the modern language of Donja Lomnica this would be a building plot.18 But, traditionally it was an area of land with a noble house (curia) with a courtyard and economic buildings; basically, a nobleman’s estate.19 As seen on Figure 1, several other fields, most of them around Lomnica, have such a name. We must take into consideration the fact that this name is still preserved in modern language as a building area, so some of those names could have been appropriated in the modern period as the land provided for building activity. However, surface medieval pottery finds brazda was smaller. These measurements do not mark the surface or the length but the width of the land. I thank Slavko Stepanić for this explanation. In his book, written in 1952, Vojko Miklaušić wrote that one slog is equal to six brazdas and to three vreteno. This is the same word as the term wereten or wreten used in the charters. This would mean that one wereten is equal to two widths of the plough. 16 MHNC 1, pp. 128-129; 414-415. 17 MHNC 1, p. 195. 18 Stepanić, Lomnički riječnik, p. 21. 19 Laszowski, Povijest plemenite općine, vol. 2, pp. 103-105. Document from 1448, mention that one eighth of all possessions of Paul called the Devil (Wrag) was predictam sessionem seu terram sessionalem cum domo in eadem sessione superhedificata, ac cum curia et orto ibidem habitis (MHNC 1, pp. 287-294).

76 Nikolina Antonić Figure 1 Position of the site Šepkovčica and toponmys Jarčenica and Dvorno mjesto within the boundaries of Donja Lomnica

can be found in the area of Jarčenica and on Dvorno mjesto. These finds, combined with the data from the charters, give strong indications that a proper sessio was on this land in the medieval period.

Archaeological finds and their interpretations Around the present-day borders of the village Donja Lomnica, there are no toponyms as mentioned above. Two charters that could be connected with the area north of Jarčenica mention terrae arabile and terrae campestrae.20 This data can be more rounded out with the archaeological finds from the site of Šepkovčica, excavated on the track of Zagreb-Sisak highway (see Figure 2).21 Along with a bigger part of early medieval settlement, some features dated to the high and late Middle Ages have also been uncovered 20 MHNC 1, p. 195; 2, pp. 6-8. Also, cf. Nikolina Antonić, ‘GIS in Historical Research’, Annual of Medieval studies 21 (2015), pp. 211-229. 21 The site of Šepkovčica was excavated in a project ‘Rescue Archaeological Investigations along the Course of the Future A11 Zagreb to Sisak Motorway’ (2006-2008). The project was coordinated by the Croatian Ministry of Culture and directed by Aleksandra Bugar of the Zagreb City Museum. I would like to thank the Zagreb City Museum and Aleksandra Bugar for the opportunity to participate in the excavations as well as for allowing me to work on the material from the medieval horizon.

Late Medieval Vill age in Turopol je (Sl avonia)

77

on the north-western part of the site, partly covering earlier structures.22 So, the space was constantly used from early medieval period until the fifteenth century, when it was turned into a pasture field or agricultural land. The great density of discovered features from such a wide time span as well as poor preservation (destruction by both later features and modern plugging) and the impossibility in dating certain features (due to the fact that they contained no finds) makes it very hard to explain the function of most of the features found on this part of the site. On the basis of the typo-chronology of the pottery from a well dated to the fourteenth-fifteenth century23 and a pit dated by the coin of Sigismund, minted between 1390 and 1427,24 high and late medieval phases can be broadly distinguished (see Figure 2). Very profiled rims of vessels, typical for this period, appear both in the well and in a pit. Generally, these kinds of rims appear only as early as the thirteenth century; they increase in number in the fourteenth century and prevail in the fifteenth.25 In the site of Šepkovčica this distinction is very clear; either they are present in high frequency, around 90-95%, or not present at all in the pits ascribed to the earlier phase. However, this division is not set in stone at the time of writing. Until we have more detailed pottery typology for the Turopolje area, it is not possible to claim if some of the older types of vessels still continued to be used in the fifteenth century. So, the pits singled as the last phase of the site definitely belong to that phase because the later appearance of very profiled 22 Aleksandra Bugar, ‘Naselje ranog srednjeg vijeka Velika Gorica-Šepkovčica’ [Early Medieval Settlement Velika Gorica – Šepkovčica], in Zbornik Srednji vek/Arheološke raziskave med Jadranskim morjem in Panonsko nižino, ed. by Mitija Guštin (Ljubljana: Narodni muzej Slovenije Inštitut za dediščino Sredozemlja Znanstveno-raziskovalnega središča Univerze na Primorskem, 2008), p. 180. 23 Material is published in Aleksandra Bugar: ‘Dva srednjovjekovna bunara s lokaliteta Šepkovčica’ [Two Medieval Wells from the Site of Šepkovčica], Vjesnik Arheološkog muzeja u Zagrebu 44 (2011), p. 162. 24 Ana Pavlović, ‘Numizmatički nalazi s lokaliteta Šepkovčica’ [Numismatic Finds from the Šepkovčica Site], Opuscula archaeologica 35 (2011), p. 280. 25 I will mention just the closest analysis from the castle Vrbovec and the small part of the settlement (five pits) uncovered at Stenjevec. While in Vrbovec this kind of rim is dated to the fourteenth and fifteenth century, in Stenjevec (an area at the western end of Zagreb), which is closer to the site, they are completely missing and the site is dated to the fourteenth century. Cf. Tatjana Tkalčec, ‘Kuhinjska i stolna keramika iz stambenog djela burga Vrbovca u Klenovcu Humskome’ [Kitchen and Table Pottery from the Residential Part of the Castle of Vrbovec in Klenovec Humski], Vjesnik arheološkog muzeja u Zagrebu 3 (2010), pp. 455-476; Maja Bunčić, ‘Naseobinski pokazatelji kasnog srednjeg vijeka zagrebačkog nalazišta Stenjevec’ [Settlement Indicators from the Late Medieval Zagreb Site of Stenjevec], Vjesnik arheološkog muzeja u Zagrebu 43 (2010), pp. 69-110.

78 Nikolina Antonić Figure 2 Plan of the archaeological site Šepkovčica

rims (more than the less profiled ones) is generally confirmed, but only an analysis of all the sites now available will show to what extent pottery types, that now seem typical for the second half of the thirteenth and the first half of the fourteenth century, were still in use in later periods. It should also be noted that eleven pits did not contain any finds and sixteen pits with pottery finds contained only a few that are too fragmented to allow dating and thus cannot be ascribed to any phase. Among those features are also rare postholes. They indicate that some of the wooden buildings or fences could have been present but at what time period (early, high or late Middle Ages or modern period) cannot be said with certainty. The last phase of the site is contemporary to the discussed charter data so that phase will be the focus of the analysis here. To it, ten pits, a well, a ditch and two fire places can be ascribed. They are situated on the north-western side of two stream/river channels. Geological analysis showed that this did not function as a stream during the Middle Ages, but was a swampy area.26 This is not surprising as Turopolje, before the water regulations in the modern period, was an area dominated by water and wood. This environment is well recorded in the written documents. As already noted by Milan Šenoa, charters often use terms like lacus, chret, palus, terra aquosa, mlaka, etc.27 Flood layers found on the site confirm that the area was occasionally flooded. It is not possible to say how frequent this flooding occurred, and when it stopped. Because of the latter agricultural activity, the possible upper layers and tops of discovered features were ruined. 26 Tomo Novosel, ‘Geološka i inžinjersko-geološka obilježja na lokalitetu Šepkovčica’ [Geological and Engineering-Geological Characteristics at the Site Šepkovčica], unpublished report kept in the Archive of the Ministry of Culture of the Republic of Croatia (Zagreb, 2008), p. 6. 27 Milan Šenoa, ‘Zemljopis i narodopis’ [Geography and Ethnography], in Povijest plemenite općine, vol 2, p. 7.

Late Medieval Vill age in Turopol je (Sl avonia)

79

a) Pits Preserved parts of the pits were mostly shallow, 10-30 cm in depth. The fillings of most of the pits contained pottery, animal bones, and rarely slag and metal objects. Pits are often interpreted as garbage disposal places. While it is likely that some of them might at the end have served this function, in a situation like this, when the relations of their positions with dwellings are unknown it is not possible to claim with certainty anything about their original function. However, these pits offer valuable information about both the types of vessels that were in use at the period,28 and the eating habits of the residents, which is important for the economic activity of the area. The bones of the following animals were discovered: pigs and wild pigs, deer, domestic cattle (bos taurus) and remains of small ruminants (sheep or goats or roe). The most represented are the bones of the pigs, generally across the site.29 A different situation occurred only with the pit that, along with the coin of Sigismund, contained twelve metal objects, half of them broken.30 Along with them, it contained seven smaller broken pieces of iron and few pieces of slag as well as animal bones and very fragmentary pieces of pottery.31 This suggests that the pit was filled with garbage in its final phase. It should be noted that the pit was dug into one of the channels and into the flood layer, which contained a large amount of bone, pottery, and metal objects from different time periods, so some of the finds could have come into this pit while it was being dug. But, the large amount of both broken and preserved metal objects and several pieces of slag could indicate that, while at one point the pit was covered with trash, maybe even flooded, it could have had another primary function. This can also be supported by comparing its construction with that of the other pits since it was deeper (60 cm) and larger (1,80 x 0,60 m). Next to the eastern end another smaller (1,60 x 1 m) and shallower (10 cm) pit was found. It was filled with reddish-brown earth that contained smaller 28 Most frequently found vessels are pots (95%), sometimes bowls, jugs and lids were found. The fine ware is very rare (less the 1%). 29 Zdravka Hincak, ‘Izvještaj – Osteološka analiza životinjskih ostataka s nalazišta Šepkovčica (Velika Gorica)’ [A Report – An osteological Analysis of Animal Remains from the Site Šepkovčica (Velika Gorica)], unpublished report kept in the archive of the Ministry of Culture of the Republic of Croatia (Zagreb, 2007). 30 Three knives of which two broken, a belt mount, two small pieces of broken nails, one long nail, one needle, a bent and broken iron ribbon, a broken piece of a square-shaped iron object, a small iron hoop (maybe part of a bridle), and a hoe. 31 134 small pieces, after merging 108.

80 Nikolina Antonić

pieces of burned earth. It had no other finds. Twenty centimetres north of the large pit was a posthole. The posthole indicates that the pit could have been covered with some sort of ‘roof’, that is, an upper construction for the protection from strong sun or the rain. Traces of burned earth in a small pit indicate the use of fire. If one takes into consideration the amount of the metal objects found in a pit, usage of fire and upper construction it can be suggested that this could be a remain of a small and temporary workshop for some minor blacksmith work. The pit could have been made for the craftsman to sit or stand in while working and later used as a waste pit.32 b) Fireplaces Small fireplaces appear to be temporary. Next to one of them pieces of two, maybe three, pots were found in a very shallow pit (about 5 cm). The pots were lying below a very thin layer of earth, which could indicate that they were not put in a pit, but were left next to the fire place and broken after it was abandoned. In the burnt earth of the fireplace a broken belt buckle and horse tooth were discovered. Just one meter east of this fireplace was another, but this one was not visible on the surface. The pit in which it was found had multiple uses. One of the fireplaces was original, as it was discovered on the bottom. Afterwards it was backfilled with earth containing pieces of pottery, slag, and animal bones. On top of them lay broken pieces of a millstone and parts of a horse spine. Several other pieces of horse bone were found in the filling beneath, as well as two teeth of cattle. c) Well Two wells were found; one dates back to the thirteenth-fourteenth century and the other to the fourteenth-fifteenth century. Clearly the favourable depth of underground water stimulated the building of two wells just 35 meters apart in a relatively short time span. Postholes around wells testify about the post that was standing next to them.33 The post had a horizontal beam with a bucket on one end and a stone (for weight) on the other. These kinds of structures are attested in ethnological literature; also called dip 32 György Szabó, ‘A falusi kovács a XV-XVI. Században’ [The Village Blacksmith in the Fifteenth-Sixteenth Centuries], Folia Archeologica 6 (1954), pp. 123-145; for ethnographic data about travelling craftsman see: Between East and West. Everyday Life in the Hungarian Conquest Period – Über die Grenze zwischen Ost und West. Ungarn im 9-11. Jahrhundert, ed. by Csilla Siklódi (Budapest: Promptus, 1996), pp. 77-99. 33 About the wells and the construction, see Bugar, ‘Dva srednjovjekovna bunara’, 161-178.

Late Medieval Vill age in Turopol je (Sl avonia)

81

wells, they were one of the most common types of wells in the Carpathian Basin and in Eastern Europe. They are used for pulling up a large amount of water from a not-toodeep well (the wells here were around three meters deep) in a relatively short time. Traditionally they were present almost everywhere in the rural countryside. They could be part of individual housekeeping or common property of the community in the open fields to draw water for cattle and other animals. For this activity, a large amount of water is required. It is also interesting to mention that moving the upper end of this construction could also serve as a signal for when the cattle arrived or for another purpose (for example marking the end of a working day).34 d) Ditch / Fence? A T-shaped ditch found next to the well (at 70 cm distance) is also, according to the finds, ascribed to the last phase of the site and could be simultaneous with the well. The longer branch of the ditch was 60 meters long and 90 centimetres wide. The real length remains unknown as it extended under the eastern profile of the highway right-of-way. The shorter branch was 24,10 meters long and around 70 cm wide on the northern and 50 cm on the southern end. The preserved depth is 15-20 cm. There are two possible solutions for the function of this ditch. As stated in the ethnographic literature, when building animal fences people would first dig a ditch and then they would put up a wooden fence on the mound of earth that this created.35 At the same time, the ditch could have served as a drainage system, which in fact could be a useful function that would prevent waterlogging. The bottom of the shorter part is 90 centimetres lower than the upper part, which means that it could have had a flow. The ditch was directed towards the streambed where the water could have been released in a swampy area.

34 Endre Füzes, ‘Gémeskút’ [Shadoof], in Magyar Néprajzi Lexikon, vol. 2, ed. by Gyula Ortutay (Budapest: Akadémiai kiadó, 1979), pp. 276-277; Attila Paládi-Kovács, ‘Jeladás kútgémmel’ [Signaling Shadoof], in Magyar Néprajzi Lexikon, vol. 2, p. 687. 35 Fences for animals were made in different forms depending on a type of animals that were kept in them. Sometimes different kinds of animals could have been kept at the same site in different sorts of fences, for example, the site at Kengyel, see József Laszlovszky, ‘Fama sanctis and the Emergence of St. Margaret’s cult in the Rural Countryside’, in Promoting the Saints Cults and Their Contexts from Late Antiquity until the Early Modern Period, ed. by Ottó Gecser, József Laszlovszky, Balázs Nagy, Marcell Sebők and Katalin Szende (Budapest: CEU Press, 2011), pp. 103-124.

82 Nikolina Antonić Figure 3 Well, pits and ditch

Photo by Borko Rožankvić

As previously mentioned, archaeological interpretation can be only partial. There are no traces of permanent buildings for the people or animals on this part of the site. Postholes indicate that some structures, either buildings or wooden fences, existed, but it is not possible to say in which time period. The well could have been a part of a household or a common property on the open field. Since a house was not discovered nearby, and field walk data confirms that this part of the site did not extend more than 50 meters on both sides, with a very small density of finds, this indicates the other solution for the well, which could point at extensive animal husbandry. In case that the fence existed by the ditch, it was probably used for keeping larger amounts of animals. The bones from the site point at hunting activities (deer, roe and wild pig) but also at the pig and cattle farming (domestic cattle, pigs). Although there are many pigs’ remains, it is not easy to differentiate between domestic species and wild pigs, and written documents confirm that pig farming was the primary economic branch of Turopolje.36 The earliest charter that mentions pigs was issued by Ban Stephen in 1246. The big wood (present-day Veliki turopoljski lug) was used 36 Josip Adamček, Agrarni odnosi u Hrvatskoj od sredine XV do kraja XVII stoljeća [Agrarian Relations in Croatia from the Middle of the Fifteenth to the End of the Seventeenth Century] (Zagreb: Sveučilišna naklada Liber, 1980), pp. 117, 207-208.

Late Medieval Vill age in Turopol je (Sl avonia)

83

by Count John of Okić and his relatives for pig pasture. Ban forbade them to use it, giving the right of it to castle warriors of Turopolje.37 Since Turopolje has favourable environmental conditions, i.e. water and dense woods, it is suitable for a traditional form of pig raising, the so-called žirenje, where pigs are left free in the woods to feed on acorns.38 This resulted in the emergence of a particular species of hairy pigs that still exist in the area – so-called Turopolka, which is considered an indigenous breed. What would be the correlation between these structures and the pits it is not easy to say. Maybe some of the pits were garbage disposal places at the outskirts of the village at one phase of the site. Metal production connected with the workshop pit is usually performed on the outskirts of the village or of a single house. This pit could also have been used by an itinerant craftsman who performed some minor blacksmith work in an area where animals are kept. Fire places could have also been used by shepherds. Some pits could also have been used by them as storage pits. Furthermore, in what time sequences these activities occurred cannot be specified. In any case, archaeological finds testify that everyday life is actually something that is not easy to grasp. With the solid basis in the written sources we can tell how the villages of the castle warriors functioned in general, on the legal level. But, what archaeology is telling us is that there are lots of everyday activities we are not able to learn about, both thanks to poor preservation of the structures and the limitations of the excavated area.

Conclusion Villages in the area where castle warriors of Turopolje resided were a densely populated, dynamic, lively environment. The private ownership, the division of the land between successors and the institution of the filial quarter resulted in constant changes of the owners of particular parcels of the land. This can also be assumed with a high degree of certainty for the land on the site of Šepkovčica. If we take this into consideration the number of features from different time periods is not really surprising, nor is the fact that most of those features cannot be reconstructed. Constant use of space resulted in the destruction of older structures and replacement with the new ones. 37 MHNC 1, p. 8. 38 Katja Matković Mikulčić, Hrast – drvo Turopolja [The Oak – The Tree of Turopolje] (Velika Gorica: Pučko otvoreno učilište, 2010), p. 25.

84 Nikolina Antonić

It also resulted in the abandonment of the site, or more correctly put, reuse of the site as agricultural land. The written documents show that, although archaeological excavation at Šepkovčica brought valuable new data, only a fragmented piece of the village or its periphery was excavated. Hopefully, in future, greater interest in this topic will enable excavations of features that, as was shown by the analysis of both charters and toponyms, mostly still remain under ground in Donja Lomnica.



Economic Development and Transformation of the Pauline Monasteriesnear Senj under the Frankapan Patronage Kristian Bertović

The Order of Saint Paul the First Hermit was one of the most important monastic orders in the Kingdom of Hungary-Croatia. On the level of the Kingdom, only the Franciscans had more friaries. The Pauline role in shaping relations between several entities within the Kingdom, together with their monastic and economic transformation, influenced their local communities. Thus, researching the Paulines provides information not just about their monastic history but it also offers some insights about their local communities, benefactors, and the connections developed among them. In this article, I will deal with two Pauline littoral monasteries near Senj – Holy Savior (Sv. Spas) in Ljubotina and St. Helen (Sv. Jelena) in Vlaška draga, both part of the Pauline vicariate of Gvozd, which included all the monasteries south of the hill Petrova Gora.1 Head of the vicariate was St. Nicholas (Sv. Nikola) in Gvozd near Modruš. The exact time of the establishment of the vicariate is unknown, but one can follow its existence along with the St. Nicholas monastery. This vicariate had some particularities; such predicaments as the usage of language and the Glagolitic script. In addition, most of the monasteries were either founded or to some extent supported by the Frankapan family. By taking the Frankapan patronage into consideration and putting it into the context of the Pauline economic and monastic transformation and development, both on the local and Kingdom-wide scales, one should be able to attest several different patterns and local peculiarities. When trying to establish clear connections (especially the nature of those connections) between two complex entities such as an aristocratic family and a monastic order, one has to take into consideration all available sources. As there are still no systematic archeological surveys of the Pauline monasteries, the backbone of this article is the written sources, especially 1 Petar Runje, Tragom stare ličke povijesti [Tracing the Old History of Lika] (Ogulin: Matica hrvatska, 2001), p. 73.

86 

Kristian Bertović

grants and donations given by the various members of the local communities, such as the aristocracy, the lesser nobility, or rich burghers to the Pauline monasteries. In addition, most of the sources are legal documents such as foundation charters, donations, tax and toll exemptions, testaments, judicial decisions, and so forth. The time scope of this research covers the period from the foundation of the given houses to their abandonment or desolation in the first decades of the sixteenth century. The source material, combined with the recent studies on the Pauline life and economy should offer answers to the following raised questions:2 Were there any patterns in the landscape surrounding their monasteries? What kind of monastic economy did they prefer? How did the order transform and adopt their initial hermit idea in an altered economic and social environment and how did the Frankapans influence that transformation? What was the role of the Frankapan family in the foundation and life of the mentioned Pauline houses? Given results will enable the exploration of certain patterns regarding the Frankapan patronage, Pauline economy, and the roles of both parties in contemporary society. Turning to the secondary literature regarding the Paulines one name stands out amongst others – Kamilo Dočkal, who in his unpublished manuscript Građa za povijest pavlinskih samostana u Hrvatskoj extensively covered the establishment and further development of all Pauline monasteries in Croatia.3 The monastery of the Holy Savior is a Pauline monastery erected in the cove of Ljubotina, on the southern side of Senj. 4 Although clearly situated in a different climate and geography than the monasteries in medieval Slavonia or Hungary, one can still trace some of the Pauline patterns regarding the space. The monastery was situated in a desolate location on the very coast of the Adriatic Sea. Furthermore, the monastery was not far from the main road connecting medieval Slavonia with the sea. Although in a 2 One of the most important scholars currently working on the Paulines, especially on their economy, is Beatrix Romhányi. Her works offer both a solid methodological base and the comparative material on the level of the kingdom. For details see Beatrix F. Romhányi, A lelkiek a földiek nélkül nem tarthatók fenn – Pálos gazdálkodás a középkorban [The Pauline Economy in the Middle Ages] (Budapest: Gondolat Kiadó, 2010); Eadem, ‘Die Wirtschaftstätigkeit der ungarischen Pauline im Spätmittelalter (15-16. Jh.)’, in Die Pauliner. Geschichte – Geist – Kultur, ed. by Gábor Sarbak (Budapest: Szent István Társulat, 2010); Eadem, ‘Life in the Pauline Monasteries of Late Medieval Hungary’, Periodica Polytechnica 43 (2012) 2, pp. 53-56. For more Hungarian comparative material, see: Károly Belényesy, Pálos kolostorok Abaúj-Hegyalján [Pauline Friaries in the Abaúj Hegyalja Region] (Miskolc: Herman Otto Muzeum, 2004). 3 The manuscript can be found in the Archive of the Croatian Academy of Sciences and Arts under the signature Dočkal XVI 29. 4 Cro. Sv. Spas. Dočkal, XVI 29a (3).

Economic Development and Tr ansformation of the Pauline Monasteries

87

deserted place, the monastery was within walking distance (few kilometers) of the city of Senj. In this way, the contrast between the Pauline hermit tradition and their later approach to the style of the mendicant orders is nicely pictured in the case of the Holy Savior monastery. The first mention of the monastery dates back to 1364. On 29 September 1364, the monastery of St. Nicholas gave a house in Senj to Dominic, son of John, in hereditary lease for four ducats annually. Brother Florin, prior of the Holy Savior monastery, acted on behalf of the St. Nicholas monastery and with its approval; he was accompanied by Brother Urban.5 Although not focused primarily on the Holy Savior monastery, this charter provides valuable information about this establishment. It is apparent that the monastery existed before 1364 and that it had its own prior and monk(s). Also, one can see that the hierarchy among the monasteries already existed by that year – Brother Gregory, prior of the St. Nicholas monastery, was also Florin’s vicar and superior. Thus far no one can clearly be connected to the monastery as founder due to the lack of sources. Previous scholars have mostly left the question of the founder completely open6 or, as in case of Kamilo Dočkal, tried to infer it based on later donations. Dočkal argued in favour of either the Frankapans or the citizens of Senj as later they were frequent donors to the monastery.7 Taking into consideration the arguments presented in this article, I would cautiously argue that some of the burgher families in Senj acted as founders of the monastery. The first surviving charter related directly to the Holy Savior monastery was issued several years later, in 1371, when the monastery acquired 5 Ibique religiosus et honestus frater Florianus, prior Conventus sive Monasterii sancti Salvatoris in valle Glubotine prope Seniam asseruit se ad omnia et singularia suprascripta et infrascripta habere plenum mandatum a religioso et honesto fratre Gregorio, priore Monasterii sancti Nicolai de nemore Modrussae, eorum vicario, et promittit se facturum et curaturum omni occasione remota, quod dictus frater Gregorius confirmabit omnia et singularia suprascripta et in hoc contractu contenta ibidem praesente fratre Vrbano, tunc fratre dicti Monasterii sancti Salvatoris (Codex diplomaticus regni Croatiae, Dalmatiae et Slavoniae, ed. by Tadija Smičiklas et al. (Zagreb: JAZU, 1915), p. 399) (henceforth CD). 6 Josip Adamček, ‘Pavlini i njihovi feudalni posjedi’ [The Paulines and their Feudal Estates], in Kultura Pavlina u Hrvatskoj 1244-1786 [The culture of the Croatian Paulines], ed. by Vladimir Maleković (Zagreb: Globus – Muzej za umjetnost i obrt, 1989), pp. 41-66; Zorislav Horvat, ‘Srednjovjekovna pavlinska arhitektura na području senjske i modrško-krbavske biskupije’ [Pauline Medieval Architecture in the Bishopric of Senj and Modruš-Krbava], Senjski zbornik 26 (1999) 1, pp. 131-132, Mile Bogović, ‘Pavlini u Senju’ [The Paulines in Senj], Senjski zbornik 13 (1988), pp. 110-112. 7 Dočkal, XVI 29a (3), p. 8.

88 

Kristian Bertović

a vineyard in Baška draga, on the Island of Krk. 8 In the following years, properties in Baška draga became one of the focus points of their economy. There, four years later, in 1375, the monastery bought a piece of land for twelve ducats from John Mikulanić, burgher of Senj.9 In the same year the monastery acquired another piece of land in the same place; it was a donation for which the monastery paid a ‘counter gift’; it was donated by Rada, daughter of Krasnelin.10 Beside the counter gift in money, the monastery also took the responsibility of praying for Rada and the deceased members of her family.11 On several other occasions the monastery acquired land again in Baška draga. Taking all this into consideration, I would argue that the monastery had a clear picture about the types and locations of the properties they wanted to procure. This trend can be followed continuously through the whole ‘life span’ of the monastery. In the following years, on several occasions, the monastery acquired vineyards or land in and around a specific location within Baška draga – the church of St. Cosmas and Damian. For example, in 1419, Prior Stephen bought the land in Baška draga, near the church of St. Cosmas and Damian, for seven ducats and eleven solidi.12 By looking into the borders of this land, one can see that it adjoined to properties already owned by the Holy Savior monastery. The same pattern in the acquisition of the new lands and vineyards was repeated. They were not only buying land and vineyards in Baška draga, but also exchanging the lands and organizing them in the way that suited them. Apparently, the focus point of this organization was the church of St. Cosmas and Damian.13 A good example of this is the charter from 1426 in which the monastery exchanged one piece of land in Baška draga for another one near the church of St. Cosmas and Damian.14 The same situation occurred again in 1451. This time they exchanged a garden 8 Vbi venerat Stanach filius condam Dragunchin et eius vxor Dragosckaua et dederunt se sponte de proprio eorum velle sub ecclesia sancti Spiritus de Lubetingo; et dimisit, dedit et donauit idem Stanach suam, vineam que est in valle Besche (CD 14, pp. 314-315). 9 Acta Croatica. Listine Hrvatske, ed. by Ivan Kukuljević Sakcinski (Zagreb: Brzotiskom Narodne tiskarnice dra. Ljudevita Gaja, 1863) (henceforth: AC), pp. 42-43. 10 AC, pp. 43-44. 11 AC, p. 43. 12 AC, p. 49. 13 This tendency was also noted by previous scholars, most notably Kamilo Dočkal in his unpublished overview of the Pauline order (XVI 29a [3]) and Vjekoslav Štefanić, ‘Dvije frankopanske glagoljske darovnice pavlinima (g. 1372 i 1452)’ [Two Frankopan Grants to the Paulines (in the Years 1373 and 1452)], Zbornik historijskog instituta Jugoslavenske akademije znanosti i umjetnosti 1 (1954), pp. 137-148. 14 AC, p. 54.

Economic Development and Tr ansformation of the Pauline Monasteries

89

in Baška for land near the church of St. Cosmas and Damian.15 The second piece of important information this charter provides is a mention of building some houses around the St. Cosmas and Damian church.16 The culmination of these efforts occurred in 1466, when, with the approval of his chapter and Count Nicholas VII Frankapan as lord of the Island of Krk, Bishop Nicholas of Krk granted the church of St. Cosmas and Damian to the Holy Savior monastery. Also, he exempted the church, its possessions and two of the monastery’s previously acquired vineyards of all taxes due to the bishopric of Krk.17 It seems that Vicar Stanislav and the prior of the Holy Salvation monastery, Brother George of Modruš, played a crucial role in this. In the first place, they managed to get the permission and donation charter for the church and its lands from John VII Frankapan, as the church had been erected by his ancestors.18 With his permissions they went to the bishop of Krk, and ‘after being persistent in their requests’ the bishop granted them the church, lands, and tax exemptions.19 In return, the Paulines were obliged to give one small libra of incense to the bishop of Krk every year on the feast of the Assumption of Virgin Mary for as long as they owned the church and its lands.20 In this way, St. Cosmas and Damian officially became the residence and the center for the Paulines in Baška draga. After the dissolution of the Holy Savior monastery in the mid-sixteenth century, some of the monks took permanent residence there. This resulted in its elevation to an independent monastery during the seventeenth century. Properties in Baška draga on the Island of Krk were one of the two main economic assets of the monastery. The second ones were the estates, first and foremost houses in the city of Senj. The earliest information regarding the monastery’s properties in Senj can be found in the charter issued in 1375. Prior James, in the name of the monastery, gave a house in Senj in hereditary lease to a certain Nicholas of Ancona, a citizen of Senj. In return, he was obliged to pay five ducats annually.21 As in the case of the 15 AC, pp. 78-79. 16 The charter is not precise about the houses. It only mentions that the towns’ off icials approved their erection. Thus, it is hard to say who built them and whether they were monastic or civic. 17 AC, pp. 99-101. 18 This charter was not preserved, but the bishop Nicholas is referring to it in his own charter (AC, pp. 100-101). 19 AC, pp. 100-101. 20 AC, pp. 100-101. 21 Et consentiente omnibus et singulis infrascirptis per se suosque posteros ac succesoras ex nunc in perpetuum dedit, contulit, concessit et affictavit Nicolao condam Massoli de Ancona, civi et habitatori Segniae, pro se ac suis haeredibus posteris ac successoribus praesenti, conducenti

90 

Kristian Bertović

vineyards in Baška draga, one can follow the development of the Pauline economy based on leasing real estate through several surviving charters. Their activity and agility in this ‘business’ can be seen from an example in 1411. On the very same day, the monastery managed to acquire the house (worth 118 ducats)22 and then leased it to Lawrence de Cuane de Terencio.23 In return, he had to pay a yearly rent of eight ducats.24 They were even ready to pursue their debtors in court, if that was necessary to get the livellum (term used for rent). Such a thing happened to a certain Lelacius. Even though he pleaded poverty, Prior Stephen pushed the case all the way to the bishop of Krk,25 who in the end decided in favour of the monastery and ordered Lelacius to pay what he owed (six ducats) and return the house to the Paulines.26 In at least five more surviving charters the Holy Savior monastery was involved with the donations, purchasing and leasing of the houses in Senj. Most of the donations and transactions of the Holy Savior monastery involved citizens of Senj or Baška. Compared with that, the Frankapans did not play an important role as in the case of other Pauline monasteries in medieval Croatia, such as the St. Nicholas monastery. The first preserved Frankapan charter (and one of the earliest overall) dates to 1372. Count John (Hans) V Frankapan, upon the request of Prior James, granted the monastery his own incomes in Baška draga.27 In return, the monks were required to pray for his health and the salvation of his ancestors’ souls.28 Nine years later, Prior Phillip went to Modruš and asked the same thing from John’s brother, Stephen I Frankapan. This time the monastery was released from paying taxes on their vineyards in Baška draga. In the same way as with his brother, the Paulines were required to pray forever for his health, soul, et recipient unam domum praetacti monasterii, postiam Segniae … ducatos quinque auri justi ponderis in perpetuum (CD 15, pp. 141-143). 22 Elemér Mályusz, ‘A szlavoniai és horvátországi középkori pálos kolostorok oklevelei az Országos Levéltárban’ [The Medieval Slavonian and Croatian Pauline Charters in the National Archives], Levéltári közlemények 6 (1928), pp. 188-189. The original of the charter is kept in the National Archives of Hungary under the signature: DL 34386. Cf. Dočkal, XVI 29a (3), pp. 33-34. 23 Mályusz, ‘A szlavoniai és horvátországi középkori’, p. 189; MNL OL, DL 34387. 24 Arendalea super una magna domo contiquoque monasterii domui Cassali Segniae ad ejusdem monasterium s. Salvatoris pertinentibus erga censum annuae in 8 ducatis auri (Dočkal, XVI 29a (3), p. 29). 25 Why they were pleading to the bishop of Krk and not the bishop of Senj is an interesting question. One possible answer may be that at that time the seat of bishop of Senj was empty. 26 Mályusz, ‘A szlavoniai és horvátországi középkori’, pp. 189-190; MNL OL, DL 34388; Dočkal, XVI 29a (3), pp. 33-34. 27 That is, he freed them from the taxes on their lands in Baška draga. 28 Štefančić, ‘Dvije frankopanske darovnice’, p. 140.

Economic Development and Tr ansformation of the Pauline Monasteries

91

and the souls of the deceased members of the Frankapan family.29 This happened in the light of the conflict between King Louis I and Venice in 1378, in which the Frankapans stood at the king’s side. However, as the tide of war turned to the Venetian side, its fleet stormed and burned Senj and Baška.30 It is reasonable to assume that the Pauline lands and vineyards were also plundered or burned during the fighting.31 This tax exemption could be seen as a more than welcome Frankapan boost for the recovery of the Holy Savior’s economy – which was based on the properties in Senj and Baška. In 1466 the priors of the Holy Savior and St. Helen monasteries took advantage of a rare occasion, the gathering of all the members and heads of different branches of the Frankapan family, except for the youngest, John VII of Krk. The priors managed to get a confirmation charter for some of their estates confirmed and sealed with the seven seals of the heads of the family.32 Although, at least in the case of the Holy Savior monastery, the charter confirmed only some minor properties, it must have been important as it shows that the Frankapan family as a whole, regardless of the ‘branch’, was ready to support the Pauline order.33 The monastery ceased to exist sometime in the mid-sixteenth century. Its exact fate remains unknown as there is no way to tell whether it burned or the monks just fled from it to the relative safety of Senj, Baška, or some other location. Most probably the monastery was destroyed to prevent the Ottomans from using it as a fortification. Later, the remains of the monastery were used as building material for Fort Nehaj from 1558.34 The Holy Savior was not the only Pauline monastery around Senj. Through history, two other Pauline monasteries existed in the close proximity or in the city itself. The younger of the two, St. Nicholas in Senj, was founded in 1634 within the city walls.35 The St. Helen monastery was older; it was located in the Vlaška draga, a cove on the northern side of Senj. The clear similarities between this and the Holy Savior monastery cannot pass unnoticed. As in the case of Holy Savior, it was erected in a desolate location on the very coast. 29 AC, p. 45. 30 For a more detailed overview of Frankapan role in this conflict see Vjekoslav Klaić, Krčki knezovi Frankopani [The Frankapans Counts of Krk] (Zagreb: Matica hrvatska, 1901), pp. 172-174. 31 Dočkal XVI 29a (3), p. 21. 32 AC, pp. 98-99. 33 AC, pp. 98-99: village called Šavše and some arable land. 34 Dočkal, XVI 29a (3), p. 82. 35 For more detailed information about it see Horvat, Srednjovjekovna pavlinska arhitektura, 163-167; Mile Bogović, ‘Pavlini u Senju’ [The Paulines in Senj], Senjski zbornik 13 (1988), pp. 112-119; Dočkal, XVI 29a (11) – Pavlini samostana sv. Nikole u Senju 1634 [The Paulines’ St. Nicholas monastery in Senj 1634].

92 

Kristian Bertović

It was also walking distance from Senj and near the road that led from Senj to the northwest, parallel with the coast line. One could say that the spatial context of the monastery was an exact copy of Holy Savior. However, unlike the case of Holy Savior, the exact date and the founder of the monastery are known as the foundation charter has survived. The monastery was founded on 10 January 1390 by Archdeacon Radovan, citizen of Senj. It is also clear that the church of St. Helen preceded the monastery, namely, that the church itself was given to the Pauline monks, along with the permission to build their monastery in the same location.36 Still, several questions remain unanswered. When the monastery was actually built, who did it, and who endowed it with the first goods and properties? Some indications of the time of the actual establishment of the monastery can be drawn from the fact that the next surviving charter regarding St. Helen monastery dates from 1415, twenty-f ive years after the nominal foundation. From this document, it is visible that the monastery sold a vineyard in Vlaška draga.37 The next two surviving charters show the same pattern noted in the case of the Holy Savior monastery. Again in 1415 a merchant from Senj, Julian de Lucha, donated his vineyards on the hill of Suha Kozica to the monastery. The Paulines were obliged to give him half of the income from the vineyards until his death and the death of his wife. Also, if their daughters would not marry, the monastery was responsible for assisting them financially.38 The second charter reveals that the monastery acquired a house or rather a working place or shop (Lat. merrisium) in Senj. It was donated by Matt Čudinić, citizen of Senj.39 In return, the Paulines were obliged to give Matt and his wife another house in which they would live for the rest of their lives. The revenues generated by the donated house also belonged to Matt and his wife until their death. 40 From these charters, it can be seen that in the early life of the St. Helen monastery the citizens of Senj were its main benefactors. Nevertheless, from the number, nature, and the clauses included in the donations, it can be seen that the monastery was smaller, less significant, and less connected with the citizens of Senj than the Holy Savior monastery. An argument for this is the fact that the donation of the house in Senj (in 1433) was the last 36 Mályusz, ‘A szlavoniai és horvátországi középkori’, p. 181; MNL OL, DL 35282. 37 Mályusz, ‘A szlavoniai és horvátországi középkori’, p. 181; MNL OL, DL 35418. 38 Dočkal XVI 29a (5), 10; Mályusz, ‘A szlavoniai és horvátországi középkori’, p. 182; MNL OL, DL 35419. Kamilo Dočkal identified Suha Kozica as the hill above the sea to the north-west, towards the town of Novi (Dočkal XVI 29a (5), p. 11). 39 Mályusz, ‘A szlavoniai és horvátországi középkori’, p. 182; MNL OL, DL 35541. 40 Dočkal, XVI 29a (5), p. 12.

Economic Development and Tr ansformation of the Pauline Monasteries

93

registered interaction between the monastery and its founders – the citizens of Senj. All further charters were between the Frankapan family and the monastery. The first of those charters was a donation of Count Sigismund Frankapan in 1444. Upon the request of Prior Karin, in which he stated that the monastery needed help so that the ‘service of God would not suffer’ Žigmund decided to give them an abandoned piece of land in Švica suitable for construction of mills (malinišće), where he previously had his own mills. Out of gratitude, the Paulines promised to hold a mass every week during his life for the absolution of his sins and after his death for his soul. 41 In the same year Sigismund’s brother, Count Bartholomew IX granted the monastery a part of the estate in Brinje along with the monasteries of Holy Savior and St. Mary in Crikvenica.42 At the same time, he freed all the tenant peasants on that estate from obligations to him. 43 In return, the monks were obliged to serve one mass per week, alternating this responsibility from one monastery to the other every single year. 44 A year later (1445), the third brother, Count Dujam IV Frankapan, upon the request of Prior Karin, also made a donation to the monastery. The prior asked for the right to mill their wheat for free in Dujam’s mills in Žrnovnica, below the Frankapan castle of Ledenice. Dujam approved this request and ordered his official to respect and implement this decision. 45 From the 1466-charter is clear that the monastery had two mills in Švica (built on the place given by Sigismund Frankapan)46 and two mills in Bočaći. 47 As recognized by Romhányi, the mills were one of the main sources of income for the Paulines, both through the renting and working with the grain of the local peasants and landlords. They offered a good and relatively stable source of income and were seen 41 AC, p. 63. 42 Eiusdemque ordini ac monasteriis infrascriptis penes mare locatis, scilicet monasterio sancti Salvatoris, sancte Elene ac beate virgins cognomine Cirquenicz curavinus providere de quodam territorio nostro, in confinio bringensi sito, vulgariter nuncupato Maly Proticzcy, ordini ac monasteriis prenotatis donavimus et damus irrevocabiliter iure perpetuo prefatum territorium cum omnibus redditibus, quibus nos utebamur ac aliis uti promisimus cum montibus, silvis, pratis, fenilibus, terris cultis et incultis ac aquarum decursionibus (CF, p. 342). 43 Et ut ipsi villain sunt liberi ab omni servitude nostra seu steura (CF, p. 342). 44 Ut fratres prefati ordinis in supradictis locis debeant et teneantur perpetuis temporibus qualibet ebdomada dicere unam missam anno primo ad sanctum Salvatorem pro peccatis, secundo anno ad sanctam Elenam de omnibus sanctis et anno tertio ad beatam virginem Cirquenicz de beata virgine, et sic consequenter per singulos annos ad honorem Dei omnipotentis eiusque genitricis virginis gloriose ob spem salutis anime nostre ac pro genitorum nostrorum (CF, p. 342). 45 AC, p. 65. 46 AC, pp. 99-101. 47 AC, pp. 98-99. Beside these mills, the Frankapans also confirmed one meadow in ‘Vetrni dolac’ and some arable land in the village of Drštino near Brinje to the monastery.

94 

Kristian Bertović

as wise long-term investments. 48 As Žrnovnica was located just below the castle of Ledenice and the town of Novi, one could imagine that the Paulines wanted to expand their milling business to more than one region. The monastery also acquired two meadows. The first of them was again donated by Count Dujam IV Frankapan. 49 The second one came from Countess Elisabeth, widow of Count Bartholomew IX Frankapan. In this charter Elisabeth mentioned that one of the reason for the donation is the ‘poverty and the great need’ of the monastery. To help the monastery she provided it with one meadow, and in return the monks were obliged to pray for her health and the health of her sons Nicholas VI and John VIII, the forgiveness of their sins, and for the soul of her husband, Bartholomew.50 The question is how this would help the monastery. It could indicate that the meadows were seen as the type of property that was given in situations like this. The partial analogy for this can be found in the case of the Virgin Mary monastery in Gönc which, after the complainants of the monks, gained half of the income from a certain pasture.51 The request of Prior Philip to Count Martin IV Frankapan can also be seen in this light for he asked if Count Martin could grant the St. Helen monastery the land with a house and the garden near their mills in Švica. Martin agreed to grant them the land but in return he expected that they would pray for his sins, while he was alive, and after his death, for his soul and the souls of his ancestors.52 St. Helen monastery probably had the same fate as Holy Savior. Although there is no relevant data about the monastery itself after 1501, one can imagine that the constant Ottoman raids made living impossible. Most likely it was abandoned by the mid-sixteenth century when all the monasteries outside the city walls of Senj were destroyed. As seen from the sources presented in this article, both of the mentioned monasteries shared some common patterns regarding their life and development, especially in their early existence. Holy Savior monastery grouped their vineyards and lands in Baška draga on the Island of Krk, especially around the church of St. Cosmas and Damian. The Paulines’ active engagement in creating that compact and connected cluster of properties can clearly be seen. Parallel to this process, the Paulines worked on acquiring 48 Romhányi, ‘Life in the Pauline Monasteries’, p. 54. 49 AC, p. 68. In return, he expected that the Paulines would pray for his soul and the souls of the departed members of his family. 50 AC, pp. 90-91. 51 Belényesy, Pálos kolostorok Abaúj-Hegyalján, p. 95. 52 AC, pp. 113-114.

Economic Development and Tr ansformation of the Pauline Monasteries

95

properties in the city of Senj. As is visible from the sources, they focused on real estate and rentals. They did not hesitate to invest even large amounts of money and one can assume that this proved to be profitable for them. The Frankapan family played a rather supplementary supportive role,53 helping them develop their main economic aspects even further, such as the vineyards on the island of Krk, through tax exemptions, or helping them consolidate their estate in Baška draga. St. Helen monastery followed the same pattern as its ‘twin monastery’, at least up to a point. It acquired vineyards in the close proximity of the monastery, and house(s) in Senj. While Holy Savior managed to gain significant properties from the citizens, St. Helen was not so successful. It may be assumed that Senj and its citizens were not able to support equally that many monasteries, as the Pauline monasteries were not the only ones in or near the city.54 Also, the abilities of the priors to actively participate and search for patrons could also have been one of the reasons for the somewhat weaker ‘results’ of the monastery. In the case of St. Helen, the Frankapan family played a decisive role in stabilizing the monastery through donations of estates that the monastery needed after the time when their founders, the burghers of Senj, were for some reason unable or unwilling to support it any longer. In return, the Frankapans expected spiritual benefits from the Paulines. The discrepancy between the Pauline hermit habitus and their active role in the local communities can be attested in the cases of the presented Pauline houses. The Pauline order evolved over time and shifted their monastic habitus towards the mendicant orders. This transition can be attested through the versatility in the monastic economy and also their active role in local communities. Nevertheless, it can be seen that the Pauline hermit tradition and habitus can be seen is the monastic landscape and the conscious choice of the sites of their monastic houses. 53 Unlike the cases of other Pauline houses, such as St. Nicholas in Gvozd, Holy Virgin Mary in Novi, or Holy Virgin Mary in Crikvenica, were the Frankapan family played a decisive role as a founder and main benefactor of the presented Pauline houses. 54 During the time frame I am dealing with in this article (fourteenth to first decades of the sixteenth century), there were six monasteries in Senj or its vicinity – besides the two Pauline monasteries (Holy Savior and St. Helen), two Benedictine monasteries (St. George and Holy Cross), a Franciscan monastery (St. Francis), and Dominican monastery (St. Nicholas – in the seventeenth century their monastery was taken over by the Paulines). For more details about the monastic situation in Senj, see Mile Bogović, ‘Crkvene prilike u Senju u 14. stoljeću i status senjskog kaptola’ [Ecclesiastical Situation in Senj during the Fourteenth Century and Status of the Chapter of Senj], Senjski zbornik 13 (1988), pp. 15-28.



The Society of the Noble Judges in Northeastern Hungaryduring the Reign of King Sigismund (1387-1437)* István Kádas

In this article, I will examine a special social group within the lesser nobility in the Kingdom of Hungary. The history of the European lesser nobility, especially in the Western Europe, is a well-researched field and has a great historiography. For instance, it is a known fact that the English gentry was a much more open class than the French nobility.1 However, Edouard Perroy – after the reconstruction of the noble society of Forez County – observed that neither was the French lesser nobility closed; there were opportunities for the newcomers to establish a new noble linage.2 Philippe Contamine has several works about the French noble society and examined the differences between the English ‘gentleman’ and the French ‘gentilhomme’.3 In the UK, the followers of K.B. McFarlane published several books about the local nobility of the English shires. 4 In Germany, Joachim Scheider * This research was supported by the European Union and the State of Hungary, co-financed by the European Social Fund in the framework of TÁMOP 4.2.4. A/-11-1-2012-0001 ‘National Excellence Program’. 1 Edouard Perroy, ‘Social Mobility among the French Noblesse in the Later Middle Ages’, Past and Present 21 (1962), p. 25. 2 Ibidem, pp. 31-36; Edouard Perroy, Les Familles Nobles du Forez au XIIIe siècle. Essais de filiation, 2 vols. (Saint-Etienne/Montbrison: Université de Saint-Etienne, 1976). 3 Philippe Contamine, ‘Noblesse francaise, nobility et gentry anglaises a la fin du Moyen Age: une comparaison’, in La Noblesse en question. (XIIIe-Xve siécle), ed. by Philippe Contamine, Cahiers de Recherches Médiévales 13 (2006), pp. 105-132; Philippe Contamine, La noblesse au Royaume de France. De Fhilippe Le Bel a Louis XII (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1997), pp. 133-135; Philippe Contamine, ‘France at the End of the Middle Ages: Who was then the Gentleman?’, in Gentry and Lesser Nobility in Late Medieval Europe, ed. by Michael Jones (New York: St Martin’s Press, 1986), pp. 201-216. 4 For example: Christine M. Carpenter, Locality and Politiy: a Study of Warwickshire Landed Society, 1401-199. (Cambridge: University Press, 1997); Nigel E. Saul, Kinghts and Esquires: the Gloucestershire Gentry in the Fourteenth Century (Oxford: University Press, 1981); Suzanne M. Wright, The Derbyshire Gentry in the Fifteenth Century (Chesterfield: Derbyshire Record Society, 1983). Thanks to Suzana Miljan and Gábor Buják for their help. About K.B. McFarlane and his followers: Andrew M. Spencer, Nobility and Kingship in Medieval England. The Earls and Edward I, 1272-1307 (Cambridge: University Press, 2014), pp. 100-108.

98 Ist ván K ádas

wrote a comprehensive monograph wherein he compared the ‘niederadel’ of Bayern, Saxony, Brandenburg and Austria and made important remarks.5 Furthermore, I have to mention a volume of studies of the West European gentry and lesser nobility edited by Michael Jones wherein the most important researchers of the field interpreted and compared the lesser nobles of England, Scotland, France, Castile, the Netherlands and the Holy Roman Empire.6 These essays show the great diversity of the characteristics of the lesser noble society which depend on the country or region. It is generally agreed that the nobles were more numerous in the kingdoms of East Central Europe (especially in Hungary-Croatia and Poland), than in Western Europe.7 In the Kingdom of Hungary-Croatia about 3% of the population belonged to the nobles, most of them were poor petty nobles with only a few tenant-peasant plots. 8 The problem can be perceived at a different level as well. Some nobles were present at the royal court and had special privileges, while a much greater part of nobility was formed by groups of local nobles who managed their own estates, served a wealthier noble or baron, and took part in the county administration.9 The most characteristic members of the latter group were the noble judges (Lat. iudices nobilium, Hung. szolgabírók) and their families. According to the most recent research, a typical county did not exist in the medieval Kingdom of Hungary-Croatia since the noble society was diverse in each region.10 I have examined the society of noble judges of the counties of Abaúj (Abov), Gömör (Gemer) and Sáros (Šariš) in Upper Hungary and today Sáros County and parts of Abaúj and Gömör are situated in Slovakia. As a good comparative example for my research I 5 Joachim Schneider, Spätmittelalterlicher Deutscher Niederadel. Ein Landschaftlicher Vergleich (Stuttgart: Anton Hiersemann, 2003). 6 Jones, Gentry and Lesser Nobility. 7 Philippe Contamine, ‘The European nobility’, in The New Cambridge Medieval History, vol. 7, ed. by Christopher Allmand (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998). 8 Ferenc Maksay, ‘Sok nemes országa’ [The Country of Numerous Nobles], in Mályusz Elemér Emlékkönyv [Collection of Papers in Honour of Elemér Mályusz], ed. by Erik Fügedi, Éva H. Balázs and Ferenc Maksay (Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 1984), p. 290. 9 Pál Engel, The Realm of Saint Stephen. A History of Medieval Hungary, 895-1526 (London/ New York: I. B. Tauris, 2001), p. 177; Pál Engel, ‘Társadalom és politikai struktúra az Anjou-kori Magyarországon’ [The Society and the Political Structure in Hungary during the Angevin Era], in Honor, vár, ispánság: válogatott tanulmányok [Honour, castle, castle district: selected papers], ed. by Enikő Csukovits (Budapest: Osiris, 2003), pp. 312-318. 10 Norbert C. Tóth, ‘A nemesi megye a középkori Magyarországon. Öt megye példája’ [The Noble County in Hungary. The Examples of Five Counties], Szabolcs-Szatmár-Beregi Szemle 45 (2010): 409; István Tringli, ‘Le contee in Ungheria nel periodo degli Angiò’, in L’Ungheria angioina, ed. by Enikő Csukovits (Roma: Viealla, 2013), pp. 139-178.

The Societ y of the Noble Judges in Northeastern Hungary

99

have relied on Pál Engel’s conclusions relating to the noble society of the county of Ung (Užska).11 The office of the noble judges is one of the most important extensions of the administrative structure of medieval counties. Although officially the comes (Hung. ispán) was the leader of the county in Hungary, who was appointed by the king, in practice the vicecomes (Hung. alispán) and the noble judges were responsible for the management of the administration. While the vicecomes was appointed by the comes from among his own retainers, the noble judges were elected by the community of the county.12 This office was established in the late thirteenth century.13 The Hungarian term of the noble judges is szolgabíró which means they are the servants or the attendants of the comites in the sedes iudiciaria.14 The main task of the noble judges was the assistance of the comes in the county court. The noble judges often served summons to the nobles or made inquiries in the field. They took part in the levy as well.15 In most of the counties of the medieval Kingdom of Hungary-Croatia there were four noble judges, but in Torna, Pilis, or the counties of Transylvania there were only two.16

The term of ‘society of noble judges’ The first question regarding the research is can one use the term ‘society of noble judges’? Is there any special social category of them? To answer these questions, one has to examine the archonotoligies and prosopographies of the members of this office. In the case of the county of Abaúj, Veronika 11 Pál Engel, A nemesi társadalom a középkori Ung megyében [The Noble Society in the Medieval County of Ung] (Budapest: MTA Történettudományi Intézet, 1998). 12 Tringli, ‘Le contee’, pp. 161-163. 13 Attila Zsoldos, ‘Az özvegy és a szolgabírák’ [The Widow and the Noble Judges], Századok 138 (2004), pp. 798-802. 14 Attila Zsoldos, ‘A szolgabírói tisztségnév kialakulásának kérdéséhez’ [Contribution to the Question of the Formation of the Office and Title of the Noble Judges], Levéltári szemle 38 (1988) 5, pp. 12-17. 15 Tringli, ‘Le contee’, pp. 162-163; Norbert C. Tóth, Szabolcs megye működése a Zsigmond-korban [The Functioning of the County of Szabolcs in the Age of Sigismund] (Nyíregyháza: Szabolcs Községért Kulturális Közhasznú Közalapítvány, 2008), pp. 68-69; József Holub, Zala megye története a középkorban I [The History of County of Zala in the Middle Ages] (Pécs: Zala Megye Közönsége, 1929), pp. 162-163; Norbert C. Tóth, ‘Lehetőségek és feladatok a középkori járások kutatásában’ [Opportunities and Duties in the Research of the Medieval Processus], Századok 141 (2007), pp. 401-410. 16 Tringli, ‘Le contee’, p. 153.

100 Ist ván K ádas

Novakova made a well-founded archontology.17 I have supplemented her list and compiled the archonologies of the noble judges of the counties of Gömör, Sáros, Torna (Turňa) and Zemplén (Zemplín).18 In Abaúj there were several noble families whose members often held this office throughout the fifteenth century. Moreover, a high number of these noble families can be found among the noble judges of the late sixteenth century, too.19 Sáros County is more specific, because in the first half of fifteenth century there were thirty six noble judges originating from only sixteen noble families.20 Moreover, most of these families were descendants of two extended kindreds: the Gyármáns and the kindred of Tekele.21 On the other hand, there is a geographical factor as well, because most of the known noble judges of Abaúj and Gömör came from the villages and estates in the vicinity of the centre of the county (which was Garadna in Abaúj and Tornallya and Gömör in Gömör).22 17 Veronika Nováková, ‘Vývoj správy a spísomňovania v Abovskej stolici do roku 1526’ [The Analysis of the Documents of the County Abov untill 1526], Slovenská Archivistika 27 (1992), pp. 71-73; Veronika Novák, ‘Nyitra, Bars és Abaúj vármegyék tisztviselői és oklevélkiadásuk 1526ig’ [The Office-Holders and Their Issuing of Charters of the Counties of Nyitra, Bars and Abaúj until 1526], in Szabolcs-szatmár-beregi levéltári évkönyv 16, ed. by Ágota Hemzsel (Nyíregyháza: 2003), pp. 29-43. 18 István Kádas, ‘Északkelet-Magyarország szolgabírói a Zsigmond-korban (Archontológia)’ [The Noble Judges of the north-eastern Hungary in the Age of Sigismund (the Archontology)], in Magister Historiae. Válogatott tanulmányok a 2012-ben és 2013-ban megrendezett középkorral foglalkozó, mesterszakos hallgatói konferenciák előadásaiból [Selected Papers of the Conferences for Undergraduate Students in Medieval History from 2012 and 2013], ed. Mónika Belucz, Judit Gál, István Kádas and Eszter Tarján (Budapest: ELTE BTK Történelemtudományok Doktori Iskola, 2014), pp. 110-125. 19 Archív Mesta Košice, fasc. K – Forró és Garadna, no. 25. 1560.; fasc. K – Szebenye, no. 29. 1588. 20 Noble judges of Sáros during the reign of Kings Sigismund and Albert: Kádas, ‘ÉszakkeletMagyarország’, pp. 117-121. Noble Judges of Sáros during the reign of King Wladislav I and Ladislas V: Magyar Nemzeti Levéltár Országos Levéltára (henceforth: MNL OL), Diplomatikai Fényképgyűjtemény (henceforth: DF), 228678, 213136, 228689, 228707, 228735, 228740; MNL OL, Diplomatikai Levéltár (henceforth: DL), 75290. 21 István Kádas, ‘Szolgabírói társadalom Sáros megyében a 15. század elején’ [The Society of Noble Judges in the County of Sáros in the Beginning of the Fifteenth Century], in Tanulmányok Badacsonyból [Essays from Badacsony], vol. 3, ed. by Balázs Kántor and Béla Mihalik (Budapest: Fiatal Levéltárosok Egyesülete, 2015). Manuscript accepted for publishing. 22 Abaúj: families Cécei, Szebenyei, Tuzsai, Sárvári, Fáji, Mérai, Szendi: István Kádas, ‘Az Abaúj megyei szolgabírói társadalom a Zsigmond-korban’ [The Society of the Noble Judges of the County of Abaúj county in the Age of Sigismund], Korall 15 (2014), p. 114. Gömör: families Mellétei, Herényi, Malai, Tornaljai, Naprágyi, Kövecsesi, Kisfaludi: Pál Engel, Magyarország a középkor végén [Hungary at the End of the Middle Ages], CD-ROM (Budapest: Arcanum, 2001). About the centres: Enikő Csukovits, ‘Sedriahelyek − megyeszékhelyek a középkorban’ [Sedria Places – the Chief-Town of a County in the Middle Ages], Történelmi Szemle 39 (1997), pp. 381-382.

The Societ y of the Noble Judges in Northeastern Hungary

101

If one tries to reconstruct the genealogy of these noble families, important remarks can be made. First, there were some families, where this office was held in the course of several generations. Fathers or uncles were succeeded by their sons or nephews. It was especially frequent in Sáros; father-son relationships can be traced among noble judges of the Olsavicai, Roskoványi, Salgói, Ternyei and Trocsányi families.23 The situation went even further in the case of Abaúj; in the case of Szendi family we observe grandfatherfather-grandson relationship.24 In Gömör there were more noble judges who called themselves Mellétei.25 The village of Melléte was a typical noble settlement and there resided several families, who used ‘Mellétei’ as their noble predicate,26 but it seems that Stephen Mellétei and Michael Mellétei, who were noble judges were also brothers. 27 Similar observations were made by Ferenc Szakály on the county of Tolna and Norbert C. Tóth on the county of Szabolcs,28 and one can find typical families with long tradition of having a member who was a noble judge in the counties of Bereg, Szatmár, Ung, Ugocsa as well.29 23 Valentin Olsavicai: Zsigmondkori Oklevéltár, vol. 1– (Budapest: Magyar Országos Levéltár, 1951-), ed. by Elemér Mályusz et al. (henceforth: ZsO), vol 2, no. 5080, vol 6, no. 1206. Matthew Olsavicai (son of Valentin): MNL OL, DL 64339. Paul Roskoványi: MNL OL, DF 268677, ZsO 2, no. 801. Peter Roskoványi: MNL OL, DF 229041. Peter Florin Salgói: MNL OL, DL 57460. Ladislas Salgói (son of Peter Florin): MNL OL, DL 64339. Nicholas Ternyei: ZsO 2, no. 801. Ladislas Ternyei (son of Nicholas): ZsO 2, no. 6787, MNL OL, DL 4306. Andreas Trocsányi: ZsO 2, no. 5080, 6787. Theodore Trocsányi (son of Andrew): MNL OL, DF 228678, 213136, 228689. 24 George Szendi: MNL OL, DF 285856. Peter Szendi: MNL OL, DL 43862. Valentin Szendi: Richárd Horváth, ‘Adalékok a Szapolyaiak északkelet-magyarországi felemelkedéséhez’ [Contributions to the Rise of the Zápolya Family in north-eastern Hungary], in Analecta Mediaevalia I. Tanulmányok a középkorról [Analecta Mediaevalia I. Essays about the Middle Ages], ed. by Tibor Neumann (Budapest: Argumentum, 2001), p. 110. The genealogy of Szendi family: József Csoma, Abauj-Torna vármegye nemes családjai [On the Noble Families of County of Abaúj-Torna] (Kassa: Abauj-Torna megye közönsége, 1897), p. 546. 25 John Mellétei (son of Luke): MNL OL, DL 89576, DL 7857. Michael ‘Brown’ Mellétei: ZsO 10, no. 787. Stephen Mellétei (son of Marc): MNL OL, DL 25777. 26 Bálint Ila, Gömör megye I. A megye története 1773-ig [County of Gömör I. The History of the County until 1773] (Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 1976), p. 91. 27 ZsO 7, no. 650; ZsO 10, no. 822; István Balogh and Géza Érszegi, Középkori oklevelek a SzabolcsSzatmár- Bereg megyei levéltárban 1300-1525 [Medieval Charters in the Archive of the County of Szabolcs-Szatmár-Bereg] (Nyíregyháza: Szabolcs-Szatmár-Bereg megyei levéltár, 2000), no. 39. 28 Ferenc Szakály, ‘Tolna vármegye középkori szolgabírái (Esettanulmány)’ [The Medieval Noble Judges of the County of Tolna], Történelmi szemle 39 (1997), p. 418; C. Tóth, Szabolcs megye, p. 66. 29 Tibor Neumann, Bereg megye hatóságának oklevelei (1299−1526) [The Charters of the Authorities of the County of Bereg] (Nyíregyháza: Móricz Zsigmond Könyvtár, 2006), pp. 21-22; Szatmár megye hatóságának oklevelei (1284−1524) [The Charters of the Authorities of the County of Szatmár], ed. by Ferenc Piti, Norbert C. Tóth and Tibor Neumann (Nyíregyháza: SzabolcsSzatmár-Bereg Megyei Önkormányzat Múzeumok Igazgatósága, 2010), pp. 36-38; Ugocsa megye

102 Ist ván K ádas

Secondly, we can find several examples for affinities and marriages among different families of noble judge. Most of these families were related to each other by blood or by marriage. For instance, in Abaúj Peter Hegyaljai and Mathias Csókházi belonged to the same branch of the kindred of Hontpázmány, thus they were blood relatives.30 The wife of George Szendi, who was a noble judge, was Helen Fáji,31 who originated from the long line of families of noble judges, while Andrew and Nicholas Tomori married Margaret and Kalith Kinizsi.32 In Sáros the greater part of the families of noble judges (Roskoványi, Ternyei, Strázs and maybe Delnei) stemmed from the kindred of Tekele, whereas others were descendants of Gyármán.33 Helen, the mother of George Ásgúti, who was noble judge was the granddaughter of Gyármán, while her daughter married to the Tekele kindred.34 We can observe the same phenomenon in Gömör. For example, John Malai and John Dancs originated from the Zágráb-Korpás kindred,35 whereas Elisabeth, the wife of Nicholas Básti was the daughter of Francis Szentkirályi, and belonged to another family of noble judges.36 So, we can say that there was a more closed, relatively well-defined social group in the county nobility, which consisted of families of noble judges. Furthermore, if we continue examining the marriages and relationships, one can even find inter-county relations. Ferenc Szakály argued that the relationships and social contacts of the noble judges of Tolna mattered only within the society of their county.37 There is a possibility that it could be a Transdanubian phenomenon, leastwise in the north-eastern part of the medieval Kingdom of Hungary the situation seems different. In this region, there were a lot of examples of marriages between the noble judge families of different, neighbouring counties. Catherine Zombori, the second wife of Peter Cécei, who was noble judge of Abaúj, descended from a typical family of noble

hatóságának oklevelei (1290−1526) [The Charters of the Authorities of the County of Ugocsa], ed. by Norbert C. Tóth (Budapest: MTA Támogatott Kutatóhelyek Irodája, 2006), p. 21; Engel, A nemesi társadalom, pp. 124-125. 30 MNL OL, DL 5764. 31 Csoma, Abauj-Torna, p. 546. 32 MNL OL, DL 105828. 33 Pál Engel, Középkori magyar genealógia [Medieval Hungarian Geneology], CD-ROM (Budapest: Arcanum, 2001), sub vocibus: ‘Gyármán rokonsága’; ‘Tekele-nem 1-6. tábla’. 34 Helen Komlósi, granddaughter of Gyármán: ZsO 5, no. 269; MNL OL, DL 69157. Helen Ásgúti and Lawrence Babapataki of the Tekele kindred: ZsO 4, no. 572. 35 Ila, Gömör megye, p. 91. 36 ZsO 10, no. 508; Engel, Genealógia, sub voce: ‘Básti (Gömör megye)’. 37 Szakály, ‘Tolna vármegye’, p. 423.

The Societ y of the Noble Judges in Northeastern Hungary

103

judges from Zemplén.38 Moreover, her sister, Anna, was married to a member of the Balajti family, a noble judge family of the county of Borsod.39 Elisabeth Leszteméri, the wife of Jacob Szendi also came from Zemplén,40 while there were marriages between the Enyickei family of Sáros and the Melléteis of Gömör, as well.41 The daughters of Dennis Buclói of Sáros married nobles of the Sárvári and the Nádasdi families.42 The Sárvári were noble judges in Abaúj, and the Nádasdi in Torna.43 And, for example, the Tokaji family in Borsod had relationships with the Szentkirályi and Básti families of Gömör.44 Moreover, there were some cases where members of families of noble judges became judges in another, nearby, county. For example, among the noble judges of Abaúj, Stephen Színi came from Zemplén, John Barakonyi from Torna, and Peter Balajti from Borsod. 45 Thomas Füzi was noble judge of Zemplén in the 1420s and 1430s, while his ancestor, James Füzi held a same office in Abaúj in the late fourteenth century.46 Each mentioned noble judge acquired small estates in their new county. 47 It can be assumed that they were results of inter-county marriages.

The characteristics of the social group of noble judges According to the research of József Holub, Pál Engel or Ferenc Szakály, the noble judges were poor and unimportant nobles of the counties from

38 MNL OL, DL 71953. About noble judge, John Zombori: Kádas, ‘Északkelet-Magyarország’, p. 122. 39 For example, John Balajti was a noble judge in Borsod in 1404: MNL Ol, DL 89639. 40 ZsO 4, no.  1667. Simon and Peter Leszteméri were noble judges in Zemplén: Kádas, ‘Északkelet-Magyarország’, p. 122. 41 ZsO 10, no. 1062. 42 ZsO 2, no. 5796, 6422, 7348. 43 Kádas, ‘Északkelet-Magyarország’, pp. 110, 122. 44 ZsO 3, no. 2064, ZsO 10, no. 508. Clement Tokaji was a noble judge in Borsod between 1455 and 1457: MNL OL, DL 69012, 15133, 15134, 15098. 45 Stephen Színi: Kádas, ‘Abaúj megyei’, p. 113. John Barakonyi: Dezső Csánki, Magyarország történelmi földrajza a Hunyadiak korában [Historical Geography of Hungary in the Age of Hunyadi] (Budapest: MTA, 1890), 237. Peter Balajti: Archív Mesta Košice, fasc. K – Forró és Garadna, no. 25, 1560. 46 Thomas Füzi: Kádas, ‘Északkelet-Magyarország’, pp. 124-125. Jacob Füzi: MNL OL, DL 6445, 67977. 47 Stephen Színi had possessions in Fügöd and Szebenye (MNL OL, DL 89920), Thomas Füzi in Gesztely (MNL OL, DF 222054), John Barakonyi in Méra (MNL OL, DL 88814) and Peter Balajtai acquired some plots in Bölzse (Archív Mesta Košice, fasc. K – Forró és Garadna, no. 25, 1560).

104 Ist ván K ádas

the middle of fourteenth century onwards. 48 Royal decree – or its second article from 1435 – stated that the noble judges had to be elected from among the wealthier and more influential nobles. 49 However, Norbert C. Tóth pointed out that in 1415/1417 in King Sigismund’s propositiones the office of noble judges required only ‘good’ and ‘conscientious’ status;50 while he also observed that the noble judges of Szabolcs were not the poorest nobles of the county, but they belonged to the middle-ranked nobility.51 In Transylvania, the noble judges originated from the same families as did comites, who were the heads of the counties. However, it should be mentioned that the Transylvanian counties had some special features: the Transylvanian comes were broadly similar to the Hungarian vicecomes according to their social status.52 The first aspect of the analysis is the wealth and the estates of the noble judges. The examined region is particularly suitable for the same examinations thanks to the tax register of 1427 which contains valuable information about the nobles of this territory.53 It seems that the noble judges in Ung were members of the poor lesser nobility, who had fewer than fifteen tenant peasants’ plots; often they had only one plot.54 The situation in Abaúj was roughly the same, only the Kázméri family had more than fifteen plots.55 However, the analysis of this social group in the counties of Sáros and Gömör has had a different outcome. These counties also had poorer families filling in the offices, but there were members of wealthier families as well. For instance, in Sáros the Olsavici, Buclói, Roskoványi, Ternyei and Trocsányi families held more villages, and, for example, noble judge Ladislas Bánó had fifty-seven peasant plots on his estates.56 In Gömör, Nicholas Tornaljai 48 Engel, A nemesi társadalom, p. 109; Engel, The Realm, p. 180; Holub, Zala megye, p. 152, Szakály, ‘Tolna vármegye’, p. 418. 49 Potioribus et bene possessionatis: Decreta regni Hungariae. Gesetze und Verordnungen Ungarns 1301-1457, ed. by Francisci Döry, György Bónis and Vera Bácskai (Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 1976) (henceforth: DRH), p. 262. 50 Boni nobiles et conscientiori viri: DRH, p. 402. Cf. C. Tóth, Szabolcs megye, p. 61. 51 C. Tóth, Szabolcs megye, p. 67. 52 Enikő Rüsz-Fogarasi, ‘Kolozs vármegye szolgabírái a középkorban’ [Noble Judges of the County of Kolozs in the Middle Ages], Turul 82 (2009), pp. 4-5; András W. Kovács, Az erdélyi vármegyék középkori archontológiája [The Medieval Archontology of the Counties of Transylvania] (Kolozsvár: Erdélyi Múzeum Egyesület, 2010), p. 8. 53 Pál Engel, Kamarahaszna-összeírások 1427-ból [Censuses of lucrum camerae from 1427] (Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 1989). 54 Engel, A nemesi társadalom, p. 109. 55 Kádas, ‘Az Abaúj megyei’, p. 117. 56 Engel, Kamarahaszna-összeírások, pp. 176, 188, 190, 194-195.

The Societ y of the Noble Judges in Northeastern Hungary

105

had thirty-two plots and his family held another forty-four.57 The Hangonyi family had forty-two plots and the Básti and Dancs families also held more than one village.58 The examples of Gömör and Sáros are not unique; they are parallel to the observations on the county of Szabolcs made by C. Tóth. Moreover, it must be noted that some noble judges may have had estates in other counties as well.59 The second aspect of the analysis is origin of nobility. Pál Engel observed that in the fifteenth century the most important families of Szabolcs also descended from kindreds of the Árpádian age.60 Among the families of noble judges one can find few families with same lineages. It was mentioned before that more than one noble judge of Sáros County was descended from the Tekele kindred, which was a less significant kindred.61 In the beginning of the fourteenth century in Abaúj there were noble judges from the extended Aba kindred, renowned in the county.62 During the rule of King Sigismund, the Hegyaljai Baglyas and Csókházi Csók families descended from a less important branch (‘Rednei’) of the Hont-Pázmány kindred, while the Kinizsi family may also have stemmed from the Kinizs kindred.63 In Gömör, the Malai and the Dancs families belonged to the kindred of Zágráb-Korpás, but it was a kindred of castle warriors (iobbagiones castri) 57 Ibidem, p. 194. 58 Ibidem, pp. 176, 180, 182; Tibor Rémiás, ‘Abaúj, Gömör és Torna vármegye Zsigmond-kori nemesi társadalma az 1427. évi kamarahaszna-összeírás alapján’ [The Noble Society of the Counties of Abaúj, Gömör and Torna in the Age of Sigismund according to the Census of lucrum camerae from 1427], A miskolci Herman Ottó Múzeum közleményei 26 (1989), p. 32. 59 For example, Bartholomew Miszlai had only two plots in Abaúj (Engel, Kamarahasznaösszeírások, p. 179), but he acquired more villages in Zemplén: A leleszi konvent statutoriae sorozatának 1387-1410 közötti oklevelei. Pótlás a Zsigmondkori oklevéltár I-II. Köteteihez [The Charters of the statutoriae Series of the Convent of Lelesz from 1387 until 1410. Supplements to the Charters of the Age of Sigismund], ed. by Norbert C. Tóth (Nyíregyháza: Szabolcs-SzatmárBereg Megyei Önkormányzat Levéltára 2006), no. 103, 107; ZsO 2, no. 2734. The Kinizsi family had estate in county of Szabolcs as well: MNL OL, DL 75441. 60 Pál Engel, ‘Szabolcs megye birtokviszonyai a 14-16. században’ [Property Relations in the County of Szabolcs from the Fourteenth until the Sixteenth century], in Honor, vár, ispánság, pp. 603-612. 61 János Karácsonyi, A magyar nemzetségek a XIV. század közepéig [Hungarian Kindreds until the Mid-Fourteenth Century] (Budapest: Nap Kiadó, 1995), pp. 990-1001. 62 Mathew, son of Pósa, noble judge: MNL OL, DL 83155; Engel, Genealógia, sub voce: ‘Aba nem 15. Baski’. 63 It the case of the Kinizsi family the lineage is uncertain. When Mikcs of the kindred Kinizs died, his successors were his relatives: John and Gyula who became the first members of the Kinizsi family (Karácsonyi, Magyar nemzetségek, pp. 780-781). They inherited the two possessions of Kinizs in Abaúj, and their family also became owners of another Kinizs (Taktakenéz) in the county of Szabolcs: MNL OL, DL 107341, 90861, 75441.

106 Ist ván K ádas

of Gömör.64 In this county there were more families (Mellétei, Tornaljai, Vályi, Básti), which were of the same origin.65 In Abaúj, the Bölzsei and Tomori families were of the same origin,66 and in Sáros more families (Bánó, Nádfői, Prócsi, Pósfalvi) belonged to the Gyármán kindred, which had also the same social status.67 In Ung we also found noble judges whose ancestors had been castle warriors in the thirteenth century.68 The third aspect of the examination is the career of noble judges in the county. According to Ferenc Szakály, in Tolna there were huge differences among the families of the noble judges and the families of the vicecomites.69 It seems it was a phenomenon of the Transdanubian region, or rather only in Tolna County. At the end of the fifteenth century in the other counties of the Transdanubian Region (Veszprém, Vas, Sopron) we can find vicecomites and noble judges from the same families.70 There were both similarities and differences among the aforementioned group of families in the counties of the north-eastern region. In Abaúj and Ung there were hardly examples of county careers, but in Sáros and Gömör more vicecomes originated from families of the noble judges. Jacob Szendi, son of George Szendi, who was a noble judge, became vicecomes in Sáros.71 Benedict Enyickei (son of George Enyickei, former noble judge), John Bánó and Ladislas Bánó (the son and nephew of noble judge Ladislas Bánó) were vicecomites, as well.72 It should 64 Karácsonyi, Magyar Nemzetségek, pp. 1001-1004. 65 Ila, Gömör megye, p. 88, György Györffy, Az Árpád-kori Magyarország történeti földrajza [The Historical Geography of Hungary in the Árpadian Age] (Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 1963), pp. 472-473, 485, 556-557. 66 Györffy, Az Árpád-kori, pp. 72, 151. 67 Ferdinand Uličnẏ, Dejiny osídlenia Šariša [The History of the Settlement of Šariš] (Košice: Východoslovenské vydavatel s̕ tvo, 1990), pp. 106, 253, 255; Engel, Genealógia, sub voce: ‘Gyármán rokonsága’. 68 For example, Lawrence Homoki, Gregory and John Mokcsai, or Emeric Lack: Engel, Nemesi társadalom, pp. 155-156. 69 Szakály, ‘Tolna vármegye’, p. 418. 70 For example, Anthony Hidegkuti Farkas was vicecomes in the county of Veszprém in 14871488 and noble judge in 1525: Richárd Horváth, ‘Veszprém megye tisztviselői a későközépkorban (1458-1526)’ [The Office-Holders of the County of Veszprém in the Middle Ages], Fons 7 (2000), pp. 255, 265. In the county of Vas, Michael Patyi was vicecomes while Nicholas and Mathias Patyi were noble judges: Richárd Horváth, ‘Vas megye tisztségviselői a késő középkorban (1458-1526)’ [The Office-Holders of the County of Vas in the Middle Ages], Vasi Szemle 64 (2010), pp. 729-730, 734-735. In Sopron, for example, Dominic Potyondi was noble judge in 1476 and vicecomes in 1490: Richárd Horváth, ‘Sopron megye tisztségviselői a késő középkroban (1458-1526)’, Soproni Szemle 68 (2014), pp. 82, 86. 71 Pál Engel, Magyarország világi archontológiája 1301-1457 [The Secular Archontology of Hungary 1301-1457] (Budapest: História − MTA Történettudományi Intézete, 1996), p. 173. 72 Engel, Archontológia, p. 173.

The Societ y of the Noble Judges in Northeastern Hungary

107

be noted that Peter, the other son of George Szendi was a noble judge like his father.73 In Sáros, one of the sons of Paul Roskoványi became a vicecomes in Szepes and the other son became noble judge in Sáros.74 In Gömör, John Básti, after being noble judge became vicecomes, just as it happened in the cases of the son of John Dancs and the brother of Blaise Bon.75 In addition, Nicholas Tornaljai had been vicecomes in Borsod before he was elected as noble judge in Gömör.76 So, in many counties it was usual that the vicecomes originated from the same families as did noble judges, too. Furthermore, it is interesting that most of the mentioned cases are dealing with the second generation of the families of noble judges, the sons and nephews of the noble judges became vicecomites. In the examined families, one can also find jurymen and elected noble members of the fifteenth century parliaments.77 Besides the marriages, the most important aspect of the system of relations was the familiaritas, the relation of magnates or the wealthier nobles with their retainers.78 In Ung, the members of the families of noble judges were usually retainers of the wealthier nobles. However, serving magnates was not typical in this county.79 Abaúj, Sáros and Gömör show a different situation from Ung. The cause of the diversity was mostly the different structure of the noble society. On the other hand, there was a political reason too: characteristic of Ung was the dominancy of the estates of the Druget family. But, in the second half of the fourteenth and the first half 73 MNL OL, DL 43862; Csoma, Abauj-Torna, p. 546. 74 Engel, Archontológia, 198. 75 Péter Havassy, ‘Gömör vármegye középkori fő- és alispánjai’ [The comites and vicecomites of the Medieval County of Gömör], in Írott és tárgyi emlékeink kutatója. Emlékkönyv Bánkúti Imre 75. születésnapjára [The Researcher of Written and Material Sources. Collection of Essays in the Honour of Imre Bánkúti’s 75th Birthday], ed. by Kálmán Mészáros (Budapest: Magyar Nemzeti Múzeum – Budapest Történeti Múzeum, 2002), pp. 46-47. 76 Engel, Archontológia, p. 119. 77 In Abaúj, Ladislas Sárvári, the supposed son of Peter Sárvári, who was of origin from this social group, was elected juryman in 1445 (MNL OL, DL 88196) and delegate in 1445 (A Hunyadiak kora Magyarországon. Oklevéltár [The Hunyadi Age in Hungary. Edition of Charters], vol. 10, ed. by József Teleki [Pest: Emich 1853], p. 168.). Cf. István Kádas, ‘Sárvári László és az 1444. évi X. tc. (Esettanulmány)’ [László Sárvári and the Tenth Article of the Act of 1444], in Eötvös Collegium konferenciakötet, ed. by Bálint Ternovácz (Budapest: ELTE Eötvös József Collegium, 2015). Manuscript was accepted for publication. Nicholas Mérai of Abaúj, Thomas Salgói and Andreas Delnei of Sáros and Paul Hangonyi of Gömör were also delegates. All of them came from same families as the noble judges. Engel, Archontológia, pp. 516-517, 519, 525-526. 78 Martin Rady, Nobility, Land and Service in Medieval Hungary (London: Palgrave, 2000), pp. 110-112. 79 Engel, Nemesi társadalom, p. 107.

108 Ist ván K ádas

of the fifteenth century, the political role of the Drugets decreased.80 In contrast, in Abaúj were situated estates of magnate families significant at the level of the kingdom, and in this county the so-called benepossessionatus (well-to-do) group of nobility almost did not exist.81 The members of families of noble judges were retainers of barons like the Perényi, Rozgonyi or Cudar families.82 A brother, son or a nephew who served a magnate would also raise the prestige of the family. Michael, Stephen and probably Thomas Kinizsi, the brother of Demetrius, who was a noble judge, were retainers of the Cudar family.83 Bartholomew Miszlai, the son of Emeric Miszlai, who was a noble judge and one of the most important retainers of Emeric Perényi, was the castellan of Terebes and Sztropkó.84 Jacob Szendi, son of George Szendi served John Rozgonyi, the treasurer (thesaurarius) of Hungary.85 In Sáros, there was a different noble structure than in Abaúj. In this county, there were f ive or six wealthy benepossessionatus (well-to-do) noble families (Tarkői, Berzevici, Sóvári Sós, Kapi, Sebesi, Somosi) who held castles. 86 The relatives of the noble judges served them and they became office-holders or castellans in their castles or estates. Moreover, when these wealthy noblemen became the comites of the county, these individuals were their vicecomites. It is the reason why so many members of the families of noble judges of Sáros (as Roskoványi, Olsavicai, Enyickei, Bánó) became vicecomites of the county. In Gömör we can observe the same phenomenon; the most important well-to-do noble kindreds were the Csetneki and the Derencsényi.87 John Csenyizi was a retainer of Peter Derencsényi, and Andreas Vályi became vicecomes due to the service of 80 Ibidem, pp. 44-46. 81 Kádas, ‘Abaúj megyei’, p. 123. 82 Ibidem, pp. 124-126. 83 ZsO 3, no. 1002, ZsO 4, no. 1263, ZsO 7, no. 1702. Demetrius Kinizsi was named only unus ex nobis in the charter (MNL OL, DL 10112), but presumably he was noble judge. Lajos Kemény, ‘Abaúj- és Torna vármegye története a honfoglalástól az 1648-ik évig’ [The History of the Counties of Abaúj and Torna from the Hungarian Conquest of the Carpathian Basin until 1648], Törtélmi közlemények Abaúj-Torna vármegye és Kassa múltjából 2 (1912), p. 143. 84 Engel, Archontológia, pp. 437, 443. 85 Ibidem, p. 173. 86 The castles of Berzevice, Kőszeg (Somogy), Sebes, Sóvár and Tarkő: Engel, Archontológia, pp. 279, 349, 407, 416, 440. The wealth of the Tarkői-Berzevici and the Somosi families was more than 400 serf plots. Pál Engel, ‘A magyarországi birtokszerkezet átalakulása a Zsigmond korban. Öt északkeleti megye példáján’ [The Changes of the Structure of Estates in Hungary in the Age of Sigismund. The Examples of Five Counties], in Honor, vár, ispánság, p. 462. About the family and the castle of Kapi: István Draskóczy, ‘Kapy András. Egy budai polgár pályája a XV. század elején’, Levéltári Közlemények 55 (1984), p. 173. 87 Engel, ‘Magyarországi birtokszerkezet’, p. 462.

The Societ y of the Noble Judges in Northeastern Hungary

109

this family.88 There were also retainers of other wealthier nobles of Gömör, like the Serkei or Putnoki families, while John Básti served Stephen Aranyi who was a talented jurist and counsellor of King Sigismund.89 But, in this county it was also typical to serve the Bebeks, one of the most wealthy and powerful families of north-eastern Hungary.90 For example, Gregory Dancs, son of John Dancs, who was noble judge, and Nicholas Tornaljai and his son Jacob were also retainers or even vicecomites of the Bebeks.91 Another aspect of the social group, as Pál Engel observed in the case of the county of Ung, was that the middleware ecclesiastic offices, like prebends, provosts or abbots were held by the wealthier noble families.92 Some members of the families of noble judges also acquired these offices. For instance, George Delnei from Sáros became prebend in the Chapter of Eger,93 and Stephen Hangonyi from Gömör became prebend in the Chapter of Esztergom.94 Finally, Nicholas Dancs, the brother of noble judge John Dancs, had a higher office: he became the cantor of Eger.95

Conclusion The results of this analysis would indicate the fact that we can use the term ‘society of noble judges’, but also that the characteristics of this social group were different in different regions and counties in the kingdom. Ferenc Szakály and József Holub found poor and less important noble judges in Transdanubium, while Norbert C. Tóth perceived wealthier and more influential officeholders in Szabolcs. In addition, Enikő Rüsz-Fogarasi and András W. Kovács made the same observation on the counties of Transylvania. But, there were differences in nearby counties as well. For instance, in 88 Havassy, ‘Gömör’, p. 47. 89 For example, John Naprágyi was a retainer of Nicholas Putnoki (ZsO 2, no. 4117), while Denis and Luke, who were probably son and nephew of noble judge Thomas Kisfaludy, served Eustache Serkei (ZsO 9, no. 1173; ZsO 10, no. 1290). About John Básti and Stephen Aranyi: Havassy, ‘Gömör’, p. 47, Elemér Mályusz, Zsigmond király uralma Magyarországon [The Reign of King Sigismund in Hungary] (Budapest: Gondolat 1984), pp. 233-234. 90 Engel, ‘Magyarországi birtokszerkezet’, pp. 462-463. 91 Havassy, ‘Gömör’, 46; Engel, Genealógia, sub voce: ‘Tornaljai: Gömör m.’. 92 Engel, Nemesi társadalom, pp. 95-97. 93 Bullae Bonifaci IX. P. M. IX. Bonifác pápa bullái. 1396-1404, ed. by Vilmos Fraknói (Budapest: Franklin Társulat, 1889), p. 385. 94 Bálint Ila and Iván Borsa, Az Abaffy család levéltára 1247-1515. A Dancs család levéltára 1232-1525. A Hanvay család levéltára 1216-1525. (Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 1993.), no. 105. 95 ZsO 4, no. 205.

110 Ist ván K ádas

Tolna there was a strict line between the vicecomites and the noble judges, while in nearby Veszprém there were more families whose members held both of these offices in the second half of the fifteenth century.96 During the reign of King Sigismund in the north-eastern part of the medieval Kingdom of Hungary there were also differences within this social group in different counties; while in Abaúj and Ung the noble judges generally belonged to the petty nobility, in Gömör and in Sáros there were wealthier nobles. In Sáros and Gömör it was also typical that more of the vicecomites originated from the same families as did the noble judges. In these counties, there was an influential class of well-to-do noblemen. On the other hand, in Abaúj the noble judges or more members of their families were able to be retainers of the barons. Moreover, they were able to become castellans or office-holders of these barons. Concluding the examination, it can be said that the characteristics of the noble judges depend on the structure of the noble society of the county. Furthermore, in all of the examined counties their social contacts with the middle-ranked nobles and their inter-county family relations show that they did enjoy a more extended social prestige. Their social background confirms that the iudices nobilium formed an important and influential social group in medieval Northeast Hungary, while it will be interesting to see what the future analysis will show for the social geography of the rest of the Kingdom.

96 For example, the families Csatári, Csajági, Korontáli, Miskei, Hidegkuti Farkas: Horváth, ‘Veszprém megye’, pp. 252-265.



Development of Ragusan Diplomatic Servicein the First Half of the Fifteenth Century Father and Son at the Court of Duke Sandalj Hranić Valentina Zovko

One of the significant characteristics of the Ragusan foreign affairs during the medieval period was avoiding armed conflicts. When the authorities did not manage to implement this endeavour, diplomacy played an important role in attempts to end them and insure damage reparations. In the first half of the fifteenth century the city of Dubrovnik was involved in RagusanBosnian war (1403-1404) and the War of Konavle (1430-1433). During both conflicts the government turned for help to Duke Sandalj Hranić of Bosnia. During the first war, duke was in the process of rising to his fame, and the ending of this particular war, that brought Ostoja’s dethronisation and the fall of the Sanković family, marked Hranić’s rise to power. During the second war he was the key partner in Dubrovnik`s plan of destroying the hostile family Pavlović of Bosnia. The importance of Duke Sandalj for the outcome of these conflicts sets the assumption that the government carefully took into account to select the most skilled noble for a holder of the mission. Marin, son of Nifiko de Gondula (around 1355-1405)1 and his son Benedict (around 1390-1446)2 received this confidence. It is interesting to notice that almost none of them had had an earlier experience in the service.3 On the other hand, they took advantage of the ‘symbolic capital’ of their predecessors that enjoyed high political and social reputations in fulfilling diplomatic missions. Marin’s father, Nifiko de Gondula (around 1315-1355), 4 was Ragusan ambassador to the Emperor Stephen Uroš IV Dušan of Serbia in 1346, and two years 1 National archive in Dubrovnik (henceforth: DADu), Testamenta Notariae (henceforth: Test Not.), ser. 10.1, vol. IX, ff. 72v-73v (12 January 1405). 2 DADu, Test. Not., vol. XIV, ff. 48v-50r (11 December 1446). 3 Marin was sent on a mission in Kotor during 1391. Cf. Bariša Krekić, ‘Contribution to the Study of the Ragusan Presence in Venice in the Fourteenth Century’, Dubrovnik Annals 5 (2001), pp. 249-255, 258. 4 DADu, Test. Not., vol. III, ff. 27v-28v.

112 Valentina Zovko

later, he was engaged as an ambassador in Venice.5 His brother Nicholas (around 1345-around 1411)6 was the rector of Dubrovnik more than ten times and a holder of diplomatic missions to the king of Hungary-Croatia, ban of Dalmatia and dukes of Serbia.7 From the nominee’s perspective, it was harder to find a candidate willing to apply for the tasks that were very hard to achieve. Although the election of Marin de Gondula went smoothly,8 the ambassador to Sandalj’s court in April 1430 was elected after the fourth attempt. Đore de Goçe, Theodor de Prodanello and Clement de Resti declined the proposal,9 which was, in the end, accepted by Marin’s son Benedict.10 Even though he was not the government’s first choice, they were probably counting on Duke Sandalj remembering his father’s mission a little more than two decades earlier. Besides that, many years of experience as Dubrovnik’s consul and judge in Srebrenica gave him a lot of knowledge and connections in Bosnia, which could also benefit his election.11 After his return home we can follow his

5 Imgrid Manhken, Dubrovački patricijat u XIV veku [The Ragusan Patriciate], vol. 1 (Beograd: Srpska akademija nauka i umetnosti, 1960), p. 269. 6 DADu, Test. Not., vol. IX, ff. 157v-159r. 7 Nenad Vekarić, Vlastela grada Dubrovnika [The Nobility of the City of Dubrovnik], vol. 2, Vlasteoski rodovi [The Noble Kindreds] (Zagreb/Dubrovnik: Zavod za povijesne znanosti HAZU u Dubrovniku, 2012), p. 305. 8 Marin de Gondula won 29 votes and 31 members were present in the Senate. DADu, Reformationes (henceforth: Ref.), ser. 2, vol. XXXII, f. 152v (23 June 1403). 9 DADu, Acta Consilii Rogatorum (henceforth: Cons. Rog.), ser. 3, vol. IV, f. 150v (27 April 1430). 10 He achieved result of seventeen ‘for’ and seven votes ‘against’ (DADu, Cons. Rog., vol. IV, f. 151v; 27 April 1430). 11 DADu, Acta Consilii Minoris (henceforth: Cons. Minus), ser. 5, vol. I, f. 24r (6 May 1415); ser. 5, vol. I, f. 114v (4 February 1417); ser. 5, vol. I, f. 116v (9 February 1417); ser. 5, vol. I, f. 123r (13 March 1417); ser. 5, vol. I, f. 128v (16 April 1417); ser. 5, vol. I, f. 135v (13 May 1417); ser. 5, vol. I, f. 154v (10 September 1417); ser. 5, vol. I, f. 162v (2 November 1417); ser. 5, vol. I, f. 167r (22 November 1417); ser. 5, vol. I, f. 172r (20 December 1417); ser. 5, vol. I, vol. II, f. 55r (5 April 1419); ser. 5, vol. I, f. 65v (30 May 1419); ser. 5, vol. I, f. 68v (10 June 1419); ser. 5, vol. I, f. 69r (16 June 1419); ser. 5, vol. I, f. 70v (20 June 1419); ser. 5, vol. I, f. 75r (21 July 1419); ser. 5, vol. I, f. 83r (15 September 1419); ser. 5, vol. I, f. 108r (31 January 1420); ser. 5, vol. I, f. 117r (11 March 1420); ser. 5, vol. I, f. 123r (13 April 1420); ser. 5, vol. I, f. 125v (20 April 1420); ser. 5, vol. I, f. 145v (30 August 1420); ser. 5, vol. I, f. 153r (21 October 1420); ser. 5, vol. I, f. 156r (7 November 1420); ser. 5, vol. I, f. 162v (7 December 1420); ser. 5, vol. I, f. 220r (15 October 1421); ser. 5, vol. I, f. 221v (23 October 1421); ser. 5, vol. I, f. 226v (13 November 1421); ser. 5, vol. I, f. 243r (24 January 1422); ser. 5, vol. I, f. 252r (26 February 1422); ser. 5, vol. I, f. 255r (10 March 1422); ser. 5, vol. I, vol. III, f. 198v (8 February 1425); ser. 5, vol. I, f. 199v (15 February 1425); ser. 5, vol. I, f. 200r (25 February 1425); ser. 5, vol. I, f. 201v (24 February 1425); ser. 5, vol. I, f. 209r (22 March 1425); ser. 5, vol. I, f. 220v (30 April 1425); ser. 5, vol. I, f. 225r (24 May 1425), etc. He continues to perform those duties constantly until 1427 (ser. 5, vol. IV, f. 81r; 1 April 1427).

Development of Ragusan Diplomatic Service

113

career as a customs officer in 1428,12 and salt mines supervisor in 1429.13 The fact that Benedict was elected shortly after he was nominated as a holder of a mission to Duke Gregory Nikolić shows that authorities had no idea who should represent their interests in front of Sandalj. Actually, Duke Gregory was Sandalj’s vassal, thus that embassy was less important than the one sent to his senior.14 In the end, the number of votes that Benedict won was less than sixteen, which meant that he was automatically out of the elections and available for other functions.15 With this in mind it might seem that the members of the Senate did not think that he was a suitable candidate for the challenging tasks at Sandalj’s court, but in the end, it proved wrong.

The duration of the embassy – the goals of the ambassador One of the most important duties for both ambassadors was to persuade Duke Sandalj to act according to Dubrovnik’s interests. The duration of their services had a large effect on the number and the type of the tasks entrusted to them, as on the freedom they enjoyed in achieving their goals. Marin’s mission had a noticeable ad hoc character. His primary duty was to carry out the message from the government contained in the text of instruction. After that his mandate ended regardless of the final outcome of a mission. Because of the limited scope of the tasks entrusted to him and his inability to step out and speak on his own, he stayed on a mission for only nine days.16 On the other hand, the duration of Benedict’s mission could not be foreseen, because it depended on the wider context in which the negotiations took place. He remained in the service for more than a year.17 Although he stayed in the embassy much longer, he did not have much more freedom in acting than his father. His powers were restricted to the sphere of oratory skills while the main terms of the negotiation were dictated by the Senate. For some important questions, the city fathers even 12 DADu, Acta Consilii Maioris (henceforth: Cons. Maius), ser. 4, vol. IV, f. 6r (16 December 1428). 13 DADu, Cons. Maius, vol. IV, f. 34r (14 May 1429). 14 That was also confirmed at the level of a poorer salary of the elected ambassador and his retinue. In other words, the ceremonial significance of that mission was less important. DADu, Cons. Rog., vol. IV, f. 151v (27 April 1430). 15 See: Nella Lonza, ‘Izborni postupak Dubrovačke Republike’ [Election Procedure of the Republic of Dubrovnik], Anali Dubrovnik 38 (2000), p. 28. 16 He was elected on 23 June 1403 (DADu, Ref., vol. XXXII, f. 152v) and recalled on 2 July 1403 (DADu, Ref., vol. XXXII, f. 155v). 17 He was elected on 27 April 1430 (DADu, Cons. Rog., vol. IV, f. 151v) and recalled at the beginning of April 1431 (DADu, Cons. Rog., vol. IV, f. 283).

114 Valentina Zovko

ordered him dobiate dire,18 which indicated that he should literally quote their attitude towards the matter. His personal interventions peaked during oral persuasion when he was given the right to use the arguments, which he found to be most suitable in the particular context.19 One of the differences between the embassies of the father and the son was in the type and the range of the entrusted tasks. While Marin first and foremost tried to gain dukes’ support in Dubrovnik’s conflict with King Stjepan Ostoja of Bosnia at the beginning of the fifteenth century,20 Benedict performed different type of duties which were not all so closely connected with his main goal (which was to ensure Sandalj’s participation in the military alliance against Duke Radoslav). According to need, he intervened for Dubrovnik’s traders that were on their way to Apulia,21 he mediated in the removal of complaints from the customs officers,22 he asked for the duke’s advice and company of his man for ambassadors who were sent to the Sublime Porte,23 he complained about the city’s material and human losses on the field of Trebinje,24 and he did not neglect to ask for the return of the goods and the equipment.25 As a matter of fact, it is interesting that he did not just intervene for the interest of the community he was representing, but also on behalf of his host. The Senate was willing to fulfil different demands from Sandalj to gain his support and Benedict mediated in those cases. On some occasions, he was openly engaged in favour of Duke Sandalj, which made an impression that he was in his service. For instance, he delivered to the government the list of symptoms and pains that bothered him, and the city fathers tried to help him with advice and medication.26 That kind of service led to forming a stronger and even intimate relationship, which could only contribute to the positive outcome of the efforts he invested. Whether Benedict was 18 DADu, Lettere di Levante (henceforth: Lett. di Lev.), ser. 27/1, vol. X, f. 157v (14 June 1430). 19 DADu, Lett. di Lev., vol. X, f. 136r (13 May 1430); Lett. di Lev., vol. X, f. 151r (10 June 1430); Lett. di Lev., vol. X, f. 161v (18 June 1430). 20 DADu, Lett. di Lev., vol. IV, ff. 28v-29r (25 June 1403). 21 DADu, Lett. di Lev., vol. X, f. 195v (16 August 1430); Lett. di Lev., vol. X, f. 197v (19 August 1430). 22 DADu, Lett. di Lev., vol. X, f. 153v (10 June 1430); Lett. di Lev., vol. X, f. 155r (12 June 1430). 23 DADu, Lett. di Lev., vol. X, f. 200v (24 August 1430). 24 DADu, Lett. di Lev., vol. X, f. 146r (3 June 1430); Lett. di Lev., vol. X, f. 148r (7 June 1430); Lett. di Lev., vol. X, f. 153v (10 June 1430); Lett. di Lev., vol. X, f. 157r (14 June 1430). 25 DADu, Lett. di Lev., vol. XI, f. 43r (28 February 1431); Lett. di Lev., vol. XI, f. 20v (10 March 1431). 26 DADu, Lett. di Lev., vol. X, f. 180r (14 July 1430); Lett. di Lev., vol. X, f. 184v (27 July 1430). Cf. Esad Kurtović, Veliki vojvoda bosanski Sandalj Hranić Kosača [Great Duke Sandalj Hranić Kosača] (Sarajevo: Institut za istoriju, 2009), p. 328, note 1179.

Development of Ragusan Diplomatic Service

115

awarded for his services remains unknown. The truth is that the Senate was very anxious about their ambassadors receiving gifts, because they saw it as a threat to their loyalty, especially if they were not very motivated for the service from the very beginning. Because of that, the government issued a short decree in 1439, and then a strict regulation in 1467, which forbade ambassadors from keeping all gifts, except for food and supplies.27 The close relationship between Sandalj and Benedict was confirmed in the sources; the end of his service did not mean the break of their connections. In April 1431 the duke ordered, through his ‘old acquaintance’, a silver pitcher from the goldsmith Živko Gojković for which Benedict paid twelve libras of fine silver.28 Their former relationship, and benefits that could be gained from it, was enough for the government to entrust Benedict another embassy to Duke Sandalj at the end of 1432.29 Moreover, he remained connected with the Kosača family even after duke’s death in 1435. He was once more holder of an embassy to his nephew Stephen Vukčić in 1438, which, in a way, confirms his specialization for diplomatic relations with this family.30 Benedict’s longer stay in a service, more freedom in performing duties and the increase in the range of tasks, compared with those that were given to his father, are the result of social and political changes that required the modifications in diplomatic practices. All those factors carried their part in the further development and professionalisation of the service.

The costs of the embassy Another noticeable difference between the embassies of the son and the father can be tracked through the aspect of costs. Marin was paid fifteen perpers for his service, which is the sum that corresponds to the value of a present he brought for his host. On the other hand, Benedict received weight four times larger than his father (60 perpers) and gave a present to Sandalj to the value of 40 perpers. The total costs of his mission were enlarged by 27 Nella Lonza, Kazalište vlasti, ceremonijal i državni blagdani Dubrovačke Republike u 17. i 18. stoljeću [The Theatre of Authority, Ceremony and State Festivities of the Republic of Dubrovnik in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Century] (Zagreb/Dubrovnik: Zavod za povijesne znanosti HAZU u Dubrovniku, 2009), p. 218. 28 Cvito Fisković, ‘Dubrovački zlatari od XIII do XVII stoljeća’ [Ragusan Goldsmiths from the Thirteenth to the Seventeenth Century], Starohrvatska prosvjeta III/1 (1949), p. 219. 29 DADu, Lett. di Lev., vol. XI, f. 122r (18 November 1432). 30 DADu, Lett. di Lev., vol. XII, f. 110v (8 November 1438); Lett. di Lev., vol. XIII, f. 13r (7 March 1441).

116 Valentina Zovko

his retinue (six horses and four servants),31 while his father did not have one. The servants were paid four perpers per month and the total costs of the mission were restricted to four and a half perpers per day.32 Also the fine that ambassadors had to pay if they left the threshold of a city door before the set deadline without a valid reason, differed significantly. Thus, Marin was obliged to pay 5033 and Benedict 120 pepers.34 Besides the aforementioned expenses, the costs rose each and every day of the mission. For that reason, Benedict wrote to the government to send him additional funds. On one occasion the authorities sent him 100 perpers,35 while on the other they told him to take a loan from Duke Sandalj, because they did not find a secure way to transfer the money, due to war circumstances.36 Benedict did what he was told, which can be proven by the instruction sent to him. The city fathers pointed out that they did not see the possibility of returning 200 perpers to the duke because of the unsecure routes.37 Some other reasons for sending money from Dubrovnik are also noted. They were often involved with the purchase of new horses for the ambassador and his retinue. In one particular case Benedict complained that he did not receive the money for their purchase or rent.38 The government was aware of that, because they wrote to him in September that he could buy or rent a new horse, because the one he currently had was ill.39 Finally, that problem was solved when the ambassador rented two horses, and the government was obliged to pay the cost. 40 The impressive mobility of the ambassador, who was accompanying Duke Sandalj on his travels, probably influenced the animal’s overall medical condition. His itinerary can be reconstructed out of the instructions which the government used to confirm the receipt of his letters, although not systematically. Their analysis shows that he reported from eight different locations and changed his place of residence thirteen times. However, it 31 DADu, Lett. di Lev., vol. X, f. 116r (30 April 1430). 32 The financial construction was done according to a mission to the king of Bosnia, which was approved the same day. That indicates the importance of Duke Sandalj for Dubrovnik’s foreign affairs (DADu, Cons. Rog., vol. IV, ff. 149v-150r; 27 April 1430). 33 DADu, Ref., vol. XXXII, f. 153r (24 June 1403). 34 DADu, Cons. Rog., vol. IV, f. 150r (27 April 1430). 35 DADu, Lett. di Lev., vol. XI, f. 43r (28 February 1431). 36 DADu, Lett. di Lev., vol. X, f. 167v (20 June 1430). 37 DADu, Lett. di Lev., vol. X, f. 195v (16 August 1430). 38 DADu, Lett. di Lev., vol. X, f. 155r (12 June 1430). 39 DADu, Lett. di Lev., vol. X, f. 205v (24 August 1430). 40 DADu, Lett. di Lev., vol. X, f. 141v (27 May 1430).

Development of Ragusan Diplomatic Service

117

does not seem impossible to assume that actual number was even higher. To illustrate, from 15 September 1430 when he was in Nevesinje until 1 January 1431 when he wrote from Ključ, we cannot follow his motions. For this reason, it is possible to assume that in a period of 109 days he changed his residence at least once or even more. In fact, there is also a possibility that not all of his letters have been registered because they never arrived at their destination. On the contrary, his father went from Dubrovnik to Sutorina, and from there returned home. 41 Consequently we can stress the increased mobility of the ambassadors as one more noticeable difference between their services. Moreover, Benedict was obliged to follow his host. One of the motives for that could be connected with the necessity to be at ‘the source of information’ the whole time. 42 He was reporting news consciously, so the government had to provide him funds for writing on multiple occasions, which also influenced on total expenses of the mission. 43 In the end, it should be emphasized that the rise of costs of the embassies over time also increased because their persuasion methods changed. While Marin relied mostly on tradition, charters and old customs, 44 Benedict supported his demands with money and other forms of material awards, which became much more convincing in the time he belonged. 45

Reporting Changes that affected Dubrovnik’s diplomatic services at the beginning of the fifteenth century were clearly confirmed by the fast-growing correspondence between the ambassadors and the city government. For instance, Marin had received only one instruction, and that is where all the 41 DADu, Lett. di Lev., vol. IV, f. 28v (25 June 1403). 42 That also proves an example of the ambassador Nicholas de Resti who was appointed at the court of king of Bosnia. DADu, Lett. di Lev., vol. X, f. 144v (3 June 1430); Lett. di Lev., vol. X, f. 160v (18 June 1430). 43 DADu, Lett. di Lev., vol. X, f. 173v (30 June 1430); Lett. di Lev., vol. X, f. 175r (1 July 1430); Lett. di Lev., vol. X, f. 178v (7 July 1430); Lett. di Lev., vol. X, f. 196r (16 August 1430); Lett. di Lev., vol. XI, f. 2v (18 September 1430); Lett. di Lev., vol. XI, f. 6v (30 September 1430); Lett. di Lev., vol. XI, f. 9v (7 November 1430); Lett. di Lev., vol. XI, f. 10v (22 November 1430). 44 DADu, Lett. di Lev., vol. IV, f. 28v (25 June 1403). 45 Valentina Zovko, Uloga poklisara u širenju teritorija Dubrovačke Republike na zaleđe (krajem 14. i početkom 15. stoljeća) [The Role of Ambasadors in the Spread of the Territory of the Republic of Dubrovnik to its Hinderland (at the End of the Fourteenth and the Beginning of the Fifteenth Century)], unpublished doctoral thesis (Zagreb: Centre of Croatian Studies of University of Zagreb: 2012), pp. 204-206.

118 Valentina Zovko

correspondence ended. On the other hand, during Benedict’s embassy the Senate confirmed reception of his 49 reports and sent him 42 instructions. This imbalance can be somewhat explained with the changes in recognition of the importance of recent information. Although the government gave Marin orders to ‘seek for advice and gather useful information’ from Sandalj, 46 during the embassy of his son fresh news had a central role. For sure the importance of adequate reaction to the dynamic needs of everyday life was recognised. Thus, it is not surprising that the government often requested from Benedict new reports about his findings. 47 The city fathers were generally satisfied with his involvement in that specific task, 48 but in some cases, they did show their dissatisfaction. The Senate complained that he did not respond to two of their letters from 20 and 23 June, which put them in the uncomfortable position towards Duke Sandalj. 49 The problems in the communication could have been affected by different circumstances caused by war and uncertainties that were common for medieval travels.50 The most dangerous thing for ‘information leakage’ was the violent seizure of the information during its travel to the recipient. Because of that, Dubrovnik’s government notifies their ambassador to use a ‘safe way and a trusted messenger’ to send his report.51 Their fear was confirmed by Benedict who expressed doubt that one of his letters did not arrive to Dubrovnik, but the government removed that suspicion.52 Even Duke Sandalj expressed his doubt that one of the letters, thanks to Radoslav Pavlović, got in the hands of the Ottomans, which just confirms that there were no limits in actions to retrieve the information during the time of crisis.53 46 DADu, Ref., vol. XXXII, f. 154v (29 June 1403). 47 DADu, Lett. di Lev., vol. X, f. 116r (30 April 1430); Lett. di Lev., vol. X, f. 136r (13 May 1430); Lett. di Lev., vol. X, f. 167v (20 June 1430). 48 DADu, Lett. di Lev., vol. X, f. 191v (12 August 1430). 49 DADu, Lett. di Lev., vol. X, ff. 170v, 171v (26 June 1430), 173r (30 June 1430). 50 For an example, see: Kurtović, Veliki vojvoda, p. 397, note 1470. 51 DADu, Lett. di Lev., vol. X, f. 155r (12 June 1430). Different couriers, some of them namely, reliable Dubrovnik citizens and one Vlach are mentioned as carriers of the correspondence. Lett. di Lev., vol. X, f. 187v (1 August 1430); Lett. di Lev., vol. XI, f. 9v (7 November 1430); Lett. di Lev., vol. XI, f. 10v (22 November 1430). 52 DADu, Lett. di Lev., vol. X, f. 192v: Lo responder nostro a voi fatto, ben vi doueua leuar lo dubio il qual pigliate de la lettera vostra fatta adi 5 che non fosse riceputa per noi. Ma ancora per renderui piu certo vi dicemo che tanto quella fo fatta a 5 quanto a 10 reciuessimo ambe duo (12 August 1430). Cf. Kurtović, Veliki vojvoda, p. 302, note 1068. 53 DADu, Lett. di Lev., vol. X, f. 187r: Et per lo dubio pia voiuoda per la informacion a luy data, che una lettera nostra sia inuolata, ad uno nostro corier, a venuta alle man de Radossau, et per esso mandata allo imperador Turcho, dite a voiuoda sia de bon animo e di çio non pia dubio algun

Development of Ragusan Diplomatic Service

119

Problems in corresponding were also noted in the other direction. Despite the efforts put into sending information for action to the ambassador on time,54 the process of sending messages from Dubrovnik had its troubles too. That is why the government expressed concerns that their letter from 1 July was not received by Benedict.55 Benedict also complained that new instructions were late, which made his job much harder. The city fathers justified their late delivery with the complex procedure of making the new one, which cannot be done in such a short time.56 In the end the factors that influenced the instruction production in combination with speed in which the events occurred, sometimes resulted in the fact that the instruction was already outdated by the time it got to the ambassador.57 Besides the obvious differences in the extent of the reports that were sent by father and son to Dubrovnik, they are also visible in the matters of informing the host. For instance, Marin conveyed some news about the town events to Sandalj,58 but Benedict did that much more often. Because of its geographical position Dubrovnik was the important crossroads of information exchange between East and West. By conveying information to duke, Benedict created the environment that could help him in achieving his goals. He reported to Sandalj about the conflict between Venice and Milan,59 but also about the situation in other Italian towns, such as Lucca, Pisa, Genoa and Naples.60 Thanks to the ambassador from Dubrovnik the duke had knowledge of the events in Austria, Germany and Czech lands.61 He knew about the conflict between Aragon and Castile, and he heard about Barcelona and Valencia in that same context.62 He also che per Dio gratia fin ino nessuna lettera nostra non e perduta ne mal captata (1 August 1430). Cf. Kurtović, Veliki vojvoda, pp. 301-302. 54 DADu, Lett. di Lev., vol. X, f. 136r (13 May 1430). 55 DADu, Lett. di Lev., vol. X, f. 178r (7 July 1430). 56 DADu, Lett. di Lev., vol. X, f. 146v: Li marauigliate del tardare che voi direte faciamo a dare risposta alle vostre la qual molto bramate de auer con presteza. A questo vi dicemo che noi di qua molto siamo soliciti a risponderi sempre al bisogno, et non ne retardiamo… come voi ben sapete non si puo far con mancho che non si vada alli nostri consigli per consigliar sopra çio, e di puo bisogna fare le officiali a formare la risposta (7 June 1430). 57 DADu, Lett. di Lev., vol. X, f. 146r (3 June 1430). 58 For example, he informed Sandalj about the visit of ambassadors of the king of Bosnia to Dubrovnik on 15 May 1430 (DADu, Lett. di Lev., vol. IV, f. 28v). 59 DADu, Lett. di Lev., vol. X, f. 153r (10 June 1430); Lett. di Lev., vol. X, f. 167v (20 June 1430); Lett. di Lev., vol. X, f. 192v (12 August 1430); Lett. di Lev., vol. X, f. 198r (19 August 1430). 60 DADu, Lett. di Lev., vol. X, f. 138r (18 May 1430); Lett. di Lev., vol. X, f. 192v (12 August 1430); Lett. di Lev., vol. X, f. 198r (19 August 1430); Lett. di Lev., vol. XI, f. 2r (12 September 1430). 61 DADu, Lett. di Lev., vol. XI, f. 2r (12 September 1430). 62 DADu, Lett. di Lev., vol. X, f. 192v (12 August 1430).

120 Valentina Zovko

had information about the work of the ambassadors of Dubrovnik at the Sublime Porte.63 He heard about the death of the lord of Ilok.64 He knew that Isa-bey went to Senta with the despot’s son and that they attacked the territories of Venice all the way to Shkodër.65 Benedict regularly informed him about the events in his closer surroundings, for instance about the plague in Kotor66 and Dubrovnik.67 In that way, the ambassador was his ‘window to the world’. In return, Benedict used his extensive knowledge through seeking of advices.68 We can conclude that Benedict wrote to the government not just about the progress of Dubrovnik’s plans concerning the conflict,69 but on many other events in Bosnia.70 He gained new information thanks to Duke Sandalj, but also to his men,71 and other persons that were at the court at the same time.72 The government expected him to obtain information about the events in which he participated, but also about those that he did not.73 He was able to do that thanks to his network of associates, which was based on mutual trust. Certain information could be easily manipulated to feed the enemy misinformation. Due to that, Benedict had to be careful in the evaluation of their truthfulness. The government warned him on this matter when writing about the visit of the Armenian bishop who was on his way to Rome.74 They underlined that the news of Venetian-Ottoman peace treaty was correct, because he was ‘the man that can be trusted’.75 Difference in the interpretation of the value of the new information, and use of the new means and methods to obtain it, announced the appearance and future development of the secret diplomacy.

63 DADu, Lett. di Lev., vol. X, f. 146r (3 June 1430); Lett. di Lev., vol. X, f. 188r (1 August 1430); Lett. di Lev., vol. X, f. 192v (12 August 1430); Lett. di Lev., vol. XI, f. 10v (2 September 1430). 64 DADu, Lett. di Lev., vol. X, f. 153r (10 June 1430). 65 DADu, Lett. di Lev., vol. X, f. 173v (30 June 1430). 66 DADu, Lett. di Lev., vol. X, f. 188r (1 August 1430); Lett. di Lev., vol. X, f. 192r (12 August 1430). 67 DADu, Lett. di Lev., vol. XI, f. 10r (22 November 1430). 68 DADu, Lett. di Lev., vol. X, f. 173v (30 June 1430). 69 DADu, Lett. di Lev., vol. X, f. 185v (27 July 1430). 70 DADu, Lett. di Lev., vol. X, f. 154v (12 June 1430). 71 DADu, Lett. di Lev., vol. X, f. 147v (7 June 1430). 72 DADu, Lett. di Lev., vol. X, f. 148v (7 June 1430). 73 DADu, Lett. di Lev., vol. X, f. 205r (24 August 1430). 74 DADu, Lett. di Lev., vol. XI, f. 2v (18 September 1430). 75 DADu, Lett. di Lev., vol. XI, f. 6v (18 September 1430).

Development of Ragusan Diplomatic Service

121

Secret diplomacy Even though there were signs of secret diplomacy in the earlier history of Dubrovnik, during the War of Konavle it became a structural part of the diplomatic practice. In a way, that can be explained by the necessity of hiding the methods of gathering information. On the whole, it is noticeable that these actions were used much more in that particular conflict compared to the city’s war with Ostoja at the beginning of the fifteenth century. Obviously, the change of perception of the protagonists of the main world events contributed to the development of that practice. Above all, they were interested in their personal gain, which was built upon the current state of power, and not so much on the traditional foundations of the medieval world. ‘New values’, perhaps, are best confirmed by the action of Duke Sandalj who was willing to form a military alliance with Dubrovnik in order to destroy Duke Radoslav without the participation of the king of Bosnia.76 Benedict did very well in the aforementioned boundaries of the ‘mental landscape’ of the world he was part of. He gathered information through spying and eavesdropping on the conversation that Sandalj had with important persons on his court.77 He was even not afraid to destroy the material evidence that proved the conditions of forming the league against the Pavlović family, so it would not lead to possible protests and potentially unpleasant situations that could occur.78 Hiding information concerning the compromises made for the Duke Sandalj became his ‘business routine’.79 Occasional problems arose, because the government did not share all their information with Sandalj through their ambassador. Thus, his complaints about the inconsistency of the actions from Dubrovnik are not surprising, just like his accusations that they were hiding something from him.80 The leaders of the city justified their actions by claiming that they did not receive 76 DADu, Lett. di Lev., vol. X, f. 139r (27 May 1430). Even more unusual situation occurred when rumours of a possible coalition between Sandalj, Radoslav Pavlović and some other magnates of Bosnia directed against King Tvrtko II of Bosnia became visible. Lett. di Lev., vol. XI, f. 21r (10 March 1431). 77 DADu, Lett. di Lev., vol. X, f. 141v (27 May 1430). 78 DADu, Lett. di Lev., vol. X, f. 180r (14 July 1430). 79 Lett. di Lev., vol. X, f. 135r: vi prega che de li ducati mille di quali vi honera la mia signoria, e della prouision ouer denari… et delle VIM yperperi… de queli che in comuni vi vogliamo tuore a prode non si debia far motto ne mencion alguna allo re ne anche ad altri, ma rimaxa secretto appresso di voi (13 May 1430). Lett. di Lev., vol. X, f. 192r: per che noi siamo vostra credença et bon stara secreto quello aueti scritto (12 August 1439). 80 DADu, Lett. di Lev., vol. XI, f. 6r (30 September 1430).

122 Valentina Zovko

any news from their ambassador on the court of the king of Bosnia, which made it hard for them to come up with new conclusions.81 Nevertheless, Dubrovnik also kept secrets in front of Tvrtko II, because on one occasion they decided to send someone to Duke Radoslav senza dare a sapere e fare noticia alla corona di Bosna.82 An impression is formed that the relationship, into which they put a lot of effort, was standing on thin ice. In the background of the process stood personal interest, which was behind all actions.

Skills As time passed by, the necessary skills which could be appointed to the phrase an ‘ideal ambassador’ changed. The list of desirable competences became much longer. Hence the government encouraged Benedict to be hard-working, 83 wise,84 prepared85 and eager in his convincing. Special attention was given to the ambassador’s oratory skills.86 As a matter of fact Marin and Benedict devoted much attention to the selection of words that were supposed to help in creating the proper atmosphere.87 This can be best observed during their opening speech to the duke. Benedict addressed him con singularissima carita, amicicia et devotione.88 He flattered him with expressions like prinipale e honoreuolo consigliero, cordialissimo amico e benefactore. His adulation was not reserved just for the host, but also for the other influential individuals that were present at the court.89 Words became the ‘universal tool’ that could help ambassadors to achieve their mission goals. However, the analyses of the verbal performance of Marin and Benedict show significant differences. To be more convincing, both of them relied on different rhetorical figures to support their arguments. In addressing Sandalj they did not perceive the house he owned in Dubrovnik just as real-estate, but they gave a much broader meaning to it. He was obliged to defend Dubrovnik as 81 They suspected that the courier died on his way or maybe someone seized a letter from him. DADu, Lett. di Lev., vol. XI, f. 5v (30 September 1430); Kurtović, Veliki vojvoda, p. 313, note 1118. 82 DADu, Lett. di Lev., vol. X, f. 116r (30 April 1430). 83 DADu, Lett. di Lev., vol. X, f. 115v (30 April 1430). 84 DADu, Lett. di Lev., vol. X, f. 127v (9 May 1430). 85 DADu, Lett. di Lev., vol. XI, f. 12r (7 December 1430). 86 DADu, Lett. di Lev., vol. X, f. 167r (20 June 1430). 87 DADu, Lett. di Lev., vol. IV, f. 28v (25 June 1403); Lett. di Lev., vol. X, ff. 114v-115v (30 April 1430). 88 DADu, Lett. di Lev., vol. X, f. 151r (10 June 1430). 89 DADu, Lett. di Lev., vol. X, f. 161r (14 June 1430).

Development of Ragusan Diplomatic Service

123

his home land.90 All in all, Benedict used stylistic figures much more often than his father. That way he showed the required cultural knowledge and understanding of the changes that were happening in the world he lives in, which in the end left their mark on a linguistic level. His favourite rhetoric figure was metaphor. According to H. White, it reflects real life and marks the first degree of the consciousness of the society.91 This practice can be confirmed by the example when he showed the role of Duke Sandalj by using the image that the course and outcome of the conflict lay in his ‘hands and head’.92 He especially loved to use metaphors out of the animal world. In that sense, he compared Duke Radoslav with pessimo serpente, whose poison, even though it is not always visible, is a constant threat. He also gladly used other rhetorical figures, like pars pro toto,93 and the Slavic antithesis.94 Both had a clear purpose: to provoke an emotional reaction of the audience. Furthermore, Benedict did actualize ‘topos’ which was in constant use from the beginning of the fourteenth century.95 He moved the conflict with Duke Radoslav from the political to religious arena when he said that ‘catholic religion had no greater enemy than patharen Radoslav, who is more and more corrupted in his acts as his reign continues’.96 It is interesting that Sandalj respected the place and the role of the Bosnian church in public life. As a matter of fact, he was tolerant towards it, so it is doubtful how much impact those words left on him.97 To acquire the duke’s attention towards the interest of Dubrovnik Marin and Benedict used to evoke the ‘committing role of history’. Benedict 90 DADu, Lett. di Lev., vol. IV, ff. 28v-29r (25 June 1403); Lett. di Lev., vol. X, f. 115r (30 April 1403); Lett. di Lev., vol. X, ff. 127v-128r (9 May 1403). 91 Hayden White, Tropics of Discourse. Essays in Cultural Criticism (Baltimore and London: The John Hopkins University Press, 1978), p. 72. 92 DADu, Lett. di Lev., vol. X, f. 114r (30 April 1430). 93 This practice can be confirmed by the example when Benedict presented Duke Radoslav not just as an enemy of the city but also of the kingdom of Bosnia (DADu, Lett. di Lev., vol. X, f. 114r; 30 April 1430). 94 This practice can be confirmed by the example when Benedict pointed out that Radoslav does not have even one friend and moreover he is not a friend to himself (DADu, Lett. di Lev., vol. X, f. 114r; 30 April 1430). 95 More about, see: Lovro Končević, ‘Retorika granice kršćanstva u diplomaciji renesansnog Dubrovnika’ [The Rhetoric of the Border of Christendom in Renaissance Diplomacy of Dubrovnik], Anali Dubrovnik 48 (2010), pp. 179-211. 96 DADu, Lett. di Lev., vol. X, ff. 117r-117v (30 April 1430); Bariša Krekić, ‘Dva priloga bosanskoj historiji prve polovine petnaestog vijeka’ [The Two Contributions to Bosnian History of the First Half of the Fifteenth Century], Godišnjak društva istoričara Bosne i Hercegovine 37 (1986), p. 139. 97 Sima Ćirković, ‘Bosanska crkva u bosanskoj državi’ [Bosnian Church in the Bosnian State], Prilozi za istoriju Bosne i Hercegovine 88 (1987), pp. 219, 222, 230.

124 Valentina Zovko

reminded Sandalj about the promise he gave to their ambassador Nicholas de Goçe more than twenty years ago that he would defend the city and take care of his progress.98 Just like his father he did not pass the opportunity to mention the good relations between Dubrovnik and Sandalj’s predecessors.99 In that way, city plans for the future relied on the past patterns, which were fragile in the present moment. In the end, those callings remained on the level of ‘past relics’ and did not have any significant effect.

Conclusion Dubrovnik’s authorities put great hope in the work of their ambassadors Marin and his son Benedict de Gondula, who were sent on negotiations to Duke Sandalj during the two conflicts that city was involved in in the first half of the fifteenth century. The changes that affected the world they worked in during the twenty-six year period had a great impact on the diplomatic service. While Marin fits in the medieval frame with his methods and working techniques, his son Benedict can be considered as a predictor of the early modern age of diplomacy. As a result, he stayed on a mission much longer than his father, had wider freedom in his acts, he did a wide range of tasks which concerns much more than just the primary goals of the mission, he collected information for the government in Dubrovnik, but he also passed them to his host, for which he did various private services, and he used fine rhetoric which rested upon education and knowledge of the affairs of the outside world. In conclusion, the final result of the transformation meant implementation of the new methods and techniques, and required new skills and knowledge from the ambassador. In other words, he became specialized for a certain individual and his family. Accordingly, he created and nourished personal relationships with them, based upon mutual trust which contributed to the fulfilling of his mission goals.

98 DADu, Lett. di Lev., vol. X, f. 139v (27 May 1430). 99 DADu, Lett. di Lev., vol. IV, f. 28v (25 June 1403); Lett. di Lev., vol. X, f. 113v (30 April 1430).

Elected

23.6.1403.

27.4.1430.

Name of the ambassador

Marin de Gondula

Benedict de Gondula

6.4.1431.

2.7.1403.

Discharged from duty

345

9

Days spent in a mission

60

15

­Salary of the ambassador/ perpers

120

50

Fine/ perp.

40

15

Present/ perp.

4

-

Retinue

6

-

Horses

Table 1 Comparison of the Benedict’s and Marin’s embassy to Duke Sandalj Hranić Kosača of Bosnia

Appendix

4 per month

-

­Salary of the retinue/ perp.

4.5

-

Ref., vol. XXXII, f. 152v, (23.6.1403.); Ibid, f. 153r, (24.6.); Ibid, f. 155v, (2.7.) Cons. Rog., vol. IV, ff. 149v-150r, (27.4.1430.); Ibid, f. 283r, (6.4.1431.)

Daily costs Source limt/ perp.

Development of Ragusan Diplomatic Service

125

-

5. 5. 8. 5. 13. 5. 19. 5. 23. 5. 25. 5. 31. 5. 3. 6. 6. 6. 10. 6. 12. 6. 13. 6. 16. 6. 19. 6. 18. 6. 20. 6. 24. 6.

-

Cernica Sutjeska Sokol Samobor (on Drina)

100 Cf. Kurtović, Veliki vojvoda, pp. 459-462.

-

Kukanj

Samobor (on Drina) Samobor (on Drina) Samobor (on Drina) Samobor (on Drina) -

Date of sending

Place from which the ambassador writes

20. 6. 26. 6. 29. 6.

5. 6. 7. 6. 10. 6. 13. 6. 17. 6.

7. 5. 11. 5. 16. 5. 24. 5. 28. 5.

-

Received in Dubrovnik

Table 2 Letters to Benedict de Gondula and his answers100

2 3 3 5 5 3 5 4 4 3 5 6 4 6 5

-

Days the letter was on the way

30. 6.

23. 6. 26. 6.

7. 6. 10. 6. 12. 6. 14. 6. 18. 6. 20. 6.

9. 5. 13. 5. 18. 5. 27. 5./28. 5. 3. 6.

30. 4. 1430.

Instructions and replies from Dubrovnik

3 0 1

2 3 2 1 3

2 2 2 3/4 6

-

Days spent waiting for reply

Ibid, f. 173r

Ibid, f. 169r Ibid, f. 170v

Ibid, f. 146v Ibid, f. 151r Ibid, f. 154r Ibid, f. 156v Ibid, f. 161v Ibid, f. 166r

Lett. di Lev., vol. X, f. 113r Ibid, f. 127v Ibid, f. 132v Ibid, f. 136v Ibid, f. 139r Ibid, f. 145r

Source

126 Valentina Zovko

25. 6. 27. 6. 30. 6. 10. 7. 19. 7. 26. 7. 30. 7. 4. 8. 5. 8. 7. 8. 8. 8. 9. 8. 11. 8. 17. 8. 20. 8. 25. 8. 28. 8. 8. 9. 10. 9. 15. 9. 18. 9. 27. 9.

-

-

Nevesinje Nevesinje

-

Cernica

-

Kukanj Samobor (on Drina) Kozman Sokol -

Date of sending

Place from which the ambassador writes

questi di passadi 29. 9.

18. 8. (questi) 24. 8. 27. 8. 30. 8. questi di passadi -

questi proximi da passadi

13. 7. 26. 7. 29. 7. 2. 8. 8. 8.

30. 6. 4. 7.

Received in Dubrovnik

2

7 4 2 2 -

5 7 4 3 7 3 3 4 3 -

Days the letter was on the way

30.9.

12. 9. 18. 9. 23. 9.

2. 9.

1

6 3 -

1 0

-

16. 8.

19. 8. 24. 8.

1 1 3 0 4

1 3

Days spent waiting for reply

14. 7. 27. 7. 1. 8. 2. 8. 7. 8. 12. 8.

1. 7. 7. 7.

Instructions and replies from Dubrovnik

Ibid, f. 5r

Ibid, vol. XI, f. 1r Ibid, f. 2v Ibid, f. 4r

Ibid, f. 207v

Ibid, f. 196v Ibid, f. 199r

Ibid, f. 195r

Ibid, f. 180r Ibid, f. 184v Ibid, f. 187r Ibid, f. 188v Ibid, f. 205r Ibid, f. 191v

Ibid, f. 173v Ibid, f. 178r

Source

Development of Ragusan Diplomatic Service

127

2. 10. 10. 10. 25. 10. 13. 11. 28. 11. 1. 1. 1. 1. 22. 2. 23. 2. 4. 3.

Ključ, kod Cernice

-

-

Date of sending

Place from which the ambassador writes

4. 10. 14. 10. 30. 10. 18. 11. 4. 12. 3. 1. 4. 1. 7. 2. 17. 2. 24. 2. 25. 2. 6. 3.

Received in Dubrovnik 2 4 5 5 6 2 3 2 2 2

Days the letter was on the way

10. 3.

9. 2. 21. 2. 28. 2.

6. 10. 20. 10. 7. 11. 22. 11. 7. 12. 28. 12. 6. 1. 1431.

Instructions and replies from Dubrovnik 2 6 8 4 3 3 2 2 4 4 3 4

Days spent waiting for reply

Ibid, f. 20v

Ibid, f. 41v Ibid, f. 42r Ibid, f. 42v

Ibid, f. 6v Ibid, f. 7v Ibid, f. 9r Ibid, f. 10r Ibid, f. 12r Ibid, f. 13r Ibid, f. 15r

Source

128 Valentina Zovko



Croatian Students at the University of Prague in the Fifteenth Century Silvie Vančurová

The following article deals with the issue of spreading the teachings of Jan Hus and the associated revolutionary ideas and experience toward the South Slavic environment. The Hussites formed a medieval movement arising from a reformist group within the Catholic Church, inspired by the life and work of Jan Hus, a Czech Roman Catholic priest and university teacher, who based his teachings on the ideas of John Wycliffe. The movement sought the restoration of a unified Church (reaction to schism) and criticized indulgences as well as the sinful life of priests. After the burning of Jan Hus in 1415, the situation in the Czech lands radicalized and was heading toward long wars, which took place between 1419 and 1434. The development of the university environment led not only to the establishment of new ideas in the Czech environment, but could also substantially influenced students coming from abroad and lead to the import of heretical ideas to other countries, too. This is particularly interesting is the case of Croats, with whom cultural ties were cemented in the course of the fourteenth century. In 1347, at the beginning of his rule, King Charles IV invited Benedictine monks from Croatia, called Glagolites, to revive the Slavonic liturgy, referring to the Saints Cyril and Methodius tradition, and in order to set up a centre of Slavic religious education. The question was: to what extent did the cultural convergence continue at the level of university education and if it had any effect on the proliferation of Hus’s reformist ideas, especially when the Glagolites themselves allegedly translated one or two of Hus’s sermons into Croatian. In the Czech environment, the establishment of the University of Prague in 1348 resulted in the slow constitution of an educated class, which gradually gained more and more rights. In 1392, university doctors, masters, students and their servants were even excluded from the jurisdiction of royal courts and were only subjected to the university court.1 This educated class gradu1 Michal Svatoš, ‘Obecné učení: 1347-1419’ [General Studies: 1347-1419], in Dějiny Univerzity Karlovy I., 1347/48-1622 [The History of the Charles University, 1347/48-1622], ed. by Ivana Čornejová et al. (Praha: Karolinum, 1995), p. 80.

130 

Silvie Vančurová

ally garnered more confidence and increasingly wanted to participate in the transformation of the society. This was most obvious at the beginning of the fifteenth century, when university life revolved around the spreading of John Wycliffe’s ideas by Jan Hus, who became the most prominent figure of the early fifteenth century. The university was divided into the Faculty of Liberal Arts, the Theological Faculty, the Faculty of Medicine and the Faculty of Law, but the latter broke away in 1372 and formed a university of its own. This situation lasted until 1419, when the separate University of Law was dissolved. Students and professors alike were structured into four so-called ‘university nations’ – Czech, Polish, Saxon and Bavarian, which formed the institutional basis of the entire school. The rector was elected according to the university nations, along with his council and faculty administrators, places in halls of residence were assigned, church benefices allotted and entries in the register of the university made accordingly.2 Registers are a unique source for the study of students in Prague, who also included Croats.3 It is necessary to point out that university nations were not based on a national principle, but rather on a regional one. The Czech nation comprised the inhabitants of Bohemia and Moravia, Czech as well as German speakers, but also South Slavs and individuals from Hungary. The Bavarian vote was given to the inhabitants of Austria, Swabia, Franconia and the Rhineland, the Polish vote represented Silesians, Poles, Russians and Lithuanians, while the Saxon vote was given to people from Meissen, Thuringia, Saxony, Denmark and Sweden. 4 We can learn about the homeland of the individual students in the register only if they used predicates when mentioning a certain student. However, regardless it is usually very hard to determine the place of origin of each student. In addition, the division between the nations was, based on the preserved statutes, only very general, and disputable cases were dealt with by convention or arbitrarily. There were only a few students from Hungary. According to records, there were nine students from Hungary in Prague between 1399 and 1418; two of them came from Upper Hungary (present-day Slovakia), five from Lower Hungary, one from Croatia and one from Slavonia. The number of students from Slavonia was rising only after 2 Ibidem, pp. 58-67. 3 Eva Doležalová, Svěcenci pražské diecéze 1395-1416 [Ordinands of the Prague Diacese 13951416] (Praha: Historický ústav AV ČR, 2010), pp. 87-104; Liber ordinationum cleri 1395-1416, ed. by Antonín Podlaha (Praha: Sumptibus s. f. metropolitani capituli Pragensis, 1922). 4 Svatoš, ‘Obecné učení’, pp. 63-66.

Croatian Students at the Universit y of Pr ague in the Fif teenth Century

131

1433, when the Hussite wars were fading after years of battles.5 The low number of Croatian students can be attributed to the fact that in the early fifteenth century, Prague was not the only central European University; since 1365 it had been successfully complemented by the University of Vienna, which was widely attended by students from Hungary. During the period in question there were at least twenty-three students from the Kingdom of Croatia, which is significantly more than in Prague.6 In addition, the Croats also studied in Paris.7 Some prestigious universities in Italy could also be appealing to them, but these were primarily attended by Dalmatians, since Dalmatia is closer to Italy and there were stronger cultural ties between them. Given the small number of students from Croatia, it is questionable whether we can actually talk about any kind of transfer of Hus’ reformist ideas to the South Slavic environment. Some sources, however, suggest that such a transfer actually occurred, even implying that there were more Croatian students in Prague than what can be inferred from the registers. The uncertainty about the actual number of Croatian students is mainly due to the fact that registers were kept in Latin, and therefore registrars converted into Latin the different names of cities, towns and villages from which the students came. Since the Croats were included in the so-called Czech university nation, they were listed along with Czech students, and the names of some villages in the Slavic language could, by mistake, evoke a place in Bohemia or Moravia. In addition, no other records have been extant on a wide range of students, so it is difficult to reconstruct their origin or subsequent career. In addition, if the graduates then went back to their countries, there were no other sources about them in the Czech lands, while on the other hand any preserved records in Croatia may miss the information that they attended the Bohemian university. This is, for example, the case of Peter Sdenconis de Knin, for whom it is impossible to say with certainty whether he came from the Czech Knín or the Croatian Knin.8 5 František Šmahel, Pražské univerzitní studentstvo v předrevolučním období 1399-1419: Statistickosociologická studie [Students of the University in Prague in the Pre-Revolutionary Period 1399-1419: Statistical and Sociological Study] (Praha: Academia 1967). 6 Anna Tüskés, Magyaroszági diákon a bécsi egyetemen 1365-1526 [Students from Hungary at The University of Vienna 1365-1526] (Budapest: Eötvös Loránd Tudományegyetem Léveltára, 2008). 7 Mineo Tanaka, ‘Hrvatski studenti na pariškom sveučilištu u 14. i 15. stoljeću’ [Croatian Students at the University of Paris in the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Century], Croatica Christiana Periodica 9 (1985), pp. 36-41. 8 Album seu matricula facultatis juridicae universitatis Pragensis ab anno Christi 1372 asque ad annum 1418: E Codice membranaceo illius aetatis nunc primum luce donatum plenoque nominum indice auctum: Codex diplomaticus universitatis ejusdem (Praha: Joan. Spurný, 1834).

132 

Silvie Vančurová

Of course, the question is what could be the real impact of the transfer of ideas through students. In Bohemia, ideas were promoted through Jan Hus, who not only introduced them to students at the university, but also preached in the Bethlehem Chapel to crowds of Prague residents, and later found an audience in the Czech countryside. Some criticism of the religious situation, even though only gentle, appeared in the Czech university environment much earlier – Wycliffism as such arrived in Prague in the 1390s. I believe, however, that these ideas took a firm grip as a by-product of the overall social situation. In the second half of the fourteenth century the Czech society underwent an immense economic growth, Prague became the imperial residence, trade blossomed and education was on the rise. Christianity pervaded the society more than ever before. At the turn of the fourteenth to fifteenth century, therefore, the number of people with different ideas about their own future was much higher than in previous generations. But the gradual decline, to some extent natural but partly caused by the weak reign of Wenceslas IV, led to their ideas not being fulfilled. At the same time, the power of religious dignitaries was growing; they often abused their position, which naturally provoked a certain reaction on the part of the disgruntled population. Hus’ ideas, even though probably not intended by Hus himself, therefore unified those disaffected into common ranks and kindled their common opposition to religious authorities.9 Croatian students witnessed this gradual transformation of the Czech society, which became quite radicalised from the beginning of the fifteenth century. As university members, they undoubtedly participated in or at least observed the public debate on the articles of John Wycliffe, which were denounced by an assembly of university masters in 1403. A negative attitude toward these ideas, however, was taken mainly by the representatives of the Bavarian, Saxon and Polish nations, while those representing the Czech university nation recognized Wycliffe’s ideas in some respect and spread them further, and in 1405 they even received support of King Wenceslas IV of Bohemia. The disputes at the university, which lasted nearly the entire first decade of the fifteenth century, escalated in 1409 with the issue of the so-called Decree of Kutná Hora, which had certain international links to the rule of King Wenceslas IV. The Decree changed the proportions between the university nations; the Czech nation should have three votes in any future decision-making, while the Saxon, Bavarian and Polish nations would have a single vote altogether. As a result, about 800 students and faculty members 9 František Šmahel, Husitská revoluce 2: Kořeny české reformace [The Hussite Revolution. The Roots of the Czech Reformation] (Praha: Karolinum, 1996), pp. 258-276.

Croatian Students at the Universit y of Pr ague in the Fif teenth Century

133

left for other universities (mainly in Vienna, Krakow, Heidelberg and Leipzig, where a university was established as a consequence), and the University of Prague was ‘Czechized’, but this step was accompanied by a significant decrease in its quality. Croatian students were not directly affected by these changes because they were part of the Czech university nation.10 Unfortunately, it cannot be estimated if the 1409 events in any way influenced the number of Croatian students, who had to be increasingly confronted with the growing trend of reform among the Czech intellectual elite. Famous Croatian students at that time included, for example, Martin of Križevci, who earned a Bachelor of Liberal Arts degree in 1402. His promoter was Jan Hus himself but it is hard to say if it had any significance at all. Interestingly, however, Hus believed in the legend of Slavic origin of St. Jerome, his favourite religious teacher, and therefore favoured South Slavic students, such as Martin of Križevci.11 It is not clear how Martin viewed the new reformist ideas, but there is no doubt that as a Bachelor student in Prague he already experienced Hus’ first preaching as well as initial discussions about reform ideas. However, he did not become a Master of Philosophy and probably went back to his homeland or died. Sometimes he is thought to have been the scribe of the illuminated Latin Bible from 1447, who used to be known as the Dalmatian and worked in the Prague Chapter Library. Historians are led to believe in this association because in his speech at the graduation ceremony, Hus referred to him as the Dalmatian, but it could only be a mistake by Hus or by the authors of the preserved records.12 But there is another possible explanation – that Martin of Križevci was not, in fact, from the village of Križevci, close to Zagreb, but from a certain other place of a similar name, in southern areas of present day Croatia. But the question is why he would not opt for study at closer Italian universities. Today we can only guess, but the aforementioned Benedictine monastery in Emmaus could have influenced his decision, as he could have known some of the Glagolites there and therefore could naturally have a good background in Prague. Although there were several halls of residence in Prague, they were mostly leased to Masters; the first halls of residence intended for the Czech university nation were set up in the 1390s, but their capacities were low. Students therefore mostly stayed in the so-called student bourses, houses 10 Martin Nodl, Dekret kutnohorský [The Decree of Kutná Hora] (Praha: Lidové noviny, 2010), pp. 269-275. 11 Jaroslav Šidak, ‘Kacířské hnutí a ohlas husitství na slovanském jihu’ [Heretical Movement and Acceptance of Hussitism in South Slavonic Areas], in Mezinárodní ohlas husitství [International Acceptance of Hussitism], ed. by Josef Macek (Praha: Nakladatelství ČSAV, 1958), pp. 163-183. 12 Ibidem, pp. 163-183.

134 

Silvie Vančurová

administered by a Bachelor, Master or a group of teachers. A friend could provide better accommodation, but it would have to be approved by the rector.13 Unfortunately, there are no records, so nothing can be confirmed. In 1400, there was another student from Croatia graduating – Martin of Zagreb, who, however, did not experience the most turbulent debates about John Wycliffe and, as a law student,14 mostly communed with different people than Martin of Križevci and later students, who are known to have adopted Hus’ ideas directly. The first mentions of such Croatian students appear only after 1409, when the structure of the university totally changed. Unlike their German counterparts, Croats had no reason to go to other universities because their rights were preserved. In addition, their departure to a location further than Prague was a huge financial burden. All universities (Heidelberg, Leipzig, Krakow) were at an even larger distance from their homes than Prague, with the exception of Vienna. For the Croats, however, it was advantageous to remain in Prague because they could communicate with the local Slavic population better than with the populations of German cities. Good examples are Anthony of Slavonia (de Slavonia) and Martin of Zagreb (de Zagravia), who passed their Bachelor examinations in 1410.15 And there were also followers of Hus’ teachings among such Croatian students. Hus’ letter of defence, sent to the Pope on 1 September 1411, was also signed by two priests from Zagreb – Anthony of Rovišće (de Royce) and George, son of Michael of Drenova (de Drenova), who probably came from places near Zagreb.16 At that time, Jan Hus was already under considerable pressure, fighting domestic church leaders as well as the Papal Council. By affixing their signatures, both Croatian students clearly declared their opinions on the reformist trends and also demonstrated a degree of courage, supporting a man who had already been excommunicated. On the other hand, we can argue that in the Czech environment Hus had a number of supporters, even in the highest places, so the students may not have perceived a good relationship with him to be dangerous, as it appeared to be from an international perspective. Unfortunately, their fate is unknown, but they were most likely part of a group of students who established close contacts with Hus and introduced the use of punctuation, which Hus started using in Czech, in the Croatian language. 13 Svatoš, ‘Obecné učení’, pp. 42-58. 14 Album seu matricula facultatis, p. 49. 15 Liber ordinationum cleri 1395-1416, p. 200. 16 Šmahel, Pražské univerzitní studentstvo, p. 29; Fontes rerum Bohemicarum, vol. 7, Drobnější kroniky a zprávy k dějinám českých zemí [Prague University Students, Short Chronicles and Notes about Czech History], ed. by Josef Emler (Praha: Z nadání Františka Palackého, b. d.), p. 28.

Croatian Students at the Universit y of Pr ague in the Fif teenth Century

135

The import of reform ideas among the Croats most probably continued. This is obvious from a case dated in 1413, when there was a controversy between the universities in Prague and Vienna due to clerics or students from the Zagreb Diocese, who studied at the University of Prague and, on their way back home, were exposed in Vienna as the followers of Wycliffe’s heresy.17 One of them, Dominic of Zagreb, was even imprisoned and was only released after he renounced some articles of Wycliffe’s teachings. He admitted that he had become familiar with these ideas at Jan Hus’ lectures at the University of Prague. The Bishop and Chapter of Zagreb were informed of this, as evidenced by the preserved letters of Jan Sywort from Vienna to Zagreb and Jan Hus’ letter addressed to Sywort, in which Hus defended the truth and called on the Viennese theologian: ‘Do not judge and you will not be judged’. However, it all apparently came to naught because there are no records that the clergy of Zagreb would take any further steps against the threat of Wycliffism.18 In fact, the actual transmission of Hus’ ideas into another environment did not necessarily lead to any such tendencies. Their development required a relatively rich society, where some people would be concerned about the threat of loss of their position. That would be the breeding ground for Hus’ ideas. And that is why the outcome of the spreading of Hussite ideas was so varied. While in Zagreb, there were tumultuous struggles between the Chapter of Zagreb and Gradec in the late fourteenth century, there was no actual social revolt similar to what was happening in the Czech lands. In 1396, armed burghers stormed the cathedral and the Chapter, but it was just a reaction to the violence of the canons. The bishop even declared an anathema and an interdict against the burghers, but this did not discourage them. In the end, the royal court found the chapter to be guilty and the whole situation ended amicably.19 So, there were certain tensions in the relationships to the Church in the South Slavic world, just like there were in the Czech environment, but they did not by far produce such a social turmoil as they did in Bohemia. All these cases indicate that even though some Croats agreed with the reformist ideas they encountered in Prague, there was no actual large proliferation. Some minor spreading cannot be excluded but there were no 17 Sto listů M. Jana Husi [A Hundred Letters of Jan Hus], ed. by Bohumil Ryba (Praha: Jan Laichter, 1949), pp. 123-125. 18 Šidak, ‘Kacířské hnutí a ohlas husitství’, pp. 163-183. 19 Vjekoslav Klaić, Povijest Hrvata: Od najstarijih vremena do svršetka XIX. stoljeća, vol. 2 (Zagreb: Matica hrvatska, 1981); Šidak, ‘Kacířské hnutí a ohlas husitství’, pp. 163-183.

136 

Silvie Vančurová

ensuing changes in the contemporary society. Either they were eventually somehow stopped, or simply there was not fertile soil in their homeland. A whole different situation occurred in Syrmia, where Hussite ideas were spread through Blaise of Kamenica. Blaise was attracted by Hus’ ideas but his activities were discovered as late as in 1437; it is hard to determine when he actually came to the Petrovaradin area.20 In this case, however, we arrive at nationalistic problems. The population there was not only Slavic, but also Hungarian, particularly in Bač, Beočin and Sveti Martin and there is a theory that the Hussite ideas were spreading rather among the Hungarianspeaking population of Syrmia, while the Slavs remained indifferent to them. This would be probably caused by the fact that reformist ideas reached the Hungarian-speaking population via commercial channels.21 The language barrier could be really significant, but on the other hand the Hussite movement does not seem to have in any way appealed to the local Slavs because they themselves followed Patarenism (a form of Bogomilism). The hopes of some Hussite thinkers that they would find some ground among the Orthodox population proved to be wrong Orthodox leaders and the local population had no real idea of what was happening in Bohemia and why. The development of Bogomilism is, however, a rather interesting phenomenon to be compared with the Hussite movement. Martin of Kamenica, who became a Bachelor in 1413, contributed to the spreading of Hus’ ideas. Historians do not agree whether he came from Kamenice near Litoměřice in northern Bohemia or from Kamenica in Syrmia. If he really had been from Syrmia, it would be an interesting example of the spread of the Hussite movement by students from the University of Prague. It is clear that the number of Croatian students attending the University of Prague between 1399 and 1419 was not nearly as high as the number of students in Vienna, yet, there were still some students and they encountered new reform ideas, which attracted them and, at least initially, they wanted to spread them further in their homeland. Since, however, there are no records of their activities in this regard, we can assume that either they did not achieve anything or ultimately they did not particularly convince anyone.

20 Šmahel, Husitská revoluce 4, pp. 139-140; Miroslav Brandt, ‘Susret Viklifizma s bogomilstvom u Srijemu’ [The Encounter of Wyclifism with Paternism in Srijem], Starohrvatska prosvjeta 3 (1956), pp. 33-64. 21 Šidak, ‘Kacířské hnutí a ohlas husitství’, pp. 163-183.



A Contribution to Medieval Croatian Diplomatics Cyrillic Charters of Croatian Nobility from the Franciscan Monastery on Trsat in Rijeka* Neven Isailović

Cyrillic diplomatic literacy in Croatia has its roots in the Byzantine Reconquista of Dalmatia from ninth to eleventh century, as well as in the temporary but strong influence of the Bulgarian state during the time of Emperors Simeon and Samuel.1 It is for these reasons that the Cyrillic alphabet, as the more recent Slavic script, stabilized in the area of presentday Dalmatia (or, from a medieval perspective, in Dalmatia and southern Croatia). The Greek language subsided and consequently fell out of use, but the Cyrillic letters remained dominant in the aforementioned region for composing texts in Slavic vernacular. The Glagolitic script dominated in the northern part of the Kingdom of Croatia-Dalmatia, while in the Kingdom of Slavonia, whose direct connections with the Frankish state and Hungary were much stronger, the Latin language and script took absolute primacy, and the remains of the medieval Slavic literacy are rudimentary.2 In the medieval period up until the end of fifteenth century, Croatian epigraphic, liturgical, literary and legal texts in Cyrillic script are preserved in a substantially larger number than diplomatic materials (diplomata et acta).3 Today we know of only twenty Cyrillic charters and letters of Croatian nobility which were issued up until 1500. Eight of them (40%) are located in * This article is a result of the research project ‘Medieval Serbian Lands (XIII-XV Century): Political, Economic, Social and Legal processes’ (no. 177029), funded by the Ministry of Education, Science and Technological Development of the Government of the Republic of Serbia. 1 Stanoje Stanojević, ‘Studije o srpskoj diplomatici. XVIII kancelarije’ [Studies on Serbian Diplomatics. XVIII Chanceries], Glas Srpske kraljevske akademije 156 (1933), pp. 43-48; Božidar Ferjančić, ‘Vasilije I i obnova vizantijske vlasti u IX veku’ [Basil I and the Restoration of the Byzantine Rule in the Ninth Century], Zbornik radova Vizantološkog instituta 36 (1997), pp. 9-30; Eduard Hercigonja, Tropismena i trojezična kultura hrvatskoga srednjovjekovlja [Three-Script and Trilingual Culture of Medieval Croatia] (Zagreb: Matica hrvatska, 22006), pp. 32-39, 84-90, 101-107, 269-271. 2 Hercigonja, Tropismena i trojezična kultura, pp. 13-123, 197-244, 269-271. 3 Ibidem, pp. 101-107. Croatian Cyrillic heritage was recently (November 2012) the subject of a conference held at the Croatian Academy of Sciences and Arts. Some of the papers from this conference are published in the journal Filologija 62- 63 (2014).

138 Neven Isailović

the Franciscan monastery on Trsat in the city of Rijeka. No other archive or archival collection has more than two Cyrillic documents of Croatian noblemen in its holdings.4 The National Archives in Dubrovnik and the National Archives of Hungary in Budapest hold two such documents each, while the Croatian State Archives in Zagreb, Parish Office in Pučišća (on the island of Brač) and the Cathedral Archive in Split (in the form of transumption in the document of Spalatin Cathedral Chapter) hold one each. Two documents are currently unaccounted for, while one was most probably destroyed in the First World War in the Archive of the Counts of Attems, near Gorizia in Italy.5 Territorially, all these documentary monuments of Croatian Cyrillic literacy are linked with the region south of the river Zrmanja and most of them (all except one) with even smaller area in the present-day Dalmatia – between the rivers Krka and Neretva. Due to the scarceness of preserved copies, it is not known to what extent the Slavonic (i.e. Croatian) language and script were used in this region in comparison with the Latin language. Ottoman invasion in the fifteenth and sixteenth century certainly caused the destruction of a large number of family archives and was the main reason for the consequent lack of Cyrillic documents of Croatian origin. However, we cannot positively tell if the influence of central authorities (Frankish, Hungarian and Venetian) and the Church secured the absolute dominance of Latin diplomatic literacy even in the most southern regions of Croatia.6 4 Đuro Šurmin, Hrvatski spomenici [Croatian Documents], vol. 1, Monumenta historico-juridica Slavorum meridionalium, vol. 6 (Zagreb: Jugoslavenska akademija znanosti i umjetnosti, 1898), p. 136, 138-139, 156, 164-165, 213, 246-247, 280, 432-435; Neven Isailović, ‘Dve ćirilske isprave Ivana VI (Anža) Frankopana Omišanima’ [Two Cyrillic Charters of John VI (Hans) Frankopan Issued to the Citizens of Omiš], Mešovita građa – Miscellanea 32 (2011), pp. 106-108, 113-123; Idem, ‘Povelja bana Damjana Horvata Dubrovčanima o slobodi trgovine’ [The Charter of Ban Damian Horvat on Commercial Privileges of Dubrovnik], Initial. A Review of Medieval Studies 2 (2014), pp. 244-247. 5 Šurmin, Hrvatski spomenici, pp. 6-9, 136, 138-139, 156, 164-165, 213, 246-247, 280, 361-362, 432-435; Franz Miklosich, Monumenta Serbica spectancia historiam Serbiae, Bosnae, Ragusii (Wien: G. Braumüller, 1858), pp. 279-280; Đuro Šurmin – Vjekoslav Klaić, ‘Dvije hrvatske isprave XV. stoljeća’ [Two Croatian Charters from the Fifteenth Century], Vjestnik Kraljevskog hrvatskoslavonsko-dalmatinskog zemaljskog arkiva 5 (1903), pp. 54-64; Stjepan Ivšić, ‘Hrvatski ćirilski testamenat Radoslavca Vladišića iz god. 1436. u priepisu iz god. 1448.’ [Croatian Cyrillic Testament of Radoslavac Vladišić from 1436 in a Transcript from 1448], Časopis za hrvatsku poviest 1-2 (1943), pp. 83-87; Benedikta Zelić-Bučan, Bosančica u srednjoj Dalmaciji [The ‘Bosančica’ Script in Central Dalmatia] (Split: Historijski arhiv, 1961), pp. 9-11, table 8; Krešimir Kužić, Povijest Dalmatinske zagore [A History of Dalmatinska Zagora] (Split: Književni krug, 1997), pp. 53-54; Zbоrnik srеdnjоvеkоvnih ćiriličkih pоvеlја i pisаmа Srbiје, Bоsnе i Dubrоvnikа [Collection of Medieval Cyrillic Charters and Letters of Serbia, Bosnia and Dubrovnik], vol. 1, ed. by Vladimir Моšin – Sima Ćirkоvić – Dušan Sindik (Bеоgrаd: Istorijski institut, 2011), pp. 193-194; Isailović, ‘Dve ćirilske isprave’, pp. 101-124; Idem, ‘Povelja bana Damjana Horvata’, pp. 241-253. 6 Hercigonja, Tropismena i trojezična kultura, pp. 39-46, 113-118, 269-271.

A Contribution to Medieval Croatian Diplomatics

139

Preserved Cyrillic documents from Croatia mostly originate from the fifteenth century, but there is evidence that Slavic charters and letters were also composed in the earlier period (maybe to a lesser extent), primarily for domestic, regional purposes, as the Croatian language and Cyrillic script were comprehensible to Croats and their Slavic neighbours, but usually not to the Hungarians and Italians who were powerful political factors in the region. We know that this alphabet was used by the local nobility in the wider regions of Split, Trogir, mid-Dalmatian islands, Omiš and Makarska Littoral; that Dalmatian cities were given privileges of the Serbian rulers in Slavic vernacular, undoubtedly in Cyrillic script. Even Doge Giovanni Superanzio of Venice issued a charter to the city of Trogir in 1325 in both Latin and Slavic. From a copy made in 1410 by the Cathedral Chapter of Split we can assume that the family of the Šubići Bribirski was also using this script when writing documents in Croatian language to their compatriots in early fourteenth century. Also, as we can learn from the charters of the King Tvrtko I of Bosnia from 1390, the citizens of Šibenik, Trogir and the island of Brač submitted their oaths of fidelity to him in two copies – Latin and Slavic (in the Cyrillic alphabet, since the Bosnians did not use Glagolitic script).7 It seems that it was Bosnia that gave the stimulus for the revitalisation and spreading of the Cyrillic alphabet in Southern Croatia and Dalmatia from the mid-fourteenth century. This neighbouring country certainly did have decisive influence in the change of the type of Cyrillic script. Both the Bosnian state, whose external policy was strongly linked with the Croatian lands, and the Franciscans of the Bosnian Vicariate ‘transplanted’ the so-called chancery miniscule to Croatia.8 This minuscule that replaced majuscule script first appeared in Serbia in the last quarter of the thirteenth century. Hence, it spread to the region of Hum, Bosnia and Dubrovnik.9 In the middle of the fourteenth 7 Šurmin, Hrvatski spomenici, pp. 6-9, 115-116; Kužić, Povijest Dalmatinske zagore, pp. 53-54; Zbоrnik srеdnjоvеkоvnih ćiriličkih pоvеlја, pp. 63-64, 143-145, 157-158, 179-180, 193-194; Mihailo Dinić, ‘Tri povelje iz ispisa Ivana Lučića’ [Three Charters Copied by Ivan Lučić], Zbornik Filozofskog fakulteta u Beogradu 3 (1955), pp. 69-94; Codex diplomaticus Regni Croatiae, Dalmatiae et Slavoniae, ed. by Tadija Smičiklas et al., vol. 17 (Zagreb: JAZU, 1981), pp. 297-299, 306-309; Mladen Ančić, Bosanska vlast u Hrvatskoj i Dalmaciji 1387-1394 [Bosnian Rule in Croatia and Dalmatia 1387-1394], unpublished M.A. thesis (Beograd: Filozofski fakultet, 1985), pp. 134-137. 8 Ivan Botica, ‘Franjevački samostan i crkva Sv. Marije u podgrađu Cetini pod Sinjem (primjer povijesnoga diskontinuiteta)’ [Franciscan Friary and the Church of St. Mary in the Sinj Suburb of Cetina: an Example of Historical Discontinuity], Povijesni prilozi 38 (2010), pp. 11-12. 9 Gregor Čremošnik, ‘Srpska diplomatska minuskula, njezin postanak i razvoj’ [The Serbian Diplomatic Minuscule. Its Creation and Development], Slovo 13 (1963), pp. 119-136; Vladimir Mošin, ‘Metodološke bilješke o tipovima pisma u ćirilici’ [Methodological Remarks on the Types of Letters in the Cyrillic Script], Slovo 15-16 (1965), pp. 150-180.

140 Neven Isailović

century, Ban Stephen II of Bosnia urged the Pope to send him missionaries who knew the Slavic language. These missionaries were the aforementioned Franciscans who were present on a vast territory in the Central Balkans.10 Through their activities, they were passing on the Cyrillic minuscule script to wherever they went. Combined influence of the Dalmatian city communes and the Franciscan monastery built in 1357 in Cetina (Sinj) consolidated Cyrillic literacy and introduced minuscule script as the main means of correspondence in the Croatian language in the territory of the county of Cetina, which merged with the county of Klis in 1401, transferring the same practice to that administrative region too. In fact, this script remained dominant in these areas up until the eighteenth and even early nineteenth centuries.11 The regions to the North and West (primarily the counties of Knin and Luka and the districts of coastal cities and communes from Omiš to Šibenik), already familiar with Cyrillic alphabet, were also, to some extent, influenced by the same factors. The Latin language (and alphabet) did prevail, but local use of domestic vernacular and script became rather common too. Zadar and its hinterland represented a borderline between the use of Glagolitic and Cyrillic script for writing Slavic texts.12 Ottoman authorities in Croatia strengthened the prevalence of the minuscule form of the Cyrillic alphabet during sixteenth and seventeenth century, since they used it for regional correspondence in South Slavic languages throughout the early modern period. In the late fifteenth century, variants of this language were spoken or used as the means of diplomatic 10 Šime Ljubić, Listine o odnošajih između južnoga Slavenstva i Mletačke republike, vol. 2 (Zagreb: JAZU, 1870), pp. 443-445. 11 Botica, ‘Franjevački samostan’, pp. 11-12; Karlo Jurišić, ‘Posljednji poznati natpisi hrvatskom ćirilicom na prostoru oko Biokova (XIX. st.): prilog poznavanju hrvatske epigrafike napuštenih pisama’ [The Last Known Croatian Cyrillic Inscriptions in the Area around Biokovo Mountain (the Nineteenth Century): A Contribution to Croatian Epigraphy of Disused Scripts], Rasprave Instituta za hrvatski jezik i jezikoslovlje 23-24 (1997-1998), pp. 189-212; Bosanska ćirilična pisma od 15. do 18. stoljeća (Antologija) [Bosnian Cyrillic Letter from the Fifteenth to Eighteenth Century. An Anthology], ed. by Lejla Nakaš, Forum Bosnae 53-54 (Sarajevo: Međunarodni forum Bosna, 2011), passim. Even some Croatian noble refugees in Slavonia, originating from Southern Croatia (i.e. the Keglevići), continued using Cyrillic script in their correspondence in the early sixteenth century. Cf.: Ivan Kukuljević Sakcinski, Acta Croatica (Listine hrvatske), vol. 1 (Zagreb: s.n., 1863), pp. 189, 213, 235, 240, 243-245, 251-255, 261. 12 Kukuljević Sakcinski, Acta Croatica, pp. 61-62, 101-102, 110, 112, 147-148, 170-171; Hercigonja, Tropismena i trojezična kultura, pp. 269-271; Marko Rimac – Ivan Botica, ‘Hrvatska ćirilica u glagoljskim matičnim knjigama zapadno od Krke’ [Croatian Cyrillic Scipt in the Glagolitic Registers West of the Krka River], in ‘Az grišni diak Branko pridivkom Fučić’ – Radovi međunarodnoga znanstvenog skupa o životu i djelu akademika Branka Fučića (1920.-1999.), ed. by Tomislav Galović (Malinska/Rijeka/Zagreb: HAZU, etc., 2011), pp. 521-550.

A Contribution to Medieval Croatian Diplomatics

141

communication in the whole of South-Eastern Europe. Some type of Cyrillic minuscule was simultaneously used in Serbia, Bosnia, southern Croatia, but also by the Albanian nobles, and to some extent Ottomans, Hungarians and Romanians.13 Over time, the natural process of morphological divergence created a clear distinction between the Eastern variant of this minuscule (used mainly in Serbia, Romania and parts of Hungary) and the Western one, sometimes called ‘bosančica’ (used mainly in the territory of the former Kingdom of Bosnia and in Croatia). This discrepancy, initially slighter, became greater in sixteenth century.14 When it comes to the philological features of the language found in Croatian Cyrillic documents, they do not differ much from Glagolitic ones and are determined by the region in which they were issued and persons who wrote them. Most of these documents come from the territory of the Counties of Cetina and Klis and the town of Omiš, and they are written in local vernacular characterized by ‘ikavian’ version of either ‘čakavian’ or ‘štokavian/šćakavian’ dialect.15 All medieval Cyrillic documents in the Archives of the Franciscan monastery in Trsat are charters kept in three archival boxes (fascicles) named Miscellanea I-III (1260-1536).16 All of them were issued by the Croatian nobles in the 13 Miklosich, Monumenta Serbica, pp. 552-557; Bosanska ćirilična pisma od 15. do 18. stoljeća, passim; Ljubomir Stojanović, Stare srpske povelje i pisma [Old Serbian Charters and Letters], vol. 1-2 (Beograd/Sremski Karlovci: SANU, 1934), pp. 213-412, 483-486; Nikola Rаdојčić, ‘Pеt pisаmа s krаја 15. vеkа’ [Five Letters from the End of the Fifteenth Century], Јužnоslоvеnski filоlоg 20 (1953-1954) 1-4, pp. 343-367; Neven Isailović, Vladarske kancelarije u srednjovekovnoj Bosni [Chanceries of Rulers in Medieval Bosnia], unpublished doctoral thesis (Beograd: Filozofski fakultet, 2014), pp. 253, 268, 273-274, 522. 14 Zelić-Bučan, Bosančica u srednjoj Dalmaciji, pp.  5-28; Branislav M. Nedeljković, ‘O “bosančici”’ [On ‘Bosančica’], Prilozi za kulturu, jezik, istoriju i folklor 21 (1955), pp. 271-284; Aleksandar Mladenović, ‘Prilog proučavanju razvitka naše ćirilice’ [A Contribution to the Study of the Development of Our Cyrillic Alphabet], Književnost i jezik 12 (1965) 3, pp. 53-66; Tomislav Raukar, ‘O nekim problemima razvitka ćirilske minuskule (bosančice). U povodu rasprave A. Mladenovića, Prilog proučavanju razvitka naše ćirilice, Književnost i jezik XII, 1965/3, 53-66’ [On Some Problems of the Development of the Cyrillic Minuscule (‘Bosančica’)], Historijski zbornik 19-20 (1966-1967), pp. 485-499; Petar Đorđić, Istorija srpske ćirilice. Paleografsko-filološki prilozi [A History of Serbian Cyrillic Script. Paleographical-Philological Contributions] (Beograd: Zavod za udžbenike i nastavna sredstva, 1990), pp. 115-179; Mateo Žagar, ‘Hrvatska pisma u srednjem vijeku’ [Croatian Alphabets in the Middle Ages], in Povijest hrvatskoga jezika [A History of Croatian Language], vol. 1, ed. Josip Bratulić et al. (Zagreb: Croatica, 2009), pp. 107-207; Lejla Nakaš, Jezik i grafija krajišničkih pisama [The Language and Orthography of the Marcher Letters] (Sarajevo: Slavistički komitet, 2010), passim. 15 Hercigonja, Tropismena i trojezična kultura, pp. 84-90, 232-237, 269-271. 16 Emanuel Hoško, ‘Arhivska zbirka Franjevačkog samostana na Trsatu’ [The Archival Collection of the Franciscan Monastery on Trsat], Vjesnik historijskih arhiva u Rijeci i Pazinu 17

142 Neven Isailović

fifteenth century – one by John Nelipčić (1434), two by John VI (Hans) Frankapan (in March and October 1436), two by Peter Talovac (1443, 1446), two by his nephew Vladislav (Lacko) Talovac (1458, 1476)17 and one by Margaret, widow of Ban Paul Špirančić of Croatia-Dalmatia (1466). Every document was issued either in Klis, Sinj or Čačvina and all of the authors were, in the moment of the creation of their charters, rulers of the counties of Klis and Cetina. These counties were united under the rule of Count John Nelipčić in 1401, who was succeeded by the Frankapan family (1435) and later by the Talovac family (1437). A few years after the death of Ban and Count Peter Talovac (1453), the counties came under the control of bans of Croatia-Dalmatia, but members of Peter’s family eventually restored their titles and rights.18 The addressees of the charters were local personalities or institutions from the afore-mentioned regions – churches and lesser nobility of the Vlachs of Cetina. They kept their valuables, including their family or institutional archives, in the Franciscan monastery in Cetina, the suburb of the fortress of Sinj. The Ottoman threat forced both the population and monks to leave Sinj and the whole Cetina region and flee to the safer areas in the north. The Franciscans of Cetina eventually went to Senj, a town in northern part of littoral Croatia, which also had the monastery of the same order. They seem to have carried with them the monastic archive, along with the Cyrillic charters belonging to their compatriots. In the late eighteenth century, the Austrian army took over the Franciscan monastery in Senj for temporary military purposes. However, when the soldiers left, the bishop of Senj and Modruš turned the building into theological seminary. The monks had to depart for yet another monastery of their order – the one in Trsat in Rijeka (1807), founded by Count Martin Frankopan in the mid-fifteenth century.19 (1972), pp. 425-426; Pregled arhivskih fondova i zbirki Republike Hrvatske [An Overview of the Archival Funds and Collections of the Republic of Croatia] (Zagreb: Hrvatski državni arhiv, 2006), p. 1270 (in this guide the archival series is named ‘Papinske, kraljevske i frankopanske povelje franjevačkog samostana u Senju, 1431-1897’). 17 Hungarian: Tallóci. On this family see: Elemér Mályusz, ‘Die vier Gebrüder Tallóci’ [The Four Tallóci Brothers], Studia Slavica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 28 (1982), pp. 3-66. 18 Vjekoslav Klaić, Povjest Hrvata od najstarijih vremena do svršetka XIX. stoljeća [The History of the Croats from the Oldest Ages till the End of the Nineteenth Century], vol. 2/2 (Zagreb: Knjižara Lav. Hartmana, 1901), pp. 129-134, 149-150, 162, 178, 195, 200-203, 246-252, 269-270, 273-274, 289; Ibidem, vol. 2/3 (1904), pp. 8-10, 30-32, 38, 58, 67-68, 75, 78, 83, 91, 178, 182, 252; Borislav Grgin, Počeci rasapa. Kralj Matijaš Korvin i srednjovjekovna Hrvatska [The Beginnings of Disintegration. King Matthias Corvinus and Medieval Croatia] (Zagreb: Ibis grafika, 2002), pp. 88-90, 97-98, 139-140, 181. 19 Šime Jurić, ‘Neobjavljena listina cetinskog kneza Ivana Nelipića’ [Unpublished Charter of Count John of Cetina], Arhivski vjesnik 19-20 (1976-1977), p. 235; Juraj Lokmer and Fila BekavacLokmer, ‘Tri inkunabule iz Senja u knjižnici Franjevačkog samostana Trsat (prilog povijesti

A Contribution to Medieval Croatian Diplomatics

143

For the short time, during the twentieth century, the documents which came from Sinj to Senj and from Senj to Trsat were moved once more – to the Franciscan monastery in Kaptol in Zagreb. They were finally returned to the monastic archive on Trsat in the second half of the twentieth century, where they are presently kept.20 Croatian historian Radoslav Lopašić transcribed the Cyrillic charters in late nineteenth century and his transcriptions were published by another scholar – Đuro Šurmin in his source collection Hrvatski spomenici. Acta Croatica in 1898.21 They were never fully analysed or reissued since then. In 1970s Šime Jurić published one unknown Latin charter of John Nelipčić which is now unaccounted for, confirming that the noble issuers of the documents were distributing charters in both Latin and Croatian (in Cyrillic alphabet) to the same addressees, or at least to the Vlachs of Cetina.22 Thematically, the charters from Trsat are donations of land, confirmations of earlier donations or previously issued privileges. Thus, Count John Nelipčić of Cetina and Klis exempted Dminoslav Vehojević from paying taxes (document no. 1, see below Table 1), Ban and Count John VI (Hans) Frankapan confirmed the Law of the Vlachs of Cetina originally issued by John Nelipčić in the mid-fourteenth century (no. 2) and, afterwards, gave possessions in the vicinity of Sinj to the Dubravčići, renowned Vlach family (no. 3). The same family was also given winter pasture Koprivno and some other lands by Hans’s successor, Ban and Count Peter Talovac (no. 4). When Viganj Dubravčić died, the same Peter confirmed his widow Cvita’s right to keep her late husband’s possessions in the suburbs of Sinj and elsewhere (no. 5). Peter’s nephew, Count Vladislav (Lacko) Talovac gave a tenant peasant to the Franciscan church of Saint Mary in Cetina under Sinj (no. 6), while eighteen years later, he appointed Nicholas Dehojević, the chief of the Vlachs styled in the sources as knez, under the still valid franjevaca u Senju)’ [Three Incunabula from Senj in the Library of the Franciscan Monastery of Trsat (Contribution to the History of the Franciscans in Senj)], Senjski zbornik 40 (2013), pp. 365-369. 20 Jurić, ‘Neobjavljena listina’, p. 235. 21 Šurmin, Hrvatski spomenici, pp. 136, 138-139, 156, 164-165, 213, 246-247, 280, 432-435; Radoslav Lopašić, Bihać i bihaćka krajina. Mjestopisne i poviestne crtice [Bihać and its Frontier. Toponomastic and Historical Remarks] (Zagreb: Matica hrvatska, 1890), pp. 296-298; Idem, Hrvatski urbari [Croatian Urbarial Registers], vol. 1, Monumenta historico-juridica Slavorum meridionalium, vol. 5 (Zagreb: JAZU, 1894), pp. 1-12. Lopašić’s transliterations are deposited in the archival fascicles along with the originals. 22 Jurić, ‘Neobjavljena listina’, pp. 233-236; Bartol Zmajić, ‘Pečat sa grbom kneza Ivana II Nelipića’ [The Seal with Coat-of-Arms of John II Nelipić], Arhivski vjesnik 19-20 (1976-1977), pp. 237-239.

144 Neven Isailović

Law of the Vlachs of Cetina (no. 8). Margaret, widow of Ban and Count Paul Špirančić gave some plots of land under Klis to the Chapel of the Holy Three Kings on Orišac (no. 7). Table 1 List of the Cyrillic Croatian documents in the Archive of the Franciscan monastery on Trsat No. Issuer 1 2

3

4 5 6

7

8

Addressee

Place and Date

John Nelipčić, count of Cetina, Klis, etc. Dminoslav Vehojević Sinj (suburb), 22.1.1434. Vlachs of the County Klis, 18.3.1436. John (Hans) Frankapan, count of Krk, of Cetina Modruš, Cetina, Klis, etc., and ban of Dalmatia-Croatia Viganj Dubravčić and Klis, 31.10.1436. John (Hans) Frankapan, count of Krk, Senj, Modruš, Cetina, Klis, etc., and ban his family of Dalmatia-Croatia Peter Talovac, count of Cetina and Klis, Viganj Dubravčić and Sinj (suburb), ban of Dalmatia-Croatia his family 14.9.1443. Peter Talovac, count of Cetina and Klis, Cvita, widow of Klis, 29.3.1446. ban of Dalmatia-Croatia Viganj Dubravčić Sinj, 22.8.1458. Vladislav Talovac, count of Cetina and Fransciscan church Klis, etc. of St. Mary in the suburb of Sinj Chapel of the Holy Klis, 25.3.1466. Margareta (Špirančić), countess of Three Kings in Orišac Cetina and Klis, widow of Ban Paul Špirančić Lacko (Vladislav) Talovac, count of Nicholas Dehojević Čačvina, 5.2.1476. Cetina and Klis, etc.

Each document was written on parchment, which was due to chronology, but also the type of document. Charters of donation or privilege were, by an informal rule, written solely on processed animal leather, which was considered more durable and solemn material than paper.23 It seems that the scribes and chancery staff of the counts of Cetina and Klis usually used the so-called Italian type of parchment, which is of lighter colour and smoother 23 Zvonimir Kulundžić, Knjiga o knjizi I. Historija pisama, materijala i instrumenata za pisanje [The Book on Book I. A History of Letters, Materials and Writing Instruments] (Zagreb: Školska knjiga, 1951), pp. 426-442; Stjepan Antoljak, Pomoćne istorijske nauke [Auxiliary Historical Sciences] (Kraljevo: Istorijski arhiv, 1971), pp. 20-23; Jakov Stipišić, Pomoćne povijesne znanosti u teoriji i praksi [Auxiliary Historical Sciences in Theory and Practice] (Zagreb: Školska knjiga, 1972), pp. 14-17. For further research also see: Ante Gulin, ‘Pregled hrvatske diplomatike sa bibliografijom’ [An Overview of Croatian Diplomatics with a Bibliography], Starine JAZU 58 (1980), pp. 193-220.

A Contribution to Medieval Croatian Diplomatics

145

on one side (front page) and darker and slightly rougher on the other (back page).24 Dimensions of the sheets were not large. Only two charters (no. 1-2) are about 40 cm wide, while most other documents are 24-29 cm wide. Length varies from 9.5 to 19.5 cm (excluding plication). Plication, made to provide a better ligature of the seal, varies from 3.8 to 7.8 cm and it is not always evenly folded. It usually covers at least some of the text (no. 5 being the only exception to that rule). In overall appearance, each charter has the “landscape” text orientation (the charter resembles a rectangle whose horizontal sides are longer than vertical ones). This is consistent with the common diplomatic practice of secular authorities in the lands of the Crown of St. Stephen.25 Documents were folded in three (twice vertically – no. 3-6) or six fields (twice vertically and once horizontally – no. 1-2, 7-8).26 Most of the parchments are rather well preserved. Only one charter (no. 2) has a tear on its right third (with plication completely missing on that side), while the other (no. 6) is severely damaged on its upper central part by either dampness or fungi infection. Some parts of the text are therefore illegible now. Ink used for writing is mainly black or dark brown. A lighter brown variant is found only in one charter (no. 5), but it must be noted that ink is subject to chemical processes and may change colour in time.27 Scribal ductus is correct and the letters follow a straight line in each row of the text, although visible margins exist again only in one charter (no. 1) where all lines were drawn before writing, probably by lead pencil.28 Rows are at times denser and some letters are not of equal size, but that does not affect the general appearance of neatness, especially since the marginal space is rather even in all charters. Exception is found in one charter (no. 3), where a skipped word was written above the first row, at the place where it should be inserted. As it was already mentioned, the Cyrillic diplomatic minuscule was gaining ground in Croatia, suppressing the old, majuscule script during 24 Gregor Čremošnik, Studije za srednjovjekovnu diplomatiku i sigilografiju Južnih Slavena [Studies on Medieval Diplomatics and Sigillography of the South Slavs] (Sarajevo: ANU BiH, 1976), pp. 19-24. 25 Ibidem, pp. 27-32. 26 On folding of medieval documents in the region of Balkans see: Gregor Čremošnik, ‘Bosanske i humske povelje srednjega vijeka’ [Medieval Charters from Bosnia and Hum], Glasnik Zemaljskog muzeja u Sarajevu, nova serija 3 (1948), pp. 103-143; Ibidem, nova serija 4-5 (1949-1950), pp. 105-199; Ibidem, nova serija 6 (1951), pp. 81-119; Ibidem, nova serija 7 (1952), pp. 273-336; Ibidem, nova serija 10 (1955), pp. 137-146. 27 Kulundžić, Knjiga o knjizi, pp. 521-523; Stipišić, Pomoćne povijesne znanosti, p. 26. 28 Čremošnik, Studije, pp. 30-36.

146 Neven Isailović Figure 1 Example of late Cyrillic majuscule: charter of Count John Nelipčić from 1434 (Samostanski arhiv Trsat, Miscellanea II)

the second half of the fourteenth century. However, even during the first half of the fifteenth century, some chanceries in both Bosnia and Croatia considered majuscule script more solemn and beautiful. While all other Cyrillic documents from the Monastery on Trsat were written in western variant of minuscule script, the charter of John Nelipčić from 1434 (no. 1) is a remarkable example of elegant late Cyrillic majuscule.29 The ornaments, morphology of letters and text layout make this document one of the finest products of late medieval Slavic and Cyrillic diplomatics. John’s charter starts with a calligraphic initial M which covers three rows of text and even goes above the upper horizontal margin. Also, almost every initial letter of the first-row words is capitalised. Punctuation, however, is not present. The other documents have no calligraphic ornaments. Only the first letter of the text of each charter is slightly larger, sometimes indented or preceded by cross of symbolic invocation. Capitalisation of the letters is not consistently implemented. The language is, as it was noted earlier, Croatian vernacular with exclusively ‘ikavian’ reflex of sound ‘yat’ (Ѣ). As for the dialect, it represents a mixture of ‘čakavian’ and ‘štokavian/šćakavian’. Pronoun ‘ča’ is directly encountered only in the case of one charter (no. 7), but some other philological features suggest that čakavian elements are present in other charters, too. Very few words are technical terms of foreign origin (officials, chapel etc.). Starting from the fourteenth century, all documents had to be supplied with the seal of issuer(s) or some of his (their) predecessor(s). Solemn charters were equipped with pendent seal and that is the case with all those kept in Trsat, although some of them are now missing (no. 4), some are separated 29 Zelić-Bučan, Bosančica u srednjoj Dalmaciji, pp. 7-11, 17-26; Đorđić, Istorija srpske ćirilice, pp. 100-179; Nakaš, Jezik i grafija, pp. 79-148.

A Contribution to Medieval Croatian Diplomatics

147

from the charter (no. 5) and some damaged (no. 6-7). Both the main body, which was hemispherical, and the imprint surface of the seal were made of wax. The impression was made by author’s mould pressed upon the hot wax layer on the flat part of the seal. Although the red wax was initially reserved only for the authors with royal authority, many families were given the right by a sovereign to use it. Therefore, only the charter of John Nelipčić has the impression in dark green wax, while the members of Frankapan and Talovac family used the red one, not only when they were bearing the title of the ban of Dalmatia and Croatia. The moulds which were used for the seals of these particular charters were of relatively smaller diameter (2-4 cm). The smallest (2 cm – no. 1, 3, 6-7) were part of signet ring, while the larger (3-4 cm – no. 2, 5, 8) could be categorized as the smaller variant of middle-sized seal. All of them have heraldic motives – the coat-of-arms of the family of the authors, while the legends, where present, are now illegible due to the shallowness of the impression and current condition of the seals.30 Pendent seals were attached to the parchment by a silk cord, sometimes weaved (no. 2-3) and sometimes made of intertwined separate threads (all others). Usual colour of the cord was bright or dark red as it is the case with most of the charters from Trsat (no. 1, 4-5, 7-8).31 However, sometimes they were two-coloured – white and yellow (no. 2) or red and yellow (no. 3). One is now pink-yellowish (no. 6) and it could have been two-coloured originally. Cords were drawn through the holes made in parchment (through both the plication and the main part of the sheet). Although it was not always linked with the characteristics of the material, in case of smaller parchments and smaller seals two slit usually sufficed (no. 2-4, 6-8), but larger sheets and heavier bulls required three triangular slits (no. 1, 5). The cord was then fitted into wax body of the seal and sometimes exited it in one (no. 1, 3, 7) or two places (no. 2, 6).32

30 Antoljak, Pomoćne istorijske nauke, pp. 115-130; Čremošnik, Studije, pp. 45-117. More on sigillography in: Pavao Anđelić, Srednjovjekovni pečati iz Bosne i Hercegovine [Medieval Seals from Bosnia and Herzegovina] (Sarajevo: ANU BiH, 1970); Bartol Zmajić, Heraldika, sfragistika, genealogija [Heraldry, Sphragistics, Genealogy] (Zagreb: Školska knjiga, 1971); Ante Gulin, Hrvatska crkvena srednjovjekovna sfragistika [Medieval Croatian Ecclesiastical Sphragistics] (Zagreb: Golden marketing, 1998). 31 No. 5 seems to have some black threads, too. 32 Čremošnik, Studije, pp. 75-81, 91-117.

148 Neven Isailović Table 2 External and philological characteristics of the Cyrillic Croatian documents in the Archive of the Franciscan monastery on Trsat No. Material 1

2

3

4 5

6

7

8

Dimensions (approx.)

Seal

parchment width: 40 cm, length: 17.5 cm pendent, present (green (+ 7.8 cm of plication) wax; impression circa 2 cm in diameter; red cord) pendent, present (red wax; parchment width: 41.5 cm, length: impression circa 19.5 cm 3 cm; white and yellow cord) (+ 4.8 cm of plication) parchment width: 29 cm, length: 13.7 cm pendent, present (red wax; (+ 5 cm of plication) impression circa 1.8 cm; red and yellow cord) parchment width: 26 cm, length: 9.5 cm pendent, lost (dark red cord (+ 3.8 cm of plication) preserved) parchment width: 25 cm, length: 12.7 cm pendent, detached but (+ 4.5 cm of plication) preserved separately (red wax; impression circa 3.5 cm; dark red cord with some black threads) pendent, present, impresparchment width: 25.5 cm, length: sion destroyed (traces 15.8 cm of red wax; impression was (+ 7 cm of plication) circa 2 cm; pink-yellowish cord) parchment width: 24 cm, length: 13.5 cm pendent, present, impres(+ 5.5 cm of plication) sion destroyed (impression was circa 1.5 cm; red cord) parchment width: 24.5 cm, length: 13 cm pendent, present (red wax; (+ 4 cm of plication) impression circa 4 cm; red cord)

Script majuscule

minuscule

minuscule

minuscule minuscule

minuscule

minuscule

minuscule

Like the external characteristics, the internal features, generally speaking, also follow contemporary models and forms of the charters of secular authorities (rulers, representatives of state administration, nobles). The basic form that can be found in all Cyrillic charters from Trsat dominated in the entire region since the second half of the fourteenth century and it seems that it was created by a symbiosis of local Slavic and Central European Latin forms.33 It that sense, the charters of Croatian noblemen from the fifteenth century, written in Croatian language, are structurally indistinguishable, regardless of whether they were written in the Glagolitic or Cyrillic alphabet.34 33 Isailović, ‘Povelja bana Damjana’, pp. 247-248; Idem, Vladarske kancelarije, pp. 514, 516. 34 Kukuljević Sakcinski, Acta croatica, passim; Šurmin, Hrvatski spomenici, passim; Ana Mavrić, Acta Croatica: nastanak zbirke i diplomatička analiza [Acta Croatica: Creation of the

A Contribution to Medieval Croatian Diplomatics

149

The formal patterns are identical. Unlike the morphological changes of the script, which could have been carried out under the influence of neighbouring states, the internal structure largely reflected a form of documents of public authorities which was created in the fourteenth-century Kingdom of Croatia and which was, with certain modifications depending on the chancery and the type and purpose of document, present on the whole territory of the Kingdom. Charters issued with the use of this form bore the resemblance to public announcements. The issuers (authors) made public that they are giving land or privileges to addressees, sometimes at their request or appeal, and the issuers’ word was guaranteed by the authority of their seal (and sometimes their word and oath). The structure of that common model varied, but its main feature was the prothocol (opening part) consisting of initial intitulatio (identification of the issuer) in the form of the royal plural (‘We’), followed by a combination of promulgatio (‘let it be known’) and general inscriptio i.e. address (‘to whom it may concern’ or ‘to whoever sees this open sheet’). This combination was also typical for Central European Latin documents. The central part of charters consisted of expositio (explanation of the background which led to the issuing of the charter, a formula which was not always necessary), implicit or explicit inscriptio (identification of the addressee) and dispositio (issuer’s decree), while the final part (eschatocol) almost invariably consisted of corroboratio (usually verbal announcement of the validation of the document by the author’s seal) and the date.35 Verbal invocatio i.e. invocation of God was very rare (no. 2 is the only example),36 while symbolic – the sign of the cross – was somewhat more frequent. When present, this formula was positioned at the beginning of document. The formula of petitio (petition) which preceded the expositio or dispositio was relatively frequent because many documents were issued at the request or appeal of persons, groups or the representatives of cities, municipalities and communities. Arenga (proemium) i.e. spiritual motivation for the issuing of charters is very rare in preserved Croatian documents. Only one of the Trsat Cyrillic charters (no. 6) has the expositio formula which contains a phrase similar to arenga.37 Guarantee formulae, which could be found sporadically, were usually addition to the dispositio. They included giving faith or oath of the Collection and Diplomatic Analysis], unpublished graduate thesis (Zagreb: Filozofski fakultet, 2013), pp. 16-32. 35 Antoljak, Pomoćne istorijske nauke, pp. 52-98; Stipišić, Pomoćne povijesne znanosti, pp. 148-151. 36 In the form ‘In the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, amen’. 37 Stipišić, Pomoćne povijesne znanosti, pp. 148-151.

150 Neven Isailović

author (‘vira’ and ‘rota’) to the addressee or corroborative phrases, and they could also be encountered in the diplomatic practice of neighbouring Slavic countries (no. 2, 6).38 In two charters (no. 1, 6) there is also a corroborative phrase typical for the charters of Croatian higher nobility – issuer’s order to his subordinates and officials to do no harm to the addressees, but to protect them from any wrongdoing.39 The name of the document is regularly an ‘open sheet’, a technical term used in South Slavic forms since the second half of the fourteenth century for charters which were not closed by the impression of a seal.40 Finally, when speaking of the date, which was the most common final formula, we can say that the dominating form was dating by day, month and year of the Christian era, while dating (of day and month) by religious holiday occurs only two times in the charters from Trsat (no. 4 and 7). The names of months are exclusively ‘slavonised’ Latin terms, and the year was written either in whole words or in letters with numerical value. As in Bosnia, Cyrillic letters had the numerical value of their Glagolitic counterparts. 41 Unlike neighbouring Bosnia, the mention of the scribe was not common in Croatian public documents in the Slavonic language. Therefore, we do not know the name or the title of any chancellor or scribe. For such reasons, it is difficult to say whether there existed Cyrillic and Glagolitic chanceries of Croatian nobility and, if so, how seriously they were organised. 42 Literacy was acquired either in the coastal towns or, more likely, in the circles of the Catholic Church, but it is known that some laymen from the hinterland were also literate. It is not known if the only chancellor of Count John Nelipčić known by name – Francis, supposedly from Šušnjar in the region of Dicmo near Klis – wrote both Croatian and Latin documents, since Nelipčić issued charters in these two languages. John’s elegantly made charter issued to Dminoslav Vehojević (no. 1) was certainly written by a

38 Isailović, ‘Dve ćirilske isprave’, pp. 115-116; Idem, ‘Povelja bana Damjana’, pp. 248-252; Idem, Vladarske kancelarije, pp. 413-414, 432-450, 469-479. 39 Isailović, ‘Dve ćirilske isprave’, p. 115; Idem, ‘Povelja bana Damjana’, pp. 251-252. 40 Isailović, ‘Povelja bana Damjana’, pp. 247, 249; Idem, Vladarske kancelarije, pp. 281, 285, 288-291. 41 Đorđić, Istorija srpske ćirilice, pp. 38-40; Isailović, ‘Povelja bana Damjana’, pp. 249-250; Idem, Vladarske kancelarije, pp. 491-506. 42 Notarial deeds, however, always mentioned the name of the notary. See: Šurmin, Hrvatski spomenici, according to the register of terms (see: plovan); Stanojević, ‘Studije o srpskoj diplomatici. XIV Dijak, gramatik, notar, kancelar, nomik, logotet’ [Studies on Serbian Diplomatics. XIV Diak, Grammaticus, Notary, Chancellor, Nomikos, Logothet], Glas Srpske kraljevske akademije 106 (1923), pp. 50-96.

A Contribution to Medieval Croatian Diplomatics

151

trained scribe, perhaps the afore-mentioned Francis who was also count’s diplomatic representative in 1420s. 43 Table 3 Internal characteristics (formal structure) of the Cyrillic Croatian documents in the Archive of the Franciscan monastery on Trsat No. Formal structure 1 2

3 4 5 6

7 8

intitulatio – inscriptio generalis with promulgatio – dispositio (with elements of order to issuer’s subordinates and successors) – corroboratio – datum invocatio symbolica – invocatio verbalis – intitulatio – inscriptio generalis with ­promulgatio – petitio – expositio – dispositio – corroboratio – oath of addressees and oath of issuer – datum invocatio symbolica – intitulatio – inscriptio generalis with promulgatio – expositio – dispositio – corroboratio – datum intitulatio – inscriptio generalis with promulgatio – expositio – dispositio – corroboratio – datum invocatio symbolica – intitulatio – inscriptio generalis with promulgatio – dispositio – datum invocatio symbolica – intitulatio – inscriptio generalis with promulgatio – expositio (with elements of arenga) – dispositio (with elements of oath and order to the issuer’s subordinates) – corroboratio – datum intitulatio – inscriptio generalis with promulgatio – expositio – dispositio – corroboratio – datum intitulatio – inscriptio generalis with promulgatio – expositio – dispositio – corroboratio – datum

To conclude, the eight charters of the Croatian nobility, which are now part of the Archive of the Franciscan monastery in Trsat represent the largest fund of the preserved Cyrillic documents of Croatian nobility written in the Slavonic vernacular (40%). They are also a significant part of the unified corpus of medieval charters and letters composed in Croatian language (Acta Croatica), along with those written in Glagolitic script (which are, partly coincidentally and partly because of the boundaries of Ottoman conquest, preserved in much larger numbers). 44 As an important source for the local history of the Counties of Cetina and Klis, they contain the data 43 Kaptolski arhiv u Splitu [The Archive of Cathedral Chapter in Split], fasc. 64, f. 76; Giovanni Lucio, Memorie istoriche di Tragurio ora detto Traù (Venice: Stefano Curti, 1673), pp. 428, 432-433; Ivan Lucić, Povijesna svjedočanstva o Trogiru [The Historical Memories on Trogir], vol. 2 (Split: Književni krug, 1979), pp. 920-921, 928-931; Ante Birin, Knez Nelipac i velikaški rod Nelipčića [Count Nelipac and the Noble Kindred of the Nelipčići], unpublished doctoral thesis (Zagreb: Filozofski fakultet, 2006), pp. 137-139. 44 Kukuljević Sakcinski, Acta Croatica, passim; Bosanska ćirilična pisma od 15. do 18. stoljeća, passim.

152 Neven Isailović

on provincial nobility, groups of Vlachs, their leadership and legal status, as well as on churches and chapels. 45 As the rooted means of correspondence for local administrative use, Cyrillic literacy in the aforementioned region endured throughout Ottoman and even Venetian period, especially in the circles of local elite and church, only to be largely substituted by literacy in Latin alphabet in the nineteenth century. 46

45 Botica, ‘Franjevački samostan’, pp. 22-23, 27, with older literature. 46 See footnote 11.



Peter of Crkvica, a Man Who Could Be Trusted The Career of a Middle-Ranking Cleric and Diplomat in the Kingdom of Hungary in Mid-Fifteenth Century* Tomislav Matić

Although the careers of high-ranking politicians and diplomats are usually objects of interest to historians, on account of their offering a compelling insight into the political events and processes of their times, we can also learn a lot from studying the careers of low- or middle-ranking ones. Those are the men who managed to climb up several rungs on the social ladder, sometimes even to considerable heights, but never high enough to shape political doctrines. Nevertheless, without them acting as go-betweens or factotum, the diplomatic and political machinery would not be able to function. During the mid-1430s, one such person in the service of the Kingdom of Hungary was Peter of Crkvica. Although his moniker immediately reminds us of Cirkvena, Peter was not a member of this noble family of late medieval Slavonia;1 his place of origin can be identified as Crkvica (Cirkewcza), where in the fifteenth century stood a parish church dedicated to the Blessed Virgin. Its exact location has not been determined so far, but it was probably somewhere in the vicinity of the town of Križevci, in the territory of the late medieval Kingdom of Slavonia, a constituent part of the Kingdom of Hungary.2 * This work has been supported by Catholic University of Croatia under the project ‘Origins, Structures and Cultural Perceptions of Social Elites in Croatia in the Middle and Early Modern Ages’ (HKS-2016-1). 1 About the noble family of Cirkvena, cf. Támas Pálosfalvi, The Noble Elite in the County of Körös (Križevci) 1400-1526, Monumenta Hungariae Historica. Dissertationes (Budapest: MTA Bölcsészttudományi Kutatózpont Történettudományi Intézet, 2014), pp. 155-158. There was a certain Peter Mikčec of Cirkvena, who was a canon and custos of Čazma in mid-1400s, but this was not the Peter in question. 2 Ranko Pavleš, ‘Srednjovjekovni posjedi na području Poljane, Đurđica i Treme kod Križevaca’ [Medieval Properties in Poljana, Đurđic and Trema near Križevci Territory], Cris 1 (2007), p. 33. Pavleš suggested that the location of this parish could have been either in today’s village of Trema, or at a locality called Sveta Marija, south of Čvrstec. He also disagrees with the earlier assertion by Lelja Dobronić, according to whom the location of the parish of Crkvica was in today’s Donja Glogovnica. For the latter, see Lelja Dobronić, Posjedi i sjedišta templara, ivanovaca i sepulkralaca u Hrvatskoj [Estates and Residences of Templars, Hospitalers and Canons Regular of the Holy

154 Tomisl av Matić

Peter of Crkvica enrolled in the University of Krakow in the summer semester of 1430, but probably did not attain any of the higher academic degrees.3 This was by no means unusual, considering that at that time most of the students would usually leave the university after graduating as bachelors of liberal arts, or even sooner. 4 Although some of the documents style Peter as master, in those cases this title does not signify that he possessed the academic degree of master, but appears merely as an honorary usually used for the members of royal chanceries.5 In any case, in the supplications he addressed to the Pope, when asking to be awarded certain ecclesiastic benefices, Peter did not mention any academic degrees, which is an almost certain indication that he did not possess any.6 If he did, he would have certainly stated so, because candidates with higher education were generally favoured for such benefices, and they listed their titles scrupulously when applying for them.7 Sometime before, or in 1445, Peter joined the entourage of John (János) Hunyadi, and managed to become his notary and chaplain.8 Notaries were low-ranking officials in medieval chanceries, and their tasks were not very glamorous.9 The office of chaplain, on the other hand, did not necessarily Sepulchre of Jerusalem in Croatia] (Zagreb: Jugoslavenska akademija znanosti i umjetnosti, 1984), p. 132. 3 Indeks studentów Uniwersytetu Krakowskiego w latach 1400-1500, ed. by Jerzy Zathey and Jerzy Reichan (Wrocław: Zakład Narodowy imienia Ossolińskich – Wydawnictwo Polskiej Akademii Nauk, 1974), p. 251: he enrolled as Petrus Michaelis de Czerekwicza. 4 Gordon Leff, ‘The Trivium and the Three Philosophies’, in A History of the University in Europe, vol. 1, Universities in the Middle Ages, ed. by Hilde de Ridder-Symoens (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997), p. 327. 5 Elemér Mályusz, Kaiser Sigismund in Ungarn 1387-1437 (Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 1990), p. 296. 6 Monumenta historica episcopatus Zagrabiensis, vol. 5-7 (henceforth: MHEZ), ed. by Andrija Lukinović, (Zagreb: Kršćanska sadašnjost – Hrvatski državni arhiv, 1992-2004), vol. 7, pp. 48, 111; Oklevéltár a Magyar király kegyuri jog történetéhez [Collection of Charters Concerning the History of the Right of Patronage of Hungarian Kings], ed. by Vilmos Fraknói (Budapest: Magyar tudományos akadémia, 1899), pp. 30-31. 7 Phillip H. Stump, The Reforms of the Council of Constance (1414-1418) (Leiden: Brill, 1994), pp. 91, 99, 101; Jadranka Neralić, Put do crkvene nadarbine. Rimska kurija i Dalmacija u 15. stoljeću [A Way to the Ecclesiastical Career. Roman Curia and the Fifteenth Century Dalmatia] (Split: Književni krug, 2007), 173-174. 8 Iohannes Vitéz de Zredna, Opera quae supersunt, ed. by Iván Boronkai (Budapest: Akadémiai kiadó, 1980), p. 55. 9 A thorough contermporary description of notaries’ duties, wages and other details can be found in a letter by Enea Silvio Piccolomini from 1454. See Fontes Rerum Austriacarum. 2. Abteilung: Diplomataria et acta, 68. Band. Der Briefwechsel des Eneas Silvius Piccolomini. III. Abteilung: Briefe als Bischof von Siena. 1. Band: Briefe von seiner Erhebung zum Bischof von Siena

Pe ter of Crk vica, a Man Who Could Be Trusted

155

mean that Peter really sang mass in Hunyadi’s court chapel. It could have been an honorary office, as it was often awarded to clerics by their masters, either as a reward for their service, or as a means of attaching them more firmly to their master’s household – similarly as they could have made a layman their retainer ( familiaris). Councillors and chancery officials were often made their masters’ chaplains.10 Also, before or in 1445, Peter became a canon of Chapter of Zagreb, perhaps as a reward for his service to John Hunyadi.11 His elevation to this office, and possibly his joining of Hunyadi’s entourage, were probably influenced by John Vitez, who was also from Slavonia and who held a canonry and the office of custos in Zagreb since 1438,12 so it is possible that he came to know Peter and recognized him as a man who could be trusted. Vitez was also an associate of John Hunyadi during the 1440s, thus it surely influenced the choice of a trusted man.13 bis zum Ausgang des Regensburger Reichtages (23. September 1450-1. Juni 1454), ed. by Rudolf Wolkan (Vienna: Adolf Holzhausen, 1918), pp. 403-404. 10 Paul-Joachim Heinig, Kaiser Friedrich III (1440-1493): Hof, Regierung und Politik, vol. 1 (Vienna/ Cologne/Graz: Böhlau Verlag, 1994), pp. 801-804. A single master could have had any number of chaplains; Emperor Frederick III had as many as 190 during his reign. 11 In a supplication presented to the Pope on 4 June 1445, Peter de Cerkewcza styles himself as canon of Zagreb, and applies for the office of custos and a canonry of Oradea, simultaneously asking for permission to hold them together with the canonry of Zagreb. See MHEZ 7, p. 48. Ilona Kristóf noted that in December 1445, in a couple of letters from the epistolarium of John Vitez, Peter was referred to as Hunyadi’s scribe and chaplain, but not as a canon. See Ilona Kristóf, Egyházi középréteg a késő középkori Váradon (1440-1526) [Middle Clergy in Várad in the Late Middle Ages (1440-1526)] (Pécs: Pécsi Történettudományért, 2014), p. 206, note 301. Be that as it may, a certain Peter de Cirkeweza styles himself in his supplication, presented to the Pope on 23 August 1447, as Hunyadi’s chaplain and canon of both Zagreb and Oradea (Oklevéltár a Magyar király, pp. 30-31; MHEZ 7, p. 111). This proves that this Peter is identical to the person mentioned in Vitez’s letters. Further proof is the fact that the same master Peter is referred to as Hunyadi’s chaplain and canon of Oradea in another letter from the same epistolarium, written on February 20th 1446 (Vitéz de Zredna, Opera quae supersunt, p. 48). Peter’s holding of a canonry of Zagreb was not mentioned in those letters simply because it wasn’t important in that context. It was, however, mentioned where it mattered – in the supplications submitted to the Pope, in which supplicants for further benefits had to carefully list every one of the ecclesiastic benefices they were holding at the time, and ask for permission to continue holding them together with the benefice they were applying for. In case of simple benefices, such as canonries, the permission was usually given automatically; only for benefices, which included pastoral care was a special permission required. See Stump, The Reforms, p. 79; Neralić, Put do crkvene nadarbine, pp. 105-106. 12 MHEZ 6, p. 539. 13 For theories about the relations between Hunyadi and Vitez during the 1440s, see Ferenc Szákaly, ‘Vitéz János, a politikus és államférf i (Pályavázlat – kérdőjelekkel)’ [John Vitéz as Politician and Statesman], in Vitéz János Emlékkönyv – Esztergom évlapjai. Annales Strigonienses (Esztergom: Balassa Bálint Társaság, 1990), pp. 14, 22.

156 Tomisl av Matić

The first pieces of information about Peter’s diplomatic activities came from the year 1445. In April of that year, Peter was sent to Rome with a bundle of letters addressed to the highest officials of the Roman Curia, the College of Cardinals, and Pope Eugene IV.14 These letters were sent in the name of John Hunyadi, who was trying to secure a confirmation for John Vitez as the new bishop of Oradea (Hung. Várad), and were preserved in Vitez’s epistolarium.15 Vitez was elected bishop by the chapter, undoubtedly after being ordered to do so by Hunyadi. Pope Eugene IV reluctantly recognized this election. He considered it to be illegal, because he had reserved the collation of this office to himself in that instance (specialiter ea vice), but after a discussion with the cardinals in the Consistory he agreed on 1 June 1445 to confirm Vitez as bishop.16 In this turn of events, a decisive role was surely played by the diplomatic missives delivered by Master Peter to Cardinal Ludovico Trevisan and other addressees.17 The latter was so powerful in Rome at that time that a contemporary writer, Enea Silvio Piccolomini, wrote that Eugene IV was Pope in name only, while the real power resided with Trevisan.18 His support may have been crucial for Vitez’s confirmation. But Peter’s role in these diplomatic manoeuvrings becomes clearer if we consider the letter carried by him to Giorgio Cesarini, brother of Cardinal Giuliano Cesarini.19 In it, its sender, John Hunyadi, tells Giorgio that he had given to Master Peter all the information he had by then discovered about the fate of Giorgio’s brother, who went missing after the defeat of the Christian army at Varna in 1444.20 Master Peter was 14 Vitéz de Zredna, Opera quae supersunt, 49-56. Although Peter is mentioned as carrier in only one of these letters, commenter Paul of Ivanić notes in one of his comments that Peter carried all of the letters pertaining to the collation of the Diocese of Oradea to Rome. Paul mentions in the same comment that Peter was canon and custos of Oradea at the time of his writing (1451). As we shall see, Peter will have obtained those offices some time before that. 15 Fraknói was the first to mention Peter’s role as carrier of these letters, but he didn’t make any attempts of researching or explaining it. He also did not mention that Peter was a canon of Zagreb as well as Oradea. See Vilmos Fraknói, Vitéz János esztergomi érsek élete [Life of John Vitéz, Archbishop of Esztergom] (Budapest: Kiadja a Szent-István-Társulat, 1879), pp. 24-33. 16 Oklevéltár a Magyar király, p. 24. 17 For the letter to Trevisan, see Vitéz de Zredna, Opera quae supersunt, p. 51. 18 Aeneas Sylvius Piccolomini, Historia rerum Friderici III. Imperatoris, in Analecta monumentorum omnis aevi Vindobonensia, vol 2, ed. by Adam František Kollár (Vienna: Johann Thomas Trattner, 1762), p. 134. 19 Vitéz de Zredna, Opera quae supersunt, pp. 54-56. 20 The commenter of Vitez’s epistolarium, Paul of Ivanić, explains that it was later discovered that Cesarini was killed. See also Klára Pajorin, ‘I primordi della letteratura antiturca in Ungheria e Pio II’, in Pio II Umanista Europeo. Atti del XVII Convegno Internazionale (Chianciano-Pienza 18-21 luglio 2005), Luisa Secchi Tarugi (Florence: Franco Cesati, 2007), pp. 817-818.

Pe ter of Crk vica, a Man Who Could Be Trusted

157

supposed to transmit that information orally to the addressee, because – as Hunyadi stresses in the letter – he could be trusted with these things. Here we have to bear in mind that the role of letter carriers was not at all insignificant in the Middle Ages. Although the image of medieval bishops and princes reading letters in the privacy of their studies is doubtlessly romantic, in reality letters then were more or less public, diplomatic missives included. They were read to the addressee aloud, usually in front of an audience.21 That is why they usually did not contain anything truly confidential. One of the purposes of the letter was to lend credence to its carrier, whose task was to deliver the real message to the addressee in private, after the public reading of the letter.22 That is why letter carriers had to be persons of extraordinary trustworthiness, and we have proof that Peter of Crkvica was one such person. As a consequence of Vitez’s election for bishop of Oradea, the whole local ecclesiastic hierarchy moved up a step. Up until then, John Vitez had been provost of the cathedral chapter of Oradea.23 Immediately after confirming Vitez’s election, the Pope granted this office to John of Toplica, doctor of canon law, who had until then been custos of the same chapter. He also got the permission to hold the provostship together with the other ecclesiastic benefices he possessed, except for the office of custos, which he had to resign upon taking possession of the provostship.24 On the same day (4 June 1445), Peter took the opportunity to apply for John’s old office himself, and the Pope granted it to him. He was also allowed to hold it conjointly with the canonry of Zagreb.25 Concerning his official objective, Peter’s mission seems to have been a roaring success. Not only had he succeeded in securing a confirmation for Vitez, but he had also managed to get the papal bulls, which declared Vitez bishop, dispatched immediately after a pledge of payment of the fee was made. The Apostolic Camera did not usually do that, not without at 21 Martin Camargo, Ars Dictaminis, Ars Dictandi (Turnhout: Brepols, 1991), 18-19; Martin Camargo, ‘Where’s the Brief? The Ars Dictaminis and Reading/Writing Between the Lines’, Disputatio: An International Transdisciplinary Journal of the Late Middle Ages 1 (1996), pp. 4-5. 22 Ibidem, pp. 5-9. The context of the contents of the letter was usually known only to the sender and the addressee. The carrier was supposed to clarify its meaning. 23 Vitez had been provost at the time of his election, see Oklevéltár a Magyar király, p. 24. See also Fraknói, Vitéz János, p. 18. Vitez had been provost at least since 1442; the earliest document that I know of which names him as such comes from December of that year. See Magyar Nemzeti Levéltár Országos Levéltára, Diplomatikai Levéltár (hencefurther: MNL OL, DL) 13688. 24 Oklevéltár a Magyar király, pp. 25-26. 25 MHEZ 7, p. 48.

158 Tomisl av Matić

least some payment.26 Soon after Peter’s return to Hungary, John Hunyadi sent letters to Cardinal Ludovico Trevisan,27 Cardinal Giovanni Berardi di Tagliacozzo28 and the papal physician Taddeo degli Adelmari,29 saying that master Peter had informed him of how helpful they had been in the business of securing John Vitez’s confirmation, and that he would repay them for this favour. However, when it came to his personal objective, Peter achieved partial success, at best. Although he did become a canon of the Chapter of Oradea,30 he did not manage to obtain the office of custos, despite the papal appointment. On 30 September 1445, we still find John of Toplica as custos in the Chapter of Oradea, and a vacant provostship.31 This means that John had not yet managed to take possession of the latter. However, even after he did, Peter of Crkvica did not become custos, for that office had been taken by Andrew of Timişoara (Hung. Temesvár).32 This was not unusual. Papal provisions did not always work, for chapters often resisted them, and in

26 This piece of information also comes from Paul of Ivanić’s comments; see Vitéz de Zredna, Opera quae supersunt, p. 57. The letter to which the comment refers says that it was Cardinal Trevisan who ordered the dispatching of the bulls. The payment in question is probably the servitium commune, a special fee new bishops had to pay to the Pope and the cardinals for their confirmation. See Neralić, Put do crkvene nadarbine, pp. 68, 70. 27 Vitéz de Zredna, Opera quae supersunt, p. 57. 28 Vitéz de Zredna, Opera quae supersunt, pp. 58-60. Paul of Ivanić mentions in one of his comments that this cardinal was Vitez’s chief promoter. 29 Vitéz de Zredna, Opera quae supersunt, pp. 56-57. This is the only letter of the three that bears a date, 30 December 1445. Taddeo degli Adelmari, papal physician and official of the papal chancery, was an influential individual at the Apostolic Curia and had strong connections with the Kingdom of Hungary. For his biography, see: Luigi Gaetano Marini, Degli archiatri pontificii, vol. 1 (Rome: Stamperia Pagliarini, 1784), pp. 151-155; Gisela Beinhoff, Die Italiener am Hof Kaiser Sigismunds (1410-1437) (Frankfurt a. M./Berlin/Bern/New York/Paris/Wien: Peter Lang, 1995), p. 290. He also carried out important diplomatic missions for the Roman pope, such as delivering a sword blessed by Pope to King Wladislas I of Hungary in 1444 (Monumenta Hungariae Italica, vol. 2, Diplomata pontificum saeculi XV., vol. 2, Eugenius Papa IV. (1431-1447), Nicolaus Papa V. (1447-1455), ed. by Pál Lukcsics (Budapest: Magyar Tudományos Akadémia, 1938), pp. 214-215), and bringing a cardinal’s hat to bishop of Krakow Zbigniew Oleśnicki in 1448 (Monumenta medii aevi historica res gestas Poloniae illustrantia, vol. 14, Codex epistolaris saeculi decimi quinti, vol. 3, ed. by Anatol Lewicki (Krakow: Nakładem Akademii umiejętności Krakowskiej, 1894), p. 26). 30 One of the letters from Vitez’s epistolarium, written in February 1446, mentions master Peter as canon of Oradea. See Vitéz de Zredna, Opera quae supersunt, p. 48. In his supplication presented to Pope Nicholas V in August 1447, Peter styles himself as canon of both Zagreb and Oradea (Oklevéltár a Magyar király, pp. 30-31; MHEZ 7, p. 111). 31 MNL OL, DL 57116. 32 See, for example, MNL OL, DL 13918 (4 May 1446), 13983 (11 December 1446). For the list of primary sources relating to Andrew, see Kristóf, Egyházi középréteg, p. 252, notes 883-884.

Pe ter of Crk vica, a Man Who Could Be Trusted

159

some cases, they did not work at all.33 Additionally, it is highly likely that the Chapter of Oradea would have chosen one of their own for an office as important as the office of custos rather than a newcomer from Slavonia.34 The canonry obtained by Peter was probably the one vacated by Andrew of Timişoara. It is possible that this canonry was given to Peter by his master, John Hunyadi, or possibly his mentor and fellow Slavonian John Vitez, as a reward for his services, as earlier researchers thought.35 However, it was also possible that Peter simply took advantage of his being at the Apostolic Curia at the time when a benefice was about to be vacated, and applied for it of his own accord.36 It is also possible, even likely, that the canonry of Oradea, whether he obtained it with or without permission from his superiors, served as a substitute for the canonry that he held in the Chapter of Zagreb. It is possible that his holding of the latter office had by that time become more or less theoretical, because the Counts of Cilli – enemies of John Hunyadi – and their candidate for the Bishopric of Zagreb took control of the chapter and the diocese in 1445. Some of the opposing canons were driven off in the process, and it is likely that Peter was one of them.37 As soon as the next winter, Peter was again sent to Rome, this time carrying Vitez’s apologies for dawdling with the payment of dues owed to the Apostolic Curia for his confirmation.38 His mission was to settle this debt, and it was not an easy one, considering that Vitez had been excommunicated 33 Stump, The Reforms, pp. 80-81, 84-86; Jadranka Neralić, ‘… tibi, qui ut asseris, de nobili genere ex utroque parente procreatus existis, auctoritate presentium indulgemus…’ Plemstvo i crkvena karijera u papinskim dokumentima 15. stoljeća’ [‘…tibi qui ut asseris de nobili genere ex utroque parente procreatus existis, auctoritate presentium indulgemus…’ Nobility and Ecclesiastical Careers in the 15th Century Papal Documents], in Izabrane teme iz hrvatske povijesti – Zbornik radova sa znanstvenih kolokvija Dies historiae 2004-2006. [Selected Themes in Croatian History], ed. by Suzana Miljan and Marko Jerković (Zagreb: Hrvatski studiji Sveučilišta u Zagrebu, 2007), pp. 168-170. 34 The bearer of this office had a considerable income, and his duties involved taking care of the chapter archive, the church’s valuables and the church itself, and he was the one responsible for sealing official documents with the chapter seal. He was also the one who received fees for this service. See Ante Gulin, Hrvatski srednjovjekovni kaptoli – Loca credibilia sjeverne i središnje Hrvatske [Medieval Chapters in Croatia: Loca Credibilia of North and Central Croatia] (Zagreb: Golden Marketing, 2001), p. 15. 35 Fraknói, Vitéz János, 33; Kristóf, Egyházi középréteg, pp. 58, 206; Ilona Kristóf, ‘I modi di acquistare benefici nel capitolo cattedrale di Várad nei secoli XV-XVI (301-314)’, in Matthias and His Legacy – Cultural and Political Encounters between East and West, ed. by Attila Bárányi and Attila Györkös (Debrecen: A Debreceni Egyetem Törtenélmi Intézet Kiadványai, 2009), p. 312. 36 This practice was especially common among papal officials, who were often the first to hear about benefices being vacated. See: Neralić, Put do crkvene nadarbine, p. 21. 37 Támas Pálosfalvi, ‘Cilleiek és Tallóciak: Küzdelem Szlavóniáért (1440-1448)’ [The Cilli and the Tallóci. The Fight for Slavonia (1440-1448)], Századok 134 (2000), p. 72. 38 Vitéz de Zredna, Opera quae supersunt, p. 60.

160 Tomisl av Matić

for failing to do so thus far.39 Nevertheless, it seems that Peter managed to procure a reprieve for Vitez.40 In February 1446 Peter was still in Rome, which is indicated in a letter sent by John Hunyadi to the Pope. In it, Hunyadi says that the Pope can send him his answer through Taddeo degli Adelmari, or through Master Peter. Instructions were sent to both of them regarding this.41 Besides Peter of Crkvica, this letter mentions two other letter-carriers who served as liaisons between the Holy See and the Kingdom of Hungary. One of them is the already mentioned Taddeo degli Adelmari. The other one is Master Vincent of Bátya (also known as Vincent Szilasi), Hunyadi’s notary and councillor, who was later (1450) appointed bishop of Vác on the request of his master. 42 At the time of the sending of the mentioned letter, Vincent was also a canon of Oradea, and he was sent to Rome and to other European courts to rally support for a crusade against the Ottomans. Not unlike Peter of Crkvica, Vincent also took advantage of his stay at the Curia to further his own career. He asked the Pope to confirm his holding of the very rich parish of Baia Mare (Lat. Rivulus Dominarum, Hung. Nagybánya), given to him earlier by Hunyadi, and to allow him to hold it together with canonries of Oradea and Alba Iulia.43 Besides these men, the popes also used Valentine of Kaposvár for diplomatic missions to the Kingdom of Hungary. The latter was a Pauline monk, minor apostolic penitentiary and papal chaplain. 44 He was the one charged with delivering the pallium to the newly appointed archbishop of Esztergom in 1440, 45 and Pope Eugene IV sent him in 1445 to the court of Duke Vlad II Dracul in Wallachia, to inquire about the fate of 39 Monumenta Vaticana Croatica I: Camera Apostolica, Obligationes et solutiones, Camerale primo (1299-1560), ed. by Josip Barbarić et al. (Zagreb/Rome: Hrvatska akademija znanosti i umjetnosti – Hrvatski državni arhiv – Kršćanska sadašnjost – Papinski hrvatski zavod sv. Jeronima, 1996), pp. 569-570. It was not unusual for the Holy See to excommunicate a bishop who was late on his payments (Neralić, Put do crkvene nadarbine, p. 74). 40 On that occasion, the debt was partially covered by Taddeo degli Adelmari, who acted as Vitez’s procurator. The role of procurators was to push some matter through the thicket of papal bureaucracy. See Neralić, Put do crkvene nadarbine, p. 49; Garrett Mattingly, Renaissance Diplomacy (London: Penguin Books, 1965), p. 29. 41 Vitéz de Zredna, Opera quae supersunt, p. 48. 42 For his brief biography, see Kristóf, Egyházi középréteg, pp. 249-250. 43 MHI 2, p. 231. It is also worth noting that Vincent’s simultaneous holding of these two canonries is mentioned only where it matters, such as in this case; another papal document, issued at the same time as the previous one, doesn’t mention it because it was not important in its context (it grants Vincent absolution from irregularity). This is the reason why Peter’s simultaneous holding of canonries of Zagreb and Oradea also is not consistently mentioned. 44 MHI 2, p. 186. For his career, see also Ferencz Kollányi, Esztergomi kanonok 1100-1900 [Canons of Esztergom 1100-1900] (Esztergom: Buzárovitz Gusztáv Könyvnyomdája, 1900), p. 106. 45 MHI 2, p. 188.

Pe ter of Crk vica, a Man Who Could Be Trusted

161

Cardinal Cesarini.46 He also spoke before the Hungarian Parliament in 1449 as the Pope’s orator and nuntius. 47 These men were the ones who kept the diplomatic correspondence flowing, and without them the contemporary political system would not have functioned. In return, they were given ecclesiastic benefices as sources of income. However, Peter had been down on his luck so far. The income he drew from the canonries of Zagreb and Oradea officially amounted to 100 florins per year, 48 although they were probably higher. 49 Still, his colleague Vincent of Bátya had more than 300-florins worth of yearly income.50 In 1447, it seemed that Peter’s situation would take a turn for the better. In February of that year, Pope Eugene IV awarded the bishop’s see of Zagreb to Hunyadi’s candidate, Bishop Demetrius Čupor of Knin, transferring his opponent, Benedict of Zvolen, to Knin.51 Up until then, Demetrius had been holding the lectorate and a canonry in the Chapter of Zagreb. Since he could not be both the bishop and a member of the chapter in the same diocese, the lectorate thus became vacant, and John Hunyadi had given it to Peter of Crkvica.52 The lectorate was a higher office than that of a custos, and assuming it would have been a promotion for Peter.53 Peter asked Pope Nicholas V to confirm his appointment in August 1447, and the Pope assented. The person who was supposed to determine whether Peter was appropriate for this office and, if so, to introduce him to it, was none other than Peter’s mentor, John Vitez, bishop of Oradea. Peter also got permission to hold the lectorate together with both of his canonries (of Zagreb and Oradea).54 46 Codex epistolaris 2, pp. 453-454. 47 Vitéz de Zredna, Opera quae supersunt, pp. 104-105, 122, 124. Nuntius is a title usually used for lower-ranking emmisaries; orator is a generic title for emissaries in general, made popular by Renaissance humanists (Mattingly, Renaissance Diplomacy, pp. 26-29). 48 Oklevéltár a Magyar király, pp. 30-31; MHEZ 7, pp. 111. 49 The information about Peter’s income from his canonries comes from a supplication to the Pope. As far as the Roman Curia was concerned, the values of incomes of various benefices were a matter of tradition, and they were rarely revised after the fourteenth century. The actual incomes depended on the current situation, which often remains hidden to us (Neralić, Put do crkvene nadarbine, p. 68). 50 MHI 2, p. 231. The parish of Baia Mare brought him 200 florins and the canonries of Oradea and Alba Iulia 100. 51 MHEZ 7, p. 88. 52 Oklevéltár a Magyar király, pp. 30-31. In the eyes of the counts of Cilli and their candidate for the bishop’s see, Demetrius was deposed from the lectorate a year before that (MHEZ 7, p. 72). Of course, Hunyadi and his supporters did not share this opinion. 53 This office was second only to the provost within the chapter hierarchy. A lector was formally in charge of a chapter’s chancery and school (Gulin, Hrvatski srednjovjekovni kaptoli, p. 14). 54 MHEZ 7, p. 111.

162 Tomisl av Matić

Despite everything being stacked in favour of it, Peter’s promotion was foiled yet again. Bishop Demetrius decided to appoint his own candidates to the benefices he was forced to resign, claiming that the patronage over them belonged to him as the bishop of Zagreb.55 On top of that, a few months later the Counts of Cilli managed to get the new Pope, Nicholas V, to revoke his predecessor’s decision,56 and Demetrius’s confirmation as bishop of Zagreb was brought into question.57 Next year, Demetrius’s position became even more tenuous, because his protector, John Hunyadi, being unable to crush the Counts of Cilli militarily, was forced to sign a peace treaty with them and, consequently, to recognize their candidate for the bishop’s see.58 Peter was doomed never to become lector of Zagreb, but that was not necessarily bad. It turned out that patience had its virtues. Around 1449, the lectorate of Oradea became vacant.59 Peter was not the one to fill it – the one to do that was his old rival, Andrew of Timişoara. But his assuming of the lectorate meant that he had to resign the office of custos, and since Peter already had a papal letter which assigned him to this office, he succeeded in claiming it for himself.60 At the end of January 1450, Peter had once again been sent on a diplomatic mission, this time carrying a list of tasks and requests sent from John Hunyadi and the Hungarian Parliament to their procurator at the Apostolic Curia, the dean of the Chapter of Kraków, Nicholas Lasocki. This was the third time Peter had been sent to Rome, and this time he went as custos of Oradea.61 This time Peter had been once more described as a man who could be trusted, and his task was to show the list to Nicholas and explain it to him – which means that the real message was to be transmitted orally this time as well. Bishop John Vitez also sent a personal message to Dean Nicholas, which was supposed to 55 Ibidem, pp. 118-119. 56 Joseph Held, Hunyadi: Legend and Reality (Boulder/New York: East European Monographs – Columbia University Press, 1985), p. 231, note 18. 57 MHEZ 7, p. 122. 58 Pálosfalvi, ‘Cilleiek és Tallóciak’, pp. 89, 92; Pál Engel, The Realm of St. Stephen (London/ New York: I. B. Tauris Publishers, 2001), p. 290; Held, Hunyadi, p. 136. 59 The old lector, Peter Vépi, was still alive and well, and even sharp enough to correct several grammatical errors in one of the chapter’s charters, on 26 May 1449. See: Oklevéltár a Tomaj nemzetségbeli Losonczi Bánffy család történetéhez, vol 1 (1214-1457), ed. by Elemér Varjú (Budapest: Hornyánszky Viktor Könyvnyomdája, 1908), p. 669. The office of lector had to become vacant some time after that. 60 In the document MNL OL, DL 22491 from 24 November 1449 Peter is mentioned as custos, and Andrew as lector of Oradea, for the first time. From then on, we find them with these titles in many of the chapter’s documents, see: MNL OL, DL 14423, 37612, etc. A list of several documents can be found in Kristóf, Egyházi középréteg, p. 205, note 293. 61 Vitéz de Zredna, Opera quae supersunt, p. 120.

Pe ter of Crk vica, a Man Who Could Be Trusted

163

be delivered by Peter of Crkvica.62 This goes to show that Vitez still thought Peter to be trustworthy, and entrusted him with his personal correspondence. The year 1450 was a jubilee year, and one of the tasks entrusted to Nicholas Lasocki was to secure jubilee indulgences for the inhabitants of the Kingdom of Hungary. Nicholas sent a message to Hunyadi and the Hungarian Parliament through Master Peter, telling them that it would help their cause if they sent some gift to the Pope.63 They did heed his advice, but this time they did not send Peter to Rome to deliver the gift and letters to the Pope and his cardinals, but Albert Hangácsi,64 who was then the provost of the cathedral chapter of Pécs,65 and had just returned to Hungary after graduating in law from the University of Bologna.66 A letter from Vitez to Taddeo degli Adelmari was also entrusted to Albert.67 Perhaps this shift of trust had to do with Albert – unlike Peter – possessing a Renaissance humanist education, and therefore being more suitable for sending to Italian courts. He was also a protégé of John Vitez.68 It seems that Peter was not sent on any further diplomatic missions abroad.69 But that was definitely not the end of his ecclesiastic career. In 1452, Andrew of Timişoara either died, or otherwise vacated the office of lector of Oradea. It seemed logical for Peter to take his post, since he was a person whom the bishop, John Vitez, trusted. On 10 November 1452, we find him as lector of Oradea.70 It is interesting to note that his old post as custos was given to the famous humanist poet Janus Pannonius, nephew of Bishop John Vitez, to serve him as a source of income during his studies in Italy.71 62 Ibid, p. 121. 63 Ibid, p. 138-139. 64 Ibid, p. 146. 65 MHI 2, p. 265. 66 Monumenta Hungariae Italica, vol. 3, Matricula et acta Hungarorum in Universitatibus Italiae studentium 1221-1864, ed. by Endre Veress (Budapest: Magyar Tudományos Akadémia, 1941), pp. 38-39. Paul of Ivanić calls him doctor Albert; see Boronkai, Iohannes Vitéz, pp. 146, 162. 67 Ibidem, p. 162. 68 Klára Pajorin, ‘The First Humanists at Matthias Corvinus’ Court, the Early Inspirers of Flaunting Wealth and Power’, in Matthias Corvinus, the King – Tradition and Renewal in the Hungarian Royal Court 1458-1490. Exhibition Catalogue – Budapest History Museum, 19 March 2008-30 June 2008, ed. by Péter Farbaky, Enikő Spekner et al. (Budapest: Budapest History Museum, 2008), p. 139; Klára Pajorin, ‘The Crusades and Early Humanism in Hungary’, in Infima Aetas Pannonica: Studies in Late Medieval Hungarian History, ed. by Péter Kovács and Kornél Szovák (Budapest: Corvina, 2009), p. 249. 69 Kristóf, Egyházi középréteg, pp. 58, 206. 70 MNL OL, DL 55525. An (incomplete) list of documents, which mention Peter as lector, can be found in Kristóf, Egyházi középréteg, p. 205, note 294. 71 Kristóf, ‘I modi di acquistare benefici’, p. 308.

164 Tomisl av Matić

Despite his failure to obtain the lectorate of Zagreb, Peter was still a canon there and had not forgotten his place of origin. On 24 August 1453, he, as lector and canon of Oradea and canon of Zagreb, together with John, cantor and canon of Čazma (a collegiate chapter within the Diocese of Zagreb), stood before Ban Ulrich of Cilli of Slavonia, who was also the protector of the Diocese of Zagreb, and asked him to confirm the right of the Chapter of Zagreb to collect the tithe from certain nobles of the castle of Medvedgrad. Ulrich did so, and ordered the local officials to enforce the tithe.72 As lector, Peter continued acting as a representative of his mentor, Bishop John Vitez. On 23 May 1454, he absolved the royal treasurer, Nicholas Várdai, of a debt of 150 florins owed to Bishop Vitez, after Nicholas had turned over part of the royal income (lucrum camere regie) in the county of Ugocsa to him. Doing this, he acted in persona domini nostri Johannis episcopi Waradiensis.73 This goes to show that Vitez did not trust Peter only with his foreign affairs, but with the business of running his estates as well. The rest of Peter’s career was, as far as the data tells us, pretty uneventful. Ilona Kristóf speculated that Peter Váradi, another protégé of John Vitez, who would later become a famous prelate and humanist, started his education in the Chapter of Várad under Peter of Crkvica, since Peter was, as lector, in charge of the chapter school.74 However, it is more likely that the lectorate was nothing more than a source of income for Peter, and that his liturgical and other duties were relegated to deputies, since this was the usual practice among Hungarian canons.75 It was not unusual for ecclesiastic beneficiaries in general to be altogether absent from their benefices.76 Even though only these few pieces of information about Peter’s activities as lector of Oradea are known to us, some strange occurrences regarding 72 MHEZ 7, pp. 244-245. This event is mentioned in: Ljudevit Ivančan, Podatci o zagrebačkim kanonicima [Data on the Canons of Zagreb], a manuscript in the Chapter Archive in Zagreb, 1912-1924), no. 354, p. 190; Stjepan Razum, Osvaldo Thuz de Szentlaszlo vescovo di Zagabria 1466-1499, unpublished doctoral thesis (Rome: Pontificia Università Gregoriana, 1996), p. 887. 73 Codex diplomaticus domus senioris comitum Zichy, vol. 9, ed. by Ernő Kammerer (Budapest: Magyar történelmi társulat, 1899), p. 442. Nicholas Várdai was royal treasurer from 1453 to 1456; see Pál Engel, Közepkori magyar genealógia / Magyarország világi archontológiája 13011457 [Secular Archontology of Hungary / Medieval Hungarian Genealogy 1301-1457], CD-ROM (Budapest: Arcanum, 2001), sub voce: Bárók / Kincstartó / Várdai Miklós. 74 Kristóf, Egyházi középréteg, p. 56. 75 Támas Fedeles, ‘Crkvene veze između Pečuha i Zagreba: Pečuški kanonici u zagrebačkom stolnom kaptolu (1354-1526.)’ [Ecclesiastical Liaisons between Pécs and Zagreb: Canons of Pécs in the Cathedral Chapter of Zagreb (1354-1526)], Etnografija hrvata u Mađarskoj 11 (2004), p. 142. 76 Neralić, Put do crkvene nadarbine, pp. 348-349; Stump, The Reforms, p. 166.

Pe ter of Crk vica, a Man Who Could Be Trusted

165

his surname start to appear from 1457 on. In a couple of documents, starting with the one from 25 June 1457,77 lector of Oradea’s noble predicate is changed to de Gwth. Especially interesting in this aspect is the document from 19 April 1459, in which only lector Peter’s surname – de Gwth – is mentioned, while all the other canons of the Chapter of Oradea listed there are designated only by their first names.78 This has led researchers to erroneously assume that our Peter was a member of the Gúti family.79 It is not likely that Peter stopped using the surname de Cirkeweza.80 All of the previous documents issued by the Chapter of Oradea in which he is mentioned contain only his rank and first name. The appearance of the noble predicate de Gwth from 1457 on, especially in the mentioned document – in which only the lector is mentioned by name and surname is given – probably means that another Peter occupied the office of lector of Oradea, and his full name was given so as not to confuse him with Peter of Crkvica. We therefore do not know what happened with Peter of Crkvica after 1454, but it is likely that he either died, or otherwise vacated the lectorate of Oradea. The career of Peter of Crkvica was determined by his belonging to the inner circle of John Vitez. Peter was a man whom Vitez trusted, and was therefore engaged in acting as his representative both at the Apostolic Curia in Rome, and in his diocese back at home. He was one of the lower-ranking officials who made the wheels of Renaissance diplomacy turn, and was rewarded for his efforts by receiving ecclesiastic benefices as sources of income. His example shows us how men of comparatively low origin could have climbed the social ladder, achieving considerable heights thanks to their skills as diplomats and knowing how to gain the trust of their masters. Peter remains one of the lesser personages of the fifteenth-century Kingdom of Hungary, but he was doubtlessly an important part of the political mosaic of his era. 77 Several copies of this document are preserved, see: MNL OL, DL 15170 and 30838. 78 A transcript of the document is available in Zichy 10, p. 75. The manuscript is preserved in two copies, both of which are very badly damaged; in one of them, the whole part which should bear the names of canons is torn off, but the other one is more or less whole, although damaged by moisture and tearing. Even so, the name Petro de Gwth lectore is legible (MNL OL, DL 81350). 79 See, for example, Vince Bunyitay, Káptalanok, monostorok – A püspökség alapítasától 1556. évig [Chapters, Monasteries – From the Founding of the Diocese to 1556], A váradi püspökség története alapításától a jelenkorig, vol. 2 [History of the Diocese of Oradea from its Founding to the Present], (Oradea, 1883), pp. 138, 141; Kristóf, Egyházi középréteg, p. 205; Kristóf, ‘I modi di acquistare benefici’, p. 312. 80 I thank Suzana Miljan and Damir Karbić for the idea that Peter of Crkvica and Peter de Gwth are not the same person, as previous researchers thought.



The Nobility of the Despotate of Serbiabetween Ottoman Empire and Hungary (1457-1459)* Miloš Ivanović

From 1402 to 1459 the state of the despots of Serbia had the role of a buffer zone between Hungary and the Ottoman Empire; its rulers being usually the vassals of both Ottoman sultans and kings of Hungary. That became obvious especially after the death of Despot George Branković in December 1456. The role of the nobility in the forthcoming period was significant because it constituted the largest part of Serbian army.1 Successor to Despot George, his son Despot Lazarus (1456-1458), set his heart on concluding a peace agreement with Sultan Mehmed II (1451-1481). His emissaries achieved that goal on 15 January at the Ottoman Porte. According to this treaty, the Serbian ruler had to pay 40.000 ducats annually to the Sultan and this tax was known as kharaj. However, this was less than during the reign of Despot George, as the Ottomans in 1455 had conquered the Southern part of the Serbian state including the rich mining town of Novo Brdo.2 Sources do not mention the obligation of sending auxiliary troops. Nevertheless, it is certain that Despot Lazarus was supposed to do so and the same did his predecessors. The noblemen were a majority of this kind of army.3 On the other side the new Serbian despot was embroiled in conflicts within the Kingdom of Hungary, which * This article is a result of the research project ‘Medieval Serbian Lands (XIII-XV Century): Political, Economic, Social and Legal processes’ (no. 177029), funded by the Ministry of Education, Science and Technological Development of the Government of the Republic of Serbia. 1 Detailed description of the military obligations of nobility in: Andrija Veselinović, Држава српских деспота [The State of Despots of Serbia] (Beograd: Zavod za udžbenike i nastavna sredstva, 2006), pp. 158-169, 173-180, 189-197. 2 Ljubomir Stojanović, Стари српски родослови и летописи [Old Serbian Genealogies and Chronicles] (Sremski Karlovci: Srpska kraljevska akademija, 1927), p. 241; Magyarország és Szerbia közti összeköttetések oklevéltára 1198-1526, ed. by Lajos Thallόczy and Antal Áldasy (Budapest: Magyar Tudományos Akadémia, 1907), pp. 223-224; Konstantin Mihailović, Јаничареве успомене или турска хроника [Janissary’s Memories or Ottoman Chronicle], trans. by Đorđe Živanković (Beograd: Prosveta, 1986), p. 129; Momčilo Spremić, Деспот Ђурађ Бранковић и његово доба [Despot George Branković and His Era] (Beograd: SKZ, 1994), p. 502. 3 More about obligation of Serbian despots to send auxiliary army to Ottoman sultans at: Spremić, Деспот Ђурађ Бранковић, pp. 62-63, 100, 289-290; Veselinović, Држава српских деспота, pp. 193-194.

168 

Miloš Ivanović

was the consequence of the murder of his cousin Ulrich II Cilli.4 He supported King Ladislas V (1440-1457) against the Hunyadi. With the assistance of royal supporters, Despot Lazarus occupied Kovin (Kewe), Laslovar, Haram, Požežena and Dombo, the towns in south-western Banat in the April 1457.5 The advance of the Serbian army through Banat ended on 25 May, when it was defeated by the Hunyadi’s troops. Despite being repressed, the Serbian ruler kept control over the mentioned towns on the left bank of the River Danube until his death.6 Simultaneously, the Brankovići were experiencing some inner disputes. The first disagreement broke out between Irene, the widow of Despot George, and Despot Lazarus. Gregory, oldest son of Despot George, who was blind, provided the support for his mother. During this conflict, Irene died on 3 May 1457 in the town of Rudnik. Afterwards, her brother Thomas and her children, Gregory and Mary, left Serbia to come to the Sultanate.7 This conflict was not the only reflection of relations within the ruling family. It was also the consequence of different political attitudes which were widespread in Serbia. Mary and Gregory were obviously the representatives of pro-Ottoman policy. On the other hand, Despot Lazarus and his blind brother Stephen were more inclined towards Hungary.8 In the following, I shall examine the attitude of the nobility of the Despotate of Serbia reflecting the political situation on the higher ruling level. Some data from the sources discretely indicates that similar division existed within the Serbian nobility. At the end of 1457, Despot Lazarus issued a charter to his treasurer Radoslav by which the former donated him three villages and two houses in the town of Smederevo, which originally belonged to Judge Theophilus and Đurko, Thomas’ treasurer.9 It can be assumed that 4 Stojanović, Родослови и летописи, p. 240; Spremić, Деспот Ђурађ Бранковић, pp. 489-490, 502. 5 Stojanović, Родослови и летописи, p. 241, no. 717; Sima Ćirković, ‘Прилошци за историју Ковина у средњем веку’ [Contributions to History of Kovin in the Middle Ages], Zbornik Matice srpske za istoriju 1 (1970), pp. 85-86; Spremić, Деспот Ђурађ Бранковић, p. 503. 6 Stojanović, Родослови и летописи, p. 241; Spremić, Деспот Ђурађ Бранковић, pp. 503-504. 7 Stojanović, Родослови и летописи, p. 241; Mavro Orbini, Краљевство Словена [The Kingdom of Slavs], trans. by Zdravko Šundrica (Zrenjanin/Beograd: SEZAM BOOK, 2006), p. 128; Georgije Sfrances, Хроника. Пад Византијског цасртва [Chronicle: The Fall of the Byzantine Empire], trans. by Mladen Stanković (Beograd: Predanjske studije, 2011), pp. 168-169; Laonic Chalcocondil, Expuneri Istorice, trans. by Vasile Grecu (Bucaresti: Editura Academiei Republicii Populare Romine, 1958), pp. 249-250; Spremić, Деспот Ђурађ Бранковић, pp. 504-506; Mihailo Popović, Мара Бранковић: жена између хришћанског и исламског културног круга у 15. веку [Mara Branković: A Women in between Christian and Islamic Cultural Cyrcle in the Fifteenth Century] (Novi Sad: Akademeska knjiga, 2014), pp. 184-185. 8 Spremić, Деспот Ђурађ Бранковић, p. 506. 9 Michael Lascaris, ‘Actes serbes de Vatopédi’, Byzantinoslavica 6 (1935), p. 183.

The Nobilit y of the Despotate of Serbia

169

the despot confiscated their property, because they supported Thomas Kantakuzin, and both of them probably left Smederevo together with him. It should be noted that judging by the name, Theophilus was Greek.10 Furthermore, documents testify that Mary Branković had a relatively huge estate on the territory of the Ottoman Empire. Its centre was in the village of Ježevo near the town of Serres in north present-day Greece, given to her by Sultan Mehmed II. Mary also had some belongings in Thessaloniki and Constantinople.11 Some noblemen, who were respectable in the Despotate of Serbia, were in her service, as is the case of brothers George and Oliver Golemović. One Serbian chronicle testifies that Oliver Golemović died in December 1463 in Ježevo, thus while being in Mary’s territory.12 George was mentioned in 1466, as a witness in Mary’s charter to the monasteries of St. Paul and Hilandar on Mount Athos.13 Indeed, it is unknown when they left Serbia, but it may have happened during 1457. Another individual in the service of the Brankovići is Stephen Zahić. He was unknown from other sources, but as the emissary of Gregory Branković in November 1457 in Dubrovnik.14 In all likelihood he was a Serbian nobleman. The noblemen who were faithful to Despot Lazarus received new estates, as treasurer Radoslav did. In addition to the houses which belonged to the supporters of Thomas Kantakuzin, the treasurer gained three villages as pronoia. At that time, some of Radoslav’s possessions were under the Ottoman control. The despot promised him to return these pronoia in case he had recaptured them from the Ottomans. All of these pronoiai could be inherited by Radoslav’s nephews, Radoslav and Radovan.15 This was a special privilege given to him, because the pronoia was a state property; the condition for possessing this type of estate was military service.16 The 10 Ibidem, pp. 172-173. 11 Ruža Ćuk, ‘Повеља царице Маре манастирима Хиландару и св. Павлу’ [Charter of Empress Mara to Monasteries Hilandar and St Paul], Istroijski časopis 24 (1977), pp. 107, 113; Ruža Ćuk, ‘Царица Мара’ [Empress Mara], Istorijski časopis 25-26 (1978-1979), pp. 80-81, 83; Phokion Kotzageorgis, ‘Two Vakf iyyes of Mara Branković’, Hilandarski zbornik 11 (2004), pp. 313-316, 319-322; Vančo Boškov, ‘Мара Бранковић у турским документима из Свете горе’ [Mara Branković in Ottoman sources of Mount Atos], Hilandarski zbornik 5 (1983), pp. 192-193; Popović, Мара Бранковић, pp. 185-198. 12 Stojanović, Родослови и летописи, p. 246. 13 Ćuk, ‘Повеља царице Маре’, pp. 105, 114. 14 Старе српске повеље и писма I-2 [Old Serbian Charters and Diplomas], ed. by Ljubomir Stojanović (Beograd/Sremski Karlovci: Srpska kraljevska akademija,1934), p. 30, 159. 15 Lascaris, ‘Actes serbes de Vatopédi’, pp. 183-184. 16 Georgije Ostrogorski, Пронија. Прилог историји феудализма у Византији и јужнословенским земљама [Pronoia. A Contribution to History of Feudalism in Byzantium and South Slavic Countries] (Beograd: Vizantološki institut ,1951), pp. 130, 133, 148; Mark C.

170 

Miloš Ivanović

charter issued to Radoslav was written by logothete (chancellor) Stephen Ratković.17 This office the latter held a year before, when Despote George was still alive.18 One charter from October 1458 shows that Despot Lazarus granted new pronoia to his faithful chancellor.19 It is evident that the existence of the Serbian state depended primarily on its relations with the Ottoman Empire. For this reason, Despot Lazarus assisted the Ottomans to cross the Danube in autumn 1457 to attack the Hungarian territory.20 The Death of Despot Lazarus, on 20 January 1458, complicated the political position of the Despotate of Serbia.21 According to a narrative text from the end of fifteenth century, Despot Lazarus was poisoned by the noblemen,22 but these allegations cannot be verified. The part of the nobility opposing Despot Lazarus has already left Serbia with Mary and Gregory Branković. However, this does not mean that he did not have any rivals in the country. In this context, it is interesting to mention that Mavro Orbini noted that Despot Lazarus died of sadness because the sultan decided to attack him.23 The campaign of Mehmed II could have strengthened the pro-Ottoman party in Serbia. After the death of Despot Lazarus, the country was taken over by the regency. The members of governorship were great voivode Michael Anđelović, Lazarus’ widow Helen and his blind brother Stephen. Voivode Michael Anđelović took the most important position:24 he was the brother of Grand Vizier Mahmud Pasha Anđelović.25 Therefore, within the ruling body voivode Michael was the representative of pro-Ottoman side, while Bartusis, Land and privilege in Byzantium: The Institution of Pronoia (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012), pp. 160-162, 222, 256, 266, 280, 300, 304, 441, 603. 17 Lascaris, ‘Actes serbes de Vatopédi’, p. 184. 18 Ljubomir Stojanović, ‘Стари српски хриљовуљи, акти, биографије, летописи, типици, поменици, записи и др’ [Old Serbian Chrysobulls, Acts, Biographies, Annals, Typika, Records et al.], Spomenik Srpske kraljevske akademije 3 (1890), p. 6. 19 Franjo Rački, ‘Prilozi za sbirku srpskih i hrvatskih listina’ [A Contribution to the Collection of Serbian and Croatian Charters], Rad Jugoslavenske akademije znanosti i umenosti 1 (1867), p. 156-157. 20 Magyarország és Szerbia, p. 230; Spremić, Деспот Ђурађ Бранковић, p. 507. 21 Stojanović, Родослови и летописи, p. 241. 22 Đorđe Radojičić, Antologija stare srpske književnosti (XI-XVIII vek) [Anthology of Old Serbian Literature (the Eleventh to Eighteenth Century)] (Beograd: Nolit, 1960), p. 214. 23 Orbini, Краљевство Словена, p. 128. 24 Stojanović, Родослови и летописи, p. 242. 25 More about decent of Mahmud Pasha: Chalcocondil, Expuneri Istorice, 251, 263; Božidar Ferjančić, ‘Византинци у Србији прве половине XV века’ [Byzantines in Serbia of the First Half of the Fifteenth Century], Zbornik radova vizantološkog instituta 26 (1987), pp. 207-208; Spremić, Деспот Ђурађ Бранковић, p. 515.

The Nobilit y of the Despotate of Serbia

171

Helen relied more on Hungary. Initially, Michael repressed her and took control over Smederevo. Orbini wrote that ‘Rašani’ (Serbs) have chosen Michael for the ruler, because they have hated Helen.26 Under the term ‘Rašani’ the author may well have meant the noblemen from Smederevo. The pro-Ottoman noblemen prevailed at that moment. A Venetian in Buda, Peter Thomasius, informed the doge that people declared that Michael Anđelović ought to be despot.27 In this way, after more than half a century, the authority was given to a person who was neither from the dynasty of the Lazarevići nor from the Brankovići. Allegedly, the nobility wanted to have a ruler who was recognized by the Sultan.28 King Stephen Thomas of Bosnia (1443-1461) took advantage of the disorder in Serbia to conquer the mining city of Srebrenica in addition to eleven surrounding towns. Nine of them were assigned by the king to the local noble families of the Stančići and Kovačevići.29 It seems reasonable to assume that these families played an important role in the conquest of king of Bosnia. The described development of the political events in Serbia was not favoured by the Hungarians. Michael Szilágyi who was the regent of Matthias Corvinus, the new king of Hungary, as well as king’s uncle, strived to occupy the remains of the Despotate of Serbia. For this plan, he ensured the support of Catholic Church. His efforts were hindered by the Ottoman army that was situated in Serbia.30 Be that as it may, the political situation changed at the end of March. Namely, voivode Michael brought into Smederevo an Ottoman military unit with the aim of strengthening his authority. The Ottomans set their own flag above the gate, causing the anger of the citizens who killed the Ottomans and many Serbs who had been their allies. On this occasion, Michael Anđelović was captured and submitted to a Ragusan, Damian Đurđević, who transferred him to Hungary.31 The 26 Orbini, Краљевство Словена, p. 129. 27 Magyar diplomácziai emlékek Matyás király korábόl (1458-1490), ed. by Iván Nagy and Albert Nyáry (Budapest: Magyar Tudományos Akadémia, 1875), vol. 1, p. 20. 28 Magyar diplomácziai 1, p. 18; Spremić, Деспот Ђурађ Бранковић, pp. 516-517. 29 Magyar diplomácziai 1, p. 6; Vikentij Makušev, Историјски споменици јужних Словена и околних народа. Из италијанских архива и библиотека [Historical Monuments of South Slavs and Neighbours. From Italian Archives and Libraries], vol. 2, Ђенова, Мантова, Милано, Плаермо, Турин [Genoa, Mantua, Milan, Palermo, Torino] (Beograd: Srpsko učeno drtuštvo, 1882), pp. 204-205; Spremić, Деспот Ђурађ Бранковић, p. 517. 30 Magyarország, pp. 222-223, 230-231; Spremić, Деспот Ђурађ Бранковић, pp. 517-518. 31 Stojanović, Родослови и летописи, p. 242; Magyar diplomácziai 1, p. 18; Gliša Elezović, ‘Турски извори за историју Југословена. Два турска хроничара из 15 века’ [Ottoman Sources for the History of South Slavs. Two Ottoman Chroniclers from the Fifteenth Century], Bratstvo 26 (1932), pp. 101-102; Aleksandar Krstić, ‘Пад Србије из угла освајача: Ашикпашезаде и

172 

Miloš Ivanović

government of the state was taken over by Helen, the widow of Despot Lazarus, who ran the country together with blind Stephen Branković. The fall of Michael Anđelović also meant the repression of his followers. Voivode Miloš Belmužević stood out among them. Helen and Stephen Branković confiscated the estates of Anđelović and Miloš Belmužević, giving them to their supporters, logothete Stephen Ratković and Voivode Mark Altomanović.32 We can note that Stephen Ratković consistently aided the pro-Hungarian members of the ruling family. The overturn in Smederevo prompted an Ottoman reaction. The new rulers of Serbia attempted to prevent an Ottoman attack, but unsuccessfully.33 Seemingly, the Ottomans took with them Gregory Branković, who had an ambition of seizing power in the Despotate.34 The Ottomans wanted to use him only for the easier conquest of Serbia. During May 1458, they occupied the monastery of Resava and town of Žrnov near Belgrade, Višesav on the Danube and Bela Stena in western Serbia. The fortress of Golubac withstood the Ottoman attacks.35 Mavro Orbini narrated that some parts of the country surrendered to the Ottomans by agreement, while others were conquered.36 An Ottoman defter of vilayet Braničevo from 1467 confirms Orbini’s statements. This source records fourteen Christians who gained some privileges because they handed over the fortress of Resava.37 Unfortunately, the social status of these people within the Serbian nobility is unknown. Privileges were given to those who voluntarily accepted the Ottoman rule.38 The Serbian ruler understood the severity of his own position. For that reason, they tried to trade with their remaining possessions in exchange for properties in Hungary. At first, Despotess Helen played a key role in Дурсун-бег’ [The Fall of Serbia from the Angle of the Conqueror: Ašikpašezada and Dursun-beg], in Пад Српске деспотовине 1459. године [The Fall of the Despotate of Serbia in 1459], ed. by Momčilo Spremić (Beograd: Srpska akademija nauka i umetnosti, 2011), pp. 309-310; Spremić, Деспот Ђурађ Бранковић, p. 520. 32 Rački, ‘Prilozi za sbirku’, p. 157; Spremić, Деспот Ђурађ Бранковић, p. 520. 33 Magyar diplomácziai 1, p. 28; Spremić, Деспот Ђурађ Бранковић, p. 521. 34 Magyar diplomácziai 1, p. 12, 18, 20; Orbini, Краљевство Словена, p. 129. 35 Elezović, ‘Турски извори за историју Југословена’, pp. 102-105; Magyar diplomácziai 1, pp. 25-26, 32-33; Stojanović, Родослови и летописи, p. 243; Spremić, Деспот Ђурађ Бранковић, p. 522; Krstić, ‘Пад Србије из угла освајача’, pp. 311-312. 36 Orbini, Краљевство Словена, pp. 129-130. 37 Momčilo Stojaković, Braničevski tefter. Poimenični popis pokrajine Braničevo iz 1467. godine [Defter of Braničevo. Detailed list of the Region of Braničevo from 1467] (Beograd: Istorijski institut, 1987), p. 252; Krstić, ‘Пад Србије из угла освајача’, p. 310. 38 One example from 1439 indicates it: Ilias Kolovos, ‘A biti of 1439 from the Archives of the Monastery of Xeropotamou (Mount Athos)’, Hilandarski zbornik 11 (2004), pp. 302-303.

The Nobilit y of the Despotate of Serbia

173

negotiations with the Hungarians. However, that changed in May 1458 when Stephen began to call himself the despot.39 Hungarians were not satisfied with this reversal. The new despot offered only Golubac in exchange, while Helen was ready to give up the whole state. The negotiations failed because the widow of John Hunyadi Elizabeth did not want to leave the previous estates of Despot George. 40 Without help from Hungary, Stephen was in difficult position. In summer of 1458 he started negotiations with Mahmud Pasha Anđelović, 41 which was followed by a great blow for Hungary, the Ottoman conquest of Golubac in August 1458. 42 The Byzantine chronicler George Sphrantzes noted that the Ottomans seized it by betrayal. 43 In September 1458 Ragusan chancellor Bartholomeus de Sfondratis informed Marquess de Varese that the Ottomans occupied Golubac and stressed that all the Serbs were traitors. 44 Tursun Beg has written in more detail about the town’s surrender. This Ottoman writer noted that Mahmud Pasha had promised timars to all the citizens except for the commander of Golubac, if they handed over the town. Indeed, the defenders handed over the fortress except for the main tower where he was the commander (voivode); who soon surrendered because there was no possibility of getting water from the Danube. 45 It is registered in the defter of vilayet Braničevo from 1467 that a certain Dabiživ and his son Dimitrius were meritorious for the capitulation of Golubac. Therefore, they had a privileged status. 46 In this turbulent time, the nobility strived to preserve their possessions. As the Hungarians has not sent military aid, some of the noblemen turned towards the Ottomans. It is interesting that Mahmud Pasha did not offer a timar to the commander of Golubac. The unnamed voivode certainly belonged to the class of high nobility. Perhaps the Ottomans intended to repress the most influential and the richest representatives of the Serbian 39 Magyar diplomácziai 1, pp. 12, 16-17, 20, 30; Đorđe Bubalo, ‘Поседи српских деспота у одбрамбеним плановима Краљевине Угарске 1458. и 1459. године’ [The Estates of Despots of Serbia in the Defensive Plans of the Kingdom of Hungary between 1458 and 1459], in Пад Српске деспотовине, pp. 235-236; Spremić, Деспот Ђурађ Бранковић, pp. 523-524. 40 Magyar diplomácziai 1, pp. 12, 20, 28; Bubalo, ‘Поседи српских деспота’, p. 236, doc. 37; Spremić, Деспот Ђурађ Бранковић, pp. 523-524. 41 Magyarország és Szerbia, pp. 238, 240; Spremić, Деспот Ђурађ Бранковић, p. 530. 42 Magyarország és Szerbia, p. 241; Sima Ćirković, Голубац у средњем веку [Golubac in the Middle Ages] (Požarevac: Braničevo , 1968), p. 24. 43 Sfrances, Хроника, pp. 170-171. 44 Magyarország és Szerbia, p. 242. 45 Elezović, ‘Турски извори за историју Југословена’, pp. 105-106; Krstić, ‘Пад Србије из угла освајача’, pp. 313-314. 46 Stojaković, Braničevski tefter, p. 253; Krstić, ‘Пад Србије из угла освајача’, p. 314.

174 

Miloš Ivanović

nobility. On the other hand, it is possible that the commander of Golubac was inclined to the Hungarians. However, these assumptions cannot be corroborated from the sources. After the fall of Golubac, King Matthias Corvinus of Hungary confiscated some estates that the Branković family had in Hungary, and assigned them his uncle, Michael Szilágyi. 47 Bartholomew, Chancellor of Ragusa, considered that Despot Stephen was willing to give Smederevo to the Hungarians with the aim of preventing the Ottoman occupation. 48 The political situation changed again in October 1458 when King Matthias Corvinus accused his uncle of conspiracy and arrested him. 49 This overturn prompted a new Hungarian policy towards the Despotate of Serbia. The young king ceased negotiations with the Serbian authorities and supported the plan for a marriage between Helen, a daughter of Despot Lazarus and Stephen Tomašević, a son of King Stephen Thomas of Bosnia, who was supposed to get as a dowry the remains of the Despotate, as well as the properties of the Branković family in Hungary. The final agreement between King Matthias and King Stephen Thomas was reached at the meeting in Szeged in December 1458. In this way, the ruler of Hungary wanted to acquire Smederevo through his vassal. Also, he had the aim of uniting Serbia and Bosnia as a barrier against the Ottoman enhancement.50 Before the meeting with Matthias Corvinus, in October 1458 Stephen Thomas concluded the treaty with Despotess Helen. During the negotiations Helen was represented by great logothete Stephen Ratković, and as a reward the king of Bosnia confirmed him the honour of great logothete. Additionally, all the possessions which he had originally possessed as a pronoiai were transformed into his hereditary estates, called in the vernacular sources baština.51 In addition, the king gave him a hundred houses in the same manner in Bosnia. If Stephen Ratković came from Serbia to Bosnia, he would have obtained new possessions. Finally, he was allowed to leave Bosnia with his children, servants and 47 Magyar diplomácziai 1, p. 79; Bubalo, ‘Поседи српских деспота’, p. 238. 48 Magyarország és Szerbia, p. 242; Spremić, Деспот Ђурађ Бранковић, p. 531. 49 Stojanović, Родослови и летописи, pp. 243-244; Pál Engel, The Realm of St. Stephen, A History of Medieval Hungary, 896-1526 (London/New York: I.B. Taurus, 2001), p. 299; Spremić, Деспот Ђурађ Бранковић, pp. 531-532. 50 Magyar diplomácziai 1, pp. 18, 35-38; Bubalo, ‘Поседи српских деспота’, pp. 238-239; Spremić, Деспот Ђурађ Бранковић, pp. 535-538. 51 Baština was herdeitary property with full right of disposal. See: Rade Mihajlović and Sima Ćirković, ‘Баштина’ [Heritage], in Лексикон српког средњег века [Lexicon of Serbian Middle Ages], ed. by Sima Ćirković and Rade Mihajlović (Beograd: Knowledge, 1997), pp. 31-33; Душанов законик [Dušan’s Code] (Beograd: Zavod za udžbenike – Službeni glasnik, 2010), p. 160.

The Nobilit y of the Despotate of Serbia

175

properties.52 All these data point out that Stephen Ratković had become the most influential nobleman in the Despotate. However, it is clear that great logothete believed that the king of Bosnia was not able to hold back the Ottomans. That is why he was likely to abandon not only Serbia, but Bosnia as well. Voivode Mark Altomanović also was on the side of Stephen Thomas, who confirmed the former all of the earlier estates of Michael Anđelović. Seemingly, nobleman Bogdan Čokeša was on the opposite side, since his possessions were given to Stephen Ratković.53 Another possibility is that he lost them after the fall of Michael Anđelović. Successive changes of the rulers within one year clearly affected the structure of high nobility in the Despotate of Serbia. The agreement between Despotess Helen and Stephen Thomas was implemented a few months after its conclusion, and Stephen Thomas took power in the Despotate on 21 March 1459. His wedding with Helen Branković took place a bit later, on 1 April. Presumably, he was the first person to receive the title of despot from the King of Hungary.54 Serbian annals attributed him only the title of prince (knez). The same sources noted with anger that Despot Stephen had been expelled from his own country.55 These facts indicate that the new ruler was not popular in Smederevo, although his father asserted that he was proclaimed as despot with the consent of all of the Serbs.56 Many nobles certainly felt devotion to the ‘domestic dynasty’, especially when compared with the Catholic ruler.57 The overturn which was initiated by Hungary provoked a reaction from the Sultan. In late spring 1459, Ottoman army entered Serbia and arrived at Smederevo, and conquered the capital on 20 June, without a fight.58 King Matthias Corvinus accused Radivoj, uncle of Stephen Tomašević of handling over Smederevo to the Ottomans. Consequently, King Matthias seized all of the estates in Hungary belonging to ruling family of Bosnia.59 Some sources emphasized that the citizens had decided to hand over Smederevo to the Ottomans. Constantine Mihailović wrote that the Serbs 52 Rački, ‘Prilozi za sbirku’, pp. 156-158. 53 Ibidem, p. 157. 54 Božidar Ferjančić, Деспоти у Византији и јужнословенским земљама [Despots in Byzantium and South Slavic Countries] (Beograd: Vizantološki institut, 1960), p. 197; Veselinović, Држава српских деспота, p. 92; Spremić, Деспот Ђурађ Бранковић, p. 539. 55 Stojanović, Родослови и летописи, p. 244. 56 Magyar diplomácziai 1, pp. 49-50; Spremić, Деспот Ђурађ Бранковић, p. 539. 57 One Serbian annalist reported that Despot Stephen was banished by ‘wicked inf idels’ (Stojanović, Родослови и летописи, p. 244). 58 Ibidem, p. 244; Spremić, Деспот Ђурађ Бранковић, pp. 544-545. 59 Magyarország és Szerbia, p. 254; Bubalo, ‘Поседи српских деспота’, pp. 239-240; Spremić, Деспот Ђурађ Бранковић, p. 546.

176 

Miloš Ivanović

had preferred the Ottomans to occupy the city rather than Hungarians.60 The Ottoman chronicler Tursun Beg, on the other hand, reported that the inhabitants of Smederevo had been frightened by their army and sent the keys of the city to the Sultan on the condition that they and their families would be spared.61 Such development of events seems logical because this was the only way for citizens to retain their possessions. Among the residents, noblemen surely played a key role. Unfortunately, the first Ottoman defter of Smederevo sancak is not preserved and therefore it is unknown whether some people got privileges due to the surrender of the city or not. The fate of nobility immediately after the fall of Smederevo is unknown. It is clear that many of the nobles left Serbia before 1459. There is no extant data about noblemen possibly moving to Hungary.62 The confiscation of estates of Despot Stephen Tomašević certainly prevented the Serbian noblemen from getting shelter in Hungary. Blind Despot Stephen stayed in Buda in July 1459; he negotiated with King Matthias, but without results. Then he left Buda and joined his sister Catherine, who was on the side of the king’s opponents.63 The larger influx of Serbians in Hungary began after the war that King Matthias had led against the Ottomans in 1463-1464. Presumably then the king understood that he must rely on them for defence of the border against the Ottomans.64 After 1459 some prominent noblemen lived in the territory of the Ottoman Empire. Former great voivode Michael Anđelović succeeded in releasing himself from captivity. It probably happened after 7 November 1458, when his guard Damian Đurđević died. After the ruin of the Despotate of Serbia he was mentioned for the first time in one Ragusan document.65 Together with Metropolitan of Raška he renovated the monastery of Presentation of Saint Mary in Nova Pavlica in 1464.66 This fact pointed out that Michael 60 Mihajlović, Јаничареве успомене, p. 125. 61 Elezović, ‘Турски извори за историју Југословена’, pp. 110-111. 62 Sima Ćirković, ‘Српска властела у борби за обнову Деспотовине’ [Serbian Nobility Fighting to Renew Despotate], in Историја српског народа [The History of Serbian People], vol. 2, ed. by Jovanka Kalić (Beograd: Srpska književna zadruga, 1982), p. 373. 63 Konstantin Jireček, Историја Срба [History of Serbs], vol. 1, Политичка историја до 1537. године [Political History until 1537] (Beograd: Naučna knjiga,1952), p. 388; Ćirković, ‘Српска властела’, pp. 374-375. 64 Ćirković, ‘Српска властела’, p. 376; Yovan Radonitch, Histoire de Serbes de Hoingre (Paris: Bloud et Gay 1919), p. 47. 65 Jiriček, Историја Срба 1, p. 407; Konstantin Jireček, Историја Срба [History of Serbs], vol. 2, Културна историја [Cultural History] (Beograd: Naučna knjiga,1952), p. 375. 66 Radomir Petrović, ‘Откриће у Новој Павлици’ [The Discovery in Nova Pavlica], Saopštenja 15 (1983), p. 245.

The Nobilit y of the Despotate of Serbia

177

Anđelović was an important person once again, as he must have had a large estate (timar) at his disposal that could finance the reconstruction of the monastery. His importance surely came from the fact that he was a brother of Mahmud Pasha. Mark Altomanović, the opponent of Michael Anđelović from 1458, also lived in the Ottoman Empire. In the Serbian annals, it is noted that he, Mark Trikalski and Dmitar Tomašić were killed by sancak-bey on 24 February 1462 near Vučitrn.67 It is unknown why they had been executed. The first extant defter of Smederevo sancak from 1476-1477 registered Miloš Belmužević as timariot. In all likelihood, he is identical with voivode of the same name, who was mentioned in 1458.68 Finally, some of the noblemen may have gone to Bosnia together with Despot Stephen Tomašević. Logothete Stephen Ratković has already announced this possibility in 1458.69 To sum up, during the last years of the existence of the Despotate of Serbia, it was entirely dependent on the activity of both the Kingdom Hungary and the Ottoman Empire alike. At the same time, it was disturbed by the inner conflicts of the Brankovići ruling dynasty. In such circumstances, the noblemen primarily endeavoured to secure their material interests and positions. That is the reason why some of them handed over fortresses to the Ottomans in exchange for certain privileges. On the other hand, the Ottomans were usually willing to give timars to the lower and middle nobility. Other Serbian noblemen sought support in Hungary. They were given some new possessions in Serbia from pro-Hungarian rulers. However, after the fall of Smederevo 1459 King Matthias did not have positive attitudes towards them. This relationship changed after his campaigns against Ottomans in 1463-1464.

67 Stojanović, Родослови и летописи, p. 245. 68 Aleksandar Krstić, ‘Нови подаци о војводи Милошу Белмужевићу и његовој породици’ [New Information on Duke Miloš Belmužević and His Family], Inicijal 1 (2013), pp. 167-170. 69 Rački, ‘Prilozi za sbirku’, pp. 157-158.



List of Contributors

Nikolina Antonić, MA, Doctoral Candidate, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, University of Zagreb, Croatia Dr. János M. Bak, Professor, Department of Medieval Studies, Central European University, Budapest, Hungary Dr. Éva B. Halász, PhD, Research Fellow, Research Group for Studying Medieval Hungarian History of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, the Hungarian Military and Historical Institute and Museum, the University of Szeged and the Hungarian State Archive, Budapest – Szeged, Hungary Kristian Bertović, MA, Doctoral Candidate, Department of Medieval Studies, Central European University, Budapest, Hungary Dr. Maja Cepetić Rogić, PhD, Post-Doc Fellow, Department of Art History, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, University of Rijeka, Croatia Judit Gál, MA, Research Assistant, Department for the Auxiliary Sciences of History, Institute of Historical Studies, Faculty of Humanities, Eötvös Loránd University, Budapest, Hungary Dr. Miloš Ivanović, PhD, Research Fellow, Institute of History, Belgrade, Serbia Dr. Neven Isailović, PhD, Research Fellow, Institute of History, Belgrade, Serbia Dr. Kosana Jovanović, PhD, Assistant, Department of History, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, University of Rijeka, Croatia Dr. Ivan Jurković, PhD, Professor, Department of History, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, University Juraj Dobrila of Pula, Croatia István Kádas, MA, Research Assistant, Department for the Auxiliary Sciences of History, Institute of Historical Studies, Faculty of Humanities, Eötvös Loránd University, Budapest, Hungary

180 

Secul ar Power and Sacr al Authorit y in Medieval East- Centr al Europe

Dr. Tomislav Matić, PhD, Assistant, Department of History, Catholic University of Croatia, Zagreb, Croatia Dr. Suzana Miljan, PhD, Research Fellow, Department of Historical Research, Institute of Historical and Social Sciences, Croatian Academy of Sciences and Arts, Zagreb, Croatia Dr. Katalin Szende, PhD, Associate Professor, Department of Medieval Studies, Central European University, Budapest, Hungary Silvie Vančurova, MA, Doctoral Candidate, Institute of Czech History, Faculty of Arts, Charles University in Prague, Prague, Czech Republic Dr. Valentina Zovko, PhD, Research Fellow, Department of History, University of Zadar, Croatia

Index Aba, kindred 105 Abaúj (Abov), county 98-108, 110 Adriatic coast 21 Adriatic Sea 34, 86 Adelmari, Taddeo degli 158, 160, 163 Alexander, ban 45 Altomanović, voivode Mark 172, 175, 177 Ampudinus, count palatine 40 Andautonia 52-4 Anđelović, Grand Vizier Mahmud Pasha 170, 173 great voivode Michael 33, 170-2, 175-7 Andrew, son of Nicholas 66-7 Angela, daughter of Martin, son of Erdő (Erdow) 66 Anne, princess, daughter of Béla IV 42 Anthony of Rovišće 33, 134 Anthony of Slavonia 134 Apulia 114 Aquae Balissae 54 Aqua Viva 53-4 Aragon 119 Arany, János 120 Aranyi, Stephen 109 Arscindis, podesta Gargano de 47 Ásgúti, George 102 Austria 98, 119, 130 Bács, county 40 Baia Mare 160 Balajti, noble family 103 Peter 103 Balkans 31, 140 Banat 168 Bánó, John, son of Ladislas 106 Ladislas 104, 106 Ladislas, nephew of Ladislas 106 noble family 106, 108 Barakonyi, John 103 Barcelona 119 Bartók, Béla 27 Bartholomew, chancellor of Ragusa 174 Baška draga 88-91, 94-5 Básti, John 107, 109 Nicholas 102 noble family 103, 105-6 Bátya, Vincent of (known as Vincent Szilasi) 160-1 Bayern 98 Bebeks, noble family 109 Bela Stena 172 Béla, duke of Slavonia, son of King Béla IV 44 Belgrade 172 Belmužević, voivode Miloš 172, 177 Beloš, count palatine 40 Benczédi Szabó, István 26 Benczédi Székely, István 22

Benedict, son of Clemens 69 Beočin 136 Bereg, county 101 Berzevici, noble family 108 Biograd na Moru 39 Bjelovar 53-4 Blaise of Kamenica 136 Blatnica, village 53 Bloch, Marc 12, 17 Bočaći 93 Bogdan, son of Nicholas 66 Bohemia 130-2, 135-6 Bolč 53 Bon, Blaise 107 Bonfini, Antonio 21-2, 25 Bosnia 11, 29, 33, 41, 111-2, 114, 120-2, 139-41, 146, 150, 171, 174-5, 177 Brandenburg 98 Braničevo, vilayet 172-3 Branković, Despot George 167 Despot Lazarus 167-70, 172, 174 Gregory, son of Despot George 169-70, 172 Helen, wife of Despot Lazarus 172, 175 Irene, widow of Despot George 168 Mary, daughter of Irene 169-70 Stephen 172 Brankovići, Serbian dynasty 32, 168-9, 171, 174, 177 Brinje 93 Buclói, Denis 103 Buclói, family 104 Buda 171, 176 Budapest 11, 138 Bulgaria 44, 137 Butko, ban 45 Bythe, Stephen 20 Byzantium 33, 38-9 Čačvina 142 Carolus Clusius 20 Carpathian Basin 81 Castile 98, 119 Čazma, estate 34, 49-50, 52-5, 57-9, 67, 164 Čeberkovac, Abraham 68 family 68-9 Giles 68 Cécei, Peter 102 Cesarini, Giuliano, Cardinal 156, 161 Giorgio 156 Česma, river 53-4, 57 Cetina 140, 142-3 Cetina, county 140-2, 151 Chakan, son of Mergen 68 Charles IV, king of Bohemia 129 Cheile Turzii see Tordai hasadék, Thorenburger Schlucht

182 

Secul ar Power and Sacr al Authorit y in Medieval East- Centr al Europe

Cilli, count Ulrich II 164, 168 counts of 159, 161 Cirkvena 53-4, 153 Cledin, ban 38 Čokeša, Bogdan 175 Coloman, duke 41-2 Contamine, Philippe 97 Crikvenica 93 Crkvica, Peter of 34, 153-65 Croatia 11, 14, 19, 29, 31, 38-41, 45, 86, 90, 129-31, 133-4, 137, 139-42, 145-6, 149 Croatia, southern 138-9, 141 Csenyizi, John 108 Csetneki, noble family 108 Csókházi Csók, noble family of the HontPázmány kindred 105 Mathias of the kindred of Hontpázmány 102 Cudar, noble family 108 Čudinić, Matt, citizen of Senj 92 Čupor, Demetrius, Bishop of Knin 161 Cvet, comes terrestris of Križevci 64 kindred in county of Križevci 64 Czech lands 119, 129, 131, 135 Dabiživ 173 Dalmatia 32, 37-8, 40-2, 45-6, 48, 112, 131, 137-9, 142, 147 Dancs, Gregory, son of John 109 John 102, 107, 109 Nicholas cantor 109 noble family 105 Danube, river 168, 170, 172-3 Dehojević, Nicholas, knez of the Vlachs 143 Delnei, George prebend 109 noble family of kindred of Tekele 102 Demeter sacerdos, son of George 68 comes terrestris of Križevci 67-9 son of John, comes terrestris 65 Denmark 130 Derencsényi, noble family 108 Peter 108 Dicmo, near Klis 150 Dimitrius, son of Dabiživ 173 Dočkal, Kamilo 86-7 Dombo, town in Banat 168 Dominic of Zagreb 135 son of John 87 Donja Lomnica 30, 71-2, 75-6, 84 Draganac 53 Drava, river 39, 40-1, 52, 55, 61 Druget, noble family 107-8 Dubrava, estate 34, 49-50, 52-4, 59 Dubravčić, Cvita, widow of Viganj 143 Viganj 143 Dubravčići, Vlach family 143 Dubrovnik 14, 33, 111-4, 116-24, 138-9, 169 Duby, Georges 12 Đurđević, Damian 171, 176

Đurko, treasurer 168 Dvorno mjesto 75-6 Elizabeth, widow of John Hunyadi 173 England 17, 98 Enyickei, Benedict, son of George 106 noble family 103, 108 Erdőbénye 20 Eugene IV, Pope 156, 160-1 Europe 17, 23, 27, 35 East-Central 11, 14, 98 Eastern 81 South-Eastern 141 Western 97-8 Fabian, son of Saul 67 Fáji, Helen, wife of George Szendi 102 Farkaševac 53 Felician, Archbishop of Esztergom 50 Florin, brother, prior of the Holy Savior 87 Forez, county 97 France 24, 98 Francis, chancellor of count John Nelipčić 150-1 Franconia 130 Frankapan, count Bartholomew IX 93-4 count Dujam IV 93-4 count John V (Hans) 90 count John VI (Hans) 142-3 count John VII 89, 91 count John VIII 94 count Martin IV 94 count Nicholas VI 94 count Nicholas VII 89 count Sigismund 93 count Stephen I 90 countess Elisabeth 94 noble family 31, 34, 85-7, 90-1, 93, 95, 142, 147 Friesach 38 Füzi, Jacob 103 Füzi, Thomas 103 Garadna, in Abaúj 100 Genoa 119 George of Modruš, brother and prior of the Holy Salvation 89 son of George 66 son of Michael of Drenova 33, 134 Gentius, Illyrian king 20-1 Germany 97, 119 Glogoncamellék 66 Glogovnica, river 51, 66 Goçe, Đore de 112 Nicholas de 124 Gojković, goldsmith Živko 115 Golemović, George 169 Oliver 169 Golubac, fortress 172-4 Gömör, county 30, 98, 100-10

183

Index

Gönc 94 Gondula, Benedict, son of Marin, son of Nifiko de 111-24 Marin, son of Nifiko de 111-2 Nicholas, son of Nifiko de 112 Nifiko de 111 Gorizia, in Italy 138 Gornja Lomnica 72 Gornji Miklouš, village 54 Gradec, civil part of Zagreb 135 Gregory IX, Pope 41 brother, prior of the St. Nicholas 87 son Mike 65-6 Gudovac 53 Gumnik 59 Gurevich, Aaron 19 Gúti, family 165 Gutkeled, Stephen 29, 37, 42, 44 Guy, comes terrestris 65 Gvozd 85 Gyármáns, kindred 100, 106 Györffy, György 39 Hahót, Nicholas, ban of Slavonia 66 Hangácsi, Albert 163 Hangonyi, noble family 105 Paul 107 Stephen prebend 109 Haram, town in Banat 168 Harun-al-Rashid 24-5 Hegen, comes terrestris of Križevci 64 kindred in county of Križevci 64 Hegyaljai Baglyas, noble family of the HontPázmány kindred 105 Peter 102 Heidelberg 133-4 Helen, the mother of George Ásgúti 102 Heltai, Gáspár 26 Henry IV of France 24 Holy Roman Empire 98 Hood, Robin 25 Hranić, duke Sandalj of Bosnia 14, 33, 111-6, 118-24 Hugrin, Archbishop of Split 42-3, 45-7 Hum 33, 139 Hungary 11, 13-4, 17, 19-21, 27, 29, 31, 33-4, 37-9, 42, 45-6, 55, 61-2, 72, 86, 97-9, 102, 108, 130-1, 137, 141, 153, 158, 160, 163, 165, 167-8, 171-7 Hungary, kings of Béla III 38-9 Béla IV 31-2, 37, 42-6, 68 Charles Robert 58 Coloman I 38-9 Emeric 38 Ladislas I, St. 18-9, 21, 40, 50 Ladislas of Naples 31, 66 Ladislas Posthoumus 27 Ladislas V 168

Louis I 21-2, 31, 66, 91 Mary 66, 68-9 Matthias I ‘Corvinus’ 18, 21-6, 171, 174-7 Sigismund 31, 59, 67-9, 77, 79, 104-5, 109-10 Stephen I, St. 21 Władisłas 27 Hungary, Northern 23 North-Eastern 30, 109-10 Southern 40 Upper (present-day Slovakia) 98, 130 Western 19 Hunyadi, John (János) 22, 34, 154-63, 168, 173 noble family 155 Hus, Jan 33, 129-30, 132-6 Italy 131, 138, 163 Ivanić, estate 34, 49-50, 52-3, 58-9 Ivanja Reka 54 Jacobson, Roman 19 James, prior 89-90 Jarčenica 75-6 Jerome, St. 133 Ježevo, village 169 John, count of Okić 83 friar 47 Julian de Lucha, merchant from Senj 92 Jurić, Šime 143 Kabal 53 Kalocsa, the archbishopric 41 Kamenice, near Litoměřice in northern Bohemia 136 Kán, Gyula, duke 42 Kantakuzin, Thomas, brother of Irene 169 Kapi, noble family 108 Karakó, castle district 62 Karin, prior 93 Kazinczy, Ferenc 27 Kingdom of Hungary-Croatia see Hungary and Croatia Kinizsi, Demetrius 108 family 105 Kalith 102 Margaret 120 Michael 108 Stephen 108 Thomas 108 Klaniczay, Gábor 18 Klis, county 140-4, 150-1 Ključ 117 Knin, city 131, 161 county 140 Kodály, Zoltán 27-8 Kolozsvár (Cluj-Napoca) 23-4 Komin (Pyrri) 52 Komuševac, village 53 Koprivno, winter pasture 143

184 

Secul ar Power and Sacr al Authorit y in Medieval East- Centr al Europe

Kosača, ruling dynasty 115 Kotor 120 Kovačevići, noble family 171 Kővágótöttös 20 Kovin (Kewe), town in Banat 168 Krakow 33-4, 133-4, 154, 162 Kristó, Gyula 38-9, 46 Kristóf, Ilona 164 Kriza, Ildikó 23, 26 Križevci, county 34, 63-9, 133, 153 Krka, river 138 Kupa, river 71 Kutina 54 Kutná Hora 132 Lackland, John 25 Laslovar, town in Banat 168 Lasocki, Nicholas 162, 163 Lazarevići, dynasty 32, 171 Ledenice, castle 93-4 Leipzig 133-4 Lelacius 90 Leszteméri, Elisabeth, the wife of Jacob Szendi 103 Ljubotina 34, 85-6 Lomnica, river 75 Lomnica-Odra, river 72 Lucas, son of Martin 65-7 Lucca 119 Luka, county 140 Lupoglav 53, 59 Majur 53 Malai, family 105 John 102 Marcolf 25 Margaret, widow of Paul Špirančić 142, 144 Martin of Zagreb 134 of Kamenica 136 of Križevci 133-4 comes of Križevci 63 Martinovac, family 68-9 Master Benedict 68 Matthew, kindred in county of Križevci 64, 67 son of Pezk 64, 67 Maurice, ban 38 Medvedgrad, castle 164 Mehmed II, sultan 167, 169-70 Meissen 130 Melléte, village 101 Mellétei, Michael 101 noble family 101, 103, 106 Stephen 101 Michael, city count of Split 43, 46 Mihailović, Constantine 175 Mihajlović, Rostislav 42 Mikcs, ban of Slavonia 65 Mike, son of Matthew 65-7 Miketinc, de, Paul, son of Nicholas 67

Mikulanić, John, burgher of Senj 88 Milan 119 Miszlai, Bartholomew, son of Emeric 108 Emeric 108 Modruš 85, 89-90, 142 Mohács 27-8 Moravia 130-1 Moslavačka Gora 54 Mount Athos 169 Mura, river 41 Nádasdi, noble family 103 Naples 31, 66, 119 Narta, village 53, 57 Nasreddin Hodzha 25 Nehaj, fort 91 Nelipčić, count John 142-3, 146-7, 150 Neretva, river 138 Netherlands 98 Nevesinje 117 Nicholas V, Pope 161-2 of Ancona, a citizen of Senj 89 bishop of Krk 89 son of Mike 31, 65-6, 68-9 Nikolić, Duke Gregory 113 Nitra 20 Nova Pavlica 176 Novi, the town of 94 Novo Brdo 167 Nürnberg 17 Obrež (Obres) 64, 66 Olsavicai, noble family 101, 104, 108 Omiš 139-41 Orbini, Mavro 170-2 Orišac 144 Ostfi of Poganac, John 69 Ottoman Empire 26, 30, 33, 167, 169-70, 176-7 P, comes 73 Pakrac 38 Pannonia 51-2 Paris 131 Patkóskő 20 Paul litteratus, son of George 66-7 son of Mike 65-6 son of Nicholas 66-7 Pavlović, noble family 111, 121 Radoslav 118 Pelbart of Timişoara (Temesvár) 20 Perényi, Emeric 108 noble family 108 Peter the Great, Tsar 25 litteratus, son of Nicholas 66 Sdenconis de Knin 131 son of Paul called the Devil (Wrag) 75 Petrova Gora 85 Petrovaradin 136 Petrovinec (Tetreunc), river 64

Index

Pezk, comes of the Matthew kindred 31, 63-4, 67 Philip, prior 94 Pilis, county 99 Pipo (Scolari) of Ozora 31, 67 Pisa 119 Poland 13, 98 Poljana 64-6 Požežena, town in Banat 168 Prague 33, 129-36 Prelsa, comes terrestris of Križevci 64 kindred in county of Križevci 64 Prodanello, Theodor de 112 Püspökszentlászló 220 Rada, daughter of Krasnelin 88 Radivoj, uncle of Stephen Tomašević 175 Radoslav, nephew of Radoslav 169 treasurer 168-70 Radovan, archdeacon, citizen of Senj 92 nephew of Radoslav 169 Ratković, logothete Stephen 33, 170, 172, 174-5, 177 Rátót, Roland 29, 31, 37, 44-6 Raven, estate 67 canon Gregory 68 Michael, prothonotary of Križevci 69 Reims 17 Resava, fortress 172 Resti, Clement de 112 Rhineland 130 Richard I Lionheart 25 Roger, archbishop of Split 47 Roman Empire 51 Romania 141 Rome 120, 156, 159-60, 162-3, 165 Roskoványi, noble family 101-2, 104, 108 Paul 107 Rovišće 33, 53-4, 134 Rozgonyi, John, the treasurer of Hungary 108 noble family 108 Rudnik, town 168 Salgói, noble family 101 Samarica, village 54 Samoborsko Gorje 71 Samuel, emperor 137 Sanković, noble family 111 Sáros (Šariš), county 98, 100-10 Sárvári, noble family 103 Saul, son of Pezk 64, 67 Sava, river 39, 52, 54-5, 71 Saxony 98, 130 Ščitarjevo see Andautonia Scotland 98 Sebesi, noble family 108 Senj 14, 31, 34, 85-95, 142-4 Šepkovčica, site 76-7, 83-4 Serbia 11, 29-33, 111, 139, 141, 167-72, 174-7 despotate 30-1, 168-72, 174-7 Serres, town in Greece 169

185 Sfondratis, Bartholomew de 173 Shkodër 120 Šibenik 139-40 Simeon, emperor 137 Sisak (Siscia) 52, 76 Sišćani, village 53, 57 Slavonia 14, 29, 31-2, 34, 37-41, 44-6, 50, 55, 57, 61, 63, 68, 72, 86, 130, 134, 137, 153, 155, 159, 164 Western 41 Slovakia 98, 130 Smederevo, town 32, 168-9, 171-2, 174-7 Somogy, county 40 Somosi, noble family 108 Sopron 106 Sóvári Sós, noble family 108 Sphrantzes, George 173 Split 32, 34, 37, 42-7, 138-9 the archbishopric 41 Srebrenica 112, 171 Stančići, noble family 171 Stanislav, vicar 89 Stara Marča 53 Štefanje, village 53 Stephen II, ban of Bosnia 140 bishop of Zagreb 57 Stephen Ostoja, king of Bosnia 111, 114, 121 Stephen Thomas, king of Bosnia 171, 174-5 Stephen Uroš IV Dušan, emperor of Serbia 111 Stephen, comes of Križevci, son of Ban Paul 65 prince of Slavonia 31, 66 prior 88, 90 Strázs, noble family 102 Šubići Bribirski, family 139 Suha Kozica 92 Superanzio, Doge Giovanni of Venice 139 Sutorina 117 Sveti Ivan Žabno 53-4 Sveti Martin 136 Švica 93-4 Swabia 130 Sweden 130 Syrmia 136 Sywort, Jan 135 Szabolcs, county 101, 104-5, 109 Szatmár, county 101 Szeged 174 Szendi, George 102 Jacob, son of George 103, 106, 108 noble family 101-2 Peter, son of George 107 Szentkirályi, Elisabeth, the wife of Nicholas Básti 102 Francis 102 noble family 103 Szilágyi, Michael 171, 174 Színi, Stephen 103 Szolnok, county 40 Sztropkó, castle 107

186 

Secul ar Power and Sacr al Authorit y in Medieval East- Centr al Europe

Tagliacozzo, Giovanni Berardi di, Cardinal 158 Talovac, noble family 142, 147 Peter 142-3 Vladislas (Lacko) 142-3 Tarkői, noble family 108 Tekele, kindred 100, 102, 105 Terebes, castle 108 Terencio, Lawrence de Cuane de 90 Ternyei, noble family 101-2, 104 Theophilus, judge 168-9 Thessaloniki 169 Thomas, Archdeacon of Split 47 son of Stephen, episcopal vicar of Zagreb 67 Thomasius, Peter 171 Thuringia 130 Tokaji, noble family 103 Tomašević, Stephen, son of King Stephen Tomaš of Bosnia 174-6 Tomašić, Dmitar 177 Tomori, Andrew 102 family 106 Nicholas 102 Toplica, John of 157-8 Tordai hasadék (Thorenburger Schlucht, Cheile Turzii) 20 Torna (Turňa), county 99-100, 103 Tornaljai, family 106 Jacob 109 Nicholas 104, 107, 109 Tornallya, in Gömör 100 Transylvania 19, 20, 23, 99, 104, 109 Trevisan, Ludovico, Cardinal 156, 158 Trikalski, Mark 177 Trocsányi, noble family 101, 104 Trogir 32, 34, 37, 42-7, 139 Trsat 15, 31, 138, 141-3, 146-7, 149-51 Türje, Denis 29, 37, 41, 43 Turda 20 Turopolje 14, 30, 71-3, 75, 77-8, 82-3 Tursun Beg 173, 176 Tvrtko I of Bosnia 139 II of Bosnia 122 Ugocsa, county 101, 164 Ung (Užska), county 30, 99, 101, 104, 106-7, 109-10 Urban, brother 87

Vác 160 Văleni (Magyarvalkó) 19 Valentin, son of George 67 Vályi, Andrew 108 family 106 Várad (Oradea) 18, 34, 156, 164 Váradi, Peter 164 Varaždin 52, 55 county 40 Varese, Marquess de 173 Varna 156 Vas, county 40, 62, 106 Vehojević, Dminoslav 143, 150 Veliki Turopoljski lug 72, 82 Veliko Korenovo 53 Veszprém, county 106, 110 Vienna 131, 133-6 Vitez, John 34, 155, 156-65 Vlad II Dracul, Duke of Walachia 160 Vlaška draga 34, 85, 91-2 Vučitrn 177 Vukčić, Stephen 115 Vukomeričke Gorice 71-2 Warneńczyk, Władisław 27-8 Wenceslas IV, king of Bohemia 132 Wycliffe, John 129-30, 132, 134 Zadar 31, 34, 66, 140 Zagreb 30, 38, 41, 49, 55, 71-2, 76, 133-5, 138, 143, 155, 157, 161 the bishopric 34, 41, 49-51, 135, 159, 161, 164 the chapter of 66, 68, 135, 155, 159, 161, 164 Zahić, Stephen 169 Zala, county 40 Zemplén (Zemplín), county 100, 103 Zombori, Anna, sister of Catherine 103 Catherine, the wife of Peter Cécei 102 Zrmanja, river 138 Žrnov, town 172 Žrnovnica 93-4 Zvolen, Bishop Benedict of 161