Hungarian Horizons in The

CEU eTD Collection

HUNGARIAN HORIZONS IN THE HISTORY OF THE CHURCH IN IN CHURCH THE OF HISTORY THE IN HORIZONS HUNGARIAN THE ROLE OF THE ROYAL GRANTS TO THE CHURCH THE TO GRANTS ROYAL THE OF ROLE THE MA Thesis inMAThesisMedievalStudies Central European University CentralEuropean DALMATIA: May2014 Budapest Judit Gál Judit

CEU eTD Collection

HUNGARIAN HORIZONS IN THINHUNGARIANHORIZONS Central European University, Budapest, inrequirements ofthe University, partialfulfillment Central Budapest, European THE ROLE OF THE ROYAL GRANTS TO THECHURCH TO GRANTSTHEROYAL THEROLEOF Accepted in conformance with the standards of the CEU. instandardsof withthe the Accepted conformance Thesis submitted to the Department Department to ofMedievalStudies,the Thesis submitted ______of the Maofthe Chair, Examination Committee Chair,Examination ster of Arts degree in degree ofArts ster Medieval Studies. ThesisSupervisor E HISTORY OF THE CHURCH IN DALMATIA:IN THECHURCH OF HISTORY E (Hungary) May2014 Examiner Examiner Budapest Judit Gál Judit ______by

CEU eTD Collection

HUNGARIAN HORIZONS IN THE HISTORY OF THE CHURCH IN DALMATIA:IN THECHURCH OF THEHISTORY INHUNGARIANHORIZONS Central European University, Budapest, inrequirements ofthe University, partialfulfillment Central Budapest, European THE ROLE OF THE ROYAL GRANTS TO THECHURCH TO GRANTSTHEROYAL THEROLEOF Accepted in conformance with the standards of the CEU. instandardsof withthe the Accepted conformance Thesissu ______of the Master of Arts degree in degree Master ofArts ofthe Medieval Studies. bmitted to the Department Department to ofMedievalStudies,the bmitted ExternalReader (Hungary) Budapest Judit Gál Judit May2014 ______by

CEU eTD Collection

HUNGARIAN HORIZONS IN THE HISTORY OF THE CHURCH IN DALMATIA:IN THECHURCH OF THEHISTORY INHUNGARIANHORIZONS Central European University, Budapest, inrequirements ofthe University, partialfulfillment Central Budapest, European THE ROLE OF THE ROYAL GRANTS TO THECHURCH TO GRANTSTHEROYAL THEROLEOF Accepted in conformance with the standards of the CEU. instandardsof withthe the Accepted conformance Thesis submitted to the Department Department to ofMedievalStudi the Thesis submitted ______of the Master of Arts degree in degree Master ofArts ofthe Medieval Studies. ExternalSuperv (Hungary) Budapest Judit Gál Judit May2014 by

isor

es,

CEU eTD Collection May21 Budapest, 2014 degree. thesis the thi inof part submitted been no has that declare also I thesis copyright. institution’sthe of or part person’s any no on and infringes others, of work the of made was use illegitimate and unidentified in credited properly as information external such only and research my on based work, own my exclusively is thesis present the that herewith undersigned, the I,

ui Gál Judit

s form to any other institution of higher education for an academic academic an for education higher of institution other any to form s cniae o te A ere n eivl tde, declare Studies, Medieval in degree MA the for candidate ,

notes and bibliography. I declare that no no that declare I bibliography. and notes ______Signature ______

CEU eTD Collection tired S Dóri, Eszter, Mónika, finished. been have not would thesis this them herfor Rasson suppo support, work. and invested they .

rt, which helped me to improve my knowledge during this year. I I year. this during knowledge my improve to me helped which rt,

I would like to to like would I My hel I I thank , n usefu and p, would like to give to like would in me during this during me in tireless work tireless ae u to due are s thank to my family who always who family my to thank uzi advi l ,

Marci, andsupport

h Dprmn o Mdea Suis o te tim the for Studies Medieval of Department the ces special thank special ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS year.

and h gv me gave she

Special thanks to Annabella Pál for the tireless support support tireless the for Pál Annabella to thanks Special Pisti .

- s

who to my supervisor my to Special .

hns o her to Thanks motivated

thank believed me on this journey. this on me believed s

and encouraged encouraged and for

Katalin Szende Katalin t he guidance support am grateful am

and intellectual intellectual and

t me o e e

for the huge the for my friends my

and energy energy and when I felt I when

to Judith to Without Without

CEU eTD Collection

B C C C C H I L L NTRODUCTION IST OF IST OF IBLIOGRAPHY ONCLUSION HAPTER HAPTER HAPTER ISTORICAL Territorial and Temporal Distribution of Royal Grants to Church to TerritorialGrantsof DistributionRoyalTemporal and The Social Context TheofSocialthe Context inChurch the Policy RoyalRoyal ofto Thethe Role Grants 3. 2. 1. 5. 4. 3. 2. 1. 4. 3. 2. 1.

A F IGURES BBREVIATIONS T T O Conclusion of Theurbancontext receptionofthe royal andvisitsThe audienceofthe royalgrants HREE Conclusion importance donationsNewtheir and Theirkings’ choicesgrants: the backgroundof the and The recipients ofgiv The process Dalmatia visitsRoyalto WO Conclusion Ter royalTheoftemporalthe distribution grants examinedTheroyal grants NE C

...... ONTEXT

...... ritorial distribution of the royalritorialthe grants of distribution

......

...... Royal Grants to the Church to the RoyalGrants inggrants

the royal grants to the Church to royalthe the grants ...... T ...... ABLE OFABLE ......

......

...... i C

...... ONTENTS

......

22 16 12 53 48 44 44 42 40 3 33 27 26 26 59 56 44

iii

ii 5 8 7 7 4 1

CEU eTD Collection 5. Fig. grants The(assumed)issuingofthe 4 Fig.places of RoyalDalmatian the Church 3. (1102 Fig.to Grants Fig Fig. .

2. 2. 1 . .

The Recipients TheRoyalRecipients ofthe Grants……………………...... (1102 GrantsThe Issuersofthe Map ofDalmatia

……………………………………………………………………39 L - 1301) IST OF IST

………………………………………...…... ii F

IGURES ……………………………………….35 - 1301)

……………………………….25 ...... 21 20

CEU eTD Collection OPZ Institute ofAcademySciences,History] of TTI MTA Arts and JAZU HAZU

–

– Odsjekpovi za – ]

[Yugoslavian umjetnosti i znanosti akademija Jugoslavenska Hrvatska akademija znanosti i umjetnosti [ i znanostiakademijaumjetnosti Hrvatska –

ayr uoáys kdma Tréetdmni Intézet Történettudományi Akadémia, Tudományos Magyar jesne znanosti [Department H forjesne [Department znanosti L IST OF IST

A BBREVIATIONS iii

CroatianA Academyand ofSciences istoricalR

esearch] Academy of Sciences Sciences of Academy

[Hunga rts] rian rian

CEU eTD Collection mentioned so administrationand secularinon. the power region, the royal the of characteristic the Dalmatia, and Croatia of independence the cities, Dalmatian the like research, the in popular were the on focused and Dalmatia Dalmatia, to connected Györffy György and Kristó, Gyula Zsoldos, Attila like historians few only secular and history, legal structures, social different had Dalmatia region. distant a also but close, a was it since interest. ofscholarly stayed grants aforementioned the of role political and ritual symbolic, the and Croatia, and Hungary between relationship the of aspects political the with dealt mostly polic grants, the of role complex the to attention much paid have historians a remained has grants to grants royal Hungary and Croatia of history common the of beginning very the from issued centuries thirteenth the Ages: Middle y or or y The royal grants or gifts has never been examinedbeen never giftshas or grants royal The to attentionmuch been paid not has historians Hungarian The Hungarian the of part special a with deal will thesis This to to

or examined as a part of the political or legal history. The Hungarian Hungarian The history. legal or political the of part a as examined or the influence of the social development of development social the of influence the h ryl rvlgs o amta cities. Dalmatian to privileges royal the the oiia history political . . oe f the of role Church

These grants included lands and confirmations of rights, and they and rights, of confirmations and lands included grants These administr

The focus was on the on was focus The not

provide a rich material for historical research, the role of these these of role the research, historical for material rich a provide

to ta te igo o Hungary. of Kingdom the than ation well ro

f h Ápd age Árpád the of yal grants to to grants yal - eerhd ertr. ete Hnain o Croatian nor Hungarian Neither territory. researched credibility and characteristics of characteristics and credibility I NTRODUCTION 1

legal questions, the questions, legal the

in the twentieth century. Legal questions questions Legal century. twentieth the in Church

giving grants giving

in their complexity, they were only only were they complexity, intheir The Croatian historiography also also historiography Croatian The

in Dalmatia in the twelfth and and twelfth the in Dalmatia in - Croatian relationship in the the in relationship Croatian

secular administration of of administration secular In the twentieth century century twentieth the In . . the history of history the The previous research research previous The royal privilege royal to to

the changing royal royal changing the in the background background the in

dealt with topics topics with dealt .

While Dalmatia, Dalmatia, s of the the of s were were the the CEU eTD Collection 2002 [Coloman’s 2 Maryof St. Zadar,” in 1 arts. and Sciences of Academy Croatian the of of seventeenth ofamanuscripts collection the found be can sources diplomatic the of part another and editions source in published is them of majority The period. examined the from inscriptions and charters Treguan’s Bishop Archdeacon’s the Thomas century: thirteenth the from sources Churchof the the changes roleto the the andgrants of the analyze to haveopportunity the one variety let This in1270. BélaIV of death the regionafter over the weakeningroyalthe power ofthe invasion and Mongol the Hungarianthrone, the for the grants, royal inner grant Venice, and Hungary, Byzantium, between Dalmatiafor fightsincluded the period the to influence of their and usage economy and the society the policy, of transformation royal changing the examine to suitable the until after Hungary of dynasty symbolicalthe policy Croatia. of rulers previous the and Coloman Zadar in monastery Mary St. the of chapel royalgrants ofthe group a or grant specific a examined Croatian scholars giving two years fewlast the In Church. the to of grants characteristics the or background the with dealt been never has historiography

Ana Marinković, Ana erigiivset“Constrvi sitrex Collomanus. Royal The ofChapel ColomanKing in Co the Mladen Ančić Mladen ) ,

42 h tei wl b bsd n w kns f ore. wl da wt to narrative two with deal will I sources. of kinds two on based be will thesis The I - n the present work work present the n 111. end path

“From the “ “Fromthe f h dnsy n 1301 in dynasty the of ] ,

ed. Vita Beati Johannis Traguriensis Johannis Beati Vita AnnualofMedieval StudiesatCEU Mladen Ančić and and Ančić Mladen

and the royalthe and representation Demigod

Coloman’s coronation Coloman’s according to new approaches to according - wl aaye thirty analyze will I century historia century

” King to the First Ideas About a “NationalKingdom” a Ideas AboutFirst theKing to ” eea Borošak Jelena Te hss oes rltvl ln pro which period long relatively a covers thesis The .

and the connection of the royal policy of King King of policy royal the of connection the and n, Johannesn, Lucius Mladen Ančić put the grants into the context of context the into grants the put Ančić Mladen 2

8 ( - 2 as a king of Croatia and Dalmatia and Croatia of king a as ie oa gat t Cuc o te Árp the of Church to grants royal nine

- 2002):37 Marijanović . The seco The . This collection contains the manuscript manuscript the contains collection This . AnaMarinkovi .

royalingrant policy - 64. nd group of the sources will be will sources the of group nd (Zagreb:

, which is Archive inheldwhich the , itra Salonitana Historia rasi oien muzej, povijesne Hrvatski ć examined the royal royal the examined ć , in , - giving. - Kolomanovput giving. This This giving. struggle in 1102 1102 in

mplex

and and

ád ád is

CEU eTD Collection inChurchDalmatia. dukes and kings how analyze will I grants: royal the of context economic and social the on be will grant in motivation their and visits royal the of audience the examine will fi The policy. royal the in role symbolic their and grants the of usage political the grants, royal of context the in kings the of grant ofthe aspects royal withthe thesiswilldeal The grants. royal the of distribution temporal and territorial the of analysis bethe on focus Then will the until1301. under Hungarian rule whengot Dalmatia andg ofthe recipients fromaspectsthe royalcourt the both ofthe of complexity the on be will focus The hi social the of context in grants giving of process the and grants the analyze will I but history, data. com a willuse I grants. royal notpartwere system.ecclesiastical militaryofthis orders relation the on legal concentrate willthesis whose the Moreover, clear. not stillis Hungary of kings the orders, towards situation military the to grants the cover not do but Dalmatia, of monasteries inclu grants examined The in work. this whichonlypreserved are charters itunpublished contains Luciusandheritage of story, history of representation, history of symbolic communication and communication symbolic of history representation, of history story,

wl not will I hne ter oiy we te omnl eeomn tasomd h rl o the of role the transformed development communal the when policy, their changed First I will describe the brief historical context of the examined period: from the time time the from period: examined the of context historical brief the willdescribe I First The

thesis will be based on the analysis of the temporal and territorial aspects of the the of aspects territorial and temporal the of analysis the on based be will thesis ship between the royal court and the Dalmatian Church organization, and the the and organization, Church Dalmatian the and court royal the between ship

only

examine the royal grants with the approach of political and church church and political of approach the with grants royal the examine parative analysis of spatial, social, chronological distribution of of distribution chronological social, spatial, of analysis parative ded the known grants to archbishoprics, bishoprics and and bishoprics archbishoprics, to grants known the ded nal chapter will concentrate on the receivers’ point of view. I I view. of point receivers’ the on concentrate will chapter nal the grants: their practical, political and symbolic role role symbolic and political practical, their grants: the 3

- giving. I will analyze the personal presence presence personal willanalyzethe I giving.

rants. rants. second main chapter of the the of chapter main second

- giving. The focus The giving. history of of history rituals. rituals. CEU eTD Collection 6 (Zagreb:Školska knjiga, 1976), 5 Pét születésnapjára. Hungarian the of history 4 Árpád age] 3 the in heregionand power his restore to Coloman let circumstances external and internal The Venice. confront not could he so affairs, internal with struggled Coloman victory, the After 1097. Pet defeated he where Croatia, to army his led struggle Colo King and (1096) Hungary mostly years few thisterritory ruleof 1091. C as Zvonimir, Croatia. Dalmatia and death, his III Peter horvát a “Megjegyzések Márta, Font Pauler Pauler, Gyula,Pauler, Nada Klaić Nada mn' tak gis Hnay hindered Hungary against attack umans' er. Hanák,er. 3

Álmos was probably only titular and his title symbolized the Árpáds' aspiration to rule to aspiration Árpáds' the symbolized histitle and titular only probably Álmos was The Hungarian kings did not attemp not did kings Hungarian The he year That A magyar A nemzet

for getting the rule over this region ended with the victory of withthe ended regionthis over rule gettingforthe last descendant ofthe lastdescendant h Hnain ig a fml te t te ae ig f C of king late the to ties family had king Hungarian The .

the Hungarian king, Ladislas king, Hungarian the vol.1 ,

(Pécs:University 1997),Press, Povijest Hrvata u razvijenom srednjem vijeku srednjem razvijenom u Hrvata Povijest .

Ladislas' siste Ladislas'

A ma A

was crowned askin was crowned [Bridge over the centuries. Studies in honor of László Katus on his seventieth birthday], ed. birthday], seventieth his on Katus László of honor in Studies centuries. the over [Bridge

- uig h catc eid hn ifrn gop fuh fr h trn of throne the for fought groups different when period chaotic the during 2.

(Budapest: Furthermore, (1095). died I Ladislas because gyar nemzet története az Árpád aznemzettörténete gyar inducted - , , rain esnl no] In union]. personal Croatian 214

– 486 215. was r MagyarKönyvkiadók és Könyv terjesztők Egyesülése,

- lo,hs nephew his Álmos, 491.

Croatian royal dynasty and dynasty royal Croatian man (1095 man - ayr esoá ui középkori unió perszonál magyar hiswife g of Croatia and Dalmatia in Biograd ininCroatiaDalmatia and 1102. of Biograd g

H ISTORICAL 12.

I I

. Ladislas succeeded to hol succeeded to Ladislas . (1077 - his 1116) had to face to had 1116) t -

házi királyok alattházikirályok to seize Croatia and Dalmatia in the following following the in Dalmatia and Croatia seize to 4

í a zzdkeet Tnláyk au Lsl 70. László Katus Tanulmányok századokfelett. a Híd 95) 95) further activities in Croatia and Dalmatia in in Dalmatia and Croatia in activities further r h lie ob h igo rai in Croatia of king the be to claimed who er, C , ONTEXT

[History of the Croats in the High Middle Ages],Middle High the in Croats the of [History as king of Croatia and Dalmatia, Dalmatia, and Croatia of king as Croatia over rule acquirethe to attempted

died in1091 died [History of the Hungarianthe[History in nation the of

ötnthz[oe o te medieval the on történetéhez”[Notes

internal affairs. internal the f the d a d irst crusade went through through went crusade irst King

part of Croatia but the but ofCroatia part without an without roatia and Dalmatia, Dalmatia, and roatia 1899), Coloman. Coloman.

5 I 201.I 6

The Árpáds’ The

heir

First he First but but . After . the CEU eTD Collection 1934.) 11 10 9 8 Century. 7 he and in1197, (Slavonia) Mački inhim defeated Andrew Duke rule. the for brother hiswith the on him followed Emeric son, his death III’s Béla 1192 in and 1187 in city this seize to tried underVen Hungarianlaterwentalso Zadarrule. year inCentraland a 1181, Dalmatia took landseizedinthis again1167. 1166 in rule his 1165. by Zadar captured Venice ally, his seized and Dalmatia Central emperor Byzantine the Comnenos, I Manuel 1165. and 1162 between Byzantium (1162 III’s Stephen of years first the during Hungary and Dalmatia between relationship the in happened changes Significant campaign. 1135 in Split inlands retook these1125. Venice because temporaly, only was success The Zadar. for except Dalmatia, Central and th of fiveyears.for madeVenice butsuccess,withhe no and hadpeace 1118, (1116 II Stephen son, Coloman’s yea a and attacked state city coronation.the after

Makk Makk Makk, Ferenc, Makk,

Makk Tadija Smičiklas, Tadija e peace elapsed the king of Hungary led an army to Dalmatia in 1124, and seized North North seized and 1124, inDalmatia to army an led Hungary of king the elapsed peace e ,

, , II 115 , The The

When Manuel died in 1180, King Béla III (1172 III Béla King in1180, Manueldied When ooa sie Zdr Šbnk Slt Trogir Split, Šibenik, Zadar, seized Coloman King Béla II (1131 BélaII King (Budapest:Akadémiai The Árpáds Árpáds - Árpáds 116. - The 16 Poal h as cpue eti Bsin ad drn ti military this during lands Bosnian certain capture also he Probably 1136.

- HereafterCDC. , , , 1167, and he could hold Šib hold could he and 1167, , Codex diplomaticus regni Croatiae, Sclavoniae et Dalmatiae. et Sclavoniae Croatiae, regni diplomaticus Codex 21. 18 Á

96 rpá - 7

– 20.

98. The king of Hungary had to Venice for the coastal lands, and the Italian Italian lands,the and coastal the for Venice hadto Hungary of king The ds

and

– 9 Kiadó,1988),

41) was active in Dalmatia, since since inDalmatia, wasactive 41) the

r later seized that part of Dalmatia, which was under the rule of of rule the under was which Dalmatia, of part that seized later r

Comneni.

– 31). The king tried to recapture the coastal territories in in territories coastal the recapture to tried king The 31). 14. Political

- enik and Biograd for a short time. The emperor emperor The time. short a for Biograd and enik 13 bt h atcs ee nucsfl After unsuccessful. were attacks the but 1193, 5

Relations – 72 ) reign. He was constantly at war with with war at constantly was He reign. )

, throne of Hungary. He had to struggle to had He Hungary. of throne

n te sad i 10, he years three 1105, in islands the and - be 1196) retrieved the territory. First he First territory. retrievedthe 1196) tween he seized Central Dalmatia with with Dalmatia Central he seized Hungary 10

Stephen III tried to restore to tried III Stephen Vol. 1 Vol. and Byzantium in the 12ththe in Byzantium and 8

When the fiveyearsWhen the - 18. (Zagreb: 1904 (Zagreb: 18. ice – CEU eTD Collection 13 12 noblekindred. Šubićemergent time ofofthe the wasthe this period coastal the visited king no IV T territories. Béla King after probably Dalmatia, to attention much (1272 youngIV Ladislasking, rule the forthe using weak royal the death power period. examined the throughout rule Venetian under stayed Zadar (1235 citItalian the when 1204 in continued 1204. and 1197 between Hum of part a and Dalmatia Croatia, held

Makk Szabados,György, “ImreésAndrás” [Imre Andrew]. and - 70) attempted to get back the city again in 1242, but he was defeated in 1244, and and 1244, in defeated was he but 1242, in again city the back get to attempted 70) , The Árpáds he lack of royal power also let the local elites to strengthen their authority, and and authority, their strengthen to elites local the let also power royal of lack he , , 122 - 123.

ened in Hungary and groups of noble men fight against each other eachagainst other fight menofnoble ingroups Hungaryand ened

y seized Zadar during the fourth crusade. King Béla IV IV Béla King crusade. fourth the during Zadar seized y 6

Századok - 1289). The kings of Hungary did not pay not HungaryThe kingsdid 1289). of 133 (1999):

12 94. 13

The fight with Venice with fight The

After the Béla IV’s IV’s Béla the After CEU eTD Collection 15 14 royalofthe custom. changes the and recipients the on be willfocus The grants. royal the of distribution territorial intensity the analyze will 1301 and 1102 between chapter couldcharters be credible. Ančić Mladen like historiography, I grants these belong questionablegrants Sre concerning grant II’s Géza King like forgeries, with deal not does historiography. Croatian or Hungarian the by either or both accepted is credibility whose grants those with deals thesis, whole the and chapter, This Dalmatia. in Church the to privileges confirmed or new and institutions, ecclesiastical to donated were which lands region. this of dukes also were bans the when time a Dalma and Croatia of Kingdom the of dukes kings, Hungarian the of grants as defined are case this in grants (1102

SeeKlai CDC - 1301), some features of the royal grants to the Church have to be discussed. Royal Royal discussed. be to have Church the to grants royal the of features some 1301), II 86. . the of distribution territorial and temporalthe on be willfocus The picture full a get To

First I will I First ć ,

Povijest

Territorial and Temporal Distribution ofChurchRoyal Grants to TemporalTerritorial Distribution and

cetd h oiin f h Hnain n a and Hungarian the of opinion the accepted ,16. tia, and also grants made by the bans of Slavonia between 1241 and 1267, 1267, and 1241 between Slavonia of bans the by made grants also and tia,

give a detailed description about description detailed a give

. . Thereafter, Thereafter,

ed n the and

of Hungarian Church policy in Dalmatia during the Árpád age age Árpád the during Dalmatia in policy Church Hungarian of to the archbishopric of Split from the twelfth century. I century. fromtwelfth the ofSplit archbishopric the to

s on f view of point ’s occasions I will deal with the temporal aspects of giving grants. grants. giving of aspects temporal the with deal will I C HAPTER 7

f iig rns Fnly I will I Finally, grants. giving of

NE , who believes that the contents of these these of contents the that believes who ,

the h dfnto o te rns includes grants the of definition The royal royal grants part of the Croatian Croatian the of part

to the to ie n 1158. in nine

royal hrh issued Church

grants grants examine the the examine

The thesis thesis The n case of of n case 14 in this inthis

The I I

CEU eTD Collection Miroslav See 21 COLLOMANNVS. REX inscriptionsfrom Zadar], IVSSIT // ERIGI ET HANCTVRRI[M] S[AN]C[T]AEMARIAE VICTORIAMPACIS PRAEMIA ET IADERAE INTROITUS. CONCESSADEOA PROPRIO// . .SVMPTV 20 Salonitanorumatque Spalatinorum pontificium 19 1977),119. 18 ofthe Dalmatian townsin the twelfth century], 17 16 custom. his was as Dalmatia, visited he when years the of one in 1105 after issued been have could grant Coloman’s opinion, my In grant. Coloman’s Split. of archbishopric the to Mary Saint of church the gave Coloman that known is it 1138 from king. Hungarian the of gift the to testifies itself tower the in inscription an only it, mentions charter no because exceptional Mary c Coloman period. islands. the and Split, Trogir, Zadar, seized he later years Three monastery. the of privileges previous the confirmed king the stay his in Mary Saint of monastery the at stayed he Dalmatia in intervention his during and Biograd in year that in Dalmatia and Croatia of in1102. Dalmatiana church to royalgrant madefirst the 1116) mentions, charters, from 1301 until 1102 from known sources narrative and inscriptions, are which dukes or kings Hungarian by issued those all grants here analyze will I Croatia. in archives national the of holdings and collections 1.

CDCII 47. CDC Györffy, György, “A 12. századi dalmáciai városprivilégiumok kritikája” [Critical notes on the the on városprivilégiumok [Criticalnoteskritikája”dalmáciai századi 12. “AGyörffy,György, ANNO INCAR[NATIONIS] . DOMINI . N[OST]ER . IE[S]V . CHR[IST]I . MIL[LESIMO] . C . V. POSTV. . C . MIL[LESIMO] . CHR[IST]I . IE[S]V . N[OST]ER . DOMINI INCAR[NATIONIS]. ANNO ern lg ad H and Gligo Vedran ai Kri, ijn Matijević Mirjana Karbić, Damir 21 , 19

II 9.

This charter of King B King of charter This from examples comprise here examined grants royal The royalexaminedThe grants

n h gfe te frmnind oatr i Zdr ih twr Ti gat is grant This tower. a with Zadar in monastery aforementioned the gifted he and

onfirmed the privileges of the bishopric of Trogir of bishopric the of privileges the onfirmed vj Morović, rvoje Zbornikradova Srpske akademije nauke

é 20 - la II also mentions that King Stephen II (1 II Stephen King that mentions also II la oo, n Jms Sweeney. James and Sokol,

Moreover, from the confirmation of King Béla II (1131 II Béla King of confirmation the from Moreover, eed i Kronike i Legende

. UNGARIAE D[AL]MAT[IAE. . CHROA]TIAE . CONTRVUI . .

(Budapest:CEU P Zadar, three years before he seized the city. During During city. the seized he before years three Zadar, Történelmi Szemle 17

At least three royal grants are known from this from known are grants royal three least At 8

Lgns n chronicles] and [Legends

ress, 2006), ress, 96. Hereafter Historia Salonitana. 36(1953): 101.

akvć “v ntia z ar” [Two Zadra” iz natpisa “Dva Marković, hme rhdaoi pltni Historia Spalatensis archidiaconi Thomae

(see Fig 3.). King Coloman (1096 Coloman King 3.). Fig (see

10(1967): 49. This custom meant that after he after that meant custom This 16

Coloman was crowned king king crowned was Coloman published primary source source primary published

the monastery of St. St. of monastery the

Slt Čkvk sabor, Čakavski (Split: 116 - 31) confirmed 31) privileges - 41) -

CEU eTD Collection 31 30 29 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 inin1188. Johnmonastery the Saint Biograd grant to of territorie these back seized III Béla King when 1180s, the of beginning the until lasted rule Byzantine king. Hungarian the of territories southern I Manuel whi Biograd, in John Saint of monastery of privileges the year.insameSplitthe Dalmatia, for Byzantium and (1162 III Stephen King Arts. SciencesAcademyand ArchiveCroatian of ofthe from Lucius Johannes of heritage manuscript the in archbishopric. the to inSolin property archbishopric. the to Moses Saint of church the and 1143. in Mary Saint of church the over archbishopric the of rights the confirmed He times. three least city fromthe heVenicewhenretook 1124 around Split to probablygiven was grant StephenII’s successors. his reignof the visits regular y third every in Dalmatia to went he Biograd in crowned was

CDCII 225. Makk, CDCII 106. CDCII 97. ArhivHAZU, LUCIUS XX ArhivHAZU, LUCIUS XX ArhivHrvatske akademijeznanosti i umjetnosti,LUCIUS XX CDCII 87 CDCII 54. Makk, The same manuscript preserves a note about the confirmation of this grant in Solin by inSolin grant this ofconfirmation the about note preservesa manuscript same The (1141 II reignofGéza Duringthe TheÁrpáds The 23

In 1158 he gave the church of Saint Bartholomew, Saint of church the gave he 1158 In

Comnenos Comnenos Árpáds

I will show show will I , , 114. , 20 - 21.

28 (1143 -

72) in 1163. in 72) It can be stressed that he was also the first Hungarian king to confirm heHungarian first king wasthe to canalso bethat It stressed - - 12/14. fol.12/14. 40. 12

in the next chapter chapter next inthe

80), the Byzantine emperor, seized Dalmatia among other other among Dalmatia seized emperor, Byzantine the 80), probably also confirmed the privileges of the archbishopric of of archbishopric the of privileges the confirmed also probably . 27 22

The Hungarian king Hungarian The

This donation is only known from a short note foundnote short a from known onlyis donation This - 1162) he gave grants to the archbishopric of Split at archbishopric ofat Splitthe to he gave1162) grants that these visits probably probably visits these that 9

- Three years later Géza II gave a certain certain a gaveII Géza later yearsThree 12/14. fol12/14. 26 31 h svnenh etr kp i the in kept century seventeenth the s.

30 , who had to fight agai fight to had who ,

e lo ofre hs brother’s his confirmed also He h e i i 1166. in did he ch . 40. . ear and probably they became became they probably and ear

the church the

were of Saint Stephen, Stephen, Saint of continued 29 nst Venice nst

n 1167 In

during during - 1125, , , CEU eTD Collection 39 38 HAZU,LUCIUS XX 37 36 35 34 33 32 S of archbishopric the of privileges the confirmed He Hungary. archbishoprichisofduringSplitthe reign. archbishop the to church. this concerning Andrewissuedprivilege royal ahad that in hismentions1210 in charter coastalregion, ofthe kin as grant this confirmed Andrew inJohnBiograd, ofSaint Biograd. in John archbishopr the of both privileges some confirmed 1198. in Split of archbishopric the and Zadar of archbishopric the of both privileges the confirmed Emeric King duke. the and king the during increasing started grants royal the of number the that the territory, Andrew’s see can One to unquestionable. was region this in belonged Church the with relations Dalmatia his of importance Since Mački. near Slavonia, in battle 1197 in Hum of part a in later and Croatia, Dalmatia, in rule the getting in succeeded Andrew Duke well. as Dalmatia reached elite the of groups brothersand betweentwo the Thestruggles forthrone. the fight their Hungary with (1196 Emeric

HistoriaSalonitana CDCIII.16. ArhivHAZU, LUCIUS XX CDCII 358. CDCII 293. CDCII 308.,CDC II 309. CDCII 310.,CDC II 310 terram cum omnibus suis pertinentiis confirmatum et corroboratum cum privilegio Domini Regis Domini privilegio cum corroboratum et confirmatum pertinentiis suis omnibus cum terram fe te tuge ewe te rtes Ade I (1205 II Andrew brothers, the between struggle the After The year 1197 was a turning point in the Hungarian royal policy in Dalmatia. King King Dalmatia. in policy royal Hungarian the in point turning a was 1197 year The

- 24 ad i b his and 1204) 34 ric of Trogir before 1202 before Trogir of ric - ,140. 12/11. fol.12/11. 28

Two years later King Emeric also confirmed the privileges of monastery of privileges the confirmed also Emeric King later years Two

- 37

311. 35 -

12/11.

Both Emeric and Andrew donated the property of Biać and Gradac Gradac and Biać of property the donated Andrew and Emeric Both

and church of Saint Vital to the bishopric to ofthe Trogir. Vital andofSaint church

29. fol.27 ohr Dk Ade (1197 Andrew Duke rother,

g between 1205 and 1210, because Matthew, the vice the Matthew, because 1210, and 1205 between g - 28.

39 38

- 10 and King Emeric gave mills on Jadro River to to River Jadro on mills gave Emeric King and 18 atr e a defea had he after 1198,

In the same year, Prince Andrew also also Andrew Prince year, same the In c f Split of ic

the hostile relationship between relationship hostile the - 1205) 33

and the monastery of Saint Saint of monastery the and plit in 1207 with special special with 1207 in plit

disturbed the peace peace the disturbed - ted King Emeric in a a in Emeric King ted 35) became king of of king became 35) 36

Maybe KingMaybe , see Arhivsee , - ban of of CEU eTD Collection 48 (2007):13 51 Herceg“Bishop and Stjepan and BeginningCroatia,” theKoloman of in Gothic the Cr Western Közlemények [Source vizsgálata” oklevélkritikai stoljeću,” kialakulásának XIII. u crkve splitske i zagrebačke 47 46 45 44 43 42 41 40 privileges the confirmed in1242, also time, that duringand fromVenice, Zadar seizeback to confir over authority his Zagreb. lose to want not did Kalocsa of archbishop the because unsuccessful, pr and rich the unify to claimed he when 1240, in territories his of organization ecclesiastical the transform to tried Coloman also. Bosnia of part a seized he because territory, huge a huge ruled He duch hisDuring Mongols. the against Muhi of battle the in died he when 1242, until 1226 from region the of duke the was of king 1226 in Trogir of bishopric Trogir.bishopric to andthe communityof his confirmed grant the previous 1217. in city the in stayed and crusade a led he Trogir of Church the Biograd in John Saint of monastery the of privileges the confirmed again Bosnia. of bishopric subordinated recently the of place the for regard

CDC153.IV CDCIII 278. CDCIII 258. ArhivHAZU, LUCIUS XX CDCIII 160. ArhivHAZU, LUCIUS XX CDCIII 99. CDCIII 70. On Coloman’s reform and the flourishing of Slavonia and Zagreb see Zagreb and Slavonia of flourishing the and reform Coloman’s On med this grant in 1242 while he was exiled from Hungary byHungaryTartars. from the inexiledhe whilewas 1242 med grant this ig éa V te former the IV, Béla King (1226 Coloman 47

oatia

- 41 (1970): 234.; (1970): 41

63.

– osperous bishopric of Zagreb and the archbishopric of Split. The attempt was attempt The Split. of archbishopric the and Zagreb of bishopric osperous

n niihd Project,” Unfinished An 42

- and 42), duke of the Kingdom of Cr of Kingdom the of duke 42), - - 12/13. fol.12/13. 29. 12/

Dujmović, Danko Dujmović,

45 a certain piece of la of piece certain a 11.f

later. year a it confirmed II Andrew and ol. 28 ol. duke -

29. y Slavonia and the bishopric of Zagreb was flourishing. flourishing. was Zagreb of bishopric the and y Slavonia trhvtk prosvjeta Starohrvatska

r tem Pro

and and of the Kingdom of Croatia and Dalmatia, also also Dalmatia, and Croatia of Kingdom the of - rtcl nlss f h frain f Slavonia], of formation the of analysis critical 11 Vjekoslav Jukić, Vjekoslav nd in Solin to the archbishopric of Split when Split of archbishopric the to Solin in nd pore

(06: 25 (2006): 3 eoe riig n pi, ig Andrew King Split, in arriving Before oatia and Dalmatia, gave Drid to the to Drid gave Dalmatia, and oatia

7 21) 171 (2010): 37

“The „Koloman Renaissance” in in Renaissance” „Koloman “The Ivan Basić, Ivan - 43.; yrf György, Györffy HortusArtiumMedievalium 46

40 - Coloman, the former the Coloman, 182.; “O pokušaju ujedinjenja pokušaju “O 41

44 he 1210, in Later,

and gave grant to to grant gave and

ldmr P Vladimir 48

He also triedalsoHe

“

Szlavónia Levéltári Goss, . North

CEU eTD Collection 52 51 50 49 in 1197. between Andrew Kingand fight Emeric Prince beginningofthe until inthe Church Dalmatia, n King the to Coloman, be related can grants five least at While low. was grants royal the of number the time this During died. I Manuel Emperor when 1180, until rule its secured and Dalmatia seized Byzantium 1167, a for except 1136, until territories these held state city Italian The 1116. in Venice Coloman, of son II, Stephen by First ruled cities Dalmatian the captured Dalmatia. over Byzantium and Venice with struggled kings Hungarian the cent twelfth the of end the until decrease to started grants royal the for g he and privileges the confirmed he decade next Duringthe Dalmatia. in rule his o beginning the at grants first the made Coloman King distribution. temporal their examine 2.1 2. in land of piece certain inMarymonastery the ofCroatiaSaint Zadar. to a donated he when grant royal last the issued IV Ladislas King time. that at Dalmatia and Croatia of Kingdom the of duke the was who kindred, Rátót the R Ban and V Stephen King by Nin of bishopric the to given were them of Three archbishopric to ofSplitthe inZadar. Chrysogonus Saint monasteryof the of

CDC533.VI CDC636.,V 637. CDC243.IV CDCI a tower to the monastery of Saint Marmonastery the ofSaint tower to a The temporalThe dist The distribution ofkingsThethegrants and dukes by In order to see the complex picture of royal grants to churches it is necessary to to necessary is it churches to grants royal of picture complex the see to order In decreased. grants royal the of number the century thirteenth the of half second the In V 163.V

ribution oftheroyalribution grants

when he supported Archbishop Ugrin’selection supported he when

ext five Hungarian kings made grants only nine times to the nineto timesonly made grants five kings Hungarian ext y

in Zadar. After number of Kingdied,the inColoman Zadar. 12

52 49

Two years later he donated helater years Two

short period around 1124 around period short

ury. During those decades decades those During ury. . 50 -

1125. Later, in Later, 1125. Cetina County Cetina oland from oland ave money ave 51 - f

CEU eTD Collection king the 1166 In uncles. his against throne him, for critical were 1165 and 1162 between years The reign. his of beginning the from Byzantium hostile the face to had III Stephen Venice. against city the over rule his secure to attempted ga II Stephen Probably Split. most the seized and he Trogir, Zadar, in Church the when to grants made he campaigns later these During cities. important and crowned was he when 1105, and 1102 in Dalmatia visi regular campaigns, military to connected were inDalmatia presences royalpersons’ other or kings’ TheHungarian territory. this in present personally were dukes or kings the when issued were grants these of majority policy church kings’ Hungarian the of characteristics issue 2.2 byissued,Ban ofwere themoneonly grants four before institutions ecclesiastical (1205 II Andrew century thirteenth the with relations royal the influenced brothers the between struggle the that clearly seen be can still it but period, examined the during considered be churches other and bishoprics of archives of disappearance the and sources surviving Thenumberofthe until becameduke. ofAndrew King(1116) death Colomanissued the after Church The temporal distribution of the grants due to their dates andthecircumstancesoftheirthegrantsdates The of due to temporal distribution

1244. After the mid the After 1244.

h dts n ocsos f oa gat poie aube nomto aot the about information valuable provide grants royal of occasions and dates The the to royalgrants leasttwelve at issued theybrothers the between conflict the During

from 1198 until the end of 1202. This was more than the number of royal grants, grants, royal of number the than more was This 1202. of end the until 1198 from with Byzantine intervention, territorial losses including Dalmatia, and battles for the the for battles and Dalmatia, including losses territorial intervention, Byzantine with

ie r i tms n Kn Bl I (1235 IV Béla King and times six or five - thirteenth century the number of the grants decreased drastically; drastically; decreased grants the of number the century thirteenth ve a grant to the archbishopric of Split around 1124 around Split of archbishopric the to grant a ve ts, and permanent stays. King Coloman led his army to to army his led Coloman King stays. permanent and ts, - 5, h fre dk, ae gr made duke, former the 35), 13

f Hungary of

and(1261 RolandDuke in Dalmatia. In my opinion a great great a opinion my In Dalmatia. in

took advantage of the fact that that fact the of advantage took C hurch in Dalmatia. During the During Dalmatia. in hurch - 0 dd o he times three so did 70) Dalmatian the to ants - 67).

- 25 when he when 25 should CEU eTD Collection 57 56 Szabados,“Imre,” 85 55 54 53 of example other The KingEmeric. brother, his with fight the during period long relatively a for there resided and 1197 in Croatia and Dalmatia seized who Andrew, Duke was exception usu kings Hungarian The twelfth the from century. charters the of case in especially circumstances, the about information the issuedduring were royalgrants Maybeother in1226. Trogir ofbishopric the landto of piece a donated also he duchy, the received had he Split of archbishopric the and b to grants made he and 1217, in crusade a led he when Split and Trogir in time short a for stayed Andrew King visits. these of one to relate may church Mary Coloman. King of reign the during evolved custom t and year, third every in Dalmatia visited probably kings Hungarian Dalmatia. in dukes in withthis 1242. attempt Chrysogonus wasassociated pr the of confirmation the Probably 1244. Tartar until the invasion after Venice with warred and Zadar over rule his secure to attempted IV Béla success. his after Pašman in Damian and Cosmas Saint of monastery the to grants a Dalmatia in rule the acquiring after 1198 in Hum to campaign Biograd. in John Saint monastery of the to grant a gave he 1167. by Šibenik and Biograd including region this of part a reconquered attempted to Da occupyissues. Stephen ManuelIII focused Italian Emperor on was

Györffy,“Critical notes”, 46 CDC163.IV CDCII 106. Makk, On the fight se fight the On Permanent stays were the third and rarest type of royal personal presence in Dalmatia. Dalmatia. in presence personal royal of type rarest and third the were stays Permanent and kings Hungarian of presence personal of type second the were visits Occasional TheÁrpáds

e: Vjekoslav Klaić, “O hercegu “O Klaić, Vjekoslav e: , , 96 - 111. - 110.

ally visited Dalmatia, but did not reside there permanently. The first The permanently. reside there not did but Dalmatia, visited ally -

49.

. When Duke Coloman visited Dalmatia for the first time after after time first the for Dalmatia visited Coloman Duke When . Andriji” [About Prince Andrew], Prince [About Andriji” 14

visits of the Hungarian kings, but there is nois there but kings, Hungarian the of visits 57

56 His undated confirmation of the Saint Saint the of confirmation undated His

Duke Andrew also led a military leda also Andrew Duke ivileges of monastery of Saint Saint of monastery of ivileges nd Croatia. The duke gave gave duke The Croatia. nd oth the oth RAD

bishopric of Trogir Trogir of bishopric 53 136 (1898): 200 (1898): 136

During this time this During lmatia and 55

King - 222; his CEU eTD Collection Artium 58 chapter thesis.ofnext the in willbeexaminedthe q These receive grants. to claimed cities these how and cities, Dalmatian different for grants the of importance the was analyze what to important isit precisely, More giving. grant aspect that important bishopricofTrogir. the to land of piece a donated Dalmatia, in visit aforementioned the during Coloman, Duke arc the and monasteries of privileges confirmed Andrew and grants Duke 1163. in previous Split of archbishopric the of of privileges the confirmed confirmations III Stephen privileges. mostly were grants These duchy. the receiving grant issued dukes or kings cases some In kings. the of favor the enjoyed Split of church the (1244) Ugrin of election the and 1200) (cc. Bernard Archbishop prelates or kings. the Hungarians with relationships either were archbishops These authority. royal representatives permanent of direct most thewere archbishops the as inDalmatia royalpolicy ha kings Hungarian The dukes. or kings the of presence personal the besides grants royal the of moredirectly. influenced kingcases ecclesiastical increa Church the to grants the of number The inDalmatia. policy church royal the in changes meant periods these of Both 1242. after while a for Dalmatia in stayand th

is kind of royal presence is connected to the to connected is presence royal of is kind Judit Gál, “The Changing Role of the Archbishops in Split during the Rei the during Split in Archbishops the of RoleChanging “The Gál, Judit d special relationships with the archbishops of Split. They played an important role in the the in role important an played They Split. of archbishops the with relationships special d

Medievalium Beside the royal custom and these reasons of issuing of grants there is also another another also is there grants of issuing of reasons these and custom royal the Beside issue the affected prelates of election and duchy,receivingthe coronation, The timeof

20(2014): (forthcoming, October 2014)

should be examined: the role of the city and its Church in the process of of process inthe Church its and city ofthe role the beshouldexamined:

fe te oscain f rhihp adu (18 and (1138) Gaudius Archbishop of consecration the After 15 Mongol

invasion, when Béla IV had to escape to had IV Béla when invasion, hbishopric of Split in 1198. Finally, 1198. in Split of hbishopric gn of the Árpád Dynasty,” Árpád the of gn s for their coronation or or coronation their for s sed and the duke or or duke the and sed having close close having uestions uestions Hortus CEU eTD Collection 63 gesellschaftlichen Entwicklung 62 Zadar mentioned], 61 AgMiddle 1247], 60 Churchamong Croats]the 59 the in changes serious caused this century ninth the during and 864 around established the shows 1105 in Coloman King i by grants given were which centers ecclesiastical 1000. to dated be can bishop a of mention underrule.Venetianwere Dalmatian which territories century. twelfth the before even bishoprics the among place special a had city the that meant Zadar importanceof 1154. in only status metropolitan to raised was city the of church the although history, church Dalmatian in role important an played also Zadar the abolished Split at councils church the after 930s, the from Dalmatia central and northern in inJohn Saint Bi of monastery the Zadar, in Chrysogonus Saint and Mary Saint of monasteries the dukes: and kings Hungarian the by grants given were monasteries Benedictine four addition, In grants. archbishopric Two examination. grantsrecipientsThe ofthe 3.1 3. mportance of Trogir at the beginning of the twelfth century. The bishopric of Nin was was Nin of bishopric The century. twelfth the of beginning the at Trogir of mportance

Butorac, ZvjezdanStrika, “Kada igdje se prvi putspominje zadarski biskup?”[When andwhere was firsttheb Ludwig Steindorff:Ludwig Josip Buturac and Antun Ivandija, Antun and Buturac Josip ed Ššć “aa i eeia d oie 19 d 14” Zdr n Vnc fo te er f 19 unti 1159 of year the from Venice and [Zadar 1247” do 1159. godine od Venecija i “Zadar Šišić, Ferdo

ihpi o Nn wih a cvrd h triois f h Cota dks previously. dukes Croatian the of territories the covered had which Nin, of bishopric RAD The bishopric of Trogir was probably established in the tenth century; the first first the century; tenth the in established probably was Trogir of bishopric The center ecclesiastical main the was Split sees. archbishopric were Zadar and Split Both bears monasteries and (arch)bishoprics grantee the of distribution territorial The royal ofthe grantsTerritorial distribution esuntil 1409](Split: Sveučilište u Splitu, 1976), 163 Povijest

142 (1900):224142 ograd (Pašman), and the monasteryinand(Pašman),Cosmas Pašman.the DamianSaints of ograd RadoviZavoda za povijesne znanosti HAZU Zadruu ,89. Die dalmatinischen Städte im 12. Jahrhundert. Studien zu ihrer politischen Stellung undStellung politischen ihrer zu Studien Jahrhundert. 12. im Städte dalmatinischen Die

In 1154 the new metropolitan province of Zadar covered the northern the covered Zadar of province metropolitan new the 1154 In (Zagreb:Hrvatsko književno društv – 226;NadaKlaić andIvo Petricioli,

(Vienna:Böhlau, 1984), 74

Povijest katoličke crkve među hrvatima među crkve katoličke Povijest

(pi, aa) n to ihpis Toi, i) received Nin) (Trogir, bishoprics two and Zadar) (Split, s

The fact that this bishopric was among the first the among was bishopric this that fact The 16

– 91. 60 o Sv. CirilaoMetoda, Sv. i 1973), 43.

–

165. 62 The geographical posit geographical The Zadar u srednjemZadaru dovijeku 1409

46(2004): 31 [History of the Roman Catholic Roman the of [History – 64.

ion and political political and ion

[Zadarthe in ishopof 59 l

CEU eTD Collection 70 Zadar], monasterySaint ofthe in Learned the ofColoman Royal tradition.chapel [Function,and form, Zadru” 69 regions].vol. 2.(Split: Benediktinski priorat 68 67 66 65 autonomy], legal umjetnostiu Zadru its and rulers national Croatian the 64 T territory. that they when 1125, in Venetians the by ruined was monastery Krešimir King of help the with 1059 in founded monastery. the to freedom royal granted Madius of granddaughter Cika, by founded kings. Croatian the and citizens the from to belonged probably was Chrisogonus Saint abolished. was Nin of bishopric the and Split in held were councils church when 928 and 925 around Split. of jurisdiction the under stayed bishoprics Dalmatian other the while dukes, Croatian the by ruled were which territories the all covered bishopric new the of jurisdiction ecclesiastical The 864. around the to pope. loyal stayed duke Croatian the while patriarch, Byzantine the of side of the on stood patriarch Fotius, Split, of archbishop between the even bishops, Dalmatian fight the I, Nicholas Pope the and Constantinople, During Dalmatia. in hierarchy ecclesiastical

Ostojić, Butorac, NevenBudak, “Croatia between Buturac, Ana Marinković, “Funkcija, forma, tradicija. Kraljevska kapela Kolomana Učenog u s Učenogu Kolomana Kraljevska tradicija.kapela forma,Marinković, “Funkcija, Ana Eduard Peričić, “Nin u doba hrvatskih narodnih vladara i i vladara narodnih hrvatskih dobau “Nin Peričić, Eduard vn Ostojić, Ivan 64 Prilozipovijesti umjetnosti u Dalmaciji

The monasteries The h fgt n shs o te hrh e te oe o sals te bis the establish to pope the led Church the of schism and fight The Benediktinci Povijest Povijest

The bishopricwasre The the most powerful family in Zadar, and the monastery was given grants both both grants given was monastery the and Zadar, in family powerful most the eeitni Hvtkj otlm ai krajevima našim ostalim i Hrvatskoj u Benediktinci

,93. ,43. 16 - 17(1969): 120 , , 216.

played an important role in the life of the of life the in role important an played 65

h uiiain f h Dalmatia the of unification The Franks andByzantium,”

- 121. - re established inestablished1075. -

established established –

TKON,1964), 40.

40 (2005): 45. 69 68 , ,

The monastery of Saint John in Biograd was was Biograd in John Saint of monastery The 17 a relative of King Krešimir IV (1 IV Krešimir King of relative a The monastery of Saint Mary of Zadar was was Zadar of Mary Saint of monastery The aoi nttt Jgsaese kdmj zaot i znanosti akademije Jugoslavenske Instituta Radovi

in 986 by the city’s prior, Madius. The prior prior The Madius. prior, city’s the by 986 in HortusArtium Medievalium njegova statutarna autonomija”statutarna njegova w ,

o lo ae t oa freedom. royal it gave also ho

cuc ognzto succeeded organization church n Bndcie i Cota n or other our and Croatia in [Benedictines ir

cit ies

3(1997): 17 . amostanu Sv. Marije uMarije Sv. amostanu

The monastery of of monastery The he monastery and monastery he [Nin in the time oftime the in [Nin hopric of Nin Nin of hopric 059 - - 74), who 74), 18 Mary in

The

CEU eTD Collection 72 znanostiHAZU Zadruu Monastery 71 andkingduke the the Both ofroyalgrants. severalterritorialin changesleddistribution the to inalso 1188. confirmedand grant Biograd BélaIII this is in John ofSaint monastery of theconfirmed privileges who Dalmatia Hungarian king first probablythe in policy century. royal that from sources Hungarian of lack the the despite in unquestionable Split of archbishopric the of strong The position city. this with relationship their strengthen to tried they and center important Spli of city and archbishopric The period. that during Dalmatia in strong really not was rule kings’ Hungarian the that seems It authority. Venetian under were which me it. recaptured III Béla King when 1180, until rule her under stayed city the and Zadar seized Venice Coloman. of death the after Dalmatia in situation archbishopric ofS the to seized recently issued his grants Only decreased. grants inroyal the of number the churchesdied Coloman After territories. important most the with relationship the strengthen to monasteryandof archbishopric ofSplit, the Trogir, of bishopric the to donations made Coloman King carefully. conclusions drawing necessitate sources surviving the of number the and culture written the of characteristics The distributionofTheroyalchanging 3.2 and grants policy also during time.receivedthis grants which Pašman, in Damian and Cosmas Saints of monastery the to moved monks its

KlaićandPetricioli, vedn tia “aotn v Iaa vneit u igau d tmjna o 15 gdn” [The godine” 1125. do utemljenja od Biogradu u Evanđelista Ivana sv. “Samostan Strika, Zvjezdan tropolitan status in 1154 and its jurisdiction covered the northern Dalmatian territories territories Dalmatian northern the covered jurisdiction its and 1154 in status tropolitan The rule of Duke Andrew in Dalmatia and the struggle between him and King Emeri King himand between struggle the and inDalmatia Andrew Duke of rule The The lack of sources is a serious hindrance to answering to hindrance serious a is sources of lack The

of Saint John the Evangelist in Biograd from its founding until 1125], until founding its from Biograd in Evangelist the John Saint of Zadar 52(2010): 149 , 162. , plit are known; the cause for this change can be found in the political political inthe foundbe canchange this for cause the known; are plit

71 - 172.

Saint Mary of Zadar twice. Coloman probably aimed probablyaimed twice.ColomanMary ofZadar Saint 18

Moreover, Zadar was raised to to raised was Zadar Moreover, questions about royal grants. grants. royal about questions After 1166 Stephen III was was III Stephen 1166 After

Radovi Zavoda za povijesne za Zavoda Radovi wr ter most their were t c CEU eTD Collection 73 ininMarymonastery the of Saint Zadar IV 1285. Ladislasto grant royal last The 1272. to 1266 from years six the in grants three received mid the after decreased grants royal the of number king each since important as emerged Trogir reigns IV’s Béla and his During Biograd. in John Saint of monastery the of privileges the confirmed he and Trogir, and Split of church the to thei represent to grants these used duke the and king The grantors. both of confirmation by privileges and their grants secure to tried also churches these opinion, my In 1). the Fig. (see Andrew Probably and Emeric Split. of church the to monasteries Gradac and centers ecclesiastical and Biać gave them of Both Biograd. in John Saint monastery of the and ofSplit archbishopric ofthe both privileges the confirmed w grants king’s and duke’s the that emphasized be 1200. in solemnly city the entered he when Trogir of church the to land of piece a donated Andrew Duke Moreover, brothers. the of favor the enjoyed also Biograd in John ecclesiastical important monasteries, its and Zadar recaptured to most grants gave They center. their was which Split, of archbishopric the to grants gave

ArhivHAZU, LUCIUS s gave more and more grants to the city. It should be also emphasized that while the the while that emphasized also be should It city. the to grants more and more gave s - XX r authority in Dalmatia during their fight. Andrew II also gave grants grants gave also II Andrew fight. their during Dalmatia in authority r - 12/11. fol. 28 12/11.

- 29. n usin lie t b nurl uig h fgt of fight the during neutral be to claimed question in

ere often similar or even identical. They They identical. even or similar often ere - thirteenth century, the bishopric of Nin Nin of bishopric the century, thirteenth

and the monastery of Saint Saint ofmonastery the and was issued by issued was 73

It should It CEU eTD Collection 2). Fig.(see numberof grants the in seen high be relatively received also Biograd can in John Saint of As monastery the and Trogir them. of bishopric of most received Split of archbishopric the grants, the of te the Concerning grants. received which churches the of archbishops or the in examined D contextroyalofTerritorialgrants in in ofthe 3.3 policy distribution n re t gt bodr itr o the of picture broader a get to order In geo political context political

Fig. Fig. 2 .The

of Dalmatia of Issuers 20

; then I will analyze the role of the bishops the of role the analyze will I then ; royal the Grants(1102 grants grants o h Church the to - 1301)

rritorial distribution distribution rritorial almatia hy hud be should they

CEU eTD Collection 76 iz 75 Dynasty,” 74 Nin. of bishop elected was certain a Hungary and from months Samson several for Dalmatia in stayed IV Béla when 1242, around began itsduringSplit. strugglemanyside took with times the cityand of the dukesalso kings the but grants, given only not was Trogir kings. the from favor great enjoyed city the emphasizedthat itbe should church ofthe Trogir of case the In grants. issuingof the influenced probably see archbishopric the and court royal the dynasty court. Hungarian the to Árpád the of kings the of rule someone w or who always hadHungarian archbishop aarchbishopric almost the under was city the When Dalmatia. međuTrogira i Splita Samsonwas mentionedinsources from1242 to1269,see CDC IV 202;CDC 505V Judit Gál, “Loyalty and Identity o Identity and “Loyalty Gál, Judit aa Klaić, Nada The bishopric of Nin came to th to came Nin bishopric of The in policy kings’ Hungarian the in important an played Split of archbishopric The HungarianHistorical Review rgr sene vijeku srednjem u Trogir

(Trogir:Muzej grad Trogira,1984), 72 74

The importance of the city and this special connection between the between connection special this and city the of importance The

f the Bishops and Archbishops in Dalmatia during the Reign of the Árpád the of Reign the during Dalmatia in Archbishops and Bishops the f Fig

3 (2014):(forthcoming,3 October 2014) (rgr Mzj rd Toia 18) 127 1985), Trogira, grada Muzej (Trogir: , .

2. TheRecipien e forefront in the 1260s, but I assume that this process process this that assume I but in1260s, the forefront e 21

ts ofts the Royal Grants from the beginning of the thirteenth century century thirteenth the from beginningof the - 73. 76

h fc ta Bl I ls Zadar lost IV Béla that fact The

- - 3. Io Babić, Ivo 135.; 6.

as closely related asclosely related 75

Prostor

CEU eTD Collection 77 byandthirteen the the or Croatia. elites of localdynasty royal previous the by founded were and cities Dalmatian important in situated were political had which centers ecclesiastical a lands donated to and importance, grants gave They period. examined the during bishoprics and archbishoprics important most the towards generous were dukes and and coronations giving receiving for opportunitygrants. providedalsothe or election ofprelates like occasions, Special presence. personal dukes’ and kings’ the during decreased. grants the of number the 1230’s which mid Venice, the After and grants. the Byzantium of issuing against the influenced Dalmatia over rule the for struggled Hungary beginningofthe the and century twelfth the end of grant of intensity 4. lifeZadar. of the in role important an played also Chrysogonus Saint of monastery the and freedom royal had Biograd in John Saint of monastery the and Zadar in Mary Saint of monastery The age. kin the of favor the enjoyed which monasteries The related. closely were grants royal the and see, bishopric the in prelate Hungarian the Venice, and Hungary between struggle the city, the of position of values the changed permanently

Ostojić,

The analysis of the territorial dis territorial the of analysis The the that showed grants the of analysis temporal and spatial the of analysis The Conclusion Benediktinci 77

gs and dukes belonged to the most influential ecclesiastical centers of their their of centers ecclesiastical influential most the to belonged dukes and gs - giving were the highest during the reign of King Coloman and between the the between and Coloman King of reign the during highest the givingwere th century Trogir also became Trogirdominant. also century th

, , 39 - 55.

d ofre piiee t Bndcie oatre which monasteries Benedictine to privileges confirmed nd

Split was dominant between the recipients of the grants, the of recipients the between dominant was Split Nin due to its location. In my opinion the geographical geographical the opinion my In location. its to due Nin tribution of the royal grants showed, that the kings kings the that showed, grants royal the of tribution

The majority of the examined grants were issued were grants examined the of majority The 22

1230s. Between these periods the kings of of kings the periods Betweenthese 1230s. - hrenh etr, r ab fo the from maybe or century, thirteenth

CEU eTD Collection confirmed privilegesthe of 1124. in Split StephMoreover,issue. later a ofpossibility the strengthens Mayalso 1116 in Venice ofsuccess the FebruaryofColoman death onlythein elapsed few between months factKing Dalmatia. The 1 that in a examples Later also Hungarianthe confirmedshow kings that privileges of chu 1124 around likely more or city the ofcapture Venetian first the 1136.untilit backheld and it seized soon around1124 overregionDalmatian 1116.Laterterritoriessecured the rule tohis he Venice in 79 bethestressedthat undated wasgrant alsoissued one in ofyears afterthe the seizureof (1 Split thosetim at were issuedgrants His 1111. and 1105,1108, 1102, in surely did he as year third every 78 StephenIII GézaII GézaII GézaII BélaII StephenII Col Coloman Coloman Coloman Coloman Issuer

Thisgrant undated is only and fromconfirmationknownthe ofColo Béla II. T oman i gat s nae ad ny nw fo te ofrain f éa I Sehn I (1116 II Stephen II. Béla of confirmation the from known only and undated is grant his

1105 1102 Year 1163 1161 1158 1143 1138 1116) 1125 1124 1111) 1108, (1105, 1105 1105 1105

79 - -

78 1116

(or

Monasteryof Mary St. Monasteryof church Granted ofSplit Archbishopric ofSplit Ar ofSplit Archbishopric ofSplit Archbishopric ofSplit Archbishopric ofSplit Archbishopric ofSplit Archbishopric Mary St. Monasteryof Trogir Bishopric of Mary St.

chbishopric

In my opinion the undated grant could have been issued either beforeeitherissued beencouldgrant undatedhave my theopinionIn

Split Split Split Zadar Trogir Zada Zadar City 23 Split Split Split Split

- 1125, when the Hungarian king seized Split. seized king Hungarian the when 1125, Confirmat Mary c Confirmation of Mary c Atower privileges of Confirmation privileges of Confirmation privileges of Confirmation grant ofthe Characteristics the grant from grant the Confirmation of Solin nearto landA certain Moses St. andStephen,St. Bartholomeo, ChurchesofSt. Mary c Confirmation of Mary c hurch of St. hurchofSt. hurchofSt. hurch of St. hurchofSt. hurchofSt.

man probablyman visitedDalmatia in rches after territoriesrecapturing

ion of

CDC CDC CDC 1 natpisa” “Dva Marković, 314. IV sacrum Illyricum Farlati, 15. CDCII. CDC Source HAZU, Arhiv fol.40. XX LUCIUS HAZU, Arhiv CDC CDC - 1125,butVenice 01. 105). -

12/14. 12/14. -

1 ls his lost 31)

es, so it canit so es, II. 47. II. 47. II. 47. II. 9. II. II. 87. II. 54. II. en II surely II en

116 and and 116

CEU eTD Collection ArchbishopBernard, asked tohimdo so.Bernard became the archbishop of aroundSplit 1200. 80 Emeric And Duke Andrew Duke Andrew Duke Emeric Emeric Andrew Duke Andrew Duke Emeric Emeric Andrew Duke BélaIII StephenIII StephenIII

codn t Acdao Toa o Slt ti gat a ise b te ig eas hs omr tutor, former his because king the by issued was grant this Split, of Thomas Archdeacon to According rew

1163 December before 1202 December before 1200 1200 1200 1204 1200 1198 1198 1198 1198 1198 1188 1166

80 -

ofSplit Archbishopric Trogir Bishopric of monastery Chrysogonus St. monastery John St. ofSplit Archbishopric monastery John St. ofSplit Archbishopric ofSplit Archbishopric ofZadar Archbishopric ofSplit Archbishopric John St. of Monastery John St. of Monastery ofSplit Archbishopric ofSplit Archbishopric

Split Split Zadar Split (Pašman) Biograd (Pašman) Biograd Split 24 Split Split Trogir Zadar (Pašman) Biograd Split (Pašman) Biograd

Confirmation of NinSkardin and ofbishoprics the rights over Confirmation privileges Confirmation of Hvar bishopricof the rights over Confirmation of privileges of Confirmation privileges of Confirmation privileges of Confirmation 1161 Biać, Gradac Biać, Gradac Biać, Vital St. church Confirmation of Dub privileges Co Jadro river to next Mills privileges Confirmation of Moses andSaint Stephen Saint Churchesof nfirmation of

of of

CDC 309 CDC 310. CDC 309. CDC 22 CDC CDC CDC fol.40. XX LUCIUS 16. 16. CDC 16. CDC fol.2 XX LUCIUS HAZU, Arhiv 357. CDC 358. CDC 140. Salonitana Historia 293. CDC 308.

- - -

12/14. 12/14. 12/14. 12/14. 310.

7 II. II. II. II. II. II.106. II. III. III. III. II. II. II. -

2 8 97.

. II. II.

CEU eTD Collection this grant referred toonethe 82 fromDecember 1202. 81 IV Ladislas StephenV StephenV Rola Ban BélaIV BélaIV BélaIV AndrewII Coloman Duke AndrewII AndrewII AndrewII AndrewII AndrewII

Maybe Andrew II confirmed his previous grant issued as duke, but it is also possible that the later later the that alsopossible is butit duke,issuedprevious as confirmedhis Maybe Andrewgrant II Both Emeric’sa Both

Fig. 3. Fig.

Royal Grantsto the Dalmatian Church (1102 1205 1202 1285 1272 1272 1266 1244 1242 1242 1227 1226 1217 1217 1210 1207 nd Andrew’s grants are lost; they are only known from the confirmation of Pope Innocent IIIconfirmationInnocent offrom Popethe only known theylost; are Andrew’sare grants nd

- 81

1210

from1200.

Trogir of Bishopric Bishopric of of Bishopric Nin of Bishopric Nin of Bishopric ofSplit Archbishopric monastery Chrysogonus St. Trogir Bish Trogir Bishopric of Trogir Bishopric of Trogir Bishopric of ofSplit Archb monastery John St. ofSplit Archbishopric St. Mary St. of Monastery Nin

opric of opricof

ishopric

Trogir Trogir Trogir Split (Pašman) Biograd Split Trogir 25 Zadar Nin Nin Nin Split Zadar Trogir

1301)

Coloman’s Prince Confirmation of Drid Biać Confirmation of inSolin landA certain privileges Confirmation of privileges Confirmation of church Vital Saint of Confirmation Croatia inlandA grant Roland’sBan Confirmation of LikaCounty Četiglavac CetinaCounty privileges Confirmation of grant Andrew’sKing Coloman’sand Duke Confirmation of grant

278. CDC 258. CDC fol. XX LUCIUS HAZU, Arhiv 160. CDCIII. CDC 70. CDC fol. XX LUCIUS HAZU, Arhiv 533. 533. CDC 637. CDC 637. CDC 636. CDC 243 CD 163. CDC 153. CDC

C IV. IV. C - -

29 28

12/1 12/1

III. III. III. III.99. III. VI. VI. V. IV. IV. mentionof . -

29 3 1 . V. V. V. . . .

CEU eTD Collection (Budapest: EötvösLoránd Tudomány in Árpáds], the of kingdom the in Split of archbishops 83 city. the asembassiesof betreated can see from their Split of archbishops ofthe for exam court For occasions. special royal the to cities Dalmatian the from sent embassies by asked be could grants smaller the to connected mostly were Church the to grants royal the that examination previous the from seen and assumed be can it charters, the of circumstances mentionthe grants the of functions non symbolic and practical the highlight will I chapter newthis of results the Concluding or of role monasteries the examine these will to I finally grants giving of occasions give the and process to the analyze will reasons I Next (arch)bishoprics. kings’ the and beneficiaries the on be will focus The Church. to grants royal the of role symbolic and practical the with deal w chapter the of parts following The rule. royal the express to instrument impressive most itselfthe because inwas kings’ presence the andDalmatia, royaldukes’entourage the entries, repr their and policy

ui Gl , “ , Gál, Judit This chapter deals with the role of royal grants to the Church in the kings’ and dukes’ dukes’ and kings’ inthe Church the to grants royal of role the dealswith chapter This lhuh h dcmns sud y h kns o h C the to kings the by issued documents the Although number were number

u ea gaiss pt eum aput gratiosus erat Qui The R ole ofthe esentation in Dalmatia. First I will examine royal visits, kings’ and and kings’ visits, royal examine will I First Dalmatia. in esentation issued by the kings at the royal court ( court royal the at kings the by issued

ple

the egyetem,2014), , R Thomas the Archdeacon the Thomas

issuing, neither the place nor the witnesses or supplicants of supplicantsof or witnesses nor the place neitherthe issuing, oyal G C . . slt éskk z ráo krlsgbn [h rl o the of role [The királyságában” Árpádok az érsekek spliti A HAPTER rants to the Church in Churchin the rants to

54 26

- kings’ and dukes’ personal presence, and a a and presence, personal dukes’ and kings’ 63. historiae Magister - confirmative grants in the kings’ policy. policy. kings’ the in grants confirmative T

’s mentions of mentions ’s s ee Fig. 4.) Fig. ee e. óia euz n Jdt Gál Judit and Belucz Mónika ed. , R hurch many times did not not did times many hurch oyal

The latter type of the the of type latter The the frequent absence frequent the olicy

83 rns and grants, Inaddition ill , CEU eTD Collection 84 forme custom the to according year third every in happened usually kings the the invasion of the or Andrew the Byzantium, and Hungary of Kingdom the between was latter the custom, royal the of issuingthesegrants ofthe of i isit region, inthe visits princely royaland during given were grants the of most Since visits. royal of peaks the were which cities, the Dalmatia in presence princely and royal the of functions the buildings in materialized th to connected entries solemn and visits, princely and royal r the symbolic acts includes It ruledterritories. the inover and royalpower ofthe depiction expression and the to definition b 1. to cities Hun Dalmatian the of representatives the of visits official about testify also charters efore a further analysis of the role of the grants to the Church infurthergrants roleanalysisChurchof the to royalpolicy.the the Hungarian a of efore

CDCII 225. cult of the dynastic saints was also part of royal representation in part Dalmatia. ofroyal dynasticcult wasalso ofrepresentation the saints Royal visits to Dalmatia Royalto visits gary. oyal The definition definition The The royal presence in presence royal The under For 84

entourage of the royal representation royal the of

that took place inplace took that em tnig f h rl o te rns wl bri will I grants the of role the of standing . .

R uig visits during peetto as icue te iul expression visual the includes also epresentation f oa rpeetto in representation royal of

and artifacts and . .

regular either was Dalmatia Mongol

the ruled territories, royal grants and gifts, the compothe androyal gifts, territories, grants ruled the to

in sal cnetd o iiay vns sc a te wa the as such events, military to connected usually the ruled lands, the frequency and characterization of of characterization and frequency the lands, ruled the s and the flee the and s . According to the definition used definition the to According . the following chapter following the mportant to see the circumstances and the context context the and circumstances seethe to mportant 27 in

to the ruled cities and the following events events following the and cities ruled the to the the ing otx o th of context

fight of King Béla IV. The regular visits of of visits regular The BélaIV. King of

together with the royal entries into entries royal the with together or or

between King Emeric and Duke Duke and Emeric King between occasional. The former was part part was former The occasional.

fy analyz efly consists is

thesis should be given given be should thesis of of s

e the representative representative the e every act connected connected act every f th of here of spread the , e royal power power royal e duri d sition ng the the ng The The

of of r r CEU eTD Collection formationof BudaandPest capital], as a 88 87 86 85 Óbuda country the of part central formed was visits Dalmatian country the First ofHungary. Kingdom withinthe Dalmatia of characteristics geographical the and Hungary of kings ofthe from royalderived custom. probably introduction symbolic first of kind This cities. the visited also he Dalmatia, in rule him. to fealty receive to and Béla, son, her region, the of duke new the introduce to was visit her of purpose the that mentioned he Mary, Queen of visit the recorded Spalatensis Thomas when but custom, this about source direct no is There co their after years 1248 1245, yearthe after ineverythird visited Dalmatia Bélaalso IV that sure period the during kings the among visits.ofthe continuance Venice and of Kingdom the between Dalmatia over rule of changes The Dalmatia. circumstances who Coloman, King of reign Györffy,“Critical notes”,49. Györffy,“Critical notes”,49. HistoriaSalonitana e Brá L Kmrvt, Bd (s P (és “Buda Kumorovitz, L. Bernát See ,

I The frequency of these visit these frequencyof The andEsztergom. cn e assumed be can t , , and the strong Hungarian princely rule in these territories did not allow the the allow not did territories these in rule princely Hungarian strong the and ,

yearly and1251. over over ,

,366. the

ronations if they had the opportunity and Dalmatia was under their rule. rule. their under was Dalmatia and opportunity the had they if ronations during this period, period, this during the centuries kept the kings of Hungary from these regular visits to to visits regular these from Hungary of kings the kept centuries the royal 86

In my opinion, the kings of Hungary probably visited Dalmatia a few kingsvisitedathe my ofHungaryDalmatia probably In opinion,

however, ,

itinerant lifes itinerant : . The regular yearly visits visits yearly regular The .

northeastern

iie Dlai i 10, 15 10 ad 1111. and 1108 1105, 1102, in Dalmatia visited Tanulmányok Budapestmúltjából s

examin can beunders can

s) fvrsá aauááakzee” Te einns f the of beginnings [The alakulásánakkezdetei” ‘fővárossá’ est) ht th that especially in the twelfth century when custom when century twelfth the in especially tyle tyle

Transdanubia with the cities of of cities the with Transdanubia ed 28 did not mean that the kings visited every part of visitedpart every kings the mean that not did is

here

three tood in tood eieClmnsrglrpeec i is it presence regular Coloman’s Beside . - year period was the custom of visits visits of custom the was period year concerned 87

When Duke Coloman received the received Coloman Duke When the context of the itinerant lifestyle itinerant ofthe context

18 (1971):18 7

only the only Mongol

Hun - 57.

Medium regni Medium invasion, in 1242, ininvasion,1242, gary, Byzantium, Byzantium, gary,

Székesfehérvár, Székesfehérvár, 85

olitical of the the of ,

the CEU eTD Collection 29 92 PrincetonUniversity 2012Press, 91 oftitle ban] 90 (Zagreb:lands], AGM, 1997) sred 89 symbolic and representative had also but role, practical a played only not c entourages the visited Dalmatia and Croatia of dukes the or kings the When by his entourage. of part also were also leaders secular landhisand surrounded of archbishops bishopsand was king The Dalmatia. in power royal the of proof visual was kingdom, symbolically. the armyand byroyal supported the region the over kings the of rule the expressed p The Hungary. the reconstruct to impossible it makeBéla IV’sreigns. and Coloman’s continuitybetweenvisits regular of grants of circumstances the about information them. among family powerful most the were Šubići The region the over control took nobilitylocal and the too Dalmatia in and Hungary, inweakened visit of study this of period whole the Howe for theoretical events. rare not were years three every Dalmatia to visits regular kings’ Hungarian the that idea the support circumstances These cities. coastal the visit to difficult more it making southeast, is to northwest area from the extending of most and kingdom, the of center the from time. year’s a in country the of part every

Teofilio F. Ruiz, Ruiz, Teofilio F. Mladen Ančić, “Image of Royal Authority in the Work of Thomas Archdeacon,”Thomas of Work the in AuthorityRoyal“ImageofAnčić, Mladen Damir Karbić, “Šubići bribirski do gubitka banske časti (1322)”časti banske gubitka do bribirski“Šubići Karbić, Damir - n h mdea ras f amta e Lvra Ćoralić, Lovorka see Dalmatia of roads medieval the On 40. njovjekovnimhrvatskim zemljama

s decreased, and during the last three decades of the thirteenth century royal rule rule royal century thirteenth the of decades three last the during and decreased, s T Regular and occasional visits had several functions for the kings and dukes of of dukes and kings the for functions several had visits occasional and Regular he , ZbornikOPZ HAZU medieval conditions of travelling also did not allow the royal court to travel to to travel to court royal the allow not did also travelling of conditions medieval A King Travels:Spain.Late Traditions Festive Modern EarlyKing in and Medieval A ersonal presence and related representative acts could have secured and and secured have could acts representative related and presence ersonal

)

22(2004): 1

[Road,travelling:travelers, medievaltheand travelling Croatian roads in entourage including entourage - 26.

89 . After the death of King Béla IV the frequency frequency the IV Béla King of death the After .

29 oevr amtaws oae eaiey far relatively located was Dalmatia Moreover,

ver, a conclusion cannot be more than than more be cannot conclusion a ver, u, unc, uoaj : et i uoi u putovi i ceste : putovanja putnici, Put, [The Šubići from Bribir until the loss of the of lossthe until Bribirfrom Šubići [The 90 high magnates and prelate magnatesand high

Moreover, the lack of sou of lack the Moreover,

oee b te iai Alps Dinaric the by covered 91

Their solemn presence, presence, solemn Their

Povijesni priloziPovijesni oastal territories their their territories oastal (NewJersey: s from the fromthe s

22 (2002):22 rces and rces 92

CEU eTD Collection 97 96 95 94 93 own his appointed also king the while ban, a including court, own his had Andrew 1200. and 1198 in Dalmatia in time long relatively a spent latter the Andrew, Duke and Emeric King between conflict an Split, of count the Knin, and Dalmatia. in Skardin, Nin, of bishops II the by accompanied territory, Béla this visited also probably with III Stephen were Csanád and Pécs, Győr, Zagreb, Veszprém, of bishops inlatteronceleast1142. probably the at did and stayedinheZadar. whenentered the Cesar andZadar ofGregory Archbishopleast at 1105 In reign. Coloman’s during Dalmatia from king followedthe who prelates and officials lands. seized recently the the from without precisely territory more kingdom, the from entourage Coloman’s among were prelates several (Orodea), Várad and Győr, Pécs Vác, of bishops the again, Kalocsa and Esztergom of archbishops the 1111 several leas at king, the with were Zagreb and Eger of bishops the 1102 In kingdom. the of territory new the to king the followed officials high and prelates several localfromthe region Who functions.

CDCII 49 CDCII 15. CDCII 24. CDCII 19. CDCII 9. ooa srl vstd amta n 12 10, 18 ad 11 Drn hs visits his During 1111. and 1108, 1105, 1102, in Dalmatia visited surely Coloman After Coloman’s de Coloman’sAfter comes

50.

te on pltn, n te rhihp f stro acmaid him; accompanied Esztergom of archbishop the and palatine, count the , followed

fiil t Cota Dlai, n Saoi, o h nme o office of number the so Slavonia, and Dalmatia, Croatia, to officials

joinedtheirretinue the kings and dukes during their visits from the kingdom, and who who and kingdom, the from visits their during dukes and kings the

ath, one can assume that Béla II and Géza II also visitedalso andDalmatia; GézaII Bélacan one II assume that ath,

d other secular officials of the region in 1163. During the the During 1163. in region the of officials secular other d 96 counts, counts,

s was meaningful.wass 97 95

30 The archbishops of Esztergom and Kalocsa, theKalocsa, and The archbishopsofEsztergom the count palatine, and other noblemen and and noblemen other and palatine, count the

hr i nt uh infor much not is There comes

of the city were together with him him with together were city the of t; 93

three years later, in1108, later, years three ain bu the about mation , Veszprém, Veszprém, , 94

in - CEU eTD Collection 314. 102 Herrschereinzüge 101 100 99 98 issu of place the contain not does let 1142 reign. his during Dalmatia to went also GézaII itbethat canassumed andsurely visitedBélaStephenterritory; thisBéla III III, II, II, c twelfth the end the of until death fromColoman’s region inthe presence Dalmatia. entries Dalmatia. in dukesthe also and kings ofvisitsthe occasional en aland. rulerssanctified ofaround the atmosphere created the this and kings the surrounded prelates Dalmatian visits; and these Hungarian during significant was Church the of role The region. the of leaders secular the with together bishops, and archbishops Dalmatian the Hungary, from elite highest the they 1226. when and 1225 elite in Dalmatia secular local the by also and region, this of bishops the Split, of Da was he 1217 in Dalmatia other o archbishop the archbishop the Dalmatia: of leaders secular and prelates the by accompanied 1200. and 1197 between doubled holders

CDCII 308 Szabados,“Imre”, 97.

CDCIII 251,259. CDC II.15,CDC lmatia. Later, Duke Béla and Duke Coloman were also escorted by Guncel, the archbishop archbishop the by Guncel, escorted also were Coloman Duke Béla Duke and lmatia.Later, n the On

comes

in It can be assumed that solemn royal entries royal solemn that assumed be can It s to Zadar, Trogir Zadar, to

102 one assume that he that assume one definition -

309;309

HistoriaSalonitana, Th rm rai ad Dalmatia. and Croatia from

im sp im r i n sc ifrain bu te xc crusacs f h kings’ the of circumstances exact the about information such no is ere f Split, the bishops of Knin and Skradin, the Skradin, and Knin of bishops the Split, f

n tps f h ryl nre se Gri Jse Schenk Jasper Gerrit see: entries royal the of types and - ätmittelalterlichenReich

310.

and Split in 1105, when he when 1105, in Splitand ih the with 100

96;Daniele Farlati, went

The entourages during the period studied here inc here studied period the during entourages The e , but because of the form of the charter and the and charter the of form the of because but ,

to Dalma to magnates from Hungary and also by the bishops of of bishops the by also and Hungary from magnates . ( . Géza II’s confirmation of the privileges of Split Split of privileges the of confirmation II’s Géza Köln:Böhlau Verlag, 2003 99 98

31 tia in the second year of his reign. reign. his of year second the in tia hn nrw I e a rsd ad visited and crusade a led II Andrew When

IllyricumsacrumIV

Beside his own court Duke Andrew was was Andrew Duke court own his Beside in took over the over took to cities were parts of the regular and and regular the of parts were cities to

101 comes

. (Venice: . Sebastiano Coleti, 1769), KingColoman )

47 - rule in North and Central Central and inNorth rule 65.

of Split and Zadar, and Zadar, and Split of , ,

eeoil ud Politik. und Zeremoniell tourage could have have could tourage entury, but Stephen but entury, - elect of Zadar, Zadar, of elect made T type of the the of type luded both luded he charter charter he

glorio visite us in d d

CEU eTD Collection 111 110 ed. 109 Bulletin 108 ( Renaissance the and Ages Middle the in Performance Processional 107 Mongols. 106 105 104 103 city the Church. gaveendthe to entryandhe andthe ofgrants the privileges confirmed acknowle the privilegeswere king. the to swore also who citizens, the to oath an taking after cities entered Coloman King walls. their entering by them over rule their express land the over rule his regime waythe ofChrist. or Sunday Palm on Jerusalem into walked way. They functio symbolic and cultural several had entries the but events, political only not were 1217 Trogir entered he 1200, around once, least At kings. other to compared Dalmatia in time long relatively pers was oath the document the of end the at officials and prelates the of confirmation Amsterdam:Rodopi, 2001 ArhivHAZU, LUCI

HistoriaSalonitana, CDCII HistoriaSalonitana Hurlbut, Ernst Kantorowitz, Ernst Barbara A. Hanawalt and Kathryn L. Reyerson. “Introduction”, in “Introduction”,Reyerson. L. Kathryn and Hanawalt A. Barbara f fleeing was he time first the since city, the to visit second IV’s Béla was it Thomas to According BarbaraA.Hanawalt andKathryn L. Reyerson es D Hurlbut. D. Jesse . 105 codn t Erns to According expressed the rule of the kings and the hierarchy of the kingdom in the most solemn most the in kingdom the of hierarchy the and kings the of rule the expressed

. 26(1944) The h ryl nr ws smoi fr o te ntlain n wloe f new a of welcome and installation the of form symbolic a was entry royal The 109

Béla IV also entered to Splithe entered andalsoDalmatia.when to visited 1245 1251 betweenBélaIV 49

„TheDuke’s First Entry,” 157 W

- 50. royal entries were the most symbolic parts, the peaks, of the royal visits. They visits. royal the of peaks, the parts, symbolic most the were entries royal hen King Coloman entered the cities the entered Coloman King hen

solemnly. :

207 108 nly ie b te ig and king the by given onally USXX “ -

96. “ 160 231. The

h Dk’ Frt nr: ugnin nuuain n Gift and Inauguration Burgundian Entry: First Duke’s The . Later the kings or dukes sec dukes or kings the Later .

) - , ,

162. “King’s Advent” and the Enigmatic Panels in the Doors of Santa Sabina, Santa ofDoors the in EnigmaticPanels the and Advent” “King’s 155 t 104 -

12/11. fol.12/11. 27 Kantorowi

- Later, as king, he also entered Split while he leading a crusade in crusade a leading he whileSplit entered also he king,as Later, 156. dgment established ofthe dgment

- 158. c - 28. z, the kings entered to the cities like Christ Christ like cities the to entered kings the z,

( Minneapolis: appeared like appeared 32

was , his entry was the symbolic recognition of of recognition symbolic the was entry his , ured the loyalty of the cities and also to to also and cities the of loyalty the ured

ae written. later University The oath and the confirmation of the the of confirmation the and oath The structure of the Dalmatian cities. Dalmatian ofthe structure St. John the Baptis the John St. ,

City and Spectacle and City d Ktle Ahe ad i Hüsken Wim and Ashley Kathleen ed.

ofMinnesota 103 ,

ue nrw pn a spent Andrew Duke it can be assumed that that assumed be can it ” ,

Press, 1994),xi

in in in Medieval Europe Medieval in t, who prepared who t, oig Subjects. Moving hn he when ”

111 rom the rom T 106 110 ns. . he

Art 107 At ,

CEU eTD Collection 117 116 in Renaissancethe 115 114 113 112 functio representative entries royal known The region. the a in power royal of proof visual and the was is it as role Dalmatia, practical a had presence royal the emphasized, I wasgiven. ingrant the whenwas dukeDalmatia kingor the isthat itknown cases other inDalmatia given were in presence royal the to related were grants the of majority the that emphasized be can It 4). Fig (see not or Dalmatia in issued was grant a that assume only can one circumstances, historical the from concluding cases, a grant every and each analyzing allow not does sources Dalmatia outside court royal the at or visits royal during Dalmatia in either occasions, different on beneficiaries the to given be could Church to grants royal 2. Europeanfound inroyalitbecan but Dalmatianother rituals custom, ceremony. the closed generosity king’s the since entries, royal the especially and visit, royal the of part pattern. same the followed entry IV’s Béla that assume can a Church the to grants giving by entry his finished and bishops Spalatensis. Thomas by description detailed the from city. the to grants with process

ArhivHAZU, LUCIUS XX

HistoriaSalonitana HistoriaSalonitana CDCII CDCII 9 Lawrence M. Bryant, LawrenceM. The ue Andrew Duke As process of giving grantsprocess ofgiving

308,309, etc. - the analysis of the temporal and territorial distribution of the gr the of distribution territorial and temporal the of analysis the 10,15; 106,225. etc. This role of the royal grants grants royal the of role This ,(Genéve: Librairie Droz, 1986)

364. 160.

The King and the City in the Parisian Royal Entry Ceremony:Politics,ParisianEntry Ritual, Royal the inCity the andKing The

: nee Toi, urudd y h lcl rlts ad finishe and prelates, local the by surrounded Trogir, entered

c - ertain charters (or (or charters ertain

12/11.fol.27

112

A few years later, as king, he entered Split, which isknown which Split, heentered asking, later, years few A - 28. Dalmatia. More precisely, 20 grants surely or probably or surely grants 20 precisely, More Dalmatia.

in the glorious entries was not a special Hungarian special a not was entries glorious the in ,

42. narrative sources) include the place of issue, ofinclude place narrative the sources) 33

113

nd the way they were given. In many In given. were they way the nd He was led into the city by the local the by city the into led was He 114

iiggat a important was grants Giving nd the citizens of Split. One Split. of citizens the nd

in the Middle AgesinMiddle the

ants has shown has ants well. The lack of of lack The well. and Artand 117 d the the d 116 . n in in n 115

the the As

- CEU eTD Collection (University PennsylvaniaPark: The State University 2001)Press, 62 122 University1997),Press, 82. 121 120 ( Jong Approach 119 118 inform give not do sources The field. known less even royal praises the of bishops the events: liturgical reaffirmed. was world the of order the and status protected own its recovered generosity this by and favor royal the enjoyed defenseless became and ci the role: special a had grants giving where atmosphere sacrificed a provided process Thismass. a journeywith their finished landand the of bishops grace. by divine but nature, by human gates their opened walls, by world the from separated themselves were which cities, the events these crowd. huge a of front in generosity and rule their represent to Hungary of kings fo opportunities provided entries royal or coronations like Events recipients. the of part the on obligations created and territory, their and kings the between relationship underling t during and grants, generosity. for dukes and kings the reward helped and Church, the of loyalty and obedience the assured grant The generosity. royal the citiesChurch. to the the and period the of

Ančić HistoriaSalonitana Ernst Kantorowicz,Ernst Arnaud ego Bertelli, Sergio Leiden The grants, which can be unders be can which Thegrants, h crusacs f sun te oa gat t h Cuc otie amta s an is Dalmatia outside Church the to grants royal the issuing of circumstances The ,

”, in in ”, “From “ the

Jan Bisjteweld, Jan T . : Brill, : 2001 Medieval Transformation: Texts, Power, and Gifts in Context in Gifts and Power, Texts, Transformation: Medieval

and hymns, and the process finished with mass.finishedwithprocess the hymns, andand examined, the symbolic peaks of the visits, always finished with issuing grants grants issuing with finished always visits, the of peaks symbolic the examined, e ig wr dslyd n hi fl glory full their in displayed were kings he h Kn’ Bd. ard iul o Pwr n eivl n Ery Modern Early and Medieval in Power of Rituals Sacred Body. King’s The Demigod The King’s Two Bodies. A Study in Medieval Political TheologyPoliticalMedieval in Study A TwoKing’s Bodies. The 96., 161.; he royal visits these grants also expressed the social hierarchy and the the and hierarchy social the expressed also grants these visits royal he ) ,

1 “

The Medieval Gift as Agent of Social Bonding and Political Power: a Comparative a Power:Political Bondingand ofSocial Agent as MedievalGift The 46.

”

118 ArhivHAZU, LUCIUS XX 80.

land escorted the kings into the city, t city, the into kings the escorted land tood as a kind of gift, were not only the expression of of expression onlythe not were gift, of kind asa tood 121

119 h kns nee te iis urudd y the by surrounded cities the entered kings The 34

The cities and the Church the and cities The

- 12/11. fol.12/11. 28 ation about the process of donating in donating of process the about ation - ty which opened its gate to the king king the to gate its opened which ty 63. like ,

The entries themselves were also also were themselves entries The 122

29.

, , gemina

ed. Esther Cohen and Mayke de de Mayke and Cohen Esther ed. . (NewJersey:Princeton . persona

always valued the valued always he audience sang sang audience he wo were who , 120

During Europe r the the r .

CEU eTD Collection Dalmatiasince Duke Andrew thatheld territory duringtheir conflict. ofissue.Kingdate the Emeric’s the grantssurely wereo issued 123 period the during cities Dalmatian lifeofthe roleinthe important playe Church the that fact The monasteries. Benedictine or Zadar, and Split, Nin, Trogir, the 3. grants. discusse be will Dalmatia outside issued grants the of importance the grants, giving of aspects royal the dealswith chapter Sincethis letters. by him asked or king, the embassiesto sent cities the to in less it suitable but favor, also royal the were express grants These Church. the to lands new give or privileges the confirmprevious to kings the asked cities the probably that emphasized, be can It cases. most

Outside Dalmatia the grants which were surely issued in other parts of the kingdom, known from chartkingdom,fromknown of the partsother in whichweresurelyissuedgrants Dalmatia theOutside The recipients of the grants: Their background and thekings’choices and backgroundgrants:Their recipients The ofthe conclusion of the previous chapter. They were bishoprics and archbishoprics, namely, namely, archbishoprics, and bishoprics were They chapter. previous the of conclusion

The recip The 4Fig. The (assumed)places of issuingof thegrants d in the next chapter, in the context of the urban society and the recipients of the the of recipients the and society urban the of context the in chapter, next the in d ients of the grants to the Church can be divided into two groups, as noted in noted as groups, two into divided be can Church the to grants the of ients

fluenced the audience. The detailed sources testify that that testify sources detailed The audience. the fluenced 35

utside the region becauseregiontheutside wasable tovisithe not

examined helps explain the the explainhelps examined

123 ers or ers d an an d

CEU eTD Collection 125 Lang,1991), 71 124 saints. dynastic dukes and kings the when lifeofSplit in everyday the royalcourt ofrepresentativesthe th during city the over rule their secure to Árpáds the helped and kings the of representatives the were court, royal the commune city t Dalmatia, of life the in position Hungary Southwestern from gens powerful of members kings Hungarian the to connected Split of archbishops The prelates. its and 1267 and 1245 between centuries the during Hungary of kings The Split. and kings Hungarian the of both officials as diplomacy in figures key also were they re the were They city. their of life the in important were Split of archbishops The period. this during Hungary of kings the of center political Zada After century. tenth the of purchases. the oflandholdings the on based was role Their well. the in place important an had they but grants. these for reason Ančić,“Image”, 35 Joan Dusa Joan Split was the ecclesiastical center of North and Central Dalmatia from the beginning beginning the from Dalmatia Central and North of center ecclesiastical the was Split 124 presentatives of Split. Split. of presentatives , The Medieval Dalmatian Episcopal Cities: Development and Transformation. ( Transformation.Developmentand Cities: DalmatianEpiscopalMedieval The ,

- 72. o ni h mid the until for

h signific The - 36.

xmnd ecp fr sot eid ne te ue f ig éa IV Béla King of rule the under period short a for except examined, i nt fette lcin f h sclr edr o th of leaders secular the of election the affect not did . However, the Árpáds paid much attention to the Dalmatian Dalmatian the to attention much paid Árpáds the However, . The

visited Dalmatia and also took part in spreading the cults of the of cults the spreading in part took also and Dalmatia visited ant role of the archbishops of Split showed itself in the royal royal the in itself showed Split of archbishops the of role ant rhihp ad ihp)wr o ny clsatcl leaders ecclesiastical only not were bishops) (and archbishops

s time is - r fell under Venetian rule, Split became the most important most the became Split rule, Venetian under fell r thirteenth century thirteenth T here was no awareness of th of awareness no was here hey were not only the ecclesiastical leaders of the city, but but city, the of leaders ecclesiastical onlythe not were hey . The Hungarian archbishops of the city were often often were city the of archbishops Hungarian The . . . secular life secular

h ar The atcptd n h sclr administration secular the in participated ee lot las eit always almost were 36

chbishops of Split were the most direct direct most the were Split of chbishops

. of the cit the of 125

Church The archbishops, who were related to to related were who archbishops, The .

While the Church had a prominent prominent a had Church the While ies and and ies ;

, , they were among the among were they accumulat e significance and role of the the of role and significance e e Hnain o closely or Hungarians her in their foreign affairs as as affairs foreign their ed by donations and donations by ed city e New York: Peter York: New

entourage entourage and they they and

directly Church , ,

CEU eTD Collection 130 129 128 127 126 of landholdings and rights confirmedthe also II Andrewlater and Andrew, Emeric,Duke III, Šiben back seized having after privileges previous its confirmed III Stephen when 1166, in king Hungarian the from grant a received 1125, in Biograd destroyed Venice after Pašman to moved which John, Saint of monastery The lands. money rights, and landholdings their of Confirmations grants: altogether received Zadar from nuns The grants. of beneficiaries as emerged Biograd andelectionCh bishop the ofthe influencedthe probably BélaIV attention: royal greater received Nin and decreased, ofZadar importance The Zadar. of north kilometers 15 around situated is city sincethe fortunate, was suzerainty. Venetian fellunder citywhen the 1244, (1242 Samson invasion. namely, bishop, Hungarian first its had Church Churchtwelfth to centuries. the duringthirteenthgrants and the of number great the in revealed is which Hungary, of kings the of center important an institutionfrom ofarchivesthis but archbishopric, the the later bishopric, the to grants made they that assumed be can it and center, political kings’ the to in culture either given were grants the that emphasized archbishop. its archbishopricand always dukes and kings The grants.

Makk, Peričić,“Nin”,133. “Zadar”,Šišić, 272. HistoriaSalonitana, CDCII 47,54, 87,97,etc. Before Zadar went under Venetian suzerainty this city was probably the Hungarian Hungarian the probably was city this suzerainty Venetian under went Zadar Before h mnsey f h Vri Mr i Zdr n te oatr o Sit on in John Saint of monastery the and Zadar in Mary Virgin the of monastery The 12 the in donated were Nin of bishopric the to grants The The Árpáds 127

In my opinion, these facts were related to the struggle for Zadar and its loss in loss its and Zadar for struggle the to related were facts these opinion, my In Hungary or Dalmatia. Hungaryor ,100.

305.;CDC IV 20., 240;V 390, 426,505

urch later received grants. laterreceived urch 126

One finds no similar example in the history of the written the historyof inthe similarexample no finds One

128 k n Bord rm Byzantium. from Biograd and ik -

these centuries are lost.Trogirwasalso are thesecenturies 6. The

129 geographical characteristic of Ninof characteristic geographical

o a e bl twr and tower, bell new a for - 60s and 1270s, and the the and 1270s, and 60s 9, fe te Mongol the after 69), 130

Béla four

CEU eTD Collection HAZU centuries], eleventh and tenth the in elite urban Dalmatian the of afamily of example An Madii: 135 Madiuswhen decided to refound it. 134 133 132 131 gav Hungary of kings The cities. the in monasteries these of importance the and history the to connected were dukes and kings the of choices the opinion, my In monastery. a Zadar, familyof powerful most bythe founded were others two foundation, royal a them was elevethe Zadar, in monastery 986. in Zadar century. (1058 Zadar. of life the in place convent the foundation was She Zadar. in one powerful most the family, Madii the of member a Cika, by founded was Mary St. of convent The institutions. hi to important is it monasteries, grant. known monasteryone receivedZadar Chrisogonus of TheSaint from Biograd. being expelled monksofth the that noted beitshould but monastery. the nd the Saint Cosmas and Damian monastery had a common history with the royal St. John St. royal the with history common a had monastery Damian and Cosmas Saint the nd

O Marinković,“Funkcija”, 74. CDCII 106,225, 293, 358;III 99. Zrinka Nikolić, “Madijevci: primjer obitelji dalmatinske gradske elite u desetomijedau “Madijevci:obiteljigradskeelite dalmatinskeNikolić, primjer Zrinka The monastery was mentioned in 918 for the first time, but it was ruined by the end of the tenth cen tenth the of end the by ruined was it but time, first the for 918 in mentioned was monastery The stojić,

- 23(2005): 1

74) around 1060, and received also grants from the Croatian kings in the twelfth twelfth the in kings Croatian the from grants also received and 1060, around 74) o udrtnig h kns ad ue’ hie i mkn gat t these to grants making in choices dukes’ and kings’ the understanding For The monasteries which received grants were politically important institutions; one of of one institutions; important politically were grants received which monasteries The 133 nth century and managed to makeCroatian connectionswithmanagedthe kings. nthto affinalcentury and Benediktinci,

The The 134 131 Saint Chrisogonus monastery of Zadar was founded by Madius, the prior of prior the Madius, by founded was Zadar of monastery Chrisogonus Saint - 24.

The monastery of Saints Cosmas and Damian received one known grant, known one received Damian and Cosmas Saints of monastery The h Mdi wo one te t Mr cnet n S. Chrisogonus St. and convent Mary St. the founded who Madii, The

36. until city the in posts ecclesiastical and secular important most the held

received many grants from the Croatian kings and had an important an had and kings Croatian the from grants many received 132

The monastery of Saint John was founded by King Krešimir IV IV Krešimir King by founded was John Saint of monastery The

hih the ghlight

e St. John monastery moved to this monastery after after monastery this movedmonasteryto John St. e probably a relative of the ruling dynasty. After the the After dynasty. ruling the of relative a probably 38

social background and history of these these of history and background naestom stoljeću”[Thenaestom Zbornik OPZ Zbornik e grants to to grants e 135

tury, CEU eTD Collection 136 did. to favoring by rulers Croatian the with continuity the indicate to 1166. in Biograd of vicinity the of recapture the after time first the for dynasty, Tripimirović the t related were which monastery, John St. the of privileges the confirmed Hungary of kings the that symbolic be could it example, For dynasty. royal previous the with relationships import is it Nevertheless, cities. their of life the on influences strong also had monasteries the preferred hand, other the On city. important an in were which bishoprics to and archbishoprics Dal in policy royal the were which those or city previous the rulers ofCroatia. to connected their of life the in positions important had which institutions

Makk,

136 ant to mention that the kings gave grants to the monasteries which had close close had which monasteries the to grants gave kings the that mention to ant The choice of recipients of grants could be symbolic and also had a practical role in in role practical a had also and symbolic be could grants of recipients of choice The

TheÁrpáds Besides the political reasons for making a grant, the new rulers of Dalmatia intended Dalmatia of rulers new the grant, makinga for reasons political the Besides , , 100.

ai. n h oe ad te ig ad ue gv gat t the to grants gave dukes and kings the hand, one the On matia.

5. MapFig.of Dalmatia

the

same institutions as they as institutions same o

CEU eTD Collection GospinotokSolin], in 140 139 138 137 granting and dynasty Tripimirović the of continuity symbolic the breaking granting theseroyal Knin.churches Ančićthat states in Bartholomew St. of church royal the with along archbishopric the to Stephen St. of church the While Zvonimir. King of reign the probablyduring Split, to returned was Mary St. of church The while. a for Benedictines to belonged they and changed probably churches s the in the Spit of to archbishopric churches these donated II, Krešimir of wife royal the previous Jelena, Queen the Croatia. to in related dynasty was church, Mary St. neighboring the with along church, t to given church, Moses and Stephen St. The too. donations, new River. Jadro the the on mills and Solin to of close lands new received Split of numberarchbishopric higher a in resulted have would archbishops c It court. royal the with relationships close with prelates or Hungarians and either were political Split kings’ of archbishops the the was and center city ecclesiastical the because been have may Split of place prominent and (2), Nin of bishopric the (2), Zadar in convent Mary St. the (8), Split of archbishopric the between divided were grants These 3.). Fig (see made were grants new Thirteen (arch)bishopric. or monastery were a of grants privileges or these grants previous of majority The Dalmatia. in Church the to grants 4.

CDCII 47. HistoriaSalonitana, CDCII 16 Radoslav Buzančić, Buzančić, Radoslav New donations andtheir donations importance New The kings of Hungary and the dukes of Croatia and Dalmatia gave gave Dalmatia and Croatia of dukes the and Hungary of Thekings -

and Moses was part of the kings’ property until 1158, until property kings’ the of part was Moses and 17.

Prilozipovijesti umjetnosti u Dalmaciji

140. Senojkve eia n Oou Sln” Te eivl obe hrhs at churches double medieval [The Solinu” u Otoku na geminae “Srednjovjekovne

econd half of the tenth century. Later, the ownership of the the of ownership the Later, century. tenth the of half econd he archbishopric in 1138, was also in Solin. in also was 1138, in archbishopric he 40

to the Templars between 1164 and 1168 meantand1164 1168 betweenthe Templars to an be assumed that the influence of these these of influence the that assumed be an

37(1998): 59

h bsorc f rgr 1. The (1). Trogir of bishopric the - 61. 139

when Géza II donated it donated II Géza when at leastthirty at confirmations of of confirmations the abbey of St. St. of abbey the 140

138 Mladen 137 -

eight eight

This The

CEU eTD Collection good a establish to wanted 141 Coloman citizens. powerful most the and kings Croatian the of favor the enjoying by city the in influence political strong had which convent, female symboli and practical both securehisin andarchbishop Split.to position elected the for city the of favor the win to case: this in role practical a had grant new The the but archbishop, an only not washe 1248 and 1245 between and election, his after and during strongly him supported Béla city. the of i ColomanDuke by Trogir to given was their it cities; the between and lands debated the cities to belonged also Drid two clergy. the between territories these of ownership the over argument the to John Saint the of inmonastery Biograd. privileges the of case the in seen be could it as cease, not did heritage Tripimirović the with relationship symbolic The region. the in rule his install and Dalmatia mid the By cities. the in rule his of installation the during important more was dynasty Tripimirović the mid the in Byzantium kin the for priority took Split of archbishopric the with relationship good and strong a Having dynasty. previous the of heritage the about statement symbolic a merely being than purpose practical in support strong Dalmatia.for need Byzantiumthe and Vrana in Gregory

Klaić, n y pno, givin opinion, my In King Coloman’s famous grant of the bell tower to the St. Mary convent in Zadar had Zadar in convent Mary St. the to tower bell the of grant famous Coloman’s King Bia concerning grants The Trogir gs - twelfth century the situation had changed, and Géza II did II Géza and changed, had situation the century twelfth

,127 over preserving the royal lands in Dalmatia, especially after the conflict conflict the after especially Dalmatia, in lands royal the preserving over n 1226. n - , also to the Templars, was because of the conflict between Hungary and and Hungary between conflict the of because was Templars, the to also , 135.

1150s,. When Coloman seized Dalmatia the symbolic continuity with with continuity symbolic the Dalmatia seized Coloman When 1150s,. 141

Béla IV donated Cetina County to Ugrin, the new archbishop elect newUgrin, archbishop the to County Cetina Béla donated IV c functions after he seized Zadar. First, the king supported that that supported king the First, Zadar. seized he after functions c g a royal territory like these churches could have had more more had have could churches these like territory royal a g

ć and Gradac, lands between Split and Trogir, were related were Trogir, and Split between lands Gradac, and ć comes

of the city as well, appointed by the k the by appointed well, as city the of

not have to (re)seize (re)seize to have not with with ing. CEU eTD Collection AgesMiddle (9th 142 thei of proof visual the were visits kings’ The custom. royal the of part was grants giving influence by andprelates. themgrants electingto rulers wanted giving external pe study inthe strong of was cities Dalmatian the in Church case the of role The threats. the in and struggles internal both during Church the of support the win t favor their showed andcities important most the supported They purpose. same the for grants their towns. Dalmatian the with relations political establish to the only not since cities local but the previousrulersCroatian urba their on influence great had also Monasteries Zadar. captured Venice when 1244, after emerged Nin of importance the and kings the of center important arc an became also and region the of center political the was Zadar Dalmatia. Central and North in Church the of center the was Split position. important an and influence political great had and/or hierarchy the of top the at were which ecc the to grants gave dukes and kings the that testify here examined grants The support. cities’ the and its win to Church to grants used dukes and kings The Dalmatia. new favorprobably were growinggrants signsofthe The city. the served circumstances political changing the Nin, of case In city. the in Tripimirov w relationship

Neven Budak, “Foundations and Donations as a Link between Croatia and and between Croatia Link a Donations as and“Foundations Budak, Neven 5.

owards the influential monasteries of the region. The kings and dukes used grants to to grants used dukes and kings The region. the of monasteries influential the owards Conclusion Con The grants also had a symbolic role. When the kings and dukes visited Dalmatia Dalmatia visited dukes and kings the When role. symbolic a had also grants The has Budak Neven ić dynasty. Moreover, the tower also represented the king’s rule and graciousness graciousness and rule king’s the represented also tower the Moreover, dynasty. ić cluding the results of the analysis, grants had a practical role in the royal policy in in policy royal inthe practical role had a grants analysis, the of results cludingthe ith this convent and his policy of making grants was similar to that of the the of that to similar was grants making of policy his and convent this ith - 11thc.),”

Jahrbüch Geschichtefür Osteuropas

demonstrated that the Tripimirović dynasty used grants to Church to grants used dynasty Tripimirović the that demonstrated

n elites stood behind nstood elitesthem. 42

ofroyal the court.

55(2007): 489. hbishopric. Trogir was a politically politically a was Trogir hbishopric. 142

The kings of Hungary also used also Hungary of kings The the Dalmatian Cities in the Earlythe CitiesDalmatianin the

lesiastical centers centers lesiastical riod and the the and riod r r CEU eTD Collection byloyalty giversomehow: suppor and the of favor the return to had and obedient be to had receiver The giver. the for regard and respect earn could relationships;generosity political socialand shaped also Thegrants grants. grants dominant The a them. over marked power their expressed also but cities, the towards gestures made only not they presence personal their during generosity their showed rulers the When elites. t ruled the with connect to opportunity the provided entries and visits These followedthem. prelates magnatesand Hungarian of number huge a while Dalmatia, of leaders secular the landand the of bishops the by surrounded were Theyregion. the over rule - udmnnrltosi bten h r the between subdominantrelationship t.

eceiver and the issuer of the the of issuer the and eceiver erritories and their their and erritories CEU eTD Collection Leeuwen(Leuven: Leuven University Press, 143 They citizens. the and kings the between communication the of levels both on themselves. occurred over power ruler’s the acknowledge to had supr dependents their expressed kings the while because citizens the on charges laid presence royal The spectacles. and rituals organizethe to together worked The region. the in ruler the and cities the and events participateduringthese hadlandto ruled ofthisinhabitants presence royal a with hand in hand went times many which 1. duringcommunaltransformation to themselves accommodated kings the how show processes to is these aim My policy. how royal the influenced and cities the in Church the of role changing the and development context social the discuss will I Then presence. kings’ the during present be to motivation their also and king the towards behavior their discuss will I giving. grant and visits royal during role their and audience the with deal r the in part active an took also citizens their and cities the but cities, the over rule their express kings did only Not events. unilateral not were communication, from grants the of role the analyzed have I far So cities. Dalmatian the of view of point the from

Jacoba van Leeuwen. “Introduction”, in in “Introduction”,Leeuwen. van Jacoba the perspective of the royal court, but the visits, entries, and grants, on both levels of of levels both on grants, and entries, visits, the but court, royal the of perspective the The audience of the royal visits and thereceptionofroyalof the royal and grants visitsaudience The This chapter will discuss the urban and social context of the royal grants to Church to grants royal the of context social and urban the discuss will chapter This Royal visits to Dalmatia were not spontaneous events, neither were the royal entries entries royal the were neither events, spontaneous not were Dalmatia to visits Royal The Social Context of the Royal Grants to theRoyalChurchGrants ofto Socialthe ContextThe

the thirteenth century.thirteenth the

Symbolic Communication in Late Medieval TownsMedieval Late in Communication Symbolic 2006),xiv C

of the royal grants. The focus will be on communal communal on be will focus The grants. royal the of HAPTER 44 - xv

T .

HREE

emacy over the ruled lands, the the lands, ruled the over emacy oyal events. First, I will I First, events. oyal 143

hs recognition This ,

ed. Jacoba vanJacoba ed.

subject subject CEU eTD Collection pertinentiam( 148 Sciences,2010), 34 Motion 147 Religiou 1946), Press, California of University laudes 147 recepti, gaudio et honore translation).See cum populo universo et clero, 146 145 (Turnhout:Brepols, 2014) 341 in Hungary,” Cledin. Colo King the then pope, lauded first praise royal This 1114. around from Zadar in preserved was praise royal clergy. the and citizens the by power royal age. Árpádian the during dukes joy,receivedandwepraises. solemnand Trogir of people the hand, other the on clergy, the hand, one the on Trogir, city of the to entered and ofDalmatia coasts the to went “We events: following afte issued was which charter, A king:symbolicthe the depictsreceptionof he where Thomas 1217, in Split city. to entry II’s Andrew their about description detailed of a wrote Archdeacon walls the inside him admitting when acts solemn and honor with rit in and words in king the to loyalty their expressed 144

ua Zpa “omncto i a on Ubn iul ad ieay n h Mdea Kndm of Kingdom Medieval the in Literacy and Rituals Urban Town: a in “Communication Zupka, Dušan Transl Georgius Györffy,Georgius intravimus. civitatem Traguriensem accessissemus partes Dalmaciae maritimas ad Ernst Kantorowicz, Ernst e. oa Hlc n Rsilv oik Bailv: nttt o Hsoy f lvk cdm of Academy Slovak of History of Institute (Bratislava: Kožiak Rastislav and Holec Roman ed. , s and Secular Rituals in the Political Culture of Medieval Kingdom of Hungary”, in Hungary”, ofKingdom Medievalof CulturePolitical the inRituals Secular and s 148 the king’s majesty.king’sthe th as far as censers and crosses with proceeded surplices their over vestments silk in robed clergy the all Then praises. his sounding loudly king, lord the meet to procession in out marched army his of crowd whole the and foreigners and citizens the All According to my sources, sources, my to According ation:

The ab annoab 1000 usque ad annum 1196 Uses of the Written Word in Medieval Towns: Medieval Urban Literacy II Literacy Urban Medieval Towns: Medieval in Word Written the of Uses HistoriaSalonitana,

ArhivHAZU, LUCIUS XX detailed - 37. Diplomata Hungariae antiquissima accedunt epistolae et actae ad historiam Hungariaehistoriam ad actae et epistolae accedunt antiquissima Hungariae Diplomata

Laudes Regiae. A Study in Liturgical Acclamations of Medieval Rulers Medieval of Acclamations Liturgical in Study A Regiae. Laudes man, his son, Prince Stephen, Archbishop Gregory of Zadar, and Ban Ban and Zadar, of Gregory Archbishop Stephen, Prince son, his man, eeto fteknsws addw i vrosodr,wih have which orders, various in down laid was kings the of reception -

342. 145 e Pistura Square, chanting together in a manner worthy of of worthy manner a in together chanting Square, Pistura e

161. These praises were the symbolic, public recognition of the the of recognition public symbolic, the were praises These r Duke Andrew’s entry of Trogir around 1200 depicted the depicted 1200 around Trogir of entry Andrew’s Duke r

oa praises royal - - 12/11, fol.12/11, 28 5; ua Zpa “oe o Rtas ad iul o Power: of Rituals and Rituals, of “Power Zupka, Dušan 157; 146 )

” ( 147

Budapest:Akadémiai Kiadó, 1992 45

From the examined period, only one item of item one only period, examined the From

ee ato te eeto o te ig and kings the of reception the of part were - 29.

ual actions. ual

ymnidicas 144

oo aiie recepimus abiliter honor

They welcomed the king king the welcomed They

accepted us with honor with us accepted ) , , Ubi [ab] una [parte] a [parte] una [ab] Ubi 400. , ed. Anna Adamska Anna ed. ,

Historiographyin

(Los Angeles: (Los

where

(My CEU eTD Collection HoubenandKristjan Toomaspoeg(Galatina: Mario Co in Hohenstaufen”, of II Frederic 152 151 5. Towns,MedievalLate in Communication 150 149 a during personally king the ask could they First, kingdom. the of parts other in and Dalmatia in both forthem, applied also clergy the and citizens the but grant, a give to need c ruled the and ruler the between communication the of part were documents These city. the and Church the for favor royalthe of proof visual were butthey legaldocuments, only not were study, recent confirmed also kings the presence, long These away. far personal from privileges their in given were which grants Beside semi quasi the of generosity the and realm the of hierarchy the cities: the towards loyaltyofreceivedthe Dalmatian statements the cities. hisand to dependents of rewarded who ruler, the of presence the in grants received cities the of elite secular the and entries and fa Visits the earn to elites presence. local the for time royal and place a provided the during apparent also were cities the of relations self for opportunity inandChurchgrants gifts.bycitiesthemthe engaging with the court. royal the of interest t supposed were Split of archbishops The cities. Dalmatian the of loyalty the mid the unusua an inEurope. period Carolingian from the transmitted been

Gál, “ Gál, State and “Ritual Brown, Andrew

Kan Georg Vogeler. “The Distant Emperor. Communication between European and Mediterranean Towns and Towns Mediterranean and European between Communication Emperor. Distant “The Vogeler. Georg torowitz,“The “King’s Advent” Quierat A royal visit was not only an event to recognize the kings’ rule, but it also ga also it but rule, kings’ the recognize to event an only not was visit royal A I emphasized that the royal grants were tools were grants royal the that emphasized I - thirteenth century the kings of Hungary used the influence of the Church to secure to Church the of influence the used Hungary of kings the century thirteenth l tool for the rulers to secure their power over the ruled territories. ruled the over power their secure to rulers the for tool l ”, ity. 54 - 152 63. - representation of the cities. The social hierarchy and the internal political internalpolitical the hierarchyand social The cities. the of representation

The royal grants to Church were not only issued when the kings feltthe kings the when issued only not Churchwere to grants royal The

151

on ad omncto. omncto bten on II Towns between Communication Communication. and Towns The kings wanted to take advantage of the political influence of influence political the of advantage take to wanted kings The

208 -

ulig Crmne i Lt Mdea Bue” in Bruges”, Medieval Late in Ceremonies building: ed. Jacoba van Leeuwen (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2006) 4 2006) Press, UniversityLeuven(Leuven:Leeuwen van Jacoba ed. - - 209. distance confirmations, as Georg Vogeler showed in his in Vogelershowed asGeorg confirmations, distance

46 ngedoEditore, 2011), 134

the kings used to express their relation relation their express to used kings the 149

The vor of the king. Both the Church the Both king. the of vor

use of Church liturgy was not liturgy was Church of use - 135.

150 o represent the represent o

At least until least At e. Hubert ed. , - god king. god Symbolic ve the the ve

royal royal - CEU eTD Collection 157 156 155 154 153 Split vice the Matthew, when 1210, in Bernard. continued, Archbishop and king the between relationship enjoyed and Dalmatia, Central in territories huge held he since policy, Andrew’s of change this in roleimportant an probablyplayed of Split, comes the inDomald, Split1207. archbishopric of land confirmed II Andrew King Split. of archbishopric the of interests the served that confirmations and grants gave he coronation his After duchy. his during Trogir of bishopric the towards generous more was Emeric King from grant a as Gradac and Biać of villages the of acquisition the achieved Bernard Archbishop First, fights. these Split. of archbishopric over betwe Trogir, disputed also and was Split ownership between whose lands territories certain over jurisdiction the for struggled cities The purposes. such for used were Church to grants royal the how shows 1245 until century the from Trogir and Split between struggle a of example The visitedinking,from whenBélaIII. embassythe Zadar asan 1188, cou visitedroyal the andclergy the magistrates Third,the privileges. their confirm to king the asked Split of citizens the when coronation, II’s Géza King after 1142, inlike letters, in confirmation and grants for apply could they Second, visit. Klaić, IICDC 225 ArhivHAZU, LUCIUS XX Klaić, IIICDC 16 and Trogir in the case of the ownership of the land of St. Vitalfor good landinofthe Trogir. ofSt. ownershipcase ofandthe the ofthe Trogir The Church and the city could use the kings’ the grants grants the kings’ the use could city the and Church The Trogir Trogir the king’s favor. Domald’s political power could have assuaged the bad personal personal bad the assuaged have could power political Domald’s favor. king’s the

, 78 , 77. ,

154

- The result was that both the Church and the cities were involved in involved were cities the and Church the both that was result The

12/11.,fol.27

w hich had previously belonged to the bishopric of Trogir to the to Trogir of bishopric the to belonged previously had hich

- 28. and Duke Andrew around 1202. around Andrew Duke and

- 47 a o h osa einajdctd between adjudicated region coastal the of ban

en the bishopric of Trogir and the the and Trogir of bishopric the en rt, where they asked for the favor offavor the for asked wherethey rt, 156

to furthertheir to h srgl fr h land the for struggle The beginning of the thirteenth thirteenth the of beginning 153

155

However, Andrew However,

political political goal 157 s. s.

CEU eTD Collection 163 162 161 160 159 158 the elected citizens, th cities; the of questions important the the by together called were citizens the important, was assembly the of presence the or questions important decide to needed city the whenever assemblies great or general The citizens. the all included Urban into institutions. divided similar was society had cities Dalmatian other probably and Trogir, and Split in assemblies Great century. eleventh the in began cities Dalmatian the of self The development. their examine to sources enough provide cities these and grants the of most received Trogir and Split radically. decreased Church to the of mid most the especiallyafter examined period, for Hungary of Kingdom the to belong not did it Dalmatia in city important will grants of 2. byfor ingood whichking.madeofthe Trogir, wassupported the peace was1245 1242. in Trogir of Church the to Drid confirmed andcity, latter the favored He Trogir. and Splitbetween argument the fanned invasion Mongol the during presence IV’s Béla King lands. disputed the to belonged also time, first the for Dalmatia

Novak, Novak,

CDC153.IV CDCIII 278. CDCIII 258. Novak, The Duke Coloman gave Drid to ColomanDukeDrid to gave The examination of the communal development and its influence on the distribution distribution the on influence its and development communal the of examination The Povijest Splita Povijest Splita Pov

urban ijestSplita

be confined to the examples of Split and Trogir. Although Zadar was also an also was Zadar Although Trogir. and Split of examples the to confined be

context ofcontext comes , , 276. , 123 ,275 -

- 124.

278.

maiores 158 of the city, and laterinmadecity, nameofpeacethe city.the and of the

and King Andrew confirmed his grant in1227. grant his confirmed Andrew King and the royal the 160

and the cityandthe Church the

a boe u n 22 vr h v the over 1242 in out broke War minores ey took oaths to foreign rulers, regulated the life the the life the regulated rulers, foreign to oaths took ey grants - thirteenth century, when the number of royal grants numberofroyal the when century, thirteenth 48

to the Church the to ,

ols n non and nobles comes . 162

of Trogir inhewhenvisited 1226 ofTrogir

These assemblies decided about decided assemblies These ee o sadn institutions; standing not were

- - organization of the citizens citizens the of organization ols bt h assemblies the but nobles,

lae f srg and Ostrog of illage were organized both organized were 159

Thist 161 163

erritory

CEU eTD Collection 171 170 169 Dioničkatiskara, 1913), 305 168 167 166 MedievalTrogir. 165 164 tenure Hugrin’s during peak its reached Split of archbishops the Split. in representatives direct most kings’ the were also they city the in rule ecclesiastical and secular their besides and court, royal the to connected closely century. twelfth the during world other’s ineach part take to began powers secular and ecclesiastical the Trogir, In city. the lifeof inthe and cases secular year. a for rule bishop a of lifethe and for offices held their archbishops rolebishopsand played,the the besides because important was city the of leaders ecclesiastical the to city their of leader ecclesiastical the elected canons the and citizens the but Church, the of right the only not was (arch)bishops the of election in cities, dominant was Church the examined period the of most for While powers. AndrewofZahumlje. histor the in of rule the under inwriting down put was Split ofstatute first the when time the was that examples, two the to century, twelfth the

Novak, Novak, Steindorff, Gál,“ Klaić, Novak, vn Strohal, Ivan Novak, 168 The formation of a commune included a separation of the ecclesiastical and secular secular and ecclesiastical the of separation a included commune a of formation The around began which commune, the of organization and development communal The Qui erat Trogir

PovijestSplita PovijestSplita, PovijestSplita in the second half of the thirteenth century the two powers started to separate. The separate. to started powers two the century thirteenth the of half second the in oiet Splita Povijest DieStädte y of Split, the general assembly made peace in the name of the city with Count Count with city the of name the in peace made assembly general the Split, of y ,74. ”, 62 ”, SpaceandSociety 169 rva oiet amtnkh gradova dalmatinskih povijest Pravna

podesta

- hl h l the While 63. 164 , 157 , ,373. ,279. 167

277.

became more i more became 279.; , - 310.

159.

Gargano de Arscindis in 1239. in Arscindis de Gargano

]

rn Benyovsky Irena . in part took also archbishops the election, the influenced aity

( Zagreb:Hrvatski institutpovijest,za ntensive around the midthe around ntensive

49 Latin

, , Lgl itr o te amta cte] (Zagreb: cities], Dalmatian the of history [Legal Srednjovjekovni gether. Participation in the election of of election the in Participation gether. 166

Two years later, for the first time first the for later, years Two 170 - thirteenth century. thirteenth

2009 In Split, the archbishops were archbishops the Split,In

171 of office, when he was not not was he when office, of Trogir ) ,

41. The secular influence of of influence secular The comes dru i Prostor .

only received the the received only 165 the life of of life the

Returning š tvo

[ The

CEU eTD Collection 175 174 173 Matica hrvatska,2010), 172 ecclesiastical by dominated been had which city, the of square main the transforming started c thirteenth the of half second the In Church. the of position changing the expressed Trogir of topography social the First, commune. the and Church the between the of end the by century, city the of administration secular the from expelled were bishops the and significant, more and more became powers ecclesiastical and secular the of separation the As grants. in materialized was which favor, dukes’ and kings’ the enjoyed Trogir ofbishopric The city. inthe power secular the with competed and court royal the with in The communication wasdominant Churchlife Trogir. ecclesiastical the confinedonlyof to all.influence not processat andcitizensthe didcanons, the the of right the only was archbishops the of election the century, the of end the By Split. of city the of life Spalatensis. Thomas to according manners, ecclesiastical laity. the of Roger ofAparchbishop, next the consecrated, never Split was John Although of 1248. in citizens, suffragans the of the participation the without by only elected was John, Friar certain a bishop, next the death, of life secular from archbishops the of separation 1248. as city, the of leader secular the also but ecclesiastical, the only

Benyovsky, Novak, HistoriaSalonitana Mirko Sardelić, Carmen miserabile Carmen Sardelić, Mirko

omnl eeomn nt ny eutd n h saue f pi i 13, u the but 1239, in Split of statute the in resulted only not development Communal In Trogir, the Church the Trogir, In 175 PovijestSplita

lhuh h sprto o te w pwr dd o hpe wtot conflicts without happen not did powers two the of separation the although 172 Trogir was probably a sign of a change among the secular and ecclesiastical powers powers ecclesiastical and secular the among change a of sign a probably was oe kp aa fo te eua amnsrto ad el wt mostly with dealt and administration secular the from away kept Roger , 198. , ,362. 106. ,373.

ulia, was appointed by the pope, alsoasking opinion without the by pope, wasthe appointed ulia, not was influence its city; the of life secular the in participated : Rogerije iz Apulije iz Rogerije : 50

the city also began that time. After Ugrin’s Ugrin’s After time. that began also city the [ Carmen miserabile Carmen 173 174

i asne rm h political the from absence His . Roger from Apuli from Roger . comes entury the commune commune the entury

between 1245 and and 1245 between a]. (Zagreb:a]. thirteenth thirteenth CEU eTD Collection 182 181 180 ofcommunal land insome Dalmatian communes], 179 West”, 178 177 Ages], 176 Senj in like in developed, less century were the communes the of where territories end the at issued were donations new few only and 1240s, the around I sources, the examining After Church. t to land any gave hardly citizens the development, communal in upswing the with line 1160. around Church the to lands giving forbade Split cha in resulted paytaxes. hadepiscopalexcused;theyto onlyand papal city. the of border the of outside were that plots land on perpetual a gift. religious was it since circulation, economic from removed was Church the to donated important. more i and more elites became land local owning and The trade, century. salt the the and commerce of decades last the in land of donations new received monasteries Benedictine nor (arch)bishoprics Neither Church. the to land donated cit Johnitsfor purposes. St. Baptist the of monastery the of building the rented also administration communal the and Martin St. of loggi new A palace. communal new buildinga for place a have to 1272 in Stephen St. of church the demolished city The time. that until buildings

zn’ rns Atr h mid the After grants. izens’ Dusa, CDC CDCII 93. Dusa, Lujo Margetić, “ Margetić, Lujo “Gift Silber, F. Ilona Irena Benyovsky, “Trogirski trg u razvijenom srednjem vijeku” [The square of Trogir in the High Midd High the in Trogir of square [The vijeku” srednjem razvijenom u trg “Trogirski Benyovsky, Irena Povijesniprilozi Archiveseuropéennes desociologie

V The economic and social changes of the thirteenth century influenced the number of of number the influenced century thirteenth the of changes social and economic The The development of the communes and the new concept of communal property property communal of concept new the and communes the of development The EpiscopalCities EpiscopalCities II 81.,II 187.etc.

178 nges in giving grants. The first signs appeared when the great congregation of of congregation great the when appeared signs first The grants. giving in nges

Moreover, citizens of Split and Trogir had to pay city taxe city pay to had Trogir and Split of citizens Moreover, Dioba

16(1997): 12 - giving in the Great Traditions. The Case of Donations to Monasteries in the Medievalthe in Monasteries to Donations ofCase The Traditions.Great the in giving

,116. ,116. općinskog

- - zemljišta u nekim srednjovjekovnim dalmatinskim komunama” [Divisionkomunama”dalmatinskimsrednjovjekovnim nekim u zemljišta thirteenth century one can hardly find grants where citizens citizens where grants find hardly can one century thirteenth 14.

176

36 (1995): 209

assume Starine 51

- 56(1975): 5

243. that the local elites stopped giving grants grants giving stopped elites local the that

181 a was built on the place of the church church the of place the built on was a 180

After the mid the After

179 - 36.

clsatcl ntttos were institutions Ecclesiastical

. 182

h hligo further of halting The - thirteenth century, in century, thirteenth s to the commune commune the to s nvested in in nvested 177

Land he le CEU eTD Collection 189 188 187 (Zagreb:HAZU, 2002), 202. 186 185 184 183 con political made rule, their expressed They purposes. Marin 1251. in Trogir to land of piece a gave powerful most the among was which family, Andreis in stayed he after 1243 century. whole the through cities the and elites secular local the towards generous were IV Ladislas and V Stephen IV, Béla AndrewII, King contrast, monasteries. In or bishoprics Dalmatian to grants o years first the in IV, Béla nor rule, his of decade last the in II, neither Andrew and rarer became 1220s the after Church the to grants giving Moreover, 1244. in give mid the after drastically decreased grants the of ofoffice.tenures St of land the and Drid for struggled bishops its and city The cathedral. Lawrence St. the of building the over century thirteenth an example, For s commune the and Church the moreover donations, cities. the of administration secular the from Church the supplanting started they this with parallel in and communes, the for income more generated donations Arhi Arhiv ArhivHAZU, LUCIUS XX ArhivHAZU, LUCIUS XX Benyovsky, Novak, ldn Andreis, Mladen n to the bishopric of Trogir in 1242 and the last royal grant to the archbishopric of Split Split of archbishopric the to grant royal last the and 1242 in Trogir of bishopric the to n vHAZU, LUCIUS XX 188

HAZU,LUCIUS XX Church political for representative and to grants dukesofHungaryandused The kings number the that shows Church to grants royal of distribution temporal the Examining

PovijestSplita and his son Ladislas IV issued two grants to Trogir inTrogirgrants issued1278. to andIV Ladislassonhis two Trogir For example, King Béla g KingBéla example, For 184 , 200 , ruet between argument rgrk ptiia u rdjm vijeku srednjem u patricijat Trogirski

,373. - 203.

- - - - Trogir

12/12. fol.12/12. 85 fol.12/12. 51 fol.12/11. 92 fol.12/11. 89

drn te aa invasion. Tatar the during , - - - - 86.;86 54. 93. 90 . Vital for decades, during Treguan’s and Columban’s Columban’s and Treguan’s during decades, for Vital . iy n te ihpi o Toi bgn n h mid the in began Trogir of bishopric the and city

187 ave

- 88. K

52 a ing Stephen V confirmed his father’s grant to to grant father’s his confirmed V Stephen ing

piece of piece

- thirteenth century. The last royal grant was grant royal last The century. thirteenth truggled over ecclesiastical landholdings. landholdings. ecclesiastical over truggled Te arcas f rgr n h Mdl Ages] Middle the in Trogir of patricians [The

families of of families land to Marin Blasii for his service in in service his for BlasiiMarin landto nections, tried to earn the loyalty of of loyalty the earn to tried nections, 185

hs Marin This the city. the 183 189

There were no further no were There mme of member a 186 hs eg, gave reign, his f

The king also king The

the - CEU eTD Collection The Dalmatia. in circumstances social changing the of because decreased Church to grants the politicalcircumstances. to adapted kings the communes, of development the of because cities the in changed rule. its secure to court the help could they and cities pre the when Church, the to grants gave they First, region. the of changes social and political the to themselves accommodated they greatly; cities the of life the influence not did Hungary of kings The periods. short for only Dalmatia in stayed generosity and favors with cities the of loyalty the secure to needed kings the opinion, my In autonomy. great enjoyed cities coastal the and occasionally only visited they the of end the by century.thirteenth cities the of administration the on influence its lost Church the other; each from separated powers ecclesiastical and secular the Moreover, territories. certain of ecclesiastical to land gave longer no citizens The commune. the and Church the between conflicts caused which period, this of changes economic the during emerged landholdings of value the and importance The communes. the of processes social general the that see can one withmagistratesgrants. elitethe secularloyaltyand the of fr losing started Church the After inroyal samefewerway. Church, changed the the the policy ledcitizens’to to grants changes economic and development communal When cities. the influence thereby to and Church, the 3.

Conclusion Who influence whom? Surveying the social characteristics of the Dalmatian cities, cities, Dalmatian the of characteristics social the Surveying whom? influence Who Concludi The

Hungarian kings did not influence this social transformation in the cities, since since cities, the in transformation social this influence not did kings Hungarian ng the results of the previous chapters I emphasize that number of the royal royal the of number that emphasize I chapters previous the of results the ng

om its influence in the city the kings aimed to secure the secure to aimed kings the city the in influence its om

53 institutions and they argued over the ownership the over argued they and institutions

period examined led to the formation of of formation the to led examined period

ae, hn h rl o te Church the of role the when Later,

lates had great influence in the the in influence great had lates since they they since CEU eTD Collection 150. Adriatic], eastern the on communes offormation the About age. new 190 policy church their and purposes, same the for grants used never had Venice necessarily. an bishops, other some and Split of archbishops the of election the influencing by and grant giving Church the of loyalty the earn to claimed Hungary of kings The Venice. from prelate of patriarch underthe lands seized the of organization ecclesiastical the ordered state Italian The policy. different a had Venice region, the of power great other the comparison, the For Dalmatia. of changes certaincommunalaandof the Split. ofTrogir point practiceddevelopment at mid slow was development communal Šibenik. and Nin like dynasty, Croatian previous the of territory the to belonged inwhich cities the later began of commune formation The Zadar. or Split examplesofTrogir, policy.changed kings’ the explained and city this of importance the emerged Zadar of fall the that chapter, previous the in emphasized I invasion. Mongol the after Nin, of bishopric the was exemption king the enjoyed hardly institutions ecclesiastical the but cities, the to privileges gave elite, secular the to grants Theygave patterns. its followed royal policy loy the needed they since Dalmatia, of communes the of behavior the oppose not could kings

d through them they could influence the cities. They changed their policy when it was was it when policy their changed They cities. the influence could they them through d LudwigSteindorff, svijet“Stari formiranjui Onovadoba. komune istočnoj na Jadrana”obali wo[Old alty of the local elites. When the society’s custom changed in the thirteenth century, the the century, thirteenth the in changed custom society’s the When elites. local the of alty -

thirteenth century, so the kings of Hungary used that policy what their ancestors ancestors their what policy that used Hungary of kings the so century, thirteenth ig o Hnay comdtd thei accommodated Hungary of Kings The social characteristics and socialcharacteristics The Grado’s jurisdiction. Venice also made these (arch)bishoprics to elect a elect to made (arch)bishoprics these also Venice jurisdiction. Grado’s

er, and the influence of the Church was very strong after strong very was Church the of influence the and er, 54

communal development of Nin varied from the fromthe varied ofNin development communal r policy to the social, cultural and economic economic and cultural social, the to policy r

Starohrvatska prosvjeta Starohrvatska s’ generosity. The only only The generosity. s’

16 (1986): 16 190

rld rld and

The 149 - CEU eTD Collection Papers 191 structures. ecclesiastical ru their to themselves accommodate to Dalmatia of society the and Church the made

R br Le Wolff, Lee obert

8 ( 8 1954 ) : 234 : - 235.

“ oiis n t in Politics

191

e ai Ptirht o Cntniol ( Constantinople of Patriarchate Latin he 55

1204 - 1261 ) , ”

ubro Oaks Dumbarton ler’s CEU eTD Collection strugg internal both Dalmatia and Croatia of dukes the and position important an and influence K support. to grants used dukes and kings The Dalmatia. dynasty which monasteries Benedictine and sees (arch)bishopric paid dukes and kings the that showed grants the to of distribution lands few only donated Hungary of dukes and kings the brother his against kingdom the of throne the for fought also reason military personally were dukes or kings when grant of number the century the from issued transformedofgivingcustomdevelopmentgrants. the view: grant the of usage symbolic and practical territ the of aspects three examined thirty examined ra distribution orial nrae we Ade, h ltr king later the Andrew, when increased

how the cities receipted the kings’ visits and their favor, favor, their and visits kings’ the receipted cities the how The temporal and territorial analysis showed, that the that showed, analysis territorial and temporal The to grants royal the of analysis the was thesis the of aim The The

and the localandthe elites. ings and dukes gave grants to th to grants gave dukes and ings

rns a practical had grants s, regular visits or spent relatively spent or visits regular s, - very nine royal grants from the Árpád age, which are all known grants so far. I far. so grants known all are which age, Árpád the from grants royal nine les and in the case of external threats. The role of the Church in the the in Church the of role The threats. external of case the in and les beginnings of beginnings Scnl, dat ih h ryl set o te grant the of aspects royal the with dealt I Secondly, .

decreased drastically. The number of the grants was the highest the was grants the of number The drastically. decreased grants to to grants pltcl n symbolic and political ,

the Hungarian rule in Dalmatia in rule Hungarian the

in the region and in their cities their in and region the in

present in Dalmatia, when they when Dalmatia, in present used grants to to grants used the C ONCLUSION - giving Church: firstly, the focus was on the temporal and and temporal the on was focus firstly,the Church: e ecclesiastical centers which had great political great had which centers ecclesiastical e

56 nrw II Andrew the

. Thirdly, I analyzed the audience’s point of point audience’s the analyzed I Thirdly, . long time long Church to win to Church

secure

, Emeric , bcm te ue f amta and Dalmatia of duke the became ,

role Trp the by founded were

the support of the Church during during Church ofthe support the there. The number of the grants grants the of number The there. royal s

n h ryl policy royal the in . After the After . the the clergy’s and the cities’ cities’ the and clergy’s the grants grants special special . the

and how the communal communal the how and . The kings of Hungary Hungary of kings The . A Church. The territorial territorial The Church.

fter the mid the fter Church in Dalmatia. I I Dalmatia. in Church iie h ein for region the visited to the Church the to attention to to attention Mongol - giving - thirteenth thirteenth

invasio imirović towards those : the the : were were n

CEU eTD Collection in time short relatively spent rulers The city. the over impact overwhelming previous urba the through influence itssecure had to royalcourt the when decreased Church the at directly aiming grants numberof The period. examined the during distribution temporal their in changes the explain could roya grants the the of utility political towards obedience and loyalty their maintain to order in too cities tax C the to lands of donation forbiddingthe started communes the lands, of value the ofincrease/rise the to led changes economic the Since policy. their change to had rulers the influence, previous ecclesiastica and secular the Hungary of kings The cities. the of transformation economic and social the to themselves accommodated dukes and kings almos they century thirteenth the of favor. byincreaseand kings’ placeopportunitysocialimportance the the to their grantofthe passiveparticipants the and respect, confirmations and marked grants generosity showed electingprelates. mid Dal - matian cities was strong at the beginnings of the communal development, at leastuntil at the communaldevelopment, the beginnings the of at strong was matiancities - free territories. The kings turned to the secular elite of Dalmatia, and gave grants to the to grants gave and Dalmatia, of elite secular the to turned kings The territories. free thirteenth century, century, thirteenth The number of the grants started decreasing around the 1230s and by the second half half second the by and 1230s the around decreasing started grants the of number The h gat as hd smoi role symbolic a had also grants The hurch, since they were removed from the economic circulation as perpetual gifts and and gifts perpetual as circulation economic the from removed were they since hurch, the

eevr a t b obedient be to had receiver

relationship between the receiver and the issuer the and receiver the between relationship hpd oil n pltcl relationships political and social shaped hog ter hc also which their through and the the and pwr tre big eaae ad h Cuc hd ot its lost had Church the and separated being started power l issued grants to Church to earn its support in the cities. When cities. the in support its earn to Church to grants issued - giving. They were Theywere giving. ues atd o nlec te cities the influence to wanted rulers disappea t

hn ig ad ue wo iie ter lands their visited who dukes and kings when xrse ter powe their expressed n loyal and e. h rao fr this for reason The red.

able to represent themselves, and they had andthemselves, represent they ableto n, secular elites and the Church lost its lost Church the and elites secularn, .

However, the recipients were not not were recipients the However, Te royal The . ,

moreover these donations donations these moreover oe te citizens the over r

by giving grants and and grants giving by

change was that that was change generosity generosity

cut The court. l earned earned . The The . the CEU eTD Collection Hungary. th understand Dalmatia, in powers different the e Dalmat history political the of approach po often the of Dalmat between policy reconciliation power not did king the and autonomy, great had cities Dalmatian Dalmatia and court royal the between relationship kings the motivated what the of intogrants s the the sinceput approach, I lo the assure to wanted they but period, Hungary of kings results and approaches new with chan the theirpolicyaccommodate to to needed they but cities, the of changes social the influence not could they and Dalmatia, ceisia organization cclesiastical

. ulk Vnc did Venice unlike , twelfth and thirteenth century. The analysis showed how the royal policy changed, changed, royal policy the how showed analysisThe century. thirteenth and twelfth

The contribute thesis This ia , the role of the Dalmatian bishops and archbishops, the transformation of the the of transformation the archbishops, and bishops Dalmatian the of role the , This thesis w This thesis uue research future

cmlxt o te eainhp ewe te atr Arai cat and coast Adriatic Eastern the between relationship the of complexity e with the cities the with iial ifune historiography influenced litically ia and H and ia did not influence the social processes in Dalmatia during the examined examined the during Dalmatia in processes social the influence not did as a small co smallasa ungary , royal privileges to towns to privileges royal , Te kings The . f Hungary of will be able to give a more complex picture picture complex more a give to able be will , and t and , t te eerh f h cmo Hungarian common the of research the to s .

. . I . The relationship between the Papacy and Hungary over over Hungary and Papacy the between relationship The . t

he royal grants grants royal he n mn ohr ois ol poie the provide could topics other many and would be important to research and reinterpret the results the reinterpret and research to important be would ntribution to thisntributionresearch.to he complex analysis of the royal grants showed that the that showed grants royal the of analysis complex he ging society of the Dalmatianofsocietythe towns. ging

’ n te cities. the and coas the of yalty

ocial, ecclesiastical, economic, and symbolic context andcontext symbolic economic, ocial,ecclesiastical, oiy a adaptive was policy 58

to the Church were important parts of this of parts important were Church the to

f oh onre b gig eod the beyond going by countries both of , which was based on on based was which , , comparative analysis of the policy of of policy the of analysis comparative , h tei hglgtd h complex the highlighted thesis The tal lands. lands. tal try to convince tryto

and The thesis provide a new a provide thesis The hy ee ekn for seeking were they

of the relationship relationship the of them with military military with them - rain history Croatian reciprocity. reciprocity.

opportunity to to opportunity The The and

CEU eTD Collection the in Trogir of square [The vijeku” srednjem razvijenomu trg “Trogirski Irena. Benyovsky, Ivan Basić, Babić, Ivan. Armanda, Mladen. Andreis, “ the “From ______. o Work the in Authority Royal of “Image Mladen. Ančić, SecondaryLiterature Borsa. Iván Imre, Szentpétery, al. et Tadija Smičiklas, Matijevic Mirjana Damir, Karbic, HrvojeVedran, Morović. Gligo, Györffy, of Academy Croatian the of Archive the at Lučić) (Ivan Lucius Johannes of Manuscripts Primarysources

Ivo. High Middle Ages]. HighAges]. Middle tempore of Church ofunificationthe attempt 1984. MuzejTrogira, grad ofanSplitarchbishop Zagreb:2002. Ages]. HAZU,Middle 42 put Kolomanov prilozi Budapest:1923 Akadémiai Kiadó, 2. Zagreb: 1904 18. pontificium.Spalatinorum atque HistoriaSalonitanorum 1977. sabor, 1992 Kiadó, Akadémiai ( pertinentiam Hungariae historiam Sciences. - Georgius 111. Zagreb: Hrvatski111. povijesn . “O pokušaju ujedinjenja zagrebačke i splitske crkve u XIII. stoljeću,” [About the [About stoljeću,” XIII. u splitskecrkve i zagrebačke ujedinjenja pokušaju “O . Prostor između Trogira i Splita i Trogira između Prostor

22 (2002): 29 (2002): 22

3 (2006): 25 (2006): 3 “Splitski nadbiskup i teološki pisac Bernard iz Perugie” Bernard pisac teološki i nadbiskup “Splitski

rgrk ptiia u rdjm vijeku srednjem u patricijat Trogirski .

Diplomata Hungariae antiquissima accedunt epistolae et actae ad ad actae et epistolae accedunt antiquissima Hungariae Diplomata

Clmns ah. d Mae Ačć Jln Borošak Jelena Ančić, Mladen Ed. path]. [Coloman’s Sclavoniae Croatiae, regni diplomaticus Codex – Demigod 1934. 1934. Povijesniprilozi - – 39. d theological writer]. theologicalwriter]. d 43. . Regestaregum stirpis Arpadianae critico Arpadianae stirpis Regestaregum

Legende i Kronike i Legende

” King to the First Ideas About a “National Kingdom.” In In Kingdom.” “National a About Ideas First the to King ” - Sokol, James Sweeney. Sweeney. James Sokol, B IBLIOGRAPHY e muzej, 2002. e ab anno 1000 usque ad annum 1196 annum ad usque 1000 anno ab

[The territory between Split and Trogir]. Trogir: Trogir: Trogir]. and Split between territory [The 16 (1997): 11 (1997): 16 1987. 59 Zagreb and Split in the thirteenth century]. incentury]. thirteenthSplit the and Zagreb

Kulturnabaština

[Legends and chronicles]. [Legendsand

- f Thomas Archdeacon.” Thomas f 32. Thomae archidiaconi Spalatensis Spalatensis archidiaconi Thomae [The patricians of Trogir in the the in Trogir of patricians [The

Budapest: CEU Press, 2006. CEU Budapest: Press,

37 33 (2012): et Dalmatiae. Dalmatiae. et - [Bernard of Perugia, Perugia, of [Bernard diplomatica. diplomatica.

Split:Čakavski - Marijanović, ) - .

48. Budapest: Budapest: Povijesni Povijesni

Vol. 1 Vol. Vol. 1 Vol. Pro Pro - -

CEU eTD Collection John. Fine, Joan. Dusa, Danko Dujmović, Ćoralić commune the of [Landholdings 12.st.” u komune zadarske posjedi “Zemljišni Nikola. Čolak, double medieval [The Solinu” u Otoku na geminae “Srednjovjekovne Radoslav. Buzančić, Josip, Buturac, Byzantium,” and Franks between“Croatia ______. Donation and “Foundations Neven: Budak, M. Lawrence Bryant, State and “Ritual Andrew. Brown, Power: Political and Bonding of Social Agent as Gift Medieval “The ArnaudJan. Bisjteweld, Sergio. Bertelli, ______. , Lovorka. Lovorka. , Fifteenth Century. Fifteenth PeterLang, 1991. York: New – lands] zemljama incentury]twelfthofZadar the 57 Gospi at churches 1973. Metoda, i Cirila Sv. društvo književno Hrvatsko Zagreb: Croatia]. in Church Catholic Roman 15 483 (2007): Ages.” Middle Early the in Cities Renaissanceinand the Art Ritual, 2006. Leuven:LeuvenUniversity Press, Towns. Medieval Late in Communication Symbolic Context In Approach.” Comparative a Europe Society

An Unfinished Project.” An UnfinishedProject.” - - 22. 97. h Bsin hrh Is lc i S in Place Its Church: Bosnian The The Medieval Dalmatian Episcopal Cities: Development and Transformation. Transformation. and Development Cities: Episcopal Dalmatian Medieval The Srednjovjekovni . Zagreb:1997. AGM, .

. University ThePennsylvania2001. University . Press, Park: State ] . Ed. Esther Cohen, Mayke de Jong, 123 EstherCohen, Jong, MaykeEd. de . .

Ivandija. Antun Zagreb: Hrvatski institut za povijest, Zagreb:institut Hrvatski The King’s Body King’s The [Road, travelers, travelling: roads and travelling in the medieval Croatian Croatian medieval the in travelling and roads travelling: travelers, [Road, , , - Vjekoslav Jukić Vjekoslav Put, putnici, putovanja : ceste i putovi u srednjovjekovnim hrvatskim hrvatskim srednjovjekovnim u putovi i ceste : putovanja putnici, Put, 490. The King and the City in the Parisian Royal Entry Ceremony: Politics, Ceremony: Entry Royal Parisian the in City the and King The

notok in Solin]. Solin]. in notok London: Saqi,London: 2007.

Trogir . Sacred Rituals of Power in Medieval and Early Modern Early and Medieval in Power of Rituals Sacred . oiet aoik cke eu hrvatima među crkve katoličke Povijest Starohrvatskaprosvjeta . “The “Koloman Renaissance” i Renaissance” “Koloman “The .

Potr dru i Prostor . - building: Ceremonies in Late Medieval Bruges.” In In Bruges.” Medieval Late in Ceremonies building: eivl T Medieval RadoviInstituta RadoviInstituta . Genéve: Librairie Droz, 1986. Genéve: Librairie. Droz, Prilozi povijesti umjetnosti u Dalmaciji u umjetnosti povijesti Prilozi arühr ü Gshct Osteuropas Geschichte für Jahrbücher s as a Link between Croatia and the Dalmatian Dalmatian the and Croatia between Link a as s 60

ae n Sceyfo te hrenh o the to Thirteenth the from Society and tate ransformation: Texts, Power, and Gifts in in Gifts and Power, Texts, ransformation: š tvo 2009 - JAZU Hortus Artium Medievalium Artium Hortus 157. Leiden:157. Brill, 2001.

[

. Trogir. Medieval The 37 (2010): 171 (2010): 37

d Jacoba Ed.

u Zadru u n North Western Croatia Croatia Western North n 10367 (1963):

a Lewn 1 Leeuwen, van – 182. [History of the the of [History

pc and Space

37 (1998): (1998): 37

5 n. 4 no. 55, 3 (1997): (1997): 3 - 397. -

29. 29. CEU eTD Collection University 1997. Princeton Press, ______. Angeles:UniversityofCalifornia ______. Santa of Doors the in Panels Enigmatic the and Advent” “King’s “The Ernst. Kantorowitz In Gift.” and Inauguration Burgundian Entry: First Duke’s “The D. Jesse Hurlbut, In “Introduction.” Reyerson. L. Kathryn A., Barbara Hanawalt, [Source vizsgálata” kritikai oklevél kialakulásának “Szlavónia ______. “A György: Györffy, Ante. Gulin, Slavko. Grubišić, Goss, in rule [Byzantine godine” 1180. do 1165. od Dalmaciji u vlast “Bizantska Ivo. Goldstein, “ Judit. Gál, “M Márta. Font, ______. Vladimir P Vladimir Sabina.” Renaissance. the and Ages Wim155 Ashley, KathleenHüsken, Middle the in Performance Processional Subjects. Minneapolis:University Europe Medieval formationofofthe Slavonia]. 12 the in towns 46 (1967): Dalmatian the of privileges the 2008. 1976. Šibenika,anniversary] Šibenik:Muzej grada Croatia.” 1180]from to Dalmatia1165 2014. Tudományegyetem,Loránd In Árpáds]. eum aput gratiosus erat honor 11 Péter.Hanák, in születésnapjára. Studies 70. centuries. Hungarian László the Katus of Tanulmányok századokfelett. history medieval the on Conquest. Ottoman the

Qui erat gratiosus aput eum aput gratiosus erat Qui The Late Medieval Balkans. A Critical Survey from the Late Twelfth Century to Century Twelfth Late the from Survey Critical A Balkans. Medieval Late The h Kn’ To ois A td i Mdea Pltcl Theology Political Medieval in Study A Bodies. Two King’s The ads eie A td i Ltria Acaain o Mdea Rulers. Medieval of Acclamations Liturgical in Study A Regiae. Laudes Hrvatski srednjovjekovni kaptoli kaptoli srednjovjekovni Hrvatski

The egjegyzések a horvát a egjegyzések Hortus Artium Medievalium Hortus Artium . “Bishop Stjepan and Herceg Koloman and the Beginning of the Gothic in in Gothic the of Beginning the and Koloman Herceg and Stjepan “Bishop . - 56. pmn bri o 0. obljetnici 900. o zbornik Spomen

aitr historiae Magister Art Bulletin Art

12. századi dalmáciai város privilégiumok kritikája” [Critical notes to to notes [Critical kritikája” privilégiumok város dalmáciai századi 12. - 25. Pécs: UniversityPécs:25. 1997. Press, .

d Braa . aaat Ktrn . eesn IX Reyerson, L. Kathryn Hanawalt, A. Barbara Ed. AnnMichiganArbor: 2000. University Press, . . of Minnesota Press, 1994. Press, Minnesota of

26207 (1944):

h oeo h rhihp fSlt in Split of archbishops the of role The

Press, 1946. Press, Radoviza Levéltári KözleményekLevéltári - of László Katus on his seventieth birthday]. Ed. Ed. birthday]. seventieth his on Katus László of magyar perszonál unió középkori történetéhez”[Notes történetéhez”[Notes középkori unió perszonál magyar . Ed. Mónika Belucz, Judit Gál, Budapest: Eötvös Eötvös Budapest: Gál, Judit Belucz, Mónika Ed. .

. . A spliti érsekek az Árpádok királyságában” [ királyságában” Árpádok az érsekek spliti A - 187. Amsterdam: Rodopi, 2001 Amsterdam:187. Rodopi,

61 13 (2007): 51(2007): 13

[Croatian medieval chapters] medieval [Croatian voda za povijesnezaznanostivoda -

231.

- rain esnl no] In union]. personal Croatian Mmra cleto fr h 900 the for collection [Memorial

th –

63. 41 (1970): 223 (1970): 41 century]

City and Spectacle in in Spectacle and City ötnli Szemle Történelmi

the kingdom of the the of kingdom the 30 (1997): 9 (1997): 30 Big oe the over [Bridge . . - .

240.

Zagreb: HAZU, HAZU, Zagreb: rtcl analy critical . New Jersey: Jersey: New .

Moving Moving - Híd a a Híd 28. -

XX. XX. Qui Qui

Los Ed.

sis sis 10 10 th

CEU eTD Collection Gyula: Kristó, [ kezdetei” alakulásának ‘fővárossá’ Pest) (és “Buda L. Bernát Kumorovitz, obn crkvene promicatelj Arhiđakon, “Toma ______. st dvanaestom u metropolija “Splitska Slavko. Kovačić, Josip. Kolanović, Klai ______. Nada. Klaić, Petricioli: Ivo Nada, Klaić, titlelossban].the Bribir of of untilthe do bribirski “Šubići ______. the of role [The biskupije” Šibenske osnutku u knezova bribirskih “Uloga Damir: Karbić, ć, Vjekoslav. “O hercegu Andriji” [About PrinceAndriji”Andrew]. hercegu “O[About Vjekoslav. ć, Hungary]. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 1979.Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest: Hungary]. 7 (1971): capital]. a as Pest and Buda of formation the of MirjanaMatijević 25 organized conference the from papers Collected 25 držanog o skupa In contemporaries] his especially and Split, of archbishop and archdeacon [Thomas suvremenici” njegovi 1988. Sadašnjost, 11 Krbava], incorporationbishopricofthe the of anniversary of godine 1986. R u održanog biskupije krbavske the osnutka Obljetnice 800. century, povodu twelfth the in In Ages] Middle Split the in Krbava of of bishopric province ecclesiastical [The vijeku” srednjem 1995. Školska Zagreb: knjiga, Trogir:Muzej1985. Trogira,citizens]. grada ljudi Zagreb Ages]. Middle 1976. Splitu, Split:1409]. u Sveučilište 2001. knjižnicaŠibenik:GradskaŠižgorić”, ”Juraj fr Šibenik of bishopric the of conference 1998 do 1298 od biskupija Šibenska skupa znantsvenog za radova Zbornik biskupije. Šibenske incorpor the in Bribir of counts

[History of Trogir. Trogir in the Middle Ages: The public life of the city and its and city the of life public The Ages: Middle the in Trogir Trogir. of [History Povijest grada Trogira. Trogir u srednjem vijeku: javni život grada I njegovih njegovih I grada život javni vijeku: srednjem u Trogir Trogira. grada Povijest Povijest Hrvata u razvijenom srednjem vijeku srednjem razvijenom u Hrvata Povijest - A feudális széttagolódás Magyarországon Magyarországon széttagolódás feudális A 57. Svn etre o te ihpi o Šbnk Cletd aes f the of papers Collected Šibenik. of bishopric the of centuries [Seven

iei u anm sene vijeku srednjem i kasnom u Šibenik

Cletd aes f h cneec o te cain f h 800 the of occasion the on conference the of papers [Collected

- Sokol, Olga41 Perić, Sokol, Toma Arhiđakon i njegovo doba. Zbornik radova sa znanstvenoga sa radova Zbornik doba. njegovo i Arhiđakon Toma - 27. rujna 2000. godine u Splitu u godine 2000. rujna 27. 1409 do vijeku srednjem u Zadar : Školska knjiga, 1976. knjiga,Školska : nasljedne

Zbornik OPZ HAZU OPZZbornik ation of the bishopric of Šibenik]. In Šibenik]. of bishopric the of ation

uik bnk čsi 12) [h Šbć from Šubići [The (1322)” časti banske gubitka 62

75. Split:75. om 1298 to 1998]. Ed. Josip Ćuzela, 53 Ćuzela, Josip Ed. 1998]. to 1298 om

Zbornik radova znanstvenog simpozija u simpozija znanstvenog radova Zbornik

Tanulmányok Budapest múltjából Budapest Tanulmányok Šbnk n h Lt Mdl Ages] Middle Late the in [Šibenik Književnikrug,

v, sltk ndikp, osobito nadbiskupi, splitski i ove,

[History of the Croats in the High High inthe Croats the of[History [Tho 22 (2004): - 7 etme 20, pi] Ed. Split]. 2000, September 27 [Zadar in the Middle Ages until until Ages Middle the in [Zadar oljeću, Krbavska biskupija u u biskupija Krbavska oljeću, [The feudal disintegration in in disintegration feudal [The RAD mas archdeacon and his age. age. his and archdeaconmas

136 (1898):200

- 1 39. Rijeka: Kršćanska 39. - 26.

ijeci 23 ijeci 2004

The beginnings beginnings The Sedam stoljeća stoljeća Sedam

- 24. travnja 24. - 222. –

62. 62. 18 th .

CEU eTD Collection narodni hrvatskih doba u “Nin Eduard. Peričić, Gyula: Pauler, ______. Ivan. Ostojić, Grga. Novak, grad dalmatinske obitelji primjer “Madijevci: Zrinka. Nikolić, Middle the in Senj of bishopric [The vijeku” srednjem u biskupija “Sensjka Darko. Nekić, Zad from inscriptions [Two Zadra” iz natpisa “Dva Miroslav. Marković, samostanu u Učenog Kolomana kapela Kraljevska tradicija. forma, “Funkcija, ______. Ana. Marinković, “ Lujo. Margetić, Ferenc Makk, Majnarić,Ivan. Jacob Leeuwen, [Nin in the time of the Croatian national rulers and its legal autonomy]. autonomy]. legal its 155. and Zadru rulers u umjetnosti national i znanosti Croatian akademije Jugoslavenske the Instituta of time the in [Nin 1 vol. Egyesülése, Könyv terjesztők age]. Árpád the in nation Hungarian Split: regions]. 2. vol. other and our urban Dalmatian the in of andcenturies]. elite eleventhtenth the family a of example An Madii: [The stoljeću” jedanaestom Ages]. Srpskenauke akademije Zadar]. in Mary Dalmaciji Saint of monastery the in Learned Sv. 37 (2002): inZadar.”Mary St. Complex of in Colomanthe 5 (1975): communes]. Dalmatian some in land communal of [Division komunama” 12thCentury.the in Byzantium 1159 Adriaticcoast, eastern vanLeeuwen,VII Jacoba

the Coloman of chapel Royal tradition. and form, [Function, Zadru” u Marije Metropolitanski kaptol u SplitukaptolMetropolitanskiu PovijestSplita . Senjskizbornik Benediktinci Benediktinci

Papinski legati na istočno jadranskoj obali (1159 obali jadranskoj istočno na legati Papinski a. “Introduction.” In In “Introduction.” a. h Apd ad h Cmei Pltcl eain bten ugr an Hungary between Relations Political Comneni. the and Arpads The mga nme tréee z Árpád az története nemzet magyar A -

36. - 40 (2005): 43 (2005): 40

64. Dioba

“Constrvi et erigiivs sitrex Collomanus. The Royal Chapel of King King of Chapel Royal The Collomanus. sitrex erigiivs et “Constrvi

općinskog zemljišta u nekim srednjovjekovnim dalmatinskim dalmatinskim srednjovjekovnim nekim u zemljišta općinskog Hvtkj otlm ai krajevima našim ostalim i Hrvatskoj u

[History of Split]. vol. 1 [Historyvol. ofSplit].

24 (1997): 31 (1997): 24

- 36 (1953): 99 (1953): 36 76. - XX Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2006. Leuven:2006. XX LeuvenUniversity Press, -

1204]. Zagreb: Hrvatski institut za povijest,2008.za institut 1204].Zagreb: Hrvatski 1899. 1899. Symbolic Communication in Late Medieval Towns Medieval Late in Communication Symbolic

Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 1988. Budapest:Akadémiai Kiadó, . Zagreb:.Sadašnjost Kršćanska Benediktinski priorat priorat Benediktinski

- 48. 63 - 138.

Zbornik HAZU OPZ h vladara i njegova statutarna autonomija” autonomija” statutarna njegova i vladara h

- - 2. Budapest: Budapest: 2. 2. hrSplit:Matica Annual of Medieval Studies at CEU at Studies Medieval of Annual - házi királyok alatt alatt királyok házi rlz pvjsi mensi u umjetnosti povijesti Prilozi – - 1204)

TKON, ayr öykaó és Könyvkiadók Magyar [Benedictines in Croatia Croatia in [Benedictines i desetom u elite ske 231 (2005): vatska, 1957. vatska,

[Papal legates on the on legates [Papal

ar]. ar].

16 , 1975. , 1964. - 17 (1969): 105 (1969): 17 [History of the the of [History Zbornik radova Zbornik

- 24. Starine

Radovi Radovi .

Ed. Ed. 56 56

d d 8 - CEU eTD Collection and European between Communication Emperor. Distant “The Georg. Vogeler, Andrew]. “ImreAndrás”andGyörgy. Szabados, [Imre és Ivan. Strohal, where and [When biskup?” zadarski spominje put prvi se gdje i “Kada ______. utemlje od Biogradu u Evanđelista Ivana sv. “Samostan Zvjezdan. Strika, Ludwig. Steindorff, ______. Ferdo. Šišić, “GiftF. Ilona Silber, Sc Jasper. Gerrit Schenk, miserabile Carmen Mirko. Sardelić, F. Teofilio Ruiz, “Horvát ______. ______. ______. mt, lvr Jens. Oliver hmitt, Toomaspoeg, 117 Toomaspoeg, II Towns between and Communication Communication. Towns Mediterranean 1913. Dioničkatiskara, Zagreb: 31 (2004): 46 mentioned]. bishop ofZadarfirst founding its from Biograd until 1125]. in Evangelist the John Saint of Monastery [The godine” Adriatic]. eastern the on communes of formation the prosvjetaStarohrvatska About age. new and world gesellschaftlichenEntwicklung.und Stellung politischen 1247]. (1102 1205) MedievalWest.” the Forschungen Reich 2010. hrvatska, Zagreb:Apulia]. Matica Spain andDalmatia]. aa i eeia d oie 19 d 1247 do 1159. godine od Venecija i Zadar . . . Köln: 2003. . Verlag,Böhlau - “Stari svijet i svijet “Stari Poviest Hrvata za kraljeva iz doma Arpadovića (1102 Arpadovića doma iz kraljeva za Hrvata Poviest 1205)]. Zagreb,1944. 1205)]. [History of Croatia during the reign of the Árpád dynasty (1102 dynasty Árpád the of reign the during Croatia of [History New Jersey:New RAD Pravna povijest dalmatinskih gradova dalmatinskih povijest Pravna Kn Taes Fsie rdtos n ae eivl n Ery Modern Early and Medieval Late in Traditions Festive Travels: King A

Radovi Zavoda za povijesne znanosti HAZU u ZadruZavoda povijesnezaznanosti HAZU Radovi 142 219 (1900):

- – - 65 giving in the Great Traditions. The Case of Donations to Monasteries inMonasteries to Donations of TheCase Traditions. Great inthe giving amtrzg elfoglalásár Dalmátország 64. i dlaiice Sät i 1. arudr. tde z ihrer zu Studien Jahrhundert. 12. im Städte dalmatinischen Die Századok “ - Zeremoniell und Politik. Herrschereinzüge im spätmittelalterlichen spätmittelalterlichen im Herrschereinzüge Politik. und Zeremoniell 66 (2006 66 eeinsh Horizonte Venezianische -

136. Galatina: Mario Congedo Editore, 2011.Galatina:136. Editore, Congedo Mario Princeton University 2012 Princeton Press, nova doba. O formiranju komune na istočnoj obali Jadrana” [Old [Old Jadrana” obali istočnoj na komune formiranju O doba. nova Archiveseuropéenn

16 (1986): 141 (1986): 16

22 (1888): 197 (1888): 22 - 2007):87 -

274.

: Rogerije iz Apulije Apulije iz Rogerije :

rdrc I f oesafn” In Hohenstaufen.” of II Frederic Radovi Zavoda za povijesne znanosti HAZU u Zadru u povijesnezaznanosti HAZU Radovi Zavoda

- 116. 64 - - 152.

es de sociologie de es (1091 ól 215, 320 215,

e Gshct Südosteuropas.” Geschichte der

[Legal history of the Dalmatian cities]. cities]. Dalmatian the of history [Legal - - 333. 1111)” [On the seizure of Croatia Croatia of seizure the [On 1111)” Századok [ [ . Zadar and Venice from 1159 to to 1159 from Venice and Zadar amn miserabile Carmen

. Ed. Hubert Houben, Kristjan Kristjan Houben, Hubert Ed. .

Cologne: 1984. Böhlau,

36 (1995): 209 (1995): 36 133 85 (1999): - 1301.). Prvi dio (1102 dio Prvi 1301.).

52 149 (2010): - j d 1125. do nja Rgr from Roger . - 243. Towns and and Towns 1301).Part 1 1301).Part - 111.

was the was Südost - 172.

- -

CEU eTD Collection II Literacy Medieval the in In Hungary.” Literacy of Kingdom and Rituals Urban Town: a in “Communication ______. Religious Power: of Rituals and Rituals, of “Power Dušan. Zupka, “ ______. Attila. Zsoldos, Lothar. Waldmüller, Academy of Sciences, 2010. AcademySciences, of 29 Kožiak, Rastislav Holec, Roman Ed. In Hungary.” of Kingdom Medieval of Culture Political Neumann, Tibor Ed. 269 in king young the Stephen, and IV MTA2007. TTI, Budapest: 1260s]. Béla between discord The affair. [Family (1311 Arpaden 1987. der Ende zum bis wanderung . Ed. Anna341 Ed. .Adamska,

Egész Szlavónia bánja Szlavónia Egész sld üy I. éa s svn fab iáy izla z 1260 az viszálya király ifjabb István és Béla IV. ügy. Családi Die Synoden in Dalmatien, Kroatien und Ungarn. Von der der Von Ungarn. und Kroatien Dalmatien, in Synoden Die Uses of the Written Word in Medieval Medieval in Word Written the of Uses - 281. Budapest: Argumentum Budapest: 2001. 281. Kiadó,

- ” [The ban of all Slavonia]. In Slavonia]. all of ban [The ” 373. Turnhout:373.Brepols, 2014.

65 -

43. Bratislava: Institute of History of Slovak Slovak of History of Institute Bratislava: 43. ). Paderborn: Ferdinand Schöningh, Schöningh, Ferdinand Paderborn: ). itrorpy n Motion in Historiography

and Secular Rituals in the the in Rituals Secular and Towns: Medieval Urban Urban Medieval Towns: Analecta Mediaevalia I. Mediaevalia Analecta

- s években as Völker the the .