S tudia H istorica S lovenica UDC 271.1(497.4 Gornji Grad) “13“ 1.01 Original Scientific Paper The Gornji Grad Monastery since the Extinction of the Counts of Heuenburg to the Appointment of Abbot Nikolaj I in 1365 A Time of Crisis in the History of the Monastery Tone Ravnikar Ph.D. in History, Curator Cultural Centre of Ivan Napotnik - Museum of Velenje Ljubljanska 54, SI - 3320 Velenje, Slovenia e-mail: [email protected] Abstract: The author presents a Benedictine monastery in Gornji Grad from the first half of the 14th century, when it was undergoing one of its most turbulent periods. With the addition of select fresh sources and including a renewed analysis of the already known ones, he presents one of the most important ecclesiastic institutions that had its seat on Slovenian territory. Key words: Church history, Benedictines, Gornji Grad, estate history. Studia Historica Slovenica Humanitie s and Social Studies Review Maribor, 3 (2003), No. 1, pp. 9-28, 74 notes, 2 pictures. Language: Original in English (Abstract in English and Slovene, Summary in Slovene). 9 Ravnikar.indd 9 6.1.2004, 10:37 T. Ravnikar: The Gornji Grad Moanastery since the Extinction of the Counts... The Bavarian noble Dipold Kager and his wife Truta founded the Gornji Grad Ben- edictine monastery in about 1140. That year they issued a document in Aquileia, by which they confirmed their intention and devoted their estate in the Upper Savinja valley for founding the monastery.1 The document indicates that the monastery had already been functioning at this time; this document is again another case of sub- sequent confirmation after a fait accompli, a case that we come across in almost all the ‘foundation’ documents of medieval monasteries. Of their estate, which seems to have covered a nice rounded part of the Upper Savinja valley, they kept only their allodium in Gornji Grad, which comprises the castle, forest, fields, meadows, pastures, fisheries, hunting grounds, income, paths (access), serfs of both sexes and their offspring, by such a method that the Aquileian Church gets possession of the castle, the adjoining court, ten farms and two ‘sintmen’ with their farms, groves and forest with one farm close to the grove, a mill with the adjoining farm, about a hundred ministers of both sexes who were granted the rights of Aquileian minis- ters, and all their lands. All the remaining estate, all the tilled and untilled fields and some 500 serfs with families, were to become the absolute property of the Gornji Grad monastery (translated by Franc Kos in Material for the History of Slovenians IV.). Günther Bernhard had in recent times extensively discussed the document, its authenticity and the many traps that it may be hiding.2 In regard of the fact that the beginnings of the monastery are not the topic of this paper, our intention is not to go into details on this topic, rather only to bring them to attention. From its begin- nings the monastery had a deep impact on the events in the Upper Savinja valley area and soon the monks managed to get possession of a larger estate elsewhere in the Styria province, which considerably expanded the monastery’s area of influ- ence.3 However, the monastery’s estates and its economic activity were not the only reason why its influence spread to the nearby and broader environment. It became indisputably the most important ecclesiastic institution in the area of the Upper and Lower Savinja valley and the Saleška valley, by its moral authority as well as by its extensive estates that covered large rounded lands in the area and lands in Friulia. It also exercised its archidiaconate rights at its incorporated parishes. The Gornji Grad monastery was thus an important factor in this area, as well as in the broader 1 1140, April 7. Aquileia; 17th century transcription in NALj KAL, f. 82/17, published in StUB I, no. 180, p. 188; abstract in: Franc Kos, Gradivo za zgodovino Slovencev v srednjem veku part IV, Ljubljana 1915, no. 157, p. 94. The original document was lost and is preserved only as an interpolation in a document from 17 May 1243 belonging to Patriarch Bertold. Gornji Grad: original document on parchment in NALj, document no. 575. 17th century transcript in NALj KAL f. 82/30. Published in StUB II, no. 420, p. 532. Abstract in: Milko Kos, Gradivo za zgodovino Slovencev v srednjem veku part V, Ljubljana 1928, no. 811, p. 388. 2 Günther Bernhard, Die Stiftungsurkunde des Klosters Oberburg, in: Mitteilungen des Instituts für österreichische Geschichtsforschung, 108. Band, Heft 3-4, Wien-München 2000, pp. 265-290. Cf. also: Günther Bernhard, Der Oberburger Bistumsplan vom Jahre 1237, in: Römische Historische Mitteilun- gen, 39. Band, Wien 1996, pp. 163-181. 3 A preserved book of property records from 1426 best informs us about the vastness of the monastery’s estates (NALj, GG A f. 1). Ignaz Orožen published it in Das Bistum und die Diöceze Lavant II. Theil Das Benediktiner stift Oberburg, Marburg 1876, pp. 215-322. Cf. also Ferdo Gestrin, Gospodarska in socialna struktura gornjegrajske posesti po urbarju leta 1426, Zgodovinski časopis, VI-VII, (1952-1953), pp. 473-514. 10 Ravnikar.indd 10 6.1.2004, 10:37 S tudia H istorica S lovenica Gornji Grad (G. M. Vischer, Topographia Ducatus Stiriae, 1681) territory of present day Slovenia and Austrian Carinthia, to which all nobles who wished to achieve power in the area had to pay heed. Another consequence of the monastery’s economic power was that, due to its lucrativeness, the office of the monastery’s advocate became one of the most de- sired offices among the Savinja region nobles. Among the monastery’s advocates we find members of the most prominent families in the region (Žovnek, Konjice (as partial lawyers) and Ptuj families, Counts of Heuenburg). The Counts of Heuenburg took over the advocacy completely at the break from the 13th to 14th century. This was also a period during which the latter intensified their attention to their estates in the Savinja and Saleška valleys and began establishing their new center of power in this region.4 The beginning of the 14th century was also a time when the monastery endured its first crisis in its operations, due to tensions in the relationship between the monastery and its Abbot Wulfing I (1295-1308) and its advocates (with Count Friderik Heuenburg in particular). The count even kept the abbot in custody at his Pliberk castle for a short period.5 After the abbot was replaced (Wulfing was re- placed by Abbot Leopold (1309-May 1342), the relationship between the two sides improved, but not for long. The last male descendent of the Counts of Heuenburg, Count Herman, was assassinated in 1322.6 Already in the summer of the same year 4 Cf.: Tone Ravnikar, Posest grofov Vovbrških v Šaleški dolini, Časopis za zgodovino in narodopisje (ČZN), NV 29, (1993), volume 1., pp. 20-32. 5 13 May 1308. Pliberk; a 19th century transcript in StLA, no. 1716b, abstract in MDC VII, no. 472, p. 178, RHSt, no. 6, 2. 1308, October 9. Pliberk; 19th cent. transcript in StLA, no. 1719c, abstract in MDC VII, no. 492, p. 185, RHSt, no. 35, p. 10. Compare also: Orožen, Das Benediktinerstift Oberburg, pp. 82-85. 6 28 June 1322; published in MDC VIII, no. 624, p. 182 (“IV. Kalendas Julii comes Hermannus de Hewn- burch est interfectus.“) 11 Ravnikar.indd 11 6.1.2004, 10:37 T. Ravnikar: The Gornji Grad Moanastery since the Extinction of the Counts... his widow, Countess Elizabeta Goriška, issued a document in which she ensures the Gornji Grad monastery and its abbot, after he had pledged his loyalty that she will continue defending the monastery as her husband did before her. If she should re-marry, the monastery reserved the right to choose a new advocate.7 Such protection was of course too weak for the monastery, and on 4th Septem- ber the same year the most important Heuenburg heir, Count Ulrik V. of Pfanberg took over the advocacy (at least by title), promising to respect all the pledges that the late monastery advocate Herman of Heuenburg had made in writ or orally.8 Ulrik of Pfanberg’s most important mediation as the monastery’s advocate was certainly his mediation regarding the illegal building of the Rudenstein castle.9 We will also find that the preserved documents help us reconstruct the twenties of the 14th century as a relatively calm period in the monastery’s history. This discovery is somewhat surprising considering the rivalry for the Heuenburg legacy between the heirs, which took place near the monastery estates. A document proving that things did not run so smoothly was issued in 1323. March 10th of that year in Cividale, Konrad, the nephew of the Gornji Grad Abbot Leopold, confessed unlawful and improper conduct towards the abbot and the Gornji Grad monastery at the monastery’s estates in Budrio and Cividale. He also confessed that the documents he had used were forged and inaccurate, and he pleaded to the monastery and the abbot to pardon him, pledging to return all the documents in question.10 It is difficult to discriminate all the events in connection with the Friuli estates of the Gornji Grad monastery from the available abstract, but it appears that Konrad tried to use his family ties with the Gornji Grad abbot and proclaimed some of the monastery’s estates (among them the document lists the estate in Budrio and the house in Cividale) to be family property.