VRATNICE ANDRIJE BUVINE U SPLITSKOJ KATEDRALI: 1214.-2014. THE DOORS OF ANDRIJA BUVINA IN SPLIT CATHEDRAL: 1214-2014

Zbornik radova s međunarodnog znanstvenog skupa održanog u Splitu od 23. do 24. rujna 2014. Proceedings of the International Scholarly Conference held in Split from 23rd to the 24th of September 2014

Uredili / Editors JOŠKO BELAMARIĆ, GUIDO TIGLER

KNJIŽEVNI KRUG INSTITUT ZA POVIJEST UMJETNOSTI SPLIT – 2020 Romaničke drvene vratnice splitske katedrale (fotomontaža Ž. Bačić) / The Romanesque wooden doors of Split Cathedral

9 Judit Gál, Mirko Sardelić

ARCHBISHOP BERNARD (1200-1217) BETWEEN SPLIT AND *

UDK: 726.6(497.583Split):272-722.51 Judit Gál, Mirko Sardelić Izvorni znanstveni rad Hungarian Academy of Sciences Rad predan: 18. 10. 2014. »Lendület« Medieval Hungarian Economic History Research Team Zavod za povijesne znanosti HAZU u Zagrebu

This article is dedicated to the life and office of Bernard of Perugia who was archbis- hop of Split and the commissioner of the wooden door of Split cathedral. In several sections it presents his life, starting with his Italian years, mostly spent at the University, up to his final days in Split. More importantly, it analyzes Bernard’s role within the regional context, and explains his two-fold function. Namely, he was both the exponent of the , representing his political interests in , and a prelate whose actions corresponded tightly with the vigorous policy of the great pope Innocent III. However, we thought it would be appropriate to begin with a short introduction about the role of the archbishops of Split within the , as it is very important for understan- ding the role of Bernard as well. Keywords: Bernard of Perugia; Split; king Emeric of Hungary; king Andrew II of Hungary; dualist heresy; medieval Bosnia; bishop Treguan; siege of

THE ROLE OF THE ARCHBISHOPS OF SPLIT IN THEIR CITY AND HUNGARY IN THE TWELFTH AND THE THIRTEENTH CENTURY

The archbishops played an important role in the life of Split from the early middle ages. They were not only the ecclesiastical leaders, but they also took part in the secular life of their community. They had important positions in the foreign

* This study was supported in part by the Croatian Science Foundation within the Project »Sources, Manuals and Studies for Croatian History from the Middle Ages to the End of the Long Nineteenth Century« (IP-2014-09-6547; PI Dr Damir Karbić) and in part by the National Research, Development and Innovation Office of Hungary under the project »NKFIH, K 115896«. It was also supported by »Lendület« Medieval Hungarian Economic History Research Team of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Research Centre of Humanities, Institute of History. Last but not least, our thanks for support are also due to the University of Western Australia and the ARC Centre of Excellence for the History of Emotions (Europe 1100-1800).

253 affairs of their city as well. The cities of Dalmatia often sent their (arch)bishops to serve as diplomats, such as in the case of negotiations before King Coloman entered Split in 1105.1 Their role was based on the landholdings of the Church, and the charters were dated by the archbishops’ tenure of office. Even as early as the tenth and eleventh centuries, in municipal documents their names were given a honorary mention after the kings or princes and before the city magistrates. They were members of the decision-making assemblies and witnesses to or issuers of the charters in internal affairs of the city. They promoted the founding and the defense of monasteries.2 The Croatian royal dynasty, the Tripimirović, also maintained very close relationships with the cities’ bishops.3 The bishops had very important roles in diplomacy, especially in communication between the cities and their rulers.4 Their role reflected the changes in the rule and governance of Dalmatia. King Coloman of Hungary was crowned king of and Dalmatia in Biograd in 1102 and three years later he seized Split.5 The city was under the rule of the kings of Hungary for most of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, except for the periods between 1116 and 1136, and between 1167 and 1180. The royal court paid special attention to the archbishopric as a result of the role of the Church in the city and its metropolitan status in Northern and Central Dalmatia. Moreover, the prelates held their offices for life, while the secular rulers of the city were usually elected only for a year. From Manasses (cc. 1113-1116) to John of Hahót-Buzád kindred (1266-1294) almost every archbishop of the city was either from the mainland of Hungary or an Italian in close relationship with the royal court. The election of the prelates was not only an ecclesiastical matter, but because of the complex role of the archbishops both the laity and the clergy took part in the process.6 Moreover, both the city and the king had a common interest in the election of an archbishop, who maintained good relationship with the royal court. On one hand, the ecclesiastical leaders of the city played an important role in diplomacy and they could earn the favor of the kings, and on the other they were supposed to represent royal policy in the city.7 It appears that until the election of archbishop

1 D. Karbić, M. Matijević-Sokol and J. Sweeney, Thomae archidiaconi Spalatensis Historia Salonitanorum atque Spalatinorum pontificium, CEU Press, , 2006, p. 96. Hereafter Historia Salonitana. 2 J. Dusa, The Medieval Dalmatian Episcopal Cities: Development and Transforma- tion, Peter Lang, New York, 1991, pp. 71-72. 3 N. Budak, »Foundations and Donations as a Link between Croatia and the Dalma- tian Cities in the Early Middle Ages (9th-11th c.)«, Jahrbuch für Geschichte Osteuropas, LV (2007), p. 490. 4 I. Strohal, Pravna povijest dalmatinskih gradova, Dionička tiskara, Zagreb, 1913, pp. 280-323; J. Dusa, o. c., pp. 76-83. 5 F. Makk, The Árpáds and the Comneni. Political Relations between Hungary and Byzantium in the 12th Century, Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, 1988, p. 14. 6 G. Novak, Povijest Splita, vol. I, Matica hrvatska, Split, 1957, p. 373. 7 J. Gál, »The Roles and Loyalties of the Bishops and Archbishops of Dalmatia (1102- 1301)«, Hungarian Historical Review, III (2014), 3, pp. 483-485, 486-489.

254 Ugrin as a comes of the city in 1245, the royal court of Hungary had not influenced the election of the secular leaders of the city. The fact that neither the bans nor the dukes of Dalmatia settled in the coastal lands resulted in the lack of a permanent magistrate from Hungary in the city which consequently gave a special position to the archbishops.8 The kings of Hungary or the dukes of Dalmatia visited the coastal lands rela- tively infrequently. These visits to Dalmatia had several functions: the personal presence and related representative acts could have played a role in securing and expressing the rule of the kings over the region symbolically.9 The decisions regarding the people who accompanied the kings and dukes during their visits from the kingdom were important, as were the decisions concerning who, from Dalmatia, joined their retinues. The archbishops of Split were part of the royal entourage visiting Dalmatia and they played a role during the princely and royal entries made during the twelfth and thirteenth centuries.10 The cult of the royal saints of Hungary could be used for legitimization of the new dynasty as a symbol of the royal power over the region.11 The cult of the first king of Hungary, , appeared in Dalmatia during the twelfth century relatively soon after King Coloman assumed control over the region. The archbishops of Split played a major role in the appearance of the cult of Saint Stephen of Hungary. Archbishop Gaudius launched the construction of the church of Saints Cosmas and Damian in present-day Kaštel Gomilica near Split, and archbishop-elect Absalom consecrated it in 1160.12 This church kept the of Saint Stephen of Hungary.13 The kings of Hungary were generous towards the Church in the coastal lands during the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. The analysis of the distribution of royal and ducal grants shows that the archbishopric of Split had a prominent place in the royal policy pursued in Dalmatia. Thirty-nine royal grants to the Church are

8 J. Gál, »’Qui erat gratiosus aput eum’: A spliti érsekek szerepe az Árpádok királysá- gában (1102-1301)«, Magister Historiae: Válogatott tanulmányok a 2012-ben és 2013- megrendezett középkorral foglalkozó mesterszakos hallgatói konferenciák előadásaiból, ELTE BTK TDI, Budapest, 2014, pp. 69-70. 9 E. Kantorowitz, »The ‘King’s Advent’ and the Enigmatic Panels in the Doors of Santa Sabina«, The Art Bulletin, XXVI (1944), pp. 207-231; T. F. Ruiz, A King Travels: Festive Traditions in Late Medieval and Early Modern , Princeton University Press, Princeton, 2012. 10 T. Smičiklas, Codex diplomaticus regni Croatiae, Sclavoniae et Dalmatiae, vol. I-XVIII, HAZU, Zagreb, 1904-1934, II. pp. 308-309; 309-310. Hereafter CD. 11 T. Sekelj Ivančan, »Župna crkva … sancti Stephani regis circa Drauam – prilog tumačenju širenja ugarskoga političkog utjecaja južno od Drave«, Prilozi Instituta za ar- heologiju u Zagrebu, XXV (2008), pp. 97-118. 12 D. Farlati, Illyricum sacrum, vol. III, Sebastiano Coleti, Venetiis, 1765, pp. 172, 180. 13 J. Belamarić, »Capsella reliquiarum (1160 g.) iz Sv. Kuzme i Damjana u Kaštel Gomilici«, Studije iz srednjovjekovne i renesansne umjetnosti na Jadranu, Književni krug, Split, 2001, p. 201.

255 known so far from the first two centuries of the rule of Hungary in Dalmatia in- cluding new donations and confirmed grants. Seventeen of these royal grants were given to the archbishopric of Split, by far the largest number of grants comparing to other ecclesiastical institutions in Dalmatia. Moreover, a recent analysis of the grants which were not just confirmations, shows that the archbishopric of Split received the majority of the newly donated lands. On the other hand, the sources also testify that the archbishops, who were connected to the royal court, could personally influence the grant giving.14

BERNARD’S LIFE IN

Bernard was born ca. 1140 in Perugia, where a palace in the city walls still bears his name. After he received his early education, he joined the Benedictine order in the Santa Maria di Farneto monastery of the Chiusi diocese.15 Soon after that, with the permission of the elders, he went to Bologna Academy to study theology and canon law. mentions that he spent ‘thirty years and more’ at the Academy, which Farlati clarifies stating that it is to be un- derstood that after he had gained the title of doctor he held the position of professor of theology or canon law.16 Unfortunately nothing more is known about his life in Italy except for the fact that he had ‘many fine and valuable books, which he bestowed upon his nephews. He also bought them a large house and tower by the eastern gate of the city of Perugia, and endowed them well during his lifetime.’17

BERNARD’S EARLY YEARS IN HUNGARY

The relationship between Bernard and Hungary can be dated back to 1192. Bernard arrived to the country with Gregory de Sancto Apostolo, who came to King Béla III’s court as a papal legate with the authority to perform King La- dislas I’s . Bernard, who was a remarkably learned man of his age,

14 J. Gál, Hungarian Horizons in the History of the Church in Dalmatia: The Role of the Royal Grants to the Church, MA Thesis, Central European University, Budapest, 2014. 15 Monastery Santa Maria di Farneta in Val di Chiana, situated between Perugia and Siena. Etymology of the toponym Farneto/Farneta, commonly found in central Italy, is related to ‘la farnia’ – oak tree (Quercus robur L.). 16 Historia Salonitana, p. 153; D. Farlati, III, p. 229. 17 Historia Salonitana, p. 153; D. Farlati, III, p. 229.

256 accompanied Gregory as a chaplain.18 Bernard was probably sent to Hungary more than one time, according to Thomas the Archdeacon, but only the visit from 1192 can be surely identified.19 His frequent presence at the royal court made him well known and acknowledged among the secular and ecclesiastical elite of the

18 It could be confusing even for the contemporaries that three papal legates, who were relatives and all named Gregory, were sent on missions at the end of the twelfth century: Gregory de Crescentio Caballi Marmorei, his uncle Gregory de Sancto Apostolo, and his nephew Gregory de Crescentio the Cardinal-deacon of the church of Saint Theodor. See: W. Maleczek, Papst und Kardinalkolleg von 1191 bis 1216, Verlag der ÖAW, Wien, 1984, pp. 91, 93, 183, 339. 19 According to Archdeacon Thomas, Bernard was sent to Hungary frequently, for the first time in 1192 with Cardinal-legate Gregory de Crescentio. Daniele Farlati emphasized that Bernard came to Hungary at least three times with Gregory de Crescentio. He thought that Bernard had visited the country in 1188, 1192 and around 1198. Recently Mirjana Matijević-Sokol accepted Farlati’s opinion when she emphasized that Thomas the Arch- deacon could have confused Pope Celestine III with Pope Innocent III when he explained Bernard’s first visit to Hungary in his work. Ivan Majnarić proved that Thomas, and also Daniele Farlati, confused Legate Gregory de Sancto Apostolo with Legate Gregory de Crescentio Caballi Marmorei in their works. The former visited Hungary twice, in 1189 (or 1191) and 1192, the latter came to Hungary around 1200. The Hungarian historiography did not pay much attention to the question of Bernard’s frequent visits to Hungary, except for his visit in 1192, and the other when he became the archbishop of Split. On the other hand, it is a generally established view that Gregory de Crescentio visited Hungary for the first time around 1200. The idea of an earlier visit has not even presented itself among Hungarian historians so far. Gergely Kiss and Gábor Barabás, two experts of the role of the medieval papal legates in Hungary, clearly pointed out that Gregory de Crescentio’s first visit could have happened in 1200, and previously Gregory de Sancto Apostolo visited the country in 1189 and 1192. Considering the results of the previous research and the sources, it can be pointed out that there is no source from the middle ages that would prove neither Farlati’s data about the visit of Gregory de Crescentio to Hungary in 1197-1198 nor his hypothesis about Bernard’s three visits to Hungary. It can be also highlighted that Thomas the Archdeacon is the only source for Bernard’s participation in any mission of a papal leg- ate. If we consider these facts and that Gregory visited Hungary in 1200 for the first time, and Bernard arrived to Split in the same year, it is rather possible that they could arrived together to Hungary in that year. The question of the dates of Bernard’s visits to Hungary and their exact number needs to be left open for further research, but as a conclusion it can be said that the only sure visits of Bernard is the mission in 1192, and his arrival to Split in 1200. See: Historia Salonitana, pp. 134-136; D. Farlati, III, p. 230; G. Pauler, A magyar nemzet története az Árpád-házi királyok alatt, Magyar Könyvkiadók és Könyvterjesztők Egyesülése, Budapest, 1899, vol. II, p. 21; G. Barabás, Das Papsttum und Ungarn in der ersten Hälfte des 13. Jahrhunderts (ca. 1198- ca. 1241) Päpstliche Einflussnahme – Zusam- menwirken – Interessengegensätze, PhD Thesis, Friedrich Alexander Universität, Nürnberg, 2013, pp. 481-482, 487; G. Barabás, »‘Et maxime mediante viro venerabili’ Pápai legátusok Magyarországon a 13. század első felében. A pápai képviselet fogalmi-jogi tipológiájához«, Kor-Szak-Határ. A Kárpát-medence és a szomszédos birodalmak (900-1800), PTE, Pécs, 2013, pp. 59-74; G. Kiss, »Les aspects des activités des légats pontificaux en hongrie aux XIe-XIIIe siècles«, Chronica (Szeged), 9 (2011), pp. 37-53; M. Matijević-Sokol, Toma arhiđakon i njegovo djelo: rano doba hrvatske povijest, Naklada Slap, Jastrebarsko, 2002, p. 188; I. Majnarić, Papinski legati na istočnojadranskoj obali (1159.-1204.), Hrvatski institut za povijest, Zagreb, 2008, pp. 128-132.

257 country.20 Not only the higher nobility but the king himself was influenced by Bernard’s outstanding literacy and personality. Béla III entrusted him the education of his son Emeric, the heir apparent to the throne.21 Emeric was not a child at that time, for he was probably born in the first half the 1170s as the first child of Béla III and .22 Bernard fulfilled his task and around the time of the coronation of Emeric he returned to Italy.23 Bernard was not the first example of a foreign prelate to be appointed a tutor to a Hungarian prince in medieval Hungary. Among others, Saint Stephen, the first king of the country, had been instructed by Saint Adalbert of Prague for a few years. Later Saint Stephen entrusted Gerard Sagredo to be the tutor to his son, Emeric. Gerard was a Venetian-born Benedictine monk who arrived in Hungary most probably in the 1020s, then became the first bishop of Csanád and was ca- nonized along with King Stephen and Prince Emeric in 1083.24 Bernard continued the line of highly educated tutors of Hungarian royalty. During the first years of his stay in Hungary, before being elected in Split, Bernard was an influential member of the royal court and of Emeric’s entourage. Thomas the Archdeacon mentions he was known of his bibliophilism and great literacy, which left its mark in Hungary. Bernard probably settled in , which was a royal and archbishopric center, when he was Emeric’s educator.25 He donated a codex to the church of Saint Adalbert in Esztergom around 1196, after a fire destroyed this church and its property.26 The codex, which is the oldest piece of the Cathedral Library of Esztergom, contains three popular commentaries of Cantica Canticorum.27 The fact that makes this codex even more special is that it also preserved the following dedication:

hunc · codi|cem ·| P (ern)h(a)rdus ·| S(an)c(t)o · Adal|berto28

Hungarian scholars’ theories about the origin of the codex can be divided into three groups. The early research emphasized that Bernard himself wrote the codex, because it was written by a single hand, after the fire destroyed the library of the

20 D. Farlati, III, p. 230. 21 Historia Salonitana, p. 136. 22 M. Wertner, Az Árpádok családi története, Pleitz Pál, Nagy-Becskerek, 1892, p. 354. 23 G. Szabados, »Imre és András«, Századok, CXXXIII (1999), pp. 85, 86. 24 G. Györffy, Szent István és műve, Gondolat, Budapest, 1977, pp. 296, 297; 326. 25 C. Csapodi, »Az esztergomi kódexfestő műhely a 12. században«, Magyar Könyv- szemle, CXIV (1998), 1, pp. 41-43. 26 E. Varjú, »Bernát spalatoi érsek kódexe az esztergomi főegyházmegye könyvtá- rában«, Magyar Könyvszemle 1902. pp. 199-202; W. Tünde, »Perugiai Bernát kódexe és a Pray-kódex helye a középkori magyar könyvfestészetben«, Ars Hungarica 1975, pp. 197-209. 27 Cathedral Library, Esztergom, Ms II 3. 28 Bernard gave this codex to (the church of) Saint Adalbert.

258 church.29 Others thought that the manuscript could be connected to a scriptorium in Bavaria under the influence of Salzburg.30 According to the third theory, the codex could have been made in Esztergom and belonged to the early examples of Hungarian illuminated manuscripts, considering the written culture of the arc- hiepiscopal see and the weak relationship between Béla III’s court and Bavaria.31 It is possible that the aforementioned codex is not the only example of Bernard’s work that was preserved in Hungary. Dragutin Kniewald, a liturgical historian, assumed that a certain part of the Pray Codex32 could be Bernard’s work against heretics that was mentioned by Thomas the Archdeacon.33 He believed that the archbishop of Split could add his text to the manuscript when he was the abbot of Somogyvár (1204- ca. 1210) because the codex was brought to Somogyvár after its original home, the abbey of Boldva, had been destroyed by a fire in 1203.34

BERNARD AND THE WAR FOR THE THRONE OF HUNGARY

Béla III died in 1196, around the time when Bernard probably returned to Italy, and he left the throne to Emeric, while his other son Andrew received lands and castles for leading a new crusade. Andrew however was not satisfied with his heritage and aimed at becoming the new king instead of Emeric without any legal basis. Duke Andrew, according to the contemporary sources, unexpectedly attacked Emeric, the king’s army was defeated in 1197 around Mački (Macsek) in Slavonia, and Andrew obtained the duchy of Croatia and Dalmatia. He created a new duchy which was based on his military success and power, and enlarged his territory during the spring of 1198 when he seized a certain part of Hum.35 During the struggle, Andrew organized his own court and appointed his magistrates, and

29 E. Varjú, o. c. (26), p. 200. 30 T. Wehli, o. c. (26), pp. 199, 200. 31 Cs. Csapodi, o. c. (25), pp. 41, 42. 32 The Hungarian Pray Codex is a collection of medieval manuscripts which can be dated back to the end of the twelfth century. It was named after György Pray, a Jesuit abbot, who discovered the codex in 1770. The codex is kept in the Hungarian National Széchenyi Library in Budapest. Among others, the manuscript contains the oldest known and surviving contiguous Hungarian text: the Funeral Sermon and Prayer. See: P. Radó, Libri liturgici manuscripti bibliothecarum Hungariae et limitropharum regionum, Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, 1973, pp. 40-76. 33 K. (Dragutin) Kniewald, »A Pray-kódex tartalma, kora és jelentősége«, Magyar Könyvszemle, LXIII (1939), pp. 418, 419; D. Kniewald, Vjerodostojnost latinskih izvora o bosanskim krstjanima, JAZU, Zagreb, 1949, pp. 25, 26. 34 D. Kniewald, o. c. (33), p. 419. 35 V. Klaić, »O hercegu Andriji«, Rad, CXXXVI (1898), pp. 204-209.

259 as a result both Emeric and Andrew had their own officials in Dalmatia at the same time for the same offices.36 Duke Andrew did not only manage to create a new duchy for himself but he also changed the custom of ruling and the relationship with the Church. The lack of sources from the period makes it hard to reach firm conclusions about the election of the archbishops of Split, but it can be assumed that there were no direct orders from the royal court concerning the person who should be elected in the twelfth century.37 In contrast, Andrew tried to strengthen his rule in Dalmatia and maintain good relationships with the local elite.38 He wanted to win the support of the cities against his brother, so he gave ducal grants to the Church more often than had been done in the past, and he tried to influence the cities through his own prelates.39 Andrew ordered a certain A. to be the archbishop of Split, Nicolas Manza­ vinus,40 the former bishop of Hvar, to be the archbishop of Zadar, and Micha from the Chapter of Split to replace Nicolaus as the bishop of Hvar.41 Regarding the archbishop of Split, we know only the first letter of his name and that he was the leader of the city’s Church for a short time after almost two years of vacancy. Finally, Pope Celestin III ordered Bishop Dominic of Zagreb, Archbishop Saul of Kalocsa and Bishop Ugrin of Győr to investigate the ducal elections in 1198. The results of the investigation were clear, since, following the death of pope Celestin, Pope Innocent III excommunicated both of the elected archbishops.42 The archiepiscopal see of Split became vacant after the excommunication, and this short period of archbishop-elect A. probably did not have any influence on the archbishopric. Thomas the Archdeacon’s late contemporary work did not even mention him among many other archbishops and archbishop-elects of the city. In the same year, the laity and clergy of Split elected Bernard to be the archbishop of the city in hope for future advantages. Pope Innocent III did not favor the election, so the city sent its envoys, Vukaš the deacon and Duimus, a layman, in order to ask the pope if he would allow the consecration of Bernard. According to Innocent III’s decision Bernard had to seek permission from the abbot of the monastery of Saint Mary in Farneto, the one he left almost four decades ago, and to once more put on his monk’s habit.43 Having done these required tasks, Bernard was

36 A. Zsoldos, Magyarország világi archontológiája 1000-1301, História, Budapest, 2011, pp. 42-43. 37 J. Gál, o. c. (7), pp. 479-483. 38 Gy. Szabados, o. c. (23), 98, 99. 39 J. Gál, »The Social Context of the Hungarian Royal Grants to the Church in Dalmatia (1102-1301)«, Annual of Medieval Studies at CEU, XXI (2015), forthcoming. 40 Historia Salonitana, p. 133. 41 CD II, p. 310; Historia Salonitana, pp. 133-135. 42 Gy. Szabados, o. c. (23), p. 100. 43 Historia Salonitana, p. 136; due to his appointments at the Bologna Academy and in missions to Hungary Bernard for many years neglected one of St. Benedict’s pivotal ideas, the stabilitas loci.

260 consecrated around 1200, while Duke Andrew held Dalmatia, Croatia and a part of Hum. Considering the circumstances, Bernard’s election was supposed to be a huge help for the king.44 King Emeric’s letter to the citizens of Split sent around 1200 highlights the importance of his person for the royal court during the internal struggle for the throne. Emeric was thankful for the election and he also warned the citizens to obey Archbishop Bernard as he was a royal person in the city.45 Between 1198 and 1204, until the death of Emeric, Bernard had an important place in the king’s policy as Emeric’s support in Dalmatia. The war between the brothers came to an end around 1200 when Pope Innocent III sent Gregory de Crescentio to Hungary in order to make peace and urge a new crusade to the Holy land. The papal mediation helped Andrew, because Emeric had almost succeeded in unifying the kingdom before Gregory arrived.46 This peaceful period ended in 1203 with Andrew’s rebellion. Emeric’s trust and gratitude led him to appoint Bernard to be the abbot of the abbey of St. Giles of Somogyvár in 1204.47 The king made this act without respecting the monks’ right for the election of their own abbot.48 The monks from Somogyvár protested against the royal decision at Pope Innocent III’s curia in the same year. The pope in his letter to the king emphasized that although Bernard was a monk and he was ,49 as the custom of the abbey required, but he was still a pontiff and monks should not hold multiple offices (i.e. both of archbishop and abbot), especially not in another diocese and by the help of secular influence.50 The

44 Gy. Szabados, o. c. (23), p. 100. 45 CD III, p. 18. 46 Gy. Szabados, o. c. (23), pp. 106-108. 47 It is necessary to clarify that Bernard of Perugia had never been the abbot of the Benedictine monastery in Boldva as it was mentioned by few Croatian scholars. The only assumable connection between the archbishop and Boldva could be the Pray Codex. This codex was made in Boldva, and after demolition of the monastery, it was taken to Somo- gyvár around Bernard’s tenure of office as abbot. See: I. Armanda, »Splitski nadbiskup i teološki pisac Bernard iz Perugie«, Kulturna baština, XXXVII (2011), p. 35; S. Kovačić, »Bernard«, Hrvatski biografski leksikon, I, Leksikografskog zavoda Miroslav Krleža, Za- greb, 1983, p. 698. cf. L. Erdélyi, P. Sörös, A pannonhalmi Szent-Benedek-rend története XII/B. Budapest, 1916, pp. 377, 378. 48 The Somogyvár abbey was founded in 1091 by King Saint Ladislas, and it was dedicated to Saint Giles. The abbey was affiliated with Saint-Gilles-du-Gard in Southern France and accepted only French monks until the 1240’s. See: G. Györffy, »A Szent László- kori Somogyvár történeti szerepe«, Szent László és Somogyvár: tanulmányok a 900 éves somogyvári bencés apátság emlékezetére, SMMI, Kaposvár, 1992, pp. 7-10; E. Fügedi, »Somogyvár francia monostora«, Szent László és Somogyvár: tanulmányok a 900 éves somogyvári bencés apátság emlékezetére, SMMI, Kaposvár, 1992, pp. 55-60. 49 The medieval Hungarian definition of meant a group of people whose mother tongue was a Neo-Latin language. 50 V. Fraknói, K. Hornig, Monumenta Romana episcopatus Vesprimiensis Edita Col- legio Historicorum Hungarorum Romano I. 1103-1276., Franklin társulat, Budapest, 1896, p. 12; G. Bónis, Szentszéki regeszták. Iratok az egyházi bíráskodás történetéhez a középkori Magyarországon, Püski, Budapest, 1997, p. 26, no. 62.

261 final decision conceded the right of free election to the monks, and Archbishop Bernard had to renounce his appointment.51 It seems that there was no political agenda behind the appointment since the abbey did not play that kind of role in the internal affairs of Hungary which would have indicated the royal decision. It is more reasonable to assume that the king wanted to requite the archbishop for his service in Split. Maybe it was a general reward for his support during the struggles for the throne, but it might be connected to the defense of Zadar in 1203, when Bernard helped the city against Venice. Bernard was loyal to Emeric after his death, as Thomas the Archdeacon noted,52 for he did not tend to accept the invitation for Andrew II’s coronation in 1205, because he thought that Ladislas III, Emeric’s son, was still alive.53 The struggle between Emeric and Andrew, and Bernard’s election affected the relationship between the royal or ducal court and the Church in Dalmatia. The number of royal grants started increasing during the hostile relationship between the brothers. King Emeric confirmed the privileges both of the archbishopric of Zadar and the archbishopric of Split in 1198.54 In the same year, Prince Andrew also confirmed some privileges both of the archbishopric of Split55 and the mon- astery of Saint John in Biograd.56 Two years later King Emeric also confirmed the privileges of monastery of Saint John in Biograd,57 and church of Saint Vital to the bishopric of .58 Maybe King Andrew confirmed this grant as king between 1205 and 1210, because Matthew, the vice-ban of the coastal region, mentioned in his charter in 1210 that Andrew had issued a royal privilege concerning this church.59 Both Emeric and Andrew donated the property of Bijaći and Gradac to the archbishopric of Split before 120260 and King Emeric gave mills on Jadro River to the archbishopric of Split during his reign.61 Split, being the metropoli- tan see, enjoyed both the duke’s and the king’s favor. Beside political reasons in securing the loyalty of the city, Bernard probably also played a role in receiving grants from King Emeric.

51 G. Kiss, »A somogyvári bencés apátság és francia kapcsolatai«, Egyháztörténeti Szemle, 2 (2001), URL: http://www.uni-miskolc.hu/~egyhtort/cikkek/kissgergely2.htm 52 Historia Salonitana, p. 140. 53 It should be mentioned that Bernard probably also took an oath to Emeric about his loyalty towards the king’s son, because Pope Innocent III summoned all the bishops and archbishops of Hungary to do so in 1203. See: Gy. Szabados, o. c. (23), p. 108. 54 CD II, pp. 310, 311. 55 CD II, pp. 308, 309. 56 CD II, p. 293. 57 CD II, p. 358. 58 Arhiv HAZU, LUCIUS XX-12/11. fol. 27-28. 59 terram cum omnibus suis pertinentiis confirmatum et corroboratum cum privilegio Domini Regis, See: Arhiv HAZU, LUCIUS XX-12/11. fol. 28-29. 60 CD III, p. 16. 61 Historia Salonitana, p. 140.

262 BERNARD IN SPLIT: THE HERETICS, AND THE FALL OF ZADAR

Bernard arrived in Split to take his office most probably in 1200. In that period the city was under the rule of King of Hungary, but the influence of Croatian noble kindreds from the hinterland was significant. The members of the Kačić and the Šubić noble families often held the position of city rectors. The city situated on a narrow coastal strip has always had strong ties with the Dalmatian hinterland, even all the way up to Bosnia. In the last quarter of the 12th century among the inhabitants of Dalmatian cities there was a certain number of these who adhered to a dualistic heresy that was also spread in southern France and Northern Italy, where its supporters were called Cathars, Albigensians or Patarens. It is impor- tant to stress out at this place that although those movements had been connected both in sources and ample bibliography because of their similarities, there were regional differences in regard to doctrine, but even more in their fate. The ‘Church of Bosnia’ phenomenon has been studied by many (ecclesiastic) historians over two centuries, because of its complexity and its implication on the evolution of the medieval Bosnian state.62 One of the most prominent among the heretics of the Bosnian-eastern Adri- atic milieu were the Zadar citizens, fathered by the Apulian Zorobabel, brothers Matthew and Aristodius. According to Archdeacon Thomas, they lived most of their time in Bosnia, ‘for they were excellent painters and skilled in the art of gold-smithing. They also had a competent knowledge of Latin and the Slavic language and letters.’63 When Bernard discovered that the brothers live in Split and that not only they believed in the heresy, but they also preached it which resulted in ‘many others being infected’, he tried to persuade them to return to orthodox Catholicism. When these exhortations had not worked, he excommunicated them and confiscated all of their goods. After they abjured their heresy by swearing on the holy Gospels, he removed the chains of excommunication and had their posses- sions restored to them. Thomas’ conclusion to the episode: ‘Moreover, all of those people who had been deceived by them were likewise cleansed of the infection of the heresy.’64 The letter of Innocent III to king Emeric of Hungary, dated on 11th

62 F. Šanjek wrote several important works on the topic such as: Bosansko-humski krst- jani i katarsko-dualistički pokret u srednjem vijeku, Zagreb, 1975; Bosansko-humski krstjani u povijesnim vrelima (13.-15. st.), Zagreb, 2003; Šanjek is also the editor of the volume Fenomen »krstjani« u srednjovjekovnoj Bosni i Humu, zbornik radova, Sarajevo-Zagreb, 2005, in which there are, among others these valuable contributions: M. Ančić, »Bosanska i njezino okruženje u prvoj polovici 13. stoljeća« (11-26), L. Margetić, »Neka pitanja abjuracije iz 1203. godine« (27-104), F. Šanjek, »Papa Inocent III. (1198.-1216.) i bosansko-humski krstjani« (425-440). 63 Historia Salonitana, p. 139; D. Farlati, III, p. 231. 64 Thomas, Historia Salonitana, p. 139.

263 October 1200, reads that Bernard expelled the ‘Patarenes’ from Split and Trogir, and these found refuge with the Bosnian ban Kulin, who warmly accepted them.65 On the basis of this allegation, papal legate John de Casamari66 was sent to Bosnia with a mission to investigate the faith and behavior of Kulin ban of Bosnia.67 If he was to find anything that would ‘smell of heresy’ and against the orthodox doctrine, he needed to correct this even if it meant that he would need to apply the papal decree against the heretics. The whole situation with Bosnia is just one of the reflexes of Innocent III’s policy, somewhat related as well to the civil war over the throne between the royal brothers in Hungary.68 Diplomatic relations between Innocent and Bulgarian emperor Joannitsa (Kaloyan) started as early as 1199 when the papal legate Dominic was sent to . Innocent was hoping to reunite schismatic churches of the East with the . One of the regional problems was that Bulgarians were hostile towards the ever-loyal king of Hungary, the bulwark of Western Christendom, and an ally against the powerful Hohenstauf family. Both kings intervened in Serbian affairs: king Emeric marched into adding the title rex Serviae to his name in 1202, but Kaloyan responded in 1203 by helping Stefan Nemanjić to remove the Hungarian protégé Vukan Nemanjić from the Serbian throne. It was exactly Vukan who first informed the pope in 1199 that ban Kulin, together with his wife and sister, led more than ten thousand Christians into heresy. The pope responded with the abovementioned letter of 1200 to king Emeric of Hungary warning him that he should take measures against them. On the other hand, Kulin asks the pope to send the delegation that would diligently inspect whether his and the faith of his people is in accord with the doctrine. Then Inno- cent III wrote the letter dated with November 21st 1202 sending John de Casamari in Bosnia.69 Alongside the legate, to Bosnia travelled Marin, the archdeacon of , and Bernard was to be the third member of the committee. But the

65 D. Farlati, III, 232. 66 John, abbot of the Cistercian abbey Casamari (province of Frosinone, Lazio), was one of the most important papal diplomats, with the experience of missions in the region. 67 »(…) ad terram prefati Culini partier accedentes, de fide ac conversatione tam ipsius quam uxoris et hominum terre sue inquiratis diligentissime veritatem«; M. Ančić, »Bilinopoljska Abjuracija u suvremenom europskom kontekstu«, Prilozi, XXXII, Sarajevo, 2003, pp. 17-38 (25). 68 M. Ančić, o. c. (67), p. 26; J. Ross Sweeney, »Innocent III, Hungary and the Bulgarian Coronation: A Study in Medieval Papal Diplomacy«, Church History, XLII, 3, Cambridge University Press (1973), pp. 320-334; W. de Vries, »Innozenz III. und der christliche Osten«, Archivum Historiae Pontificae, III (1965), pp. 87-126; I. Majnarić, »Pa- pinski kapelan Ivan od Casamarija i bilinopoljska abjuracija 1203. Papinski legat koji to u Bosni nije bio?«, Radovi Zavoda za povijesne znanosti HAZU u Zadru, L (2008), pp. 1-13. 69 CD III, p. 14, n. 11; Archivio Segreto Vaticano, Reg. Vat. 5. f. 55v, ep. 110.

264 mission coincided with the fall of Zadar, so Bernard hurried to react.70 This could be one of the key arguments that he followed the king’s orders. Innocent III called the rulers of Christendom for the (Fourth) crusade and the knights mostly from Flanders, French regions, Monferrat and gathered in late spring of 1202 in Venice to be transported to Egypt. As the Crusaders could not pay but a mere half of the sum, the Venetians requested their services in return, and most of them agreed to serve the Venetian interest in the Adriatic as a remuneration. The main Venetian target was the most important of the Adriatic cities at the time, Zadar, that had been under Venetian dominance for most of the 12th century, but in 1181 the city gave its allegiance to the Hungarian king Bela III. This is why the Zaratins had the whole Venetian-ruled Crusader fleet laying siege to their city in mid-October of 1202. The city was conquered and the Venetians stripped it of most of its defensive towers. When the Crusader fleet sailed east, the Zaratins started fierce pirate attacks on Venetian ships. For that reason the Venetians built a fortress on the island just off the city of Zadar that was to prevent pirate attacks and the refugees from coming back to the city.71 The fortress was too strong to be taken by the Zaratins themselves. But the arrival of ten galleys of the Gaetans gave Bernard the opportunity, to paraphrase Farlati, to thank King Emeric that should not be missed by any means.72 The archbishop hired the Gaetans and paid them with the King’s money that was deposited at the Templar priorate at Vrana. With the help from the Gaetans the Zaratins managed to take the fortress and execute its crew. The victory was short-lived though because as early as 1204, upon the news of the punishing fleet assembling in Venice, the citizens of Zadar sent their legates giving allegiance to the Doge. Having brought Zadar under their control, Venice just needed to take revenge on the archbishop of Split: several galleys were sent into the Gulf of Salona and demolished his palace with the tower on the island of Vranjic.73 In the way that Franjo Šanjek suggested that Innocent III’s treatment of the (alleged) Bosnian heretics became the model for papal curia to treat other similar movements,74 one can perceive that Bernard’s antiheretic campaign at the very beginning of his office in Split was more of a statement, or a paradigm, rather than a response to any significant threat posed to Dalmatian cities of becoming bastions of heresy. The first document that mentions Bernard as the archbishop of Split is the one of 13 July 1200,75 and by October of the same year not only had

70 The Crusaders conquered Zadar on 18 November, and the papal letter to John sending him to a mission in Bosnia with Bernard was issued just three days later, on 21 November 1202; I. Majnarić, Papinski legati, p. 116; M. Ančić, o. c. (67), pp. 32, 33. 71 This is the fortress of St. Michael on the island of Ugljan. 72 D. Farlati, III, p. 236. 73 Historia Salonitana, p. 151. 74 F. Šanjek, o. c. (62), p. 62. 75 CD II, 348.

265 he dealt with the heretics, but the pope already wrote about that to King Emeric. The lack of evidence prevents us from reaching a conclusion on this matter, es- pecially because there are several elements that could be relevant to the brothers’ influence: they often travelled to Bosnia and they were literate both in Latin and Slavic languages. However, relatively successful solution to the problem, for most of the flock returned to the orthodoxy, shows that (at least in Dalmatian cities) Bernard was not dealing with (too) strong an opposition.76

OTHER BERNARD’S DEEDS AS ARCHBISHOP OF SPLIT

Bernard had a dispute with his canons that ended up at the Roman curia. The dispute between archbishop and canons of Split had smouldered for a couple of decades, since the time of Peter Hitilenus in .77 In the beginning of the 13th century it wasn’t a fair one, as the canons were up against a very intelligent Bolo- gna professor with all possible experience in various affairs a prelate could have. Archdeacon Thomas summed it up in a sentence: ‘For the archbishop was arftul and clever, whereas the canons were simple and trusting.’78 This dispute could be understood less as a mere display of the archbishop’s supremacy, and more as his interest in having more autonomy, mostly in non-spiritual affairs. However, canon Andrew and primicerius stood their ground and defended the canons’ rights, which were restored to them, in what Thomas the Archdeacon called a peaceful settlement, ‘at the urging of friends.’79 Moreover, on 16 June 1206 the pope sent a letter to Bernard and the cannons informing them that he had corroborated the decree of Celestin III that confirmed the privileges of the canons.80

76 A solid counterargument for this could be a rather strict, a zero tolerance relation towards heretics inserted into city statutes of both Split and Trogir, which are often good indicators of seriousness of a problem. See: Statuti di Spalato, Rubrica deli heretici, c. 4, in: Statut grada Splita, ed. V. Rismondo, Split, 1987, pp. 7, 8; Statutum et reformatio- nes civitatis Tragurii, ed. I. Strohal, Zagreb, 1915, pp. 7, 8; Statut grada Trogira, ed. V. Rismondo, Split, 1988, pp. 7, 8; F. Šanjek, »Papa Inocent III.«, o. c. (62), p. 428. Add to this that M. Ančić, one of the finest scholars in the field, suggests that it is reasonable to conclude that the ‘antiheretical action in Croatia, especially in the cities, was more serious and far-reaching than the scarce sources unveil.’ M. Ančić, o. c. (67), p. 31. 77 For more on the cathedral chapter of Split see: I. Ostojić, Metropolitanski kaptol u Splitu, Kršćanska sadašnjost, Zagreb, 1975; A. Gulin, Hrvatski srednjovjekovni kaptoli: loca credibilia Dalmacije, Hrvatskog primorja, Kvarnerskih otoka i Istre, HAZU, Zagreb, 2008. 78 Historia Salonitana, pp. 150, 151. The original text is as follows: Erat enim ar- chiepiscopus astutus et callidus, canonici vero simplices et incauti. 79 Historia Salonitana, p. 153; this dispute had been addressed in a more detailed fashion in: M. Matijević-Sokol, pp. 193-196. 80 CD III, 56-58; I. Armanda, »Splitski nadbiskup«, o. c. (47), p. 38.

266 In the year 1209 Bernard commissioned a new altar for the reverence of St Anastasius, co-patron of Split, and it was built in 1210.81 The date of consecration of the altar, May 23, is incised with golden letters on silver reliquary in which the saint’s had was placed. This reliquary is not extant because in the 18th century it was sent to Venice, alongside some other old and worn silverware to be melt down in order to create two other reliquaries. The first one kept one of the teeth of St Domnius, the other one the head of St Anastasius.82 It wouldn’t be a surprise if the old reliquary had been a work of the often mentioned brothers Aristodius and Matthew.83 It is quite unusual that the doors made by Buvina in 1214 are not mentioned in Archdeacon Thomas’ Chronicle, especially because they were made during the author’s life. It was the canon Mark Dumanus who made a note of the completion of the masterpiece.84 It is difficult to state beyond any doubt whether the wooden doors were designed according to a strong antiheretic agenda. However it should be taken into account that many signals point that way, as some scholars have proposed, starting decades ago. Having undertaken a comparative iconological analysis, Vladimir Gvozdanović saw the doors to be a ‘gigantic poster’ for an antiheretical movement.85 What at first glance seem to be some of the most usual Christian motifs, these are the exact ones the Patarenes avoided – the ones from earthly life of Christ and his Passion. This thesis can be supported by the fact that the doors were consecrated on the day of St. George (April 23), one of the most revered saints in Poljica in Dalmatian hinterland – where the archbishop Raynerius was stoned to death in 1180 – and not on Easter (March 30) or the day of Split’s patron St Domnius (May 7), both of which would be more important in the city calendar.86 To consecrate a symbol ‘soaked’ in orthodoxy, huge doors radiating the true faith, in the most sacred place of the province, on the very day of the (hinter- land) opposition – it is highly believable that this was the exact scenario Bernard intended. If it’s taken into account that the commisioner is Bernard, supporter of the policy of Innocent III, his fellow alumnus of Bologna University (maybe even a student of his), and that the timing is right: for the invitation had been sent to all the provinces to attend the Lateran council, everything seems to fit perfectly. In his capacity as archbishop, Bernard ordained two bishops, both on the same day. The first one was John, nephew of Cucilla, as bishop of Nin, the other

81 D. Farlati, I, p. 738; III, p. 239; CD III, p. 97; M. Matijević-Sokol, o. c. (19), p. 197. 82 D. Farlati, III, p. 239. 83 J. Belamarić, »Svijećnjaci zadarskih majstora Mateja i Aristodija i dosad nepoznati fragmenti srednjovjekovnog tekstila iz splitske katedrale«, Splitska hagiografska baština: povijest, legenda, tekst (eds. J. Belamarić, B. Lučin, M. Trogrlić, J. Vrandečić), Split, 2014, pp. 315-334. 84 D. Farlati, III, p. 239. 85 V. Gvozdanović, »Split Cathedral’s Wooden Doors«, Commentari I-IV (1978), pp. 47-62. 86 J. Belamarić, Studije iz srednjovjekovne, o. c. (13), Split, 2001, p. 51.

267 one Bartholomew, nephew of Titio, as bishop of Skradin.87 According to Thomas, both bishops lacked both the age and education, for which Bernard received a canononical reprimand. There was another cleric Bernard wanted to ordain for the Nin bishopric, Split archpresbiter Gruptius, very loyal to the archbishop, but it is not intelligible from Thomas’ composition what had happened on this matter.88 Bernard brought with him a young Florentine called Treguan from Hungary to Split.89 His first appointment was to teach young clerics grammar. After the citizens of Trogir invited him to teach in their city as well, he served firstly as a public notary there, then as archdeacon, to eventually become bishop (ca.1210-ca. 1254) consecrated by Bernard himself. Thomas Archdeacon thought well of him: ‘He was truly a learned and eloquent man, and in a short time by his unremitting efforts he brought the well-being of the clergy and laity of that city to a healthy, flourishing condition.’90 In 1203/4 Treguan wrote a vita of St John of Trogir, an important source for medieval ecclesiastic history of Dalmatia. The portal of the Trogir cathedral commissioned by Treguan and carved by master Radovan in 1240, still embellishes the edifice, and bears both names inscribed on it. Matijević-So- kol assumes that Bernard was guided by Innocent III’s idea that every cathedral and major church should have among the clerics a teacher who would teach pro bono.91 The presence of well-educated Italians must have influenced the eagerness for knowledge in the young Archdeacon Thomas.92 On 19th of April 1213 Pope Innocent III convoked the ecumenical council to be held in November of 1215. Although Bernard was old and in poor health, he went to Rome to attend the council. The journey worsened his condition and by the time he got back to Split in late 1215 or early 1216, he was almost unable to speak at all. Therefore Treguan, who most probably joined Bernard on his journey to Rome, over two days publicly exposed the most important articles of the council.93 Archbishop Bernard died during the stay of king Andrew II of Hungary, who arrived with his crusader army in Split on 23 August 1217, as confirmed by Ar- chdeacon Thomas.94 While waiting for his fleet to be ready, the King received the news of the archbishop’s death. Since it is known from a papal letter that the King had landed in Cyprus on 8th of September, Bernard died in late August of 1217.95

87 Historia Salonitana, pp. 153-155. 88 Some clarification is offered by M. Matijević-Sokol,o. c. (19), pp. 197-201. 89 Historia Salonitana, p. 155; D. Farlati, III, p. 241. 90 Historia Salonitana, p. 157. 91 Ordinance of the council of 1179, renewed as canon 11 of the Fourth Lateran council. 92 M. Matijević-Sokol, o. c. (19), p. 202. 93 The council documents do not disclose who were the other Dalmatian dignitaries that attended the council; Historia Salonitana, p. 157; D. Farlati, III, p. 242. 94 Historia Salonitana, p. 161. 95 D. Farlati, III, p. 243; Matijević-Sokol, o. c. (19), p. 204.

268 CONCLUSIONS: BERNARD – THE CONNECTION BETWEEN HUNGARY AND SPLIT

Besides playing an important role during the aforementioned brotherly conflict, Bernard also had an important place between Hungary and Split during his entire tenure of office. As he did not only represent the king but also his city, Bernard, according to Thomas the Archdeacon, was loyal to Emeric, but he also was not hostile towards Duke Andrew and served him in Dalmatia as well. In our opinion, the interests of Split required the archbishop to have a relatively good relationship both with the king of the country and the duke, who was the de facto ruler of Dalmatia. For a deeper understanding of this phenomenon it is important to analyze the historical context. Andrew’s creation of his own duchy resulted with a previously unknown political scene in Dalmatia. While Emeric was the ruler of the country, Andrew claimed to have his own territory with a ducal court, similarly built and worked as a royal one. Both rulers appointed officials for the same positions. The undetermined circumstances and the ongoing war made the Dalmatian cities to act wise, and none of them had taken sides in this conflict. Bernard also served the royal court and the city as an envoy that visited the royal court frequently probably during both representative events and other cas- es.96 His importance in the royal foreign policy can be highlighted by the events during the Venetian seizure of Zadar in 1203. After Venice captured Zadar dur- ing the Fourth Crusade, Archbishop Bernard hired ten galleys of Gaetans for the defense of the city around April of 1203.97 He paid their services with the silver that the king deposited at the Templars in Vrana. Concerning the fact that he used the king’s money for the payment, alongside with the fact that he was supposed to be engaged in the Bosnian affairs by the instructions given by Innocent III rather than be involved in the Zadar recapture, the only reasonable conclusion is that he was fully supporting king Emeric’s Dalmatian agenda. Archbishop Bernard probably played an important role in the royal policy regarding Bosnia in the first decade of the thirteenth century. The Bishopric of Bosnia was put under the jurisdiction of the archbishopric of Split in 1192 (it had been under the jurisdiction of Dubrovnik).98 The change in the Church organization could connect the Kingdom of Hungary and Bosnia on the ecclesiastical level, which was an expression of the royal aims in the region. According to the sources, the bishop of Bosnia tried to ignore. The kings of Hungary attempted to compel Bosnia to recognize their authority and the jurisdiction of the archbishopric of Split until the 1210s.99

96 Historia Salonitana, p. 138. 97 Historia Salonitana, p. 148. 98 CD II, pp. 251-253. 99 J. Gál, o. c. (7), p. 488.

269 Besides his practical roles Bernard had representative tasks during his tenure of office as well. He visited the royal court to represent the interest of his city, but also as a participant in royal events. For instance he was among the visitors at the coronation of King Ladislas III in 1204 and he was invited to the coronation of King Andrew II in 1205.100 He also was part of the ducal entourage during the royal visits in Dalmatia.101 Although his political role was significant, even more important was his vigilance over the spiritual well-being of his community. Not only had he swiftly expelled the heretical elements from Split and Trogir, but he also embodied his fight for the Catholic orthodoxy in a treatise, but even more in a three-dimentio- nal masterpiece, a testimony of his efforts. He might have had struggles with his canons and lapses in electing a couple of improper bishops, but his legacy marked his city in many ways. After all, Thomas the Archdeacon, a Bologna student and the biographer of medieval Split who was also very active in the city affairs, must have been the result of diligent development of school for young clerics. Two Dalmatian cathedrals still bear the mark of their highly educated pastors, Bernard and Treguan: Split wooden doors and the Trogir portal respectively. Those could only be result of erudite commissioners and good artists, the only two 13th century artists known by their name in the eastern Adriatic. It is not a coincidence that these two masterpieces were created during their office. Both political and ecclesiastic history of Dalmatia in 12th and the 13th centu- ries can not be fully understood if not analyzed and interpreted within the triangle that includes Hungary and Italy. Hopefully it would be possible to do research on Bernard’s life in Italy as it might lead to better understanding of influences a Benedictine background and even more the Bologna years on his activities.

NADBISKUP BERNARD (1200-1217) IZMEĐU SPLITA I UGARSKE

S a ž e t a k

Članak počinje uvodom o vrlo važnoj temi bez koje nije moguće pravilno interpretirati kontekst djelovanja Bernarda iz Perugie, nadbiskupa splitskog (1200- 1217). Naime, od početka 12. stoljeća hrvatskim krajevima, pa tako i srednjodal- matinskim gradovima, vladaju ugarski kraljevi. Uloga nadbiskupa ključna je kako za duhovni i svjetovni život grada, tako i za odnose s kraljem. Treba i podsjetiti da su nadbiskupi najčešće na čelu svoje dijeceze daleko duže od načelnika grada koji

100 Historia Salonitana, pp. 140-144. 101 CD II, p. 357.

270 svoju funkciju obnaša tek godinu dana. U 12. i 13. stoljeću splitski su najbiskupi mahom bili ugarski prelati ili pak talijanski klerici u tijesnim vezama s ugarskim dvorom. Kako vojvode Dalmacije nisu boravili na obali, utoliko je bila važnijom uloga splitskih nadbiskupa koji bi, za relativno rijetkih posjeta kralja dalmatinskim gradovima, redovito bili u njegovoj pratnji. Bernard je u Split došao u vrlo poznim godinama. Veći je dio života proveo u Bologni, gdje je najprije studirao teologiju i kanonsko pravo, a potom bio i profesorom na slavnom sveučilištu u tom gradu. U posljednjem desetljeću 12. stoljeća imao je vrlo važne veze s Ugarskom, gdje ga je papa u nekoliko navrata bio slao. Ugarsko-hrvatski kralj Bela III. čak mu je povjerio izobrazbu sina Emerika. Godine 1200. obje su strane, i ugarski kralj Andrija i grad Split, s velikim zado- voljstvom prihvatili izbor Bernarda u čast nadbiskupa. Bernard u Splitu nije djelovao samo kao ‘produžena ruka’ ugarskoga kralja, nego i kao eksponent slavnoga pape Inocenta III. u njegovoj politici prema Jugoistočnoj Europi, usmjerenoj početkom 13. stojeća protiv patarenskoga krivovjerja. Osim toga, Bernard je u kraljevo ime i kraljevim novcem unajmio Gaećane koji su natkratko Mlečanima preoteli Zadar, osvojen početkom Četvrtoga križarskoga pohoda. Što se Bernardova djelovanja u Splitu tiče, godine 1209. naručio je novi oltar štovanju sv. Staša, suzaštitnika Splita, koji je izrađen sljedeće godine. U vrijeme njegova nadbiskupovanja Andrija Buvina je 1214. izdradio vrlo lijepe drvene vratnice splitske katedrale. Ikonografska interpretacija sugerira da bi vratnice imale snažan program protiv krivovjerja koje je još bilo snažno u zaleđu dalma- tinskih gradova i Bosni. Bernard je u neku ruku dalmatinske gradove zadužio i dovođenjem firentinca Treguana iz Ugarske u Split. Treguan je naprije u Splitu podučavao klerike gramatici, da bi nakon kratke notarske službe postao trogirskim biskupom (oko 1210 – oko 1254). Vjerojatno se Bernard vodio idejom Inocenta III. da bi svaka katedrala i značajnija crkva trebala imati učitelja gramatike koji bi klerike poučavao pro bono. U takvoj su atmosferi odgajani splitski i trogirski klerici, među kojima se tek nešto kasnije istakao Toma Arhiđakon. Svi su spo- menuti akteri uvelike oblikovali duhovni, politički i arhitektonski aspekt svojih gradova u 13. stoljeću. Ključne riječi: Bernard iz Perugie; Split 13. stoljeća; ugarski kralj Andrija II; krivovjerje; srednjovjekovna Bosna; biskup Treguan; osvajanje Zadra

271 SADRŽAJ

Proslov (Joško Belamarić i Guido Tigler) / Prologue...... 5

Vratnice Andrije Buvine – slike / Master Andrija Buvina Doors – illustrations...... 9

Joško Belamarić: Andrija Buvina – Painter and Woodcarver, a Master Rooted in the Historical and Artistic Reality of the Split and Dalmatia of the ...... 25 Andrija Buvina – drvorezbar i slikar, majstor ukorijenjen u splitsku i dalmatinsku povijesnu i umjetničku stvarnost početka 13. stoljeća. 69 Guido Tigler: Andrea Buvina era anche un intagliatore o solo un pittore? . 71 Je li Andrea Buvina bio i drvorezbar ili pak samo slikar?...... 117 Žana Matulić Bilač: The Romanesque Wooden Doors of Split Cathedral – Research, Conservation and Protection 2014. – 2018.. . . 119 Drvene romaničke vratnice splitske katedrale – istraživanje, restauriranje i zaštita 2014. – 2018...... 148 Franko Ćorić: Master Buvina’s Door – A Unique Testimony to the Paradigm Shift in the Theory of Monument Protection and Methodological Experimentation...... 161 Buvinine vratnice – jedinstveno svjedočanstvo promjene paradigme u teoriji zaštite spomenika i metodoloških postupaka...... 174 Charles Indekeu: Traceological Investigation of the Wooden Door of the Split Cathedral ...... 189 Traseološko istraživanje drvenih vratnica splitske katedrale. . . . . 209 Daniela Matetić Poljak: Ornamentalni korpus Buvininih vratnica. . . . . 211 The Ornamental Corpus of Buvina’s Doors...... 239 Judit Gál i Mirko Sardelić: Archbishop Bernard (1200-1217) between Split and Hungary...... 253 Nadbiskup Bernard (1200. – 1217.) između Splita i Ugarske. . . . . 270 Branko Jozić: Iluminirani kodeks 626 C iz Riznice splitske stolnice – zagonetke i gonetanja...... 273 Il codice miniato 626 C nel Tesoro della cattedrale di Spalato – enigmi e congetture...... 304

481 Radoslav Bužančić: .Andrija Buvina and Radovan. The Salvation Message on the Portals of the Split and Trogir Cathedrals...... 311 Andrija Buvina i Radovan. Poruka spasenja na portalima splitske i trogirske prvostolnice ...... 345 Gaetano Curzi: Medieval Wooden Doors in Central Italy: a Reconsideration...... 347 Srednjovjekovne drvene vratnice u srednjoj Italiji: ponovno razmatranje...... 367 Regina Urbanek: The Romanesque Wooen Door Leaves in St. Maria im Kapitol in Cologne...... 369 Romaničke drvene vratnice iz crkve sv. Marije u Kӧlnu...... 393 Xavier Barral i Altet: Bernardus faber me fecit, Giraldus me fecit: la revendication des portes romanes en bois ornées de ferronneries . 395 Bernardus faber me fecit, Giraldus me fecit: prilog vrednovanju romaničkih drvenih vratnica sa željeznim ukrasom ...... 415 Luca Mor: I dolenti in legno di Cividale del Friuli. Per una ricomposizione (inderogabile) con il crocifisso del duomo...... 419 Drvene skulpture ‘ožalošćenih’ iz Cividale del Friulija. Za ponovno (obvezujuće) ujedinjenje s raspelom iz katedrale...... 439 Ivana Svedružić Šeparović: Drveni gotički stropovi u Splitu, primjeri iz palače Papalić i palače Grisogono ...... 441 Wooden Gothic Ceilings in Split, Examples from the Palaces Papalić and Grisogono ...... 461

Kazalo osobnih imena ...... 463 Kazalo geografskih pojmova...... 473

482