DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.

02

Doctoral Dissertation

The Development of the Episcopal Office in Medieval Croatia-Dalmatia: The

Cases of Split, Trogir and Zadar (1270-1420)

By
Mišo Petrović

Supervisor
Katalin Szende

Submitted to the Medieval Studies Department and

the Doctoral School of History of
Central European University, Budapest

in partial fulfillment of the requirements

for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Medieval Studies,
and for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in History
CEU eTD Collection

Budapest, Hungary
2021
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

Table of Contents
Acknowledgments......................................................................................................................... III
List of Figures and Tables............................................................................................................. IV
List of Abbreviations ..................................................................................................................... V
Introduction. Topic, Sources, Literature, Research Questions ....................................................... 1
Chapter I. Setting the Scene: Diocesan Topography .................................................................... 11
I.1. The Bishopric ...................................................................................................................... 12
I.2. The Medieval Polity............................................................................................................ 14
I.3. The Bishop and the Commune............................................................................................ 18
I.4. Cults and Cathedrals ........................................................................................................... 21
I.5. Popes, Bishops and Episcopal Appointments ..................................................................... 27
Chapter II. Governing a Fourteenth-Century Diocese .................................................................. 34
II.1. Episcopal Authority, Jurisdiction and Pastoral Care ......................................................... 34
II.2. Suffragans, Synods, Primates ............................................................................................ 38
II.3. The Cathedral Chapter: its Composition and Role ............................................................ 42
II.4. Diocesan Structures: Episcopal Staff ................................................................................ 51
II.5. Episcopal Finances ............................................................................................................ 60
Chapter III. Popes, Kings and Oligarchs (c.1270-c.1330) ............................................................ 69
III.1. The Episcopate between Papal Power and Secular Involvement ..................................... 76
III.1.1. “Non dividendo episcopatu Traguriensi in duos”...................................................... 77
III.1.2. Popes, Interventions and Episcopal Appointments in Zadar ..................................... 91
III.1.3. A New Archbishop and a New Bishopric ................................................................. 96
III.1.4. The Church and the Arrival of the King .................................................................... 98
III.2. Episcopal Power and Authority: The Bishop and the Local Communities.................... 101
CEU eTD Collection

III.2.1. The Legate and the Bishopric .................................................................................. 101

III.2.2. The Rebellion in Zadar (1311-13) ........................................................................... 103
III.2.3. The Intra-Communal Violence in Trogir (c.1312-1322) ......................................... 107
III.3. Popes, Legates, Communes............................................................................................ 114
III.3.1. Peter, the Excommunicated Archbishop of Split..................................................... 116
III.3.2. The Apostolic See, Legate Bertrand and Dalmatia ................................................. 120
III.3.3. The Apostolic See and the Archbishops of Zadar ................................................... 124
III.3.4. Lampredius Vitturi, the Bishop of Trogir (r.1319-49) ............................................ 129

I
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

III.3.5. A Native Archbishop of Split - Dominic Luccari (r.1328-48) ................................ 138

Chapter IV. The Return of the Hungarian King: Angevin Croatia-Dalmatia ............................. 149
IV.1. Nicholas Matafari, the Archbishop of Zadar (r.1333-67) .............................................. 156
IV.1.1. The Siege of Zadar (1345-46) ................................................................................. 160
IV.1.2. Archbishop in Exile, Vicars at Home ...................................................................... 164
IV.2. Competent Diplomat, but Poor Bishop - Bartholomew of Trogir (r.1349-61) .............. 168
IV.2.1. At the Courts of Emperors, Kings and Popes .......................................................... 169
IV.2.2. The (dis)Advantages of an Absentee Bishop .......................................................... 175
IV.3. The Local Dioceses and Royal Administrative Centralization ...................................... 184
IV.4. The Long reign of Archbishop Hugolin of Split (r.1349-88) ........................................ 190
IV.4.1. The Old and New Suffragans .................................................................................. 198
IV.4.2. An Attempt to Reorganize the System of Bishoprics.............................................. 203
IV.4.3. The Relations with Trogir ....................................................................................... 206
IV.4.4. The Archbishop and the Commune: Resignation.................................................... 212
Chapter V. Ecclesiastical and Political Instability (c.1380-c.1420) ........................................... 218
V.1. Reforms, Rebellions and Curial Work – Peter Matafari of Zadar (r.1376-1400) ........... 225
V.2. “Presul noster benignius” – Andrew Benzi of Split (r.1389-1403)................................. 235
V.3. The “Contested” Bishops ................................................................................................ 248
V.4. One See, Three Archbishops ........................................................................................... 253
V.5. The Church of Croatia-Dalmatia and La Serenissima..................................................... 256
Conclusion .................................................................................................................................. 266
Appendices .................................................................................................................................. 275
List of Arch/bishops of Split, Trogir and Zadar ...................................................................... 275
Short Biographies of the Archbishops of Split .................................................................... 278
CEU eTD Collection

Short Biographies of the Bishops of Trogir......................................................................... 289

Short Biographies of the Archbishops of Zadar .................................................................. 293
Figures, Family Trees and Maps ............................................................................................. 302
List of Ecclesiastical Payments from the Clergy of Split, Trogir and Zadar to the Apostolic See
(c.1270-c.1420) ....................................................................................................................... 316
Bibliography ............................................................................................................................... 335

II
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

Acknowledgments

I would like to express my gratitude to my supervisor Katalin Szende. Her comments and constant
support were the main reason for completing my dissertation as she encouraged and patiently
nudged me into researching and writing.

Likewise, this work was made possible with the support of a number of institutions and their
researchers spanning from Rome to Budapest and from Split to Vienna. I would like to thank
Zrinka Nikolić-Jakus and Irena Latin Benyovsky for their suggestions made during the pre-
defense, Jörg Peltzer and Damir Karbić for their comments during the defense, Maria Lupi for her
help during my research in Rome, Judit Majorossy for her help during my research stay in Vienna,
Suzana Miljan for her help with obtaining additional funding and Neven Isailović and Miloš
Ivanović for their help with additional articles and sources.

My special thanks go to OEAD for financing my research stay in Vienna, CEU for providing me
with Doctoral Research Support Grant, as well as the Frankopan Fund and the Henrik Birnbaum
Memorial Scholarship Fund for funding a number of research trips which helped to futher develop
my work.

My sincere thanks go to Antun Nekić and Igor Razum whose numerous comments and suggestions
helped to develop and shape this work, Rob Sharp for his comments on avoiding the abyss, as well
as to Dejan Zadro, who provided me with books and articles.
CEU eTD Collection

I dedicate my dissertation to my family, my girlfriend Jelena, my mother Ivanka, my father Mirko

and my two sisters Ana and Maja who constantly supported me in pursuing an academic career.

Lastly, I would like to thank Central European University for being my home for many years.

III
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

List of Figures and Tables

Figure 1. Map of the dioceses of Croatia-Dalmatia 1 ................................................................. 302

Figure 2. Map of the dioceses of Croatia-Dalmatia within the Kingdom of Hungary-Croatia .. 303
Figure 3. Map of Split ................................................................................................................. 304
Figure 4. Map of Zadar ............................................................................................................... 305
Figure 5. Map of Trogir (from 1830) .......................................................................................... 306
Figure 6. The rise of the Šubići family ....................................................................................... 307
Figure 7. The Šubići family at the height of its power ............................................................... 308
Figure 8. The Šubići family tree ................................................................................................. 309
Figure 9. The Vitturi family tree, Bishop Lampredius of Trogir ................................................ 310
Figure 10. The Luccari family, Archbishop Dominic of Split .................................................... 311
Figure 11. The political situation between the 1330s and the 1350s .......................................... 312
Figure 12. The Matafari family tree, Archbishops Nicholas and Peter of Zadar ........................ 313
Figure 13. A fourteenth-century miniature of Cardinal Egidius Albornoz receiving keys of
subject cities ................................................................................................................................ 314
Figure 14. The tombstone of Archbishop Nicholas Matafari ..................................................... 314
Figure 15. The coat of arms of Bishop Nicholas Kažotić in Trogir ........................................... 315
Figure 16. Map of the dioceses of Croatia-Dalmatia 2: Narenta ................................................ 315

Table 1. Years in office of arch/bishops of Trogir, Split and Zadar (.c1270-c.1420) ................ 270
Table 2. List of arch/bishops of Split, Trogir and Zadar, their times in office and the names of
rulling popes at the time of appointment .................................................................................... 277
CEU eTD Collection

IV
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

List of Abbreviations

ACS The Archive of the Cathedral Chapter of Split [Arhiv

Kaptola katedralne crkve u Splitu]
ASN The Archive of the Archbishopric of Split [Nadbiskupski
arhiv u Splitu]
ASV The Vatican Secret Archive (Archivio Segreto Vaticano)
AkO Anjou-kori oklevéltár: Documenta Res Hungaricas
Tempore Regum Andegavensium Illustrantia, vol. I-L.
Eds. by Gyula Kristó, Tibor Almási, László Blazovich,
Éva B. Halász, Éva Teiszler, Ferenc Piti. Szeged: Szegedi
Középkorász Műhely, 1990-2020.
CDC Codex diplomaticus regni Croatiae, Dalmatiae et
Slavoniae: Diplomatički zbornik Kraljevine Hrvatske,
Dalmacije i Slavonije, vol. 1-18. and Supplementa, Vol.
1-2. Eds. by Tadija Smičiklas, Marko Kostrenčić, and
Emilij Laszowski. Zagreb: JAZU; HAZU, 1904-2002.
CDH Codex diplomaticus Hungariae ecclesiasticus ac civilis,
vols I-XI. Ed. by György Fejér. Buda: Typis typogr.
Regiae universitatis Ungaricae, 1829-1844.
MDE Magyar diplomacziai emlekek az Anjou-korból. Vols I-
III. Ed. by Gusztáv Wenzel. Budapest: MTA, 1874-76.
MVC Monumenta Vaticana Croatica: Camera apostolica;
Obligationes et solutiones; Camerale primo (1299-1560),
vol. I-II. Eds. by Josip Barbarić, Josip Kolanović, Andrija
Lukinović, Jozo Ivanović, Jasna Marković and Stjepan
Razum. Zagreb: Kršćanska sadašnjost, 1996.
VMS Vetera monumenta Slavorum meridionalium historiam
illustrantia, vol. 1. Ed. by Augustinus Theiner. Rome:
Typis Vaticanis, 1863.
CEU eTD Collection

VMH Vetera monumenta historica Hungariam sacram

illustrantia, vols I-II. Ed. by Augustinus Theiner. Rome:
Typis Vaticanis, 1859.
Zsigmondkori oklevéltár, vols. I-XIV. Ed. by Mályusz
ZsO
Elemér, Iván Borsa, Norbert C. Tóth et al. Budapest:
Magyar Országos Levéltár kiadványai, 1951-2020.

V
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

Introduction. Topic, Sources, Literature, Research Questions

In 1426 the General council of Split petitioned the pope to absolve its citizens from the
excommunication that had been invoked due to the citizens’ attack on two former archbishops of
Split, Hugolin (r.1349-88) and Andrew (r.1389-1403), and their dispute with Pisan Pope John
XXIII (r.1410-15). The appeal was light in terms of detail and it did not mention the fact that the
commune of Split cooperated with both archbishops through the majority of their episcopal
careers, with bitter conflicts erupting only towards the end of their time in office. At the height of
these clashes, the commune demanded from the pope the removal of the incumbent archbishops
and sought the return of control over episcopal elections to the local nobility and cathedral chapter.
However, the appeal did reveal some of the inner dynamics in archiepiscopal-communal
relations. Regardless of the excommunication, the commune regularly cooperated with its
archbishops whilst also consulting Peter of Pag (r.1411-26), the contemporary archbishop of Split,
for guidance as to how to successfully petition the pope. In fact, the same archbishop also mediated
in the commune’s second request, which was sent to the pope at the same time as the first. The
second appeal reveals the most probable reason for the importance the commune placed on its
petition to the Apostolic See in that very year. The commune asked the pope to authorize the
removal of the old church of Saint Lawrence, located on the main town square of Split, and
sanction its transfer to another location. The intention of the commune and the new Venetian
authorities remained unstated but it seems likely the goal was the expansion of the ducal palace,
the enlargement of which would have been hindered by the old church.
This story epitomizes the focus of my research on medieval bishops. Through this
dissertation I will provide a structured overview of the changes in the episcopal personnel and
management of the episcopal sees of medieval Croatia-Dalmatia. I will achieve this through the
CEU eTD Collection

close observance and analysis of the figure of one person in society in particular – the medieval
bishop. Therefore, my analysis will investigate this subject through a power-oriented perspective
with emphasis on social-power relations, placing the bishop and the episcopal office in Croatia-
Dalmatia at the center of my research. Yet I will not provide strict narration on each individual
and their time in office, nor will I concentrate on the purely ecclesiastical and religious aspects of
the episcopal office. Instead of providing a handbook on medieval archbishops and bishops, the
aim of this study is to contribute to the general understanding of the medieval episcopal office

1
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

through a close study of developments on a local scale and through the exploration of several
telling examples.
Latin Christendom was divided into dioceses, led by archbishops and bishops, who were
part of the institutionalized Church with its spiritual authority and temporal administration. These
high-ranking prelates operated within local communities, supervised them, and controlled the
possessions of their churches within the defined territory of each bishopric. They were located in
an area that included both secular and ecclesiastical institutions and this led to the episcopal office
being constantly negotiated.1 This makes the role of a bishop and the episcopal office an important
focal point for any research that seeks to understand how the medieval Church operated through a
study that utilizes local interpretation.
For this purpose, I have compared developments in the archdioceses of Zadar and Split, as
well as the diocese of Trogir, the suffragan of Split, all three comprising much of the territory of
medieval Croatia-Dalmatia.2 In terms of ecclesiastical division into provinces, these bishoprics
belonged to the Church province of Dalmatia - an area densely populated with episcopal seats,
particularly in comparison with its hinterland. Throughout the work I will use the term Croatia-
Dalmatia to refer to the region in which these bishoprics were located. This decision has been
made due to the overlapping nature of political, administrative and geographical terminology
during the Middle Ages. One cannot make a clear division where Dalmatia ended and Croatia
began in the medieval period. The selected prelates controlled larger territories than that which
was held within the communal borders and interacted with other bishops and rural lords, as well
as other local ecclesiastical and non-ecclesiastical institutions.3 These bishoprics were largely
selected due to their different ecclesiastical position, prestige enjoyed by their contemporaries and
in modern historiography and the quality of the available source material but also in order to
CEU eTD Collection

reevaluate their modern importance and status in their local communities. All three chosen sees

1
The Greek term ἐπίσκοπος (bishop) means a guardian, protector and supervisor. During my work I will use terms
“diocese” and “bishopric” to refer to the area governed by a bishop. Although a distinction between the two terms
existed in some parts of Latin Christendom, they are often used interchangeably in the literature. Benson, Bishop-
Elect, 276; Bras, Storia della Chiesa II, 484-517; Guillemain, “L’exercice du pouvoir épiscopal à la fin du moyen
âge,” 101-132; Tabacco, Forme di potere e struttura sociale, 1-36.
2
Eubel, Hierarchia Catholica I, 543.
3
On problems of establishing a geographical framework in order to avoid a fluid framework of medieval provinces,
see: Bloch, “A Contribution towards a Comparative History of European Societies,” 44-81.

2
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

were centered in mid-sized cities with advanced social stratification and internal administrative
autonomy, with a strong emphasis on trade and crafts in their economic setup.4
Since these bishoprics were relatively small and located on the fringes of Latin
Christendom, their position offers an opportunity for a more in-depth research of the episcopal
office and the person of the bishop. I was, therefore, interested in exploring whether there was any
change in the type of person who was selected as bishop over time and how their personal qualities
and connections played a role in allowing them to obtain this high episcopal position. Were
changes in the episcopal office possible due to reforms conducted by the bishops from within or
from outside of the diocese? Since these bishops operated in a policentric medieval environment,
was the episcopal authority changed through the interactions that the bishop had with different
institutions and groups of people? Furthermore, the episcopal office will be analyzed in this paper
through its interaction with ecclesiastical cathedral chapters, local monasteries and political
institutions such as the commune, the nobility and the king who often competed or cooperated
with the bishop. These interactions reveal the role that was played by kinship, service, institution
and hierarchy in promoting individual careers.5
An institutional analysis of the late medieval Church will allow me to discern ecclesiastical,
social and political changes spanning from the late thirteenth century through to the early fifteenth
(1270-1420). This period of around 150 years offers a sufficient timespan that allows for an
analysis of changes occurring within both the episcopal office as well the chance to study the
importance of the human factor, namely through the individual bishops themselves. This research
will focus on a small geographical framework with its own inner consistency as the respective
bishoprics were similar in their administrative organization and social formation. Nevertheless,
they were also influenced by divergent political and historical circumstances that contributed to
the distinctive development of each bishopric.6
CEU eTD Collection

4
Some rough estimates for the later middle ages put the population of Trogir (2000), Split (5000) and Zadar (8000)
at modest levels. Ravančić, “Grad u hrvatskom srednjovjekovlju,” 103-113; Raukar, “Srednjovjekovni grad na
istočnom Jadranu: Prostor i društvo,” 19-21.
5
Lantschner, Logic of Political Conflict in Medieval Cities, 6-7; Guenée, Between Church and State, 1-36; Vones-
Liebenstein, “El método prosopográfico,” 351-364; Bulst, “Zum Gegenstand und zur Methode von Prosopographie,”
1-16; Bagliani, “Prosopographie et élites ecclésiastiques dans l'Italie médiévale (XIIe-XVe siècles),” 313-334.
6
Silvestri, Power, Politics and Episcopal Authority, 1; Bloch, “A Contribution towards a Comparative History of
European Societies,” 71. Robert Brentano argued that it is difficult to understand the developments of the ecclesiastical
institutions by observing geographically close dioceses. Brentano, Two Churches, XI.

3
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

As stated by the Third Lateran Council in 1179, the major legal requirements for anyone
wanting to become a bishop was to be born in a valid marriage, to be at least thirty years old, have
major orders, possess the required ‘intellectual capacities’ and be legally selected.7 Both the legal
and non-legal attributes were influenced by the institution of the Church and the interplay of
individual social factors. Papal authority underwent a serious change during the fourteenth century
which affected the bishops, who were subsequently defined by their contacts with the Apostolic
See to a greater extent. Bishops were also individuals, each with their own personal qualities, set
of attributes and backgrounds, all of which contributed to their unique style and further career
development. Their family origins, education and connections should all be considered when
evaluating their episcopal authority.8
Through the period of focus in this paper, a number of (arch)bishops were elected,
confirmed or appointed in Split (14), Trogir (9) and Zadar (13) and these bishops will form the
focus of this research.9 At the starting date of my investigation, both Split and Zadar were
archbishoprics, however Split was directly subject to the authority of the pope and was a part of
the Kingdom of Hungary-Croatia, with Trogir as its suffragan-bishop. Zadar, on the other hand,
was elevated to the rank of archbishopric in 1154 as a project of the Republic of Venice to tie the
conquered territories more closely to the mainland. The newly created archbishop was the
suffragan of the Venetian dominated patriarch of Grado.
The key starting point for research concerning the medieval episcopate of Croatia-Dalmatia
is the monumental work Illyricum sacrum, written by Daniele Farlati (1690-1773).10 In accordance
with the erudite fashion of the time, Farlati structured his work by listing dioceses, the bishops
who occupied them and the available information. He transcribed in full the sources he collected
and provides us with a commentary on the texts.11 In doing so, he followed in the footsteps of Ivan
CEU eTD Collection

7
Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, 212.
8
Benton, “Individualism and Conformity in Medieval Western Europe,” 313-26; Aertsen, “Einleitung: Die
Entdeckung des Individuums,” IX-X; Bourdieu, Outline of a Theory of Practice, 78-87; La mobilità sociale nel
Medioevo italiano III, 9-25.
9
For the full list, see the List of arch/bishops of Split, Zadar and Trogir. The list includes both those individuals whose
election was contested and rejected, as well as those who were appointed and confirmed.
10
About Farlati, his work and contribution, see: Lučić, “Daniele Farlati (1690-1773),” 229-41.
11
Farlati, Illyricum Sacrum III-V. He did this in a form of chronotaxis (a list or table), sorted in chronological order,
of people who held an office. Inspiration was Fedinando Ughelli who wrote about the Italian diocese and bishops in
his work Italia sacra sive de episcopis Italiae. Ughelli, Italia sacra I-X. On the development and the use of
chronotaxes, see: Acciarino, “Ecclesiastical Chronotaxes of the Renaissance,” 131-154.

4
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

Lucić (1604-1679), who, writing a century earlier, had in his works a number of references to the
medieval Church through descriptions of the political history of Croatia-Dalmatia.12
Farlati's work is the basis for any study of medieval bishops and his authority on the matter
could probably explain the lack of interest in research dealing specifically with the leading men of
these dioceses. His claims were rarely doubted, and this is certainly apparent through the example
of Peter Matafari, the archbishop of Zadar (r.1376-1400). Farlati stated that Peter lacked the proper
canonical age but was appointed by the pope as a favour to Duke Charles of Durazzo, a member
of the royal family, and that Peter administered his diocese for years without proper consecration.
Modern historiography has overlooked a number of sources, probably unavailable to Farlati,
published during the nineteenth century in Vetera monumenta Slavorum13 which clearly show that
Peter was properly consecrated. This is only one example, and more sources have been discovered
and published. Yet it also shows that Farlati's authority on the matter is probably the reason why
there has been little work dealing specifically with the bishops of the dioceses of Croatia-
Dalmatia.14
Another reason for the lack of interest in late medieval bishops is probably derived from
the lack of ecclesiastical sources collected in one single place.15 They are, instead, scattered across
various source collections, in the archival fonds, or, in large part, have been continuously published
since the nineteenth century.16 Comprehensive episcopal registers were rare, as various sources

12
Besides his methodical and examplary historical work, Ivan Lucić also collected and prepared for publication a
number of sources which are being kept in the archives of the Scientific library in Zadar (Znanstvena knjižnica u
Zadru) and in the Croatian Academy of Sciences and Arts (Arhiv Hrvatske akademije znanosti i umjetnosti). This
source collection will be cited as Lucić, Collection, with appropriate volumes and pagination. His seminal works are:
Lucić, De regno Dalmatiae et Croatiae; Povijesna svjedočanstva I-II.
13
Augustinus Theiner, ed., Vetera monumenta Slavorum meridionalium historiam illustrantia, vol. I (Rome: Typis
Vaticanis, 1863), 311, May 5, 1376.
14
CEU eTD Collection

This work was originally intended as a continuation of my earlier research about the involvement of the bishops of
Croatia-Dalmatia in the attempts by two Angevin pretenders – Charles Robert (1288-1342) and Ladislas of Naples
(1377-1414) – to seize the throne of the kingdom of Hungary. Petrović, “The Role of the Church in the Two Succession
Crises,” 77-88. As a contribution to the research done by Farlati, I intended to expand upon my prior work by
reviewing the known sources for the fourteenth century (arch)bishops of Croatia-Dalmatia and conducting an
archontological (study of historical offices) and prosopographic work (study of common characteristics of a historical
group) of the archbishops and their suffragan bishops in Croatia-Dalmatia. Since there were in total 15 dioceses in the
fourteenth century, with varying degree of preserved source materials, I decided to limit my research to three selected
dioceses.
15
Such as the episcopal registers which exists in some parts of the Christendom, for instance, in England: Smith,
Guide to Bishops' Registers of England and Wales.
16
The source collections are listed in the bibliography, but as an example, a source which is still being published today
and which is an essential starting point is: Tadija Smičiklas, Marko Kostrenčić, and Emilij Laszowski, eds., Codex
diplomaticus regni Croatiae, Dalmatiae et Slavoniae: Diplomatički zbornik Kraljevine Hrvatske, Dalmacije i
Slavonije, vol. 1-18. and Supplementa, Vol. 1-2. (Zagreb: JAZU; HAZU, 1904-2002).

5
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

were preserved by contracting communal notaries, and most of the researched material has been
patched together from sources from various collections.17 Periods of political instability negatively
impacted the preservation of sources, as some materials, such as papal bulls of appointments and
reports from tax collectors, as well as local ecclesiastical sources, were lost. Gradual natural decay
and fires have also hindered the systematic preservation of sources. For instance, the
archiepiscopal palace of Zadar and its archives and chancery were damaged by fires in 1394 and
1419 respectively.18 Those documents which have been preserved owe their survival to the fact
that they were of different origins, for example some were compiled by the Church but were also
copied and recorded by local communal notaries or government officials.
Ecclesiastical narrative works are also lacking for this period. The major work covering
the period up until the mid-thirteenth century is the chronicle by Thomas, the archdeacon of the
cathedral chapter of Split, who narrated ecclesiastical and political events connected with the
Church of Split.19 The historians would combine the analysis of Thomas’s narrative with other
sources in order to observe the general developments within the local Church up to the thirteenth
century.20 While the fourteenth century is not lacking in chronicles, indeed several of them were
published that span the entire century,21 it lacks narrative works written from the perspective of
clerics. While Thomas’s writings came from within the institution of the medieval Church, the
later chronicles praised the commune and its developments.22
In the nineteenth century, historians did write about the period in question but were heavily
influenced by the modern requirements of their own age as well as a traditional orientation to
political history.23 The dominant paradigm in the historiography of that time was to try to find a
historical basis for regions belonging to either Croatia or Italy. This was particularly evident in the
works of Vitaliano Brunelli and Giuseppe Praga, who emphasized the role played by Venice and
CEU eTD Collection

downplayed the contacts between the cities and their hinterland. This does not mean there was no
research dealing with ecclesiastical developments in this period but the bishops were not

17
Due to the on-going global pandemic and the uncertainty on how to proceed with research, some of the investigation
on the primary sources has been postponed or completely abandoned.
18
Paulo, Memoriale, 20; Bianchi, Zara cristiana, 177; Dokoza, “Samostanski i nadbiskupski posjedi,” 247; Brunelli,
Storia della città di Zara, 17-9.
19
Archdeacon Thomas, History of the bishops of Salona and Split; Toma Arhiđakon, Historia Salonitana.
20
See the works in: Toma Arhiđakon i njegovo doba.
21
Madijev, “Historija,” 159-83; Obsidio Iadrensis; Cutheis, “Tabula,” 185-202; Paulo, Memoriale.
22
Although, Archdeacon Thomas was also a representative of growing communal age. Raukar, “Komunalna društva
u Dalmaciji u XIV. stoljeću,” 172-7; Vasina, “Medieval Urban Historiography,” 317-27.
23
Ančić, “Kako danas čitati studije Franje Račkog,” VII-XXXVIII.

6
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

specifically researched.24 Some valuable works did originate from this period, such as the overview
of the history of the archbishopric of Zadar by Carlo Federico Bianchi.25 The lack of interest in the
episcopal office among Croatian scholars could be attributed to the fact that most medieval bishops
of the fourteenth century were non-native, instead mostly hailing from nearby Italy.
For most of the twentieth century, historians were oriented towards socio-economic
research, treating the local Church and the commune as two fully separated entities. 26 Many
historians concentrated on researching the communal age and development of the civic institutions,
while excluding the role played by the Church and the episcopate in the development of the
commune. Nada Klaić’s work examining the Church-commune relations represented an
exception.27 In recent years new works have been published which discuss the medieval bishops.
However, they do not primarily deal with ecclesiastical themes but rather leave them in the
background. For instance, Zrinka Nikolić wrote about the development of the urban nobility of
Zadar and Split and incorporated several archbishops of local origins in to her research.28 Irena
Benyovsky concentrated on the urban development of Dalmatian communes, dealing with the
bishopric of Trogir.29 The historians in general, not just within modern Croatian historiography,
focused their attention on religious beliefs, new orders, the cult of saints and devotional practices.30
An in-depth analysis of a single diocese was mostly commissioned by a religious institution but
lacked any comparative work or the juxtaposition of more bishoprics.31
The bishops, being members of the ecclesiastical hierarchy, were usually observed only
through their relationship with the popes and within the development of the papal monarchy.32
This focus on the episcopal-papal relations is understandable if we consider - as Mario Fois has

24
Strohal, Pravna povijest hrvatskih gradova, 280-323.
25
Praga, “Testi volgari spalatini,” 36-131; Storia di Dalmazia; Brunelli, Storia della città di Zara; Bianchi, Zara
CEU eTD Collection

cristiana.
26
An example of omitting Church: Raukar, “Komunalna društva,” 139-209. Similar approach in: Philip Jones, Italian
City-State: From Commune to Signoria (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997).
27
Janeković Römer, “Grad i građani između kraljeva, velikaša i prelata,” 207-28.
28
Nikolić Jakus, Formation of Dalmatian Urban Nobility, 104-38.
29
Benyovsky Latin, Srednjovjekovni Trogir; “Medieval Square in Trogir,” 9-62.
30
See: Forrest, “Continuity and Change,” 185-200. This list is just an overview of works dealing with mentioned
topics: Hagiologija: Kultovi u kontekstu; Šanjek, Crkva i kršćanstvo u Hrvata; Maračić, Hrvatska provincija
franjevaca konventualaca; Ostojić, Benediktinci u Hrvatskoj II.
31
Only for Zadar, as similar approaches are lacking for Split and Trogir. See: Sedamnaest stoljeća zadarske Crkve. In
addition, this work was finished, but was never officially published, hindering further discussion and research. When
dealing with dioceses with less data, historians would observe the diocese through a large span of time, as was the
case with Ante Škegro’s research of the bishopric of Duvno. Škegro, Na rubu opstanka: Duvanjska biskupija.
32
For a description of the bishop’s position in regard to the development of the papal monarchy, see: Benson, Bishop-
Elect; Morris, The Papal Monarchy, 219-226, 527-535; Pennington, Pope and Bishops.

7
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

noticed - a lack of ecclesiological texts for the period of the fourteenth and fifteenth century
concerning the connections and relations between the bishop and his diocese. Medieval
theologians concentrated on expanding the canon law and the relations between the spiritual and
secular powers while emphasizing the papal supremacy and his primacy over the bishops. Despite
its attempt to render the pope and his bishops as equals, not even the conciliar movement of the
fifteenth century was able to reverse the gradual decline of the episcopal authority in favour of the
papal superiority.33 In recent years the active research of the Vatican archives resulted in the
publishing of a large number of materials which has made it possible to explore the relationship
between the Apostolic See and the local prelates.34 Jadranka Neralić used her extensive research
in the Vatican archives to focus on the relationship of various prelates of Croatia-Dalmatia and the
Papal Curia during the fifteenth century.35
When observing the relationship between the Apostolic See and the local Churches, focus
was placed on the entanglement between the ecclesiastical and secular institutions in the later
Middle Ages.36 Since during the Avignon period there existed a negative view of the papal
authority, which was interpreted as a period of prolonged crisis, the episcopate was also viewed as
being decadent.37 The traditional historiographical scheme tended to emphasize a contrast between
the reformist-episcopate, who intended to deal with the falling spirituality in their dioceses, with
the one of a lax and lenient bishop. Any bishop, who would commit himself to governing the
diocese and the ecclesiastical structures, moving beyond the simple administration of his diocese
and concentrating on educating the clergy, promoting worship and maintaining liturgical service,
would be observed as an anomaly in the ecclesiastical hierarchy characterized by absentee bishops
and religious decline.38
CEU eTD Collection

33
Fois, “Vescovo e chiesa locale nel pensiero ecclesiologico,” 27-9; Tierney, Origins of papal infallibility, 131-70;
Morrissey, “Cardinal Zabarella on Papal and Episcopal Authority,” 39-52.
34
MVC I; Priručnik I-II.
35
Neralić, Put do crkvene nadarbine.
36
Ullmann, Growth of Papal Government, 310-58.
37
As implied by the title of this book: Quaglioni, Storia della Chiesa: La crisi del Trecento e il papato avignonese.
For the paradigm of crisis, see: Merlo, “Dal papato avignonese ai grandi scismi,” 453-76. On the power crisis during
the fourteenth century, see: Canning, Ideas of Power.
38
Rossi, “Vescovi nel basso medioevo,” 217-9. An illustrative example of this approach can be shown on how
historians positively depicted Nicholas Matafari, the archbishop of Zadar. His time in office was marred by clear cases
of nepotism, which did not separate him from the most of his episcopal contemporaries. Yet the historians
unquestionably depicted Nicholas in a positive manner, due to Nicholas opposition to Venice and his literary work
dealing with clerical behaviour and norms. Grbavac, “Matafar, Nikola,” 459-60.

8
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

In order to avoid an obsession with details over substance, it is necessary to observe the
local developments within the context of comparative and regional study. This can be done by
emphasizing the interdependence of various ecclesiastical and secular actors. The bishops shared
space with monasteries, chapters and other clerics but also had to consider the interest of the
communal government, and the urban and rural nobility, whose interests often collided with those
of the bishops.39 In addition, the Northern Italian bishoprics with their problems, perspectives and
research opportunities, provide a comparable experience and material for the bishoprics of Croatia-
Dalmatia. The two sides of the Adriatic shared a number of similarities such as ecclesiastical
structures and the bishops who arrived from Italy, strong communal development and the pressure
of a rural nobility based in the hinterland. This allows for a comparison between Croatian-
Dalmatian dioceses and their Italian counterparts while keeping in mind different political and
social circumstances which reveal local peculiarities.40
The dissertation is divided into several major parts tracking the episcopal developments
over a span of 150 years. It deals with the bishopric itself, the person of the bishop and with general
issues connected to the episcopal authority in Croatia-Dalmatia during the period between 1270
and 1420. In the following chapters I consider how the episcopal office was influenced by the
personal qualities of the individuals holding the office. What was the role played by the intricate
relations between the bishops and various local and regional institutions of the medieval society?
These interrelations are closely analyzed within the context of the institution of the Church. While
these questions can be applied to Christendom in its entirety, I am primarily interested here in
observing the local experiences and changes which may in turn be used in the future to contribute
to a broader comparative research of ecclesiastical regions.
Each chapter is preceded by a historical overview which contextualizes the major
CEU eTD Collection

developments during the observed period by looking at the actions of the popes, rulers and other
institutions and individuals in the region. In the first chapter I analyze how the social context in
which the dioceses have been established helped to define the late medieval bishoprics of Croatia-
Dalmatia and what the role played by various local and broader-ranging institutions in the selection

39
Liddy, The Bishopric of Durham, 19; On how to avoid falling into antiquarianism while researching local history,
see: Marshall, The Tyranny of the Discrete.
40
Rossi, “Vescovi nel basso medioevo,” 217-54. In a similar fashion as works comparing Italian and English Churches
or selected dioceses in both countries. See: Brentano, Two Churches; Silvestri, Power, Politics and Episcopal
Authority.

9
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

of bishops was. In the second chapter I seek to identify the most important pillars of episcopal
authority and the patterns of the bishops' behavior toward important ecclesiastical institutions in
the diocese as well as the changes – if any – introduced by the bishops in their everyday episcopal
governance. The third chapter connects the internal changes in the bishoprics with the role played
in these developments by lay institutions, primarily the commune, the rural nobility and the rulers,
and the gradual centralization of power over the ecclesiastical hierarchy by the pope. For the fourth
chapter, I have selected three members of the higher clergy, each from one of the researched
bishoprics, in order to analyze the challenges that could be encountered by the fourteenth-century
bishops. In this chapter I track three episcopal careers from beginning to end by observing how
these individuals obtained their positions, the challenges they faced during their time in office and
the consequences of their administration on the general development of their dioceses. The last
chapter observes how the ecclesiastical and political turmoil at the turn of the fourteenth into the
fifteenth century affected relations between the bishops and their dioceses by concentrating on the
contacts between these prelates, the Apostolic See and the secular rulers. These areas of analysis
and subsequent opinions are summarized in the conclusion which considers the different features
of the person of the bishop and also combines these aspects with the gradual changes in the office
and position of the bishop. Since the topic of bishops does not appear often in the works of modern
historiography, the dissertation is accompanied by appendices which include a short summary of
each of the presented individuals. These descriptions include the bishops’ career and family
connections as well as basic information about their time in office. The work also includes images,
family trees and maps relevant to the period and the bishops themselves.
CEU eTD Collection

10
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

Chapter I. Setting the Scene: Diocesan Topography

A separate dissertation could be written to provide a detailed account on the development

of the episcopal office prior to the late thirteenth century. In order to provide a basic overview and
offer a general understanding of political and regional development, the establishment of the
bishoprics of Croatia-Dalmatia, their further development and changes in the leading personnel is
only briefly discussed here. It is difficult to strike a balance to satisfy the interest of those well
acquainted with the topic, while at the same time providing the necessary background to those
unfamiliar with the ecclesiastical history of the region. The following chapter mentions the
establishment of the bishoprics but focuses more on the importance of the relations between the
bishopric and the commune, while considering the sacred topography of the city and the
importance and the position of various ecclesiastical institutions in the medieval community. The
chapter is concluded with the analysis of the most decisive period in the episcopal career - the
election and the confirmation – which strongly impacted the behaviour of the bishop.
The episcopal centers of the eastern Adriatic were shaped by local conditions, such as cult
centers and the tradition of urban life, which led to the creation of relatively small bishoprics with
unclear borders. Canon law specified that bishoprics must be established in important urban
centers (civitas) and developed a hierarchy of settlements which forbid appointment of bishops in
smaller communities (villa, oppidum, castra) as that would diminish the prestige of the episcopal
office. In the eyes of the Church historians and lawyers the city was the center of the Christian
community and as such the episcopal center from which the bishop drew his prestige, his authority
and the ability to perform the duties of his office.41
During the Middle Ages, between the twelfth and the fifteenth centuries, the communities
invested considerable economic and diplomatic resources to obtain the rank of a bishopric, in order
CEU eTD Collection

to gain the status of civitas. This, of course, went both ways as bishoprics could only be founded
in settlements having the rank of civitas. The border lines between the history of episcopal seats
and the history of cities were thin and the two overlapped. In the period running to the fourteenth

41
The twelfth century canon lawyer Gratian wrote in his Decretum: episcopi non in castellis neque in modicis
civitatibus debent constitui. These words entered into wider use which is evident by their use by the thirteenth century
law professor Bartolo da Sassoferrato: civitas [...] illa quae habet episcopum. Of course, in some places the need for
a Church organization outweighted the canon law, meaning that smaller places became episcopal centers as, for
instance, in Aquileia. Quaglioni, “Civitas: appunti per una riflessione sull'idea di città,” 59-76; Pennington, “Bishops
and their Dioceses,” 7-17; Dusa, Medieval Dalmatian Episcopal Cities, 25-68.

11
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

century the organization of the Church became more complex, as the bishops had to compete for
ecclesiastical prestige with older Benedictine monasteries and newer mendicant orders. In the Late
Middle Ages, the cities started to put limits on the exercising of episcopal authority, but, despite
that, the bishop remained an essential representative of a Christian community.42

I.1. The Bishopric

The medieval church province of Dalmatia was constructed on the heritage of the late
Roman imperial organization. The metropolitan seat was in Salona which was destroyed during
the seventh century after which Split tried to inherit its position. During the eleventh and twelfth
centuries the popes established Dubrovnik and then Zadar as archbishoprics, independent of Split,
which further disintegrated the unity of the Church province (Fig. 1).43
The tradition of the city and the archbishopric of Split dated back to the transfer of the city
and episcopal status from Salona to the newly established city, formed on the remains of the palace
and mausoleum of Emperor Diocletian (r.284-305).44 The episcopal origins were connected with
Saint Domnius (?-304), whose legend as one of Saint Peter's students was used in 925 by Split to
obtain the status of the metropolitan archbishop, while opposing Zadar remained a bishop-
suffragan.45 But soon the pope elevated Dubrovnik and Antibar to the status of archbishoprics,
severely limiting the archiepiscopal province of Split. However, the archbishopric was a repository
of power, prestige and social memory. Besides earlier legends, Split received and preserved the
royal donations from the dynasties of the Croatian Trpimirovići (845-1091) and the Hungarian
Árpáds (1092-1301), which ensured a good economic basis for the archbishopric. These donations
and ecclesiastical tradition served as a social capital which was actively used by the fourteenth-
century archbishops.46
CEU eTD Collection

The archiepiscopal status of Zadar was a relatively new one. Dating back to the fourth
century, Zadar was until the mid-twelfth century a bishopric subordinated to Split. In an attempt
by the Venetians to sever the ties of Zadar with Split, a city still controlled by the Kingdom of

42
Raukar, Hrvatsko srednjovjekovlje, 177-82; Pellegrini, Chiesa e città, XVII-XXXIX; Ronzani, “Vescovi e città in
età comunale,” 51-63.
43
Dusa, Medieval Dalmatian Episcopal Cities, 57-8.
44
Novak, Povijest Splita, 41-4; Rismondo, “Naselja i naseljavanje na splitskom poluotoku,” 329-40.
45
On the context, see: Majnarić, “Papa i svjetovni vladar na izmaku karolinškog doba,” 5-16; Peričić, “Ustanovljenje
nadbiskupije i metropolije zadarske,” 133-4; Novak, Povijest Splita, 51-4.
46
Katić, “Reambulacija dobara splitskoga nadbiskupa,” 135-77; Fentress and Wickham, Social Memory, 144-72.

12
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

Hungary-Croatia, the pope elevated Zadar to the rank of an archbishopric. Together with the new
status, the archbishop of Zadar also received three bishop-suffragans, but was immediately
subordinated to the patriarch of Grado, the Venetian-controled ecclesiastical institution, which
caused dissatisfaction among the Zaratin ecclesiastical and communal elites.47
Lastly, the bishopric of Trogir was the suffragan of Split, dating its origins to the mid-
seventh century. Its territories also included Šibenik, which was lost at the end of the thirteenth
century. The loss of Šibenik aggravated the conflicts that the bishop had to wage with the
commune, and with the cathedral chapter, while also gradually worsening the relations with the
metropolitan archbishop. Therefore, the bishopric of Trogir offers a possibility to observe similar
changes to the ones in Split and Zadar, namely the ecclesiastical-secular connections in the
functioning of the episcopal office, but on a smaller scale.48
The elevation of Zadar to the archiepiscopal status (1154) probably influenced the later
ecclesiastical reorganization of the archdiocese of Split. During the 1180s King Béla III (r.1172-
96) reclaimed Split from Byzantium and Zadar from Venice, so both Dalmatian archbishoprics
were once again part of the Kingdom of Hungary-Croatia. The king was also able to install his
protégé Peter as the archbishop of Split (r.1180-90). The new political circumstances probably
dictated ecclesiastical reform as the archbishop convened the provincial synod of 1185 which
specified borders and possessions of all the bishoprics subordinated to Split.49 The bishoprics were
divided into several parishes, governed by an archpriest (archipresbiter), confirmed by the
(arch)bishop. For instance, while Trogir was a bishopric, Šibenik was its parish whose archpriest
was confirmed by the bishop of Trogir, which often caused frictions between the parish and the
bishop. The organization of parishes followed the spiritual need to care for the population of the
bishopric, but also corresponded with the political, historical and practical developments. Since
CEU eTD Collection

parishes needed believers, they were grouped tightly around cities, with the bishop acting as the
main parish priest within the walls of his city (infra muros).50

47
Strika, “Zadar – novo nadbiskupsko i metropolijsko sjedište Dalmacije,” 1-45; Šišić, “Zadar i Venecija,” 254-74;
“Kronološki pregled povijesti zadarske nadbiskupije,” 156-81.
48
Ivanišević, “Trogir u povijesnim izvorima,” 964-92.
49
Klaić, Povijest Hrvata, I, 202-4; Farlati, Illyricum Sacrum III, 213; CDC II, 192-4, May 1, 1185; Waldmüller, Die
Synoden in Dalmatien, Kroatien und Ungarn, 154-7; Blažević, Crkveni partikularni sabori, 90-2.
50
Ančić, “Srednjovjekovno vladarsko vlastelinstvo Drid,” 90-1; “Knin u razvijenom i kasnom srednjem vijeku,” 77-
9. On the system of parishes in general, see: French, The People of the Parish, 20-43; Swanson, “Bishoprics and
parishes,” 19-30.

13
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

The archbishopric of Split was divided into seven parishes with most of them around the
city itself. Towards Omiš and Makarska, south of the city, the parishes increased in size and here
the archbishopric had troubles enforcing its authority. These were the places where the
archbishopric unsuccessfully tried to (re)establish bishoprics during the fourteenth century. Trogir
was divided into four parishes, but the main ones were the city itself and Šibenik. It seems that
Zadar did not have a similar division as Split and Trogir. The archbishopric consisted of many
island parishes, while its small territory outside of the city was divided between the archbishopric,
the major churches of the city and the various monasteries.51

I.2. The Medieval Polity

The medieval communes of Dalmatia had their distinct legal framework, with statutes that
defined civic rights and duties, and political autonomy, as they elected their own magistrates, while
accepting the mostly-nominal outside rule. The communes were socially stratified and had distinct
economic foundations, as their inhabitants dealt with trade or owned land in the district of the city
or in the lands which were subordinated to the ban of Croatia (Fig. 2). Lastly, an important aspect
was the religious identity, as these communities were strongly Catholic, having their own
bishoprics and city cults.52 The aim of this subchapter is to outline the communal development,
list the important members of the municipal government in order to see who and how interacted
with the ecclesiastical world.
Up until the end of the twelfth century, Dalmatian cities were controlled by the Byzantine
Empire, with occasional periods of Croatian, Hungarian or Venetian control, but from the
thirteenth century the cities were divided between the Kingdom of Hungary-Croatia which
controlled Split and Trogir, and the Republic of Venice which controlled Zadar. The connections
CEU eTD Collection

of Split and Trogir to the royal dynasty derived from the Kingdom of Croatia-Dalmatia which was
incorporated into the Hungarian Kingdom in the early twelfth century. Zadar also had ties with the
Kingdom of Hungary-Croatia, but was often violently seized by Venice, which generally imposed
limitations on Zadar in order to curb the city's development. These restrictions often led to revolts

51
Farlati, Illyricum Sacrum III, 213; CDC II, 193, May 1, 1185; Dokoza, “Kronološki pregled povijesti zadarske
nadbiskupije,” 159-60.
52
Steindorff, Die dalmatinischen Städte; “Stari svijet i novo doba,” 141-52; Klaić, Povijest grada Trogira; Benyovsky
Latin, Srednjovjekovni Trogir; Novak, Povijest Splita; Klaić and Petricioli, Zadar u srednjem vijeku.

14
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

and to the creation of the Venetian myth of “nine rebellions” which greatly dictated the relations
between Venice and Zadar.53
The institutions of the Dalmatian communes gradually formed from the eleventh century
and were fully organized by the start of the thirteenth century. By the twelfth century Dalmatia
was managed by representatives of the Byzantine government, while communes maintained their
autonomy and elected magistrates amongst themselves.54 From the twelfth century, under outside
pressure, each commune had a comes (count), whose appointment reflected the political
domination by either Venice,55 Hungary or the local rural nobility. In territories under Venice, the
comes was a Venetian citizen whose interests were alligned closely with the demands of the
Serenissima. On the territories of the Kingdom of Hungary-Croatia, the comes either came from
the local rural nobility, or was sent by the royal court.56
Therefore, two major political powers – the Republic of Venice and the Kingdom of
Hungary-Croatia - came to influence the developments of the communal life by the fourteenth
century. During their rule over Dalmatian cities, Venice did not centralize their control in the hands
of one person, but its administrators in Dalmatia came under closer scrutiny and control by the
central structures of the Venetian bureaucracy. When Venice reclaimed Dalmatia after 1409, the
republic instituted an office of governor-general (provveditore generale) in charge of the Venetian
possesions in Dalmatia.57 The rulers of Hungary did not change the institutional, legal and social
organization of Croatia-Dalmatia, organizing it as a banatus, a distinct administrative and
territorial unit, with tradition dating back to the early medieval kingdom of Croatia.58 The highest
official was the duke, a member of the royal family, or the ban, a royally appointed deputy for
CEU eTD Collection

53
Miller, Venice in the East Adriatic, 133-135, 159-162; Krekić, “Developed Autonomy,” 185-215; Ančić, “Od
tradicije ‘sedam pobuna’ do dragovoljnih mletačkih podanika,” 43-96.
54
On the organization of the local governance in the early middle ages, see: Lučić, “Komunalno uređenje dalmatinskih
gradova,” 209-35; On the history of the priors, the mayors of Zadar and the representatives of the Byzantine imperial
government in Dalmatia, see: Nikolić Jakus, “Madijevci: primjer obitelji dalmatinske gradske elite,” 1-24; Klaić and
Petricioli, Zadar, 49-114.
55
In historiography the Venetian representatives are called rectors, but in sources comites.
56
Nominally, the privileges of the Dalmatian communes, confirmed by the subsequent kings of Hungary, allowed for
the free election of the comes, but this was seldom observed. Nikolić Jakus, Formation of Dalmatian Urban Nobility,
88-9; Steindorff, Die dalmatinischen Städte, 54-93.
57
Miller, Venice in the East Adriatic, 167-72; Pederin, Mletačka uprava, 43-114.
58
Csukovits, I. Károly és uralkodása, 14-5; Zsoldos, “Hrvatska i Slavonija u kraljevstvu Arpadovića,” 287-96.

15
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

Croatia and Dalmatia, who was usually appointed from loyal court nobility, but when the royal
dynasty needed wider support they would grant the title to the local Croatian nobility.59
With the advent of the thirteenth century, the Dalmatian communes started to introduce the
podestà system of government as a response to the internal struggles and the arbitrarness of the
comes, as the counts tended to convert their nominal authority into a lasting influence. The podestà
was a paid magistrate, with his own retinue, employed for a specific period of time from nearby
friendly communes, usually from Italy. He was tasked to cooperate with the local institutions and
enforce law and order.60 The system of paid foreign officials was never the sole system in place as
the podestà and the comes operated jointly throughout most of the thirteenth and fourteenth
centuries.61 For instance, when the Šubići of Bribir introduced their rule over most of the
communes of Dalmatia, they were satisfied with members of their family being granted the title of
comes, while the cities were managed by podestà. While it could be argued that the Šubići kept
communal autonomy intact, they were often involved in suggesting and influencing the
appointments of their favourites for a podestà, keeping the institution in favour of more efficent
Šubići dominance.62 On the other hand, after seizing Croatia-Dalmatia in 1358, King Louis
(r.1342-82) suppressed the appointment of podestà, on the grounds that these officials were not
royal subjects as they came from Italian communes. The podestà system enabled a higher degree
of local autonomy, while the king wanted to control the local communities by appointing counts
from among the royal officials.63
The highest office available to the citizens themselves was that of the judge, selected
among the members of the city council, while the citizens could be appointed as a podestà or a

59
The Árpád dynasty introduced changes to the banal system during the thirteenth century. Sometimes, the king would
CEU eTD Collection

unite Croatia, Dalmatia and Slavonia under the rule of the ban of all Slavonia (banus totius Sclavonie), but Croatia-
Dalmatia was mostly kept separate from Slavonia by the appointment of the ban of the maritime region (banus
maritimus), the ban of Croatia and Dalmatia (banus Croatie et Dalmatie) or even as the ban of all Croatia (banus
totius Croatie). The reign of the bans from the Šubići family between the 1270s and the 1320s, and the fact that Croatia
and Dalmatia were mostly controlled by Venice during the period between the 1320s and 1358, helped to define the
position of the banate of Croatia and Dalmatia as separate from Slavonia. This distinct status was confirmed by the
Angevins who after 1358 appointed separate bans for Slavonia and for Croatia-Dalmatia. Karbić, “Defining the
Position of Croatia,” 520-21; Zsoldos, “Egész Szlavónia bánja,” 269–81; Klaić, “Hrvatski hercezi i bani za Karla
Roberta i Ljudevita I,” 126-218; Novak, “Hrvatski primorski banovi” 9/6, 148-149, 9/7, 179-181.
60
Matijević Sokol, “Toma Arhiđakon,” 354-60; “Regimen latinorum arhiđakona Tome,” 17-32; Novak, “Comes,
potestas, prior, consul, rector, capitaneus i miles grada Splita,” 227-73; Klaić and Petricioli, Zadar u srednjem vijeku,
167-74; Martines, Power and Imagination, 41-4; Waley and Dean, Italian City-Republics, 40-52.
61
Raukar, “Komunalna društva u Dalmaciji u XIV. stoljeću,” 168-70.
62
Steindorff, “Stari svijet i novo doba,” 147; Karbić, Šubići of Bribir, 281-2.
63
Gruber, “Dalmacija za Ludovika,” 30-52; Klaić, Povijest Hrvata u razvijenom srednjem vijeku, 625-35.

16
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

count in a neighbouring commune. The judges had political and administrative functions, but since
they often shared power with the comes and other officials, they usually only retained judicial
authorities. During the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries the communes sometimes appointed
various officials to govern the city together with established institutions, such as the consules,
captains and rectors, whose duties and time in office were often interchangable or appeared during
times of crisis. For instance, after rebelling against Venice in 1357, Split was administered by
consules and rectors, which was temporarily suppressed by King Louis. These magistrates later
reappeared in periods of weakening of the royal authority.64
The legal sources, such as the city statutes, specified the rights and obligations of legal
groups, and divided the population of the city and its district into citizens (cives), who enjoyed full
political rights, inhabitans (habitatores), who were allowed to live in the city, and foreigners
(forenses). By the fourteenth century the commune underwent significant socio-economic
changes, which led to further social and legal stratification of its denizens. Those with political
and economic power, the nobility (nobiles), wanted to further limit the access to the communal
institutions between themselves and the rest of the population, namely the commoners
(popolares).65 Putting aside that this simplified division does not fully reflect the realities of the
medieval communes, as it does not include the marginal groups,66 more influential families were
able to limit the wider population's participation in the municipal structures, separating themselves
from the rest of the commune. Inspired by the Venetian serrata – the closing of the Great Council
(1297/1323) – and following the introduction of the Venetian rule over Dalmatia, the communes
reserved their councils for those whose fathers and grandfathers were members. Split was closed
in 1334, Trogir in 1340, while no sources were preserved for Zadar, but it is highly unlikely it
closed before Venice.67 The conflicts between influential familes for the control of the communal
CEU eTD Collection

64
Consules, selected from ruling bodies, were sometimes appointed and their function somewhat competed with that
of the comes. The captain of popolo sometimes replaced the podestà, complemented him, or had military duties.
Nikolić Jakus, Formation of Dalmatian Urban Nobility, 89-90; Novak, Povijest Splita, 451-7; Karbić, Šubići of Bribir,
283-4. Karbić, “Odnosi gradskoga plemstva i bribirskih knezova Šubića,” 52-3.
65
Raukar, “Komunalna društva u Dalmaciji u XIV. stoljeću,” 181-2; “Cives, habitatores, forenses,” 139-49.
66
On marginal groups in Dalmatian communes, see: Karbić, “Marginalne grupe,” 43-76; Le Goff, “Les marginaux
dans l’Occident Medieval,” 19-28; Geremek, “Marginal Man,” 347-73.
67
Raukar, “Consilium generale,” 94; Statute of Split, 89-90; Lucić, Povijesna svjedočanstva I, 522-7; Nikolić Jakus,
Formation of Dalmatian Urban Nobility, 2, f. 8; Benyovsky Latin, Srednjovjekovni Trogir, 168.

17
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

institutions, which led to the closure of the city councils, also caused considerable disturbances
during the fourteenth century, often with the participation of the clergy.68

I.3. The Bishop and the Commune

The medieval communities were defined by the interplay between the bishop and the
commune, who were different, but also closely interconnected as their position of power and
authority was horizontaly distributed. Brian Tierney posed an interesting remark about the
existence of ecclesiastical and secular structures of government, interlinked but with different
goals which resulted in the two entering into conflict and trying to put limits on each other. The
bishop’s decisive influence over his city diminished over time as the growing communes started
to restrict the episcopal rights and extend their jurisdiction over the bishopric.69
In Northern Italy, where the bishoprics and the communes had comparable internal
organization and similar social cohesion to their Dalmatian counterparts, the communes reacted to
the episcopal political control by rejecting that the bishop represents the entire urban community.
The commune and the clerical authorities were in semi-permanent war over judicial and boundary
problems, which led to the spread of the jurisdiction of the commune at the episcopal expense.70
Similar conflicts, while missing in Split and Zadar, were visible in Trogir and occurred due to the
weakening of spiritual authority and financial power of the bishop, exacerbated by the loss of
economically strong Šibenik and specifically because of the bishop’s involvement in the intra-
communal conflicts.
What was the relation between the Dalmatian communes and its bishops during the long
medieval period? Ivan Strohal considered the bishops as the rulers of the cities, who selected more
distunguished citizens to serve in the city council from which the communes gradually grew and
CEU eTD Collection

gained independence.71 He simply repeated the contemporary historiography regarding the

development of the Italian communes by not taking into account that the status of Dalmatian

68
Kurelac, “Društvene diferencijacije i pokreti pučana,” 237-45; “Pučki ustanci i pobune,” 239-47; Benyovsky Latin,
“Politički sukobi u srednjovjekovnom Trogiru,” 44-51.
69
Tierney, “Medieval Canon Law,” 8; Crumley, “Heterarchy,” 1-14.
70
Ronzani, “Vescovi, capitoli e strategie famigliari,” 138-9; For the statement on “semi-permanent war,” see: Waley
and Dean, Italian City-Republics, 52-6.
71
Strohal, Pravna povijest hrvatskih gradova, 280-323.

18
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

bishops differed from their Western European counterparts.72 These bishops had some aspects of
secular authority, but lacked many powers which would make them truly autonomous rulers. Joan
Dusa stated that the role of the bishop in medieval Dalmatian communes “defies precise
description.” The bishops' status differed from their Western and Byzantine counterparts as the
bishops never obtained secular authority and privileges connected with it - such as minting money,
commanding armies and governing counties - while the basis for the episcopal temporal power
came from royal grants and purchases and not from seizing lands.73
The bishop’s name and position carried considerable social authority as the bishop was the
most reputable and distinguished member of the community throughout the medieval period. The
official charters of the cities were dated by the name of the bishop occupying the episcopal office,
following the name of the temporal ruler and preceding the name of the city officers. For instance,
in 1326, when some individuals from Ancona were robbed, their city council addressed the
commune of Split for recompensation, placing Archbishop Balian's name first, and only after the
consuls, the count and the entire population.74 An evidence of a well developed commune was the
existence of a bishopric which can be observed in the bitter fights that the community of Šibenik
led against the bishop of Trogir in the attempt to form a bishopric of its own.
Despite occasional communal limitations on the ecclesiastical privileges,75 during the later
Middle Ages the bishop and the commune stood united toward the outside world, particularly if
they shared similar goals. For instance, the commune in Trogir wanted to limit the episcopal
exclusive right to collect tithes in the city, but were quick to support the bishop in his conflict with
Šibenik due to shared interest on the matter between the two institutions of Trogir.76 A more
evident case of the ecclesiastical-communal intertwining occurred in Zadar during the war between
Genova and Venice (1296-1301), when the city was threatened by the Genoese navy. Pope
CEU eTD Collection

Boniface VIII excommunicated some Zaratin laymen and clergymen from Zadar who took money

72
Also, see: Lučić, “Komunalno uređenje dalmatinskih gradova,” 209-35. For a newer assessment of the period, on
the example of the Italian bishopric of Cremona, see: Silvestri, Power, Politics and Episcopal Authority, 14-86.
73
Dusa, Medieval Dalmatian Episcopal Cities, 69-83.
74
CDC IX, 321, c.1326.
75
Bouwsma, Venice and the Defense of Republican Liberty, 32-33.
76
Before the start of the serious conflicts between Trogir and Šibenik, citizens of Trogir on occassions were selected
as the podestà of Šibenik which shows that the nobility of Trogir had personal interest, besides the prestige of its
bishopric, in supporting the episcopal control. Zelić, “Šibenske crkve,” 800. During 1285 the commune and the bishop
also settled an issue of the payment of tithe to the bishop, transfering part of the jurisdiction and financial incentive
over into the communal hands. Farlati, Trogirski biskupi, 206-7. The commune also offered to pay for the bishop's
trip to the Papal Curia in 1287 to discuss the issue of Šibenik.

19
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

from local churches in order to repair the walls, but it seems that it was Archbishop Henry, who
allowed this to happen in the first place. In the end, the walls were repaired and the culprits
absolved on the petition from the archbishop.77
On a long-term scale, the best example of the cooperation between bishop and commune
is provided by the involvement of the commune of Split in managing and controlling the
ecclesiastical institutions in Split, with the tacit approval of the archbishop. According to the
Statute of the city, a notary should make an inventory of the Church goods and the reliquaries in
the presence of the rector of the city and members of the cathedral chapter,78 while the rector, on
the advice by the archbishop, appointed procurators for the monasteries in the city.79 In 1347 the
General council decided that no citizen or foreigner can leave immovable properties to the Church,
as it turned out that a large part of the property was owned by the Church. Such regulations were
passed in many places as the authorities were afraid of the shrinking of the tax base. Even though
it took several years for the motion to be recorded in the Statute and the archbishop’s stance on the
issue is unknown, the lack of conflict could point to the archbishop's acceptance and willingness
to share some of his rights with the commune.80
Officially, the bishop’s obligations towards the commune were limited, mostly connected
to the maintenance of the urban infrastructure81 and help with diplomatic missions, as the bishop
was one of the most prestigious inhabitant of the city.82 It remains unclear how much did the native-
born bishops participate directly in the daily political lives of their communes. I am not sure if
Dominic Luccari (r.1328-48), the archbishop of Split, and Lawrence Vitturi (r.1319-48), the bishop
of Trogir, participated in the sessions of the city councils as native-born sons of their communes.

77
Henry reconstructed part of the city walls and placed them under the protection of the patron saint of Zadar, Saint
Chrysogonus. Bianchi, Zara cristiana, 45, mentions that there is an inscription above the church dedicated to Henry.
Les registres de Boniface VIII, n.3128, July 3, 1299; CDC VII, 346-7; Priručnik I, 358. For the war, see: Nicol,
CEU eTD Collection

Byzantium and Venice, 217-20. Brunelli saw the reason in fortifying Zadar in the destruction caused by the Crusaders
when the city was left defenseless, meaning the attack on the city a century before, in 1202. He added that Zadar
wanted to protect themselves from the Šubići from the land, and from the Genova from the sea. Brunelli, Storia della
città di Zara, 435.
78
Three written statements should be made: one to be kept by the sacristan, the second in the treasury of the city and
one with a person decided by the city council. Similar decision was made for the monasteries of the city. Statute of
Split, lib. I, cap. 7-9.
79
Statute of Split, lib. I, cap. 10.
80
It was passed in 1347, but only introduced into the Statute in 1354. Statute of Split, Statuta nova, cap. 25.
81
See earlier regarding the reconstruction of walls in Zadar. According to the Statute of Split, lib. I, cap. 13, the local
churches needed to assist in building roads, wells and bridges.
82
Bishop Chrysogonus of Trogir often accompanied the members of the commune on missions, but a short note from
1388 shows how this looked in practice. The city council elected three of its members to ask the bishop to conduct a
mission to the Bosnian dukes who were threatening the city. Rački, “Notae,” 248, March 4, 1389.

20
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

However, their family members did and probably kept their clerical cousins informed about what
was going on in the council. That does not mean that the city council was completely closed off to
non-native prelates. They had to rely on alliances with local noble families, as was the case with
Lawrence of the noble family of Cypriani who attended the sessions of the city council as a canon
and the vicar of Archbishop Hugolin of Split.83 While it was not uncommon for the archbishops
of Split and the bishops of Trogir to participate in the diplomatic missions on the behalf of their
commune, there are no records of the same for the archbishops of Zadar during the fourteenth
century. It is, therefore, intriguing to observe situations in which the bishop participated in
diplomatic missions and if these missions were conducted for the benefit of the bishopric or on
behalf of the commune.

I.4. Cults and Cathedrals

The seat of the bishop was his cathedral complex which dominated the urban landscape
and served as a daily reminder of the episcopal power, but it was also the source of pride and
prestige for the medieval community.84 The cities of Dalmatia inherited most of their basic layout
from late antiquity. The centrally located cathedrals were built on places of the early Christian
churches (Zadar and Trogir) or served as the direct continuation of the Roman architecture in late
antiquity (Split and Zadar).85 But the sacral topography of medieval cities was not only occupied
by the cathedrals, as the bishopric shared its space with other ecclesiastical institutions, such as
churches and monasteries. The mendicants – Franciscans and Dominicans – settled in Dalmatia
and had little trouble expanding their orders, often finding support from the local episcopate and
CEU eTD Collection

83
A higher prelate could attend the sessions of the city council. For instance, Madius resigned his post as the bishop
of Duvno in 1344, but was allowed by the pope to keep using the episcopal title. As a citizen of Split, Madius attended
the session of the city council in 1358 when he was sent as the communal ambassador to the royal barons stationed in
Šibenik. CDC XII, 664, August 25, 1358; Mandić, “Duvanjska biskupija,” 15. Mentioned as the vicar of the
archbishop of Split, Canon Lawrence was sent as a communal envoy to Dubrovnik and to the Hungarian king.
“Zapisnici Velikog vijeća,” 225, November 25, 1358; 241, June 26, 1359.
84
The complex usually occupied the center of the city and consisted of the baptistry, episcopal palace, outbuildings
and other churches, which were built to serve the cathedral itself. Erlande-Brandenburg, The cathedral, 41-5.
85
In Zadar the Roman forum became the episcopal center. The cathedral in Trogir was erected on top of the former
early christian period church. In Split the cathedral was located in the mausoleum of Emperor Diocletian. Raukar,
“Srednjovjekovni grad na istočnom Jadranu: Prostor i društvo,” 16; Ravančić, “Grad u hrvatskom srednjovjekovlju,”
103-13; Benyovsky Latin, “Medieval Square in Trogir,” 9-10; Crnčević, “The architecture of cathedral churches on
the Eastern Adriatic,” 38-54; Gazić, “Razvoj grada od kasne antike prema srednjem vijeku,” 169-91.

21
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

the clergy.86 The local Benedictine monasteries, with centuries old tradition, were the ones
competing for the spiritual prestige with the bishops.87 The finances and spirituality of these
institutions attracted the local nobility of cities where the Benedictines lived, as noblemen would
fill the ranks of the monasteries, or even act as its procurators. During the fourteenth century the
secular involvement and diminishing number of monks led to problems within monasteries, which
often merited episcopal investigation.88
The central point of Christianity in Split was the reused imperial mausoleum which
Archbishop John of Ravenna converted into a cathedral in the eighth century. The entire center of
the city was covered with religious institutions (Fig. 3). The cathedral was dedicated to Saint
Domnius89 and the central element of the medieval life of Split was the Feast of Saint Domnius.
The Statute of Split (1312) specified the obligation of celebrating the feast which was also an
important market day for the city, while the archbishop would gather the suffragan-bishops for the
procession and for the provincal synod. The Benedictine monastery of Saint Stephen under the
Pines was important for the medieval community and the abbey was integrated within the
archbishopric with the abbot often being closely connected to the archbishop.90 Since the spiritual
authority of the archbishopric was inextricably interwined with Saint Domnius, whose cult was of
highest importance for the entire community, it can be concluded that the archbishopric had no
competitors for authority among other local ecclesiastical institutions.91
On the other hand, the cathedral of Zadar, dedicated to Saint Anastasia, underwent serious
changes during the later Middle Ages (Fig. 4). The cathedral and the entire city of Zadar were
seriously damaged during the Venetian-crusader siege of 1202. The exact extent of the damages
remains unclear, but the cathedral was in ruins for the rest of the century. In 1285 Archbishop
Lawrence of Zadar (c.1245-87) consecrated the new cathedral, in the presence of the archbishop
CEU eTD Collection

86
Tolić, “Franjevci,” 233-61; Benyovsky Latin, “Mendicants and Dalmatian,” 47-56; Compare with: Karbić, “Utjecaj
velikaškog roda Šubića,” 147-66.
87
There were many Benedictine monasteries in Dalmatia during the Middle Ages, but here I will only list the most
important ones and which are also mentioned later within this work. In Zadar that were the monastery of Saint
Chrysogonus, located in the city, and the monastery of Saint Cosmas and Damian (also known as the Rogovo
monastery), located on the island of Tkon. In Split very important was the monastery of Saint Stephen under the Pines,
while in Trogir there was the monastery of Saint John the Baptist.
88
Dokoza, “Samostanski i nadbiskupski posjedi,” 241-56; Ostojić, Benediktinci u Hrvatskoj II, 39-54; 221-34; 269-
74; 319-27.
89
The reused mausoleum was in fact dedicated the Virgin Mary, while the tower, which construction started in the
thirteenth century, was dedicated to Saint Domnius. Vojnović, “Sveti Duje,” 177.
90
Ostojić, Benediktinci u Hrvatskoj II, 319-27.
91
Madijev, “Historija” 172; Statute of Split, lib. I, cap. 1; Janeković Römer, “Sveti Dujam i sveti Vlaho,” 123-39.

22
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

of Split and the suffragans of both Split and Zadar.92 The cathedral was finally completed during
the reign of Archbishop John Butovan (r.1320-33).93
Unlike in Split where Saint Domnius was a matter of pride for both the Church and the
commune, the issue of the patron saint of Zadar was a matter of contention. Between the twelfth
and the fourteenth centuries the Venetians tried to install their archbishops into the cathedral of
Saint Anastasia. Opposing Venice, the municipal elements of Zaratin society started to strongly
favour Saint Chrysogonus, to whom an important Benedictine monastery was dedicated.94 The
reason for this was the image of the warrior-saint Chrysogonus who defended the city, specifically
from Venice, while Saint Anastasia became more connected with the Venetian-influenced
archbishopric.95 The struggle for influence between the two institutions was ongoing during the
thirteenth century, but completely subsided during the fourteenth, in large part because the
archbishops were no longer controlled by Venice. Instead, by the beginning of the fourteenth
century the monastery came under closer scrutiny by the archbishop, even though the papal
appointments of the abbots somewhat disrupted these connections.96
The cathedral of Trogir was dedicated to Saint Lawrence, but due to the importance of the
city’s patron, Saint John, the bishop of Trogir (c.1062-1111), who was buried there, it was known
as the cathedral of Saint John. Between the twelfth and the fifteenth century the cult of Saint John
became the most important local cult in Dalmatia, after the cult of Saint Domnius in Split.97
Although not dedicated to the bishop-saint, but to Saint John the Baptist, the local Benedictine
monastery shared its history with the saint and also the space of the central square with the
cathedral and episcopal and communal palaces (Fig. 5).98 Its abbots occupied a mediating position

92
The episcopal palace was located next to the church of Saint Anastasia. Bianchi, Zara Christiana, 125-6.
93
CDC VI, 528-9, June 2, 1285; Farlati, Illyricum Sacrum V, 93; Bianchi, Zara cristiana, 90-1; Lucić, Povijesna
svjedočanstva I, 301-3; Petricioli, Katedrala sv. Stošije; Klaić and Petricioli, Zadar u srednjem vijeku, 256-60.
CEU eTD Collection

94
Brunelli, Storia della città di Zara, 297-313.
95
The pope exempted the monastery from the authority of the archbishop of Zadar in 1195, making it subordinated to
the Apostolic See, while during the first half of the thirteenth century the monastery, the archbishopric and the
Venetian administrators clashed. Brunelli, Storia della città di Zara, 383; Brandt, “Jedna epizoda u borbi oko
uvodjenja papinske desetine u Dalmaciji,” 143-66; Dokoza, “Kronološki pregled povijesti zadarske nadbiskupije,”
170-85; Dusa, Medieval Dalmatian Episcopal Cities, 109; Granić, “O kultu Sv. Krševana,” 35-58; Vedriš,
Hagiography as memory, 236-44. Compare with: Brown, “Civic Religion,” 338-356; Miller, Venice in the East
Adriatic, 264-67.
96
The archbishop had the right to inspect the situation in the monastery, while on some occassions he would also
confirm the election or be instrumental in the appointment of a new abbot. Ljubić, “Dva popisa listina,” 109, May 5,
1306; CDC VIII, 125-6, August 24, 1306; 365-68, August 24, 1314.
97
Marinković, St. John of Trogir, 10.
98
Benyovsky Latin, Srednjovjekovni Trogir, 14-6, 212-3; According to the legend, Saint John healed a monk of this
monastery. Ostojić, Benediktinci u Hrvatskoj II, 269.

23
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

between the commune and the bishopric, at times representing the city council or the bishopric,
participating in the important local events and, on ocassions, even becoming bishops.99
What was common for all three cities was the importance and the prestige of the cathedral
for the entire community, which in turn raised the prestige of the bishopric. The cathedral was also
an important element in the everyday life of the commune. The episcopal palace and communal
and royal governmental buildings all gravitated to the cathedral.100 The peace treaty of 1204/05,
by which Zadar once again recognized the authority of Venice, specifically stated that if a doge of
Venice visits Zadar, he would be hosted in the archiepiscopal palace, which suggest that at the
time this was the most representive and important building in the city.101 During the second half
of the thirteenth century the council of Trogir held sessions in the cathedral, after which they issued
an order to construct a communal palace, while the commune in Split decided to move its palace
to its own square.102 On a symbolic level these actions represented a break with the bishopric, even
though the cathedral was still not far away. During July 1357, the dissatisfied citizens of Split
gathered in the cathedral of Saint Domnius after which they instigated a successful rebellion
against Venice. While the sources do not reveal the position of the Spalatin Church regarding the
insurrection, it is indicative that the Venetian soldiers were imprisoned in three churches closely
associated to the archbishopric.103 From the 1360s the cathedral of Trogir proudly exhibited on its
facade the coat of arms of Bishop Nicholas Kažotić and King Louis the Great. 104 All these
examples show the lasting influence and symbolism which the cathedral enjoyed.

99
In 1282 when Ban Paul of Croatia demanded soldiers from Trogir, which the commune did not want to give, the
bishop and the abbot were both consulted in the city council. Bishop Liberius from Ancona (r.1297-1319) was
mentioned as being the abbot of the monastery prior to his episcopal election in Trogir. Abbot Savin represented the
CEU eTD Collection

bishopric during the provincial synod in Split in 1344. Farlati, Trogirski biskupi, 205-6, 237; Farlati, Illyricum Sacrum
III, 320; IV, 375; Benyovsky Latin, Srednjovjekovni Trogir, 202.
100
Vežić, “Nadbiskupska palača u Zadru,” 17-35; Antoljak, “Vladarski dvor (palača) i kraljevske kuće u
srednjovjekovnom Zadru,” 55-76.
101
Klaić and Petricioli, Zadar u srednjem vijeku, 182.
102
Klaić, Povijest grada Trogira, 190; Novak, “Gradski bedemi, javne zgrade i ulice u srednjovjekovnom Splitu,”
107-9; Benyovsky Latin, Srednjovjekovni Trogir, 49-50.
103
Cutheis, “Tabula,” 196-8; Klaić, Povijest grada Trogira, 289-91; Lucić, Povijesna svjedočanstva I, 568-71. All
three churches were located near each other and close to the cathedral. Saint Matthew was the mausoleum for some
of the archbishops, while Saint John the Baptist served at the time as Arcbishop Hugolin of Split's personal chapel.
Saint Thomas was the crypt underneath Saint John. Therefore, all three churches had close connections to the
archbishopric. Rismondo, “Registar,” 15, December 28, 1361; Petrić, “Sakralna topografija,” 274.
104
The royal coat of arms was in the middle encircled by the coat of arms of the bishop and the count of Trogir. The
Angevin coat of arms on the cathedral were destroyed during the later Venetian period. Babić, “Anžuvinski grbovi u
Trogiru i Šibeniku,” 39-45; Bužančić, “Petar de Cega,” 111-2.

24
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

The management of the cathedral was shared between the commune and the bishop, with
the commune usually suggesting their choices as the procurators (operarii) of the cathedral
construction efforts (fabrica) and the bishop selecting or confirming the viable candidates. All
three communes came to these arrangements in different ways: in Trogir through protracted
dispute, which was not present in Split, while the archbishop of Zadar quickly and efficently settled
any potential dispute with the commune.
In Zadar in 1302 the commune demanded that the archbishop and the clergy respect the
canon law regarding the tithe used for the construction of the cathedral, while the archbishop and
clergy kept the funds for themselves. On the instigation of the city council, Archbishop James
(r.1299-1312) passed a decision dividing the tithe into four parts: to the archbishop, to the cathedral
chapter, to the poor and for the building and maintenance of the cathedral. Several options were
considered regarding the management of the fabrica, but the archbishop was able to limit the
interference of the laity in the ecclesiastical governance. The archbishop would appoint a
representative from the clergy and from the nobility to oversee the cathedral funds, effectively
keeping the oversight in his hands.105 The archbishop appointed and freely removed procurators,
if unsatisfied with their work, while by the beginning of the fifteenth century the archbishop
himself would act as the ecclesiastical representative, appointing somebody from the nobility as a
representative of the laity.106 The above agreement was ratified in April 1305 after which the
commune, probably in correlation with the previous accord, passed in June a decision about the
inalienability of the church property. The law specified that belongings of the archbishopric or of
the monasteries cannot be given to somebody else without the approval of the cathedral chapter,
the archbishop, or the abbot and abbess of the monastery.107 Essentially, the archbishop was able
to limit the pressure from the commune and turn it to his own benefit.
CEU eTD Collection

There were no major conflicts in Split as the archbishops showed willingness to share some
of their authority with the city council. The cathedral was exempted from taxes, while the inventory

105
CDC VIII, 35-7, October 28, 1302; Statute of Zadar, lib. V, cap. 37; Bianchi, Zara cristiana, 128-30.
106
Archbishop James appointed Primicerius John Chusi and Lampredius de Civallelli. Bianchi, Zara cristiana, 46. In
1351 Bishop Demetrius Matafari, the archiepiscopal vicar, removed Chrysogonus de Civallelli from the position of
the administrator of the cathedral fabrica. It is unclear if Lampredius and Chrysogonus were relatives, but it is possible
that the archbishopric tended to rely on one family as the administrators. Bianchi, Kršćanski Zadar II, 194; Stipišić,
“Inventar,” 402. Archbishop Luca (r.1400-20) and Thomas Petrica, acting as the representatives of the commune,
signed a contract with a constructor. Zadar pod mletačkom upravom, 157.
107
Statute of Zadar, lib. III, cap. 23; Fabijanec, “Trgovci i njihovi odnosi sa zadarskim crkvenim ustanovama,” 219-
318.

25
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

of the churches, their goods and reliquiaries, was carefully counted and a statement was written by
the city notary in the presence of the rector of the city and members of the clergy. All the
monasteries had procurators appointed by the rector on the advice of the archbishop.108 During the
archiepiscopal vacancy the commune and the cathedral chapter were tasked to compile the
inventory of all the properties and incomes of the diocese of Split and guard them until the arrival
of the new archbishop.109 In the constitutions of Archbishop Balian (r.1324-28) it was decided that
the tithe would be divided into four parts, between the archbishop, the clergy, the fabrica and the
poor, and it seems that there was no conflict preceding this decision, as was the case in Trogir and
Zadar.110 In addition, in 1326 Archbishop Balian and the representatives of the city council jointly
decided to transfer some silver from the treasury of the cathedral, but the purpose was not
specified.111 In 1342 the treasury was inventoried and an official document was drafted in the
presence of the ecclesiastical and municipal leaders. The same charter specified that the city
council of Split appointed the custodian of the treasury.112
The case of Trogir represents a notable exception to the peaceful solutions regarding the
management of the funds of the cathedral presented by Split and Zadar. During the thirteenth
century disputes were rare and the funds were managed by one or two procurators, from the ranks
of the nobility and the clergy.113 The division was not always respected, shifting the balance at
times from one to the other side, resulting in disagreements.114 Following the loss of Šibenik in
1298, the financial capabilities and authority of the bishop of Trogir diminished and the clashes
with the commune became more frequent. The issue of controlling the funds was raised in 1308
by the representatives of the commune in front of the papal legate, Gentile, who was passing
through Dalmatia on his way to Buda to ensure the corronation of Charles Robert as the king of
Hungary-Croatia. The legate decided that the commune should select four individuals and submit
CEU eTD Collection

108
Members of the clergy and an individual selected by the city council would safeguard written statements regarding
the possessions of the cathedral and the city’s monasteries. Statute of Split, lib. I, cap. 7-10.
109
Statute of Split, lib. I, cap. 7-10, 16.
110
Farlati, Illyricum Sacrum III, 420.
111
CDC IX, 272-3, January 15, 1326.
112
Farlati, Illyricum Sacrum III, 317-8.
113
Neralić, “L'operaria della cattedrale,” 133-46.
114
For instance, Archdeacon Gervasius was the procurator in 1263. There were two secular procurators in 1271. At
the end of the century the procurator was Peter Cega, a member of the influentian city's family. Bužančić, “Petar de
Cega,” 120. On how the cathedral was funded, see: Benyovsky Latin, “Razvoj srednjovjekovne Operarije,” 1-7;
Benyovsky Latin, Srednjovjekovni Trogir, 198-212.

26
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

their names to the bishop and the cathedral chapter who would, within three days, select an
operarius.115
The legate’s decision did not settle the issue as the disagreements between the bishopric
and the commune resurfaced.116 The selection process found its way into the communal Statute of
1322,117 but Bishop Lampredius (r.1319-48) excommunicated some of the operarii from the
1320s. According to the bishop, several former procurators failed to submit their reports, yet the
bishop lost the dispute in front of the papal legate. The probable reason for the dispute can be
found in the problematic relations between the communal authorities and the bishop, which
remained unsettled since the eruption of the conflicts in the city during the 1310s and which are
explored in depth later.118 Even though the solutions were similar, the road to how the fabrica
would operate was different in all three presented bishoprics.

I.5. Popes, Bishops and Episcopal Appointments

The episcopal elections attracted considerable attention due to their importance in elevating
the episcopal career, as well as the posibility for the researchers to focus on the development of
the canon law and to observe the practical aproach to the election in various parts of
Christendom.119 The elections usually resulted in the production of reports or papal bulls of
appointments, creating a considerable corpus of source material. The research on appointments
usually concentrated on two approaches: normative, by understanding the legal practice and canon
law, and political, by concentrating on what external factors influenced the elections. 120 The
method of appointment and electors, as well as the outside pressures, on one hand, and social

115
CEU eTD Collection

Farlati, Trogirski biskupi, 221-2, June 28, 1308.

116
Following the privilege granted by Legate Gentile, the Great Council of Trogir gathered in the communal palace
and suggested its candidates. The bishop confirmed Gregorius Salinguerre Vitturi as the operarius. Soon it became
obvious that the podestà and Gregorius started to misuse their powers and misinterpret the legate’s decision. On the
order of the podestà, the new operarius tried to obtain incomes which were part of the bishop’s and cathedral chapter’s
mensa. Dokoza, “Papinski legat Gentil i trogirske crkvene prilike,” 67-83; Lucić, Povijesna svjedočanstva II, 1022;
Farlati, Illyricum Sacrum IV, 366; Klaić, Povijest grada Trogira, 184.
117
Statute of Trogir, lib. I, cap. 71.
118
CDC IX, 516-7, May 24, 1330; Klaić, Povijest grada Trogira, 257-8. The issue reappeared in 1359 when the
commune and Bartholomew (r. 1349-61) confirmed the earlier legate’s decision under which the city council would
select four individuals, out of which the bishop and the cathedral chapter would appoint one operarius. In addition,
two treasurers would be selected to guard the cathedral treasury, one by the bishop and the chapter, the other by the
city council. CDC XII, 634-5, October 8, 1359; Farlati, Trogirski biskupi, 278.
119
Benson, Bishop-Elect, 56-115; Barraclough, “Making of a Bishop,” 275-319.
120
Peltzer, Canon Law, Careers and Conquest, 104-5; Vidili, “Le nomine vescovili in Sardegna,” 73-88.

27
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

factors, such as origins, family and prior career in ecclesiastical and secular institutions, affected
the way in which the bishop would carry out his mandate once in office.121
The appointment incorporated various elements such as the type of election, confirmation
from the higher institution, consecration and introduction into the position, as well as the
development of associated rituals and practices.122 Although, it would make sense to structure the
overview of the episcopal appointments in Croatia-Dalmatia by first analyzing the legal basis and
then proceeding to reviewing the changes in practice, the development of the canon law has already
been discussed elsewhere.123 A good example of this approach is presented by the work of Giulio
Silano on the appointments of the patriarchs of Aquileia. After outlining the theory of the episcopal
election, the author noticed how the actual practice turned out to be somewhat different, due to
considerable external pressure.124
The development of the episcopal elections during the period covered in this work can be
roughly divided into two periods. The thirteenth century was the period when the cathedral
chapters freely elected bishops, strengthened by Church councils, while during the fourteenth
century the pope subverted the system by reserving the episcopal seats and directly appointing
bishops. Historians tended to focus on identifying the exact dates when the popes intervened
tracking the changes to the period between Boniface VIII and John XXII.125 Of course, this is a
simplified schematic representation of what happened as during the late medieval period two
modes of becoming the bishop - by election or papal provision – were used side by side with one
or the other being more prevalent at certain times.
The Church councils, particularly the Fourth Lateran Council (1215) organized by Pope
Innocent III (r.1198-1216), promoted the idea of elections freed from secular interference and in
the hands of the cathedral chapters (capitular elections). Decisions were disseminated by provincial
CEU eTD Collection

121
Morris, Papal Monarchy, 224; Maciejewski, “Which way to Bishopric,” 209-10.
122
Gaudemet, Les élections dans l'Église latine, 106-200; Gilchrist, “The office of bishop,” 85-101; Maciejewski,
“Reserch on the Adventus,” 89-100; Joubert, “L'élection épiscopale,” 357-78.
123
Caron, “Les élections épiscopales,” 573-85; Harvey, Episcopal Appointments in England, 11-48; Benson, “Election
by Community and Chapter,” 54-80; Gaudemet, “De l’election à la nomination des évêques,” 137-56.
124
Silano, “Episcopal Elections,” 163-94.
125
Fonseca, “Vescovi, capitoli cattedrali e canoniche regolari,” 95; Rossi, “Vescovi nel basso medioevo,” 230-5;
Neralić, Put do crkvene nadarbine, 250; Schimmelpfennig, “Papst- und Bischofswahlen,” 173-95.

28
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

councils to the local clergy126 and the descriptions of the elections in Split (1244)127 and Trogir
(1282)128 depicted how the canons closely followed the rules of the Fourth Lateran by electing per
viam scrutinii.129 This majority method was regularly used during the thirteenth and fourteenth
centuries by the chapters of Split, Trogir and Zadar.130
The cases from the thirteenth century for Split and Trogir show that members of the
commune still observed the elections, while the lay rulers exerted pressure to have their candidates
elected. Archdeacon Thomas (c.1200-1268) emphasized that the archbishops of Split were elected
due to their close connection to the Hungarian royal court, underscoring how the entire community
would benefit from electing somebody close to the king.131 The Republic of Venice forced the city
of Zadar to sign contracts in 1205 and 1247 specifying the obligations by the clergy of Zadar to
elect the archbishop from Venice.132 The prelate would be confirmed and consecrated by the
patriarch of Grado, from whom the archbishop received the primacy over his suffragan-bishops,
while also taking an oath of loyalty to the doge and to the patriarch.133
The papacy promoted the free capitular elections but was also the one primarily to blame
for undermining the system in favour of direct papal appointments. This was ocassionally done in

126
Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, 203, 246-8. For instance, Thomas Archdeacon narrated that Archbishop
Bernard of Split (r.1200-1217) attended the Fourth Lateran Council, but since the archbishop was quite old and sick,
it was Bishop Treguan of Trogir (r.1206-55) who conveyed the decisions to the local clergy. Toma Arhiđakon,
Historia Salonitana, 136-7. For the distribution of decisions from the highest papal to the lowest local level, see:
Morris, Papal Monarchy, 533-4.
127
Toma Arhiđakon, Historia Salonitana, 274-9. Thomas Archdeacon described his own election, showing that there
still existed some form of resistance to the change from the unanimity and the election by inspiration to the majority
system. Thomas was prevented from becoming the archbishop due to the pressure from the laity who demanded to
participate in the election themselves. Compare with: Bras, Storia della Chiesa II, 494.
128
The election was carried out in the presence of the podestà and some prominent citizens. CDC VI, 408-9, May 31,
1282; Farlati, Trogirski biskupi, 359-62.
129
The chapter would appoint three canons as commissioners who would then inquire every canon about their
CEU eTD Collection

preferences (scrutinium).
130
Per formam (viam) scrutinii was used in the elections of Lampredius Vitturi in Trogir in 1319 (CDC VIII, 552-4,
February 15, 1320), John Butovan in Zadar in 1320 (CDC IX, 55-7, March 17, 1322) and Dominic Luccari in Split in
1328 (CDC IX, October 17, 1328).
131
Mladen Ančić called for the need to scrutinize the mentioned elections in order to understand the context and
various interests of those involved in them. Toma Arhiđakon, Historia Salonitana, 120-21; Ančić, “Image of Royal
Power,” 38-40. On the elections of the archbishops of Split, as described by Thomas, see: Kovačić, “Toma Arhiđakon,
promicatelj crkvene obnove,” 41-75.
132
For the contracts, see: Listine I, 1, c.1204; 69, August 1, 1247. For the background on the conflicts see: Ferdo Šišić,
“Zadar i Venecija,” 254-74; Miller, Venice in the East Adriatic, 69-74.
133
Up until 1245 the archbishops were chosen from Venice, around which time Lawrence Pereander (c.1245-87), a
local candidate, was elected during the period of a Hungary-backed rebellion of Zadar. The rebellion was concluded
in a peace treaty of 1247, but Lawrence remained the archbishop. Nikolić noted that Lawrence belonged to a family
which originated from Venice but moved to Zadar, which would make him a Venetian and a Zaratin, therefore
acceptable to everyone. Nikolić Jakus, Formation of Dalmatian Urban Nobility, 109-10.

29
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

order to promote papal political agenda, for example during the escalation of conflicts between
Pope Innocent IV (r.1243-54) and Emperor Frederick II (1194-1250), when the pope attempted to
reserve the episcopal elections in Germany.134 But the papal meddling in the local affairs was an
exception, at least in such cases when the pope did not have direct personal interest. The
development of the papal provisions came through gradual evolution of rules regarding the
elections and their application through the interaction between the potential candidates to the
bishoprics, their backers and the papal administration. The pope reacted to the petitions from
ecclesiastical and secular parties which raises the question whether the Apostolic See, when
deciding, was influenced by the personal qualities and aspirations of the candidates, or if the
petitions impacted the change in the system itself.135
Archishops were connected with the pope by the grant of the pallium, a piece of liturgical
vestment, which symbolized the archbishops' metropolitan powers over their bishop-suffragans.
While the archbishop of Split was directly subordinated to the pope, meaning that the archbishop
would petition the pope to inspect the election, issue confirmation and pallium, the archbishop of
Zadar was subordinated to the patriarch of Grado. The patriarch would confirm the validity of the
election and usually provide the consecration, but the new archbishop still had to seek the pallium
from the pope, prolonging the process and engaging the pope in the election. During the period of
transition, after being appointed and while waiting to receive the pallium, some archbishops of the
late thirteenth and the early fourteenth centures occasionally used the title of electus, confirmatus
et consecratus, to emphasize that they were properly appointed, in order to perform some of their
episcopal duties in the diocese.136
From the thirteenth century onward, the popes started to involve themselves in the elections
by reserving the appointments while the see was vacant or while it was still occupied. The basis
CEU eTD Collection

134
Ganzer, Papsttum und Bistumsbesetzungen, 137-9; Delle Donne, “Il papa e l’anticristo,” 17-43; Kempf, “Innocenz
III. und der deutsche Thronstreit,” 63-92.
135
Beattie, “Local Reality and Papal Policy,” 131-53; Smith, “Development of Papal Provisions,” 110-21; Smith,
“Papal Executors and the Veracity of Petitions,” 662-83.
136
The title was used by Peter in Split (r.1297-1324), as well as Alexander (r.1312-14) and John Butovan in Zadar
(r.1320-1333). CDC VII, 295-7, February 11, 1298; 320, October 17, 1312; Mansi, Sacrorum Conciliorum Nova
XXV, 653, August 4, 1321. There is also a dubious local source from the monastery of Saint Chrysogonus in Zadar
which refered to Archbishop James under this title, which is strange since James received the pallium immediately
upon his appointment in 1297. The source named the archbishop John and made some other factual mistakes. Ljubić,
“Dva popisa listina,” 108, July 18, 1301. Benson mentioned an attempt by archbishops in Germany in the thirteenth
century to also create an official title humilis minister depicting a prelate who was confirmed by the pope but who still
did not receive his pallium. Benson, Bishop-Elect, 168-89.

30
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

for this approach was the gradual expansion of cases which were the exclusive papal domain, such
as episcopal transfers,137 postulations,138 resignations,139 suspensions and removals. Historians
usually overestimated papal resources by stating that the pope actively sought to control all
episcopal elections, but the popes initially needed a reason to intervene, such as a formal complaint
to the Curia.140 The direct papal involvement enabled individuals close to the Curia to suggest their
candidates by various informal channels, but which is not always visible in sources. It was not
uncommon for the pope to reject the elected candidate and then proced to reappoint him, in order
to uphold the proper regulations regarding elections or to establish a precedent, which the pope
would continue to use.141
The first example of general reservation was introduced by Pope Clement IV (r.1265-68)
with the bull Licet ecclesiarum (1265), which reserved for the pope the disposal of ecclesiastical
positions vacated at the Apostolic See (apud sedem Apostolicam).142 This bull codified a long-
standing practice of collating (granting) of clerical benefices vacated at the Apostolic See either
with the cleric’s death, promotion or resignation.143 Its problematic phrasing made it possible for
the pope to gradually apply the bull to episcopal appointments, which was immediately understood
as such by the contemporaries whose protest caused the popes to refrain from using these
prerogatives. But the bull was renewed, used and expanded upon by subsequent popes, opening
the way for increased papal involvement in episcopal appointments.144
So how do these changes reflect on the bishoprics of Croatia-Dalmatia? During the
thirteenth century the elections of the archbishops of Split and Zadar, although subject to the

137
The right to translate bishops was formulated during the pontificate of Innocent III, and then enforced and further
used by his successor, especially Boniface VIII. Doran, “Innocent III and the Uses of Spiritual Marriage,” 101-14;
Pennington, Pope and Bishops, 75-100; Ronzani, “Un aspetto della circolazione degli ecclesiastici,” 223-30; Ganzer,
CEU eTD Collection

Papsttum und Bistumsbesetzungen, 403-409.

138
A postulation was a petition to an ecclesiastical superior in order to promote to a higher dignity a person who was
not eligible due to some canonical impediment. These impediments could range from the illegitimate birth, lack of the
necessary age requirement, or stem from the condition of the person, such as a bishop who cannot accept a new dignity
without a permission of his ecclesiastical superior. Helmholz, Spirit of Classic Canon Law, 55-8.
139
Caron, La rinuncia all'Ufficio ecclesiastico.
140
Barraclough, “Making of a Bishop,” 293-7; Peltzer, Canon Law, Careers and Conquest, 4; Smith, “Development
of Papal Provisions,” 110-21; Beattie, “Local Reality and Papal Policy,” 131-53.
141
Benson narrates a story from 1299 when a commission discovered an irregularity in the election of Robert de
Courtenai as the archbishop of Reims. Robert resigned his election, but the pope provided Robert to Reims. Benson,
Bishop-Elect, 349-50. Similar thing happened in Split in 1328 when the election of Dominic Luccari was at first
rejected, but the pope still proceeded to appoint him as the archbishop.
142
Harvey, Episcopal Appointments in England, 134.
143
Barraclough, Papal Provisions, 155.
144
Lettres Communes de Jean XXII, I, 10-6; Lux, Constitutionum Apostolicarum, 11-22.

31
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

pressure from the Hungarian rulers and the Venetians, were canonical and merited less papal
involvement. But the opportunity for the pope to intervene existed from the very start. The
Hungarians influenced the cathedral chapter and the commune of Split to elect somebody close to
the royal court and the new archbishop would require the confirmation from his spiritual superior,
the pope. The Venetians, on the other hand, directly demanded that the cathedral chapter elect
Venetians as the archbishop. But even in ideal circumstances, the election in Zadar was an arduous
procedure which required participation of several ecclesiastical institutions. For example,
Domenico Franco was elected by the cathedral chapter during or prior to June 1239. He was then
confirmed by the patriarch of Grado by January 1240 while in May the pope granted the pallium
to the new archbishop.145 So almost a year passed for Domenico to have his unproblematic election
confirmed.
During the period from the 1290s to the 1310s the popes used weaknesses in the system
that they helped to create in order to interfere in the problematic elections in Croatia-Dalmatia.146
The popes would reject local elections, appoint candidates who were in some way connected to
the papal ecclesiastical or secular allies, and use subsequent opportunities to enforce the papal
prerogatives. Part of the reason why the papal appointments were accepted could be contributed
to the spiritual prestige of the mendicants whom the popes, such as Nicholas IV and Boniface VIII,
actively promoted. These individuals and their orders were supporters of the papal primacy, stating
that bishops derived all their jurisdiction from the pope. Even papal opponents, who opposed the
increased papal involvement in episcopal elections, stated that bishops received their powers from
God, but that some part of the episcopal power came from the pope.147 Popes from Boniface VIII
to John XXII expanded the application of cases reserved to the Apostolic See and used the new
rules to support decisive papal role in episcopal appointments.
CEU eTD Collection

The pontificate of John XXII (r.1316-34) represents a curious entanglement of older rules
and expansion of papal prerogatives. When the cathedral chapters elected their candidates, the
pope had no problem in confirming their elections, ensuring the loyalty and support from local

145
CDC IV, 59, May 8, 1238; 82, June 18, 1239; Eubel, Hierarchia Catholica I, 280.
146
Since 1257 the popes claimed that all disputed elections were causa major, to be judged solely by the popes. Since
most elections caused some friction, the previous decisions led to a gradual papal appropriation of the episcopal
appointments. Barraclough, “Making of a Bishop,” 285-7; Benson, Bishop-Elect, 185-99; Harvey, Episcopal
Appointments in England, 46-7.
147
Pennington, Pope and Bishops, 6-7; Morrissey, “Cardinal Zabarella on Papal and Episcopal Authority,” 39-52.

32
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

high clergy.148 This was the case with Lampredius in Trogir, John Butovan in Zadar and Dominic
Luccari in Split. Even when the rules allowed for a direct papal involvement, such as in the cases
of death at the Curia and a general reservation, the pope appointed highly capable individuals, such
as Balian, a foreigner, in Split, and Nicholas Matafari, a native, in Zadar.
But during John’s pontificate a clear change occurred in the approach of the Apostolic See
toward the local bishoprics. While previously the popes intervened in cases reserved for them or
brought in front of the Curia and mostly connected to archbishops, now the Apostolic See sought
to control all episcopal appointments, even those where no prior precedent existed. This can be
shown on the example of the bishopric of Senj, the suffragan of Split, where in 1333 the pope and
the cathedral chapter independently of one another appointed the new bishop. The double election
was usually interpreted as a misunderstanding, but this was not the case.149 Pope John, upon
hearing – probably from his local representatives - that the bishopric was vacant, simply appointed
his candidate and then later claimed that the diocese was reserved, ignoring the capitular election.
After 1330 the popes freely reserved, removed and appointed bishops, who were often
individuals associated with the Papal Curia or the royal Angevin court, as they seem to have better
access to the popes. Members of local urban nobility were appointed in Zadar and Trogir but Split
remained continuously the seat of papal candidates coming from Italy. By 1363 Pope Urban V
(r.1362-70) established a legal basis for papal appointment and translation of all higher prelates,
but, as seen, he only codified what was already used for decades.150
CEU eTD Collection

148
It is also possible that the pope wanted capable allies in local Dalmatian dioceses, potentially connected with the
papal struggles to regain its possessions in Northern Italy. Jamme, “Des usages de la democratie,” 279-342; Pagnoni,
“Selezione dei vescovi,” 279-89.
149
The often repeated explanation was that the deceased bishop made some sort of a deal with the pope, according to
which the Apostolic See would elect the new bishop, and which was unknown to the local chapter. Bogović, “Moji
predšasnici biskupi,” 38-9.
150
Pennington, Pope and Bishops, 123; Ganzer, Papsttum und Bistumsbesetzungen, 75-6, 89-91; Gamberini, “Chiesa
vescovile,” 186-7.

33
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

Chapter II. Governing a Fourteenth-Century Diocese

The bishopric consisted of the central areas, the city itself with the cathedral, the episcopal
palace and the cathedral chapter, while the areas outside of the city were divided into parishes. The
bishop was the head of his diocese, with vast spiritual power at his disposal, but he also shared and
delegated the administration of the diocese to various individuals and institutions. The following
chapter consider the ways in which the bishop administered his diocese and the institutions with
which he interacted when governing the bishopric. Because of the increased administrative and
bureaucratic needs, the bishop shared considerable powers with the cathedral chapter, but he also
employed various staff to help him manage the diocese.

II.1. Episcopal Authority, Jurisdiction and Pastoral Care

Pastoral care, religious doctrine, preaching and administering the sacraments will remain
in the background throughout this work. The reason for this is purely the lack of sources, but this
does not mean that I will not discuss some types of pastoral activities.151 In front of the clergy
gathered at the provincial synod in Split in 1293, Bishop Gregory of Trogir accused the bishop of
Skradin of usurping the episcopal prerogatives that Trogir had in its parish of Šibenik, which was
strictly forbidden by the Church councils.152 The event, however, reveals that some of the most
important episcopal spiritual duties were to promote the clergy into higher holy orders and give
sacraments of confirmation and other ecclesiastical and episcopal sacraments.153
In addition, the metropolitan archbishop held chief jurisdictional authority by convening
synods, passing constitutions and authorizing the construction of churches.154 Besides supervising
the formation of the clerics155 and having the exclusive right to bestow several sacraments, the
bishop administered the worship, approved the grants of benefices, or presided in cases when the
CEU eTD Collection

151
For an interpretation of the position of the bishop in the context of the medieval spirituality, we can turn to the
tracing the involvement of the bishops, and other religious institutions, in the life of the medieval Italian communes.
See: Thompson, Cities of God, 15-51. On the problems of researching pastoral care when faced with the lack of
sources, see: Rossi, “Vescovi nel basso medioevo,” 238-44.
152
Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, 322.
153
CDC VII, 139-40, May 12, 1293.
154
Bras, Storia della Chiesa II, 486-8. For a discussion regarding the canon law and its practical application on the
example of the Hungarian bishoprics, see: Glejtek, “Práva a povinnosti uhorských biskupov,” 79-104.
155
The bishop had the right of first tonsure, meaning that he could introduce an individual into the order of the clergy.
For instance, while presiding in his personal chapel of the church of Saint Mary, Archbishop Dominic Luccari raised
into the rank of the clergy Nicholas, the son of magister Jacobi de Padua, the communal doctor. Krekich, “Documenti”
II, 159 December 24, 1343; Barrow, Clergy in the Medieval World, 32-3.

34
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

benefice was disputed. This all shows that at times it was hard to separate the bishop’s spiritual
jurisdiction from his administrative and judicial duties.
The above-mentioned shows that the bishop was obliged to be constantly present in his
own diocese. The issue of absenteeism, that is when the bishop would govern his diocese from
some other place, was a common problem for the Church throughout its entire existence.156 But
the bishops of Dalmatia were mostly resident, as the cases of absent bishop were usually the result
of a prelate being in exile (Nicholas Matafari, Andrew Benzi), connected with the Apostolic See
(Peter Matafari, Bartholomew of Trogir), or because of personal business. After 1320 the popes
started to insist on the obligation of visit to the Papal Curia personally or by employing services
of a procurator and the frequency of visits in theory depended on the length of the journey.157
Judging by the sources, the archbishops and bishops did not go personally, but employed the
services of procurators.158
Due to the nature of the preserved sources it is hard to state if the prolonged absence of the
bishop triggered some negative reaction on the part of the diocese, or other interested parties, as
such examples are only present during very contentious periods. For instance, during the factional
struggles in Trogir during 1316 the commune ordered Bishop Liberius to quickly return to the city,
threatening to seize the properties of the bishopric, while using the episcopal absence to seize the
collection of the Church tithe.159 Much more direct was the Venetian reaction to the exile of
Archbishop Nicholas Matafari during the 1350s and King Sigismund’s to the absence of
Archbishop Peter Matafari in the late 1390s. But in both cases the Matafari archbishops of Zadar
were viewed as the enemies of the state, so the Republic and the king introduced different measures
in order to exploit the archiepiscopal absence. The major obstacle were usually the vicars, who
were appointed by the bishops in order to mitigate the negative effects of the episcopal absence.
CEU eTD Collection

But even the most capable vicars would have troubles administering the diocese if the underlining
problems were kept unchecked. Bartholomew of Trogir (r.1349-61) was often absent from his

156
Houghton, “When the bishop’s away,” 56-77.
157
On the visitation tax, see: Lunt, Papal Revenues, I, 91-3; “The Financial System of the Medieval Papacy,” 287.
158
Following the papal appointment of Lampredius (Trogir), Balian (Split) and Nicholas (Zadar), the bishop of Trogir
and the archbishop of Split were to visit the pope once in two years (teneatur singulis bienniis curia existente citra
Montes Sedem Apostolicam Visitare), while in the archbishop of Zadar had to visit the Curia once in three years (pro
uno triennio), while later it was stated once in two years (pro uno biennio).
159
Andreis, Povijest grada Trogira I, 68; Lucić, Povijesna svjedočanstva I, 383.

35
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

diocese, during which time the bishopric spiraled out of control leading to bitter disputes between
the bishop and the clergy.
Direct examples of pastoral care are represented by the convocation and participation in
provincial synods and pastoral visits. While synods are discussed in more detail later, the sources
for pastoral visitations are somewhat fragmented, suggesting a lack of interest of the spiritual
superior in performing regular visitations, but it should be noted that evidence was usually
preserved in the cases of misuse of the institution of visitation. For instance, in 1308 the clergy of
Trogir appealed to Cardinal-Legate Gentile against Archbishop Peter of Split.160 The metropolitan
was accused of overusing the prerogatives of pastoral visitations to Trogir, which shows that he
often visited this bishopric on official and private business. But half a century later, in 1366, the
clergy of Trogir directly accused Archbishop Hugolin of never personally visiting and inspecting
their diocese, even though the archbishop had his archiepiscopal house in Trogir, which was used
by different Church officials.161 Putting aside that the spiritual superior could be replaced by a
compentent procurator162 and the specific context in which these accusations occurred, it seems
that the institution of pastoral visitations weakened during the fourteenth century. The episcopal
lack of interest cannot be solely blamed, as it was the Apostolic See which increasingly reserved
the episcopal procurations, namely the money originally intended to financially support the
bishops during their visitations.163
Contrasting the usual view of the fourteenth century as a period of decay, the archbishops
of Dalmatia showed considerable care for the pastoral and spiritual well-being of their diocese.
While being in exile, due to the conflict with the Venetian authorities, Archbishop Nicholas
Matafari worked on his Thesaurus pontificum seu manuale personarum ecclesiasticarum Nicolai
archiepiscopi Iadrensis which shows clear worry for the establishment of proper religious
CEU eTD Collection

160
Archbishop Peter overused his privileges of official visitation of the churches by demanding that he be greeted
every time by a celebration from both the clergy and the population of Trogir. The clergy of Trogir successfully
complained to the legate who stated that special procession can only be organized when the archbishop is coming as
the part of the official visitation of the churches. Farlati, Illyricum Sacrum III, 219, CDC VIII, 185-6, June 27, 1308.
161
CDC XIII, 505, February 21, 1366.
162
Thomson, Friars in the cathedral, 132-6.
163
The popes appropriated this type of income as it provided them with considerable revenue. The papal actions were
viewed as unjust by the high clergy gathered at the Council of Constance, so the procurations were abolished. Stump,
Reforms of the Council of Constance, 57.

36
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

observance which Nicholas most likely developed and used during his active time in office.164 The
work reflects the spiritual orientation and cultural interest of Nicholas's period, particularly since
he studied in Italy and worked for years as the vicar of the bishop of Padua, before becoming the
archbishop of Zadar.
Nicholas's work was more an individual effort, which shows the rules that Nicholas
followed in his everyday management of the diocese. On the other hand, Archbishop Balian of
Split conducted a wider institutional reform with rules affecting the daily ecclesiastical activities.
During the provincial synod in Split in 1325/26 a new constitution of the Spalatine Church was
enacted with 51 chapters which prescribed the proper discipline, behavior and clothes of the
clerics, together with the administration of the diocese.165 A key individual in Balian’s diocesan
government was Archdeacon Dominic Luccari, who probably helped pass the new constitution.
By 1328 Dominic became the archbishop and for the next 20 years he used these decisions as
guidelines in leading the diocese as he inspected monasteries, held provincial synods and corrected
irregularities among the clergy.166
The level of Dominic's authority stands in stark contrast with his predecessors and
successors, namely Peter (r.1297-1324) and Hugolin (r.1349-88), which in large part came down
to the respect that was enjoyed by the archbishop. Both Peter and Hugolin had serious problems
in enforcing their authority during the disputes with the bishopric of Trogir, something which
Dominic never had problems with. These examples show that not only the ascribed authority of
the office of the archbishop, but also the individual behaviour of the archbishop greatly influenced
how his decisions would be respected.
CEU eTD Collection

164
Published in Bianchi, Niccolo de Matafare. Thesaurus is available in manuscript online, while an edition was made
by Bianchi. For the analysis of the Thesaurus, see: Inchiostri, “Di Nicolò Matafari,” 63-85; Elze, “Der Thesaurus
Pontificum,” 143-60.
165
Farlati, Illyricum Sacrum III, 412-22. The proper clerical behavior and dress code is among the first proclamations
of the synod, which was emphasized as important by the laity. The clerics should not have a beard, should abstain
from alcohol, not do secular work, nor frequent inns and gamble, but should wear proper tonsure and crown. Farlati,
Illyricum Sacrum III, 413-4. Miha Madijev wrote in his chronicle what clerics should wear, while canons should have
caps on during funerals and during the mass. Madijev, “Historija,” 181. Archbishop Hugolin’s proper clerical outfit
was praised by his contemporary as being the sign of a good prelate. Cutheis, “Tabula,” 194-6.
166
Ivanišević, “Promišljanje o rodovima Lukari,” 12-3.

37
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

II.2. Suffragans, Synods, Primates

As archbishops, the chief clerics of Split and Zadar were metropolitans whose main tasks
were to maintain discipline, oversee the archdiocese and resolve issues between suffragans or to
impose penalties. The key place of contact between the archbishop and the bishop-suffgarans was
the inspection and consecration of the election, which gave the archbishop significant influence in
episcopal appointments, but the process was gradually seized by the Apostolic See. This is very
evident from the relations between the metropolitan of Split and the bishopric of Hvar.167 During
the first half of the fourteenth century, the archbishops of Split used their influence to install their
associates as bishops, even overturning elections. The Apostolic See at first appeared as an appeal
court to settle electoral disputes, but by the mid-fourteenth century the popes reserved the bishopric
and directly appointed bishops.168
The official connection between Split and Zadar was severed when the bishopric of Zadar,
on the instigation of Venice, was elevated to the status of archbishopric. The pope subordinated
Zadar to the patriarch, who confirmed and consecrated the archbishop, but the pallium was still
provided by the pope.169 This arrangement, combined with the Venetian attempts to fully
subordinate Zadar to its authority, caused serious ecclesiastical disagreements as a number of
twelfth-century archbishops did not seek the confirmation from Grado, although the conflicts
mostly subsided later.170 Following the unsuccesful rebellion of 1311-13, and the return of a more
active role by the Hungarian kings in Croatia-Dalmatia during the 1320s, John Butovan, the
archbishop of Zadar (r.1320-33) nurtured contacts with King Charles Robert of Hungary (r.1301-
42).171 Judging from a short letter which Pope John XXII sent to King Charles in 1326, Archbishop

167
The bishopric included two islands, Brač and Hvar, located to the south of Split and Trogir, and this proximity
CEU eTD Collection

helps to explain the interest of their prelates in controlling the bishopric.

168
For instance, after the death of Bishop Domnius (r.1289-1304), the cathedral chapter of Hvar elected Lampredius
Vitturi, the primicerius of Trogir. Archbishop Peter of Split rejected Lampredius and attempted to install Lawrence, a
canon of Split, as the new bishop. The papal legate settled the dispute by rejecting both candidates. Between 1314 and
1322 the bishop of Hvar was Gregory Madii, a canon from Split who was mentioned in 1311 as the vicar of Archbishop
Peter, so it can be surmised that the archbishop helped Gregory to obtain the position. After Gregory’s death Peter
tried again to influence the elections in Hvar by appointing Primicerius Stephen of Split, but the decision was met
with the resistance from the bishop of Trogir, which led to a protracted litigation at the Papal Curia. In 1348 the pope
reserved the bishopric and appointed Stephen Cega, a canon from Trogir, as the bishop.
169
CDC II, 79-80, February 22, 1155; Peričić, “Ustanovljenje nadbiskupije i metropolije zadarske”, 143. At the end
of the twelve century the patriarch of Grado received real powers of confirmation and consecration that only the pope
held or could concede to a specially designated primate. Benson, Bishop-Elect, 183; Dusa, Dalmatian Episcopal
Cities, 61-2.
170
For the conflicts, see: Dokoza, “Kronološki pregled povijesti zadarske nadbiskupije,” 157-95.
171
For the contacts between John and the king, see the chapter on the The Apostolic See and the archbishops of Zadar.

38
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

John tried to utilize royal help in order to remove the archbishopric from the control of the patriarch
of Grado. King Charles wrote to the pope stating that the patriarch is creating some problems for
the archbishop, so the king asked the pope to remove Zadar from the jurisdiction of Grado and
place it under the pope. During the same year, the king sent Ban Mikac of Slavonia to restore the
royal rule in Croatia-Dalmatia. While on campaign the ban received a warm welcome in Zadar,
which could suggest that a certain level of support for the Hungarian rule still existed in the city.172
In fact, the archbishop’s plan would undermine the Venetian authority over the city. Yet the pope
rejected the plan claiming that he will try to protect the archbishop, but nothing more is known.173
An important place of connection and interaction between the metropolitans and bishops
were the synods, organized yearly to discuss important issues pertaining to the Church discipline
and need for reform. But the synods slowly became obsolete, due to the activities of the popes,
who tried to relegate synods to simply relaying the papal decrees, and the bishops themselves, who
would bring their appeals directly to the pope, thus avoiding their spiritual superior.174
A series of provincial councils were convened during 1291/92 in order to discuss plans for
a new crusade.175 At least that was the reason why Pope Nicholas IV (r.1288-92) wrote to
Archbishop John of Split in August 1291.176 But at the same time the pope tasked the archbishop
of Zadar only to preach the crusade and give absolutions.177 Was there no order similar to Split
issued to the archbishop of Zadar and his sufragan-bishops because they were supposed to attend
the synods in Grado and the synods were not convened in Zadar? The archbishop of Zadar attended
the provincial synod of 1296 in the episcopal palace of Torcello (Venice) under Patriarch Egidio
de Ferrara (r.1295-1310), which discussed the organization and behaviour of the clergy,178 and
another one during 1301 in Grado during which the monastery of Saint Chrysogonus obtained
CEU eTD Collection

172
Madijev, “Historija,” 182; Klaić, Povijest Hrvata u razvijenom srednjem vijeku, 594.
173
Anjou-kori Oklevéltár X, 83-4, March 14, 1326; Priručnik I, n. 3701.
174
Blažević, Crkveni partikularni sabori, 26-37; Strika, “Sinode zadarske crkve,” 45-104; Tilatti, “Sinodi diocesane,”
273-304; Waldmüller, Die Synoden in Dalmatien, Kroatien und Ungarn, 211-24.
175
Pope asked John to collect opinions from his suffragans regarding the unification or merger of the military orders,
but in other councils the issues ranged from the general pacification of Europe as the necessary step in launching the
crusade, as well as the election of a single leader to lead the campaign. Schein, Fideles crucis, 135-8.
176
CDC VII, 49, August 26, 1291; Wrong date (1280) in: Farlati, Illyricum Sacrum III, 280; and in: Blažević, Crkveni
partikularni sabori, 97-8.
177
CDC XX, 213-6, August 1, 1291.
178
The synod had 33 canons and dealt with the housing and conduct of the clergy, decent behaviour in church, orderly
performance of the service and the organization of factories for the construction of churches. Mansi, Sacrorum
Conciliorum Nova XXIV, 1163-72. Bianchi, Zara cristiana, 44; Farlati, Illyricum Sacrum V, 197; Cappelletti, Chiese
d’Italia IX, 76.

39
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

some indulgences.179 During the 1320s, the synods were often held in Grado, but the full account
was not preserved due to the sources.180 The only known example of a synod being organized in
Zadar was the provincial synod convened by Archbishop Nicholas Matafari (r.1333-67) in 1334,
attended by the bishop-suffragans and the clergy of Zadar.181 Due to the lack of sources, it is hard
to state how frequently were the synods organized. It is probable that a number of routine synods
were held, which did not leave any written traces.
A similar claim can be made for Split, although more sources were preserved to assume
that synods were held regularly. Many synods were convened in Split during the episcopate of
Dominic Luccari (r.1328-48), while none were mentioned during the period of Hugolin (r.1349-
88), and synods reappear under Archbishop Andrew (r.1389-1403). While the frequency could be
attributed to the irregular preservation of sources or personal qualities of the archbishop in
regularly convening synods, it should be noted that the synods’ numbers dramatically fell during
the second half of the fourteenth century across Christendom.182 Additionally, a potential reason
could be found in the changed function of the synod. In Split, Dominic gathered prelates who then
presided in judicial cases against erring clergy, with the bishops passing the sentence of the
excommunication. Under Hugolin these cases were no longer adjudicated by the synod but by the
selected judges who were members of the provincial clergy.183
The above-mentioned claims can be further corroborated by observing the provincial
synods held in Split in 1292/93. Per papal mandate the clergy was to gather and discuss the
organization of a crusade, but what was discussed was completely different as it is only known
from the letter of Archbishop John of Split to Bishop Nicholas of Skradin (c.1292-1303). During
the synod of 1292 an order was issued that no bishop-suffragan can intrude into other dioceses,
CEU eTD Collection

179
The source is very dubious because of wrong names. The archbishop of Zadar is named John, while it was James,
and the bishop of Krk was named John, instead of Matthew. Ljubić, “Dva popisa listina,” 108, July 18, 1301.
180
Archbishop John Butovan participated at the synod in Grado in 1321, probably another one in 1326, while his
presence at the synod of 1327 is unclear and during the synod of 1330 only Zadar’s suffragans participated. Mansi,
Sacrorum Conciliorum, XXV, 653, August 4, 1321; 881, July 15, 1330; Cappelletti, Chiese d’Italia IX, 78; Lettres
Communes de Jean XXII, n.27134, November 27, 1326.
181
Blažević, Crkveni partikularni sabori, 103; Bianchi, Zara cristiana, 24, Farlati, Illyricum Sacrum V, 94.
182
The numbers were: 280 (1200-1249), 307 (1250-1299), 286 (1300-1349), and 181 (1350-1399). It should be added
that higher numbers correspond with the periods of more intensive organization of Church Councils, which were
frequent until the beginning of the fourteenth century. Johannes Helmrath adds that the synod activity in most regions
of Europe decreased sharply after around 1330. Helmrath, “Partikularsynoden und Synodalstatuten,” 74-5.
183
Compare with Morris, Papal Monarchy, 532.

40
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

subject to a penalty of 500 libras.184 A year later, the bishop of Trogir accused Nicholas of violating
the jurisdiction of the bishopric of Trogir by performing episcopal duties in the parish of Šibenik,
so it is safe to assume that the order fom 1292 refered to Nicholas’s actions in Šibenik. What can
be concluded is that the archbishop had considerable problems in enforcing his authority over some
of his suffragans, that the provincial synod was the place which settled this type of disputes and
that the decisions and solutions are mostly known from other sources as the sources dealing
primarily with the synods themselves were mostly not preserved.185 Miha, a Spalatin chronicler,
confirmed that the bishop-suffragans of Split would gather annually in Split, during the Feast of
Saint Domnius in Split (May 7),186 so it can be assumed that the archbishop held their yearly synods
around this date, keeping in line with the papal requirement.187
In his letter the archbishop used the title of the primate, but of very unusual geographical
area, that of entire Dalmatia, Croatia and Slavonia (tocius Dalmatie, Chroatie, Sclavonieque
primas). This is particularly strange since the archbishops of Split rarely used this title during the
later Middle Ages.188 In 1287 while giving the public apology and condemnation of the new
bishopric of Šibenik, John stated that he, by the authority of the Apostolic see, held the title of the
primate in Split in the province of Dalmatia.189 Besides the ecclesiastical uses of the term, there is
also a source which sheds light on how the term was perceived in the secular sphere. Miha Madijev,
a thirteenth century chronicler and a citizen of Split, wrote that the archbishop of Split called

184
The inviolability of the diocesan borders and the prohibition for a bishop to impose himself in the diocese of another
bishop was already defined in the canon law. Gratian, Decretum, C.IX q.2. For a good new edition, see:
http://gratian.org/ [08/02/2019]
185
For instance, at least two synods were convened by Archbishop Andrew (r.1389-1403), but they are only known
from other sources. After the synod of 1389, the archbishop fined the clergy of Senj for not attending. CDC XVII,
236-8, November 29, 1389. It is unclear when exactly did he convene his second synod which is only known from a
treaty between the commune and the bishop of Šibenik regarding the payment of tithes to the bishop. The aggrement,
enacted at the provincial synod, was lost when an opposing army attacked Šibenik. Since it is unclear when exactly
CEU eTD Collection

this event took place, the synod could have been held at any time during the reign of Archbishop Andrew. Šibenski
diplomatarij, 37-9, March 20, 1402; Priručnik II, 619, March 1402; Listine IV, 451-4.
186
Madijev, “Historija,” 172.
187
Decision was already present in Gratian’s Decretum and then reiterated by the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215: 6.
De conciliis provincialibus, metropolitans should hold provincial councils every year in order to secure observance of
the decisions of the general council, as well as to correct or reform clergy. Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, 287-
8; Morris, Papal Monarchy, 533-4.
188
Matanić, De origine tituli “Dalmatiae ac totius Croatiae primas”. Despite the title, Matanić did not delve into the
“specific ecclesiastical, political and social circumstances” of the claim to the title of primate but instead carried out
a classical research of the history of the archdiocese. The author also did not explore the origins of the title, instead
focusing his research on the use of this title by the seventeenth century archbishop of Split, Markantun de Dominis
(r.1602-24). The criticism in Ruzičić, “Review,” 449-450. [26 September 2017].
189
in provintia Dalmatia per sanctam Romanam ecclesiam archipresulatus nostri primatum teneamus in nostra
metropoli Spalatensi. CDC VI, 581, March 20, 1287.

41
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

himself the primate of entire Dalmatia (tocius Dalmatie).190 Circumstances led to the term being
use differently. In 1287 John emphasized that his powers came from the papal authority,
particularly since he also emphasized that only the pope had the authority to establish new
dioceses. Therefore, John’s primatial status was limited to Split and came from the authority of
the Holy See. On the other hand, in 1293 John's inclusion of Croatia, Dalmatia and Slavonia, could
mean that he inteded to issue a warning not only on an ecclesiastical level, therefore within the
Church province of Dalmatia, but intended to warn the local Croatian oligarchs from infringing in
the ecclesiastical issues.191
The rare use of the primate's title by the archbishop of Split probably derived from the
competition by the patriarch of Grado, who used the title of the primate of Dalmatia (Dalmacie
primas) throughout the later Middle Ages.192 The patriarch used the title when proclaiming the
decisions of the synods, communicating with the clergy in Dalmatia and conducting official
visitations of ecclesiastical institutions in the archbishopric of Zadar.193

II.3. The Cathedral Chapter: its Composition and Role

The basic definition of the cathedral chapter states that it was a semi-independent
community of clerics, who advised and assisted the bishop in performing the divine service.
Canons had their stall in the cathedral and the accompanying prebend to sustain themselves. They
usually elected their own members and were presided by a hierarchy of dignitaries. The chapter
had an important role in the diocesan administration and have governed the diocese during the
episcopal absence.194 On ocassions, the chapters of Split, Trogir and Zadar tended to elect their
own members as (arch)bishops. For instance, from 1243 to 1409 the cathedral chapter of Split
attempted to elect five individuals as the archbishops out of which four cathedral canons from
CEU eTD Collection

families of important local significance.195

The organization and power of the cathedral chapters varied from region to region, with
some chapters having considerable economic and legal power in comparison with their bishops

190
Madijev, “Historija,” 172.
191
Particularly if we take into consideration the different uses of title by various bans of entire Slavonia, or Croatia-
Dalmatia, and who on ocassion held the position of count during John’s time in office.
192
The patriarch of Grado continuously used the title until 1451. Dusa, Dalmatian Episcopal Cities, 59-62.
193
Niero, “Patriarcato di Venezia,” 63-94.
194
Bras, Storia della Chiesa II, 499-517; Ostojić, Metropolitanski kaptol, 14-30.
195
Petrović, “Episcopal Appointments,” 203-21.

42
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

and communities.196 The Dalmatian type of cathedral chapter, although small and relatively weak
in comparison to their bishops, played important role in the fabric of medieval urban society.
Keeping in mind the quantitative and qualitative limits of the prosopographic studies on the canons
and the composition of the chapters,197 it is clear that local urban elites were interested in the entry
of their cadet members into these chapters, with occasional inclusion of individuals coming from
the wider area of the bishopric or from other parts of Christendom. This means that understanding
the role of the chapter in the local society can reveal more about the relations between the bishop,
the chapter and the urban community.198
From the three observed chapters – Split, Trogir and Zadar – only Trogir did not receive
any significant research of its own. Detailed work was done by Ivan Ostojić who concentrated on
an in-depth research of the chapter of Split, Federico Bianchi who left some remarks on the
functioning and the composition of the chapter of Zadar, and Ante Gulin, who reviewed all three
chapters in his work on Dalmatian medieval cathedral chapters.199 Due to the different level of
research and preservation of sources, I have concentrated mostly on researching the chapter of
Split, by attempting to reconstruct its composition and influence, but throughout this subchapter I
will also refer to developments in Trogir and Zadar.
The numbers and organization of the cathedral chapters dependend on the needs and
resources of the place and the historical development. The chapter was led by three dignitaries: the
CEU eTD Collection

196
Most notable example of comparision is still presented by Brentano, Two Churches, 62-173, who compared the
bishoprics and cathedral chapters in Italy with their counterparts in England. Emanuele Curzel compared the Italian
and German historiographies regarding the developments and organization of the cathedral chapters: Curzel, Il
Capitolo della cattedrale di Trento, 1-16. For an overview of cathedral chapters from the Kingdom of Hungary, see:
Fedeles, “Die ungarischen Dom- und Kollegiatkapitel,” 161-96.
197
Such work exists for cathedral chapters of other countries. Koszta, “Conclusions drawn from the prosopographic
analysis of canons,” 13-28; Rodrigues, “Contribution to the study of the Portuguese urban elites,” 237-254.
198
Morris, Papal Monarchy, 530-1; Gamberini, “Chiesa vescovile,” 202-3; Franco, Family, Church and State, 50-79.
199
Ostojić, Metropolitanski kaptol, 11-119; Bianchi, Zara cristiana, 165-70; Gulin, Hrvatski srednjovjekovni kaptoli,
19-73, 129-69, 239-73.

43
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

archdeacon,200 the archpriest201 and the primicerius,202 with a number of accompanying canons.203
Ideally, the chapter’s members were suggested by other canons or the (arch)bishop, elected by
canons, confirmed by the (arch)bishop and then introduced into possession.204 Ivan Ostojić
considered that the chapter elected its own members, concluding that the attempts by the
archbishops to appoint higher dignitaries would cause serious disputes between the archbishop and
the chapter. However, he based his opinion on the mid-thirteenth century writings of Archdeacon
Thomas, who was highly critical of the archiepiscopal infringment into the cathedral chapter.205
The examples from the fourteenth century show a more complex image than the one
depicted by Ostojić. In 1328 Archbishop Dominic of Split successfully petitioned the pope to be
granted permission to appoint a person of his choosing to the cathedral chapter.206 During a dispute
in Trogir in 1358/59 the canons accused the bishop of keeping the position of the archdeacon
vacant on purpose. According to the Third Lateran Council, which the canons cited, if the bishop
would not appoint the new archdeacon within six-month time, the right to appoint would revert
back to the cathedral chapter.207 The bishops were quite influential in appointing canons and higher
dignitaries, as long as they came from the urban elites. This is most obvious from the native bishops
of Split, Trogir and Zadar who were able to introduce family members into the chapter and later
install them as archdeacons. However, the attempts by the non-native bishops to place their
foreign-born associates as canons were not always successful.208

200
The archidiaconus was leading the chapter, administrating justice and also the properties of the Church during the
bishop's absence. Since the archdeacon’s autonomy and power led to a competition for control with the bishop, from
the twelfth century the archdeacon was gradually pushed out of the diocesan administration by the episcopal vicar.
Curzel, Capitolo della cattedrale di Trento, 176-9; Barrow, Clergy in the Medieval World, 49; Ostojić,
Metropolitanski kaptol, 46-7.
201
During the episcopal absence, the archpriests would replace the bishop in all his duties in the cathedral. Ostojić,
Metropolitanski kaptol, 61.
202
CEU eTD Collection

A senior dignitary also known in literature as the office of the provost. Difference is that the primicerius was in
charge of the education of the lower clergy while the provost controlled the chapter's landed possessions and
distributed its incomes. Gulin, Hrvatski srednjovjekovni kaptoli, 15; Barrow, Clergy in the Medieval World, 301-2;
Ostojić, Metropolitanski, 67-8.
203
Gulin, Hrvatski srednjovjekovni kaptoli, 14-6; Barrow, Clergy in the Medieval World, 273.
204
Ostojić, Metropolitanski kaptol, 17-9.
205
Ostojić, Metropolitanski kaptol, 19 quoted an opinion by Daniel Farlati, Illyricum sacrum III, 239, who, in turn,
based his analysis on the writings of Archdeacon Thomas in Toma Arhiđakon, Historia Salonitana, 87.
206
CDC IX, 429-30, November 21, 1328.
207
CDC XII, 616, August 31, 1359; Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, 215.
208
Vučina Radoiduplić (Vulcina condam Radoiduplichi), a priest of probably lower origins was a cathedral sexton
(sacristan) who entered the chapter of Split in 1361 with the support of Archbishop Hugolin. Very soon Vučina
renounced the church he possessed and was no longer mentioned as one of the canons, even though he still remained
at the archiepiscopal court. By 1366 Hugolin appointed Vučina as the archbishop's chaplain. When renouncing his
prebend church Vučina claimed that he was forced to do it by the hostility of the local population. But the archbishop

44
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

According to a later tradition, the chapter of Split consisted of 18 clerics, which is

confirmed by the fourteenth-century sources.209 In Trogir the number was 14, but in 1329 Bishop
Lampredius lowered the number to 12, ensuring his control over the chapter by obtaining a promise
from the canons that they would not elect new members without the bishop’s consent.210 Since the
ownership structure of local churches is uncertain, it is also unclear if people entered the chapter
due to the collation by the archbishop or the cathedral chapter, or because they were appointed
rectors of churches controlled by secular patrons (proprietary church).211 What is clear is that in
Trogir the bishops, Lampredius Vitturi and Nicholas Kažotić, worked on appropriating and
integrating churches into the episcopal mensa, which caused frictions with the commune.212
Therefore, the canon law, subsequent changes in the rules and the episcopal control of benefices,
all helped to ensure that the bishop had considerable influence in choosing the new canons.
The situation in Zadar was somewhat different. Historians were confused by what they
interpreted as a complete omission of the Zaratin canons between 1288 and 1394.213 The reason
for the silence in sources stems from the composition and organization of the cathedral chapter of
Zadar, which was different from the ones in Split or Trogir. This is visible from the analysis of the
composition of the clergy which gathered in 1305, to approve the agreement between the

granted the same church to another associate, Bishop Stephen of Duvno, on whom the archbishop relied upon to
manage the archdiocese, so the actual reasons for Vučina's renouncement remains unknown. Rismondo, “Registar,”
7-8, December 9-17, 1361; 11-2, December 12, 1361; 49-50. April 4, 1366.
209
Based on the visitation by Archbishop Marco Antonio de Dominis from 1604. Ostojić, Metropolitanski kaptol,
115-6. Judging by sources for the fourteenth century, the numbers varied between 11 and 18 members, since not all
canons were present during the chapter's gatherings. The highest numbers were recorded, due to the quality of the
preserved sources, during the 1360s.
210
See Lampredius’s later chapter for the reasons and the background of his decision.
211
Tellenbach, Church, State and Christian Society, 70-99.
212
In an undated charter Lampredius removed Domnius di Silvestri from the rectorship of Saint George in Travarica,
CEU eTD Collection

even though the church was probably under laic patronage. Andreis, Povijest grada Trogira I, 350. No date is given.
Lampredius also attempted to appropriate the churches of Saint Vital (1332) and Saint Maurus (before 1334).
Following the death of Canon Dobrolus, Lampredius attempted to appropriate the church of Saint Leo near the city
gates which was controlled by several families. Lucić, Collection, vol. 542, fol. 343-343’, July 23, 1338; Andreis,
“Trogirski patricijat” 11-2. During 1366 Bishop Nicholas Kažotić seized the church of Saint Nicholas of Miran (in
Žestinje). When he was the primicerius in Trogir, Nicholas was also the rector of the said church, which was the lay
patronage of the Cernota and the Barbanić families. Since Bishop Mathew of Šibenik was a member of the Cernota
familiy, and Nicholas was at the time in a dispute with the bishop of Šibenik, the encroachment could have been the
result of the dispute between the two families. Lucić, Collection, vol. 540, 67-70, June 27-8 – July 26, 1366; Farlati,
Illyricum Sacrum IV, 463; Farlati, Trogirski biskupi, 292-3; Lucić, Povijesna svjedočanstva II, 1045-7; Andreis,
Povijest grada Trogira I, 353.
213
The idea was mentioned by Valerio Ponte and then simply cited by subsequent historians. Ponte, Historia ecclesiae
Iadrensis, IV/1, 132-3. Federico Bianchi attempted to explain the omission of the canons by stating that the chapter
became morally and financially devastated due to (unspecified) tragic political events. The author also stated that this
led to the decline in worshiping in the cathedral and a need for a reform. Bianchi, Zara cristiana, 168.

45
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

archbishop and the commune,214 and in 1393 when Archbishop Peter Matafari (r.1376-1400)
reformed the chapter by setting it up with 12 canons.215 The two gatherings reveal that Zadar did
not have a conventional cathedral chapter. Instead, the chapter consisted of the three dignitaries,
the clergy of the cathedral, as well as the rectors and clerics from several major churches of the
city. There were 42 clerics in total in 1305 and 36 in 1393.216 Not much can be concluded about
the origins of the canons gathered in 1305 as the clerics were presented only with their title and
first name. One would expect that the clergy was mobile between Venice, Zadar and other
Venetian territories, but more research is needed.217 On the other hand, the composition of 1393
was diverse, with the majority of the clergy coming from the urban nobility, and some from the
Dalmatian hinterland, Hungary, or the wider Adriatic basin area.
The clergy gathered in 1305 to approve the aggrement from 1302 between the archbishop
and the commune. The large time gap could suggest the opposition to the deal and the strength of
the chapter, but it could also indicate that the presence of too many clerics in the chapter prevented
quick decision making. Archbishop Peter’s actions in 1393 could have been motivated by the
desire to reform the oversized chapter, but he may have wanted to break the influence that the

214
The gathering was usually viewed as a diocesan synod, meaning that it included the entire clergy of the archdiocese
of Zadar. CDC VIII, 99-102, April 14, 1305; Blažević, Crkveni partikularni sabori, 123; Strika, “Sinode zadarske
crkve,” 72; Statute of Zadar, lib. V, cap. 37.
215
The chapter was authorized to elect the archbishop, have a seal, while other obligations were also specified. CDC
XVII, 555-6, November 17, 1393; Farlati, Illyricum Sacrum V, 102-7; Paulo, Memoriale, 19, April 11, 1394. The
reform was enacted in 1393, but it was publically announced in July 1395. Ponte, “Historia ecclesie jadrensis,” IV,
132-3; Farlati, Illyricum Sacrum V, 7-8, 102-3; Gulin, Hrvatski srednjovjekovni kaptoli, 240-2; Dokoza, “Kronološki
pregled povijesti zadarske nadbiskupije,” 232; Klaić and Petricioli, Zadar u srednjem vijeku, 349; Neralić, Put do
crkvene nadarbine, 132-3.
216
During 1305 there were 42 clerics, coming from the cathedral (Saint Anastasia) and five churches (S. Petri veteri
in foro parvo (Saint Peter the Old), S. Petri novi in foro maximo (Saint Peter the New), S. Mariae Majoris (Saint
Mary), S. Micha or Michaelis (Saint Michael) and S. Stephani nunc S. Simeonis Prophetae (Saint Stephen). During
CEU eTD Collection

1393 there were 36 clergymen, but this time from six churches (addition of S. Salvatoris nunc S. Antonii (Saint
Saviour). The majority of clerics came from the cathedral, although its numbers greatly diminished during the century
(from 16 to 9), while the numbers of canons in other churches remained constant. In 1305 the chapter was led by the
archdeacon and the primicerius, who were helped by the rectors of the churches of Saint Peter the New and Saint Peter
the Old, who were in charge of the temporal goods of the chapter (oeconomi) and represented the chapter (procuratores
et sindici). During the meeting of 1393 all three dignitaries were present (the archdeacon, the archpriest and the
primicerius), but only two rectors were present, while other four positions were listed as vacant. Farlati, Illyricum
Sacrum V, 7, 102-3; Neralić, Put do crkvene nadarbine, 132-3; Ponte, Historia ecclesiae Iadrensis, IV/1, 132-3; IV/2,
192-201.
217
In mid-thirteenth century a number of clergymen from Venice operated in Zadar as notaries, often with positions
in local Zaratin churches. Branka Grbavac assumes that most of them were brought to Zadar by Venetian archbishops
who were appointed from Venice. Grbavac, “Notari kao posrednici između Italije i Dalmacije,” 508-10. However, it
should be noted that the clergy-notaries were integral part of the late medieval Venetian bureaucracy as their activity
was directly promoted by the authorities. See: Cossar, Clerical Households, 23-6; Cracco, “Un intervento di Eugenio
IV contro i preti-notai di Venezia,” 179-89; Romano, “Venetian exceptionalism,” 231-2.

46
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

powerful rectors of major churches had in the everyday life of the archbishopric. At the time, only
two out of six rector positions were filled. Important role among the Zaratin clergy was played by
the rectors of Saint Mary. Rector Chrysogonus had a leading role in 1308 in leading the clergy to
resist Cardinal-Legate Gentile who planned on reforming the churches of Zadar, which would lead
to weakening of the position that the rectors of the major churches had in the city. Archbishop
Peter’s reform in 1393 came mere months after the death of Gregory, the rector of Saint Mary, an
individual who occupied the highest positions of power in the archbishopric for 40 years and who
could have resisted the reform.
In Italy, the issue of determining the correct number of canons was often under external
pressure, from emperors, popes or bishops. The clergy itself would also discuss these issues on
local or provincial synods, which is what happened in Ravenna in 1317.218 In cases of Trogir and
Zadar the outside pressure was usually connected with the royal attempts to appoint protégés into
the chapter.219 Therefore, the reasons for the reform of the chapters should be understood as the
delicate balance of power between the bishop and its chapter, particularly since in cases in Trogir
and Zadar the reform resulted in strengthening of the episcopal authority.
As discussed, while the canons mostly elected their members, they did this under the
watchful eye of the bishop.220 Judging by the behaviour of the episcopate of Split, Trogir and
Zadar, the key in controlling the chapter was in exercising control over its leading members, the
dignitaries. Upon appointment, the bishops would usually inherit the composition of the dignitaries
from the previous ruling prelate, but they would soon try to install their favourites to important
positions. Native bishops promoted their family members to the cathedral chapter while non-
natives had to rely on individuals coming from influential local families. This was particularly
visible in Split where noble families dominated the city council and favoured local clerics to be
appointed to prebends.221
CEU eTD Collection

Most cathedral chapters were balanced, with no family gaining an upper hand. Reason for
this was probably because the bishops were increasingly appointed by the popes, which weakened

218
See the discussion regarding the number of canons in the cathedral of Trent, in: Curzel, Il Capitolo della cattedrale
di Trento, 182-4.
219
Noticable later during the reign of King Louis the Great (r.1342-82).
220
Ostojić, Metropolitanski kaptol, 17-8.
221
Which is particularly visible from the Statute of Split (1312) in which it was stated that the Great Council would
appoint several of its members to go, together with the podestà, to the archbishop to ask him to appoint only those
from Split to the Church’s prebends. Statute of Split, lib. I, cap. 11. Some Italian communes passed similar decisions,
such as Treviso. Rando, “Le elezioni vescovili,” 118-9. Raukar, “Consilium generale,” 87-103.

47
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

the control that local families had over the bishopric. Some did attempt to capitalize on their
financial and spiritual connections to the bishopric, but only for a short duration. For instance, the
families of the Kažotić and the Vitturi gained an upper hand during the second half of the thirteenth
and the first half of the fourteenth centuries. Members of these two families became high ranking
dignitaries of the chapter and were even appointed as bishops.222 For instance, Nicholas Kažotić
actively supported Bishop Columban (r.1255-76), and even participated in the organization of the
transfer of Columban’s dead body to Trogir. His nephew Kažot was a canon in 1271 and by 1282
also the primicerius of the chapter (c.1263-1299), while Nicholas’s grandson, Nicholas Kažotić,
became the bishop of Trogir (r.1362-71).223 Lampredius Vitturi probably immediately succeded
Kažot as the primicerius. When Lampredius was appointed as the bishop in 1319, his role as the
primicerius was succeded by Nicholas Kažotić, the future bishop. Therefore, the advancement of
offsprings of noble families in the cathedral chapter was often the result of favorable links between
the bishop, the cathedral chapter and the nobility.
During Lampredius’s time in office (r.1319-49), the position of the archdeacon was mostly
not mentioned, because Archdeacon Kazarica was living in exile since he participated on the losing
side in the civil war in Trogir.224 Lampredius worked on introducing his nephew James to the
cathedral chapter and appointing him as the archdeacon, even resorting to violence, and succeding
by 1338. Dominic Luccari had an easier task in Split as he was appointed as the archbishop from
the position of the archdeacon in 1328, so he probably worked on appointing as his successor
Dessa, the son of Andrew. Dessa came from the family Tartaglia, a close relative of the Luccari.225
After Dessa's death, Archbishop Dominic installed his cousin Dominic as the archdeacon, even
though the younger Dominic was only a canon for a few years.226 Similarly, in Zadar, Archbishop
Nicholas Matafari ensured that his brother Demetrius was appointed as the archdeacon.227
CEU eTD Collection

222
Kažot Kažotić was the primicerius at the end of the thirteenth century, while Lampredius Vitturi was mentioned in
the same position between 1304 and 1319, before being elected as the bishop. As the primicerius, he was succeded by
Nicholas Kažotić, who also became the bishop in 1361. Andreis, “Trogirski patricijat,” 44.
223
Farlati, Trogirski biskupi, 201; Andreis, “Trogirski patricijat,” 42-4.
224
This is suggested by a letter, given to the bishop by the city council, regarding the rectorship of the church of Gospa
od Trga, which was made vacant with the death of Archdeacon Kazarica. Kazarica was living in exile, but it is unclear
if he was ever given permission to return to the city. Lucić, Povijesna svjedočanstva I, 535, July 23, 1338.
225
Mentioned in that position from c.1333 until c.1344. Kuzmanić, Splitski plemići, 21-2, 26-7.
226
Dominic, the son of Nicholas, was the son of the archbishop’s brother Thomas. He entered the cathedral chapter in
1338, while he was appointed as the archdeacon sometime after 1344 and before 1348. ACS, 185, f. 3., 1338. Ostojić,
Metropolitanski kaptol, 56-7.
227
CDC XI, 28-9, December 26, 1342.

48
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

While the native bishops promoted members of their own family in order to enforce their
control over the cathedral chapter, non-native bishops relied on creating an alliance with some of
the leading families. Since the position of the archdeacon was already occupied prior to his
appointment, Archbishop Peter (r.1297-1324) selected Canon Gregory, from the family of Madii,
as the archiepiscopal vicar.228 The archbishop probably also helped Dominic Luccari to quickly
rise from the position of a simple canon to the position of the archdeacon by 1324. More direct
evidence for this policy is presented by Hugolin (r.1349-88) who may have kept the position of
the archdeacon vacant or marginalized, since it was not mentioned in sources between 1359 and
1371, by which time the archbishop appointed Canon Lawrence, his person of trust from the
influential family of the Cypriani.229 This family was mentioned during the 1410s as supporting
the activities of the native archbishop of Split in improving the cathedral, so it could be that the
Cypriani family became or already was a traditional ally of the archbishopric.230
Besides favouring certain canons from influential local families, the non-native bishops
also worked on introducing a trusted foreigner into the cathedral chapter. Archbishop Peter
appointed Lawrence, a canon of Esztergom and a former chaplain of Queen Mary of Naples, as a
canon of Split. The archbishop greatly relied on Lawrence, sending him on important missions and
actively working on having him appointed as the bishop of Hvar.231 Peter's successor, Archbishop
Balian relied on George Hominisdei of Cyprus, who accompanied Balian when the archbishop
was transfered from Rhodos to Split. The level of confidence can be observed by the fact that
Balian entrusted George with funds from the treasury of the cathedral.232 George was one of the
canons who supported Bosolo of Parma in the contested elections of 1328, opposing the election
of Dominic Luccari. The disputed election reveals something about the inner relations between the
cathedral chapter members. Due to his actions, it can be assumed that George was among those
CEU eTD Collection

canons who maybe did not like Archdeacon Dominic, or disliked the strong ties that the archdeacon
had with the commune, and, instead, wanted to have stronger connections with the Apostolic

228
CDC VIII, 275-7, February 25, 1311; Ostojić, Metropolitanski kaptol, 104; Kuzmanić, Splitski plemići, 40.
229
Archdeacon Dominic Younger was mentioned as the archdeacon in 1358, while in 1359 he was mentioned in
sources, but not as the archdeacon, which could suggest that he resigned his post. CDC XII, 540-1, July 23 - August
1, 1358; Krekich, “Documenti” III-IV, 72-3, November 30, 1359; CDC XIV, 322-4, April 23, 1371.
230
Marković, “Anđeo štitonoša s grbom obitelji de Judicibus,” 204; Farlati, Illyricum Sacrum III, 365-6.
231
CDC VIII, 57, August 22, 1303; CDC VIII, 133-4; CDC VIII, 179.
232
He was authorised by the archbishop, the judges and the council to take 100 florins worth of things from the
cathedral treasury, but it was unclear for what purpose. Most likely to finance the commune or the archbishopric. CDC
IX, 272-3, January 16, 1326. Later, George was mentioned as having a position of canon without incomes in Rhodos
(collosenensi ecclesia), where Balian was earlier archbishop. Ostojić, Metropolitanski kaptol, 105.

49
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

See.233 He could have been sidelined for his activities, because he reappeared almost 20 years later,
still as a canon, but in the service of the ban of Bosnia. The ban sent George, named the ban's
chaplain, as a nuncio to the pope. The ban petitioned the pope to award George with one or two
benefices (sine cura), in the diocese of Split, which were part of the archiepiscopal collation and
valued at 60 florins.234 Since George and Peregrin, the ban’s candidate for the archbishop of Split
in 1348, knew each other, George could have had a decisive role in connecting the ban and the
cathedral chapter of Split. Lastly, Archbishop Hugolin introduced Buciardo, the son of Jacob,235
into the chapter. It is unclear what was his connection with the archbishop, but Buciardo appeared
in Split during the 1350s and was entrusted with important missions for the archbishopric, prior to
being accepted into the cathedral.236
The cases of papal collation were rare. The first examples date back to the 1320s and relate
to the involvement of Pope John XXII in appointing local archbishops and bishops. Unlike in other
parts of Christendom, it was not that common for the pope to appoint non-native clerics to the
position of canons in Split237 and Zadar.238 The scarcity of these sources could suggest that this
practice was not that widespread. It seems that it was more common for the pope, when he had the
opportunity, to provide local clerics with promotions. Since Lampredius was appointed as the
bishop of Trogir at the papal Curia, the pope reserved the dispensation of Lampredius's benefices
and his rank of primicerius in the cathedral chapter. The pope appointed Nicholas Kažotić (the

233
CDC IX, 272-3, January 15, 1326; Ostojić, Metropolitanski kaptol, 105.
234
It was added that Georgius already held the position of canon in Split with the benefice of church of Saint Nicholas
de portu Spalatensi worth 20 florins. Listine II, 443-4, April 2, 1347; Ostojić, Metropolitanski kaptol, 105.
CEU eTD Collection

235
Buciardo/Buçardus/Bochardus/Buzardo Jacopi Fisco/Siericom de Ypra.
236
Buciardo was tasked to deliver the money collected from tithe to the papal tax collector in Venice in 1354 and,
while cathedral canon, in 1359. CDC XII, 242-3, May 15, 1354; CDC XII, 576, June 3, 1359. Before becoming a
canon, Buciardo was also one of the witnesses during the distribution of the posessions of Gregory Maubradich, a
canon of the chapter. CDC XI, 352-3, May 11, 1356.
237
Pope John XXII promissed to appoint Roger, the son of Anselmo Roger, from Ancona as a canon of Split with the
expectation of a prebend. Besides Split, Roger was able to become a canon in Patras in Greece, while he also petitioned
to obtain a position in the church of San Venanzio in the diocese of Camerino (Italy). Lettres Communes de Jean XXII,
IV, n.22016, April 14, 1325; V, 23638, October 23, 1325; n.25860, July 3, 1326.
238
Conrad, the son of Peter de Serravalle, received the position of a canon and a prebend in the diocese of Argos in
Greece. He already had the position of a canon in San Venanzio in Camerino and Saint Elpidio in Fermo, both in Italy,
while he also expected a position of a canon and a prebend in Modon in Greece. He was unable to obtain two benefices
which were collated by the archbishop of Zadar and the abbot of the monastery of Saint Savino near Fermo. Lettres
Communes de Jean XXII, X, n.54518, August 9, 1331.

50
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

future bishop)239 as the primicerius of the chapter in 1320,240 also granting him in 1325 the
churches of Saint Mary and Saint John the Baptist, which were worth around 113 florins, making
Nicholas one of the richest clergymen in Trogir.241 Several decades later, Nicholas became the
bishop of Trogir, and it would seem that the groundwork for his good financial situation, position
and prestige in the bishopric, as well as the good relations with the Apostolic See, were already set
during the 1320s. A similar case happened in 1328 when Archdeacon Dominic Luccari was
promoted at the Curia as the archbishop of Split. It is probable that the pope then asked Dominic
to suggest somebody to succeed him as the archdeacon, since Dominic's relative Canon Dessa
appeared in that position. Likewise, in Zadar the pope likely appointed several rectors of the church
of Saint Matthew. John Butovan was the rector until 1320 when he was elected as the archbishop.
While it is unclear if his successor, Stephen de Sloradis, was appointed by the pope, 242 it is clear
that after Stephen's death at the Papal Curia in 1334, the pope named as the rector Demetrius
Matafari, the brother of Archbishop Nicholas of Zadar.243 What all these cases show is that the
pope would obtain the appointments for himself, but that he would take heed of suggestions from
the local clergy and the petitioners.

II.4. Diocesan Structures: Episcopal Staff

Due to the increased administrative duties, an average bishopric needed additional

personnel, such as legal experts, officials producing documents and various administrators, which
contributed to further bureaucratization. These individuals, often of various origins, were part of

239
Son of Donat Kažotić. Famous Augustin Kažotić, the bishop of Zagreb and Lucera, was his uncle. About the
Kažotić family, see: Jelaska, “Ugled trogirskog roda Kažotića,” 17-46.
CEU eTD Collection

240
CDC VIII, 560, May 12, 1320. His uncle Augustin was present in Avignon in the same month, so it is possible that
Augustin was able to help his nephew obtain a position in Trogir. CDC VIII, 561, May 22, 1320.
241
Lettres Communes de Jean XXII, V, n.22337, May 12, 1325. Papal collectors estimated the value of the bishopric
of Trogir to around 210 florins, while the revenues of the diocese were leased out during the 1340s for 1600 libri or
around 444 ducats. MVC I, 68, April 8, 1320. In the mid-fourteenth century 1 ducat was worth 3.6 libri. Raukar, Zadar
u XV stoljeću, 299. Nicholas also held a position of canon in the bishopric of Zagreb, probably due to his connections
to Bishop Augustine of Zagreb (r.1303-22), his uncle. He also received a quarter of the Church of Saint George de
Camposestino in the bishopric of Trogir. CDC IX, 234-6, May 12, 1325. In 1331 Nicholas received the papal provision
of a canonry with expectation of a prebend in the bishopric of Pécs, which he later did receive. CDC IX, 234-6, May
12, 1325; 556-8, April 30, 1331; Babić, “Trogirski biskup Nikola Casotti,” 222-3.
242
The exact sources are missing, but since the pope promoted John to the position of the archbishop, the cleric’s
benefices and positions were automatically reserved for the papal collation.
243
Lettres Communes de Jean XXII, XII, n.63188, May 21, 1334; Farlati, Illyricum Sacrum IV, 95, September 8, 1334;
Bianchi, Zara cristiana, 457-8.

51
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

the episcopal familia, which included both the clergy and the laity.244 The bishop relied on the
cathedral chapter in governing the diocese, but he also attained the services of vicars, scribes,
notaries, medics, doctors of law, as well as other servants and clerics. This made the episcopal
Curia a center of administrative, cultural and writing activities, but it also meant that, with every
subsequent bishop, the composition of the leading personnel of the diocese tended to change as
these individuals would leave the episcopal employment. It should be added that the administrative
system was not fully developed and varied geographically. The duties and ranks of employed
officials were not necessarily clearly demarked and their time in office depended on the required
tasks, while some, such as notaries, performed duties beneficial to both the commune and the
bishopric.245 I will concentrate in this subchapter on several most important members of the
episcopal familia, their roles, composition and relations toward the (arch)bishop.
The key figure in the episcopal administration was the vicar, who limited the role that the
archdeacon of the cathedral chapter had in administrating the diocese during the episcopal absence.
The vicar oversaw spiritual (spiritualia) and secular affairs (temporalia)246 and the bishop would
either divide the tasks between two officials or appoint one to do both. These individuals, if
foreigners, would often leave the diocese after the death or transfer of the bishop, their employer,
and another person would be brought in to manage the diocese.247 The vicars for spiritualia
replaced the bishop in his pastoral office, so they were chosen from among the suffragan-bishops,
or members of the diocesan clergy, such as rectors of local churches, higher dignitaries of the
cathedral chapter or canons. The vicars for temporalia could be locals, members of important
families, familiar with the situation in the diocese, or non-natives who accompanied the bishop
and were usually his relatives. At the beginning of the fourteenth century vicars were mentioned
occasionally during the episcopal absence, but over the course of the century they became more
CEU eTD Collection

visible, even while the (arch)bishop was present in his diocese.

244
On the issue of episcopal family, the bishop’s retainers and the organization of the episcopal administration, see:
Andenna, “Episcopato e strutture diocesane,” 321-94; Sambin, “La 'familia' di un vescovo,” 237-247; Burgard,
Familia Archiepiscopi; Cossar, Clerical Households; Osheim, An Italian Lordship, 30-50.
245
For instance, Archbishop Dominic officiated into the rank of a cleric Nicholas, the son of Jacob from Padua, the
communal physician (medicus physici). One can assume that the elevation of the son was a reward for the loyal service
by his father. Krekich, “Documenti” II, 159 December 24, 1343; Praga, “Testi volgari spalatini,” 106.
246
Temporalia reffered to the land possessions of the (arch)bishopric, administration of civil and criminal law,
nomination of local officials and money management. Fasoli, “Temporalità vescovili,” 757-72.
247
Gaudemet, Storia del diritto canonico, 490-3; Rossi, “Vescovi nel basso medioevo,” 228-9; Robert Brentano,
“Vescovi e vicari generali,” 547-68; Ostojić, Metropolitanski kaptol, 95-8.

52
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

For instance, while archbishops Henry (r.1297-99) and James (r.1299-1311) were absent,
the archdiocese of Zadar was administered by their suffragan-bishops, Matthew of Krk (r.1299-
1302) for Henry and George of Rab (r.1292-1313) for James.248 On the other hand, Nicholas
Matafari relied less on the suffragan-bishop and more on his relatives, the cathedral dignitaries and
the rectors of important churches. While Nicholas was in exile (c.1346-58), the archbishopric was
administered by Primicerius Chrysogonus de Cigalis (Zigalis) of the cathedral chapter,249 and the
archbishop’s brother, Demetrius Matafari, the bishop of Pićan and later of Nin.250 But the record
breaker was Gregory, the rector of the church of Saint Mary Major of Zadar (sancte Marie
maioris), who was regularly mentioned as a vicar or a proctor of the archbishop from 1350 until
his death, some time before 1393.251 His longevity in office, as he served under several
archbishops, could be explained by his importance in the diocesan hierarchy, as he served as the
treasurer during the archiepiscopal vacancy, and his contacts with the Apostolic See, as he was
often mentioned as the papal subcollector for Zadar. Only after Gregory’s death did other vicars
appear. Nicholas’s cousin, Peter Matafari (r.1376-1400), relied on a non-native expert, Francesco
d’Aristotile, a doctor of law from Sulmona252 and Abbot Chrysogonus of the monastery of Saint
Chrysogonus.253 It seems that the selection of the vicar depended on the personal contacts with the
archbishop and on the importance of the holder of the office.
The vicars in Split and Trogir were usually dignitaries or canons of cathedral chapter, and
rarely other bishops. The cathedral chapter in Trogir was often able to influence the bishop to
select the vicar from among the dignitaries. In 1317 the bishop appointed Archdeacon Kazarica
and Primicerius Lampredius, two high-ranking members of the cathedral chapter, to act as the
vicars for all the spiritual, criminal and civil questions.254 When Bartholomew was appointed as
the bishop of Trogir in 1349, he tasked Canon Elias of the cathedral chapter as the episcopal vicar,
CEU eTD Collection

because the canon was most likely present in Avignon when the pope appointed the bishop. In
Split it was not unusual for the archbishop to rely on canons coming from the influential communal
families, as a way for the archbishop to form an alliance with these families, or from among canons

248
CDC VII, 340-1, June 13, 1299; CDC VIII, 191-2, July 29, 1308.
249
CDC XI, 326, September 18, 1346.
250
CDC XI, 602, May 21, 1350; and later as the bishop Nin: Ljubić, “Dva popisa listina,” 112, October 28, 1356;
CDC XII, 440, December 28, 1357.
251
CDC XII, 346, May 6, 1356; CDC XII, 582, June 27, 1359; CDC XVII, 502-3, May 10, 1393.
252
Ponte, Historia ecclesiae Iadrensis IV/2, 196-7.
253
Archbishop Peter Matafari employed the services of Abbot Chrysogonus de Soppe.
254
CDC VIII, 464, November 14, 1317.

53
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

and bishops who were dependent on the archbishop. For instance, while Archbishop Peter
entrusted the position of the vicar to his associate Canon Lawrence, a foreigner, Archbishop
Hugolin relied on another Lawrence, a member of the influential family of Cypriani. In fact,
Lawrence Cypriani was mentioned as the vicar for years, even though the archbishop was present
in his diocese. The examples from Split and Trogir show the shared interest and division of strength
between the (arch)bishop and his chapter. The (arch)bishop wanted to appoint a person of his trust,
while the chapter wanted to retain its influence in administering the diocese.
Another important figure in the diocesan government was the notary, met on the sidelines
of the events which they were hired to record.255 These individuals either originated from the
diocese itself, or they tended to follow the bishop from his place of origin, often staying in the
diocese for years, organizing documents into registers. The most notable register was made by
Nicholas from Eugubio who worked at the court of his countryman, Archbishop Hugolin, during
the 1360s.256
The vicars and notaries were not the only members of the Curia, but the exact extent of the
episcopal familia is harder to ascertain. While James of Foligno, the archbishop of Zadar (r.1299-
1312), was absent, the diocese was managed in 1308 by two vicars, Bishop George of Rab (r.1292-
1313) and Paul Philip de Foligno. While George was the bishop-suffragan of Zadar, Paul was
probably James's relative or a compatriot. The archbishop was visiting the Franciscan friary in
Todi. There he was surrounded by individuals from the nearby places of Foligno and Spello, such
as his notary Christophorus Bonaventure from Foligno,257 Petriolus Transerici, Matthew de
Fulgineo and Lapus de Florencia, the retainers of the archbishop.258 During the visitation of the
monasteries in Zadar in 1306 by the patriarch of Grado a charter was written by John Sclurini de
Spello,259 the archiepiscopal notary by imperial authority. Therefore, the archbishop was
CEU eTD Collection

surrounded by a group of people, whose origins could be mostly traced to the wider area of
Foligno. Some of them had titles, but most were only referred to as retainers.
The complexity of the situation and the variety of individuals appearing at the Curia can
be best exemplified by taking a closer look at the period of Archbishop Hugolin of Split (r.1349-

255
Chittolini, “Episcopalis curiae notarius,” 221-32.
256
Rismondo, “Registar,” 7-64.
257
CDC Supp.II, 358-60, August 6, 1308.
258
CDC VIII, 17-8, August 8, 1301. Petriolus was also a servant of the archbishop. CDC VIII, 24-5, May 3, 1302.
259
Spello is a city near Foligno. On the institution of the notaries with the imperial authority, see: Granić, “Privilegij
cara Sigismunda obitelji Dominis,” 57-62.

54
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

88), for which more sources were preserved. The archbishop surrounded himself with people from
his home province of Umbria, but their exact role in Split is not entirely clear. They supported the
archiepiscopal rule by acting as witnesses, retainers, family members or members of ecclasiastical
orders, even though their activities in Split did not leave many traces in the source material to
speculate.260 From these retainers, the archbishop would recruit ad-hoc officials, with specified
duties and limited role. Andrew from Pergolla, was created and ordained as the archiepiscopal
procurator to negotiate with the Mišetić brothers from Šibenik regarding a lease (ad pastinandum)
of archiepiscopal lands in Šibenik.261 Baldelus Massucii de Eugubio was entrusted by the
archbishop to ensure the payment of papal tithe in 1349, while in 1359 the archbishop sent him to
Venice to pay for procurations for the papal legate.262
Most of the personnel employed in Hugolin's diocesan administration came from the
northern parts of Italy, were themselves canons of the chapter and from Split, or were individuals
who arrived to Split from its hinterland. Canons, retainers, citizens and foreigners, all seamlessly
moved from the archiepiscopal palace, where they observed ecclesiastical appointments, to
communal squares, where they witnessed local business transactions, and on to testify the
introductions into canonical possessions. Did these people know each other? Were they friends,
relatives, or simply connected because of their service to the archbishop? This complexity can be
observed on the example of Rastko, the son of Radoslav, and an archiepiscopal retainer. Rastko
originated from Cetina, one of the large parishes in the hinterlands of Split. When he accompanied
the archiepiscopal representatives to Venice, the Venetian source stated that Rastko was from Split
(de Spalato),263 but in Split he remained from Cetina, or from the hinterlands of the city. In Split
he moves from inter ambos portas,264 where trade deals were made, to the archiepiscopal palace
CEU eTD Collection

260
The following people were mostly found as witnesses at the archiepiscopal palace. Kristofor Augubio or Cristoforo
dicto Testa de Eugubio. Ančić, “Registar Splitskog kaptola,” 60-2; Katić, “Selo Kučine,” 146, 157-8, July 9, 1350;
Berto Branca, the brother of the archbishop. John, the abbot of the monastery of Saint Savin near Fermo, and the vicar
for Croatia-Dalmatia for Cardinal-Legate Egidius Albornoz. CDC XI, 352-3, May 11, 1356. Baldello Mafudi de
Eugubio and Philippello Satuzi de Eugubio were present in Venice during the payment of the procurations of the papal
legate. CDC XII, 576, June 3, 1359. Andrew was the son of Richard from Pergolla, which was a commune in Umbria
that gravitated towards Gubbio. Rismondo, “Registar,” 17-8, February 7, 1362. Brother Nicholas, the monk of Saint
Mary Dalfiolo de Eugubio, and Francisco Berti de Branca de Eugubio. Francisco was the son of Berto Branca and
therefore the archbishop’s nephew. Rismondo, “Registar,” 14-5, December 28, 1361. Brother Nicholas Guataponi de
Eugubio, a Benedictine monk, and Pascutio Augustini de Eugubio. Rismondo, “Registar,” 15-6, January 12, 1362.
261
Krekich, “Documenti” III-IV, 82, November 18, 1362.
262
Rationes decimarum, n. 3744, May 4, 1349; CDC XII, 576, June 3, 1359.
263
CDC XII, 576, June 3, 1359.
264
Ratcho familiare domini archiepiscopi Spalatensis. Rismondo, Pomorski Split, 28, July 8, 1362.

55
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

where he would witness the elections of canons to the cathedral chapter or is present when they
are introduced into their new possession.265 Perbeslav, the son of Radoslav from Cetina, probably
Rastko's brother, also appears as a witness and a retainer of the archbishop.266 Although their
profession is not mentioned, these brothers could have been one of Hugolin's “Croats,”267 or the
soldiers from the hinterland for which chronicler Cutheis claimed that Hugolin loved to employ
their services due to their martial prowess.
The individuals who followed the bishop were empowered through their positions in the
episcopal family and, after their patron died, they would sometimes remain in the diocese, but
would often end up marginalized, mostly due to their own activities.268 Romanus, the son of
Stephen, de Setia was mentioned as the episcopal notary during the reign of Nicholas de Setia, the
archbishop of Zadar (r.1312-20). Romanus was also dispatched to Avignon in order to pay for the
archbishop’s appointment269 and it is possible that he was Nicholas’s brother. Romanus stayed in
the diocese, as member of the diocesan clergy, as he was the one complaining that Nicholas's
successor as the archbishop, John Butovan, was ineligible for the position.270
Attending the archiepiscopal court, participating in the everyday clerical life of the
archbishopric and waiting for a benefice, seems to have been the usual way of entering the
professional clerical career. More examples are known from Split, due to the preserved sources,
but it is hard to ascertain everyone’s success, as those who were unsuccessful disappeared from
the sources. The newly appointed Archbishop Hugolin relied upon Guido de Vincenza as the
archiepiscopal vicar and a notary in 1350, but Guido was not mentioned before or after that year.271

265
Ractcho Radoscaui attended the election of presbyter Vulcina Radoiduplichi. Rismondo, “Registar,” 11-2.
December 12, 1361. Ractecho Radosclaui de Cetina, familiare domini archiepiscopi, attended the election of nobilem
virum Margaritus Margariti. Rismondo, “Registar,” 7-8. December 9-17, 1361. Ractcho quondam Radosclavi de
Zetina, attended the election of Dominic Christofori de Papalis. Rismondo, “Registar,” 47-8. April 2-3, 1366. Ractheco
CEU eTD Collection

condam Radosclavi de Cetina as a witness. Rismondo, “Registar,” 50, April 5, 1366.

266
Perbesclavo Radosclavi de Cetina, familiare domini archiepiscopi. Rismondo, “Registar,” 20-1, February 27,
1362; 27-8, September 12 – October 9, 1362; 20-1, February 27, 1362; 34-5, June 12-13, 1363.
267
Others also infrequently appear as witnesses and who could be put into the same category: Michaelle condam
Radouanj could be the same person as Michael quondam Radoslavi de Clissio. Rismondo, “Registar,” 31-2, May 16,
1363; 47-8, April 2-3, 1366.
268
See the examples mentioned earlier regarding Split and George Hominisdei of Cyprus.
269
MVC I, n.9, July 16, 1317.
270
If contextualized with what is known about the cathedral chapter of Zadar, which was discussed earlier, since
Romanus probably participated in the election of the archbishop, he was among those 30-40 clerics which held
positions in the cathedral or one of the major churches of the archbishopric. See more in the later chapter about The
Apostolic See and the archbishops of Zadar.
271
It is not excluded that he became a canon earlier, but he first appears in Hugolin’s service in 1350. Katić, “Selo
Kučine,” 146, 157-8, July 9, 1350; Ostojić, Metropolitanski kaptol, 82.

56
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

Some individuals were for years in the archbishop's service before obtaining higher ranks.
Buciardo was mentioned during the 1350s as serving the archbishop for years before being granted
access to the cathedral chapter. Some had more luck than others. Cleric Orlandino, the son of
Benedict from Reggio Emilia, appeared as a witness at the curia for some time before being granted
his own benefice.272 But he never joined the cathedral chapter, probably because he was a
foreigner. On the other hand, Nicholas Pouregeni, a priest from Split, appeared for some time as a
witness at the archiepiscopal court before himself being elected as a member of the chapter.273
Therefore, the presence at the Curia and also the service to the archbishop were the usual way in
obtaining higher ecclesiastical positions.
Better known are the fates of episcopal notaries, because after years of service they would
usually receive a benefice to sustain themselves or advance to a new position. For instance, Gerard
of Piacenza was a notary in Zadar under Archbishop Nicholas Matafari. As a reward for his
services, the archbishop probably ensured that Gerard collected fruits of the vacant Saint Michael,
one of the major churches of the city.274 Franciscus, the son of Manfred de Surdis from Piacenza,
served Archbishop Hugolin of Split during the 1350s.275 He seems to have been a professional
who moved from one appointment to another, as he started his notary career in Zadar in the service
of the commune, before moving to the court of the archbishop of Split,276 while by 1360 he became
the notary of the commune of Split.277 Hugolin mostly relied on clerics and would reward them
for their service with benefices. Stanconus, the son of Radovan of Brač, served as a notary in 1360
and was probably rewarded with prebends to sustain himself.278 Most notable was the career of
Nicholas from Gubbio, the compatriot of the archbishop of Split. He worked in the archiepiscopal

272
He received the church of Saint Domnius on Marjan, after the renounciation of Lawrence Cypriani. The act of
receiving the benefice was witnessed by Rastko. Rismondo, “Registar,” 20-1, February 27; 1362; 22-3, April 13-23,
CEU eTD Collection

1362; 34-5, June 12-13, 1363.

273
Nicolao Pouregeni. Rismondo, “Registar,” 7-8, December 9-17, 1361; September 9, 1362. By 1398 Nicholas
became the archpriest. Ostojić, Metropolitanski kaptol, 65.
274
Rationes decimarum, n. 3660, 1338.
275
Franciscus ser Manfredi de Surdis de Placencia, imperiali auctoritate notarius et scriba dicti domini archiepiscop.
CDC XI, 352-3, May 11, 1356.
276
Mentioned in the charter from later period: CDC XIII, 22, May 6, 1360.
277
Krekich, “Documenti” III-IV, 75-6, March 3, 1360.
278
He was a priest, s public notary with the imperial authority and also s scribe of the archiepiscopal curia (presbiter
Stanconus condam Radouani de Bracia, publicus imperiali auctoritate notarius et nunc cuirie archiepiscopalis iuratus
scriba generalis). CDC XIII, 7-8, February 11, 1360; 11, February 28, 1360; Krekich, “Documenti” III-IV, 75-6,
March 3, 1360. He was probably the same as Priest Stanaconus who died in late 1361 or early 1362, after which his
two benefices were given to another cleric. Presbiter Stanconus, clericus, held the churches of Saint Michael de Punta
Sancti Georgii de Monte and Saint Benedict de Monte. Both churches were given to presbiter Bognianus condam
Stanoe. Rismondo, “Registar,” 20-1, February 27, 1362; 22-3, April 13-23, 1362.

57
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

palace for an entire decade, leaving valuable information about the inner workings of the
archbishopric and receiving a prebend as a reward for his services.279
It should be added that with the re-introduction of royal authority in Croatia-Dalmatia after
the 1350s, the local ecclesiastical institutions, the cathedral chapters, were authorized to act as
places of authentication of written documents or loca credibilia. The cathedral canons would
participate in administration of justice, act on royal or private mandates, provide witnesses in cases,
draft, transcribe and issue offical documents under appropriate seal, and maintaining an archive.280
Some of these canons were also authorized as notaries by imperial authority, such as Marin Cutheis
and John, the son of George, from Šibenik, which suggests that their further education was
connected with the bureaucratization of the cathedral chapters in order to better cope with an
increase of work not necessarily connected with chapter’s original purpose.
While the episcopal vicar for the spiritualia gradually appeared side by side with the
bishop, the vicar for the temporal affairs did not became a permanent office as the administration
of the episcopal land holdings was not clearly defined. It is unclear if the individual in charge of
possessions and incomes was strictly called a vicar, as they were attested in sources for Split as
factor, procurator or negotiorum gestor.281 Salimbene appeared at the court of Archbishop
Hugolin as the procurator for archiepiscopal goods and possessions,282 dealing with the customary
incomes given by the communal mills to the archbishopric,283 and as a witness in several sources
pertaining to the possessions, incomes and borders of the archbishopric. I wonder if his duties were
similar to the administrators (economi or yconomi) which appeared in Zadar and which were in
charge of administering the Church properties in the archbishopric. Although the limited sources
do not clarify who appointed them, each ecclesiastical institution had its own economi, including
the cathedral chapter.284 George, the rector of Saint Mary, appeared as the administrator during the
CEU eTD Collection

archiepiscopal vacancy in Zadar, following the death of Archbishop Nicholas in 1367. This would
suggest that he was appointed by the cathedral chapter with a task of managing the properties of

279
Rismondo, “Registar,” 60.
280
On the system itself, see: Matijević Sokol, “Srednjovjekovni arhiv,” 237-257; Szende, “Uses of Archives,” 107-
42; Kőfalvi, “Places of Authentication,” 27-38.
281
During the antiquity the term procurator was used for the administrators of the temporalia of the archbishopric of
Salona (the precursor of Split), Škegro, “Upravitelj dobara Salonitanske crkve,” 19-28.
282
Salimbone prefati domini archiepiscopi factorem ac negotiorum gestorem. CDC XII, 452-4, February 11, 1358.
Krekich, “Documenti” III-IV, 75-6, March 3, 1360.
283
Salimbene, familiaris et procurator, CDC XII, 276-7, February 20, 1355; Katić, “Solinski mlinovi,” 206-7.
284
They are also called the stewards in the literature. Gilchrist, The Church and economic activity, 30; Farlati, Illyricum
Sacrum V, 7, 102-3; CDC VIII, 99-102, April 14, 1305.

58
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

the archbishopric during the vacancy. But he was also mentioned in that position under the new
archbishop and in the company of another administrator, Guido Matafari, the nephew of
Archbishop Nicholas, which suggest that the two economi were appointed some time ago.285 While
the sources do not clarify who appointed administrators, it is possible that the there were usually
one cleric and one laic.
During the 1340s the pope appointed Archdeacon Dessa of Split to manage the entire
bishopric of Trogir as the vicar. The archdeacon rented out the incomes of the bishopric, but he
did not lease the tithes and incomes from the episcopal counties (županije). These counties were
controlled by the župan (iupanus, cuppanus), whose presence and jurisdiction were not entirely
clear. During the period of the early-medieval Kingdom of Croatia-Dalmatia, the župans were
royal officials tasked to administer royal domains. From the thirteenth century the sources note the
existence of župans, appointed by the bishop, in order to ensure better administrative and economic
management over the episcopal land holdings, which could suggest that the župan was just another
name for the vicar for temporalia or the administrator of the properties of the bishopric. In 1263
Bishop Columban of Trogir appointed a patrician from Trogir, Valentin, the son of Peter, as the
župan during the bishop's absence.286 Since Gervasius, the primicerius of the cathedral chapter,
was mentioned in 1264 as the episcopal vicar, it is possible that Valentine was authorized to be the
vicar for the temporalia.287 During 1341 Gregory, the nephew of late Archbishop Peter of Split,
was mentioned as being a župan, although it is not entirely clear if Gregory served as a župan
under his uncle.288 The župans existed in other Dalmatian bishoprics, for instance in Hvar where
local families competed in acquiring the rank of the župan and securing the collection of tithe,
suggesting that the tithe-collection was one of the key functions of the župan.289 The appointment
of Radoslav from Skradin in 1302 as the episcopal župan for the bishopric of Nin reveals that he
had to oversee the secular possessions of the bishopric. According to the source, the župan was to
CEU eTD Collection

be a laic in charge of collecting the incomes of the bishopric and as a reward for his service could

285
Lucić, Povijesna svjedočanstva I, 640; CDC XIV, 132, May 18, 1368.
286
Lucić, Collection, vol. 539, 160-161’, May 31, 1263; Smiljanić, “O položaju i funkciji župana,” 84-7. Ančić, “Od
vladarske curtis do gradskoga kotara,” 212, 234, May 31, 1263. On the institution of royal župans, see: Beuc, Povijest
institucija državne vlasti, 81-5.
287
Monumenta Traguriensia I/1, 23, January 15, 1264; 66, April 22, 1264.
288
Gregori cuppano et nepoti condam archiepiscopi Petri. Splitski spomenici, 29, November 8, 1341; 105-6, January
24, 1342; Smiljanić, “O položaju i funkciji župana,” 73.
289
Listine III, 242; Smiljanić, “O položaju i funkciji župana,” 87.

59
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

be promoted to the lower clerical orders.290 Therefore, it can be surmised that local bishops,
including the archbishop of Split and the bishop of Trogir, appointed ad-hoc officials who, acting
under different names, were tasked with specific roles. Parallel to these, as a more permanent
office, the župan administered the episcopal land holdings in different parishes.
Instead of a conclusion, another example can underscore the diversity and complexity of a
Dalmatian episcopal Curia. Under Archbishop Andrew from Gualdo in Italy (r.1389-1403), the
citizens of Split, the population from the city’s surroundings and the newcomers from Italy
continued to intermingle with each other. Magister Dominic from Perugia, which was near Gualdo,
handled the daily affairs of the archiepiscopal court.291 Bishop Matthew, who appeared during
Hugolin’s period and was probably native to Split, was tasked in 1390 as the vicar for spiritual
issues.292 He remained active at the Curia for the rest of the decade, but from 1396 the
archiepiscopal vicar was Canon Duymus Silvestri, whose family was among the leaders of the
revolt of 1398 in which the archbishop participated.293 The cathedral chapter was a place of active
notary activity as the locus credibilis, with at least two canons being also the notaries by imperial
authority, but two clerics, one of them a canon, also served as the scribes at the archiepiscopal
curia.294 Lastly, Buldogna Volchichouich appeared as the župan in charge of the archiepiscopal
temporal possessions and his name suggests local origins, from the hinterland of Split.295
Therefore, the archbishop relied on the established patterns of recruitment by retaining the services
of experienced personnel combined with his own trusted associates.

II.5. Episcopal Finances

Since the Church was one of the largest landholders in medieval society, its local leaders,
the bishops, exercised considerable temporal power.296 The core of the temporal holdings held by
CEU eTD Collection

the archbishopric of Split was gradually accumulated over the centuries from Croatian and

290
Smiljanić, “O položaju i funkciji župana,” 85.
291
Ostojić, Metropolitanski kaptol, 84, July 21, 1393.
292
Farlati, Illyricum Sacrum IV, 396.
293
Ostojić, Metropolitanski kaptol, 73, 97; Farlati, Illyricum Sacrum III, 349.
294
Cleric Dominic, the son of Dragoslav, Mayconich was a notary with imperial authority and a scribe of the
archbishop. Canon Jacob, the son of Peter of Martin. CDC XVII, 530-1, September 6, 1393; XVIII, 108.
295
procurator, negatorium gestor et iupanus. CDC XVII, 418, February 11, 1391.
296
Lunt, Papal revenues; Gilchrist, The Church and economic activity, 23-47.

60
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

Hungarian kings, who issued a number of donations and confirmations to the archbishops.297 These
properties were then increased by donations through last wills, so much that by the mid-fourteenth
century the city council was worried that the Church controls too much and proceeded to
implement decisions limiting the grants of imovable properties.298 Curiously, two centuries earlier,
in 1162, the community of Split tried to limit the grants of properties to the Church, which could
have been connected to the political struggle between Hungary and Byzantium over Dalmatia, but
the papal threats, likely on the instigation of local clergy, probably persuaded the community to
revoke the decision.299 However, the ecclesiastical resistance was missing during the similar
attempts made by the commune in mid-fourteenth century.
The archbishopric of Zadar was richer than its Spalatin counterpart, but its ecclesiastical
land holdings were smaller and mostly held by the Benedictine monasteries, as well as individual
churches. Trogir was somewhere in-between, with the bishops controlling large territories, but also
sharing some lands with the cathedral chapter and local monasteries.300 The decline of the
ecclesiastical land holdings was concurrent with the growth of the commune as its members
mounted pressure on the properties, incomes and rights of the churches and monasteries.
The episcopal finances can hardly be discussed separately without considering the revenues
of the entire bishopric, but it is not always possible to put the various pieces of information into
context. For instance, an important source of revenue were tithes, primarily collected in
agricultural products.301 The bishoprics tended to share the jurisdiction in the collection of tithes
within the communal border with the city council, what was the case in Trogir in 1285,302 or lease

297
For the royal grants to the various ecclesiastical institutions in Dalmatia prior to the fourteenth century, see: Budak,
“Foundations and Donations as a Link between Croatia and the Dalmatian Cities,” 483-90.
298
Statute of Split, Statuta nova, cap. 25, August 6, 1347 – 1354.
299
CEU eTD Collection

CDC II, 93, June 9, 1162; Novak, Povijest Splita, 96-8.

300
This type of information is scattered across various works. See works by Lovre Katić for the territory of Split,
Serđo Dokoza for Zadar and scattered information for Trogir in Lucić and Farlati. Dusa, Episcopal Cities, 107-18.
301
On the development of tithe in Croatia-Dalmatia, see: Schmid, “Die Grundzüge und Grundlagen der Entwicklung
des kirchlichen Zehntrechts,” 423-454; Dusa, Episcopal Cities, 97-106. On tithe in general, see: Dodds, “Managing
Tithes,” 125-140; Ladurie and Goy, Tithe and agrarian history; Catherine Boyd, Tithes and Parishes in Medieval
Italy, 178-95. The members of the Dalmatian dioceses paid tithes on certain agricultural products, which they
themselves wanted to restrict, while the bishops were interested in increasing the number of taxed products. For
instance, in 1267 the citizens of Trogir had the bishop of Trogir issue a confirmation that the citizens are not subject
to tithe. The bishop demanded tithe on wine, which was, according to his words, “paid to other Dalmatian bishops,”
and also tithe on gardens and mills. Instead the citizens were required only to pay tithe on grain, lentils and lambs.
Farlati, Trogirski biskupi, 184-9. In 1285 it was settled that the commune would collect fines from non-paymet of
tithes. Farlati, Trogirski biskupi, 206-7. During the provincial synod in Split (1325/26), it was stated that tithe should
be paid regularly by cathedral and parochial churches. Farlati, Illyricum Sacrum III, 419-20.
302
Farlati, Trogirski biskupi, 206-7, December 30, 1285.

61
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

out the tithe collection to the commune, as was done in Split throughout later Middle Ages. In fact,
the episcopal revenues can be ascertained by comparing the leases on tithe gathering and
comparing them with the episcopal financial obligations towards the Apostolic See.
The popes were not only the centre of the ecclesiastical hierarchy but also the head of an
ever-growing administration which progressively required more incomes to sustain itself. The
Camera apostolica dealt with the administration of the papal finances and expanded considerably
during the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries in order to deal with tithes, crusading taxes and other
incomes that the popes collected.303 During the second half of the thirteenth century the popes
regularly collected common services (servitia communia), paid by higher prelates who received
papal appointments and which totalled to around one third of the first year’s revenue of the
benefices.304 Since it was expected for the bishops to pay the fee either personally by travelling to
the Curia or employing proctors, it is clear that as an effect its enforcement led to tying the
episcopate more closely to the Apostolic See.305 The system was further promoted by Pope
Nicholas IV in 1289, who shared half of various papal incomes with the cardinals, including the
common services. This meant that the cardinals had direct financial interest in the appointments.306
The first sources about the payment of common services coincide with an active papal
involvement in appointing the bishops of Croatia-Dalmatia during and after the 1290s. In 1299 the
archbishop of Zadar promised to pay 250 fl., while his successor had to pay 400 fl. in 1314.307 It
is safe to assume that the archbishopric did not quickly become richer but that the papal collectors
reassessed the archiepiscopal revenues and prescribed a matching payment. During the same
period the archbishops of Split were expected to pay 200 fl.308 As these payments were one third
CEU eTD Collection

303
Weiß, “The Curia: Camera,” 220-38; Ullmann, Short History of the Papacy, 160-1; Rollo-Koster, Avignon and its
Papacy, 154-65; Mollat, The Popes at Avignon, 285-94; Partner, “Camera Papae: problems of Papal Finance,” 55-68;
Weakland, “Administrative and Fiscal Centralization under Pope John XXII,” 54/1, 39-54; 54/2, 285-310.
304
There were two payments: the common services (servitia communia) and petty services (servitia minuta), which
were paid as expenses to the cardinals and the servants of the chancery for the necessary documentation. For the
fiscalization of appointments to ecclesiastical offices, see: Lunt, Papal Revenues I, 81-107; Ullman, Short History of
the Papacy, 161; Stump, Reforms of the Council of Constance, 59-60.
305
There is no literature analysing proctors in Croatia-Dalmatia. Regarding proctors in the bishopric of Zagreb, see:
Jerković, “Who were the Proctors of Bishops of Zagreb,” 89-110. Compare with: Zutshi, “Proctors acting for English
Petitioners,” 15-29.
306
Quaglioni, Storia della Chiesa: La crisi del Trecento e il papato avignonese, 186-7. Lunt, Papal revenues I, 26-7,
81-91.
307
MVC I, 57, July 16, 1299; 58, August 19, 1312.
308
MVC I, 122, June 25, 1349.

62
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

of annual incomes, that means that the papal tax collectors evaluated the archbishopric of Zadar to
be worth 1200 fl. and the archbishopric of Split to 600 fl.
The situation with the bishopric of Trogir was different. Faced with the mounting pressure
on the bishopric from all sides, Bishop Columban (r.1255-76) petitioned the Apostolic See to
protect the properties of the bishopric. The pope listed the possessions of the bishop, but without
stating how much they were worth.309 Some of the protected places were lost in 1298 when the
parish of Šibenik was elevated to the rank of bishopric.310 The loss of Šibenik led to the weakening
of the episcopal authority as the commune started to increasingly limit and appropriate the
episcopal finances, properties and rights. The problems regarding the cathedral fabrica was
mentioned earlier, but in 1305 the commune forced the bishop to relinquish the control over the
harshest crimes in the episcopal lands of Gustirna and Dubravica to the communal court. Although
the jurisdiction was still officially in the hands of the bishop, the commune would collect the entire
fine and then give the half to the bishop.311 The next year the commune started to take – sometimes
legally, sometimes not - some properties of the bishopric within the city in order to expand the
communal square.312 The financial effects of the loss of Šibenik can be directly observed by
looking at the payment of the communal services as the bishop of Šibenik was required to pay
150fl., while the bishop of Trogir only paid 74fl.313 Therefore, according to the papal tax collectors,
the bishopric of Šibenik was twice as rich as the bishopric of Trogir, meaning that the income in
Šibenik was estimated to 450fl. and in Trogir to only 222fl. The numbers suggest that the bishop
of Trogir was prior to 1298 comparable in finances to the archbishop of Split, which would explain
the occasional conflicts between the two prelates during the thirteenth and the fourteenth century.
CEU eTD Collection

309
Pope Clement IV (r.1265-68) granted protection in 1266 which was confirmed in 1274 by Pope Gregory X (r.1271-
76). The popes protected the cathedral, the monasteries of Saints Nicholas and Michael and the parish church of Saint
Jacob in Šibenik, with all its incomes, as well as the parishes and tithes in Drid, Gusterna and Dubrovac. In addition,
the popes protected the villages with tithes of Nevest, Radošić, Gradac, Ostrog, Špiljan and Saint Peter, and in Zagora.
CDC V, 380-81, June 13, 1266; VI, 89, September 11, 1274. Some of these places were later disputed with the
bishopric of Šibenik.
310
The issue is discussed in greater detail later, but in 1298 the bishop lost the income of tithes from Šibenik. With
the establishment of the new bishopric of Šibenik, tithes were divided between the bishop and the cathedral chapter,
while the commune gave certain properties to maintain the bishop and the clergy.
311
The harshest crimes included murder, wounding, theft, robbery, defilement, rape, adultery, use of weapons, etc.
CDC VIII, 94-5, January 15, 105; Farlati, Trogirski biskupi, 212-3; Dokoza, “Papinski legat Gentil i trogirske crkvene
prilike,” 72.
312
Lucić, Povijesna svjedočanstva I, 365, May 29, 1306; Benyovsky Latin, Srednjovjekovni Trogir, 52-3.
313
Eubel, Hierarchia Catholica I, 398, 490.

63
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

These numbers can be misleading as prior to 1298 the bishop of Trogir was embroiled in protracted
dispute over Šibenik, which put a constant drain on the episcopal incomes.
The leases of episcopal revenues to the members of the commune in Split offer a more
direct information about the ecclesiastical incomes. Although the main aim of the lease was to
provide the bishopric with quick cash, it also motivated the, mostly, richer nobility to be invested
with the interests of the bishopric. The tithe within the territory of the city was regularly leased out
to the commune and then divided into four parts.314 Dominic Luccari (r.1328-48) leased out tithe
to the commune in 1343,315 while Hugolin (r.1349-88) did the same twice for five years, first in in
1350 for the price of 110 fl.,316 and in 1358 for 150 ducats per year.317 Lastly, in 1398 Archbishop
Andrew leased out most of his tithes for 350 ducats per year, for 9 years, while in 1409 Archbishop
Domnius received 200 ducats from the commune for the tithe for that year.318 These sources show
that the lease was not uncommon, although the gradual rise in the amount can be attributed to
political reasons and inflation. Lastly, it was also quite common for the archbishops to lease out
tithe collection of individual villages to its inhabitants.319
The commune leased out the tithe in 1358 amidst the war between Venice and Hungary,
which caused solvency problems for the commune. The city council appointed one of its members
as the designated communal collector of tithe, showing the permanent character of this institution,
but until 1362 the commune was often late with payments.320 Besides leasing out tithe, Archbishop

314
The traditional division into four parts - for the archbishop, the clergy, the cathedral and the poor - was repeated
and codified during the provincial synod in 1325/26. Farlati, Illyricum Sacrum III, 420.
315
Tithe was collected by two officials - Micha Petri Madii and Micha Madii Miche - and submitted at the communal
palace. Krekich, “Documenti” II, 157, November 16, 1343.
316
The chapter and the archbishop authorized Guido de Vincentia, a canon and the archiepiscopal vicar, to give tithes
to the commune for 400 libri per year (c.110 ducats). ASN, 24, f. 98; Ostojić, Metropolitanski kaptol, 97.
317
“Zapisnici Velikog vijeća,” 100, 224, November 25, 1358.
CEU eTD Collection

318
Farlati, Illyricum Sacrum III, 348, August 3, 1398; 361, December 24, 1409.
319
During 1390s Archbishop Andrew of Split leased out tithes in one archiepiscopal village to the inhabitants of that
place. Ostojić, Metropolitanski kaptol, 57.
320
During 1359 the commune appointed four noblemen to count and collect tithe from wine and grain. For the decision
to write down the grain tithe: “Zapisnici Velikog vijeća,” 103, 238, May [no day], 1359; for the decision to appoint
four council members to collect the tithe for wine and grain: “Zapisnici Velikog vijeća,” 106, September [no day],
1359. In April 1358 the archbishop demanded tithe for 1357 and the city council decided to negotiate with him.
“Zapisnici Velikog vijeća,” 89, 184, April 22, 1358. The negotiations probably led to prolongations as in December
1358 the commune decided to pay tithe directly from the impoverished communal treasury. 18 against 17. “Zapisnici
Velikog vijeća,” 101, 230, December [no day], 1358. The commune was required to collect the tithe by the end of the
festivities of Saint Luke (October 18), but the money for 1359 was gathered by March 1360. Krekich, “Documenti”
III-IV, 75-6, March 3, 1360. With the stabilisation of the political situation, the commune was able to collect tithe on
time. In November 1362 the archbishop confirmed that he received 150 ducats from Jacxa Nichole Matthei. Krekich,
“Documenti” III-IV, 81, November 14, 1362.

64
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

Hugolin also leased out his mills for 150 ducats,321 which was less than the communal mills,322
and the revenues of the entire archbishopric for 600 ducats.323 Everything was leased out to the
local nobility, but it is unclear what was included under the revenues (pro redditibus) and how the
entire lease was shared between the archbishop and the clergy. Therefore, under Archbishop
Hugolin, the tithe (150), the mills (150) and other revenues of the archbishopric (600) gave out the
total annual income of 900 which was higher that the papal estimate (600). If the archbishop
retained the entire income of the mills, the revenue and ¼ of tithes, that made him comparably
richer than some municipal officials.324 It should be added that while the commune had to pay its
officials, the archbishop could rely on distributing benefices to attract individuals into his service.
It is unclear if the archbishop regularly leased out the collection of his revenues, as was done with
the tithe and, to a degree, with the mills. The estimates of the papal tax collectors remained constant
during this period, but, due to the political and economic conditions, the revenues of the
archbishopric decreased by at the end of the fourteenth century – corroborated by the decreased
payment of the papal tithe325 – while the revenues sharply increased by the mid-fifteenth
century.326
However, what should be emphasized is that the local urban nobility had personal financial
interest in obtaining lucrative contracts with the archbishopric, as the procurement of taxes or land
incomes was a frequent form of financial activity in the late Middle Ages as it constituted the basis

321
The majority of the mills were located on the river Jadro in the nearby place of Solin. The archbishopric owned
some of the mills, while in others collected the sixth part of the income as part of tithe. Katić, “Solinski mlinovi,” 201-
19; Nikolić Jakus, Formation of Dalmatian Urban Nobility, 147-8.
322
Mentioned in January 1358 and leased to Duimus Marin from the Petracha family. The mills were in Solin. In
comparison, the communal mills were leased out for 1000 libri (lira), which would amout to 278 ducats. Ančić, “Ser
Ciprijan Zaninov,” 55; Nikolić Jakus, Formation of Dalmatian Urban Nobility, 161, f. 684. Raukar, Zadar u XV
CEU eTD Collection

stoljeću, 299.
323
The incomes were rented to three noblemen and one archiepiscopal retainer. Thomas, the son of Albert de Madii,
Madio, the son of Miche Dobri, John, the son of Pervoslav de Grisogonis, and John Jacob, from the diocese of
Florence. Krekich, “Documenti” III-IV, 76, March 3, 1360.
324
The salary of the podestà of the city for 1357 was 500 ducats. “Zapisnici Velikog vijeća,” 76, July 16, 1357. The
incomes of the commune of Split for 1345-46 were 15055 libri (4182 ducats), but at the same time the expenses were
14933 libri (4148 ducats), meaning that nothing was left in the treasury. Raukar, “Komunalna društva u Dalmaciji u
XIV. Stoljeću,” 200. It is counted in the ration 1:3.6. Raukar, Zadar u XV stoljeću, 299.
325
At the beginning of the 1380s the clergy of Split paid 60 ducats per one term. No sources exist for the second half
of the 1380s, but the Western Schism and the constant wars in the kingdom resulted that during the 1390s the
archbshop paid between 15 and 30 ducats, or not at all. CDC XVI, 360-1, April 27, 1383; XVII, 468-70, October 29,
1392; XVII, 617-9, September 8, 1394; XVIII, 60-1, October 7, 1395; XVIII, 125-6, June 10, 1396.
326
During the mid-fifteenth century the incomes of the archbishopric were leased out for 1100 (1448-1464), and
occassionaly for 1250 ducats (1464). Raukar, “Ser Baptista de Augubio,” 294.

65
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

of wealth.327 While the archbishop ensured a regular stream of incomes, the activities of the
nobility directly supported the archiepiscopal authority, as the nobility sought favourable relations
with the archbishop in order to obtain lucrative contracts.
The leasing out of the incomes of the bishopric of Trogir occurred only once, during the
1340s, which suggests that the method of lease was used only during exceptional times. The
bishopric was managed by Archdeacon Dessa of Split, who was appointed as the vicar while the
bishop was excommunicated. Dessa rented out the revenue for 1600 libri, or 444 fl., except some
tithes and smaller incomes which were kept.328 Since the bishop was evaluated by the papal tax
collectors to 222 fl., it is clear that the bishopric was richer than what was assessed.
The value of the archbishopric of Zadar is harder to ascertain. The archbishopric was a
relatively new institution, owning less properties than the city’s major monasteries and their
collegues in Split.329 In addition, the local monasteries attracted more donations than the
archbishopric. This was particularly the case with Saint Chrysogonus as the monastery was a
gathering place of local families, who connected their identity with the existence of this
Benedictine institution.330 Therefore, it is understandable that the Serenissima tried to ensure a
strong financial position of the archbishopric, since it was originally a Venetian project, with
archbishops coming from Venice. The contracts of 1204 and 1247, by which Zadar submitted itself
to Venice, stipulated that the commune was required to give the archbishop every year 1500 good
marten’s fur (marturina), and also one third of taxes from foreign ships entering the Zaratin
harbor.331 The actual incomes of the archbishopric in money is harder to assess, besides the
information on communal services, according to which the diocese was worth around 1200 fl. In
comparison, the Zadar’s spiritual superior, the patriarch of Grado, only paid 250 fl., meaning that
he was assessed to 750 fl. and which meant that the metropolitan was poorer that his suffragan-
archbishops, which is telling of the relative strength and relations of each see.332
CEU eTD Collection

327
While this statement was based on obtaining municipal incomes, it can also be applied to the incomes of the Church.
Raukar, “Ser Baptista,” 293-4.
328
Rački, “Notae,” 232, May 13, 1343; Lucić, Collection, vol 542, 454, May 2, 1345; Lucić, Povijesna svjedočanstva
I, 544.
329
Unlike in Split, the mills in Zadar were exclusively owned by the urban nobility of Zadar. Nikolić Jakus, Formation
of Dalmatian Urban Nobility, 149-50; Peričić, “Stare mlinice zadarskog kraja,” 143.
330
The author compares the situation in Zadar with Split where no other ecclesiastical institution developed which
could contest the archbishopric as the most important institution in the city. Dokoza, “Samostanski i nadbiskupski
posjedi,” 241-56.
331
Beuc, “Statut zadarske komune,” 513-4.
332
For Grado, see: Eubel, Hierarchia Catholica I, 265-6.

66
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

The three selected bishoprics can be further compared by shortly analyzing the collection
of the papal tithe.333 The papal tithe was regularly mentioned from the 1290s for special occasions
such as crusades, but it is unknown how much money was collected.334 With the Avignon popes
the papal tithe was regularly introduced,335 but the payment of tithes in Croatia-Dalmatia was
preserved for the period 1349-51 and particularly after 1372, while the sources for earlier periods
were usually preserved only in exceptional cases.336 A probable reason for the uneven preservation
of sources can be deduced from the comment by Norman Housley, who stated that, as the papal
revenues suffered due to conflict between England and France, the Avignon popes proceeded to
better tax local Churches in the eastern parts of Christendom.337
The tithe was not collected in Zadar during the period 1349-51, as the archbishop did not
dare to return to his diocese due to his problems with Venice.338 Instead, the amount of 200 ducats
was collected in 1372 as arrears for previous tithes.339 It is unclear if the tithe was for the period
of 1349 or for some other two- and three-year tithes introduced by other popes. The local clergy
submitted 280 florins for Split in 1349, while in 1372 the subcollector received 100 ducats for
arrears of the two-year and three-year tithes introduced by popes Innocent VI (1352-62) and Urban
V (1362-70).340 The bishopric of Trogir submitted 193 florins in 1351 for the entire three-year
tithe, which collection was probably postponed due to the problems between the bishop and his
commune.341
As the financial pressure was mounting on these bishoprics by the end of the fourteenth
century, their bishops had more problems in making regular payments to the Apostolic See.342 Part
of the problem was due to the papal decision, from the second half of the fourteenth century, which

333
On the papal tithe or the income tax, see: Lunt, Papal Revenues I, 71-7; Mollat, The Popes at Avignon, 321-2.
334
CEU eTD Collection

In 1296 the pope called for collection of a special tithe aimed at liberating the Kingdom of Sicily. The call went to
the patriarchs of Grado and Aquileia, archbishops of Zadar and Split, entire Dalmatia and the diocese of Ferrara, but
it is unknown how much money was collected. CDC VII, 248-9, August 11, 1296.
335
Pope Clement V (1305-14) introduced a six-year tithe in order to organize a crusade. Pope John XXII (1316-34)
ordered the collection of two-year and three-year tithes, while Pope Clement VI (1342-52) ordered the collection of a
three-year tithe.
336
For instance, two sources were preserved in the case of the Benedictine monastery of Saint Chrysogonus, which
mentioned the payment of the six-year tithe introduced by Pope Clement V and tithe of Pope John XXII. CDC IX,
128-9, August 8, 1323; CDC IX, 453-4, February 10, 1329.
337
Lunt, Papal Revenues I, 12-5; Housley, Italian Crusades, 178-85.
338
Rationes decimarum, n.3663, 1349.
339
Rationes decimarum, n.3668, May 6, 1372.
340
CDC XIV, 417-8, May 31, 1372.
341
Rationes decimarum, n.3754, March 22, 1351.
342
For these problems, see Chapter V.

67
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

specified that the newly appointed bishops had to pay the backlog on payments from their
predecessors. In general, it is not clear if the bishops ever resisted the payments of common
services, but some of them were lax, as they would initially promise to pay, make a frist payment
and then stop paying at all. Therefore, by observing the bishoprics of Croatia-Dalmatia on the level
of the entire Christendom, it can be concluded that these dioceses were generally poor, and that
the financial pressure on them was increasing during this period.343
CEU eTD Collection

343
This can also be observed by comparing the low incomes obtained in Croatia-Dalmatia with the budget and other
incomes of the Papal Curia. The incomes of Pope Clement VI were on average 187000 florins per year (Lunt, Papal
Revenues I, 14). On the other hand, the total papal tithe collected in Dalmatia between 1349 and 1351 amounted to
around 735 florins for the entire archbishopric of Split and around 30 florins for the archbishopric of Zadar, although
tithe was not collected at all in the diocese of Zadar. Based on: Rationes decimarum, 426-73.

68
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

Chapter III. Popes, Kings and Oligarchs (c.1270-c.1330)

The eastern Adriatic coastline in the second half of the thirteenth century was home to
several smaller bishoprics, embedded into several semi-autonomous communes. Although the
dioceses varied in size and population, encompassing a large territory, these bishops first had to
consider the interest of the communes in which their cathedral was located. Urban communities
took pride in their own particularism, tradition and civic development, as well as being the driving
force behind the bishopric, providing priest, donations and services. These cities also interacted
with their hinterland and with communes across the sea, fostering constant exchange of people,
goods and knowledges. The citizens intermarried with the rural nobility, exhanged with them lands
or even entered their service. In turn, these noble familes shared similar internal development with
their counterparts in Slavonia and Hungary. The communes shared interchangeable social and
economic organization with the Italian cities, with clerks, intellectuals and traders constantly
moving across from one side to the other. Therefore, in order to understand the ecclesiastical
development, it is necessary to consider the history of interaction between these communes and
their bishops as well as the association with the outside powers.
The surrounding powers interested in controlling Croatia-Dalmatia had to consider the
local institutions as well as the support or resistance coming from the local rural nobility, cities,
clergy and patriciate. Croatia-Dalmatia was in the close proximity to the pope in Rome, which
stimulated easier access to the Holy See, both for the Dalmatian bishops, but also for the local
communes and the nobility. Powers such as Venice, and to a lesser degree Naples, were interested
in controlling the Dalmatian port cities as a means of extending their commercial lines or as a
staging ground for further expansion. Most of Croatia-Dalmatia was controlled by the Hungarian
kings whose gradual weakening enabled the rise of regional powers.
CEU eTD Collection

During the period of c.1270-c.1320 Zadar was controlled by the Republic of Venice, while
the rest of Croatia-Dalmatia was under a nominal rule of the Árpád kings of Hungary. The short
period of energetic royal activity and reforms undertaken by Béla IV (r.1235-70) were undermined
by conflicts during the reigns of his successors Stephen V (r.1270-72) and Ladislas IV (r.1272-
90). These problems enabled the aristocratic clan of the Šubići to become the true authority in
Croatia-Dalmatia. The alliance between the Šubići and the Neapolitan Angevins during the 1290s
advanced the ascension to the throne of Charles Robert (r.1301-42) whose efforts to restore the
royal power were effective in Hungary. The royal involvement in Croatia-Dalmatia, combined

69
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

with the mounting local opposition, led to the diminishing of the Šubići power. The void did not
lead to the restoration of royal authority but resulted in anarchy among the Croatian oligarchs while
the Dalmatian cities sought Venetian protection.344
During the 1240s the Kingdom of Hungary-Croatia was seriously exhausted by the Mongol
attack. To prevent any further invasions King Béla IV undertook reforms to strengthen the
defenses, but which in turn gave more power to the local territorial lords. These oligarchs came to
play a major role in resisting the royal authority and carving up the kingdom into their spheres of
influence.345 Part of the problem was due to the tense relations between Béla IV and his son
Stephen, the rex junior and future king (r.1270-72), as the two competed for power during the
1260s. To strengthen his position Stephen formed a marriage alliance in 1269 with King Charles
I of the Neapolitan Angevins, which had long and lasting consequences on the political landscape
of Hungary.346 The alliance also served the interest of King Charles, who in 1266 obtained the
Kingdom of Sicily (Naples). The king was involved in an aggressive expansion against the
Byzantine Empire and needed allies, particularly since the Apostolic See was not always a staunch
supporter of the royal expansion against the Byzantium.347 Following the succession of Stephen’s
son Ladislas to the throne in 1272, connected with the court of Naples through marriage, the court
of Naples appeared as a party primarily interested in strengthening the royal authority the Kingdom
of Hungary-Croatia.
With the conquest of Naples and the formation of marriage alliance with the Árpád dynasty,
the Neapolitan Angevins became interested in promoting trade and cooperation with Dalmatian
cities,348 while establishing local alliances in order to suppress the Adriatic pirate activities.349

344
Raukar, “La Dalmazia e Venezia,” 63-88; Csukovits, Az Anjouk birodalma, 10-51; Klaić, Povijest Hrvata, II, 9-
CEU eTD Collection

61; Engel, Realm of St. Stephen, 107-208; Homan, Gli Angioini di Napoli, 80-148.
345
Zsoldos, “Kings and Oligarchs in Hungary,” 211-42; Zsoldos, “Province e oligarchi,” 23-58; Fügedi, Castle and
Society, 50-102.
346
Charles grand-daughter Elizabeth (Isabelle) married Stephen's son Ladislas (future king, r.1272-90), while
Charles’s son Charles II wed Mary, Stephen's daughter. Engel, Realm of St. Stephen, 107; Hóman, Gli Angioni di
Napoli, 29-30. For the conflict between Stephen V and his father Béla IV during 1260s, see: Zsoldos, Családi ügy:
IV. Béla és István ifjabb király.
347
Jean Dunbabin presumed that the alliance was signed to give Charles an ally in the Adriatic and give support to the
Angevin expansion into Albania by preventing Emperor Michael VIII of Byzantium from seeking a similar alliance
with Hungary and expanding the Byzantine sphere of influence. Dunbabin, Charles I of Anjou, 90, 94-5, 184; Purcell,
Papal Crusading Policy, 86-8; Schein, Fideles crucis, 52-3, 58-9; Weiler, “Terrae Sanctae in the Political Discourse
of Latin Christendom,” 1-36.
348
Peričić, “Zadar u doba prvih veza s Anžuvincima,” 251-65.
349
In 1274 the Angevins formed an alliance with Split and Šibenik in order to fight the pirates coming from Omiš. It
seems that during 1275 the Angevins controlled the islands of Hvar and Brač. Novak, Povijest Splita, 174-9; Karbić,

70
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

These activities strengthened the Angevin expansion in the eastern Mediterranean, reinforced the
weak reign of King Ladislas by settling the warlike situation in Croatia-Dalmatia during the 1270s
and showed what importance influencing or controlling Croatia-Dalmatia would have for the
expansion of the Angevins’ influence.
Although different noble families competed for power in Croatia and Dalmatia, the Šubići
of Bribir, a nobility of local origins, strenghten their rule over the region around the mid-thirteenth
century (Fig. 6).350 They did this by obtaining positions of the elected counts in the coastal cities
and receiving Bribir as a hereditary county from King Béla IV in 1251, thus creating their basis of
power. The county was located closer to the Venetian-controlled Zadar, than to Trogir or Split, but
it was also surrounded by the bishoprics and cities of Šibenik, Skradin, Knin and Nin, which were
also - besides Knin – the first places in which the Šubići were able to become counts during the
1260.351 The family’s true rise in power occurred during the reign of Paul Šubić (c.1245-1312).
Paul was able to build clientelist relationship with the Dalmatian urban nobility, use the weakening
of the royal court between the 1270s and the 1290s by forming alliances with parties struggling to
control the royal court and to place his family members in key positions in the Dalmatian cities.352
In 1290 King Ladislas died after a reign marked by the weakening of the royal authority
and the rise in power of the oligarchs. The king left no heir which meant that several candidates
with different local support wanted to claim the throne. The winner was Andrew III (r.1290-1301),
who was crowned on the instigation of the highest noble and ecclesiastical elites in the kingdom.
But while Andrew claimed the throne and maintained it mostly through the support of the

Šubići of Bribir, 55. In some works, the alliance with local cities was viewed as potentially being used against Trogir.
Lučić, Povijesna svjedočanstva I, 253-4.
350
On the family, see: Karbić, Šubići of Bribir, 27-44; Klaić, Bribirski knezovi, 3-21.
351
Paul’s brother George was the count of Šibenik (r.1267-1303), while his uncle James was the count of Nin in 1267.
CEU eTD Collection

It is unclear when they took Skradin, as there are no direct sources for that. Karbić, Šubići of Bribir, 42, 52.
352
Damir Karbić views Paul as a partisan of Joachim of Gutkeled kindred, who, together with Henry Kőszegi,
attempted to seize power in the kingdom during the turmoil following the death of King Stephen V in 1272. Their
main opponent was the Csák family. Henry was the ban of Slavonia in 1267-70 and 1273-74 and the count of Split in
1270. Joachim Gutkeled was the ban of Slavonia in 1270 and 1272 and the count of Split in 1272. While Paul was the
count of Split, Ban Maurice, the deputy to Ban Henry Kőszegi of Slavonia, held the position of the podestà of Split,
an office lower in rank than that of the city's count, suggesting division of influence between Henry and Paul on the
local level. Ban Henry Kőszegi was killed in September 1274, temporarily weakening the Gutkeled-Kőszegi party,
while around that time Paul was also deposed as the maritime ban. But this was only temporary as during 1275 King
Ladislas appointed two new bans, which reinstated the Crown's shaky connection with the Gutkeled-Kőszegi families.
John Kőszegi became the ban of entire Slavonia, while Nicholas Gutkeled became the ban of entire Croatia-Dalmatia.
Nicholas was sent in mid-1275 to Croatia-Dalmatia in order to investigate the disputes between the cities. Novak,
Povijest Splita, 438; Zsoldos, “A Henrik-fiak: A Héder nembéli Kőszegiek ‘családi története,’” 651-61; Karbić, Šubići
of Bribir, 46-50, 285-97; Lucić, Povijesna svjedočanstva I, 257-8.

71
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

Hungarian clergy, his reign was marked by constant rebellions from the powerful oligarchs and
the growing threat to the royal rule by the Angevins.353
Initially, the Neapolitan Angevins wanted to support their interests in the kingdom by
sending bishops and barons to take over the kingdom for the Angevin dynasty and supporting the
reign of Ladislas’s widow, Queen Elizabeth, herself member of the Angevin dynasty. 354 By
January 1292 the Angevin court intended to install Charles Martel (1271-95) who took the title of
the king of Hungary. Martel was the son of Charles II (r.1285–1309) and Queen Mary (c.1257-
1323), the daughter of Stephen V of Hungary and sister of Ladislas. The pretender’s first goal was
to send emissaries to Croatia-Dalmatia during 1292 in order to gather support from the local
communes and the nobility. Since the communes stalled with their answers and the royal envoys
lacked funding, the missions were unsuccessful. Charles Martel reassessed his plans and decided
to directly invade the kingdom, as during 1294 he was gathering mercenaries.355
Much has been written about overstating or downplaying the papal support for the
Angevins’ claim to the throne, and the same opposing narratives exist regarding the contacts
between the dynasty and the Šubići.356 It seems that Pope Nicholas IV (r.1288-92) did not support
the Angevin claim, but this did not stop Charles Martel from planning to seize the throne, while
the dynasty was able to obtain support from Celestine (July-December 1294) and Boniface VIII
(r.1294-1303).357 The Angevins were also trying to establish contacts with various Croatian and
Hungarian oligarchs. Most of them seems to have been more interested in using the contacts with
the Angevin court as a bargaining chip in their constant power struggle with King Andrew III and
were not really interested in an actual change on the royal throne.358
CEU eTD Collection

353
For an overview of various pretenders and Andrew’s coronation and reign, see: Kosztolnyik, “Remarks on Andrew
III of Hungary,” 273-90; Štefánik, “The Morosinis in Hungary under King Andrew III,” 3-15; Zsoldos, “III. András,”
119-227.
354
VMH I, 366-67, September 7-8, 1290; CDC VII, 1-2, July 23 1290; Hóman, Gli Angioni, 81-8.
355
Petrović, “Papal Power, Local Communities and Pretenders,” 20; Szentgyörgy, Borba Anžuvinaca za prijestolje
ugarsko-hrvatsko, 21-4.
356
According to Szentgyörgy, Pope Nicholas IV was a strong supporter of the Angevins. The author claimed that the
pope’s death in April 1292 meant that the dynasty lost a strong ally and affected the Dalmatian communes to refuse
to side with Charles Martel. Szentgyörgy, Borba Anžuvinaca za prijestolje ugarsko-hrvatsko, 23-24. Serđo Dokoza,
“Papinska diplomacija i dolazak anžuvinske dinastije,” 140-58; Mihalache, “The Holy See’s Intervention,” 155-164.
357
Kiesewetter, “L’intervento,” 152-65; Franchi, Nicolaus Papa IV, 129-35; Golinelli, Celestino V e il suo tempo, 85-
117; Herde, Bonifaz VIII, 154-248; Tocco, “Bonifacio VIII e Carlo II D’Angiò,” 221-40.
358
For the Angevin contacts with various oligarchs, see: Petrović, “Papal Power, Local Communities and Pretenders,”
21-2; Zsoldos, “Kings and Oligarchs in Hungary,” 231-2; Nekić, “The Oligarchs,“ 1-14.

72
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

The contacts between the Angevins and the Šubići, while more successful than with other
oligarchs, were gradually built up during the 1290s.359 Queen Mary wanted to ensure proper
religious education for her son, but also to nurture Charles Martel’s connections with Hungary, a
place from where the queen originated. Mary probably employed Peter, a Franciscan friar from
Hungary, as Martel’s chaplain. Following the young pretender’s death, Peter became Mary’s
chaplain and was soon appointed as the archbishop of Split.360 The dynasty employed the services
of a number of Franciscans and used contacts with the Papal Curia to reward these Franciscans
with bishoprics.361 Following Martel’s death, it seems that Charles II and Pope Boniface VIII were
primarily preoccupied with ensuring the stability of the Kingdom of Naples and the return of the
island of Sicily, lost in 1282.362 Queen Mary was among the most important members of the royal
court who worked on establishing a strong alliance between the Šubići and the Angevins by using
her access to the papal Curia in order to secure the throne of Hungary for her grandson, Martel’s
son Charles Robert.363
When Charles Martel’s emissaries came to ask the communes in April 1292 to recognize
Martel as the king, the communes were unsure how to respond, fearing the reaction of Paul Šubić.
Much has been written about the reason of the communes’ hesitation, the connections between the
Šubići, the Angevins and the Apostolic See, but this case was not used to explore the nature of the
Šubići reign in the Dalmatian communes. While it seems that the Šubići rule in Croatia-Dalmatia
was absolute, they simply used the benefits of the communal age by placing their local supporters
among the Dalmatian urban nobility to key places, therefore expanding their network of clients,

359
The construction of relations between the Angevins, the Šubići and the role played in these contacts by Queen
Mary, as well as the role played by the ecclesiastical situation in Dalmatia to connect the Angevins and the Šubići is
explored in: Petrović, “Papal Power, Local Communities and Pretenders,” 11-31.
360
Petrus de Ungaria, Ordinis Minorum Capellanus of Charles Martel was mentioned in 1294. MDE I, 116.
361
CEU eTD Collection

Three more Franciscans obtained episcopal appointments due to their connections with the Neapolitan court.
Toynbee, St. Louis of Toulouse, 106.
362
Kiesewetter, “Bonifacio VIII e gli Angioini,” 171-214.
363
Following the death of her brother Ladislas in 1290, Mary herself claimed the title of the queen of Hungary, which
she used regularly. Besides having her chaplain Peter appointed as the archbishop of Split in 1297, during August
1299 Charles II, in the presence of Queen Mary, confirmed the possessions of the Šubići in Croatia and Dalmatia,
while the same was done in September for the Babonići family. In September the Neapolitan ships were prepared to
carry Elisabeth, the sister of Queen Mary, to Split. I presume she was sent to negotiate with the Šubići, as already in
November Count George, the brother of Paul Šubić, obtained safe passage and was on his way to Naples to invite
Charles Robert to claim the throne. Furthermore, Queen Mary represented Charles Robert’s claim during the papal
hearing of 1302-03, while in 1305 the queen even pawned a golden crown with precious jewels in order to fund
Charles Robert’s campaign. CDC VII, 353-4, August 4, 1299; 356, September 29, 1299; 357, November 19, 1299;
MDE I, 136-7, September 7, 1299; MDE I, 174, June 1, 1305; Engel, Realm of St. Stephen, 110-1; AkO I, n.232-3,
June 10, 1302; n.392, May 31, 1303; n.396-7, June 3, 1303; Skorka, “Charles I and the Habsburg Dukes of Austria
during the Interregnum,” 249-50; Petrović, “Papal Power, Local Communities and Pretenders,” 24-5.

73
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

while keeping the communal autonomy intact.364 A contemporary, Miha Madijev, compared the
Šubići with the establishment of the Signoria system in Italy, which he called a tyranny, but
Tomislav Raukar was critical about this view. He pointed out that the Šubići reign never
transformed itself into a similar case as with Visconti in Milan or any other place as the family did
not initiate changes in communal laws nor directly infringed on the local autonomy. A competent
ruler, such as Ban Paul, used the available resources to install his family into the position of
undisputed power in Croatia and Dalmatia, but his successor, Ban Mladen, had a much more
difficult time in keeping the communes and the other nobility in check.365
The alliance with the Angevins helped the Šubići to access the Apostolic See, while also
ensuring that the interests of the family were shared by the archbishopric of Split. This meant that
the period between 1290 and 1310, marked by instability and conflicts in Hungary between various
contenders for the throne and the oligarchs, was also the period of prolonged tranquility and
enduring Šubići reign over the region (Fig. 7). Paul Šubić and Archbishop Peter greeted Charles
Robert in August 1300 in Split, after which the king was led north to start his campaign for the
throne. Despite the support of the Šubići and the Apostolic See, the king still had to fight for two
decades to re-establish the royal authority in the kingdom.366
The peace in Dalmatia was disrupted by the outbreak of conflicts between Venice and the
Apostolic See over the city of Ferrara in 1308. Ferrara was officially subordinated to the pope but
was in practice controlled by the family d'Este. After the death of Azzo d'Este, a succession war
broke out which Venice used to occupy the city. Pope Clement V responded by excommunicating
the Venetians and suspending all Venetian commercial treaties, which had devestating
consequences on Venice as it drained its military, economic and diplomatic strength.367 Using the
problematic internal and external situation, in June 1310 a group of rich and influential families,
CEU eTD Collection

including the Tiepolo and the Querini, organized a revolt against Doge Pietro Gradenico. Although
quelled, the rebellion led to repression and institutional reorganization of the Republic.368

364
Nikolić Jakus, Formation of Dalmatian Urban Nobility, 49-61; Karbić, Šubići of Bribir, 279-97; “Familiares of the
Šubići,” 131-47.
365
Madijev, “Historija,” 173-6; Raukar, “Komunalna društva u Dalmaciji u XIV. Stoljeću,” 176-7; Compare with:
Green, “The image of tyranny,” 335-51; Skinner, The Foundations of Modern Political Thought, 41-8.
366
Madijev, “Historija,” 160; Skorka, “Charles I and the Habsburg Dukes of Austria during the Interregnum,” 243-
60; Burkhardt, “Ungarn zwischen Árpáden und Anjou (1301–1308),” 153-69.
367
Mollat, The Popes at Avignon, 70-6; Housley, “Pope Clement V,” 29-43.
368
Lane, Venice, 114-7; Dibello, “La stabilità delle istituzioni veneziane,” 90-1; Miller, Venice in the East Adriatic,
100-3; Klaić, Povijest Hrvata II, 25.

74
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

During the 1270s and 1280s the Šubići and Venice were in prolonged conflict for the
control of the territories in Dalmatia which led to a peace treaty in 1290, after which the two powers
peacefully coexisted.369 It was already mentioned that Paul Šubić cultivated favourable relations
with more prominent members of the nobility in Zadar but he also maintained contacts with more
prominent Venetians, such as Bajamonte Tiepolo who was leading the revolt in Venice in 1310.370
Since Bajamonte found shelter with the Šubići and that the Venetian authorities were in early 1310
worried about the suspicious movements of the army of Ban Paul in the vicinity of the city, it
seems that Bajamonte and Paul were conniving together.371
The danger came from within and not from outside as in March 1311 the citizens of Zadar
rebelled and accepted the rule of the Hungarian king. On the request of the city emissaries, King
Charles Robert granted new privileges to the city of Zadar and confirmed the old ones.372 Paul's
son Mladen Šubić was installed as the count of the city which points to the agents of the Šubići as
the ones who started the revolt and the city was immediately besiged by Venice.373 In May 1312
Paul died weakening the Šubići family's authority. Paul's son Mladen became the next ban of
Croatia-Dalmatia, showcasing the continued strength of the family and the support from King
Charles. But by February 1313 the Apostolic See and Venice signed a peace treaty, which meant
that Venice could concentrate directly on the situation in Zadar. In September 1313 Zadar
recognized the Venetian rule by signing a peace treaty under much better conditions than the ones
which were in effect from before, with addition that the city was officially co-ruled by both the
king of Hungary and the doge of Venice.374
Paul’s death weakened the position of the family and Mladen seems to have been
overwhelmed by the growing opposition to his rule. The new ban was faced with an opposition to
his rule from the local nobility, the communes and the king of Hungary. The Dalmatian cities
rebelled first; Trogir in 1315 and then Šibenik in 1319. Fearing the retribution of the members of
CEU eTD Collection

the Šubići family the two cities decided in 1322 to sign pacts of dedication with Venice, meaning

369
Klaić and Petricioli, Zadar u srednjem vijeku, 207-8.
370
Prior to his rebellion, Bajamonte found employment as the podestà in the Šubići’s cities: in Šibenik (1301) and in
Nin (1303). On the connections between the Šubići and Bajamonte see: Karbić, Šubići of Bribir, 54, 71, 292; Praga,
“Baiamonte Tiepolo,” 5-67. Krekić, Venezia e l'Adriatico, 51-85.
371
Karbić, Šubići of Bribir, 70-5.
372
Klaić, Izvori za hrvatsku povijest, 180-1; CDC 8, 294, October 12, 1311
373
Mladen carried the title comes Jadre, princeps Dalmatie et secundus banus bosniensis. Klaić, Povijest Hrvata II,
25-9; Brunelli, Storia della città di Zara, 437-40; Strgačić, “Zadarsko-mletački rat,” 1597–1614; Gruber, “Obsjedanje
Zadra po Mlečanih,” 530-31, 545-47, 562-64, 578-82; Karbić, Šubići of Bribir, 73.
374
Regestum Clementis papae V, n.9007-8, February 17, 1313. Listine I, 266-71, September 23, 1313.

75
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

the terms of subjugation, while Split followed in 1326.375 Mladen’s reign was irreversibly
undermined when Charles Robert decided to back Mladen’s opposition which resulted in the ban’s
fall in 1322. But while the king hoped for the re-establishment of his rule in Croatia-Dalmatia,
Mladen’s fall led to a protracted period of feudal anarchy among the nobility in Croatia, while the
Dalmatian coastal cities called in Venice for protection.
The royal reaction to the Venetian takeover was at first limited to sending letters376 as the
king lacked means to effectively combat the Venetian navy, although over the years, the king made
plans and sent his bans to directly intervene in Croatia and restore the royal authority. The
Dalmatian cities – Split, Trogir and Šibenik – were now in a strange political situation which is
reflected in the datation of their charters where the names of the king, the doge, the bishop and the
important city officials are all found together. These charters reflect the new political reality where
King Charles Robert was still recognized as the ruler, but the actual authority was in the hand of
the Venetians, who allowed these communes a high degree of autonomy.377

III.1. The Episcopate between Papal Power and Secular Involvement

The rise of the Šubići was in part the result of their appropriation of the ecclesiastical issues
in the Church province of Dalmatia. Using the pragmatic behaviour of the archbishop of Split, the
family supported and furthered the interests of the clergy of Šibenik for an independent bishopric
against their spiritual superior, the bishop of Trogir. The role of the archbishop of Zadar was
limited in this conflict, but this diocese was the focus of attention of the Apostolic See, which used
the expansion of rights of the episcopal appointments to place papal candidates in Zadar. The
change in the papal-episcopal relations, illustrated on the example of Zadar, can help explain how
the bishopric of Šibenik was finally established and how the popes used the local Church to help
CEU eTD Collection

the Neapolitan Angevins obtain the throne of Hungary-Croatia.

375
Orlando, “Politica del diritto, amministrazione, giustizia,” 15-9.
376
In August 1322 King Charles sent a letter to Doge Giovanni Soranzo (r.1312-28) thanking the doge for offering
support to the royal cities of Dalmatia. Listine I, 341-2, August 3, 1322; Klaić, Povijest grada Trogira, 241.
377
Klaić, Povijest grada Trogira, 241.

76
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

III.1.1. “Non dividendo episcopatu Traguriensi in duos”378

In March 1287 on the invitation of Bishop Gregory of Trogir (r.1282-97), the metropolitan
archbishop of Split, John Buzad (r.1266-94),379 publicly anounced the withdrawal of his
confirmation of the bishopric of Šibenik in the episcopal palace of Trogir. The retraction came
after the death of the illegally elected bishop of Šibenik, Paul (r.1274-87).380 The archbishop stated
that he only recognized Paul due to the secular pressure, but was able to revoke the new diocese
through the backing of Bishop Philip of Fermo (r.1273-1300).381 Since Philip was the papal legate
for the Kingdom of Hungary-Croatia between 1278 and 1281, it seems that Archbishop John only
referred to the legate’s role retroactively, following the death of Paul in Šibenik. What other
official actions John undertook remains unknown.382
John’s actions of 1287 contrasted the ones taken immediately following his election, in
1267, when he responded with alacrity upon the request from Bishop Columban of Trogir (r.1255-
76). Accompanied by an entourage of high ecclesiastical dignitaries, Archbishop John arrived to
Šibenik. The reform-minded and often zelous archbishop383 inspected the situation in the parish,
finding a number of irregularities and disciplining the clergy.384 This decisive move temporarly

378
The plea of the bishop of Trogir to the archbishop of Split. Rački, “Notae,” 214, July 10, 1274.
379
John belonged to the Hahót-Buzád family, which gave several bans and bishops during the thirteenth century, and
his family connections and background connected him with the royal court. See his entry in List of arch/bishops of
Split, Trogir and Zadar.
380
CDC VI, 580-2, March 20, 1287; Farlati, Illyricum Sacrum III, 292-3.
381
In 1279 Pope Nicholas III (r.1277-80), worried about the deteriorating situation in the kingdom, sent Cardinal-
Legate Philip to investigate the widespread anarchy and attacks on the ecclesiastical property. Philip convened a synod
in Buda where he promoted decisions aimed at limiting the influence of the laymen over the Church and the clergy.
He also participated at the general assembly in Teteny in July 1279 where he was able to convince the nobles and
CEU eTD Collection

prelates to accept the statutes that regulated the position of the Cumans in the kingdom. On his activities, see: Kovács,
“Alter ego domini papae Nicolai III. Fülöp fermói püspök,” 117-166; Waldmüller, Die Synoden in Dalmatien,
Kroatien und Ungarn, 188-200.
382
The actions of the papal legate in Dalmatia are known only from Archbishop John's words. The archbishop stated
that the papal legate revoked the confirmation and excommunicated Paul, in the presence of the archbishop and the
two bishops, of Knin and Nin.
383
John was sometimes too zelous in enforcing his archiepiscopal authority. For example, by 1272 he tried to collect
tithe (decima) in the county of Lika (provincia Licha/Lica) revealing that the new archbishop was interested in
returning the possessions and reinstating the rights that the archbishopric of Split enjoyed. John’s actions were stopped
when Bishop Stephen of Nin (c.1272-c.84) provided proofs that Lika belongs to the bishopric of Nin. CDC V, 635,
June 17, 1272; 636-7, June 24, 1272; Meaning southern and coastal parts of the modern day Lika. See: Bogović,
“Pomicanje sjedišta krbavske biskupije,” 46-8.
384
Archbishop John was followed by the bishop of Trogir, Bishop Dabronja of Hvar, Bartholomew, the former bishop
of Skradin, the abbot of the monastery of Saint Stephen under the Pines in Split. CDC V, 454, 1267; Dujmović,
“Postanak i razvitak Šibenik,” 92.

77
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

quelled problems in Šibenik, which were going on for almost 70 years,385 confirming that the
parish is part of the bishopric of Trogir. But just several years later John's behaviour was
completely different, prompting in 1274 Bishop Columban to accuse John of actively working to
divide the bishopric of Trogir into two, without papal consent and against the Church councils.386
Archbishop John's direct involvement and opinions regarding the separate bishopric of
Šibenik (1274) are known only from John's public retraction in 1287, delivered in the episcopal
palace of Trogir in front of the leaders of the commune of Trogir, and are often taken at face value.
His actions prior to 1274 were usually viewed as opposing the separate bishopric of Šibenik, an
opinion which dramatically changed under secular pressure in 1274, which was later corrected
with the support of the papal legate. This conclusion points to both the weakness of the
archbishopric of Split and the rise in power of the Šubići, the aristocratic family which obtained
the highest positions in Croatia-Dalmatia during the 1270s, and the main suspects for being behind
this coercion. Yet problems arose on the ecclesiastical level before the attempts to establish a
separate bishopric, so John's actions should be contextualized with other known sources which
reveal what methods and networks the archbishop used when dealing with his ecclesiastical and
secular contacts in order to promote the agenda of the archbishopric. The reasons for the change
in the position of Archbishop John regarding the partition of the bishopric of Trogir must be
examined through a careful analysis of sources from the 1270s which reveal conflicts between the
archbishopric of Split and the bishopric of Trogir as well as serious conflicts between their
respective communes regarding border and land disputes. The communal and Church problems
were intertwined during this period which is observed by the comment from the thirteenth-century
chronicler of the Spalatine history, Archdeacon Thomas, who stated that the people and the clergy
of Split considered all people from Trogir as their enemies.387
CEU eTD Collection

In sources from the second half of 1272 until 1274 we can see the deliberate attempts by
the archbishop of Split to limit the influence of the bishopric of Trogir. John's person of confidence
was Bishop Saracen of Krbava (c.1240-c.1274), who controlled a large bishopric, suffragan to

385
For the situation in Šibenik up to the end of 1260s, see: Dujmović, “Postanak i razvitak Šibenik,” 77-96; Karbić,
“Uloga bribirskih knezova u osnutku šibenske biskupije” 53-62; Barbarić, “Šibenik, šibenska biskupija, šibenski
biskupi,” 79-90.
386
CDC VI, 101-2, mid-1274.
387
Lucić, Povijesna svjedočanstva I, 250-3; Toma Arhiđakon, Historia Salonitana, 280-1.

78
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

Split, and like John was of noble origins.388 In August 1272 Simon of Trogir, a Dominican friar,
was elected as the bishop of Knin with the backing from Trogir and asked the archbishop for
confirmation.389 But in December the archbishop had Bishop Saracen of Krbava confirm Nicholas
from Split, the archdeacon of Knin, as the bishop. Several days later, in the presence of the bishop
of Krbava and Bishop Dabran of Hvar, the archbishop consecrated Nicholas.390 The next source
cleary shows Bishop Saracen of Krbava as the archbishop’s person of trust. Following the rejection
of Simon and the appointment of Nicholas to Knin, Archbishop John sent the bishop of Krbava in
early December 1272 to inspect the diocese of Trogir, which, judging by the protests and appeals
to Rome by Bishop Columban could be viewed as the archbishop putting pressure on the
bishopric.391
The problematic succession in Šibenik during 1273, following the death of the archpriest,
the leader of the parish, provoked a serious rift in the relations between the clergy of Šibenik and
the bishop of Trogir, who had the right to confirm the newly elected archpriest.392 Both sides had
their own candidates to the position, but the clergy of Šibenik wanted to avoid the bishop’s
jurisdiction by successfully appealing to Archbishop John of Split.393 The archbishop’s
involvement, combined with the appointment of the bishop of Knin and the official visitation of
the bishopric of Trogir reveal the existence of deeper disputes between Split and Trogir.
The ecclesiastical problems were closely followed or even influenced by the secular
changes. During the 1260s the Šubići from Bribir expanded their control over a number of
Dalmatian communities while during the 1270s the family was able to use the factional fightings

388
Saracen was a cousin of Domald (c.1160-c.1243), the count of Šibenik, Split and Cetina, and one of the most
powerful noblemen of Croatia-Dalmatia during the first half of the thirteenth century. Throughout his life Domald
CEU eTD Collection

was often the count of Split, so his influence could explain why Saracen was not elected as the bishop but was directly
appointed by Archbishop Guncel of Split (r.1221-42). Bogović, “Pomicanje sjedišta krbavske biskupije” 60; Švob,
“Komes Domald,” 5-37.
389
This request was noted by the communal notary of Trogir and Canon Martin of the Trogir’s cathedral church was
sent to the archbishop. CDC VI, 1, August 15, 1272.
390
CDC VI, 8, December 18, 1272; 9, December 26, 1272; Farlati, Illyricum Sacrum III, 294.
391
Bishop Columban considered that the archbishop had to personally visit his province once every three year, but
this was not the case, as the spiritual superiror had the right to send representatives. Monumenta Traguriensia I/1, 446
December 13, 1272; Thomson, Friars in the cathedral, 132-6.
392
This was simply a continuation of earlier problems as the clergy of Šibenik tried to deceive pope in 1254 to raise
Archpriest Stanimir to the rank of the bishop. A letter was sent to the papal Curia, explaining to the pope that the
diocese was vacant for 20 years and pleading the pope to order the archbishop of Split to confirm the election of
Stanimir. The pope did send a letter to Split, but the answer, probably from the confused archbishop, was not
preserved. Dujmović, “Postanak i razvitak Šibenika,” 91.
393
Rački, “Notae,” 214, May 1-2, 1273.

79
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

to increase their hold over Croatia-Dalmatia.394 In February 1273 Paul Šubić was the podestà of
Trogir, while by May 1273 he became the count of Split, which is aproximately the time when the
archbishop decided to involve himself in the dispute regarding the elected archpriest of Šibenik.395
Sometime at the end of 1273 or at the beginning of 1274 the fortress of Klis, a vital fort controlling
access to Split, was attacked by the “enemies of the king,” although it would seem that those were
the citizens of Split. The fort received military support from Trogir, but it was conquered by
summer 1274.396 This conflict was connected with the hostilities between the Šubići, the
communes of Split and Šibenik against the city of Trogir which can be tracked through a number
of royal letters, which were based on complaints to the king by the city council of Trogir and
directed to the communes and leading individuals in Croatia-Dalmatia. King Ladislas IV (r.1272-
1290) issued letters stating his support to the commune and the bishopric of Trogir and warning
Šibenik, Split and Paul Šubić to stop harassing Trogir.397 It does not seem that the royal letters
were particularly effective as they dependend both on the local power structures and the relative
power of the parties fighting to control the royal court.
Following the disagreements regarding the election of the archpriest, the clergy of Šibenik
proceeded to use the local conflicts to proclaim an independent bishopric. They appointed Paul
(r.1274-87) who also received the confirmation from Archbishop John of Split.398 Not much is
known about Paul’s origins. Bishop Columban of Trogir described Paul as being the canon of
Esztergom while later on the archbishop referred to Paul as being a Hungarian. Both claims
indicate connections to the archbishopric of Esztergom, which was undergoing a turmoil during
the 1270s as the office was vacant due to power struggles between the royal court and aristocratic
CEU eTD Collection

394
Klaić, Povijest Hrvata I, 278-84; Engel, Realm of St. Stephen, 107-8; Karbić, Šubići of Bribir, 48-9.
395
Karbić, Šubići of Bribir, 46-7. Novak, Povijest Splita, 438; Antoljak, “Ban Pavao,” 6.
396
Klaić, Povijest Hrvata I, 282; Karbić, Šubići of Bribir, 48.
397
There is a discrepancy between the dating of the royal letters between the editors of the CDC and Ivan Lucić who
transcribed them in his Povijesna svjedočanstva. While Lucić dated everything to 1273, the CDC dates some
documents to 1273 while the majority to 1274. In short, the letters warned Ban Paul Šubić and the communities of
Split and Šibenik from attacking Trogir, which was placed under the royal protection. The king also notified Trogir
about sending soon a person who would protect them from the attacks. This was Nicholas Gutkeled who was sent
during 1275 to investigate the conflict. Lucić, Povijesna svjedočanstva I, 254-6; CDC VI, 42, August 10, 1273; 43,
August 12, 1273; 43-4, August 12, 1273; 69, April 24, 1274.
398
Karbić showed how the older historigraphy thought that Paul was a Venetian citizen, but the local sources clearly
place him as a canon of Esztergom and a Hungarian. Karbić, Šubići of Bribir, 336.

80
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

elites.399 But, more importantly, it suggests further connections between the Šubići and the factions
competing for the control of both the royal court and Esztergom.
Bishop Saracen noted during 1274 a complaint by Bishop Columban of Trogir, in which
the bishop accused Archbishop John of trying to divide the diocese of Trogir into two, which was
against the Church councils and papal orders. The charter reflects the new situation and the support
of the archbishopric of Split to the independent bishopric of Šibenik. Besides being the bishop of
Krbava, Saracen was also the tithe collector of the bishopric of Šibenik (exactor episcopatus
Sibenicensis) which shows the attempt by the archbishopric to establish a new institutional
framework for Šibenik. This was probably done to support the fledgling bishopric, particularly
since it was forbidden for bishops of other dioceses to infringe into the territories of different
bishops.400
Bishop Columban reacted to the attempts from Šibenik by excommunicating its clergy and
the community several times during 1274,401 and by reaching out to the pope, who confirmed in
September that Šibenik officially belongs to the bishopric of Trogir.402 In August the bishop
performed an official excommunication in the cathedral of Saint Lawrence in Trogir targeting the
leaders of the community of Šibenik, but not including comes George, the brother of Paul Šubić.403
Officially, the bishop denounced Archbishop John as the main culprit in dividing the diocese,
while none of the Šubići were specifically mentioned. The comes of Trogir was John Šubić, from
a side branch of the family, while Split and Šibenik were controlled by Paul’s branch (Fig. 8). Is
it possible that the bishop wanted to avoid problems in the relations between the two branches of
the Šubići family and their relations toward Trogir?

399
Both the queen mother and the Kőszegi family promoted their candidates which led to prolonged instability and
especially violent conflicts. The queen mother’s candidate was Nicolaus, the archpriest of Transylvania, while the
Kőszegi tried to promote their family member Peter, the bishop of Veszprém. The chapter instead wanted Benedict,
CEU eTD Collection

the archpriest of Arad and the royal vicechancellor. Kosztolnyik, Hungary in the thirteenth century, 258-259; Berend,
At the Gate of Christendom, 263.
400
CDC VI, 101-2, during 1274; Lucić, Collection, 244-45. This was probably done in the mid-1274 as the records of
the council of Trogir noted the same plea from the bishop to the archbishop not to divide bishopric of Trogir into two.
Rački, “Notae,” 214, July 10, 1274.
401
By July 1274 the bishop of Trogir excommunicated the clergy of Šibenik for disobeying the episcopal orders and
attacking the representative of the bishop of Trogir, while the judges and some leaders of the city of Šibenik were
excommunicated for witholding the payment of the tithe. This was reported by Archdeacon Gervasius, the
representative of Bishop Columban of Trogir, when he went to Salona and notified Bishop Yula of Knin and Ban Paul
Šubić (bano marittimo). CDC VI, 74-5, July 24, 1274; Lucić, Povijesna svjedočanstva I, 244-5.
402
Columban obtained the confirmation from Pope Gregory X (r.1271-76) of an earlier papal bull issued by Pope
Clement IV (1259-61) which confirmed the possessions of the bishopric of Trogir, including Šibenik. CDC VI, 89,
September 11, 1274; 380-2, June 13, 1266. Also, see the chapter on Episcopal finances.
403
CDC VI, 84-5, August 26, 1274; Klaić, Bribirski knezovi, 43.

81
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

In August 1273 it was mentioned in the acts of the city council of Trogir that the count of
the city, Stephen Šubić, died, and was immediately replaced by John Šubić who arrived in the
city.404 John's brother Radoslav was mentioned as the count of Nin during the 1270s. Both were
the first cousins of Paul Šubić.405 While it is unknown who this Stephen was,406 it is possible that
he was brother or cousin of John and Radoslav. What were the relations between the two branches
of the Šubići family? Damir Karbić pointed out that the two families often cooperated and that at
the time there was no serious conflict existing between the two branches of the family. But this
cooperation came after the conflicts over Trogir were resolved. It is possible that the bishop – as
well as the commune – by not naming the Šubići wanted to avoid potential conflict with their
count. While the lack of sources prevents us from better understanding the inner dynamics of the
Šubići family during the 1270s, it should be pointed out that by 1280/81 James's sons were replaced
as counts by Paul's brother George I in Trogir, and a certain Michael in Nin. This means that a
certain level of competition between the two branches cannot be excluded, with Paul’s branch
taking control over most of Croatia-Dalmatia.407
Bishop Columban's sentence of excommunication and an appeal to the pope were not very
effective. In 1275 King Ladislas appointed Nicholas Gutkeled as the ban of entire Croatia-
Dalmatia and sent the viceroy to investigate the war in Dalmatia.408 The ban correctly informed
the king about the reasons for the conflict, the establishment of the bishopric of Šibenik and the
dispute between Trogir and Split regarding some lands granted to Trogir by King Béla IV. But
instead of openly expressing that the Šubići were behind the attacks, the ban stated that the culprits
and main backers of Split and Šibenik were some unnamed nobility of Slavonia (et potentioribus
Sclavonie sociati). Although the ban stated that the commune and the bishopric of Trogir were
right in the dispute, he suggested the community to accept the demands of their enemies, while
CEU eTD Collection

also suggesting to the king to return the properties given to Trogir by Béla IV to the Church of

404
Rački, “Notae,” 214, August 6, 1273.
405
Stephen Šubić had two sons, James and Stjepko. James’s sons were John and Radoslav, while Stjepko’s sons were
Paul, George and Mladen.
406
Based on the appearance of Stephen, Damir Karbić presumes that during 1273 Trogir was taken by Paul Šubić and
Stephen was installed as the count. The problem is that the notes of the city council of Trogir, where Stephen is
mentioned, are incomplete and Stephen was only mentioned as being deceased and then replaced by John. Also, the
conflicts over Trogir still persisted until the peace treaty in 1277. Mladen, the brother of Paul, became the podestà of
Trogir in November 1276, which would suggest that Paul Šubić finally took the city. Karbić, Šubići of Bribir, 48;
Rački, “Notae,” 214; Lucić, Collection, vol. 539, fol. 256-58, November 29 – 3 December, 1276.
407
Karbić, Šubići of Bribir, 52-3, 206.
408
Lucić, Povijesna svjedočanstva I, 257-8; Karbić, Šubići of Bribir, 49-50.

82
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

Split.409 If observed in the context of Paul Šubić's contacts with the Hungarian ruling families,
blaming the unnamed nobility was probably just an excuse made up by the ban, which illuminate
the connections of the local conflicts with the wider power struggles in the kingdom. The fightings
were still going on by 1276, but by the end of that year, Mladen I, the brother of Paul Šubić,
became the podestà of the city, showing that the Šubići were able to take control of the city or at
least come to some sort of cessation of hostilities.410
As an act of protest against the violation of the diocese of Trogir, or perhaps because he
was tired of constant conflicts with - and disappointments in - other members of the secular and
ecclesiastical elites of Croatia-Dalmatia, Bishop Columban resigned his position before May 1276.
As his successor, Pope Innocent V (r.1276) appointed John, the provost of the church of Glogovica
in the bishopric of Zagreb and a member of a military order.411 The appearance of John in Trogir
confused historians as the bishop seldom appeared in the local sources412 yet it does seem that
there was some resistance towards accepting John as the next bishop. In fact, John appeared in
Trogir in June 1277, in the church of Saint Mary, negotiating, together with Count Peter of the
islands of Brač and Hvar, the temporary truce between Trogir and Split. Yet here John was listed
as the provost (prepositus) of Glogovica and as a noble man (vir dominus) and not as the bishop
of Trogir.413 Does this mean that the Church and commune did not recognize John as its bishop?
What are the odds that this was a different Provost John of Glogovica, and what was his sudden
connection with Trogir? Does his initial appearance point to a temporary rejection in Trogir of his
episcopal status, in which the pope had to intervene by repeating his bull of appointment? John
was appointed in May 1276 but Pope John XXI had to repeat the appointment in March 1277,

409
CDC VI, before August 1275, 118-9; Lucić, Povijesna svjedočanstva I, 259.
410
CDC VI, 166-7, April 26, 1276; Rački, “Notae,” 215, November 2, 1276. In June 1277 Sača, the daughter of Stane
de Varicassis, married Count John Šubić. Several influential noblemen of Trogir, including George Šubić, the count
CEU eTD Collection

of Šibenik, acted as guarantors of the marriage, confirming that John would not leave Sača after the marriage, imposing
high financial penalty if he does so. By September, Stane became the captain of Trogir. This marriage suggests that
the two branches of the Šubići family settled their disputes. Monumenta Traguriensia vol. I/2, 170-1, June 19, 1277;
Klaić, Povijest grada Trogira, 165; Karbić, Šubići of Bribir, 224-5; Karbić, “Odnosi gradskoga plemstva i bribirskih
knezova Šubića,” 52; Rački, “Notae,” 215, September 5, 1277.
411
… prepositi ecclesie de Grogorissa Zagrabiensis diocesis et canonici Jerusolimitani. CDC VI, 168, May 4, 1276.
John was a member of canons serving in the church dedicated to Saint Mary in Glogovica. Although Templars had
properties in the area, the church was part of the Equestrian Order of the Holy Sepulchre of Jerusalem. For Glogovica,
see: Dobronić, Templari i Ivanovci, 91-2.
412
Farlati was unsure if he was even the bishop of Trogir. Farlati, Trogirski biskupi, 202-3. Ivan Lucić stated that
Columban “passed his episcopal position to John,” which is impossible, but he probably meant that Columban resigned
and John was then appointed. The author called John the provost of Gregorissa in the bishopric of Zagreb and a canon
of Jerusalem. Lucić, Povijesna svjedočanstva I, 248-9.
413
CDC VI, 204-5, June 23, 1277.

83
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

admonishing the chapter for not accepting the bishop.414 John’s appointment came during the short
pontificate of Innocent V, which could help explain the problems that the bishop had with his local
community and the need for John XXI to repeat the appointment. Despite Farlati's claim that John
was not recognized as the bishop of Trogir, local source mentioned John as the bishop from
September 1277,415 while in November 1279 he even organized the transfer of Columban's body
from Italy and the burial of the predecessor in the cathedral of Trogir.416
One possible answer is that John still did not assume his office, but instead acted as the
representative of King Charles I of Naples. When the commune of Trogir proceeded to confirm
the text of the peace, stating that they are ready to sign a similar peace with Šibenik, they cited that
they are doing it because of their respect toward King Charles and Count Peter. In addition,
conditions of the peace stipulated that if they were broken, an indemnity payment would be made
to King Ladislas of Hungary-Croatia. This reveals that King Charles was actively working on
calming the conflicts among the cities and stabilizing Ladislas’s reign.417
Furthermore, the reason for John's omission in Farlati's and Lucić's narrative was probably
due to John being often absent from his diocese. In fact, John was listed as a person of high
importance and trust by King Charles of Naples.418 In August 1279 the king gave an order for the
transfer of his representatives to Dalmatia, including Bishop John of Trogir (dilectus consiliarius
et familiaris).419 In September 1279 Bishop John, now a beloved advisor, retainer and loyal royal

414
CDC VI, 188-9, March 11, 1277; Ganzer, Papsttum und Bistumsbesetzungen, 307.
415
Rački, “Notae,” 215, September 5, 1277; also, see: CDC VI, 292, April 23, 1279.
416
After his resignation, Columban decided to remain in Italy where he died. Bishop John organized the transfer of
Columban’s body to Trogir. Rački, “Notae,” 216, November 6, 1279; Monumenta Traguriensia, vol. I/2, 232-3,
November 18, 1279.
417
For a different opinion, see: Lucić, Povijesna svjedočanstva I, 278-86. Lucić placed emphasis on the role of Count
Peter of the islands of Hvar and Brač, assuming that he was either subordinated to King Charles and leading the allied
CEU eTD Collection

navy – the one established in September 1274 and intended to fight the pirates of Omiš - that Charles employed to
help Split and Šibenik besiege Trogir during the war. Furthermore, Bishop John’s role was solely to conclude a peace
treaty with Peter, after Charles’s navy had helped instilling fear into the citizens of Trogir. Of course, this is all a
speculation on the part of Ivan Lucić, but it is worth pointing out that he was not aware that Bishop John of Trogir
often served King Charles in diplomatic missions to the Hungarian court. Damir Karbić added that the Neapolitan
Angevins established first contacts with the Šubići around 1274, as part of their strategy against Byzantium and in
order to ensure safe passage of the Neapolitan navy in the Adriatic sea. Karbić, “Diplomacy of the Šubići,” 126-7.
418
John’s rank was reflected in the royal grant of clothes. In order to show their high status and the connections to the
Angevin court, King Charles esured that the members of his familia receive new clothes every year. CDC VI, 260,
November 2, 1278.; MDE I, 60-1; Dunbabin, Charles I of Anjou, 190-1.
419
Other individuals were John (prepositus Ungarie) and magister Matheus Galardus (fideles Regis). Probably the
same Johannes Prepositus Ungarie mentioned as the representative (nuntius) of the Hungarian king back in 1268 and
1269, but now in the service of the Neapolitan king. MDE I, 4, 1268; Peričić, “Zadar u doba prvih veza s
Anžuvincima,” 254. CDC VI 309, August 7, 1279; 309, August 8, 1279; MDE I, 64-5.

84
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

servant (dilecti consiliarii, familiaris et fidelis nostri), asked Charles to release two noblemen from
the Kingdom of Hungary-Croatia, which the king granted.420 Therefore, it can be assumed that
John, perhaps native to the diocese of Zagreb or simply obtaining a benefice there, was appointed
by the pope due to his close connections to the Angevin Neapolitan court. Charles I seems to have
relied on the military orders to maintain ties with Hungary and since John of Glogovica was a
member of a military order, he was a natural ally to promote Charles's policies in the Kingdom of
Hungary-Croatia as an extension of the royal eastern policy.421 Therefore, John did not act as the
bishop of Trogir in June 1277, instead subordinating his position in favour of the peace treaty and
acting as the representative of King Charles.
In the communal palace in Split in May 1277 a different scene occurred during the
appointment of the peace representatives of Split. The entire city council with the members of the
ecclesiastical elite gathered, including the archbishop, the archdeacon and the primicerius and the
entire cathedral chapter, Abbot George of the monastery of Saint Stephen under the Pines, and
Abbess Stana of the nunnery of Saint Benedict.422 The gathered assembly agreed to accept the
mediation of the count of Šibenik, George I Šubić,423 and the two citizens of Zadar, Preste
(Silvestre) de Cotopagna424 and Domaldus de Zadulinis,425 who acted as arbiters and proceeded to
conclude the peace treaty between Trogir and Split on 30 June 1277.426
The peace treaty427 revealed the core of the conflict: the division of lands between the two
communes and bishoprics. It was stated that the commune of Trogir had to return all the properties
belonging to the archbishopric, cathedral chapter, monasteries and churches of Split. These
properties were granted to Trogir after the Mongol invasion and who now had to return them to

420
The king ordered the castellan of Trani to release Nicholas, the son of comes Falcassus, and Stephen, the son of
CEU eTD Collection

Ban Stephen. CDC VI, 312, September 25, 1279; MDE I, 63.
421
For the history on the relations between the Angevins and the military orders, see: Carraz, “Pro servitio maiestatis
nostre,” 28-9; Ricci, “Insediamenti templari sulla costa adriatica,” 107-16.
422
CDC VI, May 20, 1277, 201-3
423
George Šubić, the brother of Paul and the count of Šibenik (1267-1303) and later of Trogir (1281-1304). Novak,
Povijest Splita, 178, 180; Karbić, Šubići of Bribir, 41-5.
424
He was the podestà of Trogir during the wartime (1274-75), and it is difficult to call him a strong Šubići supporter.
Nikolić Jakus, Formation of Dalmatian Urban Nobility, 53.
425
Already then or later at the end of 1280s and during the 1290s one of the main Šubići sympathiser in Zadar. During
the 1290s he carried out trade between Zadar and the Neapolitan Kingdom and was often employed as the diplomatic
representative of the Šubići to the Neapolitan court. Nikolić Jakus, Formation of Dalmatian Urban Nobility, 50-2, 57;
Karbić, Šubići of Bribir, 57, 60, 70, 288-9.
426
For the full peace treaty, see: CDC VI, 206-11, June 30, 1277.
427
Sources were not preserved regarding a separate peace treaty with Šibenik. Lucić presumed that by August 1277
Šibenik and Trogir signed a treaty with the help of mediators from Zadar. Lucić, Povijesna svjedočanstva I, 287-9.

85
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

their original owners. All the official acts stating that these properties belong to Trogir were
declared void. The private properties of the citizens of Split located within the district of Trogir
were given to Trogir, while, as compensation for their loss, the citizens of Split obtained the
possessions of the citizens of Trogir found in the district of Split. Since Split had more properties
in the district of Trogir than vice versa, the commune of Trogir also had to pay reparations to
Split.428 The only territory received by the commune of Split was the island of Saint Stephen.429
As shown, the ultimate winner of the wars during the 1270s was the archbishopric of Split.
The clergy appeared united behind Archbishop John during the peace treaty in 1277 showing
support of the Church of Split for the actions of returning the rights and properties back to the
archbishopric. The possessions of the Church of Split were returned, although the citizens of Split
did not fare so well. Likewise, the peace treaty settled any potential reasons why the Church of
Split would support the establishment of the independent bishopric of Šibenik. In my opinion the
peace treaty also indicated the level of influence that the archbishop had in his local community.
He was able to unite his entire clergy and to influence the treaty itself, gaining considerably more
than the commune itself.
The other major winners were the Šubići. Besides further increasing their influence in
Šibenik, which was tied with the support to the independent bishopric, the Šubići were able to use
their military victory to install Mladen I, the brother of Paul, as the podestà of Trogir in 1276.
Mladen then replaced his brother Paul as the count of Split (r.1277-1301), while another brother,
George I, the count of Šibenik, became the count of Trogir (r.1281-1304), probably in order to
ensure that both cities were pacified. Therefore, by the end of the 1270s and at the beginning of
the 1280s, the Šubići were able to consolidate and impose their rule over most of Croatia-
Dalmatia.430 During the 1280s the Šubići further increased their power in Croatia-Dalmatia, which
CEU eTD Collection

included being appointed as counts in all important cities, maintaining a network of clients among
the local patricians who would retain positions of podestà in the cities controlled by the Šubići or
serve as envoys for the family. Even the citizens of Zadar, which was under Venice, were often
found in the Šubići service.

428
By 1280 the sum of 3000 silver marks was paid. Lucić, Collection, vol. 539, fol. 280-84, August 20 – 10 November
1280; Lucić, Povijesna svjedočanstva I, 287-8.
429
The decision regarding the church and land of Saint Peter in Klobučić and Bistrica was left to the king to decide,
who granted it to the commune and the bishopric of Trogir. Lucić, Collection, vol. 539, fol. 279-279’; Povijesna
svjedočanstva I, 287.
430
Karbić, Šubići of Bribir, 51-4.

86
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

In the context of the growing Šubići power and with the Church of Split settling its disputes
with Trogir, Archbishop John changed his position on the bishopric of Šibenik. The major problem
is represented by the lack of sources. What is known comes from John's words in 1287. John used
the presence of Bishop Philip of Fermo, the papal legate, who passed Dalmatia431 on his way to
Buda, probably in late 1278 or early 1279432 to revoke the archiepiscopal confirmation and
reinforce the excommunication of illegaly appointed Bishop Paul of Šibenik. Philip’s later actions
were concentrated on extending his support to the local bishops in limiting the influence of the
laymen over the Church and the clergy, not even fearing direct secular attacks, so his help to John
should be interpreted in that context.
Could it be that John turned to the papal legate to gain support in his precarious position
towards the Šubići? It should be noted that, despite the peace treaty, the conflicts between Split,
Šibenik and Trogir did not subside. Disputes arose during 1281-1282 but it seems that the reasons
were of secular nature: border disputes between the communes.433 Other actions that John
employed during this period are unknown. At some point during or before 1285 Split even came
into conflict with Ban Paul Šubić. In April the ban ordered the commune of Trogir to send some
men to help in fighting against Split. The commune reluctantly accepted after convening a general
assembly, attended by the representatives of the Church, including Bishop Gregory,
representatives of the cathedral chapter and all the important monasteries.434 It seems that in the
situations which influenced both the ecclesiastical and secular institutions, a need arose to reach a
consensus between the members of the commune and the clergy, as was previously the case in
Split in 1277 and now in Trogir in 1285.435
CEU eTD Collection

431
Saders bî dem mer was mentioned as the port in which Philip disembarked on his way to Hungary in the
contemporary Steirische Reimchronik (The Styrian Chronicle) and which Lorenzo Lozzi Gallo connects to Zadar.
Although, the Reimchronik should be used cautiously as the same chronicle then mentions in 1290 a non-existent
Archbishop Philip of Zadar as the relative of King Andrew III and a member of the royal council. Gallo, “The City of
Zara,” 90-2; “Zara e Pola,” 19-23.
432
In September 1278 Pope Nicholas III (r.1277-80) commissioned Philip as the papal legate for Poland, Dalmatia,
Croatia, Rama, Serbia, Lodomeria, Galicia and Cumania. Eubel I, 249. He arrived to Hungary at the end of February
1279. MES II, 75. In summer 1281 Philip was freed from the Cuman captivity and has left the kingdom. For his
activities, see: Berend, At the Gate of Christendom, 171-183.
433
Lucić, Povijesna svjedočanstva I, 294-300.
434
Archdeacon Gervasius, Paul the abbot of the monastery of Saint John of Trogir, Ugrin, the monk of the same
monastery, Friar Mauro and Friar Thomas from the Dominican order, Friar Stephen, the guardian of the Franciscans
and Friar Luke, also Franciscan order.
435
CDC VI, 525-6, April 15, 1285.

87
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

It seems that Bishop Paul of Šibenik died sometime at the beginning of 1287, which
probably raised hopes of the bishop of Trogir to restore his control over the rebellious parish. In
March 1287 Bishop Gregory invited Archbishop John to arrive to Trogir and to provide his account
of the past events in front of the leading men of the commune of Trogir gathered in the episcopal
palace. The archbishop stated that secular pressure forced him to confirm the election of the new
bishop of Šibenik, even though this action meant nothing because only the pope could establish a
new bishopric. Lastly, John emphasized the status of Šibenik as an oppidum et castrum, instead of
a civitas, and therefore the city’s subordination, together with its clergy, to the Church of Trogir.436
Archbishop John's insistence on the secular pressure and on confirming the exclusive right
of the pope to establish new dioceses, must be put into the context of the bishop of Trogir’s planned
trip in March 1287 to the Roman Curia.437 The bishop of Trogir even obtained the financial support
from the commune,438 but several days later the representatives of the count of Trogir and Šibenik
and of Ban Paul arrived to Trogir and threatened the commune and the bishop regarding the
planned trip.439 Since Pope Honorius (r.1285-1287) died on 3 April, it is most likely that the bishop
remained in Trogir. Therefore, the archbishop of Split no longer supported the independent
bishopric of Šibenik, even lending his support to the bishop of Trogir. Being in the position of
complete control over the secular authority in Trogir and entire Croatia, the Šubići resorted to
directly threaten the commune and the bishop.
The almost one-year papal vacancy postponed any discussion, which was reinvigorated
during 1288. Following the death of Paul, a new bishop of Šibenik was elected, during 1287 or
1288, by the name of Leonard Faletro, the rector of the church of Saint Angel in Venice.440 The

436
CDC VI, 580-2, March 20, 1287; Farlati, Trogirski biskupi, 209-10
437
The idea that the popes had the exclusive right to establish new bishoprics developed during the eleventh century
CEU eTD Collection

and can be summed by the words of Pope Urban II (r.1088-99) who stated that solius etenim apostolici est episcopates
coniungere, coniunctos disiungere, aut etiam novos construere. The claim that only the pope can establish, revoke
and divide dioceses found its way into the Gratian’s Decretum and was further reinforced by Pope Innocent III (r.1198-
1216) who stated that new bishoprics can be united or divided only with a special dispensation obtained from the
pope. Picasso, “Erezione, traslazione, unione di diocesi,” 664-5.
438
Detur episcopo duana becaria pro itinere contra Sibenicum. Rački, “Notae,” 216, March 12, 1287.
439
George I Šubić was both the count of Šibenik (r.1267-1303) and of Trogir (r.1281-1304). The commune's response
was to elect representatives which were then directed to go to the count and also to Ban Paul Šubić, but also decided
to set up watchers to oversee the protection of Trogir. Rački, “Notae,” 217, March 24, 1287; CDC VI, 583, March 25,
1287. Granić, “Jadranska politika Šubića,” 55-6; Klaić, Povijest grada Trogira, 178.
440
From April 1287 until February 1288 the Apostolic See was vacant. Therefore, it is curious to find Leonard Faletro
in Rome in November 1287. He was tasked by the archbishop of Dubrovnik, Bonaventura de Parma (r.1281-96), to
obtain a loan for the archbishop. It is unknown if this situation was connected with Leonard’s appointment as the
bishop of Šibenik but his contacts and travelling across the Adriatic would help to explain how he came into contacts
with the Šubići. CDC VI, 603-4, November 21, 1287.

88
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

argument that the Šubići and the clergy of Šibenik were open to any means necessary in obtaining
the confirmation of the new bishopric can be corroborated with their actions in 1288. The clergy
sent letters to the pope stating that Šibenik had the right to its own bishopric because it was the
heir of the destroyed cathedral chapter of Morinje.441 In this regard, no new diocese would be
created, but the bishopric would merely be reestablished. This was a bizzare story as it seems that
the clergy of Šibenik wanted to trick the pope into believing that there existed the bishopric of
Morinje.442 Due to an attack, this bishopric moved its center to Šibenik, where Leonard was
elected, while the bishop in Trogir attempted to usurp Leonard's title. This was a rather serious
claim, as it implied that the clergy of Trogir usurped the position from Šibenik and that the bishop
of Trogir lacked legitimacy.
During September 1288 the pope appointed a three-member-committe to investigate,
consisting of Bishop Marcel of Nin (c.1284-1291), Archdeacon James of Split and the abbot of
the monastery of Saint Chrysogonus in Zadar.443 Archdeacon James was able to notice that the
communal notary of Split, tasked to transcribe the papal charter, deliberately changed parts of it to
favour Šibenik, and has ordered the notary to correct his mistake.444 It is unclear who influenced
the notary to make changes, but it should be stressed that the comes of Split was Mladen Šubić,
whose family actively supported the establishment of the bishopric of Šibenik.
During June 1288 Paul Šubić and his brothers Mladen and George congratulated Nicholas
IV for his election as the pope and promised to fight the heresy in Dalmatia.445 While it is unclear
what was meant by “heresy”446 historians emphasized that the Šubići probably had good contacts
with Nicholas, since the pope was previously the Provincial General of the Franciscan order in
Slavonia (1272-74), but the problem is that he did not spend any time in his province.447 It is likely
CEU eTD Collection

441
According to the clergy of Šibenik, the cathedral chapter of Morinje was located near Šibenik and was destroyed
by the "Greek heretics." The rights over this chapter were claimed by both the clergy of Trogir and Šibenik. Most
authors considered this story a fabrication, while it is stated that some medieval charters mentioned the existence of
the monastery of Morinje. Zelić, “Šibenske crkve,” 800; Krnčević, “Novija istraživanja srednjovjekovnih arheoloških
lokaliteta šibenskog kraja,” 33-4.
442
This course of action would not be a first time, since in 1254 the clergy of Šibenik already attempted to deceive
the pope into believing that Šibenik was a bishopric lacking a bishop. See earlier.
443
For the charter, see: Farlati, Illyricum Sacrum IV, 456-9, September 26, 1288; Les registres de Nicholas IV, n.366;
CDC VI, 616-7; Dujmović, “Postanak i razvitak Šibenika,” 63.
444
CDC VI, 641-3, March 26 – April 7, 1289; Lucić, Povijesna svjedočanstva I, 315-21.
445
Les registres de Nicholas IV, n.7057, June 16, 1288.
446
Possible answers were given by Karbić, Šubići of Bribir, 348-9.
447
Žugaj, “Hrvatska biskupija,” 97; Karbić, Šubići of Bribir, 330-1. While Nicholas was probably familiar with the
situation in the Franciscan province of Slavonia, he did not have enough time to establish good relations with the

89
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

that the letter was sent as means to establish direct contacts between the Šubići and the pope and
to impede the threats of appeal to the Curia expressed by the bishop of Trogir and the archbishop
of Split in 1287. This is visible from the fact that several months after receiving the letter the pope
decided to appoint a separate committee to investigate the case of Morinje. While no additional
sources about the situation regarding Morinje exist, suggesting that the story was suppressed, it is
clear that the high-ranking clergy of the archbishopric of Split was strongly against the
establishment of the new bishopric.
During the provincial synod of 1292 an order was issued that no bishop-suffragan can
intrude into other dioceses. Although no bishop was specified during the synod, the same issue
was discussed in 1293 when Bishop Gregory of Trogir directly complained to the gathered prelates
about the activities of Bishop Nicholas of Skradin (c1292-c1303), from a diocese closest to
Šibenik. Nicholas was accused of performing episcopal duties in Šibenik and violating the
prerogatives of the bishop of Trogir. Gregory went even further by directly accusing Archbishop
John of knowing about this and even authorizing it. Judging by John’s letter to Nicholas, the bishop
of Skradin and Ban Paul visited the archbishop recently, most likely to exert pressure on him,
following which the archbishop was accosted by both the clergy and citizens of Split and Trogir.
The suffragan-bishops who gathered in Split for the provincial synod in 1293 then urged the
archbishop to warn Nicholas not to infringe in the matters of Šibenik.448
An additional layer for understanding John's actions, besides being pressured by the Šubići,
must be sought in him seeking ecclesiastical support when undertaking important actions. This is
evident from the gathering of the entire clergy of Split during the peace talks with Trogir in 1277,
the presence of Cardinal-Legate Philip in 1278/79, as well as the archbishop’s public speach in
1287. On the other hand, the two synods of 1292 and 1293 occured during the papal vacancy. In
CEU eTD Collection

April 1292 Pope Nicholas IV died, while the papal conclave was locked in bitter dispute over who
to elect. This meant that the archbishop of Split could not turn to the pope for support. Yet the
combination of secular and ecclesiastical support could have persuaded the archbishop to take a
stronger stand and warn the bishop of Skradin.

Šubići because immediately upon his election as the Provincial General, Nicholas was sent as the papal legate to
Constantinople to discuss the Church union with the Byzantine emperor. Franchi, Nicolaus Papa IV, 35-48.
448
CDC VII, 139-40, May 12, 1293.

90
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

As was shown, in their attempts to establish the independent bishopric of Šibenik the Šubići
lacked access to the Papal Curia, as well as the support from the local Church. The change in
elevating Šibenik as a bishopric was connected to the unstable political situation in the Kingdom
of Hungary-Croatia during the 1290s. The Šubići attempted to overcome the instability by forming
an alliance with the Neapolitan Angevins. But the main context for understanding the change can
be provided by analyzing the expansion of the papal powers and their application to the dioceses
of Croatia-Dalmatia. This is discussed in the next chapter.

III.1.2. Popes, Interventions and Episcopal Appointments in Zadar

Croatian researchers tended to overestimate the role played by the Apostolic See in the
succession dispute in the Kingdom of Hungary-Croatia between Andrew III (r.1290-1301) and the
Angevins of Naples.449 Since the popes were viewed as the key Angevin supporters, so too were
the changes in the occupants of the episcopal offices of Split and Zadar understood in the context
of the papacy removing and appointing (arch)bishops in order to promote the candidates of Naples.
In these discussions, the focus was mostly on appointments in Split and Šibenik, while Zadar was
simply glanced over by a simple statement that changes there were probably connected with the
struggle for the throne, ignoring the fact that Zadar was part of the Republic of Venice, and not
Hungary-Croatia. This view was rightly criticised by Andreas Kissewetter who concentrated on
observing the involvement of the popes in the Angevin struggle. He concluded that the Apostolic
See could not intervene against Andrew III, as he was legitimately crowned and internationally
recognized ruler and proceded to view the papal actions in Split and Šibenik as incidental. 450
During the period from the 1290s until the 1320s there was an unprecedented level of papal
involvement in Zadar and its bishopric-suffragans, but very limited involvement in the
CEU eTD Collection

archbishopric of Split and its suffragans, which goes contrary to the argument that the popes
intervened in local episcopal elections in favour of the Angevins. It is therefore necessary to
carefully re-evaluate the episcopal appointments in these archbishoprics and observe the papal
position and involvement in these elections by taking into consideration the local circumstances
and the changing practices in the rules on canonical elections.

449
Tkalčić, “Borba naroda hrvatskoga za anžovinsku kuću,” 1-34; Szentgyörgy, Borba Anžuvinaca za prijestolje
ugarsko-hrvatsko, 3-49; Dokoza, “Papinska diplomacija i dolazak anžuvinske dinastije,” 271-84.
450
Kiesewetter, “L’intervento,” 139-98.

91
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

Lawrence was last time mentioned as the archbishop of Zadar in late June 1287.451 Andrew
Gausoni was elected as his successor probably during the second half of 1287 as he is regularly
mentioned in the local sources from January 1288 until October 1290. 452 While Andrew was a
magister and a canon of the cathedral chapter of Padua for decades (since c.1263), he also held the
post of rector in the church of Saint Mary and Donat on the island of Murano (c.1265-c.1288),
suggesting local ecclesiastical contacts. He was also from an old and distinguished, but not
necessarily influential, family from Venice.453
In 1268 the ecclesiastical contacts and family position ensured that Andrew was elected as
the archbishop of Dubrovnik, another part of the Venetian Stato da Màr. Andrew was elected after
the previous archbishop was transferred to another see, but since there was a papal vacancy
Andrew had to wait for a confirmation. It seems that despite Andrew turning to local Venetian
clergy for support, he was too slow in seeking proper confirmation from the pope, who decided to
appoint another person as the archbishop.454 Since Dubrovnik, same as Zadar, accepted the
authority of Venice, the city was forced to sign a contract with the Serenissima (1232), stating that
the archbishops had to be elected from the clergy of Venice.455 Therefore, it can be assumed that
in Dubrovnik and in Zadar Andrew owed his election due to his background and ecclesiastical
connections, but it is unclear how much familial or political ties played a role.

451
Farlati, Illyricum Sacrum V, 84; CDC, 593, June 29, 1287.
452
Ljubić, “Dva popisa listina,” 106, January 12, 1288; Spisi zadarskih bilježnika I, 49, April 1288; CDC VI, January
1, 1289; CDC VI, 629, January 6, 1289; 631, January 12, 1289; 656, July 19, 1289; 665, July 27, 1289; 687, February
15, 1290; 695, May 14, 1290; CDC VII, 5, October 11, 1290.
453
Farlati, Illyricum Sacrum VI, 111-2; CDC VII, CDC VII, 19, (before) February 10, 1291; Sorelli, “Gli ordini
mendicanti” [no pages]; The Gausoni family had a seat in the Venetian Great Council after the Serrata in 1297.
Merores, “Der große Rat von Venedig,” 33-113.
454
Following the transfer of Archbishop Aleardus of Dubrovnik to Arboreo in Sardinia in November 1268, Andrew
was elected by the cathedral chapter of Dubrovnik. Eubel, Hierarchia Catholica I, 101, 411, November 3, 1268. Since
CEU eTD Collection

there was a papal vacancy, the chapter and Andrew turned to Philip Fontana, the archbishop of Ravenna (r.1251-74).
Philip was appointed by Pope Clement IV (r.1265-68) as the papal legate in charge of Northern Italy and also Ragusa,
with widespread authority probably in order to organize a coalition against Conrad (r.1254-68), who was trying to
reclaim the Kingdom of Sicily (VMS I, 91-2, July 8, 1267; Eubel, Hierarchia Catholica I, 415; Ganzer, Papsttum und
Bistumsbesetzungen, 264). Philip granted Andrew the right to administer the Church of Dubrovnik in spiritual and
temporal affairs as the vicar. (CDC V, 490, April 30, 1269; 531, April 30, 1270). With the election of Pope Gregory
X (r.1271-76), Andrew received in August 1272 a one-month deadline to seek confirmation or renounce his election.
In March 1273 he sought support from several high-ranking prelates of Venice, the vicar of the bishop of Castello and
several rectors of local churches, who acted as witnesses while Andrew transcribed the papal bull. He probably wanted
to strengthen his claim as he planned to send his messenger (nuntius) to the Papal Curia (Priručnik II, 563, August 28,
1272; CDC VI, 23-4, March 31, 1273). Present was Leonard Faletro, the rector of the Saint Angel, who was appointed
as the bishop of Šibenik in 1287. Soon Andrew renounced his position and the pope appointed another candidate. The
pope stated that the chapter did not acquire the necessary confirmation from the Apostolic See, as the previous election
came after the transfer of Aleardus (VMS I, 93-4, December 9, 1276).
455
Although, unlike in Zadar, not confirmed by the patriarch of Grado. Krekić, Unequal Rivals, 9-12.

92
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

Like in Dubrovnik, Andrew was also unsuccessful in Zadar as some members of the
cathedral chapter complained to their spiritual superior in Grado against Andrew’s election. But
the true reasons can be observed in the desire of the Apostolic See to be more involved in episcopal
appointments in the local Churches, even when they were not directly subordinated to the papacy,
as in case of Zadar. The popes accomplished this by claiming the appointments of the patriarchs
of Grado. The patriarchs were usually recruited from the members of esteemed Venetian families
and they had to confirm the newly elected archbishop of Zadar, so the weakening of the patriarchs’
authority could have weakened the Venetian control over Zadar.
After Patriarch Guido of Grado (r.1278-88) died, the local cathedral chapter elected
Boniface, a Dominican friar, but he quickly resigned his post. The voters of Grado then gave Pope
Nicholas IV (r.1288-92) the authority to elect and in December 1289 the pope appointed Lawrence
de Parma (r.1289-96), another Dominican friar.456 The uncertainty regarding the vacant
patriarchate, during which time the large diocese was managed by a vicar, created problems in
confirmations of elections by (arch)bishop-suffragans of Grado. For instance, Bishop-elect
Maynardus of Torcello already received the confirmation from the vicar of the patriarch-elect,
while Bishop Leonard of Chioggia from the patriarch-elect himself. Both resigned their posts and
the pope appointed their successors.457 The vacancy in Grado better explains the problems in
Zadar458 and its suffragan bishopric of Krk,459 where disputed elections also occurred and both
cases devolved to the Apostolic See. The pope followed the same pattern as in the elections in
Grado, Torcello and Chioggia, by having the elected candidates resign. Nicholas IV, himself a
CEU eTD Collection

456
Lawrence was the chaplain of Cardinal-deacon Benedict Gaetani (r.1284-91), better known under his later name
as Pope Boniface VIII. Eubel, Hierarchia Catholica I, 10, 266, December 22, 1289; Ganzer, Papsttum und
Bistumsbesetzungen, 356, 362; Ughelli, Italia sacra V, 1139, 1214.
457
In Chioggia the candidate of the chapter Percival did not accept the election, while the patriarch-elect of Grado
tried to provide Leonard, the rector of the church of Saint Eustachius of Venice, against which the canons appealed to
the Apostolic See. The pope appointed his chaplain Alero to Torcello, and a Franciscan friar Henry to Chioggia.
Ganzer, Papsttum und Bistumsbesetzungen, 361-2, September 16, 1290; Bullarium Franciscanum IV, 175-6.
458
The pope narrated in his bull that Andrew Gausoni was elected, but some unidentified and unsatisfied members of
the chapter complained to the patriarch of Grado, who decided to pass on the case to the pope and his auditor. In the
end, Andrew renounced his claim directly into the papal hands.
459
Following the death of Bishop Marin (c.1271-c.1289) the cathedral chapter was divided in votes between two
locals, a Dominican friar Zachary and a Franciscan friar John of Vegla. Farlati, Illyricum Sacrum IV, 301.

93
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

Franciscan friar, then proceeded to appoint John of Anagni in Zadar460 and Lambert in Krk,461 both
Franciscan friars and connected with the Apostolic See.
The pope was involved in cases which fell under the papal jurisdiction and which were
viewed as more important to the Apostolic See. Appointments in the bishoprics of Osor and Rab
were left to the metropolitan in Zadar,462 while the pope appointed the bishop of Krk and the
archbishop of Zadar since they fell under the papal prerogatives of episcopal transfer and death at
the Curia. After transferring John of Zadar to Trani and Lambert of Krk to Aquino, both in 1297,
Pope Boniface VIII appointed Henry from Todi to Zadar, and Matthew in Krk.463 Both prelates
died at the Curia: Henry in 1299 and Matthew in 1302. The pope proceded to again appoint their
successors: James from Foligno in Zadar, and Thomas in Krk.464
While it is hard to make decisive conclusions based on the origins of the newly appointed
archbishops, Todi and Foligno were close to each other, and James of Foligno later spent some
time in the Franciscan friary in Todi. It is possible that James and Henry both originated from the
same monastery. Todi was a place closely connected to Pope Boniface VIII, who at one point lived
there and during his pontificate was appointed the podestà of Todi, so Boniface could have met
the two prelates there.465 It is more likely that James and Henry were suggested to the pope by one

460
John’s name points to him originating from Anagni, a well-known residence of the popes during the thirteenth
century. Federico Bianchi added that John was probably from a Franciscan friary in Zadar and that he and Pope
Nicholas were close friends. According to Bianchi John followed the pope during his stay in Dalmatia. Bianchi, Zara
cristiana, 44; Farlati, Trogirski biskupi, 210; Žugaj, “Hrvatska biskupija,” 97; Karbić, Šubići of Bribir, 330-1. John of
Anagni was listed as the Franciscan Minister Provincial of Slavonia between 1288 and 1291. Žugaj, “Hrvatska
provincija franjevaca konventualaca,” 42, 101.
461
Lambert probably had prior contacts with the Apostolic See, which earned him his appointment. During his
CEU eTD Collection

episcopate, Lambert had easier access to the papal court obtaining a number of privileges, before receiving additional
promotions. Pope Boniface VIII appointed Lambert as the vicarious urbis, the papal vicar in spiritual care of the city
of Rome, while the same pope transferred Lambert to the richer bishopric of Aquino, which was closer to Rome and
directly subordinated to the pope. CDC VI, 691-2, March 8, 1290; Bullarium Franciscanum IV, 140-1; Farlati,
Illyricum Sacrum V, 301-2; Ganzer, Papsttum und Bistumsbesetzungen, 359; CDC VII, 2, August 23, 1290; CDC VII,
3, September 13, 1290; CDC VII, 78, March 4, 1292; CDC VII, 247, July 21, 1296; Eubel, Hierarchia Catholica I,
99, 518.
462
CDC VII, 209-210, October 2, 1295. Eubel, Hierarchia Catholica I, 101; Farlati, Illyricum Sacrum V, 197-98, 244.
463
CDC VII, 283-4, June 18, 1297. There was no mention of papal appointment in the case of Matthew. This is my
supposition based on the fact that Lambert was transfered and that in the case of transfers the pope would proceed to
appoint the successor. Ganzer, Papsttum und Bistumsbesetzungen, 278-9.
464
CDC VII, 343-4, June 15, 1299, Bullarium Franciscanum IV, 487-8; CDC VIII, 31-2, August 13, 1302; Bullarium
Franciscanum IV, 557-8; Ganzer, Papsttum und Bistumsbesetzungen, 409-11.
465
Menestò, “Bonifacio VIII e Todi,” 21-58; Quaglioni, Storia della Chiesa: La crisi del Trecento e il papato
avignonese, 131.

94
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

of the cardinals. In the papal bulls of appointment, Boniface used the term ad/de fratrum nostrorum
consilio/um, which was a term implying mediation from the cardinals.466
Immediately after his appointment by Pope Nicholas IV (1291), John was consecrated by
the pope and granted the pallium.467 On the other hand, Pope Boniface VIII appointed Henry and
James, but the two archbishops were consecrated in Rome by Matthew of Aquasparta, the cardinal-
bishop of Porto-Santa Rufina (1291-1302) and the Minister General of the Franciscans who
entered the order at Todi.468 The cardinal was closely alligned with the pope so it was probably he
who suggested Henry and James as the candidates for the archbishopric of Zadar.469 The
Franciscan connection is more noted by the fact that both Nicholas IV and Boniface VIII were
inclined toward the order.470 The Franciscans were viewed as the ideal mediators in local disputes
and potential allies in struggle against heretics, while working on expanding papal privilegies.471
Michael Robson noted an increase in numbers of Franciscans being appointed as bishops across
Christendom as in the 1280s there were 23 compared to 36 in the 1290s.472
Farlati claimed that after 1291 the cathedral chapter lost the right to appoint archbishops,
and that instead from that point onwards the pope appointed archbishops. His view was followed
by Bianchi who added that this was done with the mediation of the Republic of Venice. 473 Yet
none of this is correct. The chapter did gather on ocassions during the fourteenth century to try to
elect archbishops, but popes were the ones who appointed their associates, who had no ties to
Venice. According to the contracts between Venice and Zadar, the archbishops had to be Venetians
who would be confirmed and consecrated by the patriarch of Grado. After 1291 the archbishops
came from the Papal States, were appointed by the pope, consecrated by him or the cardinals and
granted pallium from the cardinals. Thus, the papal involvement invalidated the agreements
between Venice and Zadar. Andrew's resignation and the papal appointment of the new archbishop
CEU eTD Collection

466
This term was used since the pontificate of Pope Celestine III (r.1191-98) and came to refer to the papal decisions
which were being decided on the suggestion of the cardinals. Robinson, “The institutions of the Church,” 427-8.
467
CDC VII, 20, February 10, 1291; Bianchi, Zara cristiana, 44.
468
Bianchi, Zara cristiana, 45; CDC VII, 288-289, October 18, 1297; 343-4, June 15, 1299; 345, July 1, 1299.
469
Gaudemet, Storia del diritto canonico, 388.
470
Nicholas was the minister general of the Order (r.1274-9), and the first friar to become pope, while Boniface was
one of the members of the commission to provide an authoritative commentary on the Franciscan Order’s Rule.
Robson, Franciscans, 98.
471
Tierney, Foundation of the Conciliar Theory, XVI.
472
Robson, Franciscans, 106; On popes favouring Fraciscans as bishops, see: Polonio, “Frati in cattedra,” 549-501.
473
Farlati, Illyricum sacrum V, 84; Bianchi, Zara cristiana, 171.

95
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

of Zadar led to a prolonged period of exclusion of the patriarchs of Grado from confirming and
consecrating the elected archbishops.

III.1.3. A New Archbishop and a New Bishopric

While the cases from Zadar show the gradual promotion of papal interests in the
archbishopric of Zadar, the papal intervention in Split was connected with local ecclesiastical
disputes and the Angevin struggle for the throne of Hungary-Croatia. In my opinion, the
Neapolitan Angevins lacked influential allies in the Kingdom of Hungary-Croatia, while the Šubići
lacked direct access to the Apostolic See in order to have Šibenik elevated to the status of a
bishopric. These relations were promoted during the 1290s when the Šubići were able to utilize
their contacts with the Angevins and be recognized as valuable papal allies.474
As stated earlier, the major obstacle in establishing the bishopric of Šibenik was the
opposition of the leading personnel of the archbishopric of Split, namely Archbishop John and
Archdeacon James. Since John died during 1294, James succeeded him by September.475 James
was elected during the papal vacancy, following the death of Nicholas IV (April 1292 and July
1294), or during the short but problematic pontificate of Celestine V (July-December 1294) which
probably caused problems for James to seek papal confirmation in time. At least that was later
claimed by Pope Boniface VIII (r.1294-1303), who stated that the election was not done according
to the rules and that James waited too long to ask for a confirmation.476 While acknowledging the
legal basis for James’s removal, I believe that the actual reasons for his rejection by the pope can
be understood by considering the political context of the period.
By May 1297 James submitted his resignation to Cardinal-Bishop Gerard Bianchi (c.1220-
1302), an important cardinal with close contacts to the Neapolitan Angevins.477 Instead, the pope
CEU eTD Collection

474
For this opinion, see: Petrović, “Papal Power, Local Communities and Pretenders,” 11-31; For a different opinion,
see: Karbić, “Uloga bribirskih knezova u osnutku šibenske biskupije,” 53-62. The case of Šibenik can be compared
with an example from 1288 of the elevation of the city of Sava (Sappa) to the status of bishopric in the Regnum
Albaniae. The diocese was for a long time vacant as the bishopric was destroyed. New bishop was elected and a
confirmation was asked from the metropolitan, the archbishop of Bar, who petitioned the pope. More importantly, the
new bishopric had support of Helen of Anjou (c.1236-1314), the queen of Serbia and one of the main papal ally in the
region who actively promoted Catholicsm. Lala, Regnum Albaniae, 155.
475
CDC VII, 184-185, September 1, 1294.
476
CDC VII, 277-8, May 10, 1297.
477
Created cardinal in 1278, Gerard served for years as the legate in the Kingdom of Naples (1282-1290 and 1299-
1301) and ensured the papal interest in its vasal kingdom. Eubel, Hierarchia Catholica I, 10. Dunbabin, French in the
Kingdom of Sicily, 103-4. Runciman, Sicilian Vespers, 223-57; Silanos, Gerardo Bianchi, 151-332.

96
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

appointed as archbishop Peter, a Franciscan friar, likewise with close connections to the Angevin
royal court in Naples, as he was the chaplain of Queen Mary of Naples. Since the archbishopric of
Split was directly subordinated to the Apostolic See, the archbishop was required to go to Rome
to petition the pope for a confirmation and the pallium, while the consecration could be conducted
by any other bishop. During the 1290s the archbishops of Zadar were all appointed by the pope in
Rome and immediately obtained the consecration and pallium, suggesting direct contacts with the
Apostolic See. Archbishop Peter was not in Rome when he was appointed, nor did he go there to
receive his consecration and pallium. While this may suggest that it was not the pope’s desire to
install Peter in Split, the pope did act on the request of the Angevins who thought it expedient to
have Peter dispatched to Split as soon as possible, with the new archbishop obtaining consecration
on his way, and pallium a year later.478
This alacrity is understandable if the connections between the Šubići and the Neapolitan
Angevins are taken into consideration. A year after Peter's appointment, Šibenik was elevated to
the status of bishopric, on the suggestions of Queen Mary of Naples and Count George, the brother
of Ban Paul Šubić.479 In a ceremony on the main square accompanied by a number of suffragans,
Archbishops Peter and Henry of Zadar announced the papal decision to elevate Šibenik to the rank
of a city and a bishopric.480 In his bull of confirmation Pope Boniface VIII emphasized that the
clergy of Šibenik could directly appeal to the pope in cases of episcopal election, therefore
bypassing the metropolitan-archbishop of Split. This shows how the pope was interested in
connecting the new bishopric to the Apostolic See.
Although sources do not say definitely, the Šubići were probably interested in elevating
Šibenik for spiritual reasons, but also to better control the city and the Church’s temporal
possessions.481 With the appointment of a favourable person in the archiepiscopal office of Split,
CEU eTD Collection

478
The permission was issued only 11 days after the appointment. CDC VII, p. 281, May 21, 1297. The pallium was
received only a year later. VMS I, 115-6, May 18, 1298.
479
CDC VII, May 1, 1298. Šibenski diplomatarij, 2-8, papal leter was dated to May 1 and it was read in Šibenik in
June 23, 1298, CDC VII, 304-5, June 23, 1298; also, see: Farlati, Illyricum Sacrum IV, 458-60; Kolanović, “Šibenska
Crkva,” 65; Barbarić, “Šibenik, šibenska biskupija, šibenski biskupi,” 92 ; Priručnik II, 617.
480
The two archbishops appointed Martin, a Franciscan friar from Rab, as the new bishop. Suffragans of Split (Hvar,
Nin, Skradin) and Korčula, the suffragan of Dubrovnik, consecrated the new bishop.
481
This is not visible in the source materials from Šibenik, but can be supposed based on an example from nearby
Nin. There in 1302, under Bishop Mark (c1291-c1307), Radoslav Lubačić from Skradin was appointed as the župan
(oficio quod zupanatum vulgariter appelatur), tasked to oversee the secular possessions of the bishopric. Radoslav
was the son of Ljubavac Bratodružev, the judge of Skradin and a supporter of the Šubići. Smiljanić, “O položaju i
funkciji župana,” 85.

97
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

the Šubići gained a considerable influence over the entire province of Split. Peter represented Ban
Paul during the gathering in Buda when the clergy testified the coronation of Charles with the
corona nova which was blessed by Legate Gentile.482 The archbishop also revived some
extinguished dioceses,483 located in areas of the Šubići expansion, while he probably also helped
that the Šubići candidates were appointed as bishops to local dioceses, since it was up to the
archbishop to confirm the elections of bishop-suffragans.484 Therefore, in Zadar the popes
proceeded to use the local complaints to the Apostolic See to promote the interest of the papacy,
while in Split they also reacted to the local appeals, but keeping in mind the interests of the local
interest groups and the Neapolitan Angevins.

III.1.4. The Church and the Arrival of the King

With the appointment in Split and the erection of the bishopric of Šibenik, the pope
effectively intervened in local ecclesiastical affairs in order to pave the way for Charles Robert,
the Angevin pretender, to claim the throne of Hungary-Croatia. This claim found its supporters in
older Croatian historiography,485 while other researchers usually completely omitted the events
from their works or downplayed these events.486 Andreas Kiesewetter pointed out that the popes
did not intervene in any other dioceses other than Šibenik and Split, even though Boniface VIII
had a chance in Trogir in 1297.487 This was not due to the lack of interest, but the lack of
opportunity and reasons to intervene in the affairs of the suffragans of the archbishop of Split. In
the examples from Zadar and Krk, the popes were involved in cases reserved to the papacy or in
the cases when a complaint was submitted to Rome. In Split the Apostolic See already appointed
its most important prelate, the archbishop, who could use his prerogatives to inspect the elections
of suffragan-bishops and ensure that suitable individuals were promoted as bishops.
CEU eTD Collection

482
CDH VIII/1, 334, June 15, 1309. Acta legationis Cardinalis Gentilis, 352, June 29, 1309.
483
Karbić, “Osnutak duvanjske biskupije,” 125-33.
484
This is mostly connected with the accusation raised by Miha Madijev who accused Ban Mladen Šubić of appointing
bishops, abbots and abbesses. It is hard to prove Miha’s claim, but it could serve as an example how the contemporaries
viewed the relationship between the clerics and the powerful oligarchs. Madijev, “Historija,” 175.
485
Tkalčić, “Borba naroda hrvatskoga za anžovinsku kuću,” 1-34. Szentgyörgy, Borba Anžuvinaca za prijestolje
ugarsko-hrvatsko, 3-49; Dokoza, “Papinska diplomacija i dolazak anžuvinske dinastije,” 271-84.
486
This approach is probably best exemplified by Zoltan Kosztolnyik’s remarks where the author simply glosses over
these events in one sentence, stating that they are of no importance. Kosztolnyik, “Did the Curia Intervene in the
Struggle for the Hungarian Throne,” 146; Kiesewetter, “L’intervento,” 163-4; Kiss, “VIII. Bonifác é Magyarország,”
1353-76; Mihalache, “The Holy See’s Intervention,” 155-164.
487
Kiesewetter, “L’intervento,” 165.

98
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

This can be corroborated by shortly observing the ecclesiastical situation in Hungary and
its connection with political instability. Although the number of episcopal transfers dramatically
increased during the pontificate of Boniface VIII, the pope did not use transfers to remove bishops
opposed to the Angevins. Instead, the pope intervened in disputed elections and benefited from
cases which came under papal prerogatives, such as episcopal transfers or death at the Curia, while
in other cases the pope simply waited for his opponents to die and then reserved the election of
successors. In this way, papal interference was not seen as an abuse but as enforcing the papal
prerogatives regarding the administration of the Church.488
In 1298 Gregory Bicskei, the bishop of Győr, was elected as the archbishop of Esztergom.
His election was disputed by part of the cathedral chapter, while Gregory also came into conflict
with King Andrew, his former patron. The king replaced the archbishop as the royal vice-
chancellor and worked at the Papal Curia to replace Gregory in Esztergom with another bishop.
The pope did an unusual thing by neither confirming nor rejecting Gregory but instead appointed
him as the procurator of the diocese.489 Gregory soon became the chief proponent of the Angevins
and fierce opponent of Andrew, while the high clergy of Hungary, chief supporters of Andrew,
consolidated their ranks around Archbishop John of Kalocsa.490 Gregory’s conflict with Andrew
could have signaled to both the Šubići and the Apostolic See that the time had come to send Charles
Robert to Hungary and use the political crisis to take over the throne. 491 In fact, it was Gregory,
together with the Šubići, who went to Naples in 1300 to bring Charles Robert to Hungary. But this
all shows that Pope Boniface VIII was eager to intervene, to a degree, in disputes in Hungary in
favour of the Angevins.
Prior to the death of King Andrew III, the Apostolic See was careful not to openly advocate
for the Angevins. When Charles Robert landed in August 1300 in Split and Andrew dispatched his
agents to the Curia, the cardinals were careful to distance the Apostolic See from Charles’s
CEU eTD Collection

488
For instance, Pennington notes that “no publicist, theologian, or lawyer” at the time questioned the papal right of
translations. Pennington, Pope and Bishops, 100.
489
For Gregory’s appointment: Eubel, Hierarchia Catholica I, 464, January 28, 1299. Rácz, “The Anjou Dynasty,”
53-4.
490
A good example is the Decretum of 5 August 1298 when higher clergy, led by John of Kalocsa, together with lesser
nobility firmly acknowledged Andrew’s reign against any other pretenders or rebels. Bak, Laws of the Medieval
Kingdom I, 46-50; 114-7. For an overview of the situation with Gregory, see: Szentgyörgy, Borba Anžuvinaca, 31-2,
34-5.; Skorka, “Charles I and the Habsburg Dukes of Austria during the Interregnum,” 243-4.
491
As suggested by Skorka, “Charles I and the Habsburg Dukes of Austria during the Interregnum,” 243-60.

99
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

action.492 The situation changed in January 1301 when Andrew died, Charles Robert tried to seize
the throne, but was rejected by the majority of the clergy and oligarchs, who instead had their own
candidates for the throne.493 The coronation of Wenceslaus of Bohemia prolonged the succession
crisis for years. Pope Boniface VIII expressed his displeasure with coronation, while Cardinal
Niccolo Bocassino of Ostia was sent as the legate to Hungary to investigate the situation
throughout the kingdom and gather support for Charles Robert.494
With the death of Andrew, the pope could act more freely and aggressively in favour of
Charles Robert. Following the death of Archbishop John of Kalocsa, who crowned Wenceslaus in
August 1301, Pope Boniface VIII decided to reserve both the archbishoprics of Esztergom and
Kalocsa, forbidding the elections by the cathedral chapters.495 Being unaware of the papal
reservation, the cathedral chapter of Kalocsa elected Canon Stephen, who received support of
Cardinal-Legate Niccolo Bocassino. With the legate’s backing, Stephen successfully petitioned
the pope which suggested the he was somebody who would support Charles Robert.496 Since
Boniface VIII supported the Angevins and claimed that the throne of Hungary was subject to papal
ruling, the pope convened a meeting in 1302/03 in Anagni to decide in the dispute between the
Angevins and Wenceslaus. After deliberation Charles Robert was recognized as the legitimate
king.497 Very soon both Pope Boniface VIII and Archbishop Gregory of Esztergom died as a
consequence of the attack by pro-French troops on the Papal Curia in Anagni. Since Gregory died
at the Apostolic See, the pope could appoint his successor. The first appointments which Pope
Benedict XI (Niccolo Bocassino) made were of those clerics that the pope recruited while on his
legatine mission in Hungary, showing the importance of the issue for the new pontiff. Michael of
Zagreb (r.1296-1303), previously a close supporter of Andrew III, was transferred to the position
of the archbishop of Esztergom, while Augustin Kažotić, a Dominican friar from Trogir, became
the bishop of Zagreb.498
CEU eTD Collection

492
Andrew’s representative was Petrus de Bonzano, an Italian merchant from Tarvisio, who was Andrew’s source of
information from the Curia at the end of 1300. Zsoldos, “III. András,” 220; Homonnai, “III. András hatalmának
stabilitása,” 63-74.
493
Burkhardt, “Ungarn zwischen Árpáden und Anjou (1301–1308),” 153-69.
494
VMH I, 387, October 17, 1301; VMH I, 385, May 15, 1301; CDC VIII, 19, November 8 1301. For his mission,
see: Marek, “Missions of Papal Legates,” 7-23.
495
VMH I, November 8, 1301; AkO I, 87-8.
496
Ganzer, Papsttum und Bistumsbesetzungen, 385, May 1, 1302.
497
AkO I, 214, June 3, 1303; VMH I, 400-1.
498
VMH I, 406-7, November 4, 1303; 409-10, December 9, 1303; CDC VIII, 60; Eubel, Hierarchia Catholica I, 464,
537.

100
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

During 1301 and 1302 the official notary charters in Split as well as in other Dalmatian
cities (Nin, Šibenik) dated their charters as the kingdom being vacant.499 Despite the Šubići
backing Charles Robert, the communes were probably hesitant to recognize any ruler due to the
problems of the legitimacy of the coronation. Once Pope Boniface VIII passed his Anagni decision
in mid-1303, the communes included Charles Robert into their datation, but there was still some
opposition. Trogir’s loss of Šibenik probably meant that the commune and the bishopric were
displeased with the Angevins and the papacy. Archbishop Peter, the local representative of the
Angevin-Šubići alliance, pressured the commune of Trogir with the penalty of excommunication
to start dating their charters with the king’s name.500 It is important to note that Peter did not
operate before receiving the papal mandate of recognition of Charles Robert, which reveals that
he was not really in the position to openly agitate for Charles Robert’s cause.

III.2. Episcopal Power and Authority: The Bishop and the Local Communities

Due to the conflict between Pope Boniface VIII and King Philip IV of France (1285-1314),
as well as the short pontificate of Benedict XI, the Apostolic See was under Clement V (r.1305-
14) transferred to Avignon. This meant that the papacy was forced out from their core territories
in Italy and that problems in Hungary-Croatia seemed rather distant. But Clement and his
successors were adamant in ensuring that the papal authority was upheld by employing the services
of a series of legates and tasking them with duties in Italy and Hungary.501

III.2.1. The Legate and the Bishopric

In 1307 the pope appointed Cardinal Gentile da Montefiore (1240-1312) as the papal legate
in Hungary. The cardinal-legate was tasked to break the local opposition of oligarchs and prelates
CEU eTD Collection

to the proper coronation of Charles Robert as the king. It should be restated that the legate was the
pope’s alter-ego and Gentile’s legatine’s powers and ecclesiastical jurisdiction were extensive in
order to ensure the success of his mission.502 On his way to Buda the legate passed through various

499
“regno Ungarie sede vacante,” CDC VIII, 5, April 14 1301; Listine V, 225, April 14, 1301; CDC XX, 303, June
26, 1301; 304, November 6, 1301; CDC XX, 305, December 31, 1301; 307, August 19, 1302; 309, December 31,
1302. The December charters are identical. CDC XX, 311, August 19, 1303; CDC XX, 308, November 21, 1302.
500
For the period before: CDC VIII, 41-42, 1302-1303; For the threat: CDC VIII, 57, August 22, 1303.
501
Mollat, The Popes at Avignon, 67-76; Manselli, “Il papato avignonese e gli Italiani del Trecento,” 73-86; Rollo-
Koster, Avignon and its Papacy, 32-44.
502
Acta legationis Cardinalis Gentilis, 1-3, August 8, 1307.

101
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

archbishoprics and bishoprics of Dalmatia, meeting local ecclesiastical and secular elites. His visit
was used by Paul Šubić to strengthen the family’s contacts with the Apostolic See, while the local
clergy used this opportunity to settle disputes within their dioceses. Since the legate’s activities in
Croatia-Dalmatia received considerable attention by the historians,503 I will shortly discuss here
what did the legate’s visit reveal regarding the management and the development of the episcopal
office on the example of the cardinal’s short visit to Zadar.
The legate arrived in Zadar in late June of 1308 where he quickly came into conflict with
the clergy. Although there are no sources for the start of the conflict, it seems that Gentile wanted
to inspect and reform local churches, while the local clergy opposed Gentile’s exercise of his
legatine authority in Zadar.504 The legate freely used his power of excommunication, while the
local clergy incited an armed mob and openly resisted the legate’s proclamations. Since
Archbishop James was visiting Todi in Italy, the diocese was led by Bishop George of Rab as the
vicar for the spiritual affairs and Paul of Foligno, the vicar for temporal affairs. But Paul, as well
as the commune’s podestà, do not seem to have been involved in these riots and the actual leaders
of the opposition were the powerful rectors of important churches of the city, including the
dignitaries of the cathedral chapter, who in 1305 resisted to quickly recognize the archbishop’s
agreement with the commune. In the complaint to the pope, the name of Chrysogonus, the rector
of Saint Mary, was listed before the name of Bishop George of Rab, which would suggest that the
rector had more authority in the local church than the bishop appointed as the archbishop’s vicar.505
Since Gentile was in a hurry to go to Buda to persuade the Hungarian nobility to crown
Charles Robert, the results in Zadar were inconclusive. But his visit shows the strength of the local
clergy and the level of influence held by the rectors of important local churches.
CEU eTD Collection

503
Gruber, “Djelovanje kardinala Gentila u Hrvatskoj (1308-1311),” 25-34, 35, 65-82; Dokoza, “Papinski legat Gentil
i trogirske crkvene prilike,” 67-83; “Papinski legat Gentil i Split,” 79-98; “Papinski legat Gentil i crkvene prilike u
Zadru,” 65-79.
504
The local clergy viewed Gentile as the legate designated for the Kingdom of Hungary-Croatia, which meant that
he had no jurisdiction in the diocese of Zadar, while recognizing as the legate Cardinal Neapoleone Orsini (Ursinus).
He was sent by Pope Clement V to Italy in 1305 to serve as the legatus a latere to pacify Italy, following the withdrawal
of the Curia toward France. It seems that Neapoleone was also in charge of Venetian Dalmatia as he communicated
with the clergy of Zadar and its suffragan-bishoprics, but he was too busy with the conflicts in Italy to ever visit
Dalmatia. His mission seems to have been a failure as he was recalled in June 1309. CDC VIII, 134, April 23, 1307;
216-8, August 17, 1308. Veronesi, “La legazione del cardinale Napoleone Orsini,” 79-133; Rollo-Koster, Avignon
and its Papacy, 32, 41, 45.
505
CDC VIII, 191-2, July 29, 1308.

102
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

III.2.2. The Rebellion in Zadar (1311-13)

The Šubići found themselves at the centre of the rebellion in Zadar which occurred in 1311.
Not only did they maintain connections with the nobility of Dalmatian cities, both from the
territory of the Kingdom of Hungary-Croatia and from the Republic of Venice, they also built up
contacts with the aristocracy in Venice.506 The contacts between the clergy of Zadar, especially
the archbishops, and the Šubići are somewhat harder to attest, but it seems that the Šubići tried to
keep good contacts both with the archbishop and some members of the local clergy. For instance,
during the episcopate of Archbishop John (r.1291-97) the counts of Šubići - Paul, George and
Mladen - arrived to Zadar to show their devotion to the Apostolic See and have left two silver
reliquaries to commemorate their visit.507
As a direct consequence of the Venetian takeover of Ferrara in 1308, Pope Clement V
excommunicated Venice and sent his nephew Arnaud de Pellegrue as the papal legate to Italy to
combat the Venetian troops. According to some older historians, Arnaud spent some time in Split
during 1310 to ensure that the excommunication against Venice was enforced, but judging by his
preocupation with military activities in Italy, the legate never visited Dalmatia.508 Ban Paul Šubić
was excommunicated for trading with Venice, but it is unclear when and how was this
excommunication announced. Following the rebellion in Zadar in March 1311 and the Šubići
takeover of the city, it seems that by June the archbishop of Zadar and the Šubići cooperated and
sent letters to the Apostolic Curia. Ban Paul wrote to the pope to ask for help, as the ban had no
ships to fight the Venetians. Unlike the Venetians who tried to seize Ferrara, the ban stated that he
was always faithful to the Church and has even protected Zadar from the Venetian molestation.509
The ban also petitioned the pope to grant the next vacant position of a canon with a prebend in the
diocese of Foligno to Paul, the son of Philipp Massei de Cavalero from Foligno.510 The two
CEU eTD Collection

individuals were from the same place as the archbishop of Zadar. Archbishop James was known
to favour his compatriots in his episcopal government, but it is hard to say if the petition in some

506
Karbić, The Šubići of Bribir, 292-3; Nikolić Jakus, Formation of Dalmatian Urban Nobility, 49-56.
507
Farlati, Illyricum Sacrum V, 85; Bianchi, Zara cristiana, 44-5.
508
For the claim: Praga, Storia di Dalmazia, 122-3. For the events in Zadar: Brunelli, Storia della città di Zara, 435-
42; For the legate's activities: Soranzo, Guerra fra Venezia e la Santa Sede, 138–60.
509
CDC VIII, 283, June 16, 1311; Bianchi, Kršćanski Zadar II, 477-9; Klaić and Petricioli, Zadar u srednjem vijeku,
210. Similar letter was sent by King Charles Robert who supported the Šubići and the rebellion. Listine I, 258-9,
October 10, 1311.
510
Regestum Clementis papae V, n.6896, June 15, 1311.

103
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

way aimed at rewarding individuals who connected the archbishop and the ban. Neverthless, just
a week later the pope ordered James to absolve Ban Paul from excommunication, so it is, therefore,
probable that this occurred due to some prior communication between the archbishop, Paul Šubić
and the pope.511
On the same day when the petition was made for Paul from Foligno, Ban Paul also
petitioned the pope to award Alexander, the son of John Piscopi from Zadar, with a position of a
canon with prebend in the nearby bishopric of Zagreb.512 Since Alexander was soon elected as the
archbishop of Zadar, it seems that Alexander was a person of Paul’s trust and also respected in his
hometown of Zadar. When Archbishop James died during October 1311, by March 1312 the
cathedral chapter elected Alexander as the next archbishop.513 Alexander quickly obtained the
confirmation of his election from the vicar of the patriarch of Grado,514 the metropolitan of Zadar,
while several Dalmatian bishops consecrated the new archbishop. Having his election and
confirmation properly obtained, Alexander appeared at the Apostolic See in order to petition the
pope for the pallium. But the pope rejected Alexander’s election in July 1312, based on “certain
reasons,” and instead appointed his own scribe, Nicholas de Setia.515 The papal decision is not
strange if geopolitical situation is taken into consideration. During 1311 the papal troops were still
at war with Venice and the pope needed to put as much pressure as possible on the Republic. By
September 1311 the papal legate conquered Ferrara and in the changed political circumstances the
Apostolic See and Venice were negotiating for peace during 1312. Since Venice was still besieging
Zadar, the pope probably did not want to disrupt the peace negotiations, so he assigned the
archbishopric to a member of the papal Curia, Nicholas de Setia, who would be viewed as neutral
in the conflict.516

511
CEU eTD Collection

Regestum Clementis papae V, n.6895, June 22, 1311.

512
Regestum Clementis papae V, n.6897, June 15, 1311. Alexander was also a Dominican friar. Zrinka Nikolić wrote
that Alexander was related to an important family of Zadulinis from Zadar. His father was John Piscop while his
mother was Gruba, sister of Marin Zadulinus Grubcius. The Zadulinis were among the strongest supporters of the
Šubići in Zadar. Nikolić Jakus, Formation of Dalmatian Urban Nobility, 110. Also, see: Spisi zadarskih bilježnika II,
41-2, March 11-15, 1302.
513
CDC VIII, 295, October 21, 1311; 305, March 19, 1312; Farlati, Illyricum Sacrum V, 93. The regesta of the charter
in question in: Ljubić, “Dva popisa listina,” 110, March 21, 1312; Karbić, “Crkvena politika Šubića Bribirskih,” 143-
5.
514
Patriarch Angelus de Camerino, appointed on 15 October 1311, was dead by the beginning of 1313, and the
patriarchate was vacant until March 1314. Eubel, Hierarchia Catholica I, 266.
515
CDC VIII, 316-7, July 31, 1312.
516
Nicholas was a Dominican friar from Sezze (Setia) which was located in the diocese of Terracina, south of Rome.
He appeared at the Curia as the chaplain of Cardinal Berenger Fredoli (c.1250-1323), from 1305 the cardinal of Saints
Nereus and Achilleus and from 1309 the cardinal of Frascati. During 1308 Nicholas was mentioned as a papal scribe

104
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

Despite the papal appointment, Alexander was regularly mentioned as the archbishop in
local sources together with Mladen II Šubić who was the city’s count.517 Although Venice took
back Zadar and signed a peace treaty in September 1313, Alexander probably hoped that he would
be able to persuade the pope to allow him to remain in Zadar. A trial was held at the Curia between
Alexander and Nicholas, but the papal judge decided in Nicholas’s favour. The events were
narrated in detail by the pope who in February 1314 wrote to the clergy and the commune of Zadar,
ordering them to accept Nicholas as the archbishop.518
Unlike the previous peace treaties in the thirteenth century, the peace treaty between Zadar
and Venice, signed during 1313, did not have any stipulations regarding the obligation for the
cathedral chapter to only elect Venetians as the archbishops. After the Venetian takeover a
considerable diplomatic activity probably occurred between the Apostolic See, the Republic and
the Šubići regarding the fate of Alexander. Although rejected in Zadar, the archbishop was
appointed as the archbishop of Crete, which could be interpretend as a promotion and a reward.
The popes tended to use the episcopal transfers in order to put to end a local conflict between the
bishop and his surroundings which threatened the episcopal office. This was probably due to the
reason that Alexander was confirmed and consecrated archbishop, so the pope could not simply
diminish his status, but would instead provide the elected (arch)bishops with suitable position or
incomes. The episcopal transfer and further events suggests that a deal existed between the Šubići,
Venice and the pope. Alexander was regularly mentioned as the archbishop together with the
Venetian municipal representatives until April 1314.519 In March 1314 the pope transferred
Alexander to Crete, while by June 1314 Nicholas of Setia was listed as the archbishop of Zadar.520
Lastly in 1314, Ban Mladen II and his brothers became the citizens of Venice.521
CEU eTD Collection

and was able to obtain appointments as a canon to a number of bishoprics. Regestum Clementis papae V, n.3183-4,
September 30, 1308; n.4796, July 9, 1309. The fact that the pope personally consecrated Nicholas and granted him
the pallium shows how close Nicholas was to the pope. Regestum Clementis papae V, n. 8524. August 28, 1312;
Bianchi, Zara cristiana, 46.
517
electus Jadrensis confirmatus et consecrates. CDC VIII, 320, October 17, 1312; 329-30, February 19, 1313; 333,
April 30, 1313. The title was used by archbishops who were properly elected, consecrated and confirmed, but who
lacked the pallium, which was granted by the pope. See earlier.
518
Regestum Clementis papae V, 10211, February 8, 1314.
519
CDC VIII, 346, December 3, 1313; CDC VIII, 349 February 8, 1314; CDC VIII, 352, March 10, 1314; CDC VIII,
356, April 23, 1314.
520
Eubel I, 215, March 2, 1314; CDC VIII, 361, June 18, 1314. Also: The Šubići of Bribir, 337-339.
521
Listine I, 277; Klaić, Izvori za hrvatsku povijest, 181-2, March 28, 1314.

105
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

It is unlikely that the Venetians would tolerate a Šubići partisan in their city, yet due to
their poor relations with the Apostolic See, they could not remove Alexander – or were not willing
to – by themselves. Secondly, the agreement regarding the transfer of Alexander kept the papal-
Šubići relationship intact and followed the usual practice of the popes by which the papal rights of
appointment were preserved, but all the involved parties received something in return. Thirdly,
and probably most strongly pointing to this conclusion, is that Alexander’s transfer was identical
to the solution that Pope Boniface VIII had in 1298 during the establishment of the diocese of
Šibenik. The illegitimate bishop of Šibenik, Leonard Falieri (r.1288-98), a partisan of the Šubići,
was not confirmed as the bishop of Šibenik when the see was established, but was instead
appointed as the archbishop of Crete and the titular patriarch of Constantinople. Alexander
“inherited” Leonard’s position in Crete.522 In both cases we have connections between the Šubići
and the church structures. Lastly, Crete was, similarly to Zadar, the territory of the Republic of
Venice.523 Alexander was in office from 1314 until his resignation in 1333 serving as the
archbishop in a rather peculiar diocese. He was a Latin archbishop, obeying orders from the pope
and Venice but serving in a major Greek diocese negotiating his way between all the involved
powers and the local Greek priests.524 While in the end the papal interests prevailed, the Šubići’s
candidates were rewarded with other dioceses, proving that at least from the 1290s the family
established a strong relationship with the Apostolic See and could discuss their Church policy with
the popes.
The control of the archbishopric probably also meant the control of the clergy of the
archdiocese. In August 1314 the archbishop of Zadar,525 Nicholas, presided over the case between
the abbot of the Benedictine monastery of Saint Chrysogonus and the monks of the monastery.526
Abbot Matthew de Qualis, native to Zadar, was appointed in 1312 and confirmed by Archbishop-
CEU eTD Collection

522
Despite the fact that the patriarch was not in Constantinople, this was politically and financially still influential
position. Leonard was appointed in 1302, while with the appointment of Alexander in 1314 the union between
Constantinople and Crete was terminated. Karbić, The Šubići of Bribir, 337-339; Eubel, Hierarchia Catholica I, 206,
215.
523
On the Venetian Crete, see: Maoussacas, “L'isola di Creta sotto il dominio veneziano,” 473-514; Tomadakis, “La
politica religiosa di Venezia a Creta,” 783-800.
524
In May 1328 Pope John XXII assigned him a coadjutor (assistant bishop) due to Alexander being old and ill (senio
et imbecillitate gravato). Since 1326 Alexander also had a Greek presul in charge of ecclesiastical care for the Greek
believers. In 1333 Alexander resigned his position to Cardinal-Bishop Bertrand of Ostia. Eubel, Hierarchia Catholica
I, 215; Coureas, “The Latin and Greek Churches,” 156-7.
525
Appointed in 1312, but he appeared in Zadar in local sources by June 1314. CDC VIII, 361, June 18, 1314.
526
CDC VIII, 365-8, August 24, 1314.

106
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

elect Alexander.527 Once Alexander was transferred, a dispute arose and the monks, represented
by brother Thomas, wanted to remove Matthew as the abbot, which was successful. Matthew
continued the dispute by appealing to the patriarch of Grado. In the end the patriarch decided that
Matthew would receive 40 Venetian solids from the monastery as compensation. In my opinion,
Matthew rose to his position due to support by Archbishop-elect Alexander, but if compared with
the recompense which Alexander received, it does not seem that Matthew had such strong
supporters in his favour.
The rebellion in Zadar saw the Šubići at the height of their power in Dalmatia as the family
utilized their elaborate clientelistic network with the local elites in order to seize the city. An
important aspect in this plan were contacts with the clergy which, although less known, were also
used to temporarily strengthen the reign of the family over Zadar.

III.2.3. The Intra-Communal Violence in Trogir (c.1312-1322)

Unlike in Zadar, where the city stood unified against a foreign power, in Trogir conflicts
erupted from within, with noble families using the strategic institutions and resources of both the
commune and the bishoprics in order to rule the city.528 Important role in the conflict was played
by the Šubići family and Venice – the first having its own problematic history with the city, while
the second seeking to extend its influence over the commune. Although the aim of this subchapter
is to analyze the role played by the bishop and the Church in these conflicts, it is necessary to first
say something about the outbreak of violence between the city families.
When depicting the events in Trogir, the historians tended to start and stop at the middle
by depicting the attack on the city by Ban Mladen Šubić in May 1315, as an answer to an anti-
Šubići revolt in the city. The simplified explanation pitted the pro-Venetian families, which
CEU eTD Collection

favoured naval trade and were led by Matthew Zorić Cega, against the pro-Šubići faction, led by
Marin Andreis, which represented noble families that had landed possessions outside the borders
of the Trogir and therefore favoured contacts with the ban.529 But the actual reasons for the conflict

527
Peričić, “Samostan Svetog Krševana,” 98; Jakić-Cestarić, “Osobna imena i porijeklo redovnika,” 137.
528
On factions and conflict within the medieval communes, see: Martines, Power and Imagination, 34-110;
Lantschner, Logic of Political Conflict, 21-88; Green, “Image of tyranny,” 335-51. Waley and Dean, Italian City-
Republics, 170-97.
529
For the narrative about the conflict in Trogir, see: Klaić, Bribirski knezovi, 108-111; Granić, “Jadranska politika
Šubića,” 51-61; Andreis, Povijest grada Trogira I, 64-74; Klaić, Povijest Hrvata u razvijenom srednjem vijeku, 429-
439; Klaić, Povijest grada Trogira, 214-28; Benyovsky Latin, Srednjovjekovni Trogir, 24-6.

107
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

were more complex, as the groups surrounding Matthew and Marin lacked clear political
orientation but were instead defined through economic and personal relations of the powerful
communal families, who struggled with each other for power and tried to enlist the support of
either the Šubići or Venice.530 In order to foster the lasting peace between the warring families,
some sources were purged from the city charters during these conflicts, which made the material
fragmented and created difficulties in recreating the exact events.531
The struggle for power in Trogir intensified as early as 1312 and was connected with the
growing power and influence of Matthew Zorić, from the family of Cega. From 1310 Matthew
Zorić was one of the consuls of the city, quickly rising in power and by 1313 becoming the person
in charge of the city. His quick rise in power was caused by a violent attack on the communal
notary and two consuls, perpetrated by Marin Andreis, probably during 1312, and which resulted
in the communal council voting special powers to the already existing magistracies in order to
overcome the crisis. These powers were then extended in the upcoming years. By the end of 1312
Matthew ruled as the captain of the popolo, without consules, while during 1313 he became the
perpetual captain of the city.532
Although it is unclear what provoked Marin’s attack, his activities resemble similar cases
from Italy of attempts by an individual or a family to seize power in a city.533 The result in Trogir
was that Marin was exiled, or he escaped, but soon, maybe by 1313, he was back in the city. It
should be noted how these events in Trogir - Marin’s attack, his exile and Matthew becoming the
ruler of the city - coincided with the Šubići’s preoccupation in Zadar and the war with Venice, as
well as the death of Ban Paul and Mladen’s succession as the leader of the family. A member of
the Šubići, Paul II, was the count of Trogir, but he was probably underaged and uninvolved in the
CEU eTD Collection

530
Both the Cega and the Andreis families had properties within and outside of the communal borders, which dictated
their relations toward the Šubići. Irena Benyovsky Latin, “Politički sukobi u srednjovjekovnom Trogiru,” 44-51;
Lucić, Povijesna svjedočanstva, 376-78. Karbić, Šubići of Bribir, 20-21; Karbić, “Odnosi gradskoga plemstva i
bribirskih knezova Šubića,” 50-2, 57; Benyovsky Latin, Srednjovjekovni Trogir, 29; Owen Hughes, “Urban Growth
and Family Structure,” 3-28; On the families of Trogir, see: Andreis, “Trogirski patricijat,” 5-210.
531
Lucić, Povijesna svjedočanstva I, 389. Some sources were burned in 1318/19 after Matthew Zorić's exile.
532
Rački, “Notae,” 224-5; Trogirski spomenici IV, 111, 1312; CDC VIII, 334, May 8, 1313; 401, June 8, 1315. Karbić,
“Odnosi gradskoga plemstva i bribirskih knezova Šubića,” 53; Note the similar use of violence in Italian communes
which led to the rise in oligarchs and despotic regimes. Martines, Power and Imagination, 94-5; Ricciardelli,
“Violence and repression,” 55-72.
533
Andreis presumed that the conflict started because Marin and Matthew competed for the honour of the communal
judge, but this position was not even mentioned in the sources. Andreis, Povijest grada Trogira I, 64. The conflict
was not followed by exile and confiscation of the properties of Marin Andreis and his followers, which occurred only
after 1315. For similar conflicts in Italy, see: Waley and Dean, Italian City-Republics, 165-69.

108
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

conflicts. Since Marin Andreis’s family had ties to the Šubići, the relatively mild punishment and
Marin’s subsequent return could be explained through the mediation by the Šubići.534
In May 1313 the commune negotiatiated with Venice in order to obtain better trading
concessions. Daniel Vitturi, the brother of Primicerius Lampredius, was sent to negotiate the
agreement.535 Although this was shown as a proof that Matthew Zorić turned to Venice in order to
fight the nobility that supported the Šubići, the situation was not that simple, as the trade between
Trogir and Venice occurred before and was now affected by the ecclesiastical and political
events.536 The papal excommunication of Venice and the subsequent war between the Šubići and
the Venetians over Zadar probably disrupted the trade, so Matthew now tried to revive the
diminished commerce and obtain better conditions with Venice.
Another conflict between Matthew Zorić and Marin Andreis occurred at the beginning of
1315, although the sources are scarce. In early May 1315 the commune decided to form a
committee in order to investigate a conflict that erupted in the commune, without specifying what
happened. Judging by a note in the city records from August, a number of laics and clergy left the
city and the communal authorities of Trogir, representing those who remained – the internals -
forbade anybody from negotiating with the exiles.537 Probably persuaded by Marin, Ban Mladen
Šubić, now not occupied with other pressing matters, reacted by threatening the city with an attack
in May. The attack did not occur as Matthew and Mladen were able to reconcile. Ban Mladen
received payment from the city and ensured that his brother, Paul, was confirmed as the count of
the city. Matthew strengthen his regime and confiscated properties of those who escaped the city
(the exiles) in order to pay the ban. He even temporarily considered asking Venice for help, but
the threat of the Šubići attack subsides as Mladen’s attention was soon needed elsewhere. During
1316/1317 the ban asked the commune for soldiers to help fight the Babonići and the Nelipčići.
CEU eTD Collection

534
In 1277 the extended Šubići family ended its conflict by celebrating a wedding. The main guarantees were Marin
Andreis, his brothers, father and uncle, suggesting that they were trusted by the Šubići. Monumenta Traguriensia I/2,
170-1, June 19, 1277. Karbić, “Odnosi gradskoga plemstva i bribirskih knezova Šubića,” 57. The Andreis family held
properties, donated to them by the kings, on the territory of the ban of Croatia. Andreis, Povijest grada Trogira I, 64.
Lucić, Povijesna svjedočanstva I, 240-42.
535
CDC VIII, 334, May 8, 1313; Lucić, Povijesna svjedočanstva I, 368-70.
536
Nada Klaić noted an investigation in 1310 in Trogir regarding who was trading with the Venetians as this was
forbidden due to their excommunication. But the author took this as a proof of existence of a pro-Venetian faction in
the city and not as an evidence of a disruption in the trade between Trogir and Venice due to the political and
ecclesiastical events. She omitted that even Paul Šubić was excommunicated for his dealing with Venice, before
waging war against the Republic. CDC VIII, 266; Klaić, Povijest grada Trogira, 214.
537
Rački, “Notae,” 226; Klaić, Povijest grada Trogira, 224-5.

109
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

While the ban was busy elsewhere, Marin Andreis and his supporters continued to fight with the
help of Šibenik.538 They were eventually successful as by October 1317 the exiles were able to
return to Trogir and seize power, exiling Matthew in the process.539
During Ban Mladen’s threat of attack in May 1315 the city council feared that the ban
could seize the Franciscan friary situated close to the walls and use it to storm the city. To prevent
this the commune sent Bishop Liberius (r.1297-1319) and Daniel Vitturi to negotiate with Mladen,
but while they were away the commune proceeded to tear down the monastery.540 The communal
authorities, together with the bishop, soon planned to find a replacement in the city for the
Franciscans, although the case dragged on for years, due to civil unrest, resulting in a papal
investigation.541 The top-ranking members of the cathedral chapter were missing during the
conversation in June between the city council and Bishop Liberius, regarding the new location of
the Franciscan friary. The bishop was surrounded by four canons mostly of foreign origins with
one Cega representative.542 The leading clerics of the chapter - Archdeacon Kazarica, Primicerius
Lampredius and Canon Marin Ambalažev - were still in the city in November 1314 when there
was a conflict between the cathedral chapter and the bishop of Trogir regarding the division of
properties and incomes between the chapter and the bishop. Lampredius and Marin were
authorized by the chapter to solve the problems with the bishop.543
Based on the sources it is hard to assess if these clergymen joined the exiles from the start
or as a consequence of the destruction of the Franciscan friary.544 The bishop argued against the
demolition, and his opinion could have been shared by the higher clergy.545 Three out of four

538
CDC VIII, 388, May 6-27, 1315; Lucić, Povijesna svjedočanstva I, 371-3; Klaić, Povijest grada Trogira, 219-222;
CDC VIII, 404, July 8, 1315; Klaić, Povijest grada Trogira, 219-24; Benyovsky Latin, Srednjovjekovni Trogir, 24-
26; Karbić, Šubići of Bribir, 81-2.
539
CEU eTD Collection

CDC VIII, 462-3, October 30, 1317.

540
Lucić, Povijesna svjedočanstva I, 370, 373; CDC VIII, 397-99, June 1, 1315; Lucić, Collection, 542, 41-44’; CDC
VIII, 404, July 8, 1315; Klaić, Povijest grada Trogira, 220-1. Damir Karbić views the destruction of the monastery
in Trogir (and later in Šibenik in a similar circumstances) as the attempts of the communal councils to more easily
control the Franciscans who had well established contacts with the Šubići. Karbić, “Utjecaj velikaškog roda Šubića,”
165-6.
541
CDC VIII, 397-99, June 1, 1315.
542
When discussing which location to give to the Franciscans, Bishop Liberius was surrounded by the canons of the
cathedral chapter: Pusillo Theodosii, Joanne Cavaluccio, Andriolo Manerii de Ancona and John (Joanne) Stepi Duymi.
It seems that the first three canons were foreigners, while John belonged to the Cega family. Andreis, “Trogirski
patricijat,” 53.
543
CDC VIII, 370-3, November 11, 1314.
544
Nada Klaić surmised that the destruction of the monastery was the reason why the clergy left the city. Klaić,
Povijest grada Trogira, 225.
545
Benyovsky Latin, Srednjovjekovni Trogir, 71, f.385.

110
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

canons mentioned in June 1315 with the bishop were not mentioned in November 1314, which
would suggest that they joined the chapter very recently and were added to fill the ranks of the
diminished chapter. But the canon from the Cega family was no longer mentioned in the chapter
after the exiles took power in 1317, which points to the fact that he was added to the chapter when
the enemies of Matthew Zorić went into exile. As the high-ranking members of the chapter were
sons of the influential local noble families, their behaviour seems to have been dictated more
through their kinship, than their institutional belonging.
In April 1317 a committee was tasked to seize the goods of Archdeacon Kazarica,
Primicerius Lampredius Vitturi, John Castrafocus and Marin Ambalažev Andreis and use them to
repair the walls in case they were damaged by an attack by the Šubići.546 All four were members
of the cathedral chapter and had ties with local noble families, which shows that the local Church
was deeply involved in the intra-communal violence.
The Andreis family had at least two of its members in the cathedral chapter. Marin
Andreis's son Albert was probabaly installed as canon during the pro-Andreis regime in 1319,
while more influential was his cousin Marin Ambalažev who, although a canon, appeared to play
a key role in leading the chapter.547 Less clear is why Archdeacon Kazarica joined the Andreis
rebellion. He was a member of the Kazarica family, associated to the Andreis through a family
connection, but he was also a citizen of Šibenik. In March 1316 an envoy from Šibenik demanded
that Kazarica be released from prison and compensated for the injustice, suggesting that Matthew
arrested the archdeacon, creating a bitter enemy out of him.548
The behaviour of Bishop Liberius during this conflict is hard to ascertain. He disagreed
with the demolition of the Franciscan friary, but he probably tried to maintain neutrality in the
wider conflict. In June 1316 he was absent from the city and the commune threatened him to
quickly return, otherwise his properties would be confiscated.549 It cannot be stated if his absence
CEU eTD Collection

was in any way connected with the exiles, but this could be suggested by the brisk communal

546
Rački, “Notae,” 229, April [no day], 1317.
547
Albert(in) was removed from the chapter during 1320s and was recorded as being a habitator of Zadar. Marin was
mentioned as the canon between 1313 until his death during or prior to 1348. Andreis, “Trogirski patricijat,” 35.
548
Andreis, “Trogirski patricijat,” 80-2; CDC VIII, 421-2, March 23, 1316; Lucić, Povijesna svjedočanstva I, 381-2;
Rački, “Notae,” 227-8; Andreis, Povijest trogira, 67.
549
Rački, “Notae,” 228: June [no day], 1316; CDC VIII, 429, June [no day], 1316; Lucić, Lucić, Povijesna
svjedočanstva I, 383; Andreis, Povijest grada Trogira, 68.

111
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

order. He returned quickly,550 but soon he was absent again as in October the commune authorized
eight individuals, laics and clerics, to accompany the returning bishop and escort him to the
cathedral.551 The commune tried to benefit from the bishop’s absence by trying to collect the
Church tithes which resulted in violent reaction by the clergy which stopped holding masses and
expelled people from the cathedral. This suggests a change in the relationship between the
commune and the Church as the laics decided to directly claim the ecclesiastical incomes.552
The position of the Vitturi family, to which Primicerius Lampredius belonged to, was
determined by family ties, experience and institutional affiliation. As part of the papal investigation
into the destruction of the Franciscan friary conducted in 1319, Gregory Salinguere, from a side-
branch of the Vitturi family, named the brothers Vitturi, Primicerius Lampredius and Daniel, as
among the individuals who supported Marin Andreis and were forced to leave the city.553 While
the primicerius went to exile with the leading members of the cathedral chapter, his brother
continously served the commune during the reign of Matthew Zorić. A potential explanation of
different behaviour of the two brothers can be suggested by observing the family ties of the Vitturi
brothers. Their mother, Dobra, came from the Cega family, which made the brothers distant
cousins of Matthew Zorić.554 The Andreis and the Cega families were embroiled in a bitter battle
to control the communal magistracies, but which boiled down to the conflict for power between
the two familes. The Vitturi brothers’ allegiances were also defined by their institutional belonging
as Lampredius sided with the chapter, where the Andreis family had important influence, and
Daniel with the commune, where the Cega ruled.
During 1313 Daniel negotiated with Venice, while in May 1315 he was sent to negotiate
with Ban Mladen Šubić, both times on the behalf of Matthew Zorić and Trogir. When in February
1317 Mladen requested soldiers from Trogir, Daniel and Matthew Zorić went as envoys to the
CEU eTD Collection

550
He was mentioned as overseeing an agreement between Archdeacon Paulin of Skradin and the canon of Trogir,
Andriol. CDC VIII, 428-9, June 25, 1316.
551
Benyovsky Latin, Srednjovjekovni Trogir, 204-5; Klaić, Povijest grada Trogira, 225.
552
Rački, “Notae,” 228, August 10, 1316.
553
Lucić, Povijesna svjedočanstva I, 383-7; Benyovsky Latin, Srednjovjekovni Trogir, 153-4; Andreis, “Trogirski
patricijat,” 112-8. The members of the pro-Andreis party as part of the cathedral chapter: Archdeacon Kazarica,
Primicerius Lampredius (Vitturi), Marin Ambalažev, John Castrafocus, Ceprenja and Albert, the son of Marin
Andreis, were all members of the cathedral chapter; citizens: Marin Jurin, Dominik Carli, Šimun kneza Marina, Marin,
the son of Andrew, Daniel Vitturi, sons of Dujam Domice, sons of Ambalažev, Ivan Desin, sons of Gauzinja, and
others. Lucić, Povijesna svjedočanstva I, 384-5.
554
Andreis, “Trogirski patricijat,” 50-3. Lampredius’s connections to both the Vitturi and the Cega were emphasized
at his gravestone. Farlati, Trogirski biskupi, 260.

112
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

ban.555 But Daniel appeared in the pro-Andreis regime installed in October 1317 as one of the
three consules, suggesting that after February he switched sides and helped the exiles take over.556
While the reasons for Daniel’s change of allegiance remains unclear, Matthew did seize his
properties. The new regime worked on recompensating the loses of the exiles by seizing the
properties of the pro-Zorić supporters, as well as compensating Daniel for his loses.557
After claiming the commune, the rebels immediately formalized their power grab by also
taking official control over the bishopric. In November 1317 Bishop Liberius appointed
Archdeacon Kazarica and Primicerius Lampredius as the general vicars for all spiritual, criminal
and civil questions, relinquishing the control over the bishopric into the hands of these two
clergymen. This was done with the tacit approval from the commune as the agreement was made
in the palace of the bishop and in the presence of the leading city magistrates, its three consules,
but also with the presence of Marin Andreis, the leader of the exiles. 558 By April 1319 Liberius
died and Lampredius was elected as the bishop of Trogir.559 According to the canonical rules of
scrutiny, three men were appointed in order to ask the canons about their choice and to pronounce
the bishop-elect. The three men were Primicerius Lampredius, canons Marin Ambalažev of the
house of Andreis, and Ceprenja, the son of Gregory, the three individuals who went to exile in
1315 and only returned to the city in 1317.560 Thus, the exiles were able to again utilize their recent
victory by steering the cathedral chapter and the bishopric. The election of Lampredius closely
followed the previous elections of 1282 and 1297 and the consensus building between the
communal authorities and the Church of Trogir, particularly because both institutions were mostly
managed by the same leading families. The context was different as the election of Lampredius
happened during the period of civil war, as one party claimed the city and installed its supporters
to the leading positions in the commune and the Church.
CEU eTD Collection

555
CDC VIII, 446, February 11, 1317.
556
Symon, the son of Marin, Daniel, the son of Jacob and John, the son of Peter Duymi, were mentioned as consuls
in October 1317. Lucić, Povijesna svjedočanstva I, 384-6. They immediately signed a peace treaty with Split. CDC
VIII, 462, October 30, 1317.
557
In April 1318 Daniel testified in the communal palace that he received satisfaction for damages that were done to
him – he lost goods and properties – during the regime of Matthew Zorić. CDC VIII, 499-500, April 15, 1318.
558
CDC VIII, 463-4, November 14, 1317.
559
Rački, “Notae,” 229: April 4, 1319. Liberius was mentioned for the last time in the city's charters in January 1319
so it would seem that Lampredius was elected within three months after the death of the predecessor, so according to
the canonical rules.
560
CDC VIII, 552-4, February 15, 1320; Eubel, Hierarchia Catholica I, 490; Klaić, Povijest grada Trogira, 256;
Farlati, Trogirski biskupi, 241-44; Nikolić Jakus, Formation of Dalmatian Urban Nobility, 117-8.

113
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

The problems in Trogir did not subside as conflicts erupted again during 1320. Corrado
Torre from Fermo, the new podestà, was killed in January 1320 (became podestà on April 4, 1319).
It should be noted that in 1319 Šibenik rebelled against Ban Mladen, and Trogir slowly sided with
561
pro-Venetian and anti-Mladen side, as the new commune sought podestà in Venice. It is
therefore unsurprising to find out that Matthew Zorić was again able to rise to the highest positions
in the city, but curiously, in cooperation with current leading men of the commune. In September
1320 Matthew was appointed as one of the consuls, together with Daniel Vitturi. By 1322 the
relationship with Ban Mladen Šubić deteriorated which pushed the commune to accept the rule of
Venice. Daniel Vitturi was one of the three representatives sent to Venice to negotiate the
acceptance of the Venetian rule over Trogir.562 When accepting the Venetian control in 1322
Daniel Vitturi and his family were listed as among the internals,563 as they were no longer
considered as rebels. What role was played by Lampredius as the new bishop or how the former
enemies, Daniel and Matthew, reconciled, cannot be stated with certainty. The Andreis family and
their supporters were once again exiled, and despite mediation by Venice, some were still
mentioned in 1326 and 1328 as being exiled. These included Archdeacon Kazarica, Canon Marin
Ambalažev and Canon Albert, the son of Marin Andreis, the same people whose actions enabled
Lampredius to become the bishop.564 While Lampredius did succeed in becoming the bishop of
Trogir, in the process he was deprived of his closest allies in the bishopric. The papal confirmation
– obtained directly by Lampredius in Avignong – certainly did help to consolidate his episcopal
authority and the position of his family with the new communal government.

III.3. Popes, Legates, Communes

The pontificate of John XXII (1316-34) was mostly connected with the rising papal
CEU eTD Collection

interventions in the episcopal elections.565 But the pope did not necessarily intervene in the affairs
of local dioceses, but instead mostly reacted to requests from petitioners from ecclesiastical and

561
Klaić, Povijest grada Trogira, 228; Andreis, Povijest grada Trogira I, 70; Klaić, Povijest Hrvata II, 44-49.
562
Lucić, Povijesna svjedočanstva I, 408, April 17, 1322.
563
Andreis, “Trogirski patricijat,” 13; Benyovsky Latin, “Politički sukobi u srednjovjekovnom Trogiru,” 45.
564
CDC IX, 412-3, September 19, 1328; Lucić, Povijesna svjedočanstva I, str. 436-38, 444.; Andreis, Povijest grada
Trogira I, 78; Andreis, “Trogirski patricijat” 16-7.
565
Silano, “Episcopal Elections,” 174-6; Harvey, Episcopal Appointments in England, 132-3; Neralić, Put do crkvene
nadarbine, 146, 182-93, 249-50. Sibilio, “Giovanni XXII e il mezzogiorno,” 377-399.

114
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

secular circles who would come to Avignon or contact the pope through the Curia.566 The official
policy of John XXII and his predecessor Clement V was to take note of the proper procedure for
the episcopal election and to maintain the rights and finances of the chapter, while not introducing
changes regarding the relations between the bishop and his chapter.567 But John XXII was
primarily interested in the affairs of Northern Italy where he promoted the papal authority. In order
to combat the attempts by Louis IV of Bavaria to pacify Italy and crown himself as the Holy
Roman emperor, the pope fought Louis with spiritual weapons, by sending legates and issuing
proclamations of reservations.568 In 1323 the pope reserved several Italian archbishoprics, together
with the patriarchate of Grado and its suffragans, which included Zadar. The reservation was
repeated every two years until the death of the pope in 1334.569
During John’s pontificate, five archbishops and bishops of Split, Trogir and Zadar were
appointed by the pope, out of which four prelates were native to their dioceses. The pope directly
appointed two archbishops, while other three high prelates were elected by their cathedral chapters.
While those directly appointed by the pope had prior contacts with the Curia, all appointees
eventually presented themselves personally in Avignon, in order to ensure their appointments. It
would seem that personal contacts and the bishops’ persistence was what enabled them to receive
their appointments.
In instances of smaller dioceses Pope John XXII started to disregard local rights of
appointment and to directly designate bishops, which was followed by his successors in the
dioceses of Split, Trogir and Zadar. During the 1330s and the 1340s the popes appointed most
bishops and archbishops in Dalmatia, not only in situations such as the death at the Papal curia or
the episcopal transfer, but going as far as to make general reservations or invalidating local
elections in favour of papal appointments.570 Therefore, it can be stated that during the Avignon
CEU eTD Collection

era the episcopate was not elected, but appointed by the popes. The individuals who wanted to
become bishops would collect letters of recommendations from secular supporters and were often
transferred from one diocese to another. On one hand the petitions by individuals who wanted to

566
On the development of the system of petition, see: Smith, “Development of Papal Provisions” 115; Meyer, “Der
Weg zur eigenen Pfründe,” 159-69; Zutshi, “Presentation of Petitions to the Pope,” 393-410.
567
Fonseca, “Vescovi, capitoli cattedrali e canoniche regolari,” 87.
568
Theseider, Problemi del papato avignonese, 114-18; Rollo-Koster, Avignon and its Papacy, 52; Zanke, “Politik
und Kommunikation im Konflikt,” 1-21; “Papal Registers in the Pontificate of John XXII,” 457-74; Manselli, “Il
papato avignonese e gli Italiani del Trecento,” 43-86; Zanke, Johannes XXII., Avignon und Europa, 75-103.
569
Lux, Constitutionum Apostolicarum, 29-31.
570
Wood, Clement VI: The Pontificate, 19-42.

115
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

be bishops or obtain some benefice, and on the other hand financial reasons, since every person
who obtained papal appointment had to pay his communal services, helped to fuel the growth of
the Papal Curia and the system of papal provisions.571

III.3.1. Peter, the Excommunicated Archbishop of Split

The mission of Cardinal-Legate Gentile to the Kingdom of Hungary-Croatia (1308-1311)

exposed Peter of Split’s shortfalling as the archbishop and as a person. During 1309 the
representatives of the commune and the archbishop disputed in front of the papal legate in Buda.
The accusations are unknown, but the result was that by 1311 Gentile excommunicated Peter and
left the management of the archbishopric in the hands of the cathedral chapter, which selected
canons George and Vukan as vicars in spiritual and temporal affairs.572
It was argued that during 1320 or 1321 Peter was absolved, but it seems that he remained
excommunicated until the end of his life, that he disputed the validity of the excommunication and
continued to perform his episcopal duties.573 The sources for the period between 1311 until 1320
are scarce and Peter was mentioned as the archbishop in only a few charters. It should be restated
that Peter had good contacts with the Šubići and was even credited with re-establishing two
dioceses which favoured the military expansion of the family. He was also installed as the
archbishop to favour the Angevin claim to the Hungarian throne, so it is not strange that from
sources for 1310s in which Peter was listed as the archbishop of Split one was issued by the Šubići
and one royal by Charles Robert.574
Two charters from Split show that the archbishop’s excommunication and the ecclesiastical
censure caused a rift in the relationship between Peter and the commune. In January 1315
Archbishop Peter addressed an open letter to the podestà and the commune of Split. Peter
CEU eTD Collection

571
Fonseca, “Vescovi, capitoli cattedrali e canoniche regolari,” 93; Silano, “Episcopal Elections”, 172-76; Ronzani,
“Vescovi, capitoli e strategie famigliari,” 138; Smith, “Development of Papal Provisions,” 110-21; Beattie, “Local
Reality and Papal Policy,” 131-53.
572
CDC VII, 247, March 22, 1309; 289-90, August 13, 1311; CDC VIII, 291-2, September 15, 1311; Acta legationis
Cardinalis Gentilis, 393-4: Dokoza, “Papinski legat Gentil i Split,” 89; Lucić, Povijesna svjedočanstva I, 533-34;
Ostojić, Metropolitanski kaptol, 26.
573
Farlati, Illyricum Sacrum III, 306-7.
574
The only charter from Split is the one in which Peter registered his defense. Šubići charter, CDC VIII, 308-10, June
23, 1312, mentioned Peter as the archbishop of Split. In the royal charter of Charles Robert as one of the ecclesiastical
dignitaries of the kingdom. CDC VIII, 492, March 12, 1318. Nicholas, the abbot of the Benedictine monastery of
Saint Stephen in Split, was the royal chaplain and retainer, so the king was certainly familiar with Peter’s position in
the community. It should be noted that it was the abbot, and not the archbishop, who contacted the king on the behalf
of the commune regarding a case of Spalatine merchants robbed in Apulia. CDC IX, 69, June 19, 1322.

116
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

attempted to justify his actions and dispute the excommunication by Legate Gentile. Peter’s
defence, although at parts badly preserved, is the best source for the way in which the archbishop
led his diocese, the problems he encountered or directly provoked, as well as in what way he
overstepped his authority, made dubious financial decisions and had led a life unworthy of his
position.575 In June 1316 the commune had the legate's letter of excommunication copied. While
it is not stated for what purpose, it was probably connected with Peter's need to justify his
actions.576 Peter's public call to the commune and his open challenge of the excommunication
could suggest that he continued to perform his archiepiscopal duties and that some members of the
commune resisted the archbishop by reminding him that he was excommunicated.577
Peter's excommunication and the conflict between the commune and the archbishop was
probably reflected in the re-edition of the statute of the city from 1312. Since the commune could
not directly participate in the episcopal elections and the grants of vacant Church prebends, the
Great Council of Split could only task its officials to petition the cathedral chapter to elect a
suitable person in the case of episcopal vacancy. Likewise, the representatives of the commune
would be sent to the archbishop to ask him not to appoint foreigners to prebends, but only those
native to Split.578 The wording of the next decision left no ambiguity regarding the connection of
these decisions and the on-going conflict between the commune and the archbishop. The commune
wanted the chapter to elect a “friend of the commune,” to manage the Church of Split and to live
with the commune in peace.
The election of the bishop of Trogir in 1319/20 was usually taken as a confirmation of
Peter’s continuing excommunication. After the death of Bishop Liberius of Trogir, by April 1319
Lampredius Vitturi, the primicerius of the cathedral chapter, appeared as the elected bishop in the
CEU eTD Collection

575
For the Peter’s defense, see: Farlati, Illyricum Sacrum, 304-6; CDC VIII, 378-81, January 8, 1315; Dokoza,
“Papinski legat Gentil i Split,” 89-92.
576
CDC VIII, 289-90, June 4, 1316.
577
Peter claimed that Gentile left Dalmatia and that another legate, Cardinal Arnald de Pellagrua (or Pelagnia), came
after Gentile, thus ending Gentile’s term as the legate. Later In 1320 Bishop Lampredius of Trogir informed the pope
that Gentile's excommunication of Peter was confirmed by Arnald. CDC VIII, 553, February 15, 1320. Farlati thought
that Arnald was the legate for Dalmatia most likely in 1311, when he probably visited Split. Farlati III, 305. Arnald
was sent to a mission to Italy in January 1309, leading the papal army against Venice, while he returned to the Papal
Curia in December 1310. In February 1312 the cardinal participated at the Council of Vienne, while Peter's
excommunication was proclaimed in Buda in August 1311, so it is unclear when Arnald had time to confirm Gentile's
decision - claimed by Lampredius - unless it was done via a letter and not in person as it was stated by Farlati. Eubel,
Hierarchia Catholica I, 14, f. 6.
578
Statute of Split, lib. I, cap. 11-12.

117
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

city charters.579 Lampredius made an appeal for confirmation directly to the pope, bypassing the
metropolitan from Split. The pope confirmed Lampredius’s election by February 1320, repeating
Lampredius’s words that Archbishop Peter was excommunicated and could not provide
confirmation.580 But already in May 1320 Peter gave the permission to Bishop George of Hvar to
permit the abbot of the Benedictine monastery in Vis, Stancije (1320-5) to carry the episcopal
symbols – mitra and pastoral rod – during a mass.581 In addition, Bishop Valentine of Makarska
stated in 1342 that he was elected by Peter and confirmed by the cathedral chapter of Split
sometime before Peter’s death in 1324.582 Therefore, it does seem that since mid-1320 Peter was
no longer excommunicated as he granted petitions to his suffragan-bishops and also appointed and
confirmed suffragan-bishops. But no papal bull of absolution was preserved. There is very simple
reason for this: he deliberately obstructed the excommunication.
The claim can be corroborated by the disputed election in Hvar in 1323. 583 The cathedral
chapter of Hvar had two candidates, which were both rejected by Archbishop Peter,584 who, in
turn, appointed Primicerius Stephen of the cathedral chapter in Split. Following Peter’s death in
1324, problems occurred in Hvar. One of the rejected candidates, Abbot Luke of the Benedictine
monastery of Saints Cosmas and Damian, was confirmed and consecrated as the bishop by Bishop
Lampredius of Trogir, which was a power that Lampredius did not have according to customs or
rights. This is known from a complaint in 1325 by Bishop Stephen to the pope, who appointed the
bishops of Korčula, Skradin and Knin to investigate the complaint.585
It is hard to say why Lampredius arrogated the archiepiscopal authority by confirming
Luke, with which the bishop of Trogir disputed Peter's consecration of Primicerius Stephen of
Split as the bishop. The possible answer could be found in a small note from the Papal Curia in
which Lampredius was listed as being the administrator of the Church of Split following the death
CEU eTD Collection

579
Farlati, Trogirski biskupi, 240, wrote that Liberius died at the end of 1319, or at the beginning of 1320, but in the
sources from the city charters, Liberius was still alive in January 1319 and Lampredius was elected by April. Rački,
“Notae” 229, April 4, 1319.
580
Eubel, Hierarchia Catholica I, February 15, 1320; CDC VIII, 174-82, VIII, 552-4. Nikolić Jakus, Formation of
Dalmatian Urban Nobility, 117-8. Andreis, Povijest grada Trogira I, 115; Klaić, Povijest grada Trogira, 256.
581
Farlati, Hvarski biskupi, 63-4, May 1320.
582
CDC XI, 2-3, June 25, 1342.
583
On the dispute, see: Farlati, Hvarski biskupi, 65-67; Farlati, Illyricum Sacrum IV, 251-2. Although the election
happened before June 1323, the election details were stated later. Lettres Communes de Jean XXII, VI, n.27187,
December 4, 1326; Priručnik I, 336, September 22, 1328.
584
Stephen de Sloradis, the rector of the church of Saint Matthew in Zadar, appeared in the charters in Hvar as the
elected and confirmed bishop. CDC IX, 124, June 22, 1323.
585
CD IX, 249-50, June 24, 1325.

118
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

of Peter.586 Lampredius could have used his position to correct the mishandling of the situation by
Peter, but the relations between Lampredius and Peter were probably tense, ever since the
archbishop of Split stopped Lampredius from becoming the bishop of Hvar. In 1304 cathedral
chapter of Hvar elected Lampredius as the bishop, but Archbishop Peter overruled the decision
and tried to install Lawrence, a canon in Split and his personal friend, as the bishop of Hvar. The
dispute lasted for years and was only settled by Legate Gentile, who later excommunicated
Peter.587
The dispute in Hvar during the 1320s was settled by another papal legate. The case ended
up in front of Cardinal-Legate Bertrand du Pouget, whom the pope tasked to investigate the case
in 1326. Bertrand confirmed that Peter was still excommunicated and therefore unable to confirm
the election, making Stephen’s appointment illegal.588 Abbot Luke was granted the bishopric of
Hvar, while Stephen received a monastery on the island of Rab in commenda,589 since he was
consecrated and required an adequate income to match his dignity.590
That Archbishop Peter deliberately ignored the sentence of excommunication and that for
this he received tacit approval from his provincial clergy, can be shown on further examples of
confirmations of episcopal elections. Since the metropolitan archbishop was excommunicated, the
problems should have appeared in several elections of suffragans, but this is not shown in the
sources.591 For instance, Canon Gregory, one of the vicars appointed by the chapter to manage the
archbishopric, became the bishop of Hvar in 1313. His election was not confirmed by the Apostolic
See, so it means that Peter inspected and confirmed the election of a person who was supposed to
replace the excommunicated archbishop in Split.592 The archbishop’s disregard for the

586
Priručnik II, 748.
587
Dokoza, “Papinski legat Gentil i Split,” 78-9.
CEU eTD Collection

588
Primicerius Stephen from Split sed minus canonice electum, confirmatum et consecratum, quia electors eum
scienter indignum elegerant cum esset tunc excommunicatus, et quond. Petrus archiepiscopus Spalatensis, qui, tunc
vivens, ipsum confirmaverat et consecraverat, excommunicatus et a Gentili (…) ab administr. eccl. suae suspensus
erat. Lettres Communes de Jean XXII, n. 27187, December 4, 1326; n. 42907, September 26, 1328.
589
Provisional occupation of an ecclesiastical benefice by an ecclesiastical or secular patron. The patron would draw
a portion of the incomes of the monastery without fulfilling the duties of the abbot or residing in the monastery. Šanjek,
“Komenda,” 122; Palladino, “Il contratto di commenda,” 753-782.
590
CDC IX, 308, September 12, 1326; 382-3, March 20, 1328. Ostojić, Benediktinci u Hrvatskoj II, 122.
591
Peter was excommunicated in 1311 so problems should have arisen in several local episcopal elections, which
required the confirmation by the archbishop. But no evidence was preserved in local nor in papal sources. These were:
Gregory Madijev (r.1314-22) in Hvar; Nicholas (r.1322-25) in Knin; Nicholas III (r.1315-19) and Paulin (r.1319-26)
in Skradin. The lack of sources suggest that the elections were submitted to Peter who carried normally with the
archiepiscopal confirmations and consecrations.
592
Eubel, Hierarchia Catholica I, 398.

119
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

excommunication, which was accepted by the clergy, can be further corroborated with the case of
Šibenik. Chrysogonus de Fanfonia was elected and confirmed as the bishop of Šibenik (r.1319-
40), but a quarrel erupted around the same time as in Hvar or was maybe influenced by it. Some
canons disputed the election and petitioned the pope on the basis that Peter had no right to confirm
the election of the bishop. By August 1325, so after Peter’s death, the pope ordered Archbishop
Balian of Split to investigate the case, but no additional sources exist. Since Chrysogonus remained
the bishop, Balian probably re-confirmed him and upheld the metropolitan prerogatives of Split
by respecting decisions of his predecessor.593
Therefore, most likely supported by the secular powers, Peter deliberately obstructed the
sentence of excommunication for which he received tacit approval of the local clergy who
dependend on the archbishop for positions and confirmations. In fact, the explicit mention of
Peter's excommunication appeared mostly in cases in which Lampredius of Trogir participated.
The prior contacts between Peter and Lampredius makes the events seem more like the results of
the personal animosities and different personalities. During Peter's time in office the
communication with the Apostolic See was limited, and this could help explain why he was able
to govern with minimal problems while still excommunicated. The connection with the papal Curia
resumed under Peter's successors, in part, due to better contacts with the papal legates.

III.3.2. The Apostolic See, Legate Bertrand and Dalmatia

During the 1320s Pope John XXII sent Cardinal Bertrand du Pouget594 as the papal legate
to hold northern Italy and combat the Visconti of Milan and the Ghibellines of northern Italy who
allied themselves to Louis IV the Bavarian (1282-1347).595 To combat Louis, the legate actively
used the control over the episcopal appointments and established links with local elites. Family
CEU eTD Collection

membership and the participation in the papal offices in Italy close to the legate played a role in
who would receive the appointment.596 Bertrand was mostly centered around Bologna, becoming
the dominus of the city in 1327, dismantling much of the communal institutions and staying in

593
Lettres Communes de Jean XXII, n.22948, August 1, 1325; Farlati, Illyricum Sacrum IV, 461.
594
Also written as Poyet or del Pogetto in literature. He was the cardinal priest of Saint Marcello (1316-27) and then
cardinal-bishop of Ostia (1327-52). Eubel, Hierarchia Catholica I, 36, 43.
595
Rollo-Koster, Avignon and its Papacy, 52; Mollat, The Popes at Avignon, 76-110.
596
Gamberini, “Chiesa vescovile,” 188-91; Manselli, “Un Papa in un'età di contraddizione: Giovanni XXII,” 444-56;
Pagnoni, “Selezione dei vescovi,” 283-4.

120
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

power for years with the help of powerful local families and the support of Johannes Andrea
(Giovanni d’Andrea), the jurist from the university of Bologna.597
Despite being titled in the sources as the apostolice sedis legatus ad partes Lombardie et
Tussie et nonnullas alias partes Ytalie from 1321 Bertrand appeared in sources connected to
Dalmatia, being a center of appeals for local disputes. He expected from the local Dalmatian clergy
to collect the 25th of their income to support his legatine actions. Duymus Theodosii, the vicar of
Archbishop Peter, appeared in this role in 1321, when he was collecting the required tithe in the
bishopric of Trogir.598 But the tithe collection and contacts between the archbishop and the papal
legate completely disappear from local sources. Was this omission deliberate or due to the
preserved sources? The papal bulls in May 1323 were still addressed to Peter as the archbishop of
Split, but these were bulls sent en masse to the episcopate, and not to somebody specifically.599
The contacts between the archbishopric and the papal legate were renewed after the death of Peter,
which would suggest prior deliberate poor contacts.
Archbishop Peter died in the second half of 1324 at the Apostolic See, where he probably
went in order to receive absolution from the excommunication. Since he died apud Sedem
Apostolicam the pope claimed a special reservation over the archiepiscopal seat and by September
transfered Archbishop Balian of Rhodes (c.1321-24) to Split.600 According to the papal tax
collectors the archiepiscopal income in Split was estimated higher than in Rhodes, which made
the transfer beneficial, although a closer inspection of the local sources shows that the archbishop
could earn more in Rhodes.601 But on Rhodes the archbishop had problems with the Hospitaller
Order as the two ecclesiastical institutions clashed over the income rights which the Order owed
to the archbishop.602 Balian even went to Avignon to discuss the issue with the pope, but according
CEU eTD Collection

597
Ciaccio, Cardinale Bertrando del Poggetto, 85-196, 456-537; Vasina, “Dal Comune verso la Signoria,” 581-651;
Benevolo, “Bertrando del Poggetto e la sede papale,” 21-35.
598
CDC IX, 16, July 10, 1321.
599
All the archbishops and bishops were tasked to publicize the papal bull of the excommunication of the Visconti of
Milan, the papal enemies in northern Italy. Lettres Communes de Jean XXII, IV, n.18193, May 18, 1323.
600
...per obitum Petri apud Sedem Apostolicam mediante reservation vacantem... Farlati, Illyricum Sacrum III, 308-
9; CDC IX, 205-6, September 26, 1324.
601
The archbishopric of Rhodes was estimated to 360 and Split to 600 florins. But the archbishop’s income at Rhodes
was 1230 florins which is known from the agreement between the archbishop and the grand master of the Order on 1
March 1322, while a closer look at the archiepiscopal finances in Split shows that the income of the archbishop was
somewhere around 900 florins. Luttrell, Town of Rhodes, 101-3; 199-202; Eubel, Hierarchia Catholica I, 197, 459.
Also, see earlier the chapter on Episcopal Finances.
602
For the dispute, see: Luttrell, The town of Rhodes, pp. 101-3; 199-202.

121
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

to the contemporary chronicler Miha, Balian was transferred to Split on the request of the Grand
Master of the Order.603
I presume that Cardinal Bertrand also played a role in Balian’s transfer, but evidences are
more incidental. Balian remained some time in Avignon604 and was tasked with assisting in the
conflicts in Italy by lifting the excommunication of Boso Ubertini, the apostolic administrator in
Arezzo (Tuscany), therefore directly assisting Bertrand in his legatine mission in Italy.605 The pope
also considered Bertrand as a reliable person with a detailed knowledge of the clergy in eastern
Mediterranean and tasked the legate to suggest competent clerics for episcopal appointments.606
Balian could have acquired his transfer to Split through mediation by Bertrand.
Once in Split, the archbishop took care of renewing the connections towards the Papal
Curia. In April 1326 Cardinal Bertrand authorized Archbishop Balian to parole those clerics of his
province which were excommunicated for not paying the required tithe to the papal legate in the
previous years.607 Also, Balian personally warned the papal legate in April of an infringement on
the rights of the Spalatine Church. Namely, in some of his letters Bertrand included bishoprics of
Hvar, Nin and Senj under the archbishopric of Zadar. Balian personally explained that these
dioceses belonged to Split since the antiquity.608 During 1326/27 Archbishop Balian made sure
that the legate was paid for the previous six year of his legatine tithe.609 Above examples show
how the relations between the archbishopric of Split and the Apostolic See diminished during
Balian’s predecessor Peter, who avoided the communication with the papal legate and did not pay
the required ecclesiastical taxes. Balian was quick to restore the relations with the papacy.

603
CEU eTD Collection

Madijev, Historija, p. 181; Luttrell, Town of Rhodes, 101, n. 366.

604
He may have remained at the Apostolic See in Avignon or in Italy for some time, as he received his pallium in
January 1325. Lettres Communes de Jean XXII, V, n.21400, January 18, 1325.
605
Boso was appointed to combat the influence of a supporter of Louis the Bavarian, Bishop Guido Tarlati (r.1312-
25), who excommunicated Boso for his activities. Following the removal of Guido, Boso became the bishop of Arezzo
(1325-65). Lettres Communes de Jean XXII, V, n.21382, January 14, 1325; Eubel, Hierarchia Catholica I, 104;
Beattie, Angelus Pacis, 14-15; Licciardello, Un vescovo contro il papato.
606
For instance, in 1330 the pope tasked Bertrand to suggest a competent person as the Latin patriarch of
Constantinople. ASV, Reg. Vat. 161, f. 135, ep.682, October 25, 1330.
607
CDC IX, 285-6, April 9, 1326; Farlati, Illyricum Sacrum III, 309-10. Balian revoked the excommunication against
Abbot Savinus of the Benedictine monastery of Saint John of Trogir and Canon Dominic Petrosii of chapter in Trogir.
CDC IX, 295, May 29, 1326.
608
CDC IX, 286-7, April 10, 132; Farlati, Illyricum Sacrum III, 310-11.
609
CDC IX, 304, August 13, 1326; 321-2, January 7, 1327; 360-1, September 24, 1327. Farlati, Illyricum Sacrum III,
311.

122
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

The stronger association with the Apostolic See was probably the reason why after Balian’s
death in January 1328 a disputed election took place in the cathedral chapter of Split.610 The canons
were divided between two candidates, Archdeacon Dominic and Bosolo of Parma.611 As a long-
time member of the cathedral chapter who originated from the noble family of Luccari, Dominic
was very present in the political and everyday life of Split, even before his election as the
archbishop. His opponent Bosolo was an important papal chaplain, whose career at the Apostolic
See spanned the entire pontificate of Pope John. Bosolo obtained various ecclesiastical positions
and as an experienced jurist served for many years as the auditor at the Papal Curia and was often
sent on delicate missions for the Apostolic See.
Dominic and Bosolo both petitioned the pope in Avignon and after renouncing their claim
the pope reserved the appointment for himself. While Dominic was personally present in Avignon
to represent himself, Bosolo was represented by Gregory of Cyprus, who followed the late
Archbishop Balian from Rhodos to Split. It is difficult to suggest what connected Bosolo and the
cathedral chapter of Split, unless considering the connections that the late archbishop had with the
Apostolic See and which were therefore available to his trusted associate Gregory. Cardinal-Legate
Bertrand does not appear during this election dispute, but he was in active contacts with the clergy
of Dalmatia, so some level of mediation by him can be assumed. By September the pope decided
to appoint Dominic as the archbishop and the new archbishop remained at the Curia until at least
November, as he was consecrated, granted the pallium and received a number of privileges from
the pope.612 To conclude, some members of the cathedral chapter probably wanted to procure better
contacts with the papacy by appointing somebody close to the Papal Curia and who could better
represent the interest of the chapter there. They used their contacts with the members of the
Apostolic See to elect Bosolo, but the pope probably did not want to dispense with services of a
capable prelate, which was reflected by the fact that very quickly Bosolo’s career rose with new
CEU eTD Collection

appointments and obligations for the Apostolic See.

610
According to Miha, the contemporary chronicler from Split, Archbishop Balian died on January 28, 1328 and was
buried in the cathedral church. If this date is correct the chapter proceeded to the elections within the next three months,
before May. Madijev, “Historija,” 181; Farlati, Illyricum Sacrum III, 311-2.
611
See the List of arch/bishops of Split, Trogir and Zadar in the Appendix for more detail about the two individuals.
612
He also promised to pay 200 golden florins for his appointment. MVC I, n. 90, September 9, 1328. He was able to
pay the communal services very quickly. MVC I, n. 98, December 19, 1329. For the consecration and the pallium:
CDC IX, 420-2, October 17, 1328; Farlati, Illyricum Sacrum III, 313.

123
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

III.3.3. The Apostolic See and the Archbishops of Zadar

As was already shown, the popes did not revoke the right of the cathedral chapter in Zadar
in 1291 to elect its own member as arcbishops, but instead the popes appropriated the appointment
through various means. A similar situation occurred during the pontificate of Pope John XXII
(r.1316-34) during which two native archbishops were appointed, one by election, the other one
with direct papal appointment. The popes did not diminish the electoral rights of the local chapter,
but through various means did restricte elections and instead appointed their own candidates.
Archbishop Nicholas was mentioned for the last time in August 1320,613 while already a
month later John Butovan, a parish priest of Saint Matthew in Zadar, was mentioned as the
archbishop elect. John’s election followed the proper and necessary steps: the chapter gathered
quickly after Nicholas’s death and elected John, who was by February 1321 confirmed and
consecrated by the patriarch of Grado, the superior of Zadar.614 But John’s petition to the pope for
the pallium stalled, as two members of the cathedral chapter disputed his election. After the validity
of the election was inspected by Neapoleo, the cardinal-deacon of Adriani,615 Romanus de Setia
claimed that John and his electors were excommunicated, so he could not have been elected as the
archbishop.616 It is unlikely that Romanus was a member of the pro-Venetian group in Zadar, as
in that case the patriarch of Grado, as the metropolitan, would not have confirmed and consecrated
John. Romanus maybe wanted to promote himself, as he was the archiepiscopal notary during the
episcopate of Nicholas of Sezzi, and the two were probably closely related, maybe even
brothers.617 Judging by the selection of Pierre Le Tessier, the cardinal priest of Saint Stephen in
Monte Celio and the vice-chancellor of the Roman Curia, the allegation was taken seriously, but
the cardinal demeed the accusation not valid.618
CEU eTD Collection

613
CDC VIII, 567, August 2, 1320; Iohannis de Butouano plebani sancti Mathei electi in archiepiscopum Jadrensem,
CDC VIII, 568, September 5, 1320; Bianchi, Zara cristiana, 46-7.
614
CDC VIII, 576, November 1, 1320; 577, November 12, 1320; CDC IX, 2, February 9, 1321; Farlati, Illyricum
Sacrum, 93-4. All the necessary steps were mentioned later in the papal charter.
615
Already mentioned in the context of Zadar and the entire diocese in 1307 and 1308 as the legate in charge of
Dalmatia (see earlier).
616
Brunelli suggested that Romanus alluded to the excommunication of John in 1308 when the clergy of Zadar came
into conflict with the papal legate Cardinal Gentile, or to the conflict between the Apostolic See and Venice (1308-
1311) over Ferrara when the pope excommunicated all the subjects of Venice. He added that Romanus probably had
ulterior motives for his accusation: either he wanted the position for himself, or to make sure that a person loyal to the
Venetians be appointed as the archbishop. Brunelli, Storia della città di Zara, 444.
617
Romanus Stephani de Secia, CDC VIII, 365-68, August 24, 1314.
618
The pope tasked the bishops of Senj and Nin to give the pallium to John. CDC IX, 55-7, March 17, 1322. Brunelli,
Storia della città di Zara, 444; also: Granić, “Kronološki pregled povijesti zadarske nadbiskupije,” 221-2.

124
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

Croatian historians presumed that the pope rewarded John for his support of the mission of
Cardinal-Legate Gentile to Dalmatia in 1308, when John was only a lesser priest, while his
superiors were opposing the legate.619 The contacts with the Curia certainly helped as by 1320
John obtained the position of the parish priest of Saint Matthew and was tasked to collect the papal
tithe in Zadar, introduced by Pope Clement V during the Council of Vienne (1312).620
During March 1333 John died and by September Pope John XXII appointed Nicholas, from
the influential Zaratin family of the Matafari, as the next archbishop of Zadar.621 Several days later
the pope stated that Nicholas did not mention earlier that he lacked major orders necessary to be
consecrated.622 Nevertheless, a necessary dispensation was issued in four days.623 What is
intriguing in this situation is that the pope appointed as the archbishop somebody who lacked the
necessary prerequisites for becoming a bishop, which could suggest that the pope did not know
Nicholas personally, but that somebody else suggested him for the position.
A potential candidate for having done this was Charles Robert, the king of Hungary-
Croatia, who secured his position in the kingdom by the 1320s and was interested in enforcing his
royal rights in Zadar,624 in part by promoting stronger ties with the archbishopric. Archbishop John
Butovan and the king maintained official contacts. In October 1322 the archbishop provided the
king with a charter which confirmed the land donation given by King Andrew II in 1219 to the

619
Dokoza, “Papinski legat Gentil i crkvene prilike u Zadru,” 70; Nikolić Jakus, Formation of Dalmatian Urban
Nobility, 110-1; Granić, “Kronološki pregled povijesti zadarske nadbiskupije,” 220. clericus ecclesie sancte Marie
maioris de Jadra, Johannes de Buctuano. Rector Chrysogonus of Saint Mary was one of the leaders of the opposition
against the legate. CDC VIII, 188, July 23, 1308.
620
CDC IX, 128-9, August 8, 1323. Brunelli wrote that John was decretorum doctor, but that was not mentioned in
any source that I am familiar with, nor does he give source for his claim. Brunelli, Storia della città di Zara, 444.
621
defuncto vacante Jadrensi archiepiscopatu. CDC X, 85, March 2, 1333; 88, March 22, 1333; 118, September 10,
1333; VMS I, 188-9.
622
CEU eTD Collection

Later Archbishop Nicholas explained the division of orders in mid-fourteenth century. Starting from the lowest to
the highest position, the archbishop explained that the lower orders were cleric (ordo tonsuratus), porter (ostiarius),
lector (lectoratus), excorcist (exorcistatus) and acolyte (acolitatus), while the higher orders were subdeacon
(subdiaconatus), deacon (dyaconatus), priest (presbyteraturs) and bishop (episcopatus). Bianchi, Nicolò de Matafari,
17-8; Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, 1022, 1090.
623
Lettres Communes de Jean XXII, n. 61377, September 13, 1333; VMS I, 189, September 14, 1333. Bishops could
ask for the dispensation from their metropolitan, while the archbishops had to ask their superior. The position of the
patriarch of Grado was vacant at the time, but Nicholas obtained his position directly from the pope, so he petitioned
him directly. Pennington, Pope and Bishops, 137-48.
624
The king was trying to re-establish his rights over Zadar by demanding from the Venetian authorities the payment
of 7000 silver marks, which was an obligation dating back to the crusade of King Andrew II. The Venetians refused,
stating that King Béla IV recognized in 1244 the Venetian rights over Zadar. But the Republic agreed on bequeathing
2/3 of the tribute of the port of Zadar to the king. It seems that earlier this 2/3 were collected by Ban Paul Šubić as
mentioned in a letter by the doge to King Charles Robert in 1311. CDC IX, 96-97; Priručnik I, 358, December 13,
1321; CDC VIII, 297-8, November 12, 1311; also: Karbić, Šubići of Bribir, 71.

125
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

counts of Posedarje (Posedaria).625 Charles Robert backed John Butovan when the archbishop
unsuccessfully tried to use the royal influence to have the pope remove Zadar from the jurisdiction
of the patriarch of Grado. The archbishop was probably not alone in this action as it can be assumed
that there were still those in Zadar who previously had contacts with the Šubići and were
dissatisfied that Venice controlled Zadar.626 Limiting the spiritual authority of the patriarch would
also diminish the hold that the Republic had over the archbishopric and the city. It is hard to
conclude anything more without knowing the nature of the archbishop’s grievances against the
patriarch, but it is evident that the archbishop maintained contacts with the Hungarian king and
was interested in subordinating his archbishopric directly to the pope in order to avoid
ecclesiastical jurisdiction of Grado.
In September 1328 Pope John XXII appointed Nicholas Matafari as a canon in Várad
(Oradea).627 Some historians considered this to prove the political nature of Nicholas’s
appointment, stating that he was appointed on the instigation of Charles Robert and was even
fiercely pro-Angevin and anti-Venetian.628 Due to the nature of the sources, it is not possible to
exclude the possibility that Nicholas had connections with the Hungarian ecclesiastical and
political elites, but it cannot be excluded either that the position came due to Nicholas connection
with the high ranking members of the Apostolic See. It was not uncommon for those connected
with the Curia to receive benefices in different parts of the Christendom prior to their appointment
in Dalmatia.629 Clerics from Dalmatia who obtained or were promised a benefice in the Hungarian
bishoprics usually had ecclesiastical and political backers.630 The number of foreigners holding

625
CDC IX, 82-4, October 8, 1322.
626
This can be shown on the example of Bajamonte Tiepolo, an enemy of Venice, who took shelted at the court of the
Šubići. Vjekoslav Klaić reports that Bajamonte led an army, consisting of people from Zadar, sent to support George
II Šubić in fighting Count John Nelipac in 1324, but the army was defeated. Klaić, Povijest Hrvata II, 55. During 1325
Venice was aware that the citizens of Zadar were helping Bajamonte in becoming the captain of Bologna. Klaić and
CEU eTD Collection

Petricioli, Zadar u srednjem vijeku, 297. It does not seem that Tiepolo obtained the position as he was imprisoned in
Šibenik, from where he was freed (or escaped). Brunelli reports that Tiepolo died in 1326, but he in fact disappeared
from sources. Brunelli, Storia della città di Zara, 450; Karbić, Šubići of Bribir, 94-5.
627
Lettres Communes de Jean XXII, n.42879, September 20, 1328.
628
Most recently, this opinion was accentuated, without providing any additional evidence, by Grbavac, “Matafar,
Nikola,” 459-60. In an interesting twist of fate, Croatian historians repeated the claim made by Giuseppe Praga, who
called Nicholas a fierce anti-Venetian archbishop. Praga is generally disliked by Croatian historians and often depicted
as an Italian irredentist bent on proving the Italian character of Dalmatia. Praga, Storia di Dalmazia, 133; Inchiostri,
“Di Nicolò Matafari,” 35; Klaić and Petricioli, Zadar u srednjem vijeku, 339; Granić, “Kronološki pregled povijesti
zadarske nadbiskupije,” 223.
629
For instance, Nicholas de Setia, appointed to Zadar, and Bosolo, elected in Split, held various benefices in France
and Italy, which they obtained through years of service to the cardinals and at the Apostolic See.
630
Two cases are known. One was the case of Alexander from Zadar who was backed by Ban Paul Šubić. He was
promised a position in the bishopric of Zagreb, but eventually became the archbishop of Zadar. The second was

126
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

benefices in Hungary increased significantly during the Avignon popes, starting with Pope John
XXII who appointed canons to various cathedral chapters in Hungary. Members of the papal Curia
and those connected to the cardinals had an easy access to information about the vacant benefices
and the means to obtain them.631 The appointment in Várad was made by the pope and not by the
bishop, since the bishopric was vacant at the time. In fact, the pope sent confirmations of
appointment to the archbishop of Kalocsa, lower ranking local ecclesiastical leadears and,
significantly, to the bishop of Padua.
The circle of associates of Nicholas, who was not a member of the papal administration,
was quite impressive. He was a decretorum doctor, who finished studies in Padua or Bologna, as
he was connected to both places. During the 1320s, Nicholas served as the vicar for Ildebrandino
Conti, the bishop of Padua (r.1319–1352) and the suffragan of the patriarch of Aquileia,632 who
was often absent from his diocese and sent on important missions for the Apostolic See.633
Nicholas called Johannes Andrea, a canonist from the university of Bologna, as his master.
Johannes was teaching in Padua, but from 1312 until his death in 1348 he was living and teaching
in Bologna, where he supported the government of Cardinal-Legate Bertrand du Pouget.634 As
mentioned, the legate was sent to pacify northern Italy for the pope, but he was often mentioned
in sources dealing with the Dalmatian bishoprics, and also Zadar.635 Later in his career Nicholas
wrote a work titled Thesaurus pontificum, which he dedicated to Cardinal Bertrand. The cardinal
often cooperated with Nicholas during his time in office in Zadar, and Nicholas probably
considered Bertrand as his teacher. Bertrand was probably even more influentian and important
legate of Pope John XXII than Bishop Ildebrandino.

Nicholas Kažotić from Trogir, the nephew of the bishop of Zagreb, Augustin Kažotić (r.1303-22) with whose help he
CEU eTD Collection

probably gained a benefice in Zagreb and was later also promissed a position in Pécs.
631
Fedeles, "Die ungarischen Dom- und Kollegiatkapitel,” 161-96; Koszta, “Conclusions drawn from the
prosopographic analysis of canons,” 26; Mályusz, Konstanzer Konzil, 54-74; Neagu, “Considerations Regarding the
Beneficial Policy,” 60.
632
Inchiostri, “Di Nicolò Matafari,” 27; Gloria, Monumenti della Universitá di Padova I, 340; Eubel, Hierarchia
Catholica I, 385; Klaić and Petricioli, Zadar u srednjem vijeku, 338; Grmek, “Hrvati i sveučilište u Padovi,” 348.
633
Kohl writes that Bishop Ildebrando was so busy with the papal business that he visited his diocese for the first time
only in 1332. The author also adds that during the 33-year-long pontificate he employed up to 23 vicars. Kohl, Padua
under the Carrara, 23.
634
Or Giovanni d’Andrea from Mugello near Florence (1275-1348). Inchiostri, “Di Nicolò Matafari,” 27-8; Benevolo,
“Bertrando del Poggetto e la sede papale,” 21-35; Ciaccio, Cardinale Bertrando del Poggetto, 85-196.
635
During 1332 the cardinal-legate was involved in Zadar in settling a disputed election of the abbess of the
Benedictine monastery of Saint Mary. Lettres Communes de Jean XXII, n. 58606, October 26, 1332; Ostojić,
Benediktinci u Hrvatskoj II, 76.

127
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

As mentioned, after 1328 Nicholas was a canon in Várad, but he was in 1330 officiating
as a vicar in Padua,636 while in 1331 he was in Venice, where he served as the vicar of Angelo
Delfino (1328-36), the bishop of Castello.637 Same as with Venetian-dominated Zadar, Castello
was also subordinated to the patriarch of Grado. Since Nicholas was not ordained as a priest, his
position as a canon was a sinecure, intended to provide the absent cleric with additional funds. The
above would suggest that Nicholas’s position in Várad was mostly nominal and a result of the
influence that the bishop of Padua used at the Apostolic See to ensure that his protégé received
additional incomes, as Nicholas was preoccupied with his work in Padua and Venice. I presume
that both Ildebrandino and Bertrand were influential in shaping Nicholas ecclesiastical life. He
gathered experience while serving under Ildebrandino in Padua, but it was Bertrand who helped
the young cleric to obtain his lucrative positions.
In 1330 Pope John XXII ordered Bertrand to find a suitable candidate to fill the Latin
patriarchate of Constantinople. The position, like that of the archbishop of Zadar, was politically
dominated by Venice, so Bertrand had to find somebody who would be approved by the Venetian
authorities.638 In addition, in 1345 the legate received praise and a yearly pension from Demetrius,
the newly appointed bishop of Várad (r.1345-72). The new bishop called Bertrand his protector at
the Curia, suggesting that the cardinal-legate nurtured and propelled different ecclesiastical
careers.639 Therefore, influential Cardinal-Legate Bertrand created and maintained network of
acquantainces with local clergy in the east and had extensive knowledge of ecclesiastical situation
across the Christendom.
Good clerical contacts, familiarity with the structures of the Church as well as Nicholas’s
education and rich financial background played a role in him obtaining the position of the
CEU eTD Collection

636
Gloria, Monumenti della Universitá di Padova, 340-1; Inchiostri, “Di Nicolò Matafari,” 31.
637
He was passing a sentence in a case regarding the monastery of Saint Anna in Venice. Corner, Ecclesiae venetae
IV, 267-8, October 30, 1331; Gloria, Monumenti della Universitá di Padova, 341; Inchiostri, “Di Nicolò Matafari,”
31-2, October 30, 1331; The bishop of Olivolo/Castello, officially subordinated to the patriarch of Grado, but
sometimes in conflict with him. Romano, “Venetian exceptionalism,” 224. On Castello: Marina, “From the Myth to
the Margins,” 353-429. It is difficult to say if Angelo was related to Balduin Delfino, who served as the count of Zadar
on several occasions. Balduin Delfino was mentioned as the captain general of the sea during the siege of Zadar in the
war of 1311-13 and he also participated in the signing of the peace treaty in 1313. Balduin served two times as the
count of Zadar in 1315-19 and 1326-28. For his experience, he was considered as an expert for the questions pertaining
to Zadar. Several doges of Venice would consult with Balduin regarding the situation in Zadar. Brunelli, Storia della
città di Zara, 438, 441, 443.
638
ASV, Reg. Vat. 161, f. 135 ep. 682, October 25, 1330.
639
Priručnik II, 797; Eubel, Hierarchia Catholica I, 515.

128
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

archbishop of Zadar.640 While his contacts with the Hungarian ecclesiastical elites cannot be
excluded, they cannot be prioritized over his multiple connections with the ecclesiastical and
political elites in Avignon, Padua, Bologna and Venice. These were all the places where Nicholas
had protectors and likeminded individuals who could propel his episcopal career.

III.3.4. Lampredius Vitturi, the Bishop of Trogir (r.1319-49)

Lampredius Vitturi, the primicerius of the cathedral chapter, was elected bishop of Trogir
at the height of the prolonged period of intra-communal violence. The conflict in the city between
various influental families did not subside with his election, but instead had a lasting influence on
his time in office and the inner relations between the bishopric and the commune. Although his
brother participated in the communal government, the bishop’s standing in the community
diminished over time. To strengthen his episcopal position and the standing of his family, the
bishop enacted different measures, which secured his control over the bishopric, but ultimately
brought him in conflict with the commune and various ecclesiastical structures.641
Before becoming the bishop, Lampredius held the churches of Saint Maurus on the island
of Čiovo (sancti Mauri de insula Bove),642 Saint Mary of Platea (at the square in Trogir) and Saint
John the Baptist in Bijać (de campo Biag antiquitis sancta Marthe).643 With his promotion at the
Apostolic See the pope claimed the dispensation of these positions, granting Saint Mary and Saint
John to Nicholas Kažotić, the new primicerius of the chapter. The situation with the church of
Saint Maurus was different. It was vacant for years so in 1328 the pope decided to allow the newly
confirmed archbishop of Split, Dominic, to give the church to a person of his choosing.644 Based
on the papal grant Archbishop Dominic installed John Castrafocus, a canon in Trogir, as the rector
of Saint Maurus. Lampredius opposed this decision, as he wanted to give the church to his nephew,
CEU eTD Collection

640
He was also able to pay for his appointment relatively quickly, in two instalments in 1334 and 1335, which suggest
sound financial basis. MVC I, 98, May 6, 1334; June 10, 1335.
641
Due to the lack of sources, Daniele Farlati thought that Lampredius ruled peacefully over his diocese for many
years and was unable to explain why the bishop came into various conflicts during his time in office, such as the ones
with the archbishop of Split. Farlati, Trogirski biskupi, 241-61.
642
Saint Maurus amounted to 8 florins per year. About the church, see: Andreis, Povijest grada Trogira I, 340.
643
CDC IX, 235, May 12, 1325.
644
CDC IX, 433-4, November 21, 1328.

129
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

James, the son of Peter Vitturi, who then together with his brother Michacius and their father Peter,
imprisoned John, seizing the rights and possessions of the church of Saint Maurus (Fig. 9).645
John, the son of Peter Castrafocus, was previously mentioned together with the leading
members of the cathedral chapter who were forced to leave the city during the in-fighting of the
late 1310s.646 This would mean that Lampredius and John went to exile and returned to the
bishopric together. John probably participated in Lampredius’s election in 1319 and continued
serving the bishop as a notary, so the conflict could have been of a personal nature.647 Maybe John
expected to receive a benefice as a reward for his loyalty and faithful service, but after he received
nothing,648 he turned to the archbishop in order to receive a prebend in the bishopric.
In 1329 Bishop Lampredius reformed the cathedral chapter which gave the bishop stricter
control over the appointment of its members. Since John Castrafocus was not mentioned among
the canons, it could be that one intended goal of the reform was for the bishop to purge the chapter
of unwanted members. Following the event, the bishop actively worked on installing his nephew
as one of the canons and appointing him as the archdeacon, which happened by 1338.649
It is unclear when exactly the dispute between Canon John and Bishop Lampredius erupted
– some time between 1328 and 1334 - as these events are known only from the later sources, which

645
The full description of the events was provided during a hearing between Bishop Lampredius and Canon John
Castrafocus at the curia of Legate Bertrand in Bologna in 1334. CDC X, 146-50, February 10, 1334.
646
The list of exiles included the leader of the rebellion, Marin Andreis, but also the members of the cathedral chapter
who who originated from the noble families of the city: Archdeacon Kazarica, Primicerius Lampredius Vituri, John
Castrafocus and Marin Ambalažev Andreis. Rački, “Notae,” 229, April [no day], 1317. During 1318/19 when the
rebels controlled the commune, some of them received compensation, including Gausigna, son of Peter, Castrafocus,
who was John Castrafocus’s brother. Lucić, Povijesna svjedočanstva I, 387; Andreis, “Trogirski patricijat,” 131. John
was a deacon at the time. CDC VIII, 475, April 1318.
647
John was mentioned as a canon and the imperiali auctoritate notarius. CDC VIII, 373, November 11, 1314. Bishop
Lampredius tasked John to transcribe a charter of King Béla IV from 1242. CDC IX, 261, October 1, 1325.
648
During the hearing in Bologna, it was stated that, in addition to Saint Maurus on Čiovo, John Castrafocus held as
CEU eTD Collection

benefices the churches of Saint Stephen de Trimerudo, Saint Mary de Spilano (Marija od Špiljana) and the half of
Saint Mary de Monte (Marija Gospa od Demunta). CDC X, 148; Andreis, Povijest grada Trogira I, 353-4; The two
churches dedicated to Saint Mary (de Spilano and de Monte) were located in richer and more fertile parts of the
bishoprics. Saint Maurus was built on a rocky part of the island of Čiovo, but, according to Tonči Burić, the rector of
Saint Maurus also received tithe from a place called Divulje (near the modern day airport of Split) which made the
church much richer and worth the bitter struggle which errupted before 1334. Burić, “Ulomci predromaničke
skulpture,” 234-5.
649
Archdeacon Kazarica probably died by 1338. He spent years in exile, opposing the regime of Captain Matthew
Zorić, but Kazarica retained his office. In 1328 he was still mentioned as being in exile. His name was not included in
the list of canons in 1329 when Lampredius reformed the chapter, but one place was kept vacant on purpose in that
list. Kazarica was last mentioned during 1338, in the context of his succession. The commune and Bishop Lampredius
disputed over the possession of the church of Lady of the Square, made vacant when Kazarica died, while James, the
son of Peter, was mentioned in the sources as being the archdeacon. CDC X, 408-9, August 17, 1338; Lucić, Povijesna
svjedočanstva I, 438, 535.

130
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

suggest that the conflict lasted for several years. The archbishop excommunicated Lampredius and
convened the provincial synod to discuss the issue, but Lampredius showed contempt for the
archiepiscopal penalties. The case was further discussed at the curia of Legate Bertrand in Bologna,
where it was decided that Lampredius would return all which he took from Canon John.650 It seems
that the bishop was prone to the use of violence and disobeying the orders of his spiritual superiors.
On several ocassions, the bishop tried to assert his control over various churches in his bishopric,
which were mostly under secular control.651 For instance, in 1332 the commune and the bishop
disputed regarding the rectorship over the church of Saint Vital. The dispute was settled by the
archbishop of Split, who stated that Lampredius tried to unrightfully appropriate the church and
confirmed the patronage rights of the commune.652
The conflict with Canon John was only a prelude into a series of problems which Bishop
Lampredius had with his commune and which were probably still dictated by the experience from
the communal strife of the 1310s. During the conflict Lampredius became the bishop and his
brother Daniel participated in the victorious communal government which then greeted the
Venetian suzerainty in 1322, but the effects of the struggle were still felt by both.653 Although
sources for the relations between Lampredius and the commune during the 1320s are scarce, they
seem to have been cold. As mentioned earlier, Lampredius had problems with the commune
regarding the management of the fabrica.654 Most of his allies who helped him get elected were
by 1328 still in exile. The members of the Andreis family, who led the revolt, were removed from
the cathedral chapter, while the number of the victorius Cega canons gradually increased, which
was probably not to the bishop’s liking.655

650
CEU eTD Collection

CDC X, 146-50, February 10, 1334; CDC XI, 383-6, April 15, 1337 [year should be 1338].
651
See chapter: The Cathedral Chapter: its Composition and Role.
652
Lucić, Collection, vol. 542, fol. 276-81, March 12, 1332; Andreis, Povijest grada Trogira I, 79.
653
Daniel spent several years demanding full recompensation for the suffered property damages, finally receiving
satisfaction from the doge of Venice in 1334. Benyovsky Latin, Srednjovjekovni Trogir, 153-4.
654
CDC IX, 516-7, May 24, 1330. For more, see the chapter on Cults and Cathedrals.
655
Archdeacon Kazarica and Canon Marin Ambalažev Andreis, the two members of the cathedral chapter who helped
Lampredius to become the bishop, were still in exile in 1328. While the Andreis family members were removed from
the cathedral chapter, Kazarica's name was not mentioned, but he was not removed. But the bishop still maintained
relations with the Kazarica's family as his cousin, Deacon Lawrence, was in 1329 mentioned as being present at the
episcopal Curia in the case of the limitation of the number of canons. By 1341 Lawrence became a canon of the
chapter. The Cega family members were John, the son of Stephen (Stepi) Duymi, who was a canon since 1315; his
nephew Stephen, the son of Michael, Cega, who was a canon since 1335; and Domnius, the son of Mengacij, who
was a canon since 1341. Andreis, Povijest grada Trogira, 77-8; Lucić, Povijesna svjedočanstva I, 438; Andreis,
“Trogirski patricijat,” 48-55, 82.

131
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

Damir Karbić suggested that Bishop Lampredius of Trogir maintained close contacts with
the Šubići, who nominally ruled the city prior to 1322, as Ban Mladen II Šubić provided some
limited support to the exiled citizens of Trogir during the intra-communal violence war in Trogir
during the 1310s.656 But the bishop could have been displeased with the new political situation and
the Venetian takeover. This can be observed in the datations of the episcopal charters in which the
names of the doge and the Venetian representatives in the city are left out, which was not the case
in the nearby in Split.657 Instead, the charters begin with the reigning pope and King Charles
Robert, suggesting that Trogir was still part of the Kingdom of Hungary-Croatia, and not of the
Republic of Venice.658 During the 1330s the political situation in Croatia-Dalmatia was unstable.
Venice controlled the communes, but various noblemen fought to become the regional hegemons,
comparable to what the Šubići had decades earlier. The instability led to more friendly terms
between the commune of Trogir and Mladen III Šubić. The friendship agreement with Mladen
even received sacral confirmation, as it was signed in the cathedral of Trogir, suggesting tacit
approval by the bishop.659
Both Mladen and Trogir were somewhat threatened by the rise in power of Ban Stephen
Kotromanić of Bosnia and Count John Nelipac, who both wanted to exploit the fall of the Šubići
and become the leading power in the region. Prior to 1338 Count Nelipac worked on establishing
an alliance with the local lords and the Dalmatian communes, as well as obtaining the papal
support, in order to mount an attack at the ban of Bosnia. As a subject of the king of Hungary, Ban
Stephen appealed for help from his suzerain, King Charles Robert. The war started at the end of
1337 or at the beginning of 1338.660

656
Karbić, Šubići of Bribir, 111, 333, 352.
657
CEU eTD Collection

Dominic Luccari dated his charters according to the king of Hungary, the doge of Venice, the archbishop of Split,
the Venetian count of Split and the communal judges. Krekich, “Documenti” II, 144-5, March 3, 1342.
658
CDC IX, 261, October 1, 1325; Lucić, Povijesna svjedočanstva I, 161-3; CDC IX, 490, November 4, 1329. In
comparison, the episcopal charters of Lampredius’s predecessor, Bishop Liberius, were dated with the pope, the king,
and the city’s bishop, counts and podestà: CDC VIII, 370-1, November 11, 1314; 428, June 25, 1316; 463, November
14, 1317. Although, this argument should be taken with caution. At the same time, the city charters of Trogir were
also dated by King Charles, without including the doge, but they did include the Venetian count and other members
of the municipal government.
659
In 1333 several Dalmatian cities concluded an alliance with Mladen III Šubić, but Mladen also concluded a
friendship treaty with the commune of Trogir. Katić, Veza primorske Dalmacije kroz kliški prolaz, 290-1; CDC X,
73-4, February 7, 1333.
660
In May 1337 Pope Benedict XII sent letters to Croatian lords urging them to support Count Nelipac and combat
the “Bosnian heretics.” The pope proclaimed Ban Stephen as a heretic. CDC X, 326-7, May 22, 1337. For the political
and ecclesiastical situation during the 1330s, see: Birin, Knez Nelipac, 28-39; Ančić, “Neuspjeh dualističke
alternative,” 7-17; Karbić, “Nelipčići i Šubići,” 137-8.

132
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

In summer 1338 a large Bosnian army directly attacked the territories of Count Mladen III
and besieged his fortress of Klis.661 As this was in the near vicinity of the communal borders, the
council of Trogir felt threatened so a decision was passed to send gifts to the commanders of the
Bosnian army, to appease them and preserve the properties of Trogir from being ransacked. In
order to prevent the negotiation with, as he called them, “the Bosnian heretics” and to ensure that
Trogir stay aligned with the anti-Bosnian alliance, Bishop Lampredius threatened the commune
with spiritual penalties. But in late August 1338 Bishop Lampredius personally wed Jelena, the
sister of Mladen, and Count Vladislav, the brother of Ban Stephen, which was prerequisite for a
peace between the two sides.662 Besides revealing the bishop as the Šubići backer, these events
exposed the existence of serious problems in the relations between Bishop Lampredius and his
commune, which were then only aggravated by the conflict over the Bosnian “heretics.” Therefore,
it is necessary to carefully re-evaluate the sources in order to discern the background of this bitter
conflict.663
On 15 April 1338 the pope ordered Archdeacon Dessa of Split, Bishop Andrew of Skradin
and Canon Stephen, the son of Michael, Cega of Trogir to summon Bishop Lampredius to Avignon
to defend himself against several accusations.664 The two communal representatives who accused
the bishop in front of the pope were Gausigna Stoyse Suazich, representing Count Giovanni
Morosini of Trogir,665 and Canon John Castrafocus, the same one who was previously attacked by
Lampredius and his family members. Therefore, it is no wonder that in his summons the pope
recounted the events prior to 1334, emphasizing Lampredius’s crimes and his excommunication
by Archbishop Dominic of Split. It is not entirely clear when exactly were the communal
representatives dispatched to the pope, but the papal summon clearly shows that the dispute
between the bishop and the commune was gradually building-up well before the arrival of the
CEU eTD Collection

Bosnian army.

661
Karbić, Šubići of Bribir, 109-10; Šunjić, Bosna i Venecija, 24-5.
662
Lucić, Collection, vol. 542, fol 346-354, August 24, 1338. Karbić, Šubići of Bribir, 111, 352; Perojević, “Ženidba
Vladislava Kotromanića s Jelenom Šubićevom,” 21.
663
Much what is known about the conflict was written down by Lucić, Povijesna svjedočanstva I, 534-46. This
information was then simply rewritten, without any additions, in Farlati, Trogirski biskupi, 241-61.
664
The bishop was accused of squandering the goods of his bishopric, socializing with women of suscpicious morals,
for being a follower of the Bosnian heresy, as well as for perjury and symony. VMS 1, 199-201, April 15, 1338;
Benedict XII, Lettres communes II, n. 6276; Priručnik II, 748; CDC X, 383-6, dates it wrongly to 1337.
665
Iohannes Mauroceni, the count of Trogir (r.1335-38). Venezia, Senato IV, 514.

133
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

Although the pope gave the bishop a deadline of three months to appear in Avignon, on 17
August 1338 the bishop gave a formal answer to the papal summoning by stating that he was too
ill to travel and instead named several procurators to represent him.666 When during the summer
of 1338 the Bosnian army appeared near Klis, the communal and ecclesiastical authorities in
Dalmatia were concerned and have sent representatives to the Bosnian commanders to negotiate
and protect their properties.667 This was also a concern for the city council of Trogir which planned
to send an envoy with gifts. Not so infirm, but instead very active, Bishop Lampredius reacted to
these discussions by gathering the cathedral chapter on 15 August and telling them that none can
communicate with Bosnians, under the penalty of excommunication, and that they should warn
the laity about it. On 19 August the bishop went even further by excommunicating Count Philip
Molina, Gausigna Stoyse Suazich and brothers Petrac and Stephen Cega. Ivan Lucić assumed that
all excommunicated persons were sent as representatives to the Bosnian army, but Gausigna was
earlier mentioned as the communal representative to the pope, while Stephen, a canon of the
cathedral chapter, was tasked in the papal letter from April 1338 to summon the bishop to
Avignon.668 Gausigna was tasked by the commune to discuss the excommunication with the bishop
on 21 August. The envoy accused the bishop of not listening to his own cathedral chapter, as some
canons suggested that the bishop should first consult with the archbishop of Split before passing
the sentence of excommunication, and of dealing with the heretics himself, as the bishop went to
Klis to wed Jelena and Vladislav, who were cousins, without first asking the pope for the necessary
dispensation.669
All the above-mentioned shows that events in August were happening in a fast succession
and a wedding was nedeed to quickly conclude the peace. The parties involved in the wedding at
Klis were aware that papal dispensation was needed, but their experience with the Curia suggested
CEU eTD Collection

666
The bishop was backed by Archdeacon James, the bishop’s nephew, Cosa Saladini from Zadar, Rugerino Pollastri,
Puccio magistri Dominci medici de Firmo and Nichola condam Thomasii de Cengulo from Trogir. As his
representatives at the Papal Curia, the bishop appointed Ghoium Slauchi, a canon of Trogir, and the official procurators
in Avignon, Fatium de Sanbucho, Johannem Angeli and Jacobum de Pistoria. CDC X, 408-9, August 17, 1338.
667
This was also done by the bishop of Šibenik and the archbishop of Split, as mentioned by the representative of the
commune of Trogir, Gausigna Stoyse Suazich, who was sent to the bishop of Trogir. Lucić, Povijesna svjedočanstva
I, 536.
668
Lucić, Povijesna svjedočanstva I, 536; Andreis, “Trogirski patricijat,” 49, 55. Philip Molina was appointed as the
count of Trogir in January 1338. Venezia, Senato IV, 514; Farlati, Trogirski biskupi, 251-2; Ančić, “Neuspjeh
dualističke alternative,” 7-17.
669
Lucić, Povijesna svjedočanstva I, 536. The representatives of Trogir accused Lampredius at the Papal Curia as
being the supporter of the Bosnian heresy (Bosnensium hereticorum fautor). The peace between the Šubići and the
Kotromanić was signed by 24 August. Lucić, Collection, vol. 542, fol. 346-354; Karbić, Šubići of Bribir, 111.

134
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

that such permission could be obtained later, after the wedding was consummated.670 More to the
point, while Bishop Lampredius claimed infirmity to the pope and threatened the commune with
excommunication, he undertook a strenous trip to deal with the “Bosnian heretics” himself,
causing a rupture in his relations with both the commune and the papacy.
Soon after the initial excommunication was passed, the city council of Trogir decided to
omit the bishop’s name from the datatio of the city charters.671 But this exclusion did not mean
that the Vitturi family members stopped participating in the communal affairs. Lampredius’s
brother Daniel James Vitturi was by October sent on a diplomatic mission to conclude, on the
behalf of the commune, a trade agreement with Ban Stephen of Bosnia.672 Maybe the resistance of
the Vitturi family members being in the city council was the reason why Lampredius’s name was
reinstated in the charters by April 1340.673
Although it was suggested by the communal representative to the bishop that members of
the cathedral chapter were against the sentence of excommunication, no names were given. Since
the cathedral chapter was led by Archdeacon James, Lampredius’s nephew, the chapter stood
firmly with its bishop.674 But the reluctance of the chapter regarding excommunication becomes
understandable when taken into consideration that the chapter consisted of several members of the
Cega family and that Canon Stephen Cega was also excommunicated. Judging by the earlier papal
note and the bishop’s sentence, Stephen’s antagonism towards Lampredius could have been the
result of family competition - as the Cega family was influential in the life of the commune and

670
Since the petition had to be sent to Avignon, an answer would only arrive after many months, and the events in
August suggested urgency. In 1336 Lampredius asked and received the necessary dispensation to absolve Baron, son
of Silvester, and Margareta from Split, from sin, since they were cousins who married. Farlati, Trogirski biskupi, 252,
f. 463. VMS, 191, February 10, 1336. In January 1337, on the request of the bishop of Skradin, Pope Benedict XII
CEU eTD Collection

(1334-42) gave the necessary dispensation for the marriage between John, son of George, of Bribir and Catherine, the
sister of Mladen III. CDC X, 294-5, January 20, 1337. It should be added that Jelena and Vladislav had two sons, Vuk
and Tvrtko. Vuk became the ban of Bosnia, but his brother outperformed him by becoming the first Bosnian king. On
the system of papal dispensation for marriages during this period, see: Neralić, “Papal 14th and 15th century
matrimonial dispensations,” 38-43.
671
The bishop’ name was ommitted already in October 1338. Lucić, Povijesna svjedočanstva I, 536. ommisso nomine
episcopi causam dantis secundum reformationem communis Tragurii. CDC X, 487, September 5, 1339.
672
CDC X, 494-5, October 7, 1339. Although, the person who brokered the deal was only referred to as Daniel, but
Lucić presumed that this was Daniel Vitturi. Lucić, Povijesna svjedočanstva I, 539; Šunjić, Bosna i Venecija, 25.
673
Rački, “Notae,” 232, April 12, 1340.
674
On the request of Archdeacon James, the members of the cathedral chapter drew up a list of tithes, covering the
period from January 6 to December of 1318, which was a period when Lampredius was the vicar of the bishopric.
Since the list was ordered by the bishop’s nephew James, it would seem that the list was intended to be used in front
of the papal court in order to absolve Lampredius of any wrong doings in the year before he became bishop. CDC
VIII, 474-86, January 24, 1341.

135
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

attempting the same in the bishopric675 – or of his personal ambition. In September 1339 the city
council, in a session closed to the members of the Vitturi family, appointed Stephen to lead the
communal efforts to prosecute the bishop in front of the pope.676 As a cleric and an advocate,
Stephen was perfectly suited for the task. Not only that, but Stephen’s knowledge, skills and
connections he obtained while at the Papal Curia most likely helped him to become the bishop of
Hvar.677
Two cases were conducted against the bishop, one dealing with the property issues,678 and
the second case regarding the bishop’s criminal affairs as Lampredius was accused of murder,
heresy, simony and perjury. The second case was presided by Cardinal Hélie de Talleyrand-
Périgord (1301-64) who in 1341 found Lampredius guilty and had him excommunicated.679 The
bishopric was from that point on managed by administrators appointed by the Apostolic See, even
though Lawrence was still listed as the bishop.680 Pope Clement VI appointed Dessa, the son of
Andrew and the archdeacon of Split, as the administrator in spiritualia and temporalia of the
bishopric of Trogir, repeating the excommunication and attaching the summary of the

675
Probably during 1336, Bishop Lampredius excommunicated Petrac, the son of Stephen, Cega and Lucian, the son
of Dessa. The decision was revoked by the archbishop of Split. Petrac' brother John and their nephew Stephen were
members of the cathedral chapter. Lucić, Collection, vol. 542, fol. 332-33, January 4, 1337; Lucić, Povijesna
svjedočanstva I, 534-5.
676
Ivan Lucić writes that the Vitturi were excluded from the session because of their family links to Lampredius. The
council also confirmed Gausigna and John Castrafocus as the representatives of the commune, who were to assist
Stephen. Gausigna, the son of Peter, Castrafocus and brother of Canon John was present during the council session.
CDC X, 487-8, September 5, 1339. Lucić, Povijesna svjedočanstva I, 537-9.
677
Farlati, Trogirski biskupi, 250; CDC XI, 488-9, October 3, 1348.
678
The pope appointed the abbot of Saint Nicholas in Šibenik, the primicerius, and Canon Peter Sumsich of Šibenik
to investigate the appeal to the pope made by the commune of Trogir. The bishop stated that the commune appropriated
certain incomes and possessions which belonged to the bishopric. After multiple warnings, the bishop decided to
excommunicate the commune, judges, councilmen and the entire community. The commune rejected bishop’s requests
as illegal and decided to appeal to the Apostolic See. The bishop demanded certain gate tax (vratarina), and the
CEU eTD Collection

following places: platea contigua ecclesie Traguriensis, hortus positus in insula Boe (Brač), campus sancti Petri de
Clobucez, palatium comitatus, pedagium Barchan, et insulae ac scopuli maris. CDC X, 516-7, January 10, 1340.
Andreis, Povijest grada Trogira I, 86; Lucić, Povijesna svjedočanstva I, 540-4; Benyovsky Latin, “Medieval Square
in Trogir,” 28, f. 105; Benyovsky Latin, Srednjovjekovni Trogir, 205.
679
The accusations against Lampredius listed in the papal charter from 1338 are listed again, while the charter also
narrates about the trial by Cardinal Hélie. The representatives of the commune were Stephen Cega, Canon John and
Gausigna, while Jacob de Piscario represented the bishop. Lucić, Collection, vol. 542, fol. 427-35, April 26, 1341;
Lucić, Povijesna svjedočanstva I, 544. Farlati, Trogirski biskupi, 257-8.
680
The historians cited Ivan Lucić, Povijesna svjedočanstva I, 543-5, who stated that the bishopric was vacant after
Lampredius’s excommunication. Nada Klaić used the city charter from 1343 in which Lampredius was listed as the
bishop of the city as the proof that he was probably found innocent and was restored in bishop’s honour. According
to her, the administrators were there because Lampredius was ill. Klaić, Povijest grada Trogira, 263-4. This was not
the case as Nada Klaić only used those sources that fitted her narrative. As mentioned, Lampredius was included back
into the datatio of the city charters already in April 1340, well before he was excommunicated. Rački, “Notae,” 232,
April 12, 1340.

136
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

proceedings.681 After the death of Archdeacon Dessa,682 the pope appointed Archdeacon Michael
Gallutius of Treviso as the administrator in 1347.683
During the period of the administrators, in January 1346, the commune passed a decree
stating that no landed property – by gifts or last wills - within the city can be left to foreigners.684
The decision aimed at keeping the properties in the city subordinated to the communal government,
but it was also applied regarding the Church. This was visible from the dispute which broke out
between Bishop Angelo Cavazza (r.1440-1452) and the commune in 1450.685 The bishop
demanded that the decree be overturned as it violated ecclesiastical freedom. His pressure,
combined with the prohibition of receiving sacraments, worked, and the decision was changed.
This edict was very similar to the one passed in Split in 1347, in which the city council stated that
a large number of properties came into the possession of the Church. In both cases the communal
authorities wanted to have exclusive control over the city, limiting the ecclesiastical freedoms in
the process. While there are no sources which would tell us the reaction of the clergy to the decision
in Split, in Trogir the clergy most likely appealed to the Apostolic See, as in November 1347 the
commune received a papal letter regarding the dispute between the clergy and the commune. The
city council chose eight people – one of them was Daniel Vitturi, the brother of the bishop - to deal
with it but nothing additional is known about the issue.686 Since Lampredius soon died and his
successor did not reach Trogir until 1351, the communal decree was upheld as a century later
Bishop Angelo had to argue with the commune over it.
Lampredius’s time in office shows that the firm control over the bishopric and the quality
of one’s lineage did not necessarily make for a good bishop, if the foundations were problematic.
Part of the problem rested in the competition for power between the influential noble families of
the city and the unsettled problems from the period of earlier civil war. The bishop’s character
CEU eTD Collection

certainly did not help in mediating these conflicts and although he tried to strengthen his control

681
VMS I, 204-5, June 30, 1342.
682
It seems that Archdeacon Dessa of Split took his duty of governing the bishopric seriously or that the problems in
the diocese were considerable. When Archbishop Dominic convened the provincial synod in Split in May 1344, the
archdeacon could not attend, but had the bishopric of Trogir represented by Abbot Savinus of the monastery of Saint
John of Trogir. Lucić, Povijesna svjedočanstva I, 544; CDC XI, 133, May 10, 1344.
683
Eubel, Hierarchia Catholica I, 490, f. 4, November 30, 1347. Michael did arrive to Trogir as he presided over a
case regarding the new rector of the church of Saint Barbara in Trogir. CDC XI, 482-3, August 23, 1348. Lucić,
Povijesna svjedočanstva I, 544.
684
Statute of Trogir, book of reformations I, cap. 17, January 22, 1346.
685
Statute of Trogir, book of reformations II, ch. 60-1, February 1 – May 16, 1450.
686
CDC XI, 426, November 25, 1347.

137
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

over the diocese by controlling the cathedral chapter, Lampredius turned the commune against
himself. The experience of his episcopal reign stands in stark contrast to his contemporary,
Archbishop Dominic of Split, whose noble origins and knowledge helped him to raise the level of
pastoral care in his diocese while maintaining strong relations with his commune.

III.3.5. A Native Archbishop of Split - Dominic Luccari (r.1328-48)

Dominic was an ideal candidate for the next archbishop of Split as he was a member of the
cathedral chapter since around 1311 and became an archdeacon by 1324.687 As the archdeacon, he
assisted in governing the diocese and was probably instrumental in putting forth reforms for the
archbishopric, passed by his predecessor Balian, which Dominic promulgated during his time in
office.688 He certainly impressed Pope John XXII who, upon appointing him as the archbishop,
provided Dominic with a number of privileges which preserved and strengthened his affluent
archiepiscopal position.689 His familial ties, as he originated from the distinguished Luccari family,
and the economic-social foundation enabled him to exert authority and power in his archbishopric
and in the commune. His family members occupied the highest communal offices and maintained
dominant position in the cathedral chapter (Fig. 10).690 Dominic personified the archbishopric of
Split, the years of prestige and influence accumulated in one person and intertwined with the
interest of the commune and its self-identification with the tradition of the archbishopric.
When Split submitted itself to Venice in 1327, the commune tasked Dominic and Nicholas
Teodosius, a citizen, to negotiate with Venice and to promote the best interest of the city. The
reasons for the submission were of political nature as Split felt threatened by the local Croatian
lords, among them the Šubići, and followed the example of Trogir and Šibenik by asking Venice
CEU eTD Collection

687
CDC IX, 212-3, October 30, 1324.
688
Farlati, Illyricum Sacrum III, 412-22; Blažević, Crkveni partikularni sabori, 99-103.
689
Upon receiving a papal appointment, the previous benefices and positions would become part of the papal collation.
It is therefore indicative of Dominic’s impression on the pope as the archbishop was allowed to remain in the
possession of his previous benefices which gave him up to 100 golden florins, appoint a person of his choosing to the
cathedral chapter, grant some vacant benefices in the province and create a last will. CDC IX, 431-5, November 21,
1328; Farlati, Illyricum Sacrum III, 313.
690
His father and brothers served as communal councillors and judges. Dessa, the son of Andrew, succeded Dominic
as the archdeacon. Dessa was a member of the Tartaglia family which was closely related to the Luccari family. Dessa
was succeded by Dominic the Younger, the archbishop’s cousin. Nikolić Jakus, Formation of Dalmatian Urban
Nobility, 114-5; Kuzmanić, Splitski plemići, 22, 26-7; Ostojić, Metropolitanski kaptol, 56

138
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

for protection.691 Although weakened by the fall of Ban Mladen II (1322), the Šubići were still a
formidable power in Croatia-Dalmatia. George II Šubić (r.1322-28) ruled Klis and Omiš, two
fortresses which surrounded Split, from where he threatened the commune. The conflicts were
violent, but they somewhat diminished by December 1328 with a peace treaty between the Šubići
and Split and George’s death. Dominic, elected as the archbishop, was in November 1328 still in
Avignon, but very soon returned in order to settle in May 1329 the issue of tithe in Omiš.692
Although it seems that the conflict with the Šubići fully subsided, there were still problems during
the reign of George’s son, Mladen III (r.1328-48).693
With the submission to Venice, the commune of Split did not renounce the king of
Hungary-Croatia, as Charles Robert was still listed as the ruler in the city charters, but the doge of
Venice wielded the actual power by appointing the city count.694 The dual nature of authority
dictated further relations between Split and the Angevins. When King Charles Robert was passing
Croatia-Dalmatia on his way to Naples in order to marry his son Andrew to Joanna of Naples,
Archbishop Dominic went with the Spalatin delegation to see the king. A key element of the
archbishop’s political plan was to benefit from the royal visit by having older royal privileges to
Split transcribed and confirmed. The royal voyage had been planned years in advance and there
was plenty of time for the news to spread to Split.695 The delegation from Split was sent in mid-
June 1333 and included Archbishop Dominic and two members of the council of Split, Theodosius
Albert and Peter Francis. The representatives attempted to obtain confirmation of privileges that
the Hungarian kings had given to Split, but Charles Robert refused and provided an explanation,
which was not written down.696

691
Listine I, 368-72, August 18, 1327; Klaić, Izvori za hrvatsku povijest, 185-7; CDC IX, 363-5, October 3, 1327;
Klaić, Povijest Hrvata u razvijenom srednjem vijeku, 95-6; Klaić, Povijest Hrvata II, 60-1; Karbić, Šubići of Bribir,
94-5; Madijev, “Historija,” 182.
CEU eTD Collection

692
Since the place was poor, it was concluded that they would only pay 20 small Venetian libri, once per year during
the feast of Saint Michael (29 September). The procurators and syndics of Omiš sent to Split were Bergenda and
Privosios of Omiš. Count Bergenda was a major retainer of the Šubići, although the identity of Privosios is unclear.
Karbić, Šubići of Bribir, 82, 97-8. CDC IX, 461-2, May 25, 1329. For the regulation regarding the payment of tithe,
which was discussed at the provincial synod under Archbishop Balian, see: Farlati, Illyricum Sacrum III, 419-20.
693
Listine V, 227-8, December 1, 1328; Klaić, Povijest Hrvata u razvijenom srednjem vijeku, 594-5; Karbić, Šubići
of Bribir, 95-9.
694
The contemporary chronicler Miha emphasized the respect for the king of Hungary and the freedom of Split as the
main parts of the agreement with Venice. CDC IX, 363, October 3, 1327; 423, October 23, 1328; Madijev, “Historija,”
182.
695
Engel, Realm of St. Stephen, 137-8. Lucherini, “The Journey of Charles,” 341–362. Venice was informed in
December 1332 that Charles decided to postpone his voyage due to illness. Klaić, Povijest Hrvata II, 65-6.
696
CDC X, 114, July 16, 1333; Farlati, Illyricum Sacrum III, 315-6; Ivanišević, “Promišljanje o rodovima Lukari,”
13; Klaić, Povijest Hrvata u razvijenom srednjem vijeku, 594.

139
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

The archiepiscopal curia of the 1330s was the center of a considerable notary activity. The
archbishop gradually transcribed the montanea,697 a collection of charters listing older donations
by Croatian and Hungarian kings, as well as the popes, to the archbishopric. This occurred during
1332698 and 1333,699 but also in the later years.700 These old lists were copied and edited by a group
of archiepiscopal and communal notaries with imperial authority, and in the presence of important
clerics of the province whose attendance strengthened the authority of the rewritten documents.
Dominic’s activity had a lasting influence on the archbishopric as these empowered documents
were then actively used in the subsequent decades and centuries.701
A possible justification for listing the properties and privileges during this period can be
found in the contemporary political disagreements. During 1333 Split and Trogir were in a dispute
regarding their borders,702 which could explain why King Charles Robert did not confirm some
older charters from Split as they could be used in the dispute. During 1338-39, in front of a
Venetian judge, the archbishop and the commune of Split disputed with the commune of Trogir
regarding the border land of Bosiljina. Although it is unclear what exact charters did the
representatives of the archbishop and the commune of Split use, and which the representatives
from Trogir called forgeries, Lucić assumed that some edited charters were used where the
disputed territories were inserted during copying to strengthen the claim of Split. By October 1339
the doge decreed that the land belongs to Trogir.703

697
Novak, Povijest Splita, 536-7. The montanea consisted of old privileges granted by the popes and Croatian and
Hungarian kings to the archbishopric of Split and was a “simple list without any elements of a documents, created for
the administrative needs of primarily ecclesiastical institutions (dioceses, chapter houses, etc.).” Ančić,
“Srednjovjekovni montaneji,” 127-48.
698
In 1332 or 1333 the donation by King Dmitar Zvonimir (r.1076-89) to Archbishop Lawrence of Split from 1076
was transcribed in the presence of the three-suffragan bishops - Archangel of Knin, Andrew of Skradin and Bernard
of Senj. Farlati in some places writes 1332 and in others 1333. Farlati, Illyricum Sacrum IV, 18, 289. Since Bernard
CEU eTD Collection

was mentioned, the charter was probably confirmed at the end of 1332 or beginning of 1333. As Bernard was elected
following the death of his predecessor George (r.1319-32), he was probably at time in Split, seeking confirmation and
consecration by the archbishop.
699
For instance, in May 1333 Archbishop Dominic confirmed parts of the Montanea in the presence of Bishop Luke
of Hvar, Abbot Matthew of the Benedictine monastery of Saint Stephen and Archdeacon Dessa. Farlati, Illyricum
Sacrum III, 314-5, May 30, 1333. In June the archbishop had the bull of Pope Honorius III (r.1216-27) from 1220
transcribed, in which the pope confirmed the donations of lands in the territory of the ancient Salona by King Andrew
II (r.1205-35). CDC X, 107-9, June 26, 1333.
700
CDC X, 393-7, July 8, 1338; Ančić, “Srednjovjekovni montaneji,” 131.
701
Most notably, Archbishop Dominic used these transcripts to win a dispute with Bishop Valentine of Makarska in
1347. Later, Archbishop Hugolin used the documents in an attempt to reclaim three deserted villages on the border
between Trogir and Split in 1358. Dominic charters were a basis for a reambulation of the archbishopric done by
Archbishop Andrew Benzi in 1397.
702
CDC X, 121-2, October 12, 1333.
703
Lucić, Povijesna svjedočanstva I, 504-12.

140
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

The political situation surrounding the archbishopric of Split around and after 1339 is
harder to pinpoint. When Ban Stephen of Bosnia attacked Klis in August 1338, the seat of Mladen
III – who allied himself with John Nelipac - the archbishop of Split went to the ban in order to
protect the territory of the archbishopric.704 Mladen and Stephen soon ceased hostilities, but during
summer 1339 the men of John Nelipac and Mladen III attacked the village of Saint George (today
Kaštel Sućurac), which was possessed by the archbishop of Split.705 Nothing is known about the
events leading to the attack and its consequences.
As an archdeacon of the cathedral chapter, prior to his appointment as the archbishop,
Dominic was able to assist Archbishop Balian in the management of the diocese as well as in
passing of Balian’s Church constitutions which were reflected in Dominic’s management of the
archbishopric. Considerable sources were preserved from his period which portray him as a prelate
highly engaged in correcting his clegy. He excommunicated erring prelates, held frequent synods
and conducted visitations. For instance, problems erupted in the early 1330s regarding how Bishop
Lampredius managed his diocese of Trogir and the disputes which the bishop had with his
commune and members of the clergy. The archbishop inspected the bishopric and convened the
provincial synod, probably in May 1333, which excommunicated Lampredius.706 A note from the
synod of 1336 shows that the archbishop’s most common duty was probably to mediate the
disputes between his clergy. Lector Silvestar from the Franciscan order from Trogir and Bishop
Lampredius debated about the proper burial processions, which was settled on the instigation of
the archbishop.707
The provincial synod which was held in May 1344 in large part dealt with the problems
the archbishop had with the count of Omiš and with the position of the bishop of Makarska, who
was at the time located in Omiš.708 The dispute, which started prior to 1342, dealt with an
archiepiscopal village (Srinjine), leased out to George Maldeorigus, the count of Omiš. After the
CEU eTD Collection

count repeatedly failed to pay for the lease, he was excommunicated and Bishop Valentine of
Makarska was tasked to proclaim the decision in Omiš, but the bishop refused, as he found shelter
in Omiš after being forced out of Makarska. After a dispute which lasted several years, the bishop’s

704
Lucić, Povijesna svjedočanstva I, 536.
705
Birin, Knez Nelipac, 39; Listine II, 46-7; Karbić, Šubići of Bribir, 111; Karbić, “Nelipčići i Šubići,” 138.
706
CDC X, 146-50, February 10, 1334; VMS I, 200, April 15, 1338.
707
Farlati, Trogirski biskupi, 250, May 14, 1336; Also, see: Morris, Papal Monarchy, 532.
708
Blažević, Crkveni partikularni sabori, 104; CDC XI, 131-5, May 10, 1344; Farlati III, 319-322.

141
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

conduct was discussed during the provincial synod of 1344, where Valentine did not appear, but
was instead represented by Bishop Madius of Duvno. The bishops who gathered at the synod were
tasked to investigate the case and they decreed that Valentine and Count George were
excommunicated.709 During the dispute, Valentine appealed to the pope and his letters reveal that
the problems started prior to 1342 and by 1347 the pope assigned Patriarch Bertrand of Aquileia
to preside over a hearing which finally settled the issue. The dispute revealed that the bishop’s
contumacy was not the only problem as Dominic and Valentine also disputed regarding Omiš and
both claimed the fort was part of their diocese. Since the archbishop provided written evidence for
his claim, he prevailed and reincorporated Omiš back to his archdiocese. But Dominic also decided
to show magnanimity toward Valentine by promising to assist the bishop in reclaiming Makarska
and providing him with a monastery in commenda to finance a life worthy of a bishop.710 What is
important to note here how in this conflict clerics used different resources at their disposal. While
the archbishop was trying to enforce his rights over Omiš by using the available institutions of the
provincial synod and spiritual punishment, the bishop of Makarska decided to circumvent the
archbishop’s jurisdiction by appealing to the pope. The archbishop prevailed as he could rely on
the documents which he meticulously collected over the years and which were now used to
determine the diocesan borders.
A rather interesting case showing the episcopal authority and the issue of multiple
obediences of various ecclesiastics, can be observed on the case of the convent of Saint Mary in
Nin. The issue was narrated in 1347 so the chronology is not entirely clear at times. The nunnery
was located in the bishopric of Nin, but the Benedictine monks and the Dominican friars disputed
over the jurisdiction over the monastery. Under the reign of Abbess Martha, a dispute erupted
regarding which regula to follow, as the abbess argued for the Benedictine rule, while sisters
CEU eTD Collection

claimed that they belonged to the Dominican order. The sisters prevented Archbishop Balian of

709
Friar Nicholas of Knin, Andrew of Skradin, John of Hvar, Friar Martin of Šibenik. Other bishops were represented
by their vicars: Abbot Savinus, vicar for the church in Trogir; Nicholas representing Bishop Radoslav of Krbava;
Stancije, representative of Bishop John of Nin; John Bardani representing the bishop of Senj (not named).
710
Valentine received in commenda the monastery of Saint Andrew de Pelago, a Benedictine monastery on the island
of Svetac, near Vis. CDC XI, 2-3, July 25, 1342; 160-62, October 1, 1344; 314-7, July 31, 1346; before March 17,
1347, 354-5; 355-58, March 17, 1347; Farlati, Illyricum Sacrum III, 321; Rupčić, “Makarska biskupija,” 111-13;
Ančić, Na rubu zapada, 168-9; Korać, “Religijske prilike u humskoj zemlji,” 479-81.

142
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

Split from inspecting the monastery,711 while Abbot John,712 from the Benedictine monastery of
Saint Chrysogonus of Zadar, was prevented from doing the same by the Dominican friars from
Zadar. The unsatisfied sisters appealed to Friar Nicholas of Ancona, the Dominican vicar for
Dalmatia,713 stating that Abbess Martha stole, with a help from a priest from Nin, a papal privilege
by which the pope confirmed that the monastery is part of the Dominican order. Bishop John of
Nin and then Archbishop Dominic of Split were asked to investigate the matter and the archbishop
took the matter seriously. He visited the diocese, gathered clergy and a number of lay people of
Nin into the church of Saint Mary and had the priest from Nin publicly confess that he stole the
privilege and gave it to Martha who proceeded to destroy it.714 Although the case was still far from
over, dragging on for several decades,715 the behaviour and the decisiveness of the archbishop of
Split is of note here. Dominic took his role as the archbishop seriously and intended to energetically
solve the clerical errors in Nin.
As metropolitans, the archbishops of Split were authorized to inspect and confirm the
elections of their suffragan-bishops, while also being able to excommunicate those bishops who
erred. It is unclear if archbishops Peter (r.1297-1324) or Balian (r.1324-28) ever used censures.716
Dominic used the sentence of excommunication more, or sources are better preserved for his
period, but often in a way to avoid the sentence being challenged. For instance, Lampredius of
Trogir and Valentine of Makarska were both excommunicated for their actions, but after a careful

711
The constitutions of Archbishop Balian had a chapter ut moniales sub perpetua maneant clausura which refered
to the constitutions of Pope Boniface VIII which stated that all nuns, no matter of the rule they observed, should
remain in perpetual cloister. Farlati, Illyricum Sacrum III, 414. For the papal decree Periculoso (1298), see: Makowski,
Canon Law and Cloistered Women, 1-8.
712
John de Ontiaco (Johannes de Onciache), a Frenchman from the bishopric of Lyon and the abbot of the monastery
from 1345 until 1377. Banić, “Zadarski gotički vezeni antependij,” 86; Peričić, “Samostan Svetog Krševana,” 98;
Jakić-Cestarić, “Osobna imena i porijeklo redovnika,” 137.
CEU eTD Collection

713
CDC XI, 404-8, October 12, 1347.
714
CDC XI, 408-10, October 12, 1347.
715
The issue was still discussed in the following months in front of Friar Nicholas, during which time the friar was
trying to uncover what was known about the origins of this monastery. CDC XI, 421-4, November 19, 1347; 428-9,
November 27, 1347. In 1366 the sisters received a letter of protection from Pope Urban V, which included the convent
of Saint Mary under the Dominican order, but in 1368 the vicar of the bishop of Nin demanded an oath from the sisters
in which they had to admit that they would never be subordinated to the Dominican order. The case was still far from
over in 1391 when Pope Boniface IX ordered the archbishop of Zadar to preside over the dispute between the bishop
of Nin and the Dominican order regarding the right of protection (de iure protectionis) over the monastery of Saint
Mary in Nin. Ostojić, Benediktinci u Hrvatskoj II, 112-3.
716
In April 1326 Balian obtained a permission to absolve clerics who were excommunicated for failing to pay for the
25th part of the tithe to the papal legate, which Balian used already in May. CDC IX, 285-6, April 9, 1326. He absolved
Abbot Savinus of the Benedictine monastery of Saint John of Trogir and Canon Dominic Petrosii of chapter in Trogir.
CDC IX, 295, May 29, 1326.

143
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

investigation and at a provincial synod. This suggest that Dominic was careful to adhere to a proper
procedure before invoking one of the strongest spiritual penalities. He was also keen on having the
support and approval of other bishops of his province, so the archiepiscopal actions would have
the necessary strength and legitimacy.717 On the other hand, the excommunication of Andrew
Masulo, the bishop of Skradin, seems to have been of smaller importance, revolving around some
of Andrew’s debts, and was settled quickly.718
Dominic experienced first-hand how his archiepiscopal authority diminished during this
period in favour of the Apostolic See. Instead of inspecting elections, mediating disputes and
providing confirmations, the archbishop’s decisions were overruled by the Avignon popes who
increasingly appointed bishops without considering the local elections or archiepiscopal
confirmations.719 For instance, in 1333 the pope appointed John of Pisa, an Augustinian monk, as
the bishop of Senj.720 At the same time, the cathedral chapter of Senj elected Bernard, an abbot of
a nearby Benedictine monastery, who received confirmation from Archbishop Dominic. When
John appeared in his diocese, the contested bishop was resisted by both the local ecclesiastical and
secular authorities. Namely, Bernard had the support of the counts of Krk, Domnius and Bartol
Frankopan, who controlled the city and the bishopric of Senj. John was able to claim his diocese
only after several years, probably because Bernard died.721
Similar situation occurred regarding Šibenik in 1344. After the capitular election of Martin,
the abbot of Saint Cosmas and Damian, Dominic issued a confirmation and consecration.722 But
Pope Clement VI transfered Boniface, the bishop of Trebinje-Mrkanj,723 to Šibenik, notifying the

717
CEU eTD Collection

On excommunication, see: Hyland, Excommunication, 14-16; Vodola, Excommunication, 15-6, 119-20.

718
The bishop was suspended and excommunicated at the end of 1341, while in May 1342 he came to Split to petition
the archbishop for absolution. The bishop owed money to Mark de Molino from Venice, which resulted in the bishop’s
excommunication. Splitski spomenici, 64, December 5, 1341; 179-82, May 12, 1342. Vodola, Excommunication, 38-
43. There are no sources to show how the dispute was settled, but it was probably resolved very soon as Andrew was
one of the synodal judges during the provincial synod in 1344. Previously, in 1332/33 he was a witness when
Archbishop Dominic transcribed some older charters which suggests that the relations between the two prelates were
amicable.
719
The Avignon popes did not make a general reservation for the province of Split, as was the case for the patriarchate
of Grado and the archbishopric of Zadar.
720
Eubel, Hierarchia Catholica I, 450, January 4, 1333.
721
Farlati, Illyricum Sacrum III, 316; Kosanović, Državina krčkih knezova, 94-5; Bogović, “Crkveni patronat,” 235-
243; Sladović, Povesti biskupijah senjske, 96.
722
CDC XI, 181-2, January 12, 1345.
723
Suffragan of Ragusa, today in modern day Bosnia and Herzegovina. Eubel, Hierarchia Catholica I, 495-6.

144
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

archbishop about the papal appointment in a letter from March 1344.724 If the archbishop was
aware of Boniface's appointment, it is unclear why he allowed Martin's participation at the
provincial synod in May, and even had him appointed as one of the synodal judges.725 Boniface
appealed to the pope claiming that he was resisted in taking the possession of Šibenik by Martin's
accomplices. Pope Clement VI was not pleased with the situation and stated that Martin was
consecrated despite the papal reservation. The solution was soon found, but it probably excluded
the participation by the archbishop as Boniface was confirmed in Šibenik, while Martin was
transfered to the bishopric of Osor, a suffragan of Zadar.726
Archbishop Dominic learned from and adapted to the papal infringments on the
archiepiscopal authority. In early 1348 Dominic wanted to install his relative, Dominic the
Younger, as the new bishop of Knin. Realizing that he cannot use his authority to simply appoint
the bishop – he was certainly aware of the failed attempts by his predecessor Peter regarding the
bishopric of Hvar in 1323 – Dominic instead made a plan to seek support from the Council of
Split, the counts of Trogir, Nin and Šibenik and the doge of Venice.727 Secular backing would be
used to strengthen the petition to the Avignon Curia. The archbishop was aware that the papal
ruling was more decisive in the appointment than the regular capitular election and the
confirmation by the metropolitan. Dominic’s action possibly had a political dimension intended to
extend the influence of the Venetian-Spalatin authorities and the archbishop over Knin, which was
a large diocese in the hinterland of Split and the seat of power of the Hungarian viceban.
Archbishop Dominic’s death from the plague on March 22, 1348728 prevented any further
actions, while the pope used his death to appoint John of Pisa, the bishop of Senj, as the next
archbishop. John spent more time in Avignon and his native Pisa than in Senj, so his connections

724
CEU eTD Collection

CDC XI, 112-113, February 8, 1344; Eubel, Hierarchia Catholica I I, 57. The letter mentioned that Boniface was
from Piacenza (a place between Pavia and Cremona). The text was damaged so some parts are unreadable. Splitski
spomenici, 323, March 20, 1344.
725
frater Martin permissione divina Sibenicensis episcopus as one of synodal judges to investigate the behaviour of
the Bishop Valentine of Makarska and Count George Mlatković of Omiš. CDC XI, 131-5, May 10, 1344; Farlati,
Illyricum Sacrum III, 318-9.
726
The pope tasked the bishop of Rab, the abbot of the monastery of Saint Nicholas in Šibenik and Canon Peter of
Šibenik to ensure that Boniface is introduced into the possession of his diocese. The last two were the ones who Pope
Benedict XII (r.1334-1342) contacted in 1340 regarding the trial of Bishop Lampredius of Trogir. Now the new pope,
Clement VI (r.1342-1352) contacted the same people which would suggest that the Papal Curia had a network of
prelates who it could contact and on who it could rely to conduct papal missions on the local levels. CDC XI, 170-1,
November 18, 1344; Priručnik II, 617; Eubel, Hierarchia Catholica I, 66, March 8, 1346.
727
Farlati, Illyricum Sacrum III, 323-4, February 7, 1348; Novak, Povijest Splita, 537-8; Nikolić Jakus, Formation of
Dalmatian Urban Nobility, 120.
728
Madijev, “Historija,” 185-202. p. 193; Lucić, De regno Dalmatiae et Croatiae, 386; Novak, Povijest Splita, 214.

145
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

with the Curia played a more important role in obtaining the appointment than his experience in
governing a bishopric. John never went to Split, which can be observed from the fact that he was
never mentioned in the local sources and that he died before the end of 1348 from plague in his
native Pisa, where he most likely went in order to settle some of his affairs.729
Keeping up with the theme of direct papal appointments and rejected local elections,
shortly after Dominic’s death, the cathedral chapter of Split elected Peregrin de Saxonia, the vicar-
general of the Franciscan Order in Bosnia, as the archbishop. Peregrin had connections to Ban
Stephen of Bosnia and was mentioned as the archbishop-elect in sources in Split between April
1348 and January 1349.730 The archbishop-elect was familiar both to the Papal Curia and to the
Venetian authorities as in April 1347 the ban asked the Venetians to help Peregrin in his mission
to Avignon to obtain various privileges for the Bosnian Franciscan Vicariate.731
Peregrin’s election in Split shows ambitions which Ban Stephen II Kotromanić of Bosnia
had in Dalmatia and the contacts he tried to utilize.732 During the late 1340s Ban Stephen was
attempting to increase his authority in Croatia-Dalmatia, while establishing favourable contacts
with Venice, which aimed at freeing the ban from the direct subjugation to the king of Hungary.733
In the process the ban established, or utilized existing contacts, with the local Dalmatian
communities. The ban had at his court Gregory de Cyprus, a canon of Split, whom the ban called
his chaplain. Back in 1328 Gregory led a part of the chapter of Split which wanted to elect Bosolo
of Parma as the archbishop. After Dominic was confirmed as the archbishop, Gregory was either
marginalized or he willingly left Split and gradually entered the ban’s service.734 His appearance
in Bosnia indicate that contacts existed between the cathedral chapter of Split and the Bosnian ban,
which were then used to have Peregrin elected as the archbishop.
CEU eTD Collection

729
CDC XI, 461-2, May 30, 1348; Williman, Right of Spoil, 155; VMS I, 222, December 27, 1349; CDC XI, 497-8,
December 27, 1348; Novak, Povijest Splita, 214.
730
In sources he was listed both as Pelegrinus or as Peregrinus. Farlati, Illyricum Sacrum III, 325. April 14, 1348:
Fratrus Pelegrinus Dei gratia Archielecti. Ančić, Na rubu zapada, 210, f. 22. Farlati, Illyricum Sacrum III, 325,
January 25, 1349: ...fratris Peregrini dei gratia archielecti Spalatensis. Listine III, 126, May 12, 1349.
731
Listine II, 443, April 3, 1347; Klaić, Povijest Hrvata u razvijenom srednjem vijeku, 643-44.
732
The issue is discussed in detail in: Ančić, Na rubu zapada, 210-1; For Peregrin’s activities, see: Galamb, “La
politique des rois angevins de la Hongrie,” 174-5; Ančić, Putanja klatna, 147-8.
733
Discussed in detail by: Ančić, Putanja klatna, 147-54.
734
He was mentioned in 1347 when the ban of Bosnia was petitioning the Venetians to assist Peregrin's mission to
Avignon. The ban was petitioning the pope to grant some benefices in Split to Gregory. This would suggest that while
Dominic was the archbishop, Gregory was prevented from obtaining any new benefices in the archbishopric of Split,
so he had to rely on the ban's support and the papal collation. Listine II, 444-45, April 3, 1347.

146
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

Despite what was earlier stated about the relations between the Venetians and the Bosnian
ban, their actions regarding Split do not seem to have been coordinated. In late April 1348, while
Peregrin was mentioned in Split, the Venetians wanted to enlist the support of two important
Avignon cardinals in order to appoint a Venetian citizen as the archbishop of Split.735 It is therefore
curious that the pope did not mention any dispute regarding Split when he appointed John as the
archbishop in late May as he was certainly informed about the activities of the Bosnian ban and
the Venetians but decided to ignore both sides.
In the end the ban’s gambit was not successful, as Peregrin never received the
confirmation. Instead, by the end of 1348, when it was already clear that the pope appointed
another person for Split, the Bosnian ban asked the Venetians to persuade the pope to appoint
Peregrin as the bishop of Bosnia, which was successful.736 The new bishop remained closely
connected and in service of the ban, on whose behalf he often travelled to the Papal Curia in
Avignon. During these trips the established contacts with Venice were used.737 These events
confirm that the strongest institution in episcopal selection was the one which also approved
archbishops. Following John’s death, the pope appointed Hugolin de Branca, a Benedictine monk
of Saint Peter in Perugia from a noble family from Gubbio in Umbria (the Papal States).
Dominic Luccari is an ideal example of a capable prelate who was needed during the
challenging fourteenth century. As an experienced cleric who originated from an important noble
family, Dominic became indispensable in the life of the commune and the archbishopric. He made
the most of his metropolitan powers, even if diminished by the papal involvement, and showed
diligence and care in improving his metropolitan province. The beginning and the end of his time
in office also shows the changes in the treatment of the archbishopric by the Apostolic See. While
CEU eTD Collection

735
Listine III, p. 77, April 26, 1348. The cardinals were Gozzio Battaglia and Hugues Roger. Gozzio rose to power
during the pontificate of Benedict XII (1334-42), who also appointed Gozzio as the titular patriarch of Constantinople
and entrusted him the legation in the papal conflict with the king of Aragon over the island of Sicily. He died sometime
before July 1348. Cardella Pagliarini, Memorie storiche, pp. 145-6. Hugues was the cardinal of Tulle and the brother
of Pope Clement VI (1342-52) and in 1362 elected as the pope but refused due to his advanced age. Wood, Clement
VI: The Pontificate, 62, 98-9. He was somebody on whom the Venetians relied to promote the interest of the republic.
Venezia-senato IV, n. 858-60, October 2, 1348.
736
Listine III, 107, October 18, 1348; Eubel, Hierarchia Catholica I, 142, January 28, 1349.
737
Ančić, Putanja klatna, 160-1, In 1351 Peregrin, already the bishop of Bosnia, was travelling to the Papal Curia via
Venice. The Venetians asked him to take and deliver some letters of recommendation to the Roman cardinals and the
Venetian procurators in the Curia. Listine III, 221, October 4, 1351. Based on this charter Ančić assumed that Peregrin
was more inclined towards Venice in previous periods, but this is hard to prove. Ančić, Putanja klatna, 161. Venetians
helped Peregrin on the instigation of the ban of Bosnia, and now Peregrin returned the favour by carrying some letters
to the Papal Curia. Peregrin remained as the bishop of Bosnia until his death in 1356.

147
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

Pope John XXII considered Dominic’s qualities and confirmed him following the double election,
the subsequent Avignon popes showed disregard for the interest of the local communities and any
potential local candidates. The selected archbishops were not necessarily the best candidates, but
those closely aligned with the papal Curia.
CEU eTD Collection

148
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

Chapter IV. The Return of the Hungarian King: Angevin Croatia-Dalmatia

The papal provisions were fully enacted in Croatia-Dalmatia by the mid-fourteenth

century. The popes vigorously expanded and utilized the rules regarding episcopal appointments
which led to bishops rarely being selected by the local cathedral chapters but instead were directly
appointed by the Apostolic See. Individuals who gradually advanced in ranks through their local
cathedral chapters were at a disadvantage in comparison to clerics who could petition the Curia
and had backing from secular institutions in a form of letters of support. The system of petitions
meant that those with better and closer contacts to the Apostolic See could influence the episcopal
appointment in their favour. This was particularly the case with the Republic of Venice and the
Angevin kings of Hungary, who would petition the Apostolic See to award bishoprics to loyal
clerics. The success of these external forces was limited, due to the political instability of the first
half of the fourteenth century, but, also, due to the authority and the prestige of the Apostolic See
to have its own candidates accepted. The situation, however, changed when King Louis was able
to expand his rule over entire Croatia-Dalmatia.
The fall of Ban Mladen II in 1322 led the local lords to carve up the Šubići territory and
engage in constant warfare in order to become regional rulers, while the communes of Dalmatia
submitted themselves to Venice. The period of Angevin consolidation in Hungary led to the
dynasty expanding its gaze on reconquering lost territories.738 Charles Robert (r.1301-42) had
plans to reclaim Croatia and Dalmatia,739 but it was his successor, Louis the Great (r.1342-82) who
made decisive moves to wrestle control over the region from Venice. The powerful Croatian lords
wavered in their allegiances towards either Hungary or Venice in order to preserve autonomy. The
interlude to the wars between Hungary and Venice in 1345-48 and in 1356-58 were the royal
attempts of subduing the territories of Count Nelipac and Mladen III Šubić.740
CEU eTD Collection

Following the death of Count Nelipac (?-1344), Louis sent Ban Nicholas Bánffy to Croatia
in 1344 and another army in 1345 in order to seize Nelipac’s stronghold of Knin while the king
personally oversaw the operations from the nearby Bihać. The conquest of Knin would give the
king a strong point for potential further expansion into Croatia. The cities of Dalmatia decided to

738
Petrovics, “Hungary and the Adriatic Coast in the Middle Ages,” 62-73.
739
Piti, “Hungary and Dalmatia in 1340,” 3-10 and Piti, “A Planned Campaign of King Charles,” 179-85 are duplicate
publications, published only three years apart.
740
Karbić, “Nelipčići i Šubići,” 139-43; Isailović, “Između otpora i lojalnosti,” 265; Klaić, Povijest Hrvata u
razvijenom srednjem vijeku, 600-1.

149
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

use the opportunity of the royal visit to send their emissaries to Bihać, but Venice strongly reacted
to the decision by the council of Zadar to send its representatives. La Serenissima sent ships and
troops to besiege Zadar in August 1345 while the citizens asked the king for help. By the end of
1346 Venice defeated Louis and reclaimed the city.741
Although unsuccessful, it does seem that Louis’s long-term goal was the liberation of
Dalmatia from the Venetian control which was forced by hasty Venetian action. This official
policy can be observed on the symbolic level by the introduction of the archbishops of Split and
Zadar among the list of dignitaries in the royal charters. With the inclusion of these places, the
king asserted his claim on the region. The claim was registered in the peace treaty with John
Nelipčić, the successor of Count Nelipac, which saw the king strengthening his position in Croatia,
while Zadar was in its first months of siege by the Venetians.742
Louis was unprepared for his first conflict with Venice during the siege of Zadar as his
original focus was to claim the territories of Count Nelipac. His attention was also pulled to Naples
where his brother, Andrew, was killed as part of the Neapolitan court conspiracy. Peace with
Venice was signed in 1348 for the duration of 8 years, which Louis used to personally oversee
military campaigns into Naples in 1347-48 and in 1350-52. Besides Naples, the royal attention
was drawn to all sides, to the east, Central Europe and the Balkans (Fig. 11).743
Combined with the constant wars was the arrival of the fatal pandemic which took the lives
of a large part of the European population. Although the Croatian historians have been skeptical
about the extent and the consequences of the Black Death, in recent years, they have started to re-
evaluate the effects which the pandemic had on Croatia-Dalmatia by carefully analyzing the
sources of local provenance. The pandemic, combined with local conflicts, led to considerable
losses in various Dalmatian communes.744 The effects that the Black Death had on the
CEU eTD Collection

ecclesiastical structures is somewhat harder to discern, but in a quick succession, the plague

741
Gruber, Vojevanje Ljudevita I. u Dalmaciji; Birin, Knez Nelipac, 34-71; Klaić, Povijest Hrvata II, 76-99; Engel,
Realm of St. Stephen, 161-2; Klaić and Petricioli, Zadar u srednjem vijeku, 305-15; Hóman, Gli Angioini di Napoli,
314-17; Brunelli, Storia della città di Zara, 456-79.
742
Dominic of Split and Nicholas of Zadar were listed as the archbishops. CDC XI, 251, November 21, 1345.
743
Casteen, From She-Wolf to Martyr, 29-66; Engel, Realm of St. Stephen, 159-61; Hóman, Gli Angioni di Napoli,
317-52. For an overview of the expansion of the medieval Hungarian kingdom, with a good overview of King Louis’s
campaigns, see: Bárány, “Expansions of the Kingdom of Hungary,” 357-66.
744
Ravančić, Vrijeme umiranja, 114-21; Raukar, “Komunalna društva u Dalmaciji u XIV. stoljeću,” 159; Nikolić
Jakus, “Vrijeme rata, kuge, zatočeništva,” 9-11; Herlihy, Black Death and the Transformation of the West; Kohn,
Black Death Transformed.

150
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

claimed lives of two archbishops of Split, bringing about changes in the orientation of the
archbishopric and affecting its relations with the commune and the local clergy.745
The second conflict between King Louis and Venice was caused by the prolonged
succession wars following the death of Mladen III Šubić in 1348 during which Venice and
Hungary engaged in constant skirmishes and proxy wars with each other, never really breaking the
peace treaty of 1348, but which ultimately led to war.746 Louis relied upon the Kotromanići, the
king’s allies in Bosnia, while pressing the local Croatian nobility in recognizing the royal
authority.747 Mladen’s wife, Jelena Nemanjić, ruled the Šubići lands from Klis and Skradin
following the death of her husband, and these forts were sought after by all sides. In 1355 Jelena
was hard pressed from the Hungarians so she invited her half-brother, Emperor Stefan Dušan of
Serbia (1308-55), to provide troops for her protection. Dušan already fought Louis during the
1350s, so he swiftly responded by sending troops to assist his sister. Dušan’s death in December
1355 meant the end of the Serbian support for Jelena, and the remaining Jelena’s castles were
divided between the Venetians (Skradin) and Ban Nicholas of Croatia (Omiš and Klis).748
The papal policy of Clement VI (r.1342-52) was to keep Louis away from Naples749 and
limit his activities on expanding the borders of Hungary at the expense of the non-Catholic
neighbours in Lithuania and in the Balkans.750 Nevertheless, the Apostolic See showed
inconsistence, as the popes often called King Louis to provide military or financial support for the

745
Dominic Luccari and John of Pisa, both the archbishops of Split, died during 1348. See the chapter on Archbishop
Dominic Luccari of Split (r.1328-48). Heather Para, “Plague, Papacy and Power,” 7-22; Müller, “Managing Crises:
Institutional Re-stabilisation of the Religious Orders,” 215-19.
746
The political and military history of this conflict is covered in detail by Gruber, “Borba Ludovika I. s Mlečanima
za Dalmaciju,” 32-161; Klaić, Povijest Hrvata u razvijenom srednjem vijeku, 610-25.
747
Louis married the daughter of Stephen Kotromanić in 1353, while later the king supported Tvrtko I in ruling over
Bosnia. Bárány, “Expansions of the Kingdom of Hungary,” 360.
748
The entire war is covered in greater detail in: Klaić, Povijest Hrvata II, 139-42.
CEU eTD Collection

749
On the papal policy regarding Naples and Queen Joanna I, see: Rollo-Koster, Avignon and its Papacy, 75-7;
Casteen, From She-Wolf to Martyr, 118-55. The pope mediated a peace treaty between Joanna I of Naples and Louis
I of Hungary on 23 March 1352, effectively ending the Hungarian campaign into the southern Italy. Engel, Realm of
St. Stephen, 161. Pope Clement VI granted Louis incomes from a four-year tithe from Hungary, under the condition
that the king releases the Neapolitan prisoners. Housley, “King Louis the Great of Hungary,” 195; Housley, Avignon
Papacy and the Crusades, 71.
750
Louis directed several campaigns into Lithuania between 1340s and 1370s. Pope Clement VI granted Louis the full
possession of the lands conquered on the borders of Hungary. Housley, “King Louis the Great of Hungary,” 195.
Good example of the consistent papal policy to divert Louis's attention to the east is the legatine mission of Guy of
Boulogne (1313-73), the cardinal-priest of Santa Cecilia in Trastevere, who was appointed as the legate for Lombardy
and Hungary in November 1348. In May 1350 he called upon the king of Hungary, the doge of Venice and the Grand
Master of the Knights Hospitaller to redirect their attention to Serbia and the problems of the Catholics there who
were suffering under the rule of Stefan Dušan. Listine III, 186, May 25, 1350; Maleczek, “Die päpstlichen Legaten”
Jahrhundert, 43-4.

151
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

papal actions in reclaiming parts of Italy. Under Clement the Apostolic See attempted to combat
the rising threat of the Ottomans in Asia Minor and curb their expansion by organizing a crusade.751
As part of Clement’s active Eastern policy, the Apostolic See became more involved in diplomatic
contacts with the rulers of Byzantium and Serbia. But these talks were obstructed by mutual
conflict between these two Balkan powers, papal insistence on a Church reunion and Orthodox
reluctance to do so.752
Papal policy toward Serbia ranged between the desire to protect the local Catholics by
either sending letters or representatives to the local rulers, calling for a Church union or trying to
organize local Catholic neighbors to invade Serbia and establish Catholic religion. Emperor Stefan
Dušan expanded his domain to the south, benefiting from the weakening of the Byzantine Empire.
During the 1350s Dušan’s territories was pressured by its neighbours to which the emperor reacted
by attempting to establish new alliances. Due to the pressure by the Ottomans, the emperor was
interested - or at least pretended to be - in a Church union with Avignon.753 Because of the constant
border wars with the Hungarians754 the emperor formed an alliance with Venice and even fought
the Hungarians in Croatia-Dalmatia on behalf of his sister, Jelena Nemanjić. Pope Innocent VI
entered negotiations with the Serbian emperor in 1354, but by the end of 1355 the negotiations
failed.755 At the same time the papal efforts to recover the Papal States under the command of
Cardinal Abornoz stalled756 and the pope requested Louis and the Hungarian prelates for military

751
Clement organized the Latin League of 1344 which seized Smyrna (Izmir). Wood, Clement VI: The Pontificate,
177-85.
752
The reasons for stalled Avignon-Constantinople talks were of theological and political nature. As main prerequisite
for the Church union, the Byzantine emperors required that an ecumenical council be summoned in order to settle
theological differences. Wood, Clement VI: The Pontificate, 186; Housley, Avignon Papacy and the Crusades, 71-3.
753
The political circumstances dictated that Emperor Dušan be more open to establishing contacts with the Apostolic
CEU eTD Collection

See, but he first had to consider the opinions of the Orthodox clergy which led the emperor to have harsh attitude
toward the organization of the Catholicism in the empire, while allowing operations of foreign catholic merchants
from Dalmatia and Italy. On the politics of Dušan regarding the catholicism, which went from official hardline stance
to his personal lenience and even patronage, see: Purković, Avinjonske pape i srpske zemlje, 47-51.
754
There is some dissagrement in the literature regarding the Hungarian motivations when dealing with Serbia.
Norman Housley claims that Louis plans were „the subjection and dismemberment of Serbia,“ while Attila Bárány
suggest that Louis's aim was to construct a network of local vasal-principalities which would protect the Hungarian
southern borders and to focus attention to other sides. Housley, “King Louis the Great of Hungary,” 195-6; Bárány,
“Expansions of the Kingdom of Hungary,” 360-1. Nevertheless, the troops were often gathered for a war with Serbia.
Engel, Realm of St. Stephen, 184.
755
The chief papal negotiatior, Peter Thomas, was returning from Serbia to Avignon via Hungary where he suggested
to the king to organize a crusade against Serbia. Housley, “King Louis the Great of Hungary,” 196.
756
In 1353 Cardinal Egidius Albornoz (c.1295-67) became the vicar general for the entire Papal States. On Albornoz’
campaign, see: Rollo-Koster, Avignon and its Papacy, 89-93; Schimmelpfennig, Papacy, 217-8.

152
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

and financial support for the papal activities in Italy, for which the pope granted Louis the
permission to start the crusade against Serbia.757
In 1356 Louis amassed forces in Zagreb, assuring the Venetians and Pope Innocent VI
(r.1352-62) that the army was intended to march against the Serbs. In the meantime, Louis’s
envoys worked hard in obtaining an alliance with Duke Albert II of Austria and Nicholas II of
Luxembourg, the patriarch of Aquileia and the stepbrother of Emperor Charles IV. Despite the
papal objections and attempts to divert Louis from attacking Venice,758 the army was used to
assault Venetian mainland domains and force the republic to capitulate. Successful campaign
against Venice, combined with the rebellion of the cities of Dalmatia in mid-1357, led to the peace
treaty of Zadar, signed on 18 February 1358. The entire Dalmatia, from the Kvarner Bay to the
borders of Durazzo (Dürres), was ceded to Louis.759
The period of the Angevin rule over Dalmatia under King Louis (until 1382) can be
summarized by an attempt to politically, economically and ecclesiastically integrate the newly
claimed territories into the rest of Louis’s kingdom.760 From 1358 onward various royal officials
were in charge of examining the royal rights, carrying out reforms and restoring the royal power.761
These commissions used the royal books (libri regii)762 in order to arrange the local statutes and
privileges in accordance with the royal wishes,763 while also dealing with taxes and the local
governance.764 The aim was to introduce similar institutions from Hungary and Slavonia into
Croatia-Dalmatia. The cathedral chapters were authorized to act as places of authentication of
written documents or loca credibilia. In addition, the commissions introduced the Royal chamber

757
Housley, “King Louis the Great of Hungary,” 196. Housley, Avignon Papacy and the Crusades, 72-3.
758
Louis was granted the three-year tithe in August 1356 to pay for the expenses for helping Albornoz. Housley, “King
Louis the Great of Hungary,” 197.
759
Klaić, Povijest Hrvata II, 142-6; Engel, Realm of St. Stephen, 162; Miller, Venice in the East Adriatic, 108-9.
760
On the evaluation of the Angevin reign in Croatia-Dalmatia, see: Klaić, Povijest Hrvata u razvijenom srednjem
CEU eTD Collection

vijeku, 625-35; Raukar, “Komunalna društva u Dalmaciji u XIV. stoljeću,” 140; Klaić, “Značenje vladavine
Anžuvinaca,” 225-31.
761
For the period between 1358 and 1360 the king appointed Nicholas Csuz, the ban of Croatia and Dalmatia,
Archbishop Nicholas of Kalocsa, the royal chancellor, Bishop Stephen of Nytra and Bishop Peter of Bosnia. The royal
officials were assisted by the members of the local nobility. Gruber, “Dalmacija za Ludovika,” 4-5; Karbić, “Defining
the Position of Croatia,” 524-5. Queen-Mother Elizabeth was sent to Zadar in 1360 to reform the Kingdoms of
Dalmatia and Croatia and to investigate the royal rights there. Klaić, Povijest Hrvata II, 180-3.
762
On the issue of the royal books and its usage connected with the restoration of royal power, see: Matijević Sokol,
“Srednjovjekovni arhiv,” 237-257; Szende, “Uses of Archives,” 114-22.
763
For instance, the royal representatives asked the Venetian council to send them documents relating to Zadar which
the council approved. Listine IV, 5, August 18, 1358.
764
About the reforms, see: Gruber, “Dalmacija za Ludovika” 53-5; Klaić, Povijest Hrvata u razvijenom srednjem
vijeku, 503-31, 593-625; Raukar, Hrvatsko srednjovjekovlje, 73-83; Engel, Realm of St. Stephen, 124-94; Karbić,
“Defining the Position of Croatia,” 520-6. Klaić, Povijest grada Trogira, 328-33.

153
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

of salt and thirtieth (Camera regia salis et tricesime), monopolyzing the sale of salt and introducing
a toll on foreign trade called the thirtieth (tricesima), which included both the exported and
imported merchandise.765
One aim of the royal policy was to keep control over the higher appointments. The podestà
and the count of the city could not be foreigners, but had to be selected among the royal subjects,
which meant that they were mostly chosen from close royal supporters and with royal approval.
Those were usually the bans or the royal knights (milites), who originated from the local nobility
which supported the Angevins.766 The communes would resist the royal attempts at limiting the
city’s autonomy, but they had to submit to the royal will.767
Likewise, while the royal commissions sent to Dalmatia dealt with various local disputes
between the communes and bishoprics the overarching royal ecclesiastical policy was to control
the local Church, from the appointments to the higher ecclesiastical positions to the issue of
revenues. While Charles Robert (1301-42) tended to pressure chapters to appoint pro-royal
candidates which would lead to occasional conflicts with the clergy and the pope,768 Louis
achieved much greater control over the Church due to his closer contacts with the Apostolic See.
Both the Apostolic See and the king had certain expectations from each other, and the relations
were often strained by inconsistencies. The popes wanted the king to go on a crusade, which Louis
always promised but never actually did, while the popes at the same time required from the king
to aid the papal forces in Italy with finances and troops. Crusades against the Ottomans were called
in 1366 when Pope Urban V ordered that the crusade be preached by the archbishops of Dubrovnik,
Split and Zadar, while in 1373 Pope Gregory XI called for another crusade to be preached only in
Hungary, Poland and Dalmatia. But in neither of the two instances did the king go on a crusade.769
CEU eTD Collection

765
Engel, Realm of St. Stephen, 154. Karbić, “Tridesetnica,” 670-1; Nikolić Jakus, Formation of Dalmatian Urban
Nobility, 146-7.
766
On the royal knights in Dalmatia, see: Klaić and Petricioli, Zadar u srednjem vijeku, 334-5; Grbavac, “Zadarski
plemići kao kraljevski vitezovi,” 89-116. Charles Robert was the first to rely on the support of the royal knights to
maintain his authority. These knights were at first of foreign origins and only after 1336 Hungarians were included.
This was probably the consequence of the resistance of the local Hungarian nobility to Charles’s reign. Engel, Realm
of St. Stephen, 146.
767
Gruber, “Dalmacija za Ludovika,” 30-4.
768
The historians in Hungary tend to repeat that the conflicts between the king and the pope were rare, due to poor
financial situation of the benefices in the bishoprics of Hungary. Yet the problems existed as they included episcopal
appointments and ecclesiastical taxes. For the royal interventionism, see: Rácz, “The Anjou Dynasty,” 58-60. For a
different opinion, see: Maléth, “Les relations de Charles Ier de Hongrie avec la papauté,” 77-94.
769
CDC XIII, 537-42. July 1, 1366; On the background of this crusade, see: Setton, Papacy and the Levant, 285-326;
VMH II, 135-9, March 23, 1373; Housley, “King Louis the Great of Hungary,” 205.

154
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

King Louis was called upon to help against the papal enemies in Italy, while in return the king
tried to utilize the system of papal provisions to have his favourites appointed to highest
ecclesiastical offices and by keeping control over the kingdom’s ecclesiastical taxes.770
Following the Treaty of Zadar (1358), in order to enable an efficient royal administration
of Croatia-Dalmatia, the local cathedral chapters started to operate as places of authentication by
receiving seals (loca credibilia). The system was introduced into the place where an efficient and
developed system of public notaries already existed. The demarcation of its use was both political
and experience based. While notaries worked within the communal autonomy, in the city and its
district, the chapters operated in the territories outside the district, under the effective royal
jurisdiction.771 This meant that cities, chapters and rural nobility of the littoral and hinterland of
Croatian and Dalmatia were being administratively intertwined.
The results, when observed in the economic development of the Dalmatian cities during
the fourteenth century, meant that Zadar benefited the most and achieved significant economic
development, while the development of Split and Trogir was lesser.772 The attempts to integrate
the Dalmatian trade centers into the Hungarian commercial network did not succeed as the trade
between Croatia-Dalmatia and Hungary remained less frequent. The communes of Dalmatia
remained tightly connected to the wider Adriatic basin.773 From 1370 Louis’s empire included
Poland, Hungary, Croatia and the surrounding vassal states. Louis’s main rival in the Adriatic, La
Serenissima, still controlled much of the trade and wanted to limit competition coming from

770
Housley, “King Louis the Great of Hungary,” 200-1. The king would keep promising to go to a crusade, receiving
privileges for it, but he would never go. The issue is somewhat reminiscent of the usage of “going on a crusade” as a
legitimazation by the thirteenth century rulers. It was expected from rulers to make this pledge, which would then be
used for the purposes of internal legitimation, instead of going on an actual campaign. Björn. “Terrae Sanctae in the
Political Discourse,” 1-36.
771
CEU eTD Collection

The first institution to receive its seal was the cathedral chapter in Split, although it is unclear when exactly. The
seals granted to Zadar (1371) and Trogir (1383) were most likely a result of good relations between the royal court
and the high prelates of these cities. Klaić and Petricioli, Zadar u srednjem vijeku, 349; CDC XVI, 363-5, May 11,
1383. For the introduction of this system in Croatia-Dalmatia, see: Ančić, “Splitski i zadarski kaptol,” 11-61; Matijević
Sokol, “Srednjovjekovni arhiv”, 237-57.
772
The economy of the Dalmatian communes in the fourteenth century was analyzed by Tomislav Raukar,
“Komunalna društva u Dalmaciji u XIV. stoljeću,” 160-6. Before 1358 Trogir and Split were able to fully access and
dispose of their incomes, which did not change when these cities recognize the authority of Venice (1322 and 1327).
On the other hand, the management of the communal incomes in Zadar was gradually appropriated by Venice. This
was the result of various conflicts between Zadar and Venice and dictated by Zadar’s military defeats. Prior to 1358
the export and the sale of salt was mostly – at least the profitable parts – monopolized by the commune in most
Dalmatian cities (Dubrovnik, Split, Trogir and Zadar). On the organization of the chamber and the results, see: Raukar,
“Zadarska trgovina solju,” 297-356; Raukar, “Komunalna društva u Dalmaciji u XIV. stoljeću,” 159-60.
773
Engel, Realm of St. Stephen, 258; Pach “Levantine Trade and Hungary,” 5-24; Raukar, “Komunalna društva u
Dalmaciji u XIV. stoljeću,” 153-4.

155
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

Dalmatia. Venice pursued a vigorous policy to prevent the king from creating a royal navy by
utilizing its widespread network of agents. In the end, the royal navy consisted of the ships of the
Dalmatian communes with royal admirals coming from Genoa and Zadar.774
Although Louis’s last war with Venice (1378-81), which culminated with the peace treaty
of Turin, was a success, the last years of king’s reign were marked by constant problems as the
agressive expansion and the royal splendour came at a price. The royal treasury lacked money and
the kingdom suffered from overextension.775 Louis was worn out by illness which resulted in the
faltering of the direct royal involvement in Croatia-Dalmatia.776 At the same time, the most serious
crisis of the ecclesiastical authority occurred with the outbreak of the Western Schism. When Pope
Gregory XI (r.1370-78) died, the cardinals elected two popes: Urban VI (r.1378-89) in Rome and
Clement VII (r.1378-94) in Avignon. Secular rulers followed soon by declaring themselves for
one or the other candidate, which led to further escalation of a serious divide in Christendom,
affecting the episcopal authority.777 All of the above has to be taken into consideration when
analyzing the prolonged problems and conflicts which centered in Croatia-Dalmatia in the next
three decades. It is, therefore, necessary to analyze how the ecclesiastical government of several
high prelates was affected by the changing political and ecclesiastical events.

IV.1. Nicholas Matafari, the Archbishop of Zadar (r.1333-67)

As mentioned earlier, Nicholas Matafari prudently used his prior ecclesiastical connections
in order to obtain a papal appointment as the archbishop of Zadar. During Nicholas’s episcopate
CEU eTD Collection

774
Venetian agents reported that the king of Hungary was trying to obtain 10 galleys from Provence for which reason
they wrote to Queen Joanna to prevent this action. Listine IV, 76-8, January 22-24, 1365. Klaić, Povijest Hrvata II,
203; Novak, Povijest Splita, 263-8.
775
When explaining the financial problems at the end of King Louis's reign, Pál Engel left a puzzling remark when he
claimed that war costs have hardly played a role since Louis's last years of reign were “practically free from armed
conflicts.” Engel, Realm of St. Stephen, 187. He was correct, to a certain degree, as the royal treasury was so exhausted
that the king was unable to finance military campaigns. The treasury could not finance the campaign of Charles of
Durazzo to Naples in 1377 and the construction of new galleys for war with Venice in 1381. Instead, money was
obtained from leasing out the incomes of the royal chamber of salt and thirteenth. Raukar, “Zadarska trgovina solju,”
318. With the peace treaty of Turin, Venice was obliged to pay 7000 ducats per year to the king on behalf of war
reparations. But the king asked Venice to re-direct seven-years worth of payments to Francesco da Carrara, the lord
of Padua, to whom the king owed 49000 ducats. Listine IV, 183-5, January 2-30, 1382.
776
Novak, Povijest Splita, 263-71, 445-46.
777
Canning, Ideas of Power, 165-91.

156
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

there was an increase in the papal collation of important churches of the archbishopric.778 It should
be noted that positions were mostly given to the members of the local nobility, which suggests
some sort of mediation on the part of the archbishop and further shows the established contacts
between the clergy of Zadar and the Apostolic See.779 Just a year after Pope John XXII appointed
Nicholas as the archbishop, the same pope appointed Nicholas’s brother Demetrius as the rector
(plebanus) of the church of Saint Matthew in Zadar. The papal decision came after the previous
rector, Stephen de Sloradis, died at the Apostolic See. Therefore, the archbishop was probably able
to use his contacts at the Curia to ensure that his brother, who was at the time only a cleric, receive
a prominent prebend.780
Archbishop Nicholas kept guiding his brother’s career. Demetrius represented his brother
during the mandatory archiepiscopal visitation to the Apostolic See and by 1342 Demetrius was
appointed as the archdeacon of the cathedral chapter of Zadar.781 This made Demetrius one of the
leading members of the archbishopric and also quite recognizable in the papal circles, which the
young cleric used to further his career. In September 1344 Demetrius was again in Avignon where
he asked the pope for an appointment to the first vacant rectorship in Zadar, in order to improve
his financial situation.782 Instead, by February 1345 the pope appointed Demetrius as the bishop
of Pićan (Pedena) in Istria. The bishopric was the suffragan of the patriarch of Aquileia and had
been vacant for some time. Nicholas already had well established contacts to Ildebrandino, the

778
Those who received confirmation to a benefice had to pay for their appointment (annates), which was worth one
annual income of the said benefice. Stump, Reforms of the Council of Constance, 60, 77-81; Harvey, Episcopal
Appointments in England, 134.
779
The popes appointed rectors of several major churches of Zadar which were vacated by the death or promotion of
their rectors at the Apostolic See, or which occurred during the general reservation. Until the benefices were granted,
the pope would demand the collection of the incomes accumulated during vacancies (fructus medii temporis). Lunt, I,
99-101. The pope appointed Damianus, the son of John, from Zadar as the rector of Saint Peter the Old (Veteris) and
CEU eTD Collection

Michael de Zadulinus as the rector of Saint Peter the New (Novi de Platea iadrense). The pope appointed Chrysogonus
de Varicassis, the rector of the church of Saint Michael in Zadar, as the rector of the church of Saint Martin in the
bishopric of Castello. Archbishop Nicholas was tasked, as the papal subcollector for Zadar, to collect the required
fruits during vacancy of the church of Saint Michael, which lasted several years, until Peter, the son of Bellota from
Pag, was appointed as the rector. Farlati, Illyricum Sacrum V, 95-6; Rationes decimarum, n. 3659-60, 3662.
780
Demetrius had to pay 20 golden florins for his appointment. Farlati, Illyricum Sacrum V, 95, September 8, 1334;
Bianchi, Zara cristiana, 457-8. While Demetrius was the rector of Saint Matthew, he hired his brother John as his
procurator. CDC X, 295-6, 1337. The church of Saint Michael seems to have been an important steping stone for an
ocassionally successful ecclesiastical career as its rectors obtained episcopal appointments. John Butovan became the
archbishop of Zadar in 1320, while his successor in the church of Saint Michael, Stephen de Sloradis, unsuccessfully
attempted to obtain the bishopric of Hvar. Stephen was then succeded by Demetrius.
781
CDC XI, 28-9, December 26, 1342; Gulin, Hrvatski srednjovjekovni kaptoli, 249.
782
At this point Demetrius was the archdeacon, the rector of two chapels (Saint Thomas and Saint Chrysogonus) and
had parts of the monastery of Saints Cosmas and Damian on the island of Pašman, with annual income of 50 florins.
CDC XI, 157-8, September 23, 1344.

157
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

bishop of Padua, who was also a suffragan of Aquileia, but the archbishop also had some
favourable relations with the patriarch, as Nicholas was attested later as working in Aquileia.
Again, the connections of the brother with the top-ranking members of the ecclesistical hierarchy
can provide an insight into the papal appointment of Demetrius.783 But, instead in Pićan, Demetrius
spent most of his time as an archiepiscopal vicar in Zadar.784 This was probably dictated by the
political circumstances, as Archbishop Nicholas clashed with Venice and was living in exile
between 1346 and 1358. Probably to ensure that his brother could effectively replace him in Zadar,
Nicholas again used his contacts at the Curia to have Demetrius appointed as the bishop of Nin in
1354. This bishopric, although officially subordinated to the archbishop of Split, was close to
Zadar.785 It was also controlled by the Republic of Venice and the Venetians were working on
having one of their citizens installed as the bishop, but Demetrius was able to ensure the
appointment for himself.786
In addition to Nicholas’s brother, his cousins also benefited from the archiepiscopal
patronage (Fig. 12). Guido, the son of Vučina Matafari, the archbishop’s brother, became the
administrator of the properties of the archbishopric (yconomus), although he was only mentioned

783
Eubel, Hierarchia Catholica I, 397; Nicholas was listed as the patriarch’s vicar general in 1349. De Rubeis,
Monumenta Ecclesiae Aquilejensis, 890; Brunettin, Bertrando di Saint-Geniès, 807.
784
About Demetrius’s carrer, see: Neralić, “Demetrio Matafari,” 131-2.
785
The archbishop of Split and Zadar probably had some influence in the bishopric of Nin. When in 1360 the pope
named the new abbot of the Benedictine monastery of Saint Juraj Koprivski (modern day Obrovac), located in the
bishopric of Nin, an order was given to the archbishops of Split and Zadar to introduce the new abbot to his monastery,
even though the pope himself stated that the monastery was located in the diocese of Nin. Ostojić, Benediktinci u
Hrvatskoj II, 104; VMS I, 241; Bianchi, Niccolo de Matafare, 5. Supposedly four or five of the bishops of Nin during
the fourteenth century came from the Matafari family, which was incorrect as it was based on guessing and errors in
the older historiography. Demetrius’s predecessor was named John. In the sources for Nin, only Bishop John was
mentioned since the beginning of the fourteenth century (c1308-c1354), without any additional information which
would help to identify him. The older historians consider him a Matafari, but this cannot be verified. Also, it is hard
to say if there was more than one John as the bishop of Nin, since the name is quite common. The lack of sources
CEU eTD Collection

could corroborate that there was only one bishop named John, as the Venetians were in 1354 trying to persuade the
pope to install one of their citizens as the next bisohop. No such diplomatic activity was noted in years prior to 1354.
The idea of several Johns came from placing Nicholas Matafari as the bishop of Nin (c.1330-c.1333), which was also
not the case. In addition, the older historians considered that Demetrius died in 1375 and was succeded by his nephew
Louis (1375-77) and then by another Demetrius (1377-87). The above mentioned would suggest that either four or
five bishops of Nin came from the Matafari family. Bianchi, Zara cristiana, 201; Bianchi, Kršćanski Zadar II, 209–
212; Farlati, Illyricum Sacrum IV, 220-1. Neralić, “Demetrio Matafari,” 140. None of this can be backed by sources.
Demetrius was mentioned as the bishop until he died in 1387 when the pope appointed his successor. Eubel,
Hierarchia Catholica I, 370; Begonja, Uloga gradskoga plemstva, 163-5. Therefore, during the fourteenth century
there was only one Matafari member appointed as the bishop of Nin. The correct list of the bishops would be: John
(r.1308-1354), Demetrius Matafari (r.1354-87). For the situation in the bishopric of Nin after 1387, see chapter on
The “Contested” bishops.
786
Bishop John of Nin most likely died at the beginning of 1354, since in February the Venetian authorities decided
to write to the pope in favour of their candidate, Giovanni Loredano. Eubel, Hierarchia Catholica I, 370, 397; Listine
III, 263, Feburary 18, 1354.

158
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

at the beginning of the episcopate of Nicholas’s successor, Dominic Thopia (r.1368-76).787 His
appointment suggest that the Matafari family was able to keep some influence over the
archbishopric even under Nicholas’s successor. At the beginning of the 1340s, Archbishop
Nicholas actively worked on removing Abbot Martin from the monastery of Saint Cosmas and
Damian and installing as the new abbot Michael, the archbishop’s nephew.788 The archbishop
probably had supporters for his plan among the monks of the monastery as previously the
archbishop entrusted Monk Dominic of the monastery to represent the archbishop during the ad
limina visits to Avignon.789
The events are mostly known from a later papal confirmation of Michael as the abbot, but
it seems that Nicholas accused Martin for usurping the position and alienating the estates of the
monastery under Nicholas’s predecessor Archbishop John Butovan (r.1320-33). The accusation
was dubious as Martin had good relations with the late archbishop.790 But the pressure by
Archbishop Nicholas eventually worked791 as a solution was found in 1344, involving Cardinal-
Legate Bertrand du Pouget, a close ally of Archbishop Nicholas, and the archbishop of Split.
Martin was elected and consecrated as the bishop of Šibenik, while Michael was appointed as the
abbot.792 It is probable that the Matafari family had a financial interest in the monastery and they
wanted to ensure that the family directly controls it.793

787
CDC XIV, 132, May 18, 1368.
788
Michael was the son of Daria, Nicholas’s sister. Nikolić Jakus, Formation of Dalmatian Urban Nobility, 121.
789
Monk Dominic of the Benedictine monstery of Saints Cosmas and Damian, the procurator of the archbishop. MVC
I, n. 140, April 5, 1340; n. 142, March 18, 1342. Visita ad limina sanctorum apostolorum Petri et Pauli was a
requirement by the pope from the bishops to regularly visit the Apostolic See in order to report about the situation in
their diocese. Lunt, Papal Revenues I, 91-3; Bagliani, “Ad limina,” 14. See List of payments in the appendices.
790
The accusation was an exaterationg on the part of the archbishop, intended to besmirch the reputation of Abbot
CEU eTD Collection

Martin. When in 1329 Abbot Martin and another monk, Francis, were accused of heresy by Friar Fabian, the
Franciscan inquisitor in Dalmatia, Archbishop John protected the monks and placed them in his archiepiscopal home.
VMS, 174-5, November 22, 1329; Galamb, “La politique des rois angevins de la Hongrie,” 174; Jalimam, “Spor
dominikanaca i franjevaca,” 15.
791
Later, Abbot Michael citied problems that his predecessor had with the archbishop as an excuse to receive a
postponement on the payment of servitia, which was approved by Cardinal Imbertus. This is amusing, since problems
for Michael’s predecessor Martin were caused by Archbishop Nicholas, Michael’s relative, who worked on replacing
Martin with Michael as the abbot. CDC XI, 360-1, April 9, 1347.
792
Martin was mentioned as the bishop of Šibenik during the provincial synod in Split in May 1344, even though the
pope earlier appointed his candidate. Farlati, Illyricum Sacrum IV, 461; CDC XI, 112-113, February 8, 1344; 181-2,
January 12, 1345; Ostojić, Benediktinci u Hrvatskoj II, 223.
793
Soon after the appointment of Michael, John Matafari, the archbishop’s brother, decided to postpone the deadline
for the monastery of Saints Cosmas and Damian to pay for a certain debt, which the new abbot, Michael, accepted.
As mentioned earlier, John served as a procurator for his brother Demetrius, who had a financial interest in the
monastery. CDC XI, 211-3, July 7, 1345; Nikolić Jakus, Formation of Dalmatian Urban Nobility, 121-2.

159
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

Therefore, Archbishop Nicholas used his personal authority and the resources of his office
in order to ensure the appointment of his family members to important positions within the
archbishopric. These appointments ensured that the Matafari family would have considerable
influence on the further development of the archbishopric, which became evident when Peter
Matafari, a nephew of Archbishop Nicholas, was appointed as the archbishop in 1376.

IV.1.1. The Siege of Zadar (1345-46)

In August 1345 a large Venetian navy and army besieged Zadar. The siege, as well as the
activities of the citizens and the clergy of Zadar were noted in the contemporary chronicle, Obsidio
Jadrensis.794 Although the author remained anonymous,795 he was somebody who possesed
detailed knowledge of the war activities and diplomatic corespondence. Based on the author’s
erudition and education, as he used the Bible and classical authors, as well as his anti-Venetian
attitude, some historians suggested that Archbishop Nicholas was the author of Obsidio.796 Olga
Perić analyzed the language of the Obsidio, and compared it with the Thesaurus, a known work
by Archbishop Nicholas, concluding that the archbishop was not the author.797 Putting the
authorship aside, the aim of this chapter is to analyze the role played in the events described by
the Obsidio by the archbishop, the individuals close to him and the ecclesiastical institutions.798
Particular attention will be placed on the archbishop’s spiritual role in reinforcing the socio-
political position of the nobility.
The siege of Zadar lasted between August 1345 and December 1346. At the beginning of
the siege, the Venetian captain received the emissary from Zadar, Nicholas from Krk from the
Dominican order. Nicholas asked and the captain allowed that the council of Zadar can send three
representatives to the doge of Venice. Chosen were Archbishop Nicholas, Martinusius Butovan
CEU eTD Collection

794
Obsidio Iadrensis. For a lexical analysis of this source, see: Butić, “O leksiku djela Obsidio Iadrensis,” 439-46.
795
The only indication about the author is given at the beginning of the work where the author, who describes himself
as being born in a noble family, decided to write this work on the instigation of another person who is also from Zadar
with whom the author was in a constant correspondence. Obsidio Iadrensis, 17-8; 118-9.
796
Budak, “Obsidio Jadrensis kao povijesno i književno djelo,” 353-8; Klaić and Petricioli, Zadar u srednjem vijeku,
338-44; Kolumbić, “Zadarski humanistički krug,” 144-6.
797
Perić, “O autorstvu dijela Obsidio iadrensis,” 291-7; Obsidio Iadrensis, 12-5.
798
For an overview of the role of the ecclesiastical personnel as described by Obsidio, see: Ladić, “O nekim aspektima
uloge Crkve,” 277-90. The author did not go beyond the work Obsidio iadrensis in order to establish the archbishop's
role during the siege nor did he researched the connections between the archbishop's spiritual role and his function in
strengthening the ruling class, to which Nicholas personally belonged to.

160
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

and Thomas James de Petrizo.799 It is unclear if the embassy was sent as the Venetian captain
ordered the Venetians to leave the city that very day. The king of Hungary got immediately
involved and he started to communicate with the population of Zadar. During the fall the royal
letter of support for Zadar was read publicly and it provoked a celebration in the city.800 Friar
Marin from the Franciscan order was sent to the king as the emissary of the city.801
The Obsidio showcases the important spiritual role played by the archbishop, but also the
intertwining of the ecclesiastical authority and the municipal power by using rituals in promotion
of the new political ideology of the city and the strengthening of the ruling elite.802 On 25
November 1345, on the day of the martyrdom of Saint Chrysogonus,803 Archbishop Nicholas tried
to raise the spirits of the defenders by holding a mass in the cathedral where, according to the
author, all the clergy and the citizens gathered. Nicholas blessed the banner (vexillum) sent to Zadar
by King Louis and then, with the entire clergy and followed by the population (nobiles and plebeii),
led a procession to the main square, where he blessed the entire population, and where the banner
was set up.804 Not only was the patron saint commemorated, but in this changed circumstances
even the king was commemorated through the appearance and the consecration of the royal banner.
This symbolism signified the sacred consecration of the transfer of Zadar from Venice to the
protection of the king. In March 1346 the city council received letters from King Louis
encouraging the citizens to resist Venice and to expect his imminent arrival to Dalmatia. On the
suggestion of some members of the nobility, the archbishop ordered daily prayers to be directed
to the king, under the threat of excommunication.805 Therefore the sacramental ceremony shows
how the power of the commune was intertwined with the spiritual authority of the archbishop. The
commune did not attempt to displace the archbishop’s sacred authority, but instead wanted to
benefit from it. Through a ceremony which included the celebration of the patron saint and the
acceptance of the flag – the symbol of royal authority – the commune received the much-needed
CEU eTD Collection

799
Obsidio Iadrensis, 140-1.
800
Obsidio Iadrensis, 152-5.
801
Obsidio Iadrensis, 154-7.
802
On the role of the ritual in medieval Dalmatian communes, on the example of Dubrovnik, see: Janeković Römer,
Okvir slobode, 291-3.
803
On the importance of the cult of Saint Chrysogonus, see: Granić, “O kultu Sv. Krševana,” 35-58; Vedriš,
Hagiography as memory, 167-260.
804
Obsidio Iadrensis, 170-1.
805
Obsidio Iadrensis, 204-9.

161
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

sacral authorization for the change in its political realignment. The episcopal cooperation is not
strange since in this case the archbishop came from one of the Zadar’s influential families.806
In June 1346 the patriarch of Aquileia, Bertram of St. Genesius (r.1334-50), arrived in
Zadar accompanying the Hungarian army and was greeted by the citizens with gifts.807 The
patriarch hoped to use the rebellion of Zadar for his attack on the territories of Venice in Istria808
and also to forge a closer alliance with the king of Hungary. Bertram tried to influence the pope to
make an action against the Venetians, and in 1347 he also tried to mediate between Venice and
Hungary which the Venetians refused.809 The Patriarchate of Aquileia was allied with the Holy
Roman Empire, controlled by the Luxembourg family, the same one with whom King Louis
established good contacts during the 1340s. The patriarchs had a vital role for the emperors in
controlling the Alpine passes, serving as the connection between the Empire and the Italian states,
as well as having interest in the situation in the Adriatic region. 810 It is worth mentioning that
Aquileia was the metropolitan of Padua. Shortly before the start of the war over Zadar Nicholas
was recorded as the vicar of the bishop of Padua,811 which meant that he was still nurturing good
connections with Ildebrandino Conti, the bishop of Padua (r.1319–1352). In addition, Nicholas’s
brother Demetrius was the bishop of Pićan, a suffragan of Aquileia. Therefore, the patriarch’s visit
to Zadar can be interpreted by his connection to King Louis, but also by patriarch’s contacts with
the clerical elites of Zadar, primarily to the Matafari family.
King Louis also arrived near Zadar in June 1346. The city council sent Archbishop
Nicholas and several citizens as representatives to submit Zadar to the royal authority.812 But the
royal presence was short lived. The combined royal-Zaratin army was soon defeated and in July
the king withdrew to Bihać. For most of the Obsidio the author elevates the king above everybody
else, but after the failed battle and the withdrawal of the royal army, the author is disillusioned
CEU eTD Collection

806
For the similar use of the cult of saints by medieval communes, but with different context, see: Muir, Civic ritual
in Renaissance Venice, 78-92; Trexler, Public Life in Renaissance Florence, 215-78; Franco, “Episcopal Power and
the Late Medieval State,” 255-69; Ronzani, “Chiesa del comune nelle cittá,” 500.
807
Obsidio Jadrensis, 234-5.
808
Listine II, 347-50, May 20, 1346; Listine II, 352-3, May 22-23, 1346.
809
Listine II, 382-3, September 4, 1346; 447-8, April 18, 1347.
810
Engel, Realm of St. Stephen, 168-9; Paschini, Storia del Friuli, 83-114; Zacchigna, “Il patriarcato di Aquileia,” 91-
113; Schmidinger, “Il patriarcato di Aquileja,” 141-75.
811
Gloria, Monumenti della Universitá di Padova, II, 24.
812
Obsidio Iadrensis, 230-1. Klaić, Povijest Hrvata II, 104-5 adds that the archbishop led a procession consisting of
both the citizens and the nobility who sang religious songs and approached the king to thank him for coming to their
rescue. The king also received a gift of two horses covered with gold and silver.

162
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

with the king and the actions of his barons. The author stated that the old prayer, which was erased
from the Church books, should be reintroduced to Dalmatia and which stated: Ab ira Ungarorum
libera nos, o domine! (O Lord, free us from the wrath of the Hungarians!).813 The Venetians tried
to use the situation to buy Dalmatia and Zadar but the king refused and had to temporarily postpone
his conquest of Dalmatia.
In the following months the city suffered from famine and the attempts by the parts of the
population to negotiate with the Venetians. One of the cases involved Michael de Carnaruto, the
abbot of the monastery of Saint Cosmas and Damian, and the archbishop’s nephew. Michael’s
behaviour was very unusual as it seems that he sent letters to the Venetian commander in
September 1346 expressing his and his brother Marin’s loyalty to the Venetian side, while sending
Friar Gregory as the abbot’s representative to Venice. The two brothers were discovered but,
according to the author of Obsidio, due to the intervention of some noblemen they were only
imprisoned for the duration of the hostilities.814
Pressed by the rebellious elements in the city itself and the hardships of the siege, the city
council deliberated in the late October about surrendering the city. During the negotiation with the
Venetian commanders, the nobility of Zadar provided two hostages to Venice and the author of
the Obsidio narrates that Archbishop Nicholas performed a ceremony during the handover of the
hostages.815 By mid-December the city surrendered and signed a peace treaty with Venice, while
the Venetian army entered the city. The Venetian representatives entered the cathedral, occupied
the pulpit and informed the citizens that Venice forgives them for their treachery. After this the
flag of King Louis was taken down from the main square and the flag of La Serenissima was
raised.816 The event is in complete contrast to the earlier events when both the commune and the
ecclesiastical leaders accepted the royal authority in a ceremony which was imbued with the sacral
CEU eTD Collection

legitimacy by the participation of Archbishop Nicholas.

813
Obsidio Iadrensis, 238-43.
814
Besides his personal loyalty to Venice, Michael’s behaviour could be explained by the fact that Venice occupied
and used the monastery as a fort. Obsidio Iadrensis, 270-3.
815
Obsidio Iadrensis, 280-3.
816
Klaić, Povijest Hrvata II, 109.

163
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

IV.1.2. Archbishop in Exile, Vicars at Home

Following the conquest by Venice, Archbishop Nicholas Matafari went into exile. He spent
most of hs time either in Padua or in Aquileia serving both the bishop and the patriarch as an
experienced vicar.817 But the Venetian documents noted that immediately following the siege, the
archbishop went to “the lands of the king.”818 The Venetian authorities probably put pressure on
the archbishop’s cousins to persuade the archbishop to leave Hungary and come to Venice. The
behaviour toward the archbishop was not unique, as the Venetian authorities treated the majority
of the Zaratin noble families as potential rebels, confining many noblemen in Venice or requiring
some to remain in exile and away from Zadar.819 The siege of Zadar in 1345-46 and the Venetian
conquest caused a considerable rip in the political, social and ecclesiastical fabric of the Zaratin
society, as individuals or entire male members of noble families were taken into captivity to Venice
or perished during the Black plague which affected the city in 1348-49. The decline of some
families led to the rise in the importance of some others.820
The Venetians questioned the archbishop’s loyalty, as he worked against them during the
siege, so the authorities unsuccessfully petitioned the pope to transfer Nicholas somewhere else
and to confer the archbishopric to a Venetian citizen.821 This is reminiscent of the earlier Venetian
requests, but now La Serenissima could not influence the capitular election through the patriarch
of Grado and force the appointment of favourable candidates as the archbishops were directly
appointed by the pope, who provided the see to those with contacts with the Curia.
Instead, the best Venice could do was to try and control the archbishopric. In the absence
of the archbishop, the diocese was managed by vicars while the local Church was closely watched
by the Venetians. In September 1348 the count of Zadar was authorized to dismiss and remove
from Zadar the archiepiscopal vicar or any other suspicious person.822 It is unclear if this
CEU eTD Collection

permission was ever used, but three vicars were mentioned during the period of siege of Zadar and
Nicholas’s exile. Primicerius Chrysogonus de Cigalis (Zigalis) of the cathedral chapter was
mentioned during the siege of Zadar, so it could be that the decision was aimed against his work

817
Dall'Orologio, Dissertazioni sopra l'istoria ecclesiastica di Padova, 198-99; VMS I, 231-2, June 8, 1354.
818
Listine II, 445-6; Obsidio Iadrensis, 685; Nikolić Jakus, Formation of Dalmatian Urban Nobility, 74.
819
Nikolić Jakus, “Vrijeme rata, kuge, zatočeništva,” 11-2.
820
For a complete overview of the losses of the Zaratin nobility, see: Nikolić Jakus, “Vrijeme rata, kuge, zatočeništva,”
9-35.
821
Listine II, 445-6, April 5, 1347.
822
Listine III, 104, September 14, 1348.

164
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

as he was still mentioned as the vicar during 1349.823 The most suspicious person was probably
the bishop of Pićan, Demetrius Matafaris, the brother of the archbishop of Zadar and the
archiepiscopal vicar general in temporalia and spiritualia. Demetrius maintained contacts with his
brother during 1347/48, who was in Aquileia, at the court of the patriarch.824 In 1350 Demetrius
was absent from the city and present in Venice, although the sources do not say what was the
reason.825 In 1352 he came into conflict with the Venetian count of Zadar which reveals that
Demetrius dealt with the transportation of grain. During the dispute Demetrius stated that he could
not have smuggled grain to Pag as he was away for several months from Zadar and that he was in
Venice during that time.826 Again, it is unclear was he in Venice on the invitation of the
government, for some private purposes, or passing through, maybe to Aquileia as the patriarch was
still his spiritual superior. Nevertheless, it should be stressed that, while the activities of the vicars
were viewed with distrust, Demetrius remained as the vicar general in temporal and spiritual affairs
of the archbishopric throughout the 1350s.827 As he was probably often absent from Zadar, others
were employed to help manage the Church of Zadar. In 1350 Demetrius was substituted by two
proctors, Archdeacon Chrysogonus of Zadar and Gregory, the rector of the church of Saint Mary
Major of Zadar (sancte Marie maioris). Gregory was regularly attested as the archiepiscopal vicar
from 1356 until his death in 1393, or as a papal subcollector.828 Since he was mentioned as the
vicar for decades, under various archbishops, either shows his skills and qualities, or suggests that
as a rector of an important church in the city he enjoyed a position of considerable power in the

823
Chrysogonus was the vicar while Nicholas was probably still in the city. CDC XI, 326, September 18, 1346.;
Chrysogonus was the primicerius of the cathedral chapter in Zadar from (at least) 1338 to 1349, CDC X, 376, April
8, 1338; Gulin, Hrvatski srednjovjekovni kaptoli, 249.
824
For Demetrius's contacts with his brother and the patriarch in 1347/48, see: Brunettin, Bertrando di Saint-Geniès,
805, 815.
825
CEU eTD Collection

The sources say that Demetrius was existens Venetiis et sic absens a civitate. CDC XI, 602, May 21, 1350.
826
Jadranka Neralić suggests that Demetrius was also viewed with distruss by the Venetians. For this claim, she uses
a case in Zadar on the main square where the Venetian count and captain Giustiniani accused Demetrius for exporting
grain from Olib to Pag, which was prohibited. She herself adds that these charges were false and concludes by stating
that Nicholas and Demetrius were “... notorius supporters of King Louis of Hungary’s politics, the Matafari brothers
were considered dangerous by the Venetian administration in Zadar!” Neralić, “Demetrio Matafari,” 136; CDC XII,
130, October 19, 1352.
827
The vicar as the bishop of Pićan: CDC XI, 602, May 21, 1350, Bianchi, Kršćanski Zadar II, 194, March 10, 1351;
as the bishop Nin: Ljubić, “Dva popisa listina,” 112, October 28, 1356; CDC XII, 440, December 28, 1357.
828
He appeared as a witness, the vicar of the archbishop, the papal sub-collector of the decime triennalis and the papal
collector of spoils for several church provinces. CDC XII, 346, May 6, 1356; 582, June 27, 1359; 22-3, May 8, 1360;
308-9, November 1, 1363; 323-6, December 18, 1363; 430, April 3, 1365; 463, August 28, 1365; 503, February 6,
1366; 522-3, April 22, 1366; CDC XIII, November 1, 1363; 413, December 27, 1364; 430, April 3, 1365; 173-4,
January 25, 1376; CDC XIV, 517-8, April 25, 1373; CDC XV, 7-8, January 28, 1374; 313, August 25, 1377; 344,
January 31, 1378.

165
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

archbishopric. It is not entirely clear if the archbishop appointed vicars or he shared the right with
the cathedral chapter, which could have been particularly important during Nicholas’s exile as the
archbishopric had to be managed by the vicars. Despite fully controlling Zadar, the Venetian
authorities were unable to fully control the archbishopric. Probable reason can be found in
favourable contacts that the Matafari brothers had with the Apostolic See. For instance, in 1354
the pope ignored the Venetian candidate for the bishopric of Nin and instead transferred Demetrius
Matafari, moving him from Pićan to Nin.
Not all ecclesiastical institutions in Zadar had the same treatment as some favoured the
Venetian rule while other conflicted with it. For instance, the monastery of Saint Cosmas and
Damian from Čokovac on the island of Pašman was used as a Venetian fortress during the siege
of Zadar. On the decision of the Venetian Great Council the fort was demolished in 1347, but the
monastery was preserved and its properties protected, at least for the most part.829 The monastery
prospered during the Venetian period, in great part thanks to the alignment of its abbots with the
Venetians during the siege of Zadar. For instance, in 1360 Archbishop Hugolin of Split noted that
the income of the monastery of Saint Cosmas and Damian was higher than then incomes of the
monasteries of Saint Chrysogonus and Saint Mary in Zadar, which were far more important
monasteries, but which often conflicted with the Venetians.830
As mentioned, Archbishop Nicholas de Matafari used his episcopal power to dismiss the
abbot of the monastery in order to install his nephew, Michael de Carnaruto, who turned out to
support Venice during the siege of Zadar. Following the siege, the Carnaruto family was favoured
by the new regime.831 On the other hand, Michael remained the abbot of the monastery of Saint
Cosmas and Damian until his death in 1349 when the new abbot, Gregory, was mentioned in
Avignon.832 It is probable that this Gregory was the same friar who was sent by Michael to Venice
to represent the abbot’s interests, suggesting that the monastery had continuous Venetian support.
CEU eTD Collection

The monastery probably prospered during the Venetian rule, but by mid-1357 Abbot
Gregory sought papal protection from the Venetian authorities which seized his monastery, razed

829
It was preserved with an overwhelming majority: 49 in favour, with only one council member abstaining and one
opposing. Listine II, 439, March 8, 1347; III, 165-6, November 9, 1349.
830
CDC XIII, 7-8, February 11, 1360.
831
Michael’s brother Marin was tasked with a number of municipal duties and was one of the envoys of the commune
when dealing with Venice. Following the peace of Zadar in 1358 Marin lived in exile as the king prohibited his return
to Zadar. Nikolić Jakus, “Vrijeme rata, kuge, zatočeništva,” 15-6.
832
Abbot Gregory was present in the Avignon Curia in 1349. Priručnik I, 358, March 3 for appointment; 359, May 4
for being sent to his monastery; 352, May 25 for the payment of servitia. Ostojić, Benediktinci u Hrvatskoj II, 223.

166
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

some houses and even imprisoned the abbot when he protested.833 It should be mentioned that
1356-57 was rather problematic period for Venice, which was faced with the war with Genoa,
growing tensions with Hungary which resulted in a devastating war, and embroiled in serious crisis
which resulted in the quick succession of several doges.834 The island of Pašman, on which the
monastery was located, was on a valuable strategic point, used during the revolt of Zadar to enforce
the Venetian rule over Dalmatia, so the destruction of the houses of the monastery could have had
military reasons. Also, in September 1358 Abbot Gregory had to seek papal protection again, now
from unknown attackers. While it has been suggested that the abbot sought the protection from the
Venetian pressure,835 no persons were named, and the papal order came months after the peace
treaty between Louis and Venice was signed. The pope ordered the bishop of Nin, the abbot of
Saint John the Baptist in Trogir and the abbot of the Saint Chrysogonus of Zadar to protect the
lands of the monastery from any ecclesiastical or non-ecclesiastical people who could usurp the
mentioned lands.836 It could be that those who were pillaging the lands of the monastery were those
who tried to profit from the Venetian defeat.
On the other side of the spectrum was the monastery of Saint Chrysogonus, among the
most important ecclesiastical institutions of the city which suffered during this period. Abbot John
de Ontiaco (r.1345-77) was excommunicated in 1359 by the papal legate, Cardinal Egidius
Albornoz (Fig. 13),837 for not paying ecclesiastical taxes. The abbot stated that he had to spend
four years outside of Zadar due to the Venetian tyranny, as well as that the monastery was not able
to collect any incomes from their properties for 13 years as those possessions were consumed by
fire (fuit combusta) during the Venetian reconquest of Zadar.838 While it could seem that the abbot
used the Venetian hostility as explanation for not paying taxes to the papal legate, it should be
mentioned that the monastery had problems with the Venetian authorities and had to borrow
CEU eTD Collection

833
It was also stated that the abbot went to the pope in the previous year, so during 1356, when he also sought
protection from the pope. Listine III, 347-8, 347-9, July 30, 1357. Ostojić, Benediktinci u Hrvatskoj II, 223-4; Granić,
“Kronološki pregled povijesti zadarske nadbiskupije,” 225-6; Jelić, “Povjesno-topografske crtice biogradskom
primorju,” 59.
834
Lane, Venice, 183-4; Dibello, “La stabilità delle istituzioni veneziane,” 85-129.
835
Ostojić, Benediktinci u Hrvatskoj II, 223-4; Granić, “Kronološki pregled povijesti zadarske nadbiskupije,” 225-6.
836
CDC XII, 508-10, September 1, 1358.
837
Cardinal Albornoz was charged as the papal legate for the patriarchates of Aquileia and Grado, as well as the
archbishoprics of Ravenna, Milano, Genova, Pisa, Split, Dubrovnik, Antibar and Zadar. Werunsky, Excerpta ex
registris, 133, September 18, 1358.
838
CDC XII, 582-4, June 27, 1359. Ljubić, “Dva popisa listina,” 113-4. In addition, the abbot came from France, so
it cannot be said that he had some personal bias against the Venetian authorities. About Abbot John, see: Peričić,
“Samostan Svetog Krševana,” 98-101; Jakić-Cestarić, “Osobna imena i porijeklo redovnika,” 137.

167
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

heavily during te 1350s to be able to cover its operations and ecclesiastical taxes.839 In addition, it
was probably the abbot of the monastery of Saint Chrysogonus who helped the German
mercenaries employed by King Louis to enter the city over night and conquer the city without
casualties.840 In 1360 the archbishop of Split stated that the income of the monastery of Saint
Chrysogonus was lower than that of Saint Cosmas and Damian, even though Saint Chrysogonus
was one of the most important monasteries of Zadar.
Archbishop Nicholas returned to Zadar from his exile sometime after 1358. His remaining
years in the diocese were uneventful and in March 1367 the archbishop died and was buried in the
cathedral.841 Since Nicholas was a person who was closely connected to his family, it is not strange
to see that his nephew, Louis Matafari, erected in 1386 a gravestone to commemorate his uncle
(Fig. 14).842 While it is unusual that the family waited almost twenty years for this, the
archbishopric was again governed by a member of the Matafari family, Peter, who was also Louis’s
brother.843 The brothers surely wanted to emphasize their connection to a distinguished
predecessor, which raised the prestige of the family, and they also wanted to define how the family
remembered one of their most important members. The headstone depicted the archbishop sitting
in the position of a teacher, surrounded by priests. So even in death, the archbishop was still
teaching those around him.

IV.2. Competent Diplomat, but Poor Bishop - Bartholomew of Trogir (r.1349-61)

Most (arch)bishops mentioned so far, either locally appointed or promoted by the pope,
spent most of their time in their diocese, unless physically prevented to do so. The following bishop
is an example of a person who felt more comfortable at the courts of the popes and kings than in
personally administering his own diocese. It could even be argued that he systematically avoided
CEU eTD Collection

839
The count of Zadar seized some wine and salt from the abbot of Saint Chyrsogonus. Listine III, 268, November
20, 1354.
840
Klaić and Petricioli, Zadar u srednjem vijeku, 321. There were other monasteries which were “suspected” of helping
the Hungarian forces take Zadar, but only the monastery of Saint Chrysogonus was adjencent to the city walls to
enable such action. Granić, “Kronološki pregled povijesti zadarske nadbiskupije”, 227.
841
Eubel, Hierarchia Catholica I, 281.
842
Louis was the son of Vucinna Matafari, the brother of Archbishop Nicholas and Bishop Demetrius. Louis hired
Mengelo, a Venetian artist, who provided drawings and Paul Vanunci from Sermona, a sculptol, who crafted the
gravestone. Klaić and Petricioli, Zadar u srednjem vijeku, 517-8. Only parts of the tombstone were preserved.
Petricioli, “Još o Pavlu iz Sulmone,” 116-7.
843
It should be added that Demetrius, the bishop of Nin and the brother of Nicholas, was living in Zadar until his death
during 1387. Eubel, Hierarchia Catholica I, 370; Begonja, Uloga gradskoga plemstva, 163-5.

168
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

his episcopal obbligations. Bartholomew was a career clergyman with close ties to the Papal Curia.
The pope appointed him in January 1349,844 but the new bishop did not arrive to his diocese until
1352, as he was not mentioned in the local sources from Trogir.845 Instead, the diocese was listed
as vacant, while Bartholomew appointed a local canon as his vicar. This was most unfortunate
since his diocese was affected by problematic relations among the clergy and the noble families,
which dated back to the intra-communal conflicts during the 1310s and was further aggravated by
the discordant reign of Bishop Lampredius.

IV.2.1. At the Courts of Emperors, Kings and Popes

In the papal bull of appointment of the bishop of Trogir, Bartholomew was described as
being a canon in Constantinople and the bishop of Kotor. Soon after his appointment, in 1351, the
pope tasked Bartholomew, together with the archbishops of Durazzo and Dubrovnik, to go on a
legatine mission to Albania and Serbia. The selection is rather unusual. Durazzo and Dubrovnik
were close to the lands in question, so the appointment of these prelates makes sense as they were
directly affected by what was occurring in Albania and Serbia. On the other hand, Trogir was quite
far away from these lands and the inclusion of Bartholomew can only be explained if we consider
his origins, connections to Byzantium as well as the papal policy regarding the Catholic bishoprics
on the borders between the Catholic and Orthodox world.
I suggest that Bishop Bartholomew of Trogir was Bartholomew of Rome – also called de
Urbe (the city of Rome) - who was mentioned in the Latin Greece and at the court of the Byzantine
emperor. He was the canon of Negroponte846 and the vicar of the Latin Patriarch of Constantinople,
Henry d’Asti (r.1339–45). Bartholomew was present in Constantinople in February 1347 when
John Kantakouzenos entered the city and claimed the empire.847 The canon sent a positive report
CEU eTD Collection

on Kantakouzenos to the Apostolic See in Avignon and remained in the city until October,
discussing with the new emperor the potential Church union between Avignon and Constantinople.

844
CDC XI, 499-500, January 30, 1349.
845
In the city charters episcopatu vacante and ecclesia vacante was listed for the period from February 1349 until
November 1351. Bartholomeus was only mentioned from 1352. Rački, “Notae,” 233.
846
Negroponte was the medieval Italian name for the modern-day city of Chalcis and also for the entire island of
Euboea. On the Venetian Negroponte, see: Tsougarakis, “The Latins in Greece,” 2-6.
847
John VI Kantakouzenos (1292-1383) seized Constantinople in 1347 and while keeping control over the entire
empire in his hand, he proclaimed himself to rule as the co-emperor to John V Palaiologos (1332-92). Nicol, Last
Centuries of Byzantium, 185-250;

169
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

Bartholomew was also sent as part of the Byzantine delegation to the Curia in March 1348 to
present the emperor’s requests. Kantakouzenos wanted to convene a synod to discuss the
ecclesiastical differences, join forces with the Christian armada which was at the time fighting for
Smyrna,848 but also wanted diplomatic and military help against Emperor Stefan Dušan, who
expanded his Serbian Empire by snatching Byzantine lands. The members of the delegation,
including Bartholomew, received funds from the Apostolic See in April 1348 to return to
Constantinople.849 There is no more mention of Bartholomew of Rome as being part of
negotiations in Constantinople.850
Farlati wrote that Bartholomew, the son of Salomon, came from Valmontone,851 and was
in 1341 the vicar of Bishop Ildebrandino Conti of Padua and the archpriest of the church of Saint
Justine in Monselice in the bishopric of Padua. It seems that Farlati conflated two Bartholomews
together which Paolo Sambin considered to be separate. Sambin reports that Bartolomew, the son
of Salomon, was the vicar of the bishop of Padua for thirteen years (1335-1348). A different
Bartholomew, the son of Jacob, was the magister in arts and medicine and from 1322 the archpriest
of Monselice, which was one of the three most important parishes in the bishopric of Padua.852
Archpriest Bartholomew came from Valomonte, which was a place south of Rome and part of its
bishopric.853 During Bartholomew's appointment as the bishop of Kotor, in July 1348, the pope
stated that Bartholomew was a canon in Constantinople. After only six months, in January 1349,
he was transferred to Trogir.854 Bartholomew also appeared in the local sources in Padua in 1351,
where he stated that the pope allowed him to keep the parish church in Monselice, despite

848
In the begininning of 1346 Humbert of Viennois was preparing in Negroponte for his campaign into Smyrna which
was approved and financed by the Apostolic See but turned out to be a complete disappointment. For more, see: Wood,
Clement VI: The Pontificate, 177-87.
849
CEU eTD Collection

Setton, The Papacy and Levant I, 212-5; Wood, Clement VI: The Pontificate, 186.
850
There was another Bartholomew operating in 1347. Bartolommeo de Tomari, the canon of Smyrna, was an envoy
who served as a link between the pope and the commander of the crusaders in Smyrna. Setton confirms that he was
definetly separate person from Bartholomew of Rome. Setton, Papacy and the Levant I, 205-9, 212-9. In October
1349, Bartholomeus de Tomariis was the nuncio of the pope sent to Venice to negotiate about assistance for the
Smyrna campaign, so he cannot have been Bishop Bartholomew. Venezia-senato IX, 273, October 30, 1349.
851
According to Giuseppe Billanovich, Bartolomeo di Iacovo da Valmontone, a notary from Italy, was the author
behind the Cronica dell'Anonimo Romano, depicting the life of Cola di Renzo. Billanovich, Come nacque un
capolavoro, 195-211. This information was introduced into Croatian historiography by Babić, “Trogirski biskup
Nikola Casotti,” 221, f. 14. Billanovich’s claim was criticised and discarded. Campanelli, “Preface of the Anonimo
Romano’s Cronica,” 85, f. 12. Farlati, Trogirski biskupi, 262.
852
Sambin, “La 'familia' di un vescovo,” 240-42.
853
Farlati, Trogirski biskupi, 262.
854
Eubel, Hierarchia Catholica I, 177, July 14, 1348; 490, January 30, 1349; CDC XI, 478-9, July 14, 1348; Priručnik
I, 218.

170
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

becoming the bishop of Trogir.855 Therefore, Bartholomew, the son of Jacob and the archpriest in
Monselice, was a different person from Bartholomew, the son of Salomon and the vicar of the
bishop of Padua.
Both Bartholomew of Rome and Bishop Bartholomew came from the bishopric of Rome.
In adition, in 1314 the Latin patriarchate of Constantinople, which was a titular position, was united
with the diocese of Negroponte, which means that canons of Negroponte were in fact canons of
Constantinople.856 Bartholomew’s appointment as the bishop of Kotor came only months after
Bartholomew of Rome was supposed to leave Avignon and return to Constantinople. I presume
that the pope appointed him to Kotor in order to serve as a potential papal agent in the region, since
the local bishops served as the best source of information for the Curia. But once the bishopric of
Trogir was vacant, the pope transferred Bartholomew there, since Trogir was a richer and more
prestigious bishopric.
During the discussion between the pope and Byzantium in 1347/48 Emperor John
Kantakouzenos stated that he required papal assistance against Emperor Stefan Dušan of Serbia as
a prerequisite for the union, which was reported to Avignon by Bartholomew of Rome.857 Also
during 1347 the pope contacted the Serbian court based on a curious report by Mark, the bishop
of Skadar, who reported that Emperor Dušan was interested in solving the schism and conducting
the Church union.858 It is probable that Dušan was familiar with the Avignon-Constantinople talks
and that, by unofficially offering the union to the pope, the emperor wanted to lessen any potential
deal which would strengthen the position of Byzantium against which Dušan was waging war. But
the timing of his offer is curious.
Taking into consideration the slowness of the papal foreign diplomacy regarding the
Balkans, Bartholomew was sent on a mission to Regnis Rassie, Albanie et Sclavonie859 in
CEU eTD Collection

September 1351, almost a year and a half after his appointment to Trogir. This suggests that the
pope wanted Bartholomew to serve as a link with the local rulers in Albania and Serbia. Also sent

855
Farlati, Trogirski biskupi, 262-3.
856
In 1314 Pope Clement V united the bishopric of Negroponte, the suffragan of the Archbishop of Athens, to the
Latin patriarchate of Constantinople, in order to give a residence to the patriarchs who were in exile since 1261. The
diocese of Negroponte, as well as the patriarchate, was controlled and dominated by Venice. Loenertz, “Cardinale
Morosini et Paul Paléologue Tagaris, 226-7; Companion to Latin Greece, 427.
857
Setton, Papacy and the Levant I, 213.
858
The pope wrote to the Protovestiarios Nicholas Buche to influence the emperor to accept Catholicism. Miodrag
Purković was surprised with Dušan’s behaviour as the emperor was at the height of his power at that time and did not
need the help from the pope. Purković, Avinjonske pape i srpske zemlje, 49; VMH I, 734-5, March 6, 1347.
859
The pope here referred to the Land of the Slavs in general.

171
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

were Archbishop Elias Saraca of Dubrovnik (r.1341-61) and Bishop Antonius of Durazzo (r.1349-
63).860 The mission of these bishops was to fight schism and heresy, correct religious practices and
revert errors commited by those who went to the region falsely calling themselves representatives
of the Apostolic See. As I mentioned, the inclusion of the bishop of Trogir in correcting the local
errors in lands very far away from his diocese was unusual. If the supposition that the Bartholomew
was the mentioned Bartholomew of Rome, it could be suggested that the intention of the mission
was two-fold: to approach the Serbian court, whose emperor was waging war with Byzantium, in
order to establish diplomatic relations between Avignon and Serbia,861 as well as to correct errors
of local religious practice. The success of the mission was debated.862 It should be added that in
July 1351 Bartholomew was in Avignon where he appointed a vicar for his prebend of Saint Justine
at Monselice near Padua.863 In April 1352 Bartholomew was in Monselice taking care of the
appointment of the new abbess of the monastery of Saint Mary de Supramonte in Monselice.864
After this he appeared in Trogir and started his legatine activities.
Judging by some circumstantial evidence, Bishop Bartholomew did contact the Serbian
emperor and enlisted support from a number of local prelates during three-year long legatine
mission.865 In a charter from early 1354 the bishop titled himself the apostolic legate (apostolice
sedis legatus), but not mentioning the area where he worked. In the charter the bishop granted
Andrew de Seregna, his colleague from Padua, with the rectorship of a church in Trogir, to thank
Andrew for his loyalty and help in the time of need.866 When in the changed political circumstances

860
Antonius was an experienced Franciscan friar from Alexandria. Antonius’s appointment shows that the pope
wanted to place bishops with experience in the multi-religious environments in the border regions of the Catholic rule.
Antonius was appointed as the archbishop of Hierapolis (r.1346-49), a diocese located in south-western Anatolia. The
appointment was probably made to follow the initially successful papal crusading efforts in expanding to Asia Minor
by taking Smyrna. Since the conquest was short-lived, Antonius was transferred to Durazzo. Eubel, Hierarchia
CEU eTD Collection

Catholica I, 275, July 31, 1346; 232, May 25, 1349.

861
According to Bishop Mark of Skadar, the emperor was interested in Church union with Avignon in 1347, but
besides sending letters, it is unclear what did the pope do. Purković, Avinjonske pape i srpske zemlje, 49.
862
CDC XII, 33-5, September 1, 1351; VMH I, 802-3. For the evaluation of this mission, see: Purković, Avinjonske
pape i srpske zemlje, 51-2; Lala, Regnum Albaniae, 120-4.
863
Bartholomew appointed Luchesius, the chaplain of the church of Saint Peter in Padua and the vicar of the bishop
of Padua. The bishop also held archpresbitery of the said church for which he appointed Luchesius. Farlati, Trogirski
biskupi, 262-3, July 6, 1351.
864
Farlati, Trogirski biskupi, 263.
865
Cleric John Bovini stated that he worked in this legation for three years with the bishop of Trogir (qui in ista
legatione tum tomino Traguriensis episcopo a principio usque ad sivem continuando per annos tres fideliter et tum
magnis laboribus laboravit). This fits with the approximate start of Bartholomew's mission in 1352. Lala, Regnum
Albaniae, 127-8.
866
Andrew de Seregna was the archdeacon of Pedismontis et de Ultra Brenta (diocese of Padua) and a canon in
Dubrovnik. Bishop Bartholomew awarded Andrew with the church of Saint Michael the Archangel of the bishopric

172
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

of the 1350s Dušan directly asked the Papal Curia for help, the emperor’s representatives, with the
support from Venice, went to Avignon in mid-1354 to ask for help to fight the Ottomans and to
promise the Church union in return.867 Bishop Bartholomew most likely accompanied them as he
also submitted supplications for various clerics, asking for rewards for those clerics who helped
Bartholomew in his legatine mission of 1352-1354.868 Judging by their names, the bishop of Trogir
cooperated with clerics who came from local bishoprics, mostly in Albania and Epirus, areas
connected with the Angevin Regnum Albaniae, but also from the neighbouring dioceses of Antibar
and Kotor.
Only two days later the pope wrote a letter to Emperor Dušan, listing problems which
threaten Catholics in Serbia. In another letter in December the pope noted the emperor’s request
to be appointed as the Captain General of the Church to combat the Ottomans. The request was
formulated by Bishop Bartholomew (in partibus illis apostolice sedis nuncii),869 and he was
praised by the emperor for his work in spreading Roman Catholicism in Serbia.870
In the letter the pope also informed the emperor about sending Bishop Bartholomew and
Peter de Thomas (1305-66), the bishop of Patti (Sicily), to Serbia to discuss the Church union.
This papal account of the situation to his two nuncii871 is identical to the description provided by

of Trogir (ecclesiam et rectoriam sancti archangeli Michaelis nostre dyocesis vacantis). CDC XII, 225, February 15,
1354; Latin Benyovsky, “Trogirsko prigrađe,” 50. Andrew (presbiter Andreas de Veregna de Ragusio) submitted a
suplication to the Curia several months earlier to receive a prebend and a position of canon in Dubrovnik, which was
being vacant due to the promotion of Elias Saraca as the archbishop at the Papal Curia. Bossányi, Regesta
supplicationum II, 276, October 2, 1353. The source suggest that Andrew either came from Dubrovnik or Padua,
receiving positions in both dioceses, while meeting Bartholomew in Padua. It is probable that Andrew provided
information to Bartholomew about the ecclesiastical situation in Dubrovnik, while the priest also tried to benefit from
his participation in the mission by obtaining a benefice in Dubrovnik.
867
The imperial representatives arrived to Venice by mid-June where they received recommendations from the
Venetian Senate. Listine III, 264 June 16, 1354; VMH II, 8-9, December 27, 1354; Purković, Avinjonske pape i srpske
zemlje, 59-61.
868
Etleva Lala connects these supplications with the new mission to Emperor Dušan after December 1354, but it is
CEU eTD Collection

strange that these clergymen would ask for rewards for a mission that was still being planned. Instead, they refer to
things which has happened, namely their activities in the mission of Bishop Bartholomew in months and years prior
to August 1354. The individuals who submitted supplications were: Bishop Jacobus of Butrint, a friar of the
Dominican order, Vinciguerra Andronici, a presbyter of Durazzo, Lector Theodoricus Theutunicus de Campo sancte
Marie, Cleric John Bovini de Astulso and Johannes de Vico Antibarensis diocesis. Additional supplications dealt with
the bishop of Kotor, Franciscan Friar Duymus (1352-68), and Abbot Andrew of the Benedictine monastery of Saint
Alexander in the diocese of Albania. Lala, Regnum Albaniae, 127-8.
869
The pope called the bishop as the apostolic nuncio, while Bartholomew in one charter from early 1354 styles
himself as the papal legate. On the differences between the papal legate and the nuncio, see Kyer, The Papal Legate
and the ‘Solemn’ Papal Nuncio, 37-66.
870
VMH II, 8-9, August 29, 1354; 11, December 24, 1354.
871
The position of the nuncio was of lower category of the papal ambassadors and who were mostly executors of the
papal orders according to precisely defined mandates. Maleczek, “Die päpstlichen Legaten,” 41-2; Rennie, The
Foundations of Medieval Papal Legation, 67-72; Schmutz, “Medieval Papal Representatives,” 441–63.

173
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

Clement VI to the prelates sent in 1351.872 The general order was followed by additional letters
with instructions regarding what exactly they were allowed to do on their mission. These letters
dealt with permissions on how to solve the various problems listed in the general order and which
related to correcting local religious practices.873 In addition, to ensure the success of the mission,
Pope Innocent VI provided the nuncii with letters of safe passage for the rulers of Venice and
Hungary,874 and informed the local Serbian ecclesiastical and political elites about the mission of
the papal representatives.875 After receiving provisions,876 the nuncii finally set off to their mission
in February 1355, discussing papal-imperial relations with Charles IV in Italy, after which they
proceeded to Serbia, where they most likely arrived in March.
Not much is known about the mission once the bishops left Avignon. Descriptions were
preserved later in a narrative source about the life of Bishop Peter, which was written by his friend
and associate, Philippe de Mézières. The events described were intended as a piece of medieval
propaganda which encouraged Catholics to participate in the crusade. Philippe idealizes Peter’s
diplomatic activities and emphasizes episodes in which the nuncio shows defiance to the
schismatic Serbian emperor.877 But more interesting is what is not mentioned. The bishop of Trogir
is completely omitted from the entire narrative and the center stage is taken by Peter. Also, the
nuncii remained at the imperial court through the entire 1355 and only left it after the emperor died
in late December.878 One has to wonder what exactly was being discussed while the papal
representatives were present at the imperial court and the proselytizing happening behind the scene
set by Philipp’s narrative.

872
Compare instructions given to the papal representatives in 1351: CDC XII, 33-5, September 1, 1351; VMH I, 802-
3; with those in 1354: VMH II, 16-7.
873
The additional sources were product of the research of Etleva Lala. The papal reperesentatives were further
instructed to give indulgences worth 100 days present at the preaching of the nuncii’s, to absolve those who, without
CEU eTD Collection

knowing, married relatives in fourth degree of consanguinity or less, to absolve those with defectus natalium, to
absolve priests who gave sacraments to those who were married for the second time and to those who have fallen into
excommunication. Lala, Regnum Albaniae, 125-6.
874
VMH II, 11, December 10, 1354.
875
VMH II, 11-6, January 8-9, 1355.
876
Allowance of four gold florins a day and 300 gold florins. ASV, Reg. Vat. 230v, 237, f. 69r. For the financing of
missions of papal representatives in general, see: Kalous, “Financing a Legation,” 205-221.
877
According to Philippe, Peter visited Emperor Charles IV, escaped Turkish pirates in the Adriatic sea and finally
arrived at the court of Emperor Stefan Dušan. There, brave Peter refused to kiss the leg of the emperor (thus showing
homage) and despite imperial ban, held a mass for, mostly, Catholic German mercenaries at the court, inspiring them
to resist the ban. After the mission failed – which is not really discussed – Peter tried to encourage King Louis of
Hungary to invade Serbia and restore Catholicism. Mézières and Smet, Life of Saint Peter Thomas, 64-72, 193-4. For
the relations between Philippe and Peter, see: Atiya, Crusades in the Later Middle Ages, 128-54.
878
Mézières and Smet, Life of Saint Peter Thomas, 193-4.

174
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

Bishop Bartholomew left the imperial court sometime in November 1355 to discuss the
political situation in Croatia-Dalmatia with King Louis of Hungary. The king stated that he wanted
to preserve peace with Venice. The two nuncii left the Serbian court after Stefan Dušan died.
Bartholomew went to Trogir, while Peter de Thomas went to King Louis. On his way to Avignon,
Peter informed the Venetians about his discussions with the king in March 1356, stating the
peaceful royal intentions.879 In May 1356 the pope invited Bartholomew to come to Avignon to
report about his mission to Serbia, Dalmatia and Slavonia, stating that the bishop of Patti was
already there.880 It is probable that the pope wanted information about the negotiations with the
Serbian emperor, as well as an update on the conflict between Hungary and Venice. Likewise,
after arriving to Avignon, the pope may have sent Bartholomew to Hungary in 1357 to again
discuss the issue of peace with the king.881
To recapitualate, Bishop Bartholomew was to work on bringing together the Apostolic See
and the Serbian court. This was started with Emperor Dušan’s inclinations to the Church union in
1347, while Bartholomew was in Avignon, then continued with Bartholomew’s appointment to
two bishoprics in proximity to the region in question and then continued with the mission which
started in 1351. Other prelates, from dioceses in neighbouring Albania and Serbia, were to assist
but they rarely appear in the sources. In the mission of 1354/55 the spotlight was taken by Bishop
Peter de Thomas, primarily due to the preserved narrative sources.

IV.2.2. The (dis)Advantages of an Absentee Bishop

As seen above, Bartholomew spent most of his time in episcopal office outside of his
diocese on various missions for the pope and in contact with various ecclesiastical and non-
ecclesiastical elites in Hungary, Italy and other places. On top of that he also took care of his
CEU eTD Collection

additional duties, ecclesiastical incomes and possessions. Although Bartholomew was appointed

879
During November 1355 the Venetian Senate deliberated whether to send ambassadors to King Louis to discuss the
peace treaty. The Senate received a report sent by count of Trogir who was in contact with Bishop Bartholomew of
Trogir. The bishop stated that the king told him that he wants to preserve peace with Venice. Listine III, 283, November
21, 1355. In March 1356, based on the report by the bishop of Patti, Peter de Thomas. Listine III, 312, March 25,
1356.
880
VMS I, 234, May 1, 1356; CDC XII, 345.
881
This can be inferred from the bishop's words during the excommunication of one of the canons of Trogir. The text
is damaged but it mentiones the legatine mission of Abbot Andruin of Cluny in Italy (February (or May) 1357 until
December 1358) and during the bishop's apostolic legation to the Kingdom of Hungary and [damaged text]. CDC XII,
531, December 13, 1358.

175
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

as bishop in January 1349, the local sources listed the diocese as vacant until November 1351,
while Bartholomew only appeared as the bishop from 1352, which would suggest that the bishop
was absent from his diocese until 1352, giving the chapter free rein.882
In the second half of the 1340s the cathedral chapter wanted to petition the pope to appoint
a new bishop even though Lampredius was still alive. But it does not seem that the chapter has
turned on its bishop. It was still led by the bishop’s nephew, James Vitturi, while another leading
member was Nicholas Kažotić, the primicerius, who inherited his position and benefices from
Lampredius. As the bishop was old, infirm and excommunicated, he probably decided to go to
Avignon and seek absolution or to offer his resignation. Since the bishopric was led by the papal
administrators and not, as it was customary, by the cathedral chapter, the canons probably wanted
to restore some of their influence by sending Canon Elias Luche to Avignon. His mission is not
entirely clear. According to the promise of help that he received in Venice, Elias wanted to petition
the pope to install him as the bishop.883 His origins and background are unknown. He seems to
have been a recent addition to the chapter, so it is unclear why he was sent as the chapter’s
candidate. He was probably present in Avignon when the pope appointed Bartholomew as the
bishop of Trogir, since Elias was appointed as the episcopal vicar for the spiritual issues, in which
position he remained until the bishop’s arrival.884
Since Elias was made the vicar and the chapter was led by James Vitturi, the canons used
the oportunity of the episcopal absence and the archiepiscopal vacancy in Split, in order to
persecute their old enemy. During 1349, the chapter had Canon John Castrafocus stripped of his
rank and benefices. During the 1330s, John led the communal efforts at the Papal Curia which led
to the excommunication of Bishop Lampredius. Therefore, the behaviour of the cathedral chapter,
led by the late bishop’s nephew, can be interpreted as an act of revenge. John appealed to Hugolin,
the recently appointed archbishop of Split.885 The sources for the trial are missing, so it cannot be
CEU eTD Collection

stated with certainty what happened,886 but it is possible that the issue was delegated to Bishop

882
In the city charters the episcopatu vacante and ecclesia vacante was listed for the period from February 1349 until
November 1351. Bartholomew was only mentioned from 1352. Rački, “Notae,” 233.
883
Listine II, 443, April 2, 1347; Venezia-Senato XI, n. 879, October 25, 1348; Listine III, 107.
884
His name appears at the end of the list of canons in CDC XII, 117-8, August 14, 1352. Mentioned as the vicar in
CDC XI, 576, Feburary 16, 1350.
885
The cathedral chapter of Trogir gathered in February 1350 and appointed its representatives for the case in front of
the archbishop. CDC XI, 576-8, February 16, 1350.
886
In 1358 Bishop Bartholomew excommunicated Canon John. When explaining his decision, the bishop also narrated
about an event when Archbishop Hugolin, as the apostolic legate, questioned the canon based on the ninth constitution

176
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

Bartholomew, who was by August 1352, back in his diocese. The cathedral chapter, led by
Archdeacon James and Primicerius Nicholas, stood united against Canon John Castrafocus, and
both sides chose Bishop Bartholomew to mediate as an arbitrator (arbiter).887
There are no further sources refering to this case, and the bishop’s frequent absence for
official papal business could suggest that the case dragged on for years due to the bishop’s other
obligations. But a short note from the pope suggests that the bishop did not make any kind of
moves against the ostracized canon and, instead, used his services in governing the bishopric. In
March 1355 Pope Innocent VI issued an order to the chapter of Trogir to protect Andrew Saregni,
a well-known associate of Bishop Bartholomew, who was attacked on the island of Lastovo near
Dubrovnik.888 The pope did not name the archdeacon and the primicerius of Trogir, 889 but only
mentioned Canon John Castrafocus by name, which suggests that the order was issued on the
petition by the bishop of Trogir, who specified which persons have his trust and the necessary
authority to carry out the papal mandate.
This would suggest that John Castrafocus and the bishop came to a certain understanding
and cooperation, which was not liked by the cathedral chapter. The bishop’s prolonged absence
was used by his vicars in temporal and spiritual affairs – Archdeacon James Vitturi and Canon
Elias – who in August 1355 held a trial against Canon John Castrafocus. The canon was sentenced
to an exile for five years for commiting “great scandals.”890 The sentence offers a unique insight
into how different individuals and institutions remembered and interpreted past events and also
used them in official situations. Since Canon John took part in the communal appeal against Bishop
Lampredius in the late 1330s, his opinions certainly influenced how the commune would structure
their case in front of the pope and what accusations against the bishop would be emphasized. Now,
the chapter accused Canon John of causing bloodshed between the citizens of Trogir and the
CEU eTD Collection

Church, provoking a dispute between Count John Morosini and Bishop Lampredius, which led to
the citizens taking up arms, for falsely accusing Lampredius for various crimes and even for
plotting against Bartholomew, the current bishop.

of the Church of Split, which excommunicated those clerics who were disobedient toward their bishops. But it is
unclear when exactly this event happened. CDC XII, 532-3; Farlati, Illyricum Sacrum III, 414.
887
The chapter consisted of ten canons: Jacobus Petri archidiaconus, Nicolaus Donati primicerius, Goyscauus
Sclauchi, Tomasius Matiche, Vitus Johannis, Micael Martini, Johannes Mathei, Juanus Sclischi, Helie Luche and
Grupso. CDC XII, 117-8, August 14, 1352.
888
CDC XII, 285-7, March 31, 1355.
889
James Vitturi was the archdeacon and Nicholas Kažotić was the primicerius.
890
CDC XII, 299-302, August 17, 1355.

177
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

Therefore, it seems that Archdeacon James Vitturi used his position of power and the
episcopal absence in order to exact revenge on a long-time enemy. The irony of the situation was
missed by the contemporaries and the later historians. During the late 1320s Lampredius tasked
his nephew James Peter to seize a church from Canon John Castrafocus, who previously served as
the episcopal notary. This snatch, with episcopal sanction, pushed John to help the commune with
their dispute with the bishop in the late 1330s and which culminated in Lampredius’s
excommunication. But after the sentence in 1355, Canon John did not leave the city and instead
he turned to the Venetian authorities, while petitioning the pope for protection.891
The problems within the bishopric of Trogir were further exacerbated when King Louis of
Hungary started a new war against Venice in the late 1350s. The king’s army attacked the
Venetians directly on their mainland which gave the Dalmatian cities an opportunity to rebel and
overthrow their Venetian counts and garrisons. Rebellions in Split and Trogir happened
simultaneously during summer 1357. The leading role in the rebellion in Trogir was taken by
Joseph, the son of Stephen Cega, while the commune appointed him podestà and the captain of
popolo. But in early December 1357 members of the nobility and the commoners of Trogir rebelled
and targeted the properties of the family of Cega, with the specific aim to kill Joseph Cega. This
second rebellion received a more detailed description as the events were noted by a chronicle and
by reports from the royally mandated investigations.892
Cutheis, a contemporary chronicler, writes that the citizens of Trogir rebelled against the
Cega family, forcing its members to escape to Split, while Trogir was seized by their opponents.893
Since the Dalmatian cities were from February 1358 fully controlled by the Hungarians, the issue
was investigated between March and August 1358 by John Csuz, the ban of entire Dalmatia and
Croatia, who acted as a mediator between the warring parties.894 The investigation revealed that in
CEU eTD Collection

December 1357 members of the nobility and commoners attacked the Cega family. The main
culprit was Archdeacon James Vitturi who, followed by his supporters, called for an attack on the

891
Canon John was called by the Venetian authorities as “a faithful subject of Venice,” while his relative(s)
(consanguineus) petitioned the Venetian count of Trogir for help. Listine III, 287-88, December 7, 1355.
892
Lucić, Povijesna svjedočanstva I, 577-81, 596-607; Klaić, Povijest grada Trogira, 292-304; Kurelac, “Društvene
diferencijacije i pokreti pučana,” 238-40; Benyovsky Latin, Srednjovjekovni Trogir, 173; Benyovsky Latin, “Politički
sukobi u srednjovjekovnom Trogiru,” 44-51; Kurelac, “Pučki ustanci i pobune,” 239-47.
893
Cutheis, “Tabula,” 198-9.
894
Engel, Magyarország világi archontológiája, 23; CDC XII, 506-7, August 23, 1358; 517-18, October 30, 1358;
full description in Lucić, Collection, vol. 540, fol. 36-40; Lucić, Povijesna svjedočanstva I, 596-607; Benyovsky Latin,
Srednjovjekovni Trogir, 28.

178
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

properties of Joseph Cega and his family and supporters. Stephen, the son895 of the late Bishop
Lampredius Vitturi was instructed by the archdeacon to attack the bishop of Hvar, Stephen
Cega.896 The brothers Andreis - Nicholas Marin and Gausinius Marin - were instructed by the
archdeacon to publicly announce that anybody who kills Joseph Cega would receive the best part
of his properties. The archdeacon was accused of being the main instigator of the rebellion, while
he was helped by his nephews (Peter and Nicholas), the sons of Kažot (Donat and Augustin) and
Nicholas, the son of Jacob, who were backed by a number of inhabitants of the city.897 This means
that the main instigators of the rebellion were members of the families of Andreis, Kažotić and
Vitturi.
The conflict was usually interpreted as a continuation of the factional strife between the
pro-Venetian and pro-Hungarian families,898 but the reasons for the conflict were of local-political
and of a family nature. These large and influential families899 wanted to use the political vacuum
created by the conflict between Venice and Hungary and the expulsion of the Venetian government
from the city, in order to take control over the city and better position themselves for the expected
arrival of the Hungarian rule. The city magistrates who were appointed after the first revolt were
then tasked to investigate the second revolt and report to the royal officials.
The three families which instigated the revolt had connections to the earlier intra-
communal violence, namely the Andreis who were defeated by the Cega, and to the cathedral
chapter, as the Vitturi and the Kažotići members were also canons. It seems that the archdeacon
was able to use the past grievances, his institutional position and the influence over the commoners

895
Stephen's familial connections were revealed by the subsequent investigation by the rectors of Trogir and their
report to the ban of Croatia, as well as in a separate investigation by Bishop Bartholomew. Probably to protect the
legacy of his predecessor, Bishop Bartholomew refered to Stephen as a cousin (consobrinus) of Archdeacon James,
CEU eTD Collection

while the rectors had no problems in calling Stephen the son (filium naturalem) of Bishop Lampredius. CDC XII, 517;
Lucić, Povijesna svjedočanstva, 597; Benyovsky Latin, Srednjovjekovni Trogir, 28;
896
On the bishop of Hvar, see: Farlati, Illyricum Sacrum IV, 252-3.
897
The later investigation listed 76 names which were fined for their participation in the revolt, which reveals how
widespread was the rebellion. Benyovsky Latin, “Uloga bratovštine Sv. Duha u Trogiru,” 31.
898
For the various opinions about the revolt, its nature and causes, ses: Lucić, Povijesna svjedočanstva I, 580-1;
Kurelac, “Pučki ustanci i pobune,” 239-47; Gruber, “Dalmacija za Ludovika,” 45-9; Benyovsky Latin, “Uloga
bratovštine Sv. Duha u Trogiru,” 50; Klaić, Povijest grada Trogira, 295-304; Neralić, “La documentazione curiale
relativa alla Croazia,” 516.
899
According to a later source from 1395, the largest families in the city council were Cega with 14 members and
Vitturi with 7, while everybody else had between 1 and 4 members. This sources should be taken with consideration
as its use for 1350s do not take into account the political changes and conflicts which arrisen in the city in the 1380s
and 1390s. But it is indicative that the largest families in the city – the Cega and the Vitturi – were for the most of the
century on the opposing sides. CDC XVIII, 4-5; Andreis, “Trogirski patricijat,” 48-9; Benyovsky Latin,
Srednjovjekovni Trogir, 32.

179
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

in order to direct the course of the revolt. But his actions were also influenced by personal reasons.
The bishop of Hvar was not only attacked because he was Cega but because he, as a canon of the
cathedral, led in the late 1330s the communal delegation to the pope which resulted in the trial and
excommunication of Bishop Lampredius, the archdeacon’s uncle.
Therefore, following the death of bishop Lampredius, Archdeacon James Vitturi used the
resources and the authority of his office and his family connections in order to exact revenge on
the two representatives involved in the case against his uncle. He organized a trial intended to
banish John Castrafocus from the city, while during the turmoil in December 1357 he ordered an
attack that nearly killed Bishop Stephen Cega. So, the desire for revenge eventually brought the
entire city in conflict and resulted in killings, pillaging and the exile of the archdeacon. Following
the rebellion in December 1357, the archdeacon was imprisoned in Šibenik, from where he
escaped, probably with local help and his later fate remains unknown.900 Putting aside the
economic and political connections between the rebelling nobility and the inhabitans, it is
interesting to observe the influence that Archdeacon James and the Church in general wielded in
the city as the archdeacon was able to – according to the list of the rebels by the royal officials –
mobilize a considerable part of the commune, namely the commoners, to participate in the
rebellion against the Cega family, and later to influence and mobilize the inhabitants of Šibenik.
The negative experiences of the conflict probably led the city council to disband the lay
confraternities during the 1360s in order to limit the threats posed by the commoners to the
nobility.901 The lay confraternities had important social, political and religious functions in the
medieval commune, as they initially provided the inhabitants of the city - artisans and merchants
– with an opportunity to participate in the religious life of their community.902 The move against
them could be considered as an attempt by the leading noble families to eliminate the possibility
CEU eTD Collection

900
The ostracized archdeacon also organized a rebellion of commoners in Šibenik in June 1358, or was accused of
organizing it. The rebellion was only refered to later and the details of it are unknown. CDC XII, 452-4; Dujmović,
“Postanak i razvitak Šibenika,” 112-13. In the same month, the count of Klis accused the commune of Split of hiding
the archdeacon on the territory of the commune. Gruber, “Dalmacija za Ludovika,” 27, June 8, 1358.
901
Statute of Trogir, ref. 1, cap. 49. Only one, the confraternity of Holy Ghost, could operate and it is assumed that it
had widespread clerical and noble support. Benyovsky Latin, “Uloga bratovštine Sv. Duha u Trogiru,” 32; Klaić,
Povijest grada Trogira, 305. Joseph Cega participated in the work of the committe but he was also joined by other
families, including the members of the Andreis and Kažotić families, even those who participated in the earlier revolt.
Benyovsky Latin, Srednjovjekovni Trogir, 30, 174.
902
About confraternities, see: Wojciechowska, “The Development of Confraternities,” 65-87; Henderson, Piety and
Charity in late medieval Florence, 33-103; Terpstra, Lay confraternities and civic religion, 14-37.

180
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

of some patricians to use them in order to control the religious cult and the commune, or to limit
the organizational capabilities of the commoners.
Bishop Bartholomew was absent from the bishopric during the turmoil in the commune.
Upon his return the bishop had Archdeacon James excommunicated and removed from the
cathedral chapter.903 Less than two months later, Bartholomew also excommunicated Canon John
Castrafocus for the disobediance.904 John’s activities during the turmoil in Trogir were unclear.
The bishop accused him of having worked against the previous bishops, Liberius and Lampredius,
but also for misinforming the papal legate in Italy, Andruin de Roche,905 about the bishop of Trogir.
The disputes with previous bishops were only used as a pretext, as it is possible that the bishop
decided to punish Canon John for indirectly depicting the bishop in a negative way and diminishing
his episcopal prestige at the Apostolic See. But the ostracized canon did not dissapear into the
obscurity of sources as he shortly returned to assist the bishop in new struggles with the cathedral
chapter of Trogir.
Although the sources about Bishop Barthlomew’s time in office are mostly silent, which
is understandable as he spent most of his time on various legatine missions, the disputes that the
bishop had with the cathedral chapter in the late 1350s reveal the bishop’s autocratic tendencies in
managing his diocese. The disputes escalated over payments for the legatine mission of Cardinal
Egidius Albornoz to Northern Italy.906 The cathedral chapter, always diligent in paying their
ecclesiastical taxes,907 was during 1357 in conflict with the legate’s representatives for not paying
in time. The chapter complained at the legate’s curia that they gave the required money to Bishop
Bartholomew, who failed to pay the legate.908
But this was only a part of the problems between the bishop and the cathedral chapter.
Following the excommunication and the removal of Archdeacon James Vitturi, the bishop had six
CEU eTD Collection

903
CDC XII, October 30, 1358, 517-9; Lucić, Povijesna svjedočanstva I, 603-5; Benyovsky Latin, Srednjovjekovni
Trogir, 28; Klaić, Povijest grada Trogira, 298; Gruber, “Dalmacija za Ludovika,” 49.
904
CDC XII, 530-3, December 13, 1358.
905
Andruin, the abbot of Benedictine monastery of Cluny (r.1351-61) was assigned by Pope Innocent VI to replace
Cardinal Albornoz during the mission to reclaim the Papal States. His mission lasted from February (or May) 1357
until December 1358, so the letters by Canon John should be dated to that period. Mollat, The Popes at Avignon, 137-
40; Rollo-Koster, Avignon and its Papacy, 92.
906
Abbot John of the monastery of Saint Savin near Fermo and Vicar-Cardinal Egidius Albornoz decided the amount
(25th part of the income) that the diocese of Trogir should pay to finance the legate’s expenses during his legation in
Dalmatia. CDC XII, 336-9, April [no day], 1356.
907
In March 1351 Primicerius Nicholas and Canon Elias, the vicar of the bishop, paid 194 golden florins to Raimund,
the collector and the abbot of the monastery of Saint Nicholas of Šibenik. CDC XII, 7-8, March 21, 1351.
908
CDC XII, 385-7, January 3, 1357; 393-6, March 10, 1357.

181
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

months in order to fill in the vacant position. Since the bishop failed to nominate anybody, the
chapter proceeded to appoint a new archdeacon, Jacob, the son of Duymus, while dividing James’s
benefices among the canons. This probably happened during summer 1359, because by August
the bishop responded with anger and instead attempted to install his own candidate, a certain
Magister Martin from Šibenik, while seizing the benefices in question and keeping them for the
episcopal mensa or giving them to loyal clerics. The canons sent a complaint to the pope, in which
they stated that the bishop was witholding certain rights that belonged to the chapter for eight years
– so, since Bartholomew’s arrival to the diocese – and that the bishop on occassions physically
attacked and imprisoned canons who disagreed with him.909
Following the Hungarian takeover of Dalmatia, the bishop was able to use his connections
to the royal court in order to enforce his episcopal authority over the cathedral chapter and
regarding the jurisdictional borders of his diocese. These contacts were used to benefit
Bartholomew in a dispute he had with the bishop and the commune of Šibenik,910 but the bishop
also asked King Louis in September 1358 for the confirmation of the land called Drid (or
Bosiljina).911 This was probably done in order to wrestle control over the parts of Drid controlled
by the cathedral chapter, since the bishop was previously accused of seizing some rights of the
chapter. When the canons, most likely impoverished due to a prolonged conflict with the bishop,
decided to lease out their incomes in Bosiljina for an amount of 122 ducats, the bishop sent his
procurator to demand from the chapter to revoke their decision regarding Bosiljina.912
At the beginning of October 1359, the canons of the cathedral chapter gathered and wanted
to approach the bishop, but they were prevented by Canon John Castrafocus, who was appointed
by the bishop as the vicar in spiritual issues. So less than a year after excommunicating John, the
bishop reverted on his decision, restored John as a canon and even used him in order to force the
CEU eTD Collection

909
CDC XII, 615-7, August 31, 1359; Farlati, Trogirski biskupi, 276-7; CDC XII, 626-7, September 29 – October 28,
1359.
910
With the arrival of the Angevins, the commune of Šibenik received some villages from the ban in the area called
Dubravica (Nevest (Nevest), Koprno (Coparno), Partemišić (Bartemiscih) and Unešić (Unescichi)). Bishop Matthew
Cernota of Šibenik (r.1357-88) tried to extend the ecclesiastical borders of his diocese by collecting tithe in these
villages, but Bishop Bartholomew appealed to the royal commission. In August 1359 the royal officials, led by Bishop
Stephen of Nitra confirmed the possession of these villages by the commune of Šibenik, but stated that the
ecclesiastical rights belonged to the bishop of Trogir. CDC XII, 607-8, August 22, 1359; farlati, 275; Gruber,
“Dalmacija za Ludovika,” 55.
911
Drid was granted to the bishopric by the Árpád kings in the thirteenth century. CDC XII, 511-3, September 3, 1358.
912
The dignitaries of the cathedral chapter only stated that they leased out the incomes on the order of the papal legate
– likely Cardinal-Legate Egidius Albornoz - so they could pay for his procurations. CDC XIII, 27-8, May 28, 1360.
The procurator of the bishop was Peter, the son of Marin. CDC XIII, 34-5, June 22, 1360.

182
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

cathedral chapter into compliance. The canons wanted to discuss the bishop’s failure to give the
legate the chapter’s money and the ensuing excommunication which caused the bishopric to lose
around 1000 florins.
The prolonged dispute in the diocese also revealed how misconduct, corruption and the
autocratic style characterized Bartholomew’s episcopal administration. The bishop was accused
of repeatedly failing to pay for the legate’s procurations, while squandering books and goods of
the cathedral.913 Based on the order of the papal legate in late 1359, the cathedral chapter proceeded
to excommunicate Bishop Bartholomew, which was obstructed by the bishop’s vicar, Canon
John.914 The bishop had no moral objections to even use his connections to royal offficals against
the chapter. In late October Nicholas Széchy, the ban of Croatia and Dalmatia, prevented the
representatives of the cathedral chapter to leave the city and go visit the pope, but the ban was
persuaded to rescind his opposition on the joint appeal from the cathedral chapter and the count of
Trogir, Francis de Georgiis. According to them, the bishop’s vicar, John Castrafocus, was sent to
the ban to supply him with deceitful informations.915 The entire cathedral chapter stood unified
against its bishop. The case dragged on for several months at the curia of Cardinal-Legate Albornoz
in Ancona.916 The bishop lost his dispute and, being broke, had to rely on his ecclesiastical contacts
for payment. Bishop Stephen of Nitra in December 1360 decided to lend Bartholomew 128 gold
ducats receiving some incomes of the bishopric as a collateral.917 Only Bartholomew’s death in
1361 prevented any further disputes between him and his clergy.
The conflicts between the clergy and the bishop of Trogir subsided under Bartholomew’s
successor. In December 1361 Primicerius Nicholas was appointed as the bishop of Trogir by Pope
Innocent VI.918 A direct comparison between Bartholomew and Nicholas can provide a more
meaningful insight on how both bishops approached to govern their bishopric. Nicholas had a
CEU eTD Collection

considerable ecclesiastical and communal capital coming from a prestigous family of the
Kažotić,919 while his uncle, Augustin, was himself a bishop who left a considerable mark on his

913
CDC XII, 635-7, October 9, 1359; Farlati, Trogirski biskupi, 278-80.
914
Canon John Castrafocus prevented the sacristan of the cathedral to ring the bells, thus officially announcing to the
entire bishopric and the commune that the bishop was excommunicated. The archdeacon conscripted a local notary to
draft an official statement to be use in the chapter's appeal to the Apostolic See. CDC XII, 639-42, October 19-20,
1359; Farlati, Trogirski biskupi, 280-2.
915
cum mutlis mendaciis et pravis informacionibus suplicando instanter. CDC XII, 642-4, October 25, 1359.
916
CDC XIII, 50-2. September 4-11, 1360.
917
CDC XIII, 71-2, December 1, 1360.
918
Eubel, Hierarchia Catholica I, 490.
919
Jelaska, “Ugled trogirskog roda Kažotića,” 17-46; Andreis, “Trogirski patricijat,” 42-7.

183
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

contemporaries.920 Since his predecessor was unable to pay for his own appointment, Nicholas
promised to pay for both, but even he was unable to fully pay for his appointment, which could
also suggest the mounting financial pressure in becoming a bishop.921 As a former primicerius,
Nicholas worked together with his cathedral chapter, which the canons returned by backing the
bishop in several disputes that the bishopric had during the 1360s with the bishop of Šibenik and
the archbishop of Split. His position in the rebellions of 1357 remains unclear, but he held
benefices which spanned from the territories of Trogir to the lands of the king, being a canon in
Zagreb and the archdeacon of Tolna in the diocese of Pécs.922 However, unlike Bartholomew,
Bishop Nicholas lacked direct access to the papal and royal courts and he had to contend by himself
in protecting the rights of the bishopric against the archbishop of Split and the bishop of Šibenik.
Nicholas was adamant in rejecting royal suggestions for benefices in Trogir, which probably would
not have been the case, if he was close to the king.923 But the loyalty to the ruling dynasty was
emphasized in visual respect as Nicholas added the royal coat of arms on the city's cathedral (Fig.
15).924 However, Bishop Nicholas remained concentrated on local issues.

IV.3. The Local Dioceses and Royal Administrative Centralization

With the treaty of Zadar in 1358 Croatia-Dalmatia was once again ruled by the kings of
Hungary-Croatia. The Angevin dynasty took a different approach in governing their realms by
establishing a strong royal authority which was reflected in concentrating the secular and
ecclesiastical issues in the royal hands. But how much is this royal approach visible in the source
materials and was there any difference in the royal behavior toward different dioceses?
CEU eTD Collection

920
Bishop Augustin's contemporary, Miha from Split, mentioned Augustine in his work among many popes and
secular rulers and even honoured him by stating that following Augustine's death his body exhibited many miracles.
Madijev, “Historija,” 182.
921
MVC I, n. 287, August 20, 1362. His successor had to promiss to pay for both Nicholas’s and Bartholomew’s
debts. MVC I, n. 302, May 19, 1373.
922
Nicholas was appointed as the archdeacon of Tolna in the bishopric of Pecs, which was cum cura. In 1344 Pope
Clement wanted Nicholas to renounce the position of primicerius in Trogir which was sine cura, but Nicholas
successfully petitioned the pope to keep both positions. In 1363 the archdeaconry of Tolna, vacant due to Nicholas
promotion as the bishop, was granted to Albert from Modruš. CDC XI, 146-7, July 27, 1344; Bossányi, Regesta
supplicationum II, 424, March 3,1363.
923
See more in the next chapter.
924
Babić, “Anžuvinski grbovi u Trogiru i Šibeniku” 39-41; “Trogirski biskup Nikola Casotti,” 222; Jelaska, “Ugled
trogirskog roda Kažotića,” 35-6.

184
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

With the Venetian defeat the archbishop of Zadar, Nicholas Matafari, was able to return
from his exile. He governed until his death, sometime before May 1367.925 His successor Dominic
only appeared in local sources after a year in May 1368, while the papal appointment came only
in September, which suggest that there were some issues surrounding the episcopal succession in
the archbishopric.926 These issues related to the direct royal involvement overcoming any local
resistance and ensuring that Dominic was appointed as the archbishop.
After Archbishop Nicholas died, a royal knight927 called Stephen, the son of Francis from
Zadar, appeared in the city with royal orders.928 The king instructed Gregory, the rector of Saint
Mary the Great and the administrator of the properties of the archbishopric (yconomus), to give
the incomes of the archdiocese to whomever Stephen Francis appoints. The incomes were given
to Dominic, which suggests that the king wanted Dominic to control the archbishopric well before
obtaining the papal appointment.929 The explanation for this royal grab of the diocese in order to
ensure the appointment of court favorite can be observed in the official policy of the Angevin
dynasty but also in Louis’s and Dominic’s prior experiences.
Dominic came from the family of Thopia, a noble kindred from the Kingdom of Albania,
which was created as part of the Neapolitan Angevins expansion into the Balkan Peninsula where

925
The see was listed as vacant in the local sources; CDC XIV, 36, May 22, 1367; CDC XIV, 53, July 4, 1367; 95,
October 25, 1367. Konrad Eubel wrote that Nicholas died on 25 March 1367. Eubel, Hierarchia Catholica I, 281.
926
CDC XIV, 129, May 5, 1368. Matheus Symonis, the archiepiscopal procurator, promised to pay for Dominic’
appointment. MVC I, n. 294, 320, June 9, 1368. Matheus also paid the first installment. He was a canon of the cathedral
chapter of Zagreb, which could suggest that he was a royal representative sent to deliver the king’s letters to the Papal
Curia. MVC I, n. 331, June 15, 1368. Eubel, Hierarchia Catholica I, 281, September 27, 1368. Bianchi stated that
some Giacomo de Candis, from a local noble family, was consecrated in Rome, where he also received pallium.
According to the author, Giacomo died on 2 March 1368. Bianchi, Zara cristiana, 49. Judging by the date when the
pope appointed Dominic, there is enough time for the existence of another archbishop, potentially locally elected,
especially since the pope was in Rome between 1367 and 1370. The problem is that Giacomo was not mentioned in
any contemporary local or papal sources. MVC I, 174-6; Priručnik I, 368-9; Farlati, Illyricum Sacrum V, 97. In
CEU eTD Collection

addition, according to the research by Nikolić Jakus, the Candis family died out shortly after the siege of Zadar and
the appearance of the Black Death. Nikolić Jakus, “Vrijeme rata, kuge, zatočeništva,” 17-8.
927
The knights were the representatives of the king who would often deliver the royal orders to provinces, in written
and oral form, and were also sent on diplomatic missions. Engel, Realm of St. Stephen, 146.
928
In Croatian historiography Stephen Francis is listed as Stjepan Franjin, Stjepan Đorđić, vitez Stjepan iz Zadra.
Stephen was the son of Francis de Nosdrogna, a nobleman from Zadar with contacts with the Croatian hinterland. He
seems to have joined the royal court around 1345 and gave the king valuable information about the situation in Croatia-
Dalmatia. Stephen was the royal representative in the cities of Dalmatia in 1358, tasked to pressure the cities in
accepting royal candidates for the counts, after which he was appointed as the count of Omiš. He was soon replaced
by his brother Philip. Stephen probably continued his work at the royal court as in 1367 the king sent him to Rome as
one of the royal representative to greet the pope who came to Rome for the first time in decades. Gruber, “Dalmacija
za Ludovika,” 38; Klaić, Povijest Hrvata II, 191; Novak, Povijest Splita, 248-9, 416-7; Nikolić Jakus, Formation of
Dalmatian Urban Nobility, 32-4; Klaić and Petricioli, Zadar u srednjem vijeku, 217-8.
929
Lucić, Povijesna svjedočanstva I, 640.

185
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

they attempted to suppress the Byzantine rule.930 In 1336 King Robert of Naples (r.1309-43)
appointed Dominic from the Dominican order as the royal chaplain, counselor and retainer.931 This
was probably a part of the official Angevin policy of ingratiating themselves with the local
Albanian families, as the Thopia family was received into royal service as knights in 1329.932 It is
unclear at what point Dominic switched from serving one Angevin branch for the other, but it is
probable that this happened during King Louis’s war with Naples (1348-52). Around that time
Dominic became the bishop of Ston and Korčula (Stagnensis et Curzolensis) (c.1350-1368),933
which was subordinated to the archbishop of Dubrovnik.
Dominic maintained connections to the local Ragusan nobility as well as participated in
the diplomatic missions in parts of Albania, either on the behalf of Dubrovnik or King Louis.934
The most likely explanation is that Dominic was the main connection between Charles Thopia of
Albania (r.1358-88), Dominic’s nephew, and King Louis. The two shared similar political
orientation as Charles coveted Durazzo, controlled by the Neapolitan Angevins, the enemies of
King Louis at the time.935 As mentioned, with the treaty of Zadar, King Louis considerably
expanded his kingdom going all the way to the borders of Durazzo.
That Dominic was a partisan of King Louis, and not of Dubrovnik, can be observed in the
distrust and refusal by the commune to even consider Dominic as the archbishop of Dubrovnik.
Following the death of Archbishop Elias Saraca (r.1341-60), Dominic tried to forcefully install
himself as the archbishop of Dubrovnik with the help of King Louis, but the attempt met strong
resistance from the communal authorities. They appealead to both the pope and the king depicting
Dominic as prone to simony and deceitfulness, while also working on preventing appointment at
the Curia of any Dalmatian, Albanian, Venetian or Ragusan cleric as the archbishop.936 This shows
CEU eTD Collection

930
Abulafia, “Aragonese Kingdom of Albania,” 1-13.
931
in capellanum, consiliarium, familiarem nostrum. Šufflay, Acta et diplomata res Albaniae, n.802, June 12, 1336.
932
Šufflay, Acta et diplomata res Albaniae I, n.736, May 28, 1329. On the Thopia family, see: Lala, Regnum Albaniae,
45-6; Šufflay, Srbi i Arbanasi, 116-8.
933
Eubel, Hierarchia Catholica I, 462-3. He was noted in the sources of the Republic of Dubrovnik as the bishop of
Korčula and Ston. Farlati, Illyricum Sacrum VI, November 8, 1350.
934
In 1359 he was supposed to represent Givo Desena, the citizen of Dubrovnik, in some local dispute, but Dominic
was indisposed due to a mission in Albania. Monumenta Ragusina II, 274, May 27, 1359; Gruber, “Dalmacija za
Ludovika,” 43-4.
935
Lala, Regnum Albaniae, 27-8, 45-6; Šufflay, Srbi i Arbanasi, 103.
936
The commune kept working on preventing Dominic’s further activities and making sure that Dominic leaves the
territory of Dubrovnik. Curiously, they sent two envoys to the king, one via Senj, the other via Bosnia. It could be that
the commune was afraid that their letters would be intercepted on the way to the court.
Monumenta Ragusina II, 290-1, May 3-6, 1360; 297, December 16, 1360; III, 32-3. Prlender, Crkva i država, 287-8.

186
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

that the commune saw the archbishop as an important figure in the city and wanted to avoid him
allying with any powers which could diminish the autonomy of the city. Dominic’s attempt was
unsuccessful as by December 1361 the pope transferred to Dubrovnik Hugo de Scuria, a
Franciscan Friar and the bishop of Rhodos (r.1351-61).937 The actions of Dominic and Louis in
the attempt to seize Dubrovnik puts the actions in Zadar after the death of Nicholas Matafari in a
different light. Namely, following the death of Nicholas, the king wanted to avoid any resistanace
to his decisions by the local community. The king sent an envoy to seize the temporalia of the
archbishopric and suceeded in installing Dominic, even before the conclusion of the negotiations
with the pope.
After eight years, Dominic Thopia was transferred to Bosnia, to a lesser position and a
substantial downgrade in personal prestige of the cleric. Not only was Bosnia in hierarchical sense
lesser diocese (bishopric) than Zadar (archbishopric), but it was poorer, since the bishops of Bosnia
paid 200 florins for their appointment, versus 400 which was paid by the archbishops of Zadar.938
This ran contrary to the idea of cursus honorum which stated that an individual should always
advance in the eclesiastical ranks.939 Dominic’s transfer was probably influenced by the
dissatisfaction of the local community with him. The two representatives of the commune,
Damianus de Nassis and Jacobus de Raducis,940 were instructed in April 1374 to go to the king
and the queen-mother and ask them to have Dominic transfered somewhere else. The reasons are
not specified and Farlati only adds that there were disputes between the citizens and the
archbishop.941 Since Dominic was transferred, it is safe to say that the king respected the Zaratin
wishes, while still retaining the services of his trusted and loyal prelate. Despite the ecclesiastical
downgrade, Dominic died a rich man, leaving 12,000 florins which was claimed by the Apostolic
Camera, but which were previously lent to the king.942 Putting the numbers into context, Dominic
CEU eTD Collection

was the archbishop of Zadar for 8 years and the estimated income of the archbishops by the papal
collectors amounted to around 1200 florins, which means that at the time of his death, Dominic

937
Eubel, Hierarchia Catholica I, 197, 411; Farlati, Illyricum Sacrum VI, 135, 333.
938
Eubel, Hierarchia Catholica I, 142, 280.
939
Pennington, Pope and Bishops, 98; Dunn, “Clerical cursus honorum,” 120-33; Torres, “Las elecciones
episcopales,” 273-88.
940
Both individuals were wealthy and influential in the everyday life of Zadar, but also had favourable contacts with
the royal court so they were selected in order to ensure that the king would accept the petition more easily. About
Damianus and Jacobus, see: Ančić, “Od tradicije ‘sedam pobuna’ do dragovoljnih mletačkih podanika,” 50; Dokoza,
“Damjan Bivaldov,” 93-144.
941
Farlati, Illyricum Sacrum V, 99.
942
CDC XVI, 249, January 1, 1382; VMS I, 337-8; Eubel, Hierarchia Catholica I, 142.

187
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

had more money than the archbishops of Zadar could hope to officially raise from their diocese in
10 years.
There were not many cases when the king had to resort to direct pressure in enforcing his
will in local ecclesiastical affairs. By 1372 the king’s attempt to appoint Marin of Split, a chaplain
of Queen Elizabeth, as a canon in Trogir was met with resistance. The king previously ordered that
Marin be appointed as a canon of the cathedral chapter and granted some benefices. Bishop
Nicholas Kažotić instead granted these prebends to others. Following the bishop's death and in the
context of royal visit to Dalmatia, the king demanded from the bishopric and the commune to
ensure that Marin is awarded the said privileges.943
On the other hand, the clergy and the commune of Split recognized the opportunity in
petitioning the king in order to appoint somebody who would suit the royal and local interests.
They petitioned the king in 1380 to approve Nicholas, the son of Mark, as the abbot of the
Benedictine monastery of Saint Stephen under the Pines. The king approved the petition, started
the process of obtaining the papal confirmation - which was done by Pope Urban VI in 1382 - and
had in the meantime allowed the new abbot to manage his new abbey. 944 The reality was that the
local ecclesiastical appointments were rarely in local hands as the appointments were a complex
and entangled web of various influences, practices and negotiations. What the king was interested
in was having his supporters or at least his subjects appointed. He also had the means and quick
access to the papal curia to have his wishes adhered to.
The most contentious parts of the communication between the kings and the Apostolic See
were discussions on the ecclesiastical appointments and the collection of various Church taxes
accrued in the kingdom. During the rule of the Angevin dynasty the tax collectors often operated
in Hungary, with rulers being interested in obtaining parts of what was collected.945 During the
CEU eTD Collection

reign of King Louis, the papal tithes were more frequent, and the collected funds were often used
as a potential reward for the king to support the papal politics, as, for instance, in 1352 when the
king received the incomes from tithe for four years. But frequent were also the cases of papal-royal
disagreements. In June 1363 Pope Urban V informed the king about the introduction of a new
three-year tithe in Hungary, but in February 1364 the king was asked to allow the collectors to do

943
Lucić, Povijesna svjedočanstva I, 653; Andreis, Povijest grada Trogira I, 108.
944
CDC XVI, 139, December 8, 1380; 266-7, February 3, 1382; Ančić, “Registar Splitskog kaptola,” 241-3.
945
For instance, Charles Robert consented to the collection of the papal tithe in 1332 after the king was promised to
receive one third of the tax. Engel, Realm of St. Stephen, 143.

188
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

their work in the kingdom suggesting that they met opposition, probably with the tacit royal
approval.946 The popes usually stated that the money was intended for the recovery of the lands of
the Church (pro recuperacione terrarum dicte ecclesie).947 This was the explanation of Pope
Gregory XI (r.1370-78) in 1377 to the collectors tasked to gather the two-year tithe in Croatia and
Dalmatia, which was also collected in the kingdoms of Hungary and Poland.948 But when at the
beginning of Gregory’s pontificate, in 1371, King Louis complained that the clergy of Dalmatia
and Croatia are contributing too much for the procurations for the legates of Italy, the pope feigned
ignorance claiming that he should check the books and promised to decrease taxes.949
Episcopal transfers were reserved exclusively to the Apostolic See, but during 1376 there
was a large reshufling of bishops in the kingdom which indicate that they were done on specific
royal request.950 Even when the king and the pope conflicted over episcopal appointments, the
king would resist and the unwanted candidate would eventually be transferred to another, less
important, bishopric.951 While this topic requires much more thorough investigation into the nature
of the appointments of Hungarian bishops, the occasional misunderstanding between the pope and
the king did not undermine the general trend regarding the episcopal appointments during this
period. Clerics obtained their appointments primarily due to their connections with the king, if
appointed to more important bishoprics, or because of their contacts with the Apostolic See, but
then they risked royal opposition.

946
Particularly since some local prelates, tasked by the Apostolic See as bonorum et iurium collectori, met opposition
in the kingdom. VMH II, 54, May 10, 1363; 56-7, June 27, 1363; 60, February 28, 1364. Housley, “King Louis the
Great of Hungary,” 195.
947
CDC XV, 304, July 18, 1377.
948
CDC XV, 307, August 1, 1377.
949
VMH II, 113, November 11, 1371; Housley, “King Louis the Great of Hungary,” 203.
CEU eTD Collection

950
On 23 January 1376 Pope Gregory XI transfered Demetrius of Alba Iulia (Transylvania) to Zagreb, Johannes de
Surdis from Győr to the archbishopric of Esztergom, Peter from Bosnia to Győr. On 5 May the pope appointed
Gobelinus, the rector of the church of Insulae Christi (Cristian / Kereszténysziget) in Transylvania, to Alba Iulia and
Peter Matafari to Zadar. In addition, Peter, the rector of the church of Saint Nicholas de Bistrita (Tranylvania), was
appointed to Vac, since the diocese was vacant since its bishop Johannes de Surdis was first transfered to Győr and
then immediately to Esztergom, indicating that it was kept vacant for years until a suitable candidate was found. Eubel,
Hierarchia Catholica I, 281-2, 465, 492, 537, January 23, 1376; VMS I, 303-5; 309-13, May 5, 1376.
951
This was the case with Emeric Czudar who was in 1375 appointed by the pope as the bishop of Várad (Oradea
Mare). Emeric was moved to Eger in another reshuffle of bishops which happened on 2 October 1377. Since Eger was
worth 800 florins and Várad 2000, this was a downgrade, leaving the richer diocese to the royal candidate. Peter,
previously transferred from poorer Bosnia to richer Győr, was now transferred to Veszprém, which was valued more
than Győr. The bishop of Veszprém, Ladislaus de Vaya, received a big promotion by being transferred to Várad.
Unlike Emeric, both Peter and Ladislaus were valued highly by the king. Eubel, Hierarchia Catholica I, 78, 282, 515,
523, October 2, 1377; Rácz, “The Anjou Dynasty,” 60.

189
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

The examples show that the Angevin kings often exerted pressure on the Church and were
able to influence the episcopal appointments, particularly of greater importance, due to the direct
contact with the Apostolic See. The high degree of royal influence could have only been achieved
with the tacit approval of the Apostolic See. The decades of papal centralization and decisions led
to the diminishing of local elections in favour of the papal appointments, which in turn led to
favouring the royal power. On the local level in Dalmatia the royal threats and pressure were not
always effective as the local communities resisted the royal mandates. But the communes began
to view the court as the relevant place where the communities could petition for royal support to
remove unwanted prelates or appoint distinguished local candidates.

IV.4. The Long reign of Archbishop Hugolin of Split (r.1349-88)

Hugolin was a Benedictine monk and a nobleman from Branca in Gubbio, in the Papal
States. His connections to the Apostolic See ensured his appointment as the archbishop of Split in
1349, but his conflict with his community led to the commune petitioning the king to ask the pope
to remove Hugolin in 1388. Due to this event, his time in office was often described by historians
as divisive and problematic. According to them, Hugolin clashed with the citizens of Split, with
conflicts often leading to violence.952 But this interpretation is inadequate, mostly circumstantial
and lacking in detail. What was often omitted was the fact that Hugolin was a rather complex
individual whose time in office spanned to almost 40 years. The relations between the archbishop
and the commune seem to have been mostly cordial, due to the shared interest in controlling the
resources of the archbishopric. The relations detoriated sharply during the 1380s and under
completely different circumstances. Even Hugolin’s contemporary, known only as Cutheis,
offered a positive overview of Hugolin. According to the author the archbishop protected his
CEU eTD Collection

clergy, his commune and even reclaimed the privileges of the Church. The negative characteristics
were the archbishop’s short temper, reliance on spies and vengeful personality.953
Hugolin envisioned his grand entrance to his archbishopric to emphasize his noble rank in
the society and the newly obtained archiepiscopal prestige. Cutheis described the archbishop’s
arrival as a splendid affair which served to leave a mark on the local population but also to

952
Katić, Lovre. “Ban Emerik,” 2; Brandt, Wyclifova hereza i socijalni pokreti u Splitu, 213; Novak, Povijest Splita,
539; Rismondo, “Registar,” 60; Klaić, Povijest grada Trogira, 305-6.
953
Cutheis, “Tabula,” 194-6.

190
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

counterpoise the tragic situation in which Split found itself as Black death claimed lives of many
citizens, including two previous archbishops. The author himself left a vivid description of turmoil
and horrors brought about by the plague, immediately succeeded with the opulent archiepiscopal
adventus, as to contrast death with new beginnings.954
Archbishop Hugolin first landed near the monastery of Saint Stephen under the Pines, the
most important Benedictine monastery in Split, and which was located a mile from the cathedral.
The archbishop was escorted by a large number of chaplains, retainers and the noblemen from the
Duchy of Spoleto, who brought horses and “many riches.” The following day the bell of the
cathedral announced the call for the mass as Hugolin was entering Split, wearing episcopal insignia
and escorted by the members of his house, wearing shields and signs of the coat of arms of the
Branca family, armed footmen, cavalry, as well as the members of the cathedral chapter and other
clergy of the diocese who were singing Te Deum. The procession was greeted by the podestà and
the entire city after which a mass was held in the cathedral. The chronicler then finished his
narrative on the procession by describing that after the mass everybody went together to the
archbishop’s palace. The description points out to careful planning in preparing and organizing a
procession of this magnitude.
It is hard to say if the ritual of the bishop’s entry or the episcopal adventus as described by
Cutheis for Hugolin followed the established practice of the ritual entries of the archbishops into
Split as we lack sources for a meaningful comparison.955 The ceremony of the episcopal first entry
into the city (adventus) was combined with the taking possession of the diocese (possesso). While
observing the well documented episcopal entries of the bishops of Florence, Maureen Miller noted

954
Cutheis, “Tabula,” 191-94. The author dated the archbishop’s arrival to 14 January 1349. Farlati rejected the date
as Archbishop-elect Peregrin was still mentioned in local sources in Split. Hugolin’s early arrival before he was
CEU eTD Collection

consecrated meant that he would not have the right to hold the type of procession that he did. Farlati, Illyricum Sacrum,
326. Mladen Ančić suggested that the problem arose during the transcribing of the Cutheis's work and that the day is
correct but the month is different, dating the event to 14 May or later, as Peregrin was mentioned in the local sources
for the last time on 12 May. Ančić, Na rubu zapada, 212.
955
Thomas Archdeacon (c.1200-1268) described entrances of two archbishops into the city of Split, but those
descriptions were marred by the author’s opinion regarding the selected archbishop. In case of Hugrin (r.1245-48),
Thomas wrote that Hugrin arrived to the city accompanied by many cavalrymen and clients (cum magna familia
equitum et clientum) and entered the archiepiscopal palace to live there, while in the case of Rogerius (r.1249-66),
Thomas added that the new archbishop arrived accompanied by 20 cavalrymen, chaplains and servants, and decided
to enter the city on Sunday during the Lent (20 February 1250) and was greeted by rejoicing clergy and people.
Thomas mostly concentrated on showing his distaste and disaproval over the person of Hugrin and his election as the
archbishop was backed by the king and Thomas's opponents in the city. Toma Arhiđakon, Historia Salonitana, 296-
7. Rogerius was described more favourable by Thomas, in no small matter due to being appointed by the pope. Toma
Arhiđakon, Historia Salonitana, 304-5. Thomas’s bias was noted by Raukar, “Splitsko društvo u Salonitanskoj
povijesti,” 221.

191
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

that these entries were the “local adaptation of papal rituals.” The procession was carefully planned
and would last for two days as the bishops would stop at various sacred sites in the city. 956 The
adventus was not dictated by the canon law, but it developed from the Biblical, papal, and royal
influence, and the ceremony had local variations which reflected local peculiarities.957 The reason
for the development of the episcopal adventus can be traced in the changing patterns of the
episcopal appointments. The bishops were no longer elected by the cathedral chapters but were
appointed by the pope and consecrated at the Papal Curia. Following the papal provision the bishop
was required to go to his see and take possession of it.958 Mass participation was a necessary
prerequisite for the episcopal entry and the anonymous chronicler from Split adds that Archbishop
Hugolin was greeted by the political elite of the city as well as its citizens.959 It should be added
that for the citizens and the clergy of Split this was the first time that they could see their
archbishop. The ceremony was intended to leave a lasting impression upon the inhabitans of his
archbishopric, to which Cutheis narrative of Hugolin’s sumptuous entrance testifies. The
extravagance could have also served to contrast the presence of the Black Death, but which even
the archbishop’s arrival was not able to stop.
The limited sources available for the 1350s show that there were no significant problems
between the archbishop and the commune. When the city rebelled against Venice960 the cathedral
and churches connected to it were used as staging grounds for the rebellion. Immediately following
the ejection of the Venetian troops the city council held its first session in the cathedral.961 One
later source narrates how following the rebellion Archbishop Hugolin, with three important
noblemen, was quickly dispatched to the royal court to ask for the confirmation of city’s privileges

956
CEU eTD Collection

The bishops of Florence tended to stay overnight at an important local monastery and would proceed from the city
gate to the episcopal palace. Until 1508 the bishops would stay at the monastery of San Pier Maggiore, while from
1532 the bishops stayed at the monastery of San Barolomeo di Moteoliveto, favoured by the local Medici, which
connected this custom with the favortism with the local ruling elites. Miller, “The Florentine Bishop's Ritual Entry,”
5-7, 15.
957
Harvey, Episcopal Appointments in England, 59-60.
958
Miller, “The Florentine Bishop's Ritual Entry,” 16-8, 24-6.
959
Harvey, Episcopal Appointments in England, 60-1.
960
The exact reasons for the rebellion are unclear but it seems that the Venetian government became more oppressing
during the war in order to stay in power. One of the first decisions of the city council was to exempt from punishment
all those citizens and inhabitans who were sentenced to losing their hands or beheading. Those who received money
fines were also exempted, even though this decision was debated, probably because of the commune's poor financial
situation in those days. “Zapisnici Velikog vijeća,” 75-6, 137, July 1357.
961
The usual gathering place was the communal palace. Gruber, “Dalmacija za Ludovika,” 25; Novak, Povijest Splita,
224-5, 231.

192
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

and to surrender the city to the king.962 Even if incorrect, the source would suggest that the
archbishop was viewed as somebody who favoured the rebellion and the return of the city under
the royal control. Since the communal treasury diminished during the war, forcing the commune
to borrow money, a part of help came from the Church.963 As mentioned earlier, the archbishop
leased part of his incomes to the commune and was lenient in obtaining the money back. It does
not seem that Hugolin had objected when the commune took some objects from the cathedral
treasury in order to pay for delegations to the king. 964
The imminent period after the revolt was rather unstable, since in April 1359 there was
some unspecified commotion against the archbishop, while in July an entire rebellion against the
commune was prevented. The city council decided that those who would insult the archbishop
would be treated as those who insulted podestà by being fined 10 libri.965 Even the fine itself
suggest that the transgressors were more fined for badmouthing the archbishop than for physically
attacking him. On the other hand, the dissidents from July were arrested and tortured, which meant
that this event was considered as highly important, even though it is unclear what was the true
reason for this dissent.966 It should be emphasized that the city council immediately stood in
support of the archbishop. The quarrel involving the archbishop resonates more with the
description of the personal qualities of the archbishop provided by Cutheis who emphasized
Hugolin's resentful disposition.967
A good place of shared interest and frequent contact between the archbishop and the
commune was the cathedral chapter, mostly filled by the members of the communal nobility, but
with the archbishop in control of promoting and rewarding his favourites and limiting advancement
of those he disliked. Therefore, the available sources offer a glimpse into the composition of people

962
Lucić doesn't date the source nor does he names its author, simply stating that it was written later (iz malo kasnijeg
CEU eTD Collection

vremena). Lucić, Povijesna svjedočanstva I, 569-71.

963
The issue of the lack of money was appearing regularly at the sessions of the city council. “Zapisnici Velikog
vijeća,” 183-4, April 22, 1358; 103, 240, June 9, 1359; Raukar, “Komunalna društva u Dalmaciji u XIV. stoljeću,”
200.
964
“Zapisnici Velikog vijeća,” 77, August 30, 1357.
965
CDC XII, 36, April 5, 1359; Farlati, Illyricum Sacrum III, 329; Novak, Povijest Splita, I, 251-2. Statute of Split,
lib. IV, cap. 77.
966
It is unclear if this disturbance was connected with the problems with the collection of tithe or with the general
problems that Split was having. “Zapisnici Velikog vijeća,” 104-5, July 12, 1359. Gruber suggested that this
„rebellion“ was connected with the dissatisfaction with the royal reforms. Gruber, “Dalmacija za Ludovika,” 36-7.
Not much detail was given, but it is also possible that this was not a revolt against the king, but some smaller squabble
between the nobility and the commoners.
967
Cutheis added that the archbishop liked to listen to the reports of spies and those who spread distrust among friends,
and he held grudges and took revenge when the time became appropriate. Cutheis, “Tabula,” 195.

193
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

appearing at the archiepiscopal palace and shows how the archiepiscopal curia was intertwinned
with the fabric of the medieval society of Split. For instance, the three cathedral dignitaries,
appointed prior to Hugolin's arival to the diocese, were members of the local elites. But while
Archpriest Andrew, the son of Andrew,968 and Primicerius Francis, the son of Peter,969 amassed
benefices and were frequently present at the archiepiscopal curia, Archdeacon Dominic Luccari
seems to have been sidelined. Nominally of the highest rank after the archbishop, Dominic was
also a relative of the late Archbishop Dominic, Hugolin's predecessor, and through this connection
Dominic Younger quickly rose in ranks.970
Dominic was among the ambassadors selected in August 1358 to discuss the position of
the commune with King Louis, following the king's victory over Venice.971 Afterwards, he was no
longer mentioned as the archdeacon, but in November 1359 Dominic appealed to the ban of
Croatia-Dalmatia against the royal grant of villages Kučine (Chelch), Križ (Crisi) and Gorica
(Gorice) to the commune of Split.972 The three villages, located at the borders of Klis and Split,
were often disputed by the two communities.973 Although the position of Archbishop Hugolin in
this matter was not mentioned, it should be added that tithes of these three villages were quite a

968
Archpriest Andrew, the son of Andrew, presents a bit of a mystery and a paradox. His origins are unknown as he
is rarely mentioned outside of his title and his first name. Mostly as Andree archipresbiteri, while in 1377 he is written
as Andrew, the son of Andrew (Andrea Andree). Ančić, “Registar Splitskog kaptola,” 51, December 1, 1377. He also
had an illegitimate child, something seemingly incompatible with his high position in the local Church. Ludwig
Schmugge pointed out that the clergy in higher orders suffered little consequences from keeping a concubine and
having children with them. Schmugge, Kirche, Kinder, Karrieren, 17-33. Andrew held quite an influential and
important rank of the archpriest for more than thirty years (c.1344-77), which is amusing since, besides liturgical duty,
his main responsability included the education of other priests. Besides his longetivity and personal preferences, his
importance can be detected in him frequently obtaining better benefices, while renouncing poorer ones. At one point
he even received five churches, which was against the constitutions of the Church of Split. Rismondo, “Registar,” 17-
CEU eTD Collection

8, February 7, 1362; 23-4, August 26, 1362; 23-4, August 27-December 1, 1362; 48-52, April 2-6, 1366.
969
Francis, the son of Peter, from the noble family de Papalis, appeared as a canon during the 1340s and soon he
became the primicerius. CDC XI, 576-8, February 16, 1350. He is called Franciscus Petri primicerius in the sources,
but Francisco Petri Papalis, who was a canon, appeared in 1341, so it is safe to say that they are the same persons.
Splitski spomenici, 81-2, December 20, 1341. His brothers were most likely Balcius and Creste (Krestol), the sons of
Peter de Papalis, who served during the 1350s as communal judges. Nikolić Jakus, Formation of Dalmatian Urban
Nobility, 93, f. 388; Kuzmanić, Splitski plemići, 68. Francis was succeded as canon by Dominicus Xristofori de Papali,
so another member of the Papalis family. Rismondo, “Registar,” 45-7, February 1, 1366; 47-8, April 2-3, 1366; 49-
50, 51-2. April 4-6, 1366; 50-1, April 6, 1366; 52-3, April 24, 1366; 54-5, May 24, 1366.
970
Dominic, the son of Nicholas Luccari. He entered the chapter in 1338 and became the archdeacon by 1348.
Kuzmanić, Splitski plemići, 26-7.
971
CDC XII, 540-1, July 23 - August 1, 1358; “Zapisnici Velikog vijeća,” 203-4.
972
Castellan Ladislas of Klis appears as the vicecomes of Split, presiding over the council sessions, and it is clear that
he was carrying out the royal mandate. Krekich, “Documenti” III-IV, 72-3, November 30, 1359.
973
About these villages, see: Kovačić, “Žrnovnica od davnine,” 189-96; Katić, “Selo Kučine,” 141-69.

194
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

rich source of income for the archbishopric.974 The archbishop would certainly benefit more if
these villages were controlled by his own commune, with which he shared common interests, than
by some other, potentially hostile, community. It should be stressed that Hugolin's contemporary
Cutheis stated that the archbishop built his curia and a fort on the road to Klis where he would
prevent the people of Klis from doing any harm to the citizens of Split.975 While it is unclear what
was Dominic's personal interest in all of this, it seems that he positioned himself against the interest
of both the commune and the archbishopric and afterwards he completely disappeared from the
sources which would suggest that he either resigned from his post as the archdeacon, that he was
marginalized in the archbishopric or that he soon died.
Dominic owed his success to his connections to the Luccari family as his relative was the
archbishop of Split prior to Hugolin and as such was intended to rise high in the ecclesiastical
ranks. For his ambition and connections, Dominic could have been viewed with distrust by
Hugolin. It cannot be a coincidence that Archdeacon Dominic became marginalized at the time
when Hugolin relied heavily on the support of archiepiscopal vicar, which became a permanent
office, appearing even while the archbishop was present in his diocese.
As mentioned, most archbishops of Split usually aligned themselves with a certain
powerful local family and Hugolin was no exception. He particularly favoured the connection with
the family of Cypriani. But the archbishop also had his own favourites who would receive highest
positions. This was the case with Lawrence, the son of Zanin, from the native Cypriani family and
Buciardo, the son of Jacob, a foreigner. Analyzing these two canons together is not coincidental
as they may have seen each other as competitors and their advancement in the cathedral chapter
reveal a great deal about the archbishop's administration of the diocese and relations with various
institutions.
CEU eTD Collection

While it is unclear when Lawrence entered the cathedral chapter, by 1358 he was already
the archiepiscopal vicar, despite being only a canon, suggesting the level of trust that he held with
the archbishop.976 As a member of the influential family of the Cypriani, which often held

974
For instance, when Archbishop Andrew Benzi leased out tithes of the archbishopric to the commune of Split in
1398, the archbishop did not include the villages of Kučine, Križ and Gorica, which would suggest that these villages
were a rich source of income for the archbishopric. Katić, “Selo Kučine,” 146.
975
Cutheis, “Tabula,” 195.
976
He was rarely accompanied by other vicars and in several occassions he was listed as being the vicarius in
spiritualibus et temporalibus generalis. CDC XII, 452-4, February 11, 1358; XIII, 11, February 28, 1360. During
1360s he was mentioned as vicarius in spirtualibus generali, in several charters where most of the canons were present,
or simply as vicarius, in communal sources. Rismondo, Pomorski Split, 65, July 1, 1369.

195
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

important positions in the commune, Lawrence participated in the city council sessions. There, he
was simply known as the vicar, denoting his connections to the archbishop, even though Lawrence
was occasionally sent on diplomatic missions on behalf of the commune.977 It is unclear if
Lawrence would intervene during the council sessions on the behalf of the archbishopric, but his
presence surely gave the archbishop a strong link to the communal government. In the coming
years the archbishop praised Lawrence's skills and pampered him with new positions and benefices
which shows the level of fondness that the archbishop had for Lawrence, or how much he came to
rely upon him.978 Very early he held four churches, while the archbishop even suspended one of
the diocesan constitutions, which stated that no canon can have more than four benefices,
specifically so Lawrence could receive his fifth church.979
While Lawrence represented a scion of local noble families, Buciardo Jacopi was a
foreigner who probably accompanied Hugolin to Split, yet, strangely, his career closely followed
that of Lawrence. Buciardo appeared in Split during the 1350s, conducting important tasks on the
behalf of the archbishop, obtaining the rank of the canon by 1359 as a reward.980 By January 1362
Buciardo held two churches, when he could not or decided not to introduce Lawrence into the
possession of a new church.981 Maybe this reluctance was the result of dissatisfaction with the
privileged position that Lawrence had at the archiepiscopal palace, or a result of his own slow pace
of advancement. Several weeks after this incident, the archbishop rewarded Buciardo with a new
church and the promotion to the rank of deacon (diaconatus), which was then followed by another
church just a month later.982 This meant that he also held four churches. When the archbishop
officially abolished the decision forbidding more than four benefices per a member of the chapter,
CEU eTD Collection

977
nuncium, sindicum et procuratorem. “Zapisnici Velikog vijeća,” 218, October 21; 225, November 25; 229-30,
December [no day], 1358; 241, June 28, 1358. For instance, his father and brother served as the communal judges.
Raukar, “Consilium generale,” 97; Ančić, “Ser Ciprijan Zaninov,” 39-40.
978
Rismondo, “Registar,” 12-3, December 9, 1361; 15-6, January 12, 1362.
979
This decision, which is clearly stated in the charter, is regularly cited in the historiography, while the historians
overlooked the fact that the archbishop eaarlier awarded Archpriest Andrew with his fifth church. Several months
later Andrew renounced two churches in order to receive one new church, which suggest that the mistake was
discovered and corrected. This raises the question of how aware the high clergy was of its own constitutions, or how
well respected the archpriest was since nobody raised objections during his appointment. Rismondo, “Registar,” 36-
7, May 24, 1364.
980
About Buciardo, see chapter II.
981
Several days later the archbishop had him replaced, stating that Buciardo non poterat nec volebat to perfom his
mandate. Rismondo, “Registar,” 16-7, January 23, 1362.
982
Rismondo, “Registar,” 18-9, February 7, 1362; 21-2, March 13, 1362.

196
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

benefiting Lawrence Cypriani, less than a month later Buciardo also received his fifth benefice.983
This was rather uncommon and could point to some sort of competition between the two for
prestige and influence in the cathedral chapter, as well as the archbishop attempt to reward his two
most trusted allies.
When, following the death of Primicerius Francis Peter in 1366, Lawrence succeded him
as the primicerius of the cathedral chapter, Buciardo quickly obtained the benefice of the deceased
primicerius.984 Also, when Lawrence was promoted to the position of the archdeacon, Buciardo
was most likely very quickly installed as the next primicerius.985 With the death of Lawrence and
Archpriest Andrew (during 1377), Buciardo likely led the cathedral chapter, as its most senior
member, while also becoming the archiepiscopal vicar for the spiritual affairs. This meant that he
held the majority of positions previously occupied by Lawrence.986
Due to fragmentary sources, it is unclear when Lawrence was appointed as the archdeacon,
since he was last mentioned as the primicerius in July 1369, while by April 1371 he was the
archdeacon of the cathedral chapter.987 Two things are of note here. Firstly, there was an
unspecified dispute in the communal palace in Split in early 1371 which led to the banishment
from the city of the members of the Cypriani family. These were Lawrence's brothers Cyprian and
Dominic, as well as their uncle George de Cypriani. Since their father Janin de Cypriani had some
contacts with the royal court, by April the king pardoned the Cypriani family members and ordered
the commune to take them in.988 Secondly, during Archbishop Hugolin's time in office, the position
of the archdeacon was attested only twice, first by Archdeacon Dominic until 1358, and then only
by Lawrence between 1372 and 1374, after which the position of the archdeacon was not
mentioned until the end of the century. Since the role of the archdeacon was to lead the chapter,
CEU eTD Collection

983
For the abolishment of the decision: Rismondo, “Registar,” 36-7. May 24, 1364; for the grant to Buciardo: 40-1,
June 18, 1364.
984
Francis died on 23 January 1366, while Lawrence was elected as the primicerius on 1 February. Rismondo,
“Registar,” 45-7, February 1, 1366. Three months later Buciardo renounced the church of Saint Anastasia de Monte
and on the same day he received the church of Saint Jacob, vacated by Francis's death. Rismondo, “Registar,” 52-3,
April 24, 1366.
985
Buciardo appears in sources as the primicerius from 1373, but the appointment probably came soon after Lawrence
was promoted to the rank of archdeacon, which occured sometime after 1369 and before 1371, although the exact
sources confirming this are lacking. CDC XIV, 499-500, March 10, 1373.
986
The list of canons from 1378 list Primicerius Buciardo in first place, while the archdeacon and the archpriest are
not mentioned. Ančić, “Registar Splitskog kaptola,” 73-4, October 12, 1378; CDC XVI, 379-80, July 7, 1383.
987
Rismondo, Pomorski Split, 65, July 1, 1369; CDC XIV, 322-4, April 23, 1371.
988
Lucić, Povijesna svjedočanstva I, 652; Ančić, “Ser Ciprijan Zaninov,” 51-52; Kuzmanić, Splitski plemići, 91-2;
Novak, Povijest Splita, 265-6.

197
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

administer the properties of the Church and replace the bishop in leading the diocese,989 it is
possible that Hugolin kept the position vacant on purpose. Instead, the archbishop relied on vicars,
particularly on pampering Lawrence with new possessions and privileges. Lawrence was not only
from the right family but, when promoting him as the primicerius, the archbishop stated that
Lawrence was an expert in canon law (in iure canonico multipliciter imbutum). Therefore, it cannot
be a coincidence that Lawrence was mentioned in sources for the first time as the archdeacon
during months when his relatives were banished from the city. Cyprian, exiled to Zadar, appeared
accompanying his brother, Archbishop Hugolin and Bishop Stephen of Duvno during a case
dealing with the monastery of Saint Chrysogonus, when Lawrence issued an official protest on the
behalf of the archbishopric.990
The Cypriani family therefore had ties with the royal court, through contacts made by the
head of the family, Janin, and Lawrence was a key figure in intertwining the interests of his family
and the archbishopric. Although Lawrence died in July 1372, another family member was
introduced into the cathedral chapter a canon.991 The Cypriani family's connections to the
archbishopric and the royal court could help to explain the curious and short-lived bishopric of
Narenta (Narona), established during the 1360s in order to expand the influence of the
archbishopric to the territories south of Split and which followed the economic interests of the
Spalatine elite and royal court. In addition, this bishopric could have been intended to settle
problems which Archbishop Hugolin had in this region with the bishop of Makarska.

IV.4.1. The Old and New Suffragans

The bishopric of Makarska, and connected with it, the bishopric of Duvno, were two
suffragans of Split, whose origins were somewhat obscured. Historians were mostly divided in
CEU eTD Collection

trying to pinpoint the exact years when these bishoprics were established in the fourteenth century.
Less contested were the reasons for their creation, since they expanded the influence of the
archbishopric and the family of Šubići to the east and south of Split. With the weakening of the
Šubići, the bishops of Duvno and Makarska often had problems with their secular neighbours, who

989
Barrow, Clergy in the Medieval World, 49.
990
Ser Chibriano, cive et fratre dicti domini archidiaconi Spalatensis. CDC XIV, 322-4, April 23, 1371.
991
He died on 1 July 1372 and was buried in the cathedral. Ostojić, Metropolitanski kaptol, 57.

198
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

wanted to expand their territories to the detriment of these bishops, and with the metropolitan in
Split, who wanted to enforce his control over these bishoprics.992
The Apostolic See had to approve the erection of new bishoprics, but the sources remain
silent on the matter. This is because the three bishoprics of Duvno, Makarska and later Narona,
which appeared in the second half of the fourteenth century, existed already since the Late
Antiquity and were now restored.993 This point is most notable in the charter of Pope Clement VI
(r.1342-52) from 1342, written on the petition of Bishop Valentine of Makarska, regarding the
bishop’s conflict with his metropolitan, Archbishop Dominic of Split. According to the pope, the
archbishops of Split had the right to choose, appoint and confirm bishops of deserted bishoprics,
which was used by Archbishop Peter (r.1297-1324) in rebuilding the bishopric of Makarska.994
What is unclear here is if the privilege was given to Peter, or to some former archbishop of Split.
More information was given in November 1365 when the cathedral chapter gathered to
elect Ladislas of Sana as the bishop of Narenta. The canons cited the privileges given to the
archbishopric by popes Celestine, Pascal and Innocent (not written which ones) to appoint the
bishop-suffragans of Split. The archbishop confirmed the election, but immediately stated that he
cannot consecrate Ladislas iuxta ritum sancte Romane ecclesie because he does not have power to
do so.995 Hugolin’s statement was interpreted by some historians as the archbishop’s opposition,
or reluctance, to those attempts which could lead to carving out of the territory of the archbishopric
into many smaller bishoprics.996 It should be noted that Hugolin did not refuse to consecrate
Ladislas, but that the archbishop stated that he did not have the power to do so. The answer lies in
the changes in the nature of the metropolitan power of confirming suffragan-bishops which was

992
There is no unified opinion regarding the re-establishment of Duvno and Makarska. Various authors suggested its
creation at the beginning of the fourteenth century, as late as 1322/23 and the defeat of Ban Mladen Šubić, or even
around 1330. Kovačić, “Makarska biskupija,” 115-16; Šanjek, Crkva i kršćanstvo u Hrvata, 67; Škegro, Na rubu
CEU eTD Collection

opstanka: Duvanjska biskupija, 122-32; Mandić, “Duvanjska biskupija,” 5-7; Karbić, Šubići of Bribir, 340; Karbić,
“Osnutak duvanjske biskupije,” 125-33; Karbić, “Uloga bribirskih knezova u osnutku šibenske biskupije,” 57.
993
For the earlier periods, see: Mandić, “Duvanjska biskupija,” 1-3.; Škegro, Na rubu opstanka: Duvanjska biskupija,
15-114; Škegro, “Naronitanska biskupija,” 7-34. Duvno, Makarska and Narona were mentioned as parts of the
archbishopric of Split in the confirmation of Peter as the archbishop by Pope Celestine III (r.1191-98). CDC II, 251-
2, March 13, 1192. For the debate about the validity of the charter itself, see: Škegro, Na rubu opstanka: Duvanjska
biskupija, 105-6; Marinković, “Celestine III and Dalmatia,” 179-88. These bishoprics were not mentioned during the
Church synod in Split in 1185, suggesting that they were only included in the title, but not actually occupied by
bishops. CDC II, 192-4, May 1, 1185; Lucić, De regno Dalmatiae et Croatiae, 238.
994
a sede apostolica [potestatem] eligendi seu creandi et confirmandi episcopos in civitatibus seu locis desolates seu
provincie episcopos habere consuetis. CDC XI, 2-3, June 25, 1342; Ostojić, Metropolitanski kaptol, 23. Two years
later Bishop Valentine added that all of this happened some 20 years ago. CDC XI, 160-1, October 1, 1344.
995
Rismondo, “Registar,” 44-5, November 22, 1365.
996
Ančić, Na rubu zapada, 172; Škegro, “Domaće crkvene prilike,” 86.

199
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

by mid-fourteenth century completely usurped by the Apostolic See. Although the chapter of Split
still had the old right to elect suffragan-bishops, especially since extinguished bishoprics lacked
functional cathedral chapters, the metropolitan’s authority to confirm these bishops was reduced
by the papacy. For instance, Bishop Valentine of Makarska was elected around 1320 by the
cathedral chapter of Split and confirmed by the metropolitan archbishop, but his successor John,
elected by the same chapter in 1367, was confirmed by the pope and not by the archbishop.997
When King Louis I (r.1342-82) claimed most of Croatia and Dalmatia in 1358, the entire
region gradually came under royal control. This push further south made it possible to reorganize
Makarska and Duvno, while also paving way to form a new bishopric on the territory of a trade
emporium of the merchants called Narenta.998 The story about these three southeastern suffragan-
bishops from 1358 until the end of the fourteenth century is fragmented and unclear, which stands
in contrast to the fact that the entire area south of Split was under the control of King Louis the
Great (Fig. 11).999 While the bishoprics of Makarska and Duvno were organized at the beginning
of the fourteenth century, the weakening of their protectors the Šubići and the takeover of these
bishoprics by the Bosnian rulers, led these bishops to relocate to other parts of the archbishopric
of Split (Fig. 1). Their moves led to frictions with the archbishops over the diocesan rights and
borders. This quarrelling led to the resignation of Bishop Madius of Duvno (1344) and a series of
disputes during the 1340s between Archbishop Dominic of Split and Bishop Valentine of
Makarska. The two came to an agreement by 1347 by which Valentine had to recognize the
archbishop’s claims, while Dominic promised to financially provide for the bishop and to do
everything he can to help Valentine reobtain his occupied diocese.1000 Dominic soon died and by
late 1351 Valentine was able to use his contacts at the Papal Curia in order to receive the
Benedictine monastery of Saint Stephen under the Pines in Split as a commenda. This grant was
immediately disputed by Archbishop Hugolin, who seized the incomes of the monastery,1001 as
CEU eTD Collection

this ecclesiastical institution was of great significance for both the archbishopric and the

997
CDC XIV, 533-4, July 18, 1373; VMS, 287; Eubel, Hierarchia Catholica I, 319
998
In sources Forum Narenti, while historians call it Drijeva, which is modern day Gabela.
999
The king obtained the land of Hum by 1356 from Ban Tvrtko of Bosnia and Dalmatia by 1358. Duvno was in the
border area between Bosnia and the Kingdom of Hungary-Croatia, while Makarska and Narenta mostly ocuppied the
land of Hum.
1000
See the chapter Archbishop Dominic Luccari of Split (r.1328-48). Also, see: Farlati, Illyricum Sacrum III, 321;
CDC XI, 354-8, March 17, 1347; Klaić, Povijest Hrvata u razvijenom srednjem vijeku, 642-3.
1001
MCV I, 124, August 13, 1351; Ostojić, Benediktinci u Hrvatskoj II, 322. CDC XII, 134-6, November 4, 1352.

200
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

commune.1002 During the war with Venice, the archbishop and the commune decided to closely
supervise the monastery due to the potential mismanagement of it, but it is unclear if this was due
to any actions done by Commendator Valentine or because of the war.1003
Acording to the contemporary chronicler, Cutheis, Hugolin was described as an ideal
bishop. He wore a proper clerical outfit1004 and was the Church reformer who would punish his
suffragans and clerics if they did something wrong. He also reclaimed the properties and the
privileges of his Church.1005 During Hugolin’s time in office the archbishopric was a place of
active work on reviving several abandoned bishoprics, which could be explained by the
archbishop’s reforming zeal, or with his contenious nature. Hugolin himself was a Benedictine
monk with strong inclinations toward the order and its monks which could explain the archbishop’s
bitter conflict with Bishop Valentine over the monastery of Saint Stephen under the Pines. An
inscription from the monastery, dated to 1355, mentioned Bishop Stephen of Duvno, which would
suggest that this bishop was a former monk of the monastery1006 and that the archbishop had
support among the monks. I wonder if the archbishop used or strengthen the support with the
monks by reviving the bishopric of Duvno in order to wrestle the control over the monastery from
Bishop Valentine? Stephen could have been a monk in the monastery and rewarded for his loyalty
to the archbishop with the title of the bishop of Duvno. By 1359 Valentine lost his commenda and
Archbishop Hugolin probably ensured the appointment of Abbot Damian, who assisted Hugolin
in later disputes with some other bishop-suffragans, suggesting alignment with the archbishop.1007
Since King Louis secured the possession of Dalmatia and Hum by 1358, it would be
expected that Valentine returned to his see of Makarska. Instead, the bishop appeared several years
later in Trogir, where he sought the protection of its bishop from Archbishop Hugolin. Nothing is
known about Valentine’s imminent activities after 1359, when he lost the monastery in Split, but
CEU eTD Collection

it is possible that he never returned to Makarska, as the bishopric completely lacked any
ecclesiastical foundation to support the episcopal administration because its bishop was away for

1002
The need to take care of the incomes and possessions of the city’s monasteries, with special emphasis on the
monastery of Saint Stephen, was stated by the Statute of Split, lib. I, cap. 10.
1003
“Zapisnici Velikog vijeća,” 165, December 18, 1357.
1004
This was already defined by the Fourth Council of Constantinople (869-870), which states that monks who become
bishops should keep their monastic habit. Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, 186.
1005
Cutheis, “Tabula,” 196.
1006
At least this was the opinion of Mandić based on this inscription. Mandić, “Duvanjska biskupija,” 18.
1007
Priručnik II, 671, April 3, 1359; MVC I, 132, May 11, 1359.

201
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

more that 30 years.1008 Duvno was, likewise, also a titular position since in December 1361 Bishop
Stephen received a prebend in Split from the archbishop, with the explanation that he was without
his own bishoprics and needed to sustain himself.1009 The above-mentioned suggests that the
unfavourable situation in these bishoprics, and not necessarily the hostility of the archbishop,
prevented the return of these bishops.
Archbishop Hugolin seems to have been persecuting Bishop Valentine until his death in
1367, with the conflict escalating by 1365 when the archbishop was trying to apprehend the
bishop.1010 Since the cathedral chapter of Split gathered in 1365 to elect the new bishop of Narenta,
the dispute with Valentine could suggest that the establishment of the bishopric of Narenta was
maybe intended to sideline unruly Valentine. An archbishop could not replace one of his suffragan-
bishops, as such power was only held by the pope. In addition, the territory of the new bishopric
would seriously diminish the territorial integrity of Makarska. But in 1367 Valentine died and the
chapter of Split proceeded to elect a new bishop of Makarska while Narenta was not mentioned
for ten years.
In 1377 another bishop of Narenta appeared. This was John, the son of George, of Šibenik,
a canon of Split and elected and postulated bishop of Narenta.1011 Even though he was a canon of
the chapter, he was postulated to the Apostolic See, meaning that he needed to receive the papal
approval.1012 It is unclear what impediment John had, or, which was more likely, this became the
norm in the episcopal elections. Judging by his position in the chapter – at the end of the list – he
seems to have been a recent addition and could have been quite young. Does this imply some
disinterest from the archbishop to elect somebody better suited for the position? Unfortunatelly,
nothing can be said from the available sources. It is not a question here if Hugolin wanted or not
to establish a new bishopric, as this can never be fully determined, but how possible was it for the
CEU eTD Collection

archbishopric of Split to expand its influence on the south and east of the city of Split. All the well-
established suffragan-bishops of Split were located to its north, while to the southeast the
archbishopric entered a contested ecclesiastical and political territory as it shared its borders with

1008
Farlati, Illyricum Sacrum, IV, 187 was unaware of what happened to Bishop Valentine after his conflicts with the
archbishop of Split during the 1340s. Ančić, Na rubu zapada, 169. The pope stated in 1367 that Makarska lacked a
cathedral chapter, so the elections of its bishops were carried out by the metropolitan chapter in Split. VMS I, 287.
1009
Rismondo, “Registar,” 14-5, December 28, 1361.
1010
See later in the text about the conflict with Valentine.
1011
don Iohanne de Sibenico, canonico Spaltensi electo et postulato episcopo Naretensi. Ančić, “Registar Splitskog
kaptola,” 51, December 1, 1377.
1012
On postulations, see the chapter on Popes, Bishops and Episcopal Appointments.

202
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

Bosnia and the archbishopric of Dubrovnik (Fig. 16). Therefore, the starting point must be to try
to understand the political, ecclesiastical and social dimensions of the territories which included
Narenta, but also Duvno and Makarska.

IV.4.2. An Attempt to Reorganize the System of Bishoprics

Narenta (Forum Narentii or Drijeva) was a trading center on the river Neretva which
connected the Bosnian traders with the Adriatic Sea, particularly with Dubrovnik and Split. Even
though Narenta and the entire region of Hum were between 1358 and 1382 controlled by the
Kingdom of Hungary-Croatia, the lack of sources makes an adequate explanation for the
establishment of the new bishopric unattainable.1013 Not much is known about the organization of
Narenta itself. After King Louis expanded his rule over the land of Hum, Narenta was ruled by the
local officals of the ban of Croatia, while the city council of Dubrovnik concentrated on increasing
its trading presence. During the 1360s and 1370s the market town was often under pressure by
local Serbian noblemen or Ban Tvrtko of Bosnia, who wanted to control the trade in the city.1014
In 1362 John Nelipčić, the count of Cetina, exchanged his lands with the king for the county of
Hum, where John was recorded as the count until 1372. Did his move in any way affect the
attempts by the clergy of Split to elect the bishop of Narenta? The count was ocassionally hostile
towards the merchants from Dubrovnik, while he had favourable relations with Split, as in 1360
he appeared as a creditor of the commune and later, during the 1370s, married a noblewoman,
whose family was connected to the royal court.1015 The count’s connection to the archbishopric of
Split is unknown. During the election of Ladislas as the bishop of Narenta in 1365, the gathered
canons stated that the new bishop has contacts with the nobility and the royal court. Did they also
mean Count John? Unfortunatelly, the count’s activities in Hum mostly remain unknown, so it is
CEU eTD Collection

hard to say if he supported the new bishopric.

After 1365 there is no news about the bishopric of Narenta for more than a decade. Between
April 1375 and December 1377 John, the son of George from Šibenik appeared as one of canons
in the cathedral chapter of Split, postulated as the bishop of Narenta. From 1378 he was again only
a canon, and while not much is known about John himself, he seems to have only recently join the

1013
About Hum and Narenta, see: Tošić, Trg Drijeva, 43-120; Ančić, Na rubu zapada, 170-72.
1014
Tošić, Trg Drijeva, 50-3, 244.
1015
The marriage happened in 1375. The bride’s father was John Marin de Cindris, who was also one of the royal
knights. Birin, Knez Nelipac, 86-8; Kuzmanić, Splitski plemići, 32; Ančić, Na rubu zapada, 160.

203
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

cathedral chapter.1016 I wonder if the attack on the Bosnian traders, which occurred during 1377
and directly affected the trade that Split had with Bosnia through Narenta, was in any way
connected to the appointment of John as the bishop. The vicecastellans of Sinj, the castellan of
Čačvina and the castellan of Bistrica (Livno), the subjects of the count of Cetina and of the ban of
Croatia, robbed traders who were leaving Split with salt and other goods and returning over
Narenta back to Bosnia. Even the king got involved by proclaiming reassurances to the Bosnian
traders and ordering an official investigation.1017 The appeal to the king was made by the officials
of the royal chamber for salt and thirteeth which was leased out in 1377 to the Cypriani family,
who were assisted by the Papali family. The person in charge of the chamber was Cyprian de
Cypriani, but the official complaint was issued by his father Janini, while the representative of the
chamber sent to investigate the robbery was Matthew Cristoli de Papali.1018
The families of the Cypriani and the Papali had connections to the archbishopric through
the presence of their cadet members in the cathedral chapter. During his time in office, Archbishop
Hugolin relied on the support of the Cypriani family, which was represented through the work of
Lawrence de Cypriani, who was the brother of Cyprian, the controller of the chamber. Although
Lawrence died in 1372, the association between the archbishop and the Cypriani certanly
continued, particularly since another Cypriani, Nichola, the first cousin of Cyprian, appeared in
the cathedral chapter during 1377.1019 In addition, Matthew de Papali’s uncle was most likely
deceased Primicerius Francis (died in 1366), while Matthew’s brother was a canon in the cathedral
chapter, which serves to further emphasize the connections that the officials of the royal chamber
had with the archbishopric of Split. It is possible that the bishopric of Narenta was a joint project
of the archbishopric and some members of the elites of the commune of Split who wished to
expand the commercial and ecclesiastical interest of Split to the areas south of the city. But the
CEU eTD Collection

meager sources do not provide adequate answers to these issues.

The territory to the south-east of Split, where the bishopric of Narenta was located, was a
jurisdictionally problematic area. Here passed the border between the archbishopric of Split and
the archbishopric of Dubrovnik while the river Neretva divided the kingdom of Hungary-Croatia

1016
CDC XV, 117-8, April 12, 1375. Fontes 2014, 51, December 1, 1377; 73-4, October 12, 1378. His earliest mention
is from April 1375, while in October 1378 he was mentioned at the end of the list of canons, which would imply that
he was still among the most recent additions to the chapter.
1017
Ančić, “Registar Splitskog kaptola,” 49-54, May 19, 1377.
1018
Ančić, “Registar Splitskog kaptola,” 53-4, November 15, 1377.
1019
Ančić, “Registar Splitskog kaptola,” 51, December 1, 1377.

204
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

and the Banate of Bosnia. The area was frequented by traders from Dubrovnik and Bosnia, while
the members of the Orthodox and Bosnian Churches operated in the region. But Narenta itself
during the 1390s had a chaplain which was subordinated to the archbishop of Dubrovnik,1020 which
could suggest that the archbishopric of Split lacked local ecclesiastical potential to facilitate a
successful establishment of a new bishopric.
The Franciscans were another important ecclesiastical institution that operated in the wider
area, and who could hamper the establishment of Narenta and the revival of the bishoprics in
Duvno and Makarska. These bishoprics were located in the border territory between the Kingdom
of Hungary-Croatia and the Banate of Bosnia. The Bosnian rulers prefered to support the work of
the Franciscans, who constructed their first monasteries on rulers' lands and whose work gave
Bosnia a degree of independence. At the same time, these rulers prevented the establishment of
the episcopal hierarchy on the territory under their rule, as they were the ones who occupied Duvno
and Makarska in the first place, forcing these bishops into exile.1021 The Franciscans established
the Bosnian Vicariate which spread to the territories of the archbishopric of Split, such as Cetina,
Duvno and Hum, where the order oversaw the spiritual development of the land.1022 During the
later Middle Ages, the Franciscans tried to limit certain episcopal rights, such as the collection of
tithes, either from the bishop of Bosnia or that the archbishop of Split had in Hum.1023 The dubious
relations between the official episcopal hierarchy and the Bosnian Franciscans can be showed on
the behaviour of the Franciscan custodian of Duvno, Friar Philip from Venice. In 1376 he sent five
new recruits to Trogir to be consecrated by the bishop of Trogir, well known for being ready to
disobey his metropolitan archbishop, even though the bishop of Duvno was living in Split.1024

1020
Don Georgio de Derivasto, capellano del merchado de Narenta. CDC XVIII, 22, March 20, 1395.
1021
For more about the relations between the Franciscans and the Bosnian rulers, see: Ančić, Putanja klatna, 105-38;
CEU eTD Collection

Ančić, Na rubu zapada, 207-42.

1022
On the organization of the Bosnian Franciscans and their monasteries on the territory of the archbishopric of Split,
see: Botica, “Franjevački samostan i crkva Sv. Marije u podgrađu Cetini,”, 9-18; Korać, “Franjevci i njihovi samostani
u Humu,” 17-33.
1023
From the bishop of Bosnia: Klaić, Povijest Hrvata u razvijenom srednjem vijeku, 641-2. Prior to 1419 the
archbishop of Split accused the Bosnian Franciscans that they were appropriating the archiepiscopal tithes in Hum
(Chlmia). Čremošnik, “Ostaci arhiva,” 26-9, July 3, 1419.
1024
Ančić, Na rubu zapada, 260, March 2, 1376; Rupčić, “Značenje 'Dubia' fra Bartola,” 68. For a different
interpretation of this charter, see: Škegro, Na rubu opstanka: Duvanjska biskupija, 168. The author uses this example
to support his claim that Duvno did not even have a bishop during this period. Stephen of Duvno was mentioned in
1371 for the last time. He was succeeded by Matthew (r.1375-99) who was also the possessor ac collector at the
monastery of Saint Andrew de Pellago. He was attested regularly in Split, which would suggest that he was unable to
claim Duvno, so he remained in the service of the archbishop of Split. CDC XIV, 324, April 23, 1371; 106, March 5,
1375; Praga, “Testi volgari spalatini,” 63, f.3.

205
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

The inability of the archbishopric of Split to restore the suffragan bishoprics in the
southeastern parts of its metropolitan area can be indirectly assumed from the lack of sources
regarding the three southeastern bishoprics. Bishop-elect George and the bishopric of Narenta were
no longer mentioned after 1377, while Duvno and Makarska were seemingly controlled by one
person. Friar Matthew, who appeared as the bishop of Duvno since 1375, was on ocassions
mentioned as the bishop of Duvno and Makarska.1025 It can only be speculated if the archbishop
tried to manage these bishoprics by uniting them under the control of one person, or if, which is
more likely, these bishoprics remained titular sees.
However, the archbishop of Split cannot be solely responsible for the failure of these
bishoprics. Altough the evidence suggesting pressure from the local nobility and the opposition
from the Franciscans is mostly circumstantial, the entire region was politically and ecclesiastically
problematic with various local institutions which could resist the installation of these bishops. The
bishoprics in the rest of Dalmatia enjoyed long tradition, were supported by their local communes,
and had the institutions in place which would support the bishop’s work, such as the cathedral
chapter. All of this lacked in the cases of Duvno, Makarska and Narenta.

IV.4.3. The Relations with Trogir

Hugolin’s major conflict during his time in office was probably the one with the bishopric
of Trogir as the two dioceses - Split and Trogir - bordered with each other and conflicts often
erupted over properties, tithes and ecclesiastical superiority. The archbishop used the political
changes and the reputation that Split enjoyed following the successful rebellion against the
Venetian rule to receive a temporal control over three deserted villages – Ostrog, Bijać and Radošić
– located on the border with Trogir.1026 This move was unsuccessful as the citizens of Trogir turned
CEU eTD Collection

to the king for support.1027 But, curiously, these villages were given to the archbishopric by the
nephew of John, the royal count of Klis, on the royal mandate. This Count John died shortly after
and was succeded by Ladislas, who ruled Klis as castellanus and appeared in Split as vicecomes

1025
As bishop of Makarska: Ančić, “Registar Splitskog kaptola,” 118, 1385. Mattheo episcopo Mucurensi et
Dalminianensi, vicario archiepiscopi. Farlati IV, 396, 1390.
1026
Ančić, “Od vladarske curtis do gradskoga kotara,” 195-7; CDC, XII., 452.-453, February 9, 1358, confirmed in
March 27, 1358; Klaić, Povijest grada Trogira, 305-6; Gruber, “Dalmacija za Ludovika,” 50-1; Novak, Povijest
Splita, 240-41.
1027
Rački, “Notae,” 234, September 10, 1358; Benyovsky Latin, Srednjovjekovni Trogir, 30; Nada Klaić, Povijest
grada Trogira, 628.

206
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

for several years.1028 His reign marked the beginning of mostly cordinal relations between the
archbishopric and the commune on one side and Klis on the other side, which lasted until 1380s,
despite some ocassional border disputes.1029
Lastly, to justify the grant the archbishop tried to use the donation of these villages by King
Dmitar Zvonimir of Croatia in 1078. Historians tended to repeat Ivan Lucić's undeniable analysis
of these sources as forgery, but the use of these sources should be understood in the institutional
context of the Church. The archbishopric of Split was the repository of social knowledge whose
vast collection of sources meant that it had a long memory. Regardless of their origins, once they
became the archbishops of Split, these prelates worked dilegently on preserving and upholding the
rights of their Church. Cutheis stated that Hugolin was working on reclaiming the properties and
privileges of the Church, but this statement could be applied on most, if not all, fourteenth-century
archbishops of Split. While one native prelate – Dominic Luccari – collected and systemized these
old sources, another, non-native, used them in claiming the disputed border villages.
While the dispute over three border villages with the commune of Trogir subsided,
Archbishop Hugolin was embroiled in a series of disputes with the bishopric of Trogir. These
conflicts reveal that sometimes personal grudges and deep-seated resentment played bigger role in
the relationship between the ecclesiastical leaders than the interests of their local Churches. The
conflict between the bishop of Trogir and the archbishop is known from a series of sources issued
during 13651030 and 1366,1031 when the two episcopal leaders communicated through a series of

1028
From May 1359 Ladislas appeared as the vicar of Split, while from November he was the vicecomes of the city.
“Zapisnici Velikog vijeća,” 236, May 11, 1359; Krekich, “Documenti” III-IV, 72-3, November 30, 1359. The
commune probably wanted to give Ladislas an official position since they were at the time in a dispute with the king
regarding the comes of the city. While the commune wanted to freely appoint its own candidate, the king wanted to
CEU eTD Collection

appoint Nicholas Széchy, the ban of Croatia-Dalmatia. The sources from Split mention Ladislas as either comes or
castellanus of Klis in which positions he was still in October 1362, while he was also the vicecomes of Split in February
1363. How long did he remained in these two positions cannot be said due to the sources. Krekich, “Documenti” III-
IV, 80-1, October 25, 1362; 86, February 27, 1363.
1029
Ladislas’s origins were never explained, but if he was the son of the previous count of Klis called John, Ladislas
could have also been the castellan mentioned in Klis in 1382 (Ladislauo filio Iohannis castellano Clissie). Ančić,
“Registar Splitskog kaptola,” 110, July 8, 1382. King Louis mentioned that during 1367 some minor hostilities erupted
between Split on one side and Klis and Omiš on the other, CDC XIV, 59-60, July 18, 1367. Katić, Veza primorske
Dalmacije kroz kliški prolaz, 293-303. Katić, “Granice između Klisa i Splita,” 187-210.
1030
Lawrence Cypriani, the vicar general of the archbishop, issued a protest in the bishop’s palace in Trogir in
September 1365. Rismondo, “Registar,” 42-4, September 5, 1365.
1031
At the beginning of 1366 the archbishop summoned the bishop of Trogir to Split regarding an unspecified case,
but, instead, the clergy of Trogir authorized several of its members to go to Split and directly question the archbishop’s
jurisdiction in the matter. CDC XIII, 503-10, February 21-22, 1366; Farlati, Illyricum Sacrum, 289-92. CDC XIII,
506-9, February 21-22, 1366; 514-8, March 27-8, 1366.

207
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

representatives. Since these sources track years of communication between the two ecclesiastical
centers and are at time hard to follow, what follows is a short summary.
In 1362 Nicholas Kažotić was appointed as the bishop of Trogir, receiving in the process
a special papal privilege to be consecrated by any bishop and at a place of his choice. Archbishop
Hugolin tried to prevent the consecration by sending summons and posting them on the cathedral
in Trogir. Since this event was only narrated later by a canon from Trogir, it is hard to ascertain
why was Hugolin so fiercly opposed to Nicholas's consecration, as such papal privileges were not
uncommon.1032 Nicholas probably wanted to avoid being consecrated by Hugolin, his spiritual
superior, which would also include the oath of loyalty.1033 Another likely reason could have been
that one of the bishops consecrating Nicholas was Valentine, the bishop of Makarska, who was for
years in conflict with Hugolin. This conclusion can only be inferred from the sources from 1365/66
when the archbishop's representatives were demanding that the bishop of Trogir hands over
Valentine, who was in Trogir working against the archbishop.
It is hard to make out the exact chronology of the relations between Split and Trogir
immediately following Nicholas's consecration. On the basis of the sources from 1365/66 the two
prelates worked against each other, sending letters to the papal legates in Italy, as well as
supporting dissidents from each others diocese. It is probable that these defectors were then
actively working on gathering evidence in order to prosecute either Nicholas1034 or Hugolin.1035
The worsening of the relations between Split and Trogir can be corroborated by the events from
the beginning of 1365 when the clergy of Šibenik appealed to Archbishop Hugolin regarding a

1032
VMS I, 243, March 9, 1362. Compare with similar events. Pope Clement VI appointed John, the abbot of the
monastery of Saint Augustin in the diocese of Bourges as the bishop of Skradin. The bishop-elect was granted
permission to be consecrated by two or three bishops of his choosing. CDC XI, 553-4, November 3, 1349/1350; VMS
I, 225-6; Neralić, Priručnik II, 596. Bishop Paul of Knin, who was the provost of Sibiu before the appointment,
CEU eTD Collection

received permission to be consecrated by two or three bishops. VMS I, 288, August 8, 1373.
1033
Thomas Archdeacon mentioned in mid-thirteenth century how Bishop Columban of Trogir, who was appointed
and consecrated by the pope, offered oath of loyalty to the archbishop. Toma Arhiđakon, Historia Salonitana, 316-7.
1034
In 1366 the representatives of Trogir specifically accused John, the son of Peter, Castrafocus of Trogir on
promoting a case against Bishop Nicholas, accusing John of being a well known conspirator and an excommunicated
enemy of the bishopric. John was frequently mentioned throughout this work in the context of the bishopric of Trogir.
He appears at the archbishop's palace during April 1366, but judging by the accusations from the representatives from
Trogir, John worked for the archbishop for some time. Rismondo, “Registar,” 47-8, April 2-3, 1366; 49-50, April 4,
1366; 52-3, April 24, 1366.
1035
In late 1365 Archbishop Hugolin’s representative demanded that the bishop of Trogir surrender Stephen, the son
of Francis, Sterbini whom the archbishop stripped off his rank and took away his prebends in April-May 1363. Stephen
was in prison for some time, after which he escaped and took shelter at the episcopal curia in Trogir where during
1365 was involved in finding witnesses to prove certain misconducts of the archbishop. Similarly, during 1365
Valentine was working on an appeal to Cardinal Andruin, the papal legate in Italy, against Hugolin. Rismondo,
“Registar,” 29-30. April 16, 1363; 32-3. May 16, 1363; 42-4. September 5, 1365.

208
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

border dispute with Trogir.1036 The result of the case is not known, but the immediate reaction of
the bishop and the chapter of Trogir was to challenge the archbishop's jurisdiction in the case by
appealing of a higher ecclesiastical authority.1037
By the end of 1365 Cardinal Andruin, the papal legate in Italy, tasked Archbishop Hugolin
to investigate a case against Bishop Nicholas of Trogir. The archbishop selected Abbot Damian of
the monastery of Saint Stephen under the Pines and Canon Lawrence, the archiepiscopal vicar, as
delegated judges. Nicholas was prosecuted according to the canon if anyone, having been
persuaded by the devil,1038 which refers to instances when an assault occured upon an ecclesiastic.
The text explaining the event was damaged, but it was in some way connected to the Benedictine
monastery of Saint John the Baptist in Trogir. The use of canon Si quis, which called for an
immediate excommunication for an assault on a member of the clergy, would suggest that there
was an attack by the bishopric – ordered by Bishop Nicholas - on the abbey of Saint John, or at
least on its representatives.
Was the archbishop deliberately working on diminishing the prestige and financial power
of Trogir, while exacting revenge against Bishop Nicholas for not taking his consecration in Split,
for which the archbishop was accused by the clergy from Trogir? When reviewing the available
sources a more nuanced image is formed regarding the relationship between the episcopal office
and the person of the bishop. It shows how quickly the relations between Split and Trogir
deteriorated in the period between 1362 and 1366 and that the two prelates were even accepting
each other's exiled clergymen who then proceeded to work on bringing down their former
superiors. Most of the accusations against Hugolin are known from the appeals by the clergy of
Trogir, which they sent at the beginning of 1366. They disputed the archbishop's jurisdiction,
accusing him of being biased towards the bishop of Trogir, holding grudges and stating that the
CEU eTD Collection

archbishop was excommunicated two times, which diminished his authority and dismissed his
jurisdiction over the case. Although the claim about excommunication is correct and Hugolin

1036
Regarding the tithe in the villages of Dubravica: Nevest, Koprno, Partemišić and Unešić (decimis de Dobravis et
specialiter super decima villarum Nevest, Coparno, Bartemiscih et Unescichi). Previously, the royal representatives -
Bishop Stephen of Nitra, Ban Nicholas Széchy and John de Bradeseth – reviewed the case and decided in favour of
Trogir ordering eternal silence (perpetuum silentium) to the bishopric of Šibenik regarding this question. CDC XII,
607-8, August 22, 1359; Farlati, Trogirski biskupi, 275.
1037
CDC XIII, 418-20, January 12, 1365.
1038
Si quis suadente diabolo huius sacrilegii uicium incurrerit, quod in clericum uel monachum violentas manus
iniecerit, anathematis uinculo subiaceat, et nullus episcoporum illum presumat absoluere, nisi morte urgentis
periculo, donec apostolico conspectui presentetur, et eius mandatu suscipiat. About this part of the canon law, see:
Helmholz, “Si quis suadente,” 426-38.

209
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

probably quickly sought or received absolution,1039 it should be noted that it was not hard to
become excommunicated during the fourteenth century, as the papal representatives would quickly
excommunicate those who failed to pay ecclesiastical taxes or place entire communities under an
interdict.1040 The representatives of Trogir stated that the archbishop was excommunicated by
Legate Andruin and on the instigation by the bishops of Trogir and Makarska. This occured
sometime during 1365 and it is curious that the same legate then, by the end of the year, ordered
the archbishop to investigate a case in Trogir, regarding the bishopric, and another one in Zadar.
These orders suggest that Hugolin was able to quickly obtain absolution, while the legate, probably
used to excommunicating clerics, quickly retained the services of an important prelate in Dalmatia.
In addition, the knowledge about Hugolin’s excommunication was preserved and actively used as
an accusation against the archbishop by the clergy of Trogir, specifically intended to depreciate
the archbishop’s authority.
Furthermore, the representative of Trogir accused the archbishop of bias against Trogir, of
unjustly extending the archbishop's jurisdiction over Trogir and of never performing any visitation
of the bishopric. Unfortunately, it is hard to ascertain if the archbishop performed or not his
visitations to Trogir. Maybe he did not perform those visitations himself, but instead sent others
as the archbishop certainly had a house in Trogir which was also used by papal representatives.1041
But the accusation has a certain merit. No sources were preserved which show if Hugolin ever held
any provincial synods during his time in office which stands in stark contrast to his predecessor
Dominic for which a number of direct and indirect source materials are preserved, showing that
he held regular synods.
The determination with which the archbishop pursued the dispute with Bishop Valentine
of Makarska and the bishop of Trogir could be attributed to personal reasons. Although the
CEU eTD Collection

archbishop approached the mandates by papal legates responsibly, he did have certain favourites,
while delegating or avoiding minor cases. He usually subdelegated duties issued to him by the

1039
CDC XIII, 470, October 12, 1365.
1040
For instance, in December 1378 Bishop Chrysogonus of Trogir was automatically excommunicated for failling to
pay the papal tithe on time. He was absolved as soon as he paid it. CDC XV, 417-9, December 18, 1378.
1041
in domo predicti archiepiscopi Spalatensis. CDC XII, 337, April 4, 1356.

210
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

papal representatives,1042 unless tasks involved Benedictine monasteries.1043 As a Benedictine

monk himself, the archbishop seems to have especially valued the Benedictine monastery of Saint
Chrysogonus in Zadar.1044 When the donation of the village Suhovare to the convent was
questioned in 1371,1045 the defense was lead by Paulus de Paulo, a nobleman from Zadar, and
Archdeacon Lawrence Cypriani, the archiepiscopal vicar. Although in the past the archbishop
would leave these types of cases in the hands of his competent advisor, this time he accompanied
the vicar, together with some important members of the commune of Split and the high-ranking
representatives of the Church of Split which shows the importance of the event.1046
The position of the archbishop of Split with his suffragans, as seen on the example of
Trogir, worsened due to the personal aversion between the high-ranking prelates of the province
as well as due to the involvement of the Apostolic See. The papal involvement diminished the
archiepiscopal jurisdiction as it placed additional limitations to situations when the archbishop
could exert his authority. Now, in order to perform his traditional archiepiscopal duties of
inspecting and correcting his suffragans, the archbishop had to receive a madate from a papal
legate. But, the archbishop’s subordinates could constantly use a threat of an appeal to the
Apostolic See as means of diminishing the archiepiscopal authority and jurisdiction.

1042
Rollettus, a cleric from Lausanne, was sent alone to Trogir to collect procurations for Cardinal-Legate Egidius
Albornoz, even though Hugolin was also representative of the legate. CDC XII, 385-7, January 3, 1357. When certain
Cleric Paul Crisani from Zagreb brought some papal letters in his favours asking for the archbishop's support, Hugolin
stated that he was too busy and instead appointed the abbots of Saint Chrysogonus in Zadar and Saint Stephen under
the Pines in Split as his procurators. CDC XIII, February 28, 1360. It is not entirely clear what the mandate was since
the papal letter was not included in the appointment, but it was probably connected to Paul's supplication to the pope
CEU eTD Collection

for a benefice in the archbishopric of Zadar from 1359. Bossányi, Regesta supplicationum II, 358, May 18, 1359.
1043
When Legate Albornoz tasked the archbishop to assess the incomes of the three Benedictine monasteries in the
archdiocese of Zadar, the archbishop personally went to Zadar. His task was to assess the monasteries of Saint
Chrysogonus, Saint Mary and Saint Cosmas and Damian so they can pay the 25th part of their incomes for the legate's
procurations. CDC XIII, 7-9, February 11, 1360.
1044
In October 1365 Cardinal-Legate Andruin gave an order to the archbishop of Split to investigate a complaint by
the abbot of the monastery of Saint Chryogonus in Zadar regarding a dispute with Archbishop Nicholas Matafari.
CDC XIII, 470, October 12, 1365.
1045
The monastery of Saint Chrysogonus was introduced into the possession of Suhovare in 1358, in a same fashion
in which the archbishop of Split received some villages on the border with Trogir. The abbot was invested by
Archpriest Stantius of Nin and Ladislas, the son of Percy de Lapcich, who represented the king. CDC XII, September
8, 1358.
1046
The envoy included Lawrence’s brother Cyprianus and Theodosius, the important citizens of Split, as well as
Francisco de Labrancha, the nephew of the archbishop, and Bishop Stephen of Duvno, another trusted assistant of the
archbishop. CDC XIV, 322-4, April 23, 1371.

211
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

IV.4.4. The Archbishop and the Commune: Resignation

The air of instability brought about by the Western Schism and the problematic last years
of King Louis’s reign, as well as the king’s death, were felt in Split. During 1383 the papal
subcollectors for Rome operated in Dalmatia and encountered problems in Split.1047 While the
subcollectors received the first installment in April,1048 when they reappeared in July for another,
the clergy of Split asked for a postponement for the payment of the tithes, which was approved.
The clergy citied war damages, famine, spread of diseases and the heretical activities of Walter
from England, which prevented the regular collection of tithes.1049 Not much is known about his
activities so, instead, Miroslav Brandt attempted to recreate the social movements and the religious
context of fourteenth-century Europe, without going into much detail about the situation in Split,
as the author lacked local sources.1050
But some additional information, presented here in the appendices, should be pointed out.
The unpaid tithe from July refered to the unpaid taxes from the period of Pope Gregory XI (r.1371-
78).1051 That the chapter was in arrears is corroborated by the fact that at the beginning of
September 1383 the canons paid another 60 ducats, the same as in April, while at the end of
September the chapter appointed one of its members to discuss the issue of tithes with the
subcollectors, probably with the aim of another postponement.1052 The sources do not provide
additional information about the heretical activities and natural occurences, but the war damages
are more easily deduced. They appear to relate to the war between a group of allies and Venice,
which resulted in the peace of Chioggia (1378-81). Although they lost the war, the Venetian navy
proved its naval superiority and inflicted damages to the coastal communes of Dalmatia.1053
Additionaly, Roman Pope Urban VI (r.1378-89) introduced a new tithe to combat the increasing
expenditures created by the schism. But he also demanded the collection of any missing tithe from
CEU eTD Collection

the previous periods, as the pope was keen on extracting as much money as possible from all the

1047
Vivian appointed Thomas as the subcollector for Zadar, Split, Dubrovnik and Antibar. CDC XVI, 327-9,
December 1, 1382; 346-9, February 24, 1383.
1048
CDC XVI, 360-1, April 27, 1383.
1049
The amount requested was 60 ducats. CDC XVI, 379-80, July 7, 1383; Listine V, 347-8, July 7, 1383.
1050
Brandt, Wyclifova hereza i socijalni pokreti u Splitu, 217-31.
1051
CDC XVI, 386-7, September 2, 1383.
1052
CDC XVI, 393-5, September 22, 1383.
1053
Klaić, Povijest grada Trogira, 317-23; Novak, Povijest Splita, 266-71; Brunelli, Storia della città di Zara, 501-4.

212
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

dioceses in his obedience, so the apology of the canons of Split could relate to their reluctance to
pay the past papal taxes, rather than to their inability to do so.1054
The financial problems for the archbishopric occurred more frequently during and after
1384, when the archbishopric had problems in collecting its tithes in Klis and Livno, as the two
counts of these forts were preventing the archbishop from collecting tithe. Were their actions
connected in any way with the activities of Walter from England or did the archbishop act more
aggressively in collecting the payments in order to pay the papal subcollectors? Nothing of the sort
can be suggested, but these castellans were royally appointed so their actions could be connected
to the growing weakness in the effective royal control. The two queens, who inherited King Louis’s
realm – his underage daughter Mary, and her mother Elizabeth as the regent –, were faced with
growing dissent from the nobility of the kingdom. For instance, the archbishop issued a complaint
to Queen-regent Elizabeth, who responded in January 1385 with an order to the ban of Croatia-
Dalmatia to force the two counts to pay tithes.1055 Since the bans – the symbol of royal authority
on the local level – were at the time changing every several months1056 it is unclear how successful
was the royal mandate.
What is evident is that the archbishop tried to rely on the support of the central government
in the issues of conflicts with local lay authorities. Besides turning to the queen for help, the
archbishop also used spiritual punishments. A month earlier, in December 1384, the archbishop
excommunicated the two castellans of Bistrica, who were accused of obstructing the collection of
tithe in the area of Livno.1057 The castellan of Klis was not mentioned, so it is unclear if he was
also excommunicated. Maybe he was removed in the meantime or the source was not preserved.
Maybe the archbishop did not want to escalate the problems by excommunicating the castellan.
But a conflict soon erupted between Klis and Split.
CEU eTD Collection

1054
CDC XVI, 280-3, May 1, 1382; Ančić, “Registar Splitskog kaptola,” 243-4, [no date]. Vivian, the papal
subcollector issued an order to the bishops of Dalmatia to prepare the required money. Ančić, “Registar Splitskog
kaptola,”, 244-6, May 6, 1383.
1055
CDC 16, 491-2, December 7, 1384; Ančić, Putanja klatna, 265, January 10, 1385.
1056
The royal order was issued in January 1385. The ban for that month was Thomas Szentgyorgy (May 1384 –
January 1385), but just several weeks later, the ban was Stephen Lacković of Čakovec (February – March 1385), after
which a new ban, John Kaplai, was mentioned for several months (March – October 1385), before being replaced by
Nicholas Gorjanski, who was more pressed with the task of running the kingdom, than in administering his banate.
Engel, Magyarország világi archontológiája, 24.
1057
Hugolin ordered the primicerius and the canons to excommunicate the two castellans, Ladislas Martin and John
Popi. Farlati, Illyricum Sacrum III, 330-1, December 7, 1354; CDC XVI, 491-2.

213
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

At the beginning of 1385 Hranko, the archpriest of the parish of Klis, was mentioned in
sources as also being a canon of Split. Very little is known about the personnel of the rural parishes
of Split to suggest if it was usual for the canons to also serve as parochial archpriests, or to have
the local archpriests appointed to the cathedral chapter. Maybe his appointment suggests an action
from the part of the archbishopric to better connect the parish with the center in Split.
Hranko was mentioned among witnesses in the investigation regarding an attack from
February 1385 when four leaders of the community of Klis gathered supporters and attacked the
villages of Kuk (Colch) and Križ (Crix).1058 These villages, located on the borders between Split
and Klis were in 1359 granted to Split by royal mandate. The attack directly affected the
archbishopric, since these villages were among the important ones where the archbishops collected
considerable tithe.1059 This supposition can be backed by the appearance of the ecclesiastical
personnel from Split in Klis during the investigation. Canon John, the son of George, was there on
official business, tasked by Peter, the son of Crestol de Papali, the rector of Split, in the official
duty of the cathedral chapter as a place of authentication. Present were also Hranko, the archpriest
of Klis, and Bishop Matthew who appears as the person of trust at the archiepiscopal curia. The
appearances of Hranko and Matthew underlines the importance that the attack from Klis had for
the archbishop, but also shows the changes that Hugolin introduced in managing his diocese.
All these events caused considerable problems for the archbishopric since in July 1385 the
clergy of Split received another postponement of payment of the papal tithe,1060 after which no
sources are available regarding tithe until the 1390s. In the meantime, the entire province of
Dalmatia was embroiled in the rebellion against the royal court, whch was further worsened by the
invasion of King Tvrtko of Bosnia, who attempted to seize the cities of Dalmatia between 1387
and his death in 1391. The tithe was probably not collected since during 1390s the subcollectors
CEU eTD Collection

gathered the arrears from the 1380s as well as the new tithe. The preserved sources reveal that tithe
was again collected after Tvrtko’s death but that the amount paid by Split was meager. At one
point the subcollector gave up and decided to forgive the payment, citing that the entire

1058
On 3 February Iuan filius Ligmani, Dobrin voeuoda populi Clissiensis et Milgost Radinich bandifer cum multis
de populo Clissie da mandato et speciali commissione Nicole olim filii Volchxe Slaucich iudicis Clissie. Ančić,
“Registar Splitskog kaptola,” 118-9, March 18, 1385.
1059
Katić, “Selo Kučine,” 146.
1060
Carrara, Archivio capitolare, 27, July 1, 1385.

214
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

archbishopric suffered considerably due to the wars in Dalmatia fought between the supporters
and opponents of the royal court in Buda.1061
In mid-1387 King Tvrtko I of Bosnia started his military operations in order to conquer
Croatia-Dalmatia. One of the first places which surrendered to the Bosnian army was Klis, in July
1387.1062 It seems reasonable to assume that the cause of this was the detoriated relations that Klis
had with the archbishopric and the commune of Split. With the fall of Klis, Split was endangered,
which also meant that most, if not practically all, revenue sources of the archbishopric were in
danger. This is the context in which the ensuing conflict between the commune and Archbishop
Hugolin should be observed and which culminated in Hugolin’s resignation by June 1388.1063
The dispute is only known in fragments. The commune sent its representatives in January
1388 to King Sigismund, to ask for help against the Bosnian army, to seek privileges, but also to
ask for royal mediation with Pope Urban VI. The pope was asked to transfer the archbishop to
some place outside of the kingdom and appoint a new archbishop who would “live in peace and
without quarrel with the commune.”1064 The request was repeated in June 1388 by another
communal envoy, who informed the king about the political situation in Dalmatia, while
petitioning the king to influence the pope to promote Hugolin somewhere else.1065
It is unlikely that Hugolin sided with the Bosnian king against his commune.1066 In 1387
the cathedral chapter prepared authorized copies of the grants made to the archbishopric of Split
by the old Croatian and Hungarian kings.1067 The copies were probably intended to be used to
protect the properties and the privileges of the archbishopric from outside attacks, maybe from the
Bosnian king or from the commune. Instead, the reasons for a quarrel shoud be looked for in the
economical impoverishment which led to Hugolin’s more dubious behaviour which can be showed
in some very revealing sources.1068 In one of his letters to various institutions in Split in 1390,
CEU eTD Collection

1061
In previous periods the archbishopric of Split paid around 60 ducats or even 120 ducats per year, but during the
1390s the sums varied between 10 and 30 per year. Fifteen ducats were collected in 1392. CDC XVII, 468-70, October
29, 1392. In 1394 the total sum was 30 ducats while the rest was forgiven by the papal subcollectors because of the
war with Bosnian rulers. CDC XVII, 617-9, September 8, 1394. During 1395 the collectors received 20 ducats
compared to only 10 ducats in 1396. Carrara, Archivio capitolare, 29, October 7, 1395; 29, June 10, 1396.
1062
Novak, Povijest Splita, 276.
1063
Eubel, Hierarchia Catholica I, 459.
1064
CDC XVII, 124-27, January 19, 1388; Novak, Povijest Splita, 278-80.
1065
CDC 152-4, June 10, 1388; Lucić, Povijesna svjedočanstva II, 746-747
1066
This possibility was suggested by Kovačić, “Utemeljitelj Kaštela Sućurca,” 186.
1067
ASN (S), 20, f 26, 51. Ostojić, Metropolitanski, 112.
1068
The impoverishment of the clergy of Split can be observed on the example of Cleric Thomas, the son of Peter,
who, pressured by poverty and hunger, went to Venice. For leaving his diocese without the permission from his

215
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

Roman Pope Boniface IX stated that Hugolin had valid reasons for resignation without specifying
the reasons for it.1069 The pope ordered the new abbot of Saint Stephen under the Pines to
investigate the alienation of properties which occured during the reign of the Archbishop Hugolin,
while the commune was asked to assist the new archbishop in maintaining a steady income from
tithes.1070 While it cannot be stated who seized the properties of the Church, it is probable that the
pope meant the archbishop’s encroachment on the monastery itself. Sometime during 1387,
following the death of Abbot John the archbishop seized some properties of the late abbot which
were estimated to 1000 ducats. The monastery’s significance for the commune and the cathedral
chapter was already shown earlier, so the archbishop’s move provoked negative reaction from the
commune.
The popes were keen in collecting the spoils, that is the movable property left after the
death of a cleric, a collection that was highly unpopular.1071 Money-starved papacies of the schism
were especially attentive not to leave any sum, no matter how large or small, go to waste.1072
Therefore, the decision of the pope to the commune to seize the funds of the Benedictine monastery
and pass it over to a papal subcollector is understandable, but it seems that the commune
understood the order as a papal permission to attack the archbishop.1073 A later note by Pope Martin
V (r.1417-37) points to the conclusion that a violent conflict erupted between the commune and
the archbishop. In 1426 the commune petitioned the pope to absolve its citizens from
excommunication for capturing Archbishop Hugolin and which occurred some 40 years ago, so
around the year 1386.1074 Around the time when the archbishop resigned, Canon Duymus was

spiritual superior, the cleric was excommunicated by Archbishop Andrew, Hugolin's successor. Kovačić, “Utemeljitelj
Kaštela Sućurca,” 187, August 25 [no year].
1069
Ančić, “Registar Splitskog kaptola,” 140.
CEU eTD Collection

1070
Ančić, “Registar Splitskog kaptola,” 37, 37a, 37b, Confirmation on May 1, 1390, while the papal letters are from
February 11 (to the abbot) and March 1 (to the commune). Also: CDC XVIII, 265-6, March 1, 1390.
1071
Stump, Reforms of the Council of Constance, 57-8; Favier, Les finances pontificales.
1072
See for instance a situation when the pope issued an order to the commune of Trogir to give 300 ducats, left after
the death of Bishop Ulia (or Dessa) of Trebinje-Mrkanj, to the papal collector Vivian. CDC XVII, 12, March 29, 1386.
Earlier, the former archbishop of Zadar, Dominic Thopia left 12000 which the Apostolic Camera collected. Eubel,
Hierarchia Catholica I, 142.
1073
CDC XVII, 82-83, August 10 1387; VMS I, 338-9.
1074
It seems that the petition related to a series of conflicts, all resulting in excommunications, that the commune had
with Hugolin, his successor Andrew and then Pisan Pope John XXIII. Farlati, Illyricum Sacrum III, 369, January 6,
1426. Some citizens arrested Hugolin and transferred him under the control of the cardinal of San Ciriaco. Eubel,
Hierarchia Catholica I, 459. The name of Angelo given in the source is incorrect, because the cardinal of San Ciriaco
was Niccolò Caracciolo Moschino, who was mentioned during 1386 as the papal legate for Hungary, Poland, Dalmatia
and Croatia. CDC XVII, 38, October 26, 1386.

216
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

authorized to submit some unspecified money to the papal subcollector. This could have been the
money disputed between the commune, the pope and the archbishop.1075
It should be added that in 1388 Archbishop Hugolin was probably at least 70 years old,1076
so he was an old man who spent his last years seeing his diocese embroiled in internal crisis which
seriously diminished his archiepiscopal authority and revenues. Hugolin’s episcopal carreer, which
started with pomp and splendour depicted in his adventus to his diocese, ended in conflict with the
commune which forced him to submit his resignation to the pope. He seems to have provoked
contrary opinions – being accused of corrupt behaviour by the clerics from Trogir and being
extolled as an ideal archbishop by an anonymous contemporary writer from Split. But these
opinions should be observed within the context of disputes between Trogir and Split, and the
feeling of pride that the citizens of Split had for their archbishopric. Hugolin’s style of
archiepiscopal government reflected his origins and past experiences. It seems that he administered
his diocese more as a nobleman and a Benedictine monk, than as a cleric. He was vain and
vindicative, but also shrewd politican, capable of establishing good contacts with the influential
members of the local urban and royal nobility. His time in office certainly had its ups and downs,
as the archbishop seems to have been much more interested in keeping strict control over his own
archdiocese of Split than in administering his entire metropolitan area.
CEU eTD Collection

1075
Farlati, Illyricum Sacrum III, 331-2, 1388.
1076
According to the canon law, a cleric had to be at least 30 years of age for episcopal appointment to be valid.
Hugolin was appointed in early 1349, so in 1388 he was at least 69 or 70 years of age.

217
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

Chapter V. Ecclesiastical and Political Instability (c.1380-c.1420)

The period between the early 1380s and the late 1410s saw the division of Christendom
into two obediences following the problematic papal election of 1378. The cardinals, gathered in
Rome, elected Urban VI (r.1378-89) as the new pope. But, through the scheming of the French
and Neapolitan royal courts, the French-oriented cardinals left the Papal States and instead elected
Clement VII (r.1378-94), who settled in Avignon. With the election of the two popes by the same
electoral body the Church entered a protracted period of a crisis of authority which was felt from
the top to the bottom.1077
The fracture within the Catholic Church greately diminished the authority and power of the
bishops, who depended on the papal Curia for authority, promotion and support. As was shown
earlier, already by the end of the Avignon papal period, the local communities in Croatia-Dalmatia
started to resist bishops installed from outside, while the local rulers, particularly the kings of
Hungary-Croatia wanted to directly influence the episcopal appointments. At the same time,
Venice underwent major reforms in order to better control the office of the bishop. With the
schism, the authority and incomes of the popes were severly diminished, leaving the Apostolic See
unable to resist mounting pressure from secular powers, particularly in regard to providing
episcopal appointments to those individuals with strong secular backing.
In order to understand changes in the office of the bishop, it is necessary to consider the
ramifications of the papal rupture of 1378. The political leaders, motivated by a combination of
legal, practical, personal, or spiritual reasons, soon aggravated the situation by declaring for either
of the candidates. Due to the political and spiritual orientation of King Louis, the Kingdom of
Hungary-Croatia backed the Roman candidate.1078 Part of the reason was the decision by Queen
Joanna I of Naples to back the Avignon pope, which Louis used as a reason to revive the old plans
CEU eTD Collection

1077
The literature about the Schism is extensive and it is difficult to list all the important works. Selected works deal
with various aspects such as the outbreak of the Schism, validity of papal elections and its consequences on the papal
and episcopal authority. Brandmüller, “Zur Frage nach der Gültigkeit der Wahl,” 3-41; Canning, Ideas of Power, 165-
91; Blumenfeld-Kosinsi, Poets, Saints and Visionaries, 31-59; Lange, “Urban VI. und Clemens VII.,” 31-74; Rollo-
Koster, “Civil Violence and the Initiation of the Schism,” 9-65; Ullmann, Origins of the Great Schism, 29-147;
Williman, “Schism within the Curia,” 29-47.
1078
The king's piety, his connections to Emperor Charles IV and the dispute with Naples all played a role in the
decision. Engel, Realm of St. Stephen, 173. For why different polities opted to choose either Avignon or Rome, see:
Partner, Lands of Saint Peter, 367-75; Harvey, Solutions to the Schism, 9-49; Millet, L'Eglise du Grand Schisma;
Hledíková, “Papacy of the High and Late Middle Ages,” 101-13.

218
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

to have his cousin, Charles of Durazzo, take the Neapolitan throne. The former duke of Croatia
and Dalmatia was able to seize Naples with the backing of Roman Pope Urban VI.1079
But the sudden death of King Louis in 1382, the succession of his daughters – Mary in
Hungary and Jadwiga in Poland –, and often arbitrary reign of Queen-mother Elizabeth (1339-87)
and Palatine Nicholas Gorjanski (1325-86), resulted in dissatisfaction from the parts of the nobility
and prelates. Those with prior contacts with Duke Charles started to openly support his claim to
the throne of the Kingdom of Hungary-Croatia and by the end of 1385 were able to temporarily
install him as the next king. But Charles’s reign was short lived as the new king lost his life in a
plot carried out by the supporters of the queen-mother and the palatine. Their success was also
temporary as they in turn were ambushed while en route to Dalmatia by Charles’s supporters. The
palatine and the queen-mother lost their lives while Mary was held captive and the kingdom was
in the grips of an all-out rebellion against the throne. Mary’s captivity enabled her fiancé,
Sigismund of Luxembourg (r.1387-1437), previously sidelined by the queen-mother, to seize the
throne, liberate Mary with the help of the Venetian fleet and lead the fight against the rebels.1080
The participants in this power struggle to control the kingdom were, despite occasional
shifts in allegiances, set for the period between 1386/87 and 1408/09. The period started with an
open rebellion against the royal court and Sigismund’s coronation as the new king, while it has
subsided with Sigismund’s military successes in quelling the remaining opposition, only to see the
loss of a part of his kingdom, namely Dalmatia, through a back-door scheming.
Sigismund’s opponents were local prelates and the nobility, focusing on the southern parts
of the kingdom, who had ties with the Neapolitan Angevin branch of the family. The major rebels
were the Horvati brothers led by Bishop Paul of Zagreb (r.1379-86). But the rebels were openly
aided by the nearby Bosnian rulers and nobility, who in turn also sought to expand their own
CEU eTD Collection

domains. For instance, King Stephen Tvrtko of Bosnia (1339-91) officially supported the rebels
but was also able to gain important fortresses in Croatia and to pressure most of the Dalmatian
cities in recognizing him as the king.1081

1079
Casteen, From She-Wolf to Martyr, 196-248; Cutolo, Re Ladislao I, 1-59.
1080
For more details about these events, see: Engel, Realm of St. Stephen, 195-202; Klaić, Povijest Hrvata, 225-70;
Sághy, “Aspects of Female Rulership,” 69-86; Petrovics, “A Horváti-lázadás és Pécs,” 285-91; Süttő, “Der
Dynastiewechsel Anjou-Luxemburg,” 82-6; Fügedi, Könyörül, bánom, könyörülj, 34-138; Bárd, Aristocratic Revolts,
1-61; Petrović, “Political Career of Bishop Paul of Zagreb,” 22-39; Engel, Szent István birodalma, 167-78.
1081
Lovrenović, Na klizištu povijesti, 41-3; Klaić, Povijest grada Trogira, 324-35; Brunelli, Storia della città di Zara,
504-8; Petrovics, “A Horváti-lázadás és Pécs,” 285-91.

219
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

After Charles’s demise, the rebels supported his underage son, Ladislas of Naples (1377-
1414), as the next king. The boy-king was met with opposition on all sides in Naples, which meant
that he was unable to adequately focus on helping his supporters in Hungary and Croatia. The king
was opposed by Roman Pope Urban VI, who schemed on seizing Naples for himself. The pope
initially supported Charles of Durazzo but then excommunicated the king and his entire family.
But the opposition of the Roman pope did not mean that Charles or Ladislas sided with Avignon,
since Clement VII already had an Anjou candidate of his own to the throne. The fight between two
fathers - Charles and Louis I of Anjou (1339-84) - and two sons - Ladislas and Louis II (1377-
1417) - marked the history of Naples for the upcoming decades.1082
Ladislas’s position greatly improved following the death of Pope Urban VI and with the
election of Pietro Tomacelli, a cardinal from Naples, as Pope Boniface IX (r.1389-1404). The new
pope quickly assessed the situation in which Louis II was working on expanding the influence of
the rival Avignon papacy, while the Roman Curia depended on the financial and military support
of its traditional vassal of Naples.1083 Parts of the kingdom were already controlled by Louis II and
his partisans, so the pope fully backed Ladislas and authorized Cardinal Angelo Acciaouli to crown
him as the king of Naples in May 1390. The problems in Naples as well as the dominant presence
of King Stephen Tvrtko meant that Ladislas had very limited involvement in the rebellion in the
Kingdom of Hungary-Croatia. Despite the frequent trips by the rebel nobility and prelates to the
king to inform him about the situation in the kingdom, Ladislas was kept on the sidelines. This
changed around the time of the royal coronation and the death of King Tvrtko in February 1391.
Afterwards Ladislas became more involved by confirming two Hrvatinić brothers, Vuk Vukčić
and Hrvoje Vukčić, as the bans of Croatia and Dalmatia.1084
When it came to Hungary-Croatia, Pope Boniface IX was probably in a very difficult
CEU eTD Collection

position, having to balance between two opposing rulers. From Rome, the pope oversaw a
diminished Christendom which included parts of Italy, parts of the Holy Roman Empire as well as
the kingdoms of Naples, Poland and Hungary-Croatia. Most of the papal administration remained
in Avignon, while the attempts by the Roman popes to reorganize its chancery were met with

1082
Tuchman, Distant Mirror, 398-415; Cutolo, Re Ladislao I, 35-148; Partner, Lands of Saint Peter, 370-79.
1083
Masson, “Les princes Valois d’Anjou et le Grand Schisme d’Occident,” 71-81; Esch, Bonifaz IX, 10-11, 40;
Cutolo, Re Ladislao I, 61-148; Baddeley, Charles III, 1-18; Petrović, “Politicized Religion,” 41-2.
1084
Barone, “Notizie raccolte dai registri” VII, 509, 1391; Lovrenović, Na klizištu povijesti, 67; Hoensch, Kaiser
Sigismund, 53-4; Šišić, Vojvoda Hrvoje, 82-3.

220
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

setbacks, as constant political instability hindered the preservation of papal registers, so some
source materials for Croatia-Dalmatia for this period, such as bull of episcopal appointments or
tax records, are missing. The core territories of the Roman popes, despite being larger that the ones
owned by Avignon, proved to be a substantial drain on the papal finances and the popes were
actively reforming their reign in these provinces and organizing them as vicariates.1085 This meant
that the Roman Curia needed every bit of support it could muster in order to fight the Avignon
papal pretender. Boniface needed Ladislas’s finances and troops, but he had to consider the interest
of Sigismund and his Luxembourg family. Sigismund was the king of Hungary-Croatia, while his
half-brother Wenceslas was the king of Bohemia and the emperor of the Holy Roman Empire.
Combined, the brothers controlled large territories within the Roman obedience. They also used
the favourable contacts with Pope Urban VI in order to install another member of the family, John
of Moravia, as the patriarch of Aquileia (r.1387-92). Aquileia had a strong geopolitical position,
which gave the Holy Roman Empire easy access to Italy and to Rome. Although, it should be
added that relations between Sigismund and Wenceslas were fickle, ranging from brothers trying
to undermine each other’s rule to sometimes providing support in case of rebellions.1086
The uneasy position in which the Roman Curia found itself, between the courts of Hungary
and Naples, could be detected in the inactivity of Cardinal Angelo who became, together with
Ladislas’s mother Margaret, a co-regent for Ladislas. The young king granted lands to his
supporters in Kingdom of Hungary-Croatia, therefore to those also subordinated to Sigismund,
and these grants were confirmed by co-regents. But the cardinal was either mentioned as absent
(hinc absentis), or completely omitted, suggesting that he was never present during the deciding
and grant writing process, preserving the neutral position of the pope.1087
The relations between Boniface and Sigismund must have been uneasy, but this is not
CEU eTD Collection

reflected in sources which show, to a degree, the papal policy of appeasement to the king. Most of
the time when the king wanted to remove a bishop and appoint his own candidate, the pope would
approve the request. In addition, during the 1390s the king complained to the pope about the attacks

1085
Favier, Les finances pontificales, 624-88; Esch, Bonifaz IX, 453-565; Partner, Lands of Saint Peter, 378-83; Rollo-
Koster, Avignon and its Papacy, 239-86; Zutshi, “Continuity and discontinuity,” 285-92.
1086
Cutolo, Re Ladislao I, 250-1; Schmidt, John of Moravia, 1-12; Zacchigna, “Il patriarcato di Aquileia,” 91-113;
Paschini, Storia del Friuli; 115-34; Esch, Bonifaz IX, 354-98; Hoensch, Kaiser Sigismund, 64-118.
1087
CDC XVII, 364, June 15, 1391; 373, July 17, 1391; 374, July 17, 1391;376, July 17, 1391; Same sources in Rački,
“Izvadci,” 29-35; Also: CDC XVII, 456-8, October 10, 1392; 460-2, October 15, 1392; 462-5, October 19, 1392; 466-
7, October 28, 1392; Rački, “Izvadci,” 37-41, October 19, 1392; 41-2, October 28, 1392; Rački, “Pokret na
slavenskom jugu,” II, 117-9.

221
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

of the Ottomans and the rising heresy and Manichaeism in Bosnia. The king wanted to receive
spiritual sanction, masked as a crusade, for his military activities against the pro-Neapolitan
Bosnian nobility, to which the pope consented. Similary dubious was the papal gathering of
crusaders in Croatia, Dalmatia and Slavonia in order to fight Louis of Anjou and the Avignon
popes while those areas were still partly rebelling against Sigismund. But the pope supported the
royal campaign against the Ottomans, which resulted in the defeat at Nicopolis, by issuing a call
to gather crusaders for the upcoming crusade from the territories subordinated to the archbishopric
of Salzburg, Treviso and the patriarchate of Grado, including Venice.1088
King Sigismund was a capable ruler, matching his thirst for power with his ability to
mobilize a variety of resources. What characterised Sigismund’s politics toward the Kingdom of
Hungary-Croatia was his often ambivalent approach. As a member of the family of Luxembourg,
whose father was the Holy Roman emperor, Sigismund was more interested in the European great
power politics, trying to gain foothold in Germany.1089 He did recognize the seriousness of the
Ottoman advance, and planned accordingly, but instead of defending his border territories, he spent
most of his resources on trying to gain influence in Bohemia. However, the king did recognize that
his major opponent to the south was the Bosnian nobility, which prevented attempts to intervene
in Croatia and Dalmatia and which cooperated with Ladislas of Naples. The death of King Stephen
Tvrtko and Sigismund’s constant attacks led to the weakening of the Bosnian rulers who were
often just figureheads controlled by powerful barons. Duke Hrvoje Vukčić Hrvatinić, a Bosnian
nobleman, often changed sides between Ladislas, Sigismund and the Bosnian kings in order to
expand and strengthen his position, becoming one of the key local players during this period. His
importance and role are the most glaring examples of the troubled relations between the Bosnian
nobility and the Hungarian court. The story was always similar: the king would stage several
attacks on Bosnia, the nobility would submit to the king’s demands, but soon the king would leave
CEU eTD Collection

and the opposition to Hungarian claims in Bosnia would rise.1090

1088
CDC XVII, 409-10, December 18, 1391; Lovrenović, Na klizištu povijesti, 69; CDC XVII, 594-6, June 3, 1394;
ZsO I, n. 3489; Rački, “Pokret na slavenskom jugu” II, 146-9; Bárány, “Sigismund of Luxemburg and the
preparations,” 153-78; Engel, “Ungarn und die Türkengefahr,” 55-72; Pálosfalvi, From Nicopolis to Mohács, 55-64;
ZsO I, n. 3662-4, October 15, 1394; n. 3681, October 30, 1394; Malyusz, Sigismund in Ungarn, 131-2; Setton, Papacy
and the Levant I, 343.
1089
Incze, “Pledge Policy of King Sigismund,” 87-110; Malyusz, Kaiser Sigismund in Ungarn, 49-59; Hoensch,
Kaiser Sigismund, 64-118.
1090
Filipović, Bosansko kraljevstvo i Osmansko carstvo, 133-90; Isailović, “Living by the Border,” 105-17;
Lovrenović, Na klizištu povijesti, 76-118; Ančić, Na rubu zapada, 202-33; Engel, “Zsigmond bárói,” 420-1; Engel,
“Neki problemi bosansko-ugarskih odnosa,” 57-72.

222
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

By the end of the 1390s the royal power in the kingdom was weakened by the defeat at
Nicopolis, new extraordinary taxes and the continuous royal absence from the kingdom. The
dissatisfied nobility also worked on undermining Sigismund position by conspiring with Ladislas
of Naples. Around 1400 the Dalmatian cities became the battleground between the supporters of
Sigismund and Ladislas. The center of the anti-Sigismund policy was Zadar where the nobility
became dissatisfied with his reign and what they perceived as royal injustice against them.1091
Between 1401 and 1403 the king was even imprisoned in Visegrád and Siklós and then
released, while the kingdom was ruled by the prelates and noblemen who formed the royal council.
The rebels invited Ladislas of Naples, who was by 1399 able to defeat his opponents in Naples, to
take the crown. Ladislas landed in Zadar in 1403 where he was crowned king, but his local allies
were all defeated by Sigismund’s supporters or accepted royal pardons. Being unable to fully
defeat each other, Sigismund controlled Hungary and Slavonia, while Ladislas, together with his
Bosnian allies, was contained in Dalmatia. This meant that the border areas between the two rulers,
Croatia and Slavonia, were constant battlegrounds.1092
The conflict was both local and European. Roman Pope Boniface IX officially committed
to Ladislas’s attempt to claim Hungary-Croatia by assigning the king the collection of
ecclesiastical tithes of the Neapolitan churches. Cardinal Angelo Acciaioli was appointed as the
legatus a latere with the task to help Ladislas recover the kingdom of Hungary (circa
recuperacionem regni Hungarie).1093 The pope also recognized the title of Rupert of the Palatinate
(1352-1410), who was elected as the King of Germany. This was done in order to widen the
conflict against Sigismund, whose half-brother Wenceslaus, the king of Bohemia and Germany,
was previously deposed by the German electors.1094 Sigismund responded by breaking all contacts
with the Roman Curia.1095
CEU eTD Collection

1091
Ančić, “Od tradicije ‘sedam pobuna’ do dragovoljnih mletačkih podanika,” 43-96; Dokoza, “Tragom jedne
Brunellijeve priče,” 97-115.
1092
Burkhardt, “Ein Königreich im Wandel,” 407-37; Ančić, “Od tradicije ‘sedam pobuna’ do dragovoljnih mletačkih
podanika,” 71-7; Engel, Realm of St. Stephen, 209-28.
1093
Cutolo, Re Ladislao I, 250-58, April 23, 1403; VMH II, 172-74, June 1, 1403. The popes of the Schism regularly
used the ecclesiastical tithes in order to aid lay rulers or to buy their support. Stump, Reforms of the Council of
Constance, 58-9; Esch, Bonifaz IX., 398.
1094
Rupert, Count of Palatine, was elected in 1400 after the electors dethroned Wenceslas IV. Büttner, Der Weg zur
Krone, II, 447-76; Hoensch, Kaiser Sigismund, 94-114.
1095
The king ceased all contacts with the Roman Curia in Bohemia and Hungary on 9 August 1403. Göller, König
Sigismunds Kirchenpolitik, 5.

223
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

With the death of Pope Boniface IX, King Ladislas's relations toward the Roman papacy
changed. Instead of cooperating with the popes, Ladislas wanted to dominate the Curia. King
Sigismund used the oportunity to reconnect with the Apostolic See and worked on obtaining the
support of Roman Pope Gregory XII (r.1406-15) to call the planned campaign against Bosnia in
1408 a crusade. Similar was the situation with the Pisan popes. The Council of Pisa (1409),
convened to settle the Schism, produced another contender to the papal see. Pisan Pope John XXIII
(r.1410-15) was also pressured by Ladislas's expansion so he hoped for Sigismund's military
support. But the pope often turned a blind eye to Sigismund's demands regarding the ongoing
conflict with Venice and the need to heal the Western Schism.1096
Sigismund defeated the Bosnian forces in 1408, resulting in the quick erosion of Ladislas’s
position in Dalmatia. The Neapolitan king responded to the changed political situation by selling
his remaining cities and forts, concentrated around Zadar, to Venice in 1409. The period between
1409 and 1420 was marked by hostilities between Venice and Sigismund, but the king's attention
was constantly drawn to other important issues. Prior to 1409 the king attempted to obtain the
Republic’s support in order to persuade Roman Pope Gregory XII, to whose obedience both
Hungary and Venice belonged to, to discuss the solving of the Western Schism. While the
Venetians were fortifying their newly acquired position in Dalmatia, the king was working on
becoming the Holy Roman Emperor, in which he succeeded by 1411. Besides Dalmatia, the two
powers clashed in Friuli, the home of the patriarch of Aquileia, which served as a border region
between the Holy Roman Empire and Venice. The Senate of Venice tried to block the appointment
of hostile patriarchs in Aquileia and aimed at fostering favourable relations with the Church and
the cities of the Patriarchate of Aquileia, all in the name of securing safe trade routes through
Friuli. Sigismund was able to use his imperial position and reactivate the system of imperial vicars
CEU eTD Collection

in Northern Italy as well as prior contacts with the local lords, with interest in controlling the
Aquileia, in order to install a favurable new patriarch.1097
By 1413 Venice was able to conquer Šibenik, while Sigismund’s army prevailed in Friuli.
The stalemate led to the five-year peace treaty. Sigismund wanted to concentrate on strengthening
his reign and convening a council, intended to settle the Western Schism, while the Venetians used

1096
Petrovics, “Bishops William of Coppenbach and Valentine of Alsán,” 303-11; Erdö, “Papacy and the Hungarian
Kingdom,” 63-8.
1097
Girgensohn, Kirche, Politik und adelige Regierung, I, 78, 280-308; Wakounig, Dalmatien und Friaul, 47-124;
Paschini, Storia del Friuli, 275-308; Kondor, “Absente rege,” 122-3.

224
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

this period to consolidate their positions in Dalmatia for the inevitable new conflict. The new war
broke out in 1418 and by 1420 the Venetian forces were able to overrun the royal armies and claim
all of Aquileia, Split and Trogir. Even though the hostilities with Sigismund continued, the entire
Dalmatia, apart from Dubrovnik, was now controlled by Venice and permanently lost for the
Kingdom of Hungary-Croatia.1098 The ecclesiastical issues only helped to aggravate the already
problematic political situation. During this period both the lay rulers and the popes attempted to
control the episcopal office. But the Western Schism had considerable influence on the relations
between the bishop and his community, which is explored in more detail in the next chapters.

V.1. Reforms, Rebellions and Curial Work – Peter Matafari of Zadar (r.1376-1400)

On 5 May 1376 Pope Gregory XI responded to what was probably a series of petitions by
King Louis the Great to have the royal candidates installed to various bishoprics in the kingdom.
One such position was the appointment of Peter Matafari, the parish priest of Saint Stephen, as the
archbishop of Zadar.1099 After his appointment, Peter went to Avignon where it was established
that he lacked some lesser clerical orders, for which a dispensation was granted. 1100 His lack of
lesser orders led to the development of an idea, recently repeated in the newest edition of the
Croatian Lexicon,1101 that Peter was too young to be appointed archbishop and that he reigned for
eight years without being consecrated. The entire narrative is based on Daniele Farlati’s
interpretation of the available sources at his time.1102 Farlati was such an authority on the subject

1098
Klaić, Povijest Hrvata III, 53-117; Šunjić, Dalmacija u XV stoljeću, 47-65; Kovács, Zsigmond király és Velence,
143-96.
1099
VMS I, 311, May 5, 1376; CDC XV, 205-6; Priručnik I, 368.
1100
VMS I, 317-8, August 29, 1376.
1101
Grbavac, “Matafar, Petar,” 461; Nikolić Jakus, Formation of Dalmatian Urban Nobility, 110-1.
CEU eTD Collection

1102
Daniele Farlati suggested that Peter was too young to administer his church, instead being consecrated as the priest
and the bishop in 1383-84. Farlati, Illyricum Sacrum V, 99-101. He based his claim on the interpretation of on an
event recorded by Paulus de Paulo. Paul noted that on 15 March 1384 the archbishop left for Rome. On 25 February
1385 the archbishop returned to Zadar. On 9 April the archbishop decided to celebrate a new or young mass (missa
novella) in the cathedral of Saint Anastasia. Paulo, Memoriale, 8-9. This young mass was taken to mean that Peter
was only consecrated in 1384 and that he oversaw the Church of Zadar without consecration. This was supported by
Nada Klaić and Ivo Petricioli who claimed that the appointment of Peter was a political act of the Angevins and that
the pope broke ecclesiastical rules for the dynasty’s sake. Klaić and Petricioli, Zadar u srednjem vijeku, 362. Even if
Peter was too young, which is not clearly expressed anywhere in the sources, the pope had the right of postulation
meaning that those who are not of required age or are members of the religious orders could obtain the papal approval
to become archbishops. On the other hand, Brunelli was against this interpretation, claiming that Peter was already a
parish priest so he held the young mass before, and that Paul note probably meant that he celebrated silver mass (for
25 years of being a priest). (Brunelli, Storia della città di Zara, 490-1). But, if he was a priest, why was it necessary
to ordain him in lesser orders?

225
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

that the modern authors tended to ignore sources unavailable to Farlati but which were published
since the second half of the nineteenth century. Namely, Peter’s representative, Primicerius
Bartholomew of Zadar successfully petitioned the pope for the pallium, the symbol of the
archiepiscopal authority, which was granted to the archbishop, together with the consecration, by
his bishop-suffragans of Krk and Osor.1103
The other major claim by Farlati, that Peter was appointed on the instigation of Charles of
Durazzo, who was at the time the duke of Croatia-Dalmatia (c.1371-c.76),1104 can only be
reinforced. No direct sources exist to confirm Farlati’s claim, but it should be stated that Peter’s
appointment came through royal intervention. His uncle Nicholas Matafari was also the archbishop
and the family supported King Louis's actions in claiming Dalmatia from Venice back in the
1350s.1105 Peter also actively worked on behalf of the king. In 1380 the king sent the archbishop
of Zadar and magister Serene as his representatives to Šibenik, with the task of organizing the
supplies for the army during the war with Venice.1106
Peter had good contacts with the royal court, but the connections which he gradually built
with the Roman Apostolic See came to play a more important role in his episcopal career. Shortly
after becoming the archbishop, Peter quickly made an agreement with Bishop Bernard, the papal
collector, regarding the collection of the papal tithe in the archbishopric of Zadar. This deal was
then approved by the pope.1107 Curiously enough, despite his rich family background, he was
reluctant to fully pay for his appointment, but it does not seem that this issue in any way
deteriorated the contacts between Peter and the Apostolic See.1108
The reason for the papal lenience toward Peter was probably in some way the result of the
Schism. Following the Western Schism and the split between Avignon and Rome, the working
papal administration remained in Avignon, so the Roman popes had to build up the system almost
from scratch.1109 Between March 1384 and February 1385 the archbishop was absent from his
CEU eTD Collection

1103
VMS I, 323, March 21, 1377; 325, April 20, 1377.
1104
Farlati, Illyricum Sacrum V, 99; Engel, Magyarország világi archontológiája I, 18, 23-4, 84.
1105
Peter’s brother Guido was a royal knight. Klaić, Povijest Hrvata u razvijenom srednjem vijeku, 633; Nikolić Jakus,
Formation of Dalmatian Urban Nobility, 58.
1106
Šibenski diplomatarij, 146, February 26, 1390.
1107
CDC XV, 306-8, August 1, 1377; VMS I, 326-7. The clergy would pay it in August and February for the first
year, and on the same dates for the second year (in augusti primum et in februarii Kalendis mensium secundum
terminum esse volumus primi anni, et similiter in anno secundo similibus terminis observatis).
1108
He promised to pay 400 florins for his servitia in May 1376, and in March 1377 he paid 100 florins. MVC I, 203,
May 14, 1376, 201, March 23, 1377.
1109
Favier, Les finances pontificales, 141; Partner, Lands of Saint Peter, 373.

226
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

diocese as he went to the Papal Curia in Rome.1110 While it is certain that he did not go there to
receive a consecration, no sources exist to explain what Peter was doing there. More sources are
preserved for Peter’s second visit to the Curia between 1396 and 1400. Pope Boniface IX appointed
Peter as a vice-rector in the March of Ancona.1111 There he was tasked to help Andrew Tomacelli,
the brother of the pope, who was assigned to govern the Vicariate of Ancona, one of the biggest
provinces of the Papal States.1112 It is probable that Peter’s first visit to the Curia was in some way
connected to the need of the Roman popes to fill in its administrative gaps, which became acutely
vacant after the outbreak of the Schism. Peter then benefited from connections that he established
earlier and received an important position. He remained in papal service as he was barred from
returning to his diocese by King Sigismund.
The royal dissatisfaction manifested itself in 1397. While the king was returning from the
disastrous battle of Nicopolis (1396), he stopped in Knin in the beginning of 1397. There he
ordered to ten Zaratin noblemen to appear in front of the king and explain their involvement in the
previous rebellion (1386-94) and the death of Queen-mother Elizabeth (1387).1113 It is unclear why
the king decided to investigate the older events. Maybe while he was in Croatia and Dalmatia, he
received some new information, or he used these events in order to settle disputes with the local
nobility which at the time appeared disloyal to the king. Anyhow, the king soon issued an arrest
warrant for the archbishop, his brothers Guido and Louis and their supporters, suggesting that they
did not appear or that they were viewed as guilty.1114 While Peter was not present in Zadar at the
time, but was for several months already in the Papal States, the brothers had to escape Zadar.
Curiously, they did not go to Naples or Venice but to other cities of Italy: Guido went to Padua
where he had nurtured friendship with Bolognese jurist Bartolomeo da Saliceto, while Louis went
to Bologna where he was appointed as a podestà.1115 The king even went further by ordering the
CEU eTD Collection

general council of Zadar not to mention the archbishop in the public charters, which resulted in

1110
Paulo, Memoriale, 8-9, March 15, 1384 - February 25, 1385.
1111
Esch, Bonifaz IX, 167, 530. Peter served in this position from 18 July 1396 until 3 August 1398. vicerector
generalis in temporalibus and reformator in spiritualibus, July 18, 1396; reformator in spiritualibus, August 3, 1398;
Praga, Storia di Dalmazia, 149.
1112
Partner, Lands of St. Peter, 376.
1113
Šišić, Vojvoda Hrvoje, 115-6.
1114
Paulo, Memoriale, 24, February 3, 1397. Granić, “Kronološki pregled povijesti zadarske nadbiskupije,” 234-5;
Farlati, Illyricum Sacrum V, 108; Brunelli, Storia della città di Zara, 515-6.
1115
Praga wrote Jacopo. Since there was no such person, he probably meant Louis. Praga, Storia di Dalmazia, 149.

227
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

only the king’s and the count’s name being mentioned.1116 The king’s accusation justifies a closer
look at the archbishop’s activities in the past decades.
Following the death of King Louis, the Dalmatian cities were obliged to pledge allegiance
to the new ruling queens, Mary and her mother Elizabeth. The city council of Zadar did this in
October 1382, while Archbishop Peter was sent, together with two other noblemen, as an envoy
to the royal court to express the allegiance of Zadar to the queens.1117 With the outbreak of the
revolt in 1386 the city council of Zadar officially supported Queen Mary and then King Sigismund,
but a number of citizens nurtured connections with the Bosnian nobility and the Angevins of
Naples. Zadar was the capital of Charles of Durazzo during his period as the duke of Croatia-
Dalmatia so he probably maintained a strong network of supporters among the local elites. In
February 1387 the city of Zadar became a major gathering place of the nobility which opposed
Queen Mary and King Sigismund. After the meeting, a group of Zaratin nobility and Bishop Paul
of Zagreb were dispatched to Naples to inform Ladislas, the son and the successor to his father
Charles of Durazzo, about the situation in the kingdom.1118 The sources are silent about the position
of Archbishop Peter towards the rebels and his relations with Bishop Paul, who was one of the
main instigators of the rebellion. However, it is unlikely that the two important prelates did not
meet and discuss the situation in the kingdom, but nothing more can be said.
While King Tvrtko was expanding his power by seizing the Dalmatian cities, Zadar was
hard pressed to accept his rule, which provoked disagreements among those members of the
nobility which supported either Tvrtko or Sigismund. These disputes are reflected in a number of
allegiance pledges which were undertaken in the city council between 1390 and 1391, often in the
presence of the ecclesiastical leaders. The nobility would forgive each other for unspecified
offenses and injuries and would swear allegiance to King Sigismund and Queen Mary. This
CEU eTD Collection

suggests that the nobility fought against each other, either in favour of King Sigismund or in favor
of his Neapolitan and Bosnian opponents.1119 Particularly interesting is the event from 1391, which
was overseen by the spiritual authorities, namely Archbishop Peter Matafari, Abbot Chrysogonus
de Soppe of Saint Chrysogonus and Abbot Damian Fridrich Georgi of Saints Cosmas and Damian.

1116
Paulo, Memoriale, 24, September 24, 1397.
1117
CDC XVI, 322, October 10, 1382; Paulo, Memoriale, 5; Brunelli, Storia della città di Zara, 504; Rački, “Pokret
na slavenskom jugu,” I, 100.
1118
Petrović, “Political Career of Bishop Paul of Zagreb,” 22-39; Engel, Realm of St. Stephen, 169-70.
1119
Paulo, Memoriale, 12, December 23, 1388; 14-5, May 24, 1390; 15, January 19, 1391; Klaić and Petricioli, Zadar
u srednjem vijeku, 362-5; Dokoza, “Damjan Bivaldov,” 115.

228
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

The council members vowed on the relics of Saint Chrysogonus, the most important patron saint
of Zadar, to keep the peace, unity and fidelity toward the king and the queen of Hungary.1120
In the middle of the political and ecclesiastical problems, the archbishop carried out major
reforms in his archbishopric. He reformed the collegiate church on the nearby island of Pag by
establishing a chapter of priest which was led by an archpriest. The reasons for the reform were
probably to satisfy the growing discontent of the clergy on Pag, who wanted larger autonomy. This
was reflected in an event from 1392 when the archpriest and the chapter of Pag consecrated the
church of Saint Lucia, without asking the archbishop for a permission.1121 The dispute, which
lasted for years, fuelled the growing dissatisfaction of the community of Pag with their
subordination to the commune of Zadar. The commune installed its own magistrates in Pag, while
the Zaratin nobility exploited the saltworks on the island of Pag. The combination of ecclesiastical,
economic and political reasons led to a rebellion on Pag during March 1394.
The dissatisfaction was growing for years, but now a new request was added, namely to
proclaim Pag its own bishopric.1122 The response from Zadar was fierce and its brutality in
suppressing the rebellion was noted by the contemporary, Paulus de Paulo.1123 The clerics were
given to the archbishop of Zadar, since they were under his jurisdiction, while the laymen were
either executed or tortured. King Sigismund ordered in 1395 that the goods of the churches of Pag,
taken to Zadar, be returned and the imprisoned priests be released from the archbishop’s prison,
which meant that they spent over a year in prison.1124
Since King Sigismund was able to overcome the rebellion in the kingdom by mid-1394, he
set upon to stabilize the situation in the kingdom by dispatching representatives to settle local
disputes. A council of Croatia-Dalmatia was convened in Nin in 1396 during which it was decided
CEU eTD Collection

1120
Paulo, Memoriale, 15, January 19, 1391; Farlati, Illyricum Sacrum V, 102; Klaić and Petricioli, Zadar u srednjem
vijeku, 359. For the use of relics in the political and symbolic purposes, see: Vedriš, Hagiography as memory, 223-4.
Also, see earlier the chapter on Cults and Cathedrals.
1121
Granić, “Kronološki pregled povijesti zadarske nadbiskupije,” 233; Klaić and Petricioli, Zadar u srednjem vijeku,
359-62; “Isprave u Arhivu,” I, n. 1102. D-VIIa-55; CDC XVII, 567-71, January 18, 1394.
1122
Throughout the fourteenth century, the community of Pag often sided with the Venetian authorities against Zadar,
which led the Venetian Senate to separate Pag from Zadar. When King Louis claimed Dalmatia, he subordinated Pag
back to the commune of Zadar, but the nobility of Zadar harassed the citizens of Pag. Their actions caused the king to
take Pag away from Zadar for 11 years (1361-72). Granić, “Paško-zadarski odnosi,” 287-98; Klaić and Petricioli,
Zadar u srednjem vijeku, 293-6.
1123
Paulo, Memoriale, 19, March 20, 1394. Paul's writings are the main source for these events. Klaić, Izvori za
hrvatsku povijest, 252-3; Klaić and Petricioli, Zadar, 370-1; Granić, “Paško-zadarski odnosi,” 295. About Paulus, see:
Jakić-Cestarić, “Obiteljska pripadnost zadarskog kroničara,” 267-85.
1124
Paulo, Memoriale, 20, June 15-6, 1395; Granić, “Paško-zadarski odnosi,”, 295-6.

229
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

that Pag would become an independent commune. But Sigismund always needed money, so a year
later the king tried to entice Zadar to buy back Pag. The royal offer resulted in a swift action
between the nobility and the clergy in Zadar, as every nobleman and all churches were collecting
money to meet the royal demands. In the end, nothing came out of it, but even with the absent
archbishop, who was in Ancona, there was a considerable coordination between the ecclesiastical
and communal authorities.1125
The second major change was the archbishop’s reform of the cathedral chapter of Zadar
enacted between November 1393 and July 1395.1126 It is unclear why the chapter was not reformed
earlier by some of the previous archbishops. In the reform of the chapter in Trogir in 1329, it was
stated that the reason for the reform was so the canons could sustain themselves from their
benefices, but the unstated reason was to give the bishop a stronger control over the chapter. Was
this the case in Zadar? The evidence for such a claim is circumstantial. The archbishop stated that
the church was neglected over the years and devoid of canons and prebends, so now he wanted to
reform it by instituting a cathedral chapter with twelve canons. Earlier in 1305 the cathedral had
16 clerics, while now in 1393 it was down to 9, which shows that the numbers of clergymen were
diminishing, but not that the church was completely abandoned as the archbishop suggested.
During the meeting of the clergy in 1393 four out of six major churches lacked rectors – in
comparison, during the meeting in 1305 all six rectors were accounted for -, which raises the
question if Archbishop Peter withheld the appointment and confirmation of rectors in order to have
less opposition when reforming the chapter? In the past the opposition of the clergy prolonged the
decision-making process in the diocese, which was shown on the example of the negotiations prior
to 1305. The powerful rectors were also inciting the population against Cardinal-Legate Gentile,
when he tried to reform the archbishopric in 1308.1127 Presumably, by establishing a cathedral
CEU eTD Collection

chapter, with fixed numbers and obligations, the archbishop wanted to limit the influence of these
rectors and their clergy in the issues of the archbishopric. In their place the archbishop would have
a direct control over and support of a smaller chapter. But this question cannot be answered
directly.

1125
Brunelli, Storia della città di Zara, 515-6.
1126
Ponte, Historia ecclesiae Iadrensis IV/2, 192-9; CDC XVII, 555-6, November 17, 1393; Farlati, Illyricum Sacrum
V, 7-8, 102-3.
1127
See earlier chapter on The legate and the bishopric.

230
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

The reform came mere months after the conflict between Gregory, the rector of the church
of Saint Mary the Great and the archiepiscopal vicar, and Abbot Chrysogonus de Soppe of the
Benedictine monastery of Saint Chrysogonus. Accompanied with his retainers, the abbot entered
the rector’s church and verbally and physically attacked him. Gregory excommunicated
Chrysogonus who had to petition Roman Pope Boniface IX for absolution.1128 Since 1350 Gregory
was the rector of one of the major churches of Zadar and for many years held the office of the
archiepiscopal vicar and papal subcollector for Zadar and Dalmatia. He served under three
archbishops of Zadar and had considerable influence over the archbishopric. For instance, during
the episcopal vacancy in 1367 he was the treasurer of the archbishopric. Unfortunately, it is unclear
if his status came because of his efficacy or due to his position within the clergy of Zadar - or
maybe both -, but for forty years he held some of the most important positions in the archiepiscopal
administration. Gregory was not mentioned in November 1393, during the reform of the chapter,
which would suggest that he died shortly before.
While the sources do not allow a precise insight into the everyday workings of the
archdiocese, during the 1370s the local nobility exerted pressure on the important ecclesiastical
institutions of the archbishopric in order to ensure the ecclesiastical appointments of the members
of the local elites. The Zaratin nobility pressured Archbishop Dominic Thopia to be transferred to
Bosnia, while a member of the local nobility, Peter Matafari, became the archbishop. Some
circumstantial evidence suggests that Peter used his new position in order to place the members of
the Zaratin nobility, connected to the Matafari family, to important ecclesiastical positions in the
diocese.1129 For instance, in 1377 Abbot John, a Frenchman, was forced to resign, and Thomas
Rosa was appointed as the abbot of the monastery of Saint Chrysogonus. After his death in 1391
Chrysogonus de Soppe was appointed as the abbot. In that way the major ecclesiastical positions
in the archbishopric were held by the noble families of Matafari, Rosa and Soppe.1130 Chrysogonus
CEU eTD Collection

himself was a former monk of the monastery, who in 1377 intruded into the monastery of Saint

1128
CDC XVII, 502-3, May 10, 1393.
1129
Pope Urban VI authorized Demetrius, the administrator of the archbishopric of Esztergom and the cardinal-priest
of Santi Quattro Coronati, to find a suitable person for the position of the abbot of the Benedictine monastery of Saint
Cosmas and Damian near Zadar. Prior to issuing this order, the pope stated that Frederic Georgis from Zadar was
willing to leave the Franciscan and join the Benedictine order. He should be appointed as the abbot, if no suitable
candidate was found, which soon happened. CDC XVI, 291-2, June 23, 1382; 331-3, December 16, 1382. As the
Matafari, the Georgis family also came to support the claim of the Neapolitan Angevins to the throne of Hungary-
Croatia. Nikolić Jakus, Formation of Dalmatian Urban Nobility, 58-9, 135.
1130
About the Rosa family, see: Klaić and Petricioli, Zadar u srednjem vijeku, 345, 382, 417, 437-8, 443-5; Nikolić
Jakus, Formation of Dalmatian Urban Nobility, 143-4.

231
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

Chrysogonus, which led to the resignation of Abbot John.1131 Since nothing happened to
Chrysogonus back then and mere 14 years later he obtained the papal appointment as the abbot
clearly shows that he had backers in places of power. One of them was Archbishop Peter who
probably protected Chrysogonus in 1377, influenced his appointment in 1391 and absolution by
the pope in 1393. Abbot Chrysogonus was a quarelsome prelate, prone to violent outbursts, relying
on the support of his family and willing to break the established norms.1132 His personal traits and
loyalty to the archbishop explain why Chrysogonus was willing to act as the archiepiscopal vicar
during the episcopal power vacum between 1397 and 1400, when Peter Matafari attracted the royal
ire and was prohibited from returning to Zadar.
As mentioned, Archbishop Peter was active in Ancona on behalf of the pope. It is unclear
what actions Sigismund undertook to have Peter removed. During September 1397 the king
ordered the city council to omit the archbishop from the city charters.1133 By April 1398 a new
archbishop, John Farcasti, was mentioned in Zadar.1134 Later in October he was mentioned during
the gathering of the cathedral chapter, the clergy and the rectors of Zadar as the archbishop-
elect.1135 It was suggested in the historiography that John was appointed on the instigation of King
Sigismund. Unfortunately, this claim cannot be verified.1136 If John was Sigismund’s candidate,
why did the king side with the cathedral chapter in their dispute with the archbishop-elect in
February 1399, even reprimanding the archbishop for an attempt to diminish the liberties of the
chapter?1137 John was also not mentioned in Sigismund’s royal charters. If Sigismund did pressure
the local chapter to elect John, that would mean that this was among the first examples of the royal
policy which was pursued later. During the dispute between King Sigismund and the Roman Curia
CEU eTD Collection

1131
VMS I, 333-4, November 21, 1377. It seems there was a similar event earlier in the century. An undated decree
by Pope John XXII (r.1316-34) ordered Andrea Grisogono Soppe to give back the goods he violently claimed from
the monastery of Saint Chrysogonus. Ljubić, “Dva popisa listina,” 130, [no date].
1132
For instance, John Gregory de Soppe, the brother of the abbot, was mentioned as the procurator of the monastery
in September 1398. Ljubić, “Dva popisa listina,” 139, September 17, 1398; CDC XVIII, 369-70, September 25, 1398.
This ran contrary to the decision of the archbishop of Zadar and the patriarch of Grado from 1306 which stated that
family members of the abbot or canons cannot act as procurators of the monastery.
1133
Brunelli, Storia della città di Zara, 527, f.4, September 14, 1397.
1134
CDC XVIII, 331, April 6, 1398.
1135
CDC XVIII, 373, October 6, 1398.
1136
Valerio Ponte wrote that John was illegitimately elected by Sigismund and never sought an approval of the
Apostolic See, knowing that he cannot obtain it. Farlati commented upon Ponte’s opinion adding that John’s family
and background are unknown. Farlati, Illyricum Sacrum V, 109; Bianchi, Zara cristiana, 51.
1137
CDC XVIII, 421-422, February 2, 1399.

232
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

in 1404, the king appointed bishops to the sees vacated by Sigismund’s opponents, but then he
would mention them in his charters as elected bishops, which was not the case with John.1138
The ecclesiastical situation in Zadar during 1398 and 1399 was highly problematic. The
new archbishop-elect never obtained a papal confirmation as the pope still considered Peter as the
archbishop. It would seem that Peter not only found shelter and service at the Papal Curia but that
he exerted some sort of influence on the pope, who was willing to go against King Sigismund’s
wishes. In October 1398 the pope appointed Anthony de Benedicto, a decretorum doctor and a
papal chaplain, as the administrator of the archbishopric of Zadar. In the bull of appointment, the
pope stated that Peter was busy with his service at the Papal Curia in order to adequately perform
his archiepiscopal duties.1139 But it is unclear if Anthony ever appeared in Zadar. Instead, Abbot
Chrysogonus de Soppe appeared in the sources between October 1398 and January 1399 as the
vicar of Archbishop Peter in cases dealing with marriage, heresy and confirmation of the decisions
by suffragan-bishops.1140 Maybe Abbot Chrysogonus was selected due to his loyalty to the
archbishop, but his impulsive nature and willingness to resist royal orders and agents certainly
played a role.
Following the defeat of the crusader army at Nicopolis (1396), King Sigismund convened
a diet at Timișoara (Temesvár), with the aim of reforming the military capabilities of the kingdom.
Although the king promised to hold a special diet for the Kingdoms of Croatia and Dalmatia, it is
unclear if such a diet was held. The royal agents soon appeared in Dalmatia demanding the
payment of a newly introduced ecclesiastical tax, which amounted to half of the yearly income of
the ecclesiastical institutions.1141 The new tax was intended for rebuilding the kingdom (pro
reparatione regiminis),1142 while Paulus in his diary named it as the tax to rebuild the royal army
(pro subsidio exercitus regii).1143 Probably in order to ensure the collection of the taxes, Sigismund
CEU eTD Collection

1138
Hunyadi, “Western Schism and Hungary,” 52.
1139
VMS I, 343, October 15, 1398.
1140
“Isprave u Arhivu,” I, n.1191-2, October 4-5, 1398; n.1203, January 22, 1399; Abbot Chrysogonus Reverendissimi
in Christo patris et dominum Petri de Mattafaris, Dei et Sancte Sedis Apostolice archiepiscopi Iadrensi vicarius
generalis. I would like to thank Suzana Miljan for her help in consulting these sources.
1141
About the ecclesiastical tax, see: Dokoza, “Sigismundov porez na Crkvu,” 133-42.
1142
CDC XVIII, 357, August 29, 1398; 502-4, November 19, 1399. Sigismund have notified the archbishops of
Dubrovnik, Split, Zadar (archielect), and bishops of Korčula, Hvar, Trogir, Šibenik, Skradin, Nin, Rab, Krk, Osor,
Krbava and Senj that he had appointed Zoell Zannini de Gallis (Zoellus Zanniny de Gallis de Iadra) as the royal
collector of the half of the income of Church benefices in Croatia and Dalmatia.
1143
Granić, “Kronološki pregled povijesti zadarske nadbiskupije,” 235; CDC XVIII, 357, August 29, 1398; 502-4,
November 19, 1399; Paulo, Memoriale, 24, March 9, 1398.

233
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

entrusted it to the local elites.1144 In Zadar the tax was met with resistance, primarily by Abbot
Chrysogonus de Soppe who used violence and was imprisoned. Due to previously mentioned
Chrysogonus’s allegiance to Archbishop Peter, who was exiled by King Sigismund, I wonder if
the abbot’s new position and his connections with the banished archbishop played a role in
Chrysogonus’s violent confrontation with the royal agents, or if the abbot’s violent nature got the
better of him. Once he promised to pay the tax, Chrysogonus was released.1145
Lastly, the archbishop was probably able to influence the appointments of the local
suffragan-bishops of Zadar. In May 1399 the pope appointed Maurus de Rasolis of Zadar as the
bishop of Osor.1146 Maurus was both the rector of the church of Saint Peter de Platta and a member
of the cathedral chapter, but also a person whom the archbishop trusted. In 1391 Archbishop Peter
entrusted the administraton of all the temporalia of the monastery of Saint Chrysogonus to Maurus,
which led to Chrysogonus de Soppe being appointed as the abbot.1147
Peter remained in papal service until his death, on 20 March 1400, after which Roman Pope
Boniface IX appointed Luca Vagnocci, an Augustinian friar, as the next archbishop.1148 Luca was
from Fermo, and while it is unlikely that Peter was involved in any way, Luca came from the
March of Ancona where Peter was employed in the service of the pope. 1149 It would seem that he
was met with some resistance once he arrived to the city. The pope gave permission to Abbot
Chrysogonus de Soppe to excommunicate anybody who would stop Luca in performing his
episcopal duties, showing the level of confidence and trust that the pope had in the abbot.1150 More
importantly, the pope ignored the Archbishop-elect John and instead appointed his own candidate.
Therefore, the episcopate of Peter represents a curious entanglement of the interests of the local
nobility and the control of the ecclesiastical appointments. Due to Zadar’s commitment to the royal
CEU eTD Collection

1144
For instance, the city council of Dubrovnik discussed the royal request in March 1398. Gelcich and Thallóczy,
Diplomatarium relationum, 720, March 2, 1398; CDC XVIII, 502-4, November 19, 1399.
1145
Paulo, Memoriale, 24, March 9, 1398; CDC XVIII, 357, August 29, 1398; 367, September 17, 1398; Brunelli,
Storia della città di Zara, 516.
1146
Eubel, Hierarchia Catholica I, 67, May 17, 1399.
1147
CDC XVII, 336-8, March 29, 1391.
1148
Farlati, Illyricum Sacrum V, 108; Klaić and Petricioli, Zadar u srednjem vijeku, 362; Esch, Bonifaz IX, 587; ASV,
Reg. Lat. 75, ff. 34r- 35v, July 28, 1400; Eubel, Hierarchia Catholica I, 281.
1149
Neralić, “Judicial Cases,” 273 considers that Luca was a Venetian. But in a charter from 1402 the archbishop was
described as domini fratris Luce de Firmo in sacra theologia doctoris. Antoljak, Miscellanea I, 26, November 9, 1402;
Čoralić and Karbić, “Prilog životopisu,” 71-81.
1150
Šišić, “Nekoliko isprava,” 135, January 8, 1401.

234
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

dynasty and the relative strength of its nobility, the highest positions in the ecclesiastical
government of Zadar were for decades held by the members of the local elites.

V.2. “Presul noster benignius” – Andrew Benzi of Split (r.1389-1403)

The pressure by the local nobility on the ecclesiastical structures of the archbishopric was
also felt in Split, albeit to a lesser degree than in Zadar, and can be observed from the resignation
by Archbishop Hugolin (r.1349-88). The potential reasons for the dissatisfaction were discussed
in the previous chapters, but the commune asked the king to support the petition to the pope to
have Hugolin removed. Hugolin submitted his resignation to Cardinal-Bishop Francesco Moricotti
Prignani of Palestrina (r.1380-94), the vice-chancellor of the Apostolic Chancery (r.1385-94), and
Magister Antonio de Gualdo, a papal scribe. The cardinal and the scribe were then instrumental in
providing Andrew with the appointment.1151
Andrew Benzi became the archbishop of Split sometime before May 1389. That is when
he was obliged to pay for his appointment, which he never fully settled, mostly because his diocese
was embroiled in war.1152 He was the son of Pietro Gionte from Gualdo and the rector of the church
of Saint Leonard in the diocese of Nocera. This meant that his family gravitated towards the nearby
commune of Perugia. It should be added that at the end of 1387 and probably during 1388 Pope
Urban VI was stationed in Perugia, as the pope aimed at conquering Naples.1153 Andrew’s career
attracted a considerable attention in scholarship, due to its longetivity and versatility.1154 He
changed offices of several important dioceses, participated in the Council of Constance (1414-18),
and for decades served King Sigismund of Hungary-Croatia, who protected and supported
Andrew’s career. Therefore, I will revisit here mostly known sources in order to analyze different
strategies used by Andrew in managing his diocese.
CEU eTD Collection

By November 1389 Andrew was already in Split where he convened a provincial synod,
on which the clergy of Senj did not appear, so Andrew fined them.1155 The charter does not say

1151
This conclusion can be inferred from the sources. Ančić, “Splitski i zadarski kaptol,” 139; Farlati, Illyricum
Sacrum III, 333; Bellwald, Erzbischof Andreas, 14-5. Hugolin came from Gubbio in Umbria, which was not that far
away from Gualdo, and before becoming the archbishop Hugolin was a Benedictine monk of the monastery of Saint
Peter in Peruggia. So a very small geographical area gave two consequtive archbishops of Split.
1152
MVC I, n.392, May 30, 1389.
1153
Rački, “Pokret na slavenskom jugu,” II, 86. September 23, 1387; Partner, Lands of Saint Peter, 374.
1154
Guerrieri, “Andrea di Pietro di Gionta,” 497-512; Bellwald, Erzbischof Andreas, 13-52; Kovačić, “Utemeljitelj
Kaštela Sućurca,” 185-201.
1155
CDC XVII, 236-8, November 29, 1389.

235
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

why Bishop John of Pensaurio (r.1386-92) failed to arrive, but he most likely decided not to come
since he was the vicar for Croatia-Dalmatia of King Sigismund,1156 who was at war with King
Tvrtko of Bosnia. Since 1387 Split was surrounded by the Bosnian troops and the increased
Bosnian pressure resulted in the city submitting itself to the Bosnian king by May 1390. Because
of the war, the archiepiscopal incomes from the diocese probably diminished or were not even
collected. In order to ensure the safety of the rights and incomes of his archdiocese, in August
Archbishop Andrew personally went to Sutjeska, the seat of King Stephen Tvrtko in order to obtain
the confirmation of privileges for his diocese.1157 While the archbishop wanted to protect his rights,
the Bosnian king wanted to expand his rule over Croatia and Dalmatia by having good relations
with the most influential and permeable local institution. That is why the king addressed Andrew
of Gualdo as a “faithful advisor and spiritual chaplain” (fidelis consiliarius et capellanus noster
spiritualis). This was simple courtesy, but probably also how Tvrtko viewed the future relations
between the crown and the archbishop of the largest diocese in Dalmatia.
How diminished were the incomes and rights of the archbishopric can be observed from
Andrew’s interaction with the Roman pope and the papal agents. The problems for Andrew did
not only come from the Bosnian attacks, but from within his own commune. The tithe paid by the
clergy of Split to the papal subcollectors dropped from 120 ducats at the beginning of the 1380s to
somewhere between 10 and 30 during the 1390s, while in some years the tithe was not even
collected.1158 When Michael de Sancto Arcangelo, a canon of Rimini, appeared in the
archbishopric in the summer of 1394, the collector forgave the clergy its debt citing damages
caused by wars with the Bosnian army.1159 In May 1390 the archbishop transcribed several papal
letters addressed to the commune of Split and to the abbot of Saint Stephen under the Pines.1160
The pope tasked the abbot to assess which properties were alienated during the reign of the
CEU eTD Collection

previous archbishop, while the commune was asked to help Andrew to maintain a steady income
from tithes. While the papal requests could suggest a seriously corrupt behavior of the previous

1156
Farlati, Illyricum Sacrum IV, 122; Paulo, Memoriale, 13, August 28, 1389.
1157
CDC XVII, 312-313, August 30, 1390; Brković, “Srednjovjekovne isprave,” 375-6; Rački, “Pokret na slavenskom
jugu,” II, 104-5; Šišić, Vojvoda Hrvoje, 76-7.
1158
See List of payments in the appendices. CDC XVII, 468-70, October 29, 1392; CDC XVII, 617-9, September 8,
1394; ZsO I, n. 3617; Carrara, Archivio capitolare, 29, October 7, 1395; CDC XVIII, 60-1; Carrara, Archivio
capitolare, 29, June 10, 1396; CDC XVIII, 125-6.
1159
CDC XVII, 617-9, September 8, 1394; ZsO I, n. 3617.
1160
Ančić, “Splitski i zadarski kaptol,” Confirmation on 1 May 1390, while the papal letters are from February 11 (to
the abbot) and March 1 (to the commune). Also: CD XVIII, 265-266, March 1, 1390.

236
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

archbishop, it is not entirely clear what did the pope refer to. He also could have meant the damages
and the consequences of the war, as the Bosnian troops controlled for years the areas outside of
the city walls. The papal mandate could also suggest that some members of the commune used the
archiepiscopal weakness to alienate some archiepiscopal properties, like the ones close to the city
itself and located in Dilat and in Prosik where the archbishopric had its richest properties.1161 This
can be discerned by the later decision during an agreement between the archbishop and the
commune in August 1398 when it was decided that the lands in Dilat and Prosik should be strictly
under the jurisdiction of the archbishop.1162 But these requests do reveal that Andrew could have
seen his appointment and these orders as a papal mandate to improve and repair the rights of the
Spalatine Church.
Following the death of King Tvrtko in 1391 the commune of Split recognized King Stephen
Dabiša of Bosnia as its ruler, while a Bosnian nobleman, Vuk Vukčić, ruled as the ban of Croatia-
Dalmatia for King Ladislas of Naples. Following the same pattern of secular protection as before
with Tvrtko, the archbishop asked the ban to put the Church of Split under his protection and
ensure the stable collection of tithes.1163 The protection went both ways as the ban concentrated
his rule around the forts of Klis, Omiš, Bistrica and Knin. Except for Knin, the archbishopric had
direct interest in collecting taxes from the areas of Vuk’s other three fortresses. Therefore, the
archbishop provided the ban with sacral sanction to rule these lands, while the ban protected the
archiepiscopal incomes. But the relations between the ecclesiastical and temporal powers were
still shaky at best. When Andrew wanted to build a fort in Kaštel Sućurac (Lučac) near Split in
1392, Ban Vuk at first thought that the new fort was intended to fight Vuk’s Bosnian allies, but
after the archbishop’s reassurance, the ban allowed the construction.1164
The official reason for the construction of the fort was to stop robbers and protect the
archbishop’s servants and properties, which can be directly observed in the unrest caused by war
CEU eTD Collection

and the growing pressure on the archbishopric from local lay lords. The ban’s letter of protection
was transcribed during 13931165 probably in response to an attack on the archbishop’s saltwork

1161
The archiepiscopal curia built by Hugolin during 1350s was located in Prosik and intended to control and protect
the archiepiscopal lands.
1162
Novak, Povijest Splita, 308; Farlati, Illyricum Sacrum III, 348.
1163
CDC XVII, 397-398, November 8 1391; Brković, “Srednjovjekovne isprave,” 378-9; Lovrenović, Na klizištu
povijesti, 70; Klaić, Povijest Hrvata, 292-7.
1164
Kovačić, “Utemeljitelj Kaštela Sućurca,” 188-89; Katić, “Reambulacija dobara splitskoga nadbiskupa,” 154; CDC
XVII, 458-460, October 10, 1392.
1165
ASN (S), 20, f. 37, June 21, 1393.

237
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

located ad aquam sancti Dompni. The attack was organized by Count Stephen Dubravčić, who
governed Cetina on behalf of Count John Nelipčić.1166 The Nelipčić family controlled large
territories within the archdiocese of Split and their relations with the archbishops in the past were
not always peaceful.1167 Vjekoslav Klaić noticed that the attacks on the archbishop’s possessions
were occuring when the royal power of Sigismund was weakest. The problems persisted
throughout the 1390s and centered around the payment of tithes, but they did correspond to the
relative strength and the involvement of the king in the local affairs.1168
Since Sigismund defeated the rebels in the summer of 1394 and worked on restoring the
royal authority in Croatia-Dalmatia, Archbishop Andrew turned to the king for support by
travelling to the royal court at the beginning of 1395 and petitioning the king directly. The king
ordered that all the possessions and churches unlawfully taken in the diocese of Split in Croatia
and Dalmatia be returned to the Church. The archbishop had problems with the inhabitants of
Poljice and Omiš, who were not paying for their tithes, as well as with Count John Nelipčić. 1169
Despite the royal help, both cases dragged on for years. In October 1395 the archbishop threatened
to seek the arbitration of the archbishop of Esztergom, after which the count promised to pay the
required tithe of 200 ducats.1170 But the deal did not hold as several months after Sigismund’s
disaster at Nicopolis the count and Archbishop Andrew were still disputing, as they again involved
the archbishop of Esztergom in their disagreements.1171 While staying at the royal court in the first
half of 1397, Andrew asked again for royal support as by April 1397 the king proclaimed that the
count has to pay the required 200 ducats.1172 The king stated that the required sum refered to the

1166
CDC XVII, 530-1, September 6, 1393.
1167
For instance, in 1339 the village of Saint George, which is today Kaštel Sućurac, was attacked by the men loyal
CEU eTD Collection

to John Nelipčić and Mladen III Šubić. Listine II, 46-7, July 23, 1339; Karbić, “Nelipčići i Šubići,” 138; Birin, Knez
Nelipac, 39. The Nelipčić family controlled Cetina and had vasals in other parishes subordinated to the archbishop.
Kužić, “Plemići s područja župe Zmina,” 8.
1168
Klaić, Povijest Hrvata II, 310; Birin, Knez Nelipac, 98.
1169
ASN (S), fol. 15r-17r, January 8, 1395; CDC XVIII, 38-9, June 6, 1395; 71, November 19, 1395; Kovačić,
“Utemeljitelj Kaštela Sućurca,” 190.
1170
CDC XVIII, 62-3, October 11, 1395; Birin, Knez Nelipac, 98-9; Botica, Krbavski knezovi, 161-2; Kovačić,
“Utemeljitelj Kaštela Sućurca,” 192; ASN (S), 19, fol 48r-52r.
1171
In December 1396 George Dragančić of Šibenik gave a letter to Andrew asking him to make a copy and return
the original to George. The letter was from the archbishop of Esztergom, but Andrew refused to give back the original.
George was described as the servitor magnifici regii militis domini Johannis nati famose memorie comitis Iuanis
Nelypcic, Cetine comitis. ZsO I, n. 4577, December 30, 1396; CDC XVIII, 167-8, December 30, 1396.
1172
The count had to pay tithe by June 1398 for the properties of Cetina, Posušje, Porizg and Ogorje. Lopašić,
“Spomenici Tržačkih Frankopana,” 321; Birin, Knez Nelipac, 99.

238
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

year before, so it seems that the count ocassionally paid the tithe, but he was often late or was
refusing the payment.
The involvement of the archbishop of Esztergom becomes clearer if his official position
and influence in the kingdom is considered. Archbishop John Kanizsai held the position of power
in the kingdom and the barons surrounding the archbishop ended up dictating the conditions for
Sigismund’s coronation in 1387. He was also the royal chancellor in charge of drafting and
publishing royal charters and therefore able to dictate the royal policy.1173 So John’s involvement
was probably the result of his position in the kingdom and in the ecclesiastical hierarchy. During
February 1397 both the archbishop of Esztergom and Archbishop Andrew of Split, with some
other prelates and lay persons, were present in the cathedral church in Zagreb when the bishop of
Zagreb performed a ritual of excommunication of 153 citizens of Gradec. By gathering there, the
higher prelates gave their sanction to the bishop’s actions, but the situation in the kingdom was
probably also discussed.1174 It is probable that Andrew used this opportunity to attempt to obtain
support of the archbishop of Esztergom in the conflict that Andrew had with Count John Nelipčić,
and which probably resulted in the royal proclamation from April 1397.
Sigismund found his way to Dalmatia following the catastrophe at Nicopolis. In the
beginning of January 1397 he was in Split from where he left to Knin where the king tried to
enforce the royal authority in Dalmatia.1175 While Andrew was in Zagreb, the king was still either
in Knin or on his way to the north, which suggest that Andrew did not follow the king, but instead
went ahead in order to meet the archbishop of Esztergom and other prelates of the kingdom.1176
But Andrew did ask the king in February to task Bishop Ladislas of Knin (r.1397-1406) to
determine the borders of the archbishopric of Split, which was then repeated by the cathedral
1177
chapter of Knin. During April Sigismund ordered Ban Nicholas Gorjanski to protect the
CEU eTD Collection

1173
Hoensch, Kaiser Sigismund, 64-118; Malyusz, Kaiser Sigismund in Ungarn, 29-35; Fedeles, “Az uralkodó, a
Szentszék és a magyar főpapok,” 83; Engel, “Zsigmond bárói,” 424-7.
1174
Tkalčić, Povjestni spomenici I, 388-9, February 11, 1397; Lukinović, “Zagrebački biskupi,” 198; Lukinović, “Ivan
Šipuški,” 159.
1175
Ančić, “Od tradicije ‘sedam pobuna’ do dragovoljnih mletačkih podanika,” 50-1.
1176
Engel and Tóth, Itineraria regum et reginarum, 72.; Nazor, “Granica između Splita i Poljica,” 59.
1177
CDC XVIII, 181-7, February 23, 1397. Ladislas stated that some charters were still kept by Archbishop Andrew,
who probably took them when he went in partibus Hungarie. These were probably the same charters which Andrew
gave to the cathedral chapter of Knin, tasking the chapter to transcribe several older privileges about the properties of
the archbishopric of Split. CDC XVIII, 231-2, June 29, 1397; 225-6, May 29, 1397; 230-1, June 28, 1397; 251-66,
August 20, 1397.

239
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

arcbishop’s properties in Klis and Omiš.1178 Nicholas tasked the viceban of the kingdom to force
the people of Livno, Omiš and Poljice to obey the archbishop.1179 So the reambulation and the
royal commands show that by 1397 the archbishop had problems with various lay lords who
alienated the properties and the incomes of the archbishopric. Count John Nelipčić was mentioned
earlier, but one of the local lords who used the power vacum in the kingdom was Count John
Chemer of Omiš. After the inspection by the cathedral chapter of Knin, the count of Omiš was
ordered to return the properties of the archbishopric.1180
The problems over tithes and possessions led Andrew to work on determining the
properties and incomes of the archbishopric, as well as the episcopal rights in the diocese of his
suffragans. In July 1395, the chapter of Nin sent a report, while in 1396 the bishop of Krbava
created a list of all those who were paying tithe and how.1181 The archbishop also had a number of
charters rewritten and confirmed. In October 1396 this was done by the cathedral chapter of
Esztergom, while the chapter in Buda in November 1396 issued some documents regarding the
tithes.1182 The question of tithes remained important as there were some other documents that the
archbishop had rewritten during 1397 regarding the tithes.1183
So far, the recurring topics of Andrew’s time in office were the reliance on the temporal
authority of the king or the royal agents, determining the properties and the borders of the
archbishopric and the maintenance of contacts with other prelates of the Kingdom of Hungary-
Croatia. Andrew constantly employed all the above methods in order to strengthen his
archiepiscopal authority and his position in Croatia-Dalmatia. Since the position of the archbishop
of Split was as strong as the support that he could muster from the lay rulers, the archiepiscopal
authority was contested with every major political change.
The lack of lay support could have persuaded Andrew to take the matters in his own hands
CEU eTD Collection

and contribute to the rebellion which broke out in Split during the summer of 1398. The underlying
reason for the rebellion was the unequal position between the nobility in the city council. The
revolt was led by those noble families which were barred from obtaining the position of the judge,

1178
CDC XVIII, 209, April 16, 1397; 210, April 19, 1397; 212-3, April 24, 1397.
1179
Katić, “Reambulacija dobara splitskoga nadbiskupa,” 151.
1180
CDC XVIII, 235-6, July 16, 1397.
1181
Kolanović, “Zbornik ninskih isprava,” 501, 523-5, July 31, 1395; CDC XVIII, 81-83, January 15, 1396, Farlati,
Illyricum Sacrum IV, 98-9, Botica, Krbavski knezovi, 162-4. Andrew probably asked other dioceses to create their
own lists, but sources were not preserved.
1182
Kovačić, “Utemeljitelj Kaštela Sućurca,” 192.
1183
Three documents about tithes, 1-2 June 1397, in: Kovačić, “Utemeljitelj Kaštela Sućurca,”, 192.

240
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

the highest duty in the communal government. This office itself was controlled by several families
whose fathers and grandfathers also held this position. The rebelling nobility found support among
the commoners who were themselves barred from entering the city council.1184 So far, the
historiography has been divided between those who viewed Andrew as the main instigator of the
rebellion and those who noticed that the nobility decided to use the banished archbishop as the
scapegoat on whom to put the entire blame for what has happened.1185 It cannot be proved if the
archbishop was one of the main instigators of the rebellion, but he was somebody very closely
aligned with the rebels’ cause. Therefore, it is necessary to analyze the methods used by the
archbishop in order to benefit from the rebellion and the effects the uprising had on the
archiepiscopal authority.
The contemporary chronicler Paulus de Paulo, a nobleman from Zadar, wrote in his diary
that the rebellion in Split started on 26 June 1398, while two days later the archbishop’s men also
joined the rebels.1186 Since the exiled noblemen were probably the main source of news for Paulus,
he was very well informed about the outbreak of the conflicts. Barely a month later, on 3 August,
the new communal government and Archbishop Andrew signed an agreement defining the
relationship between the commune and the archbishopric. The twelve-point agreement retracted
the decisions of the previous communal authorities which severely restricted the power of the
Church.1187 Most notable points and their consequences should be addressed. It was decided that
the Church could receive imovable properties stipulated in the last wills, which the commune
restricted in 1347, on the basis of preventing from more land passing into ecclesiastical hands.1188
Connected with this was also the archbishop’s exemption from paying communal taxes and
customs from his properties, which was, again, quite important as the major archiepiscopal lands
were located within the borders of the commune. The archbishop also received the communal
CEU eTD Collection

backing for the return of the alienated lands in Dilat and Prosik, where some of the richest lands
of the archbishopric were located. It is unclear who threatened the archiepiscopal lands, but the
perpetrators were probably the citizens of Split, as the archbishop could then petition the commune

1184
Historiography about the rebellion: Lucić, Povijesna svjedočanstva II, 807-30; Novak, Povijest Splita, 299-326;
Kurelac, “Društvene diferencijacije i pokreti pučana,” 240-41; Antoljak, Bune pučana, 24-8.
1185
For an overview of opinions on this topic, see: Kovačić, “Utemeljitelj Kaštela Sućurca,” 193.
1186
quidam familiares domini archiepiscopi, Paulo, Memoriale, 25-6, June 26-28, 1398.
1187
For the 12 points of the contract, see: Lucić, Collection, vol. 538, fol. 275, August 3, 1398; Farlati, Illyricum
Sacrum III, 348; Novak, Povijest Splita, 308-9.
1188
Statute of Split, Statuta nova, cap. 25.

241
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

for support. This cooperation can be directly observed from an event which occurred in 1399, in
another part of the archbishopric. On the petition by the archbishop, the judges of Split ordered
Ianchus Biloevich of Split to pay for the lease which he had on the archiepiscopal village of
Srinjina in Poljice, which Ianchus failed to pay on time.1189 Next, the archbishop was able to uphold
his exclusive judicial rights, particularly regarding usury and over his own subjects in civil and
criminal cases, which was in other bishoprics increasingly shared or taken over by the
commune.1190 Lastly, the commune allowed the authentication of montanea, or the list of the
properties of the archbishopric, and their use as official documents. These documents had
considerable value for the Church, as they tracked donations to the archbishopric by the kings of
Croatia and Hungary, but were regularly refused as evidence by the communal courts in the cases
involving ecclesiastical institutions and lay people as they lacked necessary details, such as who
donated the land and when.1191 Therefore, the archbishop was able to reinstate the episcopal
exemption from communal taxes, reinforce his judicial rights, ensure that alienated ecclesiastical
properties were returned and to secure the continuing communal support. In return the archbishop
rented out most of his tithes to the commune for 350 ducats per year, except tithes of several
important and affluent villages.1192
It could be that the rebels needed legitimation and support from the archbishop, but the
archbishop’s swift reaction to the outbreak of the rebellion and the speed with which the two sides
defined their mutual obligations shows how the archbishop adapted to the newfound political
situation and used it to enforce his authority with the explicit backing of the commune. The leader
of the rebellion, Markulin Slovenić, was appointed as the city rector in September while at least
48 commoners were allowed entrance into the city council.1193 The archbishop had other
connections to the rebels. From at least 1396 until around 1400 Doymus Silvestri, a member of the
CEU eTD Collection

1189
CDC XVIII, 470-72, July 21, 1399.
1190
This was particularly the case in Trogir earlier in the fourteenth century. Benyovsky Latin, Srednjovjekovni Trogir,
204. For Italy, see: Ronzani, “Vescovo e città nell'Italia comunale,” 17-8; Rossi, “Vescovi nel basso medioevo,” 225-
6; Waley and Dean, Italian City-Republics, 52-6.
1191
Ančić, “Srednjovjekovni montaneji,” 130-31.
1192
The important villages were Saint Michael in Dilat (Kaštel Kambelovac), Smoljevac, Kuk (Colch), Križ i Gorica.
Lovre Katić added that the archbishop kept his jurisdiction over the possessions in Putalj, Sućurac and Prosik, and the
taxes of salt mines. Katić, “Selo Kučine,” 146; Katić, “Reambulacija dobara splitskoga nadbiskupa,” 163; Ostojić,
Metropolitanski kaptol, 30; Kovačić, “Utemeljitelj Kaštela Sućurca,” 192-3.
1193
Paulus de Paulo calls him the principalis auctor of the rebellion and whom the rebels elected as their general
captain. Paulo, Memoriale, 25, June 27, 1398. Paulus also named the commoners. Paulo, Memoriale, 26, June 28,
1398; Novak, Povijest Splita, 302.

242
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

cathedral chapter, was the archiepiscopal vicar. His brother Francis Silvestri was one of the
principal rebels and served in the city council as one of the judges in 1399 and 1402.1194 This
shows that the contacts between the rebel leaders and the archbishop existed even before the
outbreak of the rebellion.
It is possible that Andrew’s personal history made him more inclined toward the interest
of the rebels, mostly the commoners. His family gravitated towards Perugia, attempting to become
its citizens, which occured later with the help of Sigismund. In 1415 the emperor asked the bishop
of Perugia, Perugino Antonio, to successfully petition the commune of Perugia to grant the
citizenship to Andrew and his three brothers: Bartholomew, Pietro Paolo and Simone, as well as
the sons of Simone.1195 Several family members and compatriots from Gualdo followed Andrew
during his career and were later in Andrew’s carrer attested in different ecclesiastical positions.1196
During the conflicts in Split, the archbishop’s brother Bartholomew appeared as the podesta for a
year.1197 Afterwards, the commune was led by rectors, who were elected every month and three
judges elected every three months.1198 It is difficult to draw far-reaching conclusions out of little
evidence. The appointment of the archbishop’s brother as the new podestà could suggest the level
of control that the archbishop had over the commune. But that would also suggest that by electing
rectors every month the commune wanted to resist the control of a single person or it would suggest
that certain disagreements existed between the archbishop and the commune.
Yet the commune and the archbishop still cooperated against the exiled nobility. The exiles
received help from the commune of Trogir, Count John Nelipčić of Cetina and Duke Hrvoje
Vukčić Hrvatinić,1199 who had different interests in mind for joining the conflict. The behaviour
of Duke Hrvoje can be explained by the constant unsuccessful military operations which King
Sigismund was at the time conducting against the duke. Since the commune and Andrew sided
CEU eTD Collection

with Sigismund, Duke Hrvoje waged war against Split, but the commune often had an upper hand,
such as during 1401 when the commune seized Omiš, thus weakening Hrvoje’s hold over the

1194
Paulo, Memoriale, 26, June 28, 1398; Kuzmanić, Splitski plemići, 106; Novak, Povijest Splita, 301, 319.
1195
...dominus Andreas, et Bartolomeus et dominus Petrus Paulus, filii olim magistri Petri Gionte de Bentiis de
Gualdo, fratres carnales dicti domini Andree. Guerrieri, “Andrea di Pietro di Gionta,” 504, April 13, 1415; 510.
1196
These individuals, connected to Andrew, would then appear in various ecclesiastical positions while he was in the
bishopric of Sion during the 1420s and the 1430s. Guerrieri, “Andrea di Pietro di Gionta,” 507-8.
1197
“Serie dei reggitori,” 108-9, November 26, 1398 and July 21, 1399. Still mentioned as the podestà of the city in
CDC XVIII, 470-2, July 21, 1399.
1198
“Serie dei reggitori,” 108-9.
1199
Klaić, Povijest grada Trogira, 349.

243
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

area.1200 On the other hand, it is hard to say when exactly Count John decided to support Duke
Hrvoje,1201 but as was shown earlier, throughout the 1390s the count was in conflict with
Archbishop Andrew, which could have persuaded the count to attack the archbishopric and Split.
By the end of 1401 Count John seized Klis, mounting pressure on Split.1202 Helped by the two
noblemen and the commune of Trogir, the exiled Spalatine nobility targeted the properties of the
Church such as the village of Kruševica, the island of Vranjic and the lands of the monastery of
Saint Stephen and the nunnery of Saint Lawrence.1203
Maintaining contacts with other prelates and noblemen of the kingdom was probably even
more important for Andrew after the outbreak of the rebellion. Just two weeks after the start of the
rebellion, the archbishop led a gathering of prelates in Knin, during which a number of churches
from across the kingdom received different ecclesiastical benefits.1204 Although it is unclear what
else was discussed during the gathering which was attended by the majority of the bishop-
suffragans of Split, the meeting was attended by Bishop Eberhard of Zagreb (r.1397-1406;1409-
20), one of the more influential prelates in the kingdom and a staunch supporter of King
Sigismund.1205 In fact, the king and his royal subordinates quickly accepted the situation in Split
and the new leadership of the commune cleverly decided to select Nicholas and John Gorjanski as
the counts of Split.1206 The family Gorjanski were among the most loyal supporters of King
Sigismund and his favourites. It should be added that Andrew had been working for years in
establishing good connections with the royal court and other prelates of the kingdom, so the
suggestion of and contacts with Gorjanski could have come from the archbishop.
This means that the commune and the archbishop quickly utilized their contacts with the
royal court. The king took Archbishop Andrew into his protection in the conflict with Trogir,1207
while the local royal representatives even sacked the fields of Trogir in an attempt to force start
the peace negotiations.1208 The peace treaty was signed in mid-February 1401 and it reflects the
CEU eTD Collection

victory of the archbishop. The peace treaty was signed in the archiepiscopal palace in Split and

1200
Šišić, Vojvoda Hrvoje, 142; Lovrenović, Na klizištu povijesti, 88-92; Isailović, “Омиш под влашћу Хрвоја,” 133.
1201
John and Hrvoje formed a marriage alliance by which Hrvoje married John’s sister Jelena. On the contacts between
John and Hrvoje, see: Birin, Knez Nelipac, 100-3.
1202
Lovrenović, Na klizištu povijesti, 99.
1203
Lucić, Povijesna svjedočanstva II, 808-9; Andreis, Povijest grada Trogira I, 132-3.
1204
ZsO I n.5407, July 15, 1398.
1205
Lukinović, “Zagrebački biskup Eberhard,” 1-13.
1206
CDC XVIII, 352, August 18, 1398.
1207
Šišić, “Nekoliko isprava,” 139-40, February 9, 1401.
1208
Klaić, Povijest Trogira, 351.

244
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

both sides were officially led by their leading prelates, Archbishop Andrew for Split and Bishop
Chrysogonus for Trogir, together with the representatives of the commune.1209 The authorities in
Trogir had 20 days to expel all the Spalatine exiles from the city of Trogir.
But the peace treaty failed, in large part due to the instability in the kingdom, the
imprisonment of Sigismund and the widespread discontent in the kingdom. The constant wars did
not shake the unity of the commune and the archbishop, who were able to hold their own against
their many enemies, nor their loyalty to King Sigismund. During April 1402 the royal
representatives Bishop Eberhard of Zagreb and Emeric Bubek, the prior of Vrana, received pledges
of allegiance from the city councils of Dubrovnik and Split.1210 But the situation dramatically
changed when King Ladislas, in mid-1402, decided to claim the Kingdom of Hungary-Croatia. In
June Admiral Aloysius Aldemariscus was sent with the Neapolitan navy to seize Dalmatia. The
admiral first arrived to Zadar, but by the end of the year he took oaths of fealty from all Dalmatian
communes.1211
The change in Split, by which Archbishop Andrew was ousted and King Ladislas of Naples
recognized as the king, occured during December 1402, when the city had to contend with the
strong presence of Admiral Aldemarisco on sea and his confederate, Duke Hrvoje, on land. During
December the archbishop and the commune clashed. The archiepiscopal fort in Lučac (Kaštel
Sućurac) was seriously damaged on the order of the rebel leaders. According to a later note, the
noblemen of the city also pursued the archbishop with sticks on the square in front of the cathedral,
forcing him out of the city, and incurring the penalty of excommunication.1212
It is likely that the rebels and exiles, in order to reconcile, placed the blame on the
archbishop. Especially since Andrew was absent from the city as he went earlier in 1402 to
CEU eTD Collection

1209
Šišić, “Nekoliko isprava,” 139-45, February 9-13, 1401. For Split: Archbishop Andrew, John, the son of Marin,
and Dessa, the son of Jacob. Dessa was one of the principal organisers of the rebellion in 1398. Paulo, Memoriale, 28.
For Trogir: Bishop Chrysogonus, Jacob Cega, Paul, the son of Marin, Mirsa, the son of Mauro and Nicholas, the son
of Peter Mikacij. Bishop Anthony of Šibenik, Abbot Lawrence of Saint Lawrence in Krk, and some others were listed
as witnesses.
1210
Klaić, Povijest Hrvata II, 347-8; Cutolo, Re Ladislao I, 252-65; Klaić and Petricioli, Zadar u srednjem vijeku,
364-5; Novak, Povijest Splita, 314-17.
1211
Klaić, Povijest Hrvata II, 351; Lovrenović, Na klizištu povijesti, 100-2.
1212
The fort that burned down was mentioned in the unratified contract with King Ostoja of Bosnia. Brković,
“Srednjovjekovne isprave,” 380-4, December 15, 1402. That the archbishop was pursued was mentioned in an appeal
to the Apostolic See from 1426. The commune of Split petitioned the pope to absolve them from several
excommunications incurred due to clashes with Archbishop Andrew, his predecessor Hugolin and then with Pisan
Pope John XXIII. Farlati, Illyricum Sacrum III, 369, January 6, 1426. Also, see: Farlati, Illyricum Sacrum III, 355-6;
Bellwald, Erzbischof Andreas, 28; Kovačić, “Utemeljitelj Kaštela Sućurca,” 193-4.

245
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

Hungary to seek help for Split. In April the archbishop was in Senj, where he probably confined
with Leonardo de Pensauro, the bishop of Senj, who had contacts with the archbishop of Esztergom
and King Sigismund.1213 By September Andrew was in Bratislava where the royal diet was in
session. On 14 September King Sigismund appointed Albert IV, the duke of Austria, as the
successor to the throne of Kingdom of Hungary-Croatia, while the royal decision was accepted by
the gathered prelates and the nobility of the kingdom on 21 September.1214 Therefore, while the
archbishop was absent for months, seeking help, he was also unable to prevent negotiations
between the rebels and exiles and to react to Admiral Aldemarisco’s arrival.
The change which happened in the commune during December was recorded in two
sources. Firstly, Andrew was still listed as the archbishop of the city at the beginning of the month,
but by the end of the month Marin Cutheis was listed as the archbishop-elect.1215 Marin was one
of the well-educated and hard-working canons of the cathedral chapter of Split, originating from a
distinguished and old family of the Cutheis.1216 His appointment was a result of peace negotiations
between the Spalatin exiles and the rebels in order to resolve their differences. That this was the
case is confirmed from the unratified peace treaty between the reconciled nobility which was
overseen by King Ostoja of Bosnia in mid-December.1217 The king, acting as an ally of King
Ladislas of Naples, attempted to expand his authority over Split and Dalmatia. He promised that
the citizens would not have to pay any tithes from 1402 and he revoked all the contracts signed
between the archbishop and the commune. Most notably, the citizens refused that any foreigner be
installed as the archbishop, instead claiming the right of episcopal election for the commune and
the cathedral chapter of Split. Based on the petition by the commune, Admiral Aldemarisco issued
an order in January 1403 to the cathedral chapter of Trogir to write to the pope regarding the
archbishop.1218 It is unknown what was written in the letter, but it is probable that the citizens used
CEU eTD Collection

the opportunity to familiarize the pope with the official narrative regarding the past events in Split,
over which the rebels and the exiles agreed upon.

1213
Prior to becoming the bishop of Senj, Leonardo was a canon and the vicar for spiritual affairs of the archbishop
of Esztergom. As the bishop of Senj he also carried diplomatic missions for King Sigismund. Ivančan, “Iz crkvene
povijesti,” 106-7; Klaić, Povijest Hrvata II, 263, Farlati, Illyricum Sacrum III, 354; IV, 124.
1214
Malyusz, Kaiser Sigismund in Ungarn, 63-5; Hoensch, Kaiser Sigismund, 109-12.
1215
“Serie dei reggitori,” 143-4, December 6, 1402; December 24, 1402.
1216
Marinus Nicole de Chuteys was mentioned as a canon at the end of the 1380s. He was authorized as the notary by
imperial authority. CDC XVII, 172, November 18, 1388; Ančić, “Registar Splitskog kaptola,” 138, May 1, 1390;
Kuzmanić, Splitski plemići, 109-10.
1217
Brković, “Srednjovjekovne isprave,” 380-4, December 15, 1402; Ančić, “Registar Splitskog kaptola,” 253-4.
1218
Lucić, Povijesna svjedočanstva II, 839-40.

246
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

Andrew did not renounce his claim to the position of the archbishop, but, instead, the
Roman pope transferred Andrew to another diocese.1219 But neither Andrew nor his protector
Sigismund accepted the papal decision, as the king tried to have Andrew reinstated. On the other
hand, neither did the pope nor King Ladislas accept the attempts by the commune of Split to
increase their autonomy in ecclesiastical and political affairs. Ladislas proclaimed Hrvoje Vukčić
as the duke of Split and granted him control over large areas of Croatia and Dalmatia,1220 while
the pope appointed Ladislas’s candidate Peregrin of Aragonia (r.1403-09) as the archbishop.1221
These appointments were, in turn, beneficial to the archbishopric. Due to Hrvoje’s complete
control over the city and the wider area of Split, the archbishop was able to quickly solve all the
problems regarding the disputed jurisdiction, usurped lands and unpaid tithes which had
accumulated in the previous decades.1222 The position of undisputed power in Split and the support
from the archbishop certainly helped Duke Hrvoje to quickly conclude the peace negotiations
between the nobility of Split, the commune, and Count John Nelipčić of Cetina.1223 As a
comparison, Venice took over Split in 1420, but in 1423 the archbishop of Split complained to the
pope that he was unable to collect the tithe from the territories located in the hinterland of the
archbishopric which were still controlled by the Croatian and Bosnian nobility.1224
Andrew was a capable prelate, administrator and politician who was quick in assessing the
strengths and weaknesses of his archbishopric. At first, he relied on the papal authority, but he
promptly established contacts with the local clergy and came to rely on the effective royal support.
While the contacts with the pope did not play as important role in Split, as they did in nearby
Zadar, Andrew did maintain and expand the contacts with his suffragan-bishops and fellow higher-
prelates from across the kingdom. But not satisfied to depend on the fickle lay authority, which
CEU eTD Collection

1219
Farlati, Illyricum Sacrum III, 355-6; Ostojić, Metropolitanski kaptol, 25; Andrew was transfered to Samaria, which
was a titular see in Muslim controlled Palestine, so innacessible to Catholic bishops. Eubel, Hierarchia Catholica I,
459; Rački, “Pokret na slavenskom jugu,” III, 72-3.
1220
Lovrenović, “Hrvoje Vukčić Hrvatinić i splitska komuna,” 37-45.
1221
Ivan Lucić presumed that he was from Naples, and therefore elected by the pope on suggestion from King Ladislas
whose troops seized Split in 1403 (Lucić, Povijesna svjedočnstva o Trogiru II, 840), but the local sources listed the
archbishop as Fra Peregrinus d’Aragona. “Serie dei reggitori,” 189.
1222
Archbishop Peregrin was probably able to quickly come to an agreement with Duke Hrvoje, mostly because the
archbishop and the duke had contacts to King Ladislas. During the corronation of Ladislas in Zadar in summer 1403
the duke was depicted as a good friend of the archbishop. Šišić, “Nekoliko isprava,” 207-8, July 11, 1403. On Hrvoje's
reign in Split between 1403 and 1413, see: Isailović, “О фамилијарима Хрвоја Вукчића,” 125-46; Lovrenović,
“Hrvoje Vukčić Hrvatinić i splitska komuna,” 37-45.
1223
Šišić, “Nekoliko isprava,” 224-5, November 4, 1403; Listine V, 58, June 15, 1405.
1224
Šunjić, Bosna i Venecija, 187.

247
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

was constantly changing during the 1390s, the archbishop used all the powers at his disposal to
increase the archiepiscopal authority. He even tested the borders of how far the archbishop could
interfere in the inner-communal relations. The intertwining of the noble families of the city, which
had their representatives in the commune and the cathedral chapter, was used by the archbishop to
extend his authority over the commune by supporting the rebellion and installing his brother as the
rector of the city. The continuing archiepiscopal preocupation was the economic well-being of his
own archdiocese and the entire province, as he actively tried to ascertain and maximize the current
incomes. Andrew was almost successful in reversing the gradual decline of the archiepiscopal
authority and its economic position, but his success, while formidable on its own, was only as good
as the royal backing which the archbishop received. He was removed from Split, but the papal
arbitrariness, combined with the clashes between the papal and secular powers during the Western
Schism, resulted in Andrew, and his backer the king, contesting the papal orders.

V.3. The “Contested” Bishops

The double papal election of 1378 and the death of King Louis in 1382 resulted in the
period of protracted ecclesiastical and political instability in the Kingdom of Hungary-Croatia. The
popes, contenders to the throne, their backers and the local communes all attempted to more closely
control the local Dalmatian dioceses. The rulers relied on the bishops to provide financial and
military aid, while the local communities wanted to appropriate the ecclesiastical rights and
incomes, while dictating the appointment of local noblemen to important ecclesiastical positions,
particularly the episcopal one.
Since King Louis recognized the claim of the Roman papacy, the popes in Rome were the
ones appointing and confirming bishops, as well as collecting local ecclesiastical taxes owed to
CEU eTD Collection

the Apostolic See. The Avignon popes could hardly infringe on the obedience of the Roman pope
in Croatia-Dalmatia, so it is strange to encounter the attempts by Pope Clement VII (r.1378-94) to

248
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

appoint the bishops of Senj (1383),1225 Knin (1386) 1226 and Nin (1387).1227 While more research
is needed, since these individuals are unknown, it remains unclear why the Avignon pope
attempted to instal bishops of lesser bishoprics in Croatia-Dalmatia, and not the more important
archbishops of Split and Zadar.
The unstable position in which the Roman Curia found itself, made the pope more
susceptible to accept the rulers’ suggestions. Bishops whose loyalty was questioned were replaced
by more compliant prelates, particularly if these bishops were appointed during the reign of
previous kings. The most famous examples were the removal of Emeric Czudar, the bishop of
Eger, in 1384 and Paul Horvat, the bishop of Zagreb, in 1386. Although Emeric owed his
appointment to strong contacts with the Apostolic See, he came into conflict with Queen-mother
Elizabeth, who asked the pope to have the bishop removed.1228 The bishop of Zagreb owed his
speedy advance in ecclesiastical ranks to the direct patronage of King Louis. Since he schemed
against Queen Mary, Roman Pope Urban VI had the bishop strip from his position.1229 Sigismund
in particular utilized his contacts with the Roman Curia in order to appoint court favourites in the
bishoprics of Senj1230 and Zagreb.1231 These bishops maintained an important position in
Sigismund’s designs to control Croatia, Dalmatia and Slavonia.1232 These appointments were
simply a continuation of the previously well-established papal-royal relations, instituted during the

1225
The pope appointed Joannes Schrezenberger. CDC XVI, 53, November 9, 1379; 89, May 7, 1380; 164, March 19,
1381; 218, October 2, 1381; 258; Bullarium Franciscanum VII, n.635; Žugaj, "Franjevci konventualci biskupi,” 47.
At the same time, the local and royal sources only listed Thomas as the bishop. Sladović, Povesti biskupijah senjske,
168, April 4, 1383; CDC XVI, 457-9, April 4, 1384.
1226
The pope appointed Petrus de Marnhaco, a Franciscan friar, even though the incumbent bishop Paul was mentioned
in the diocese since 1373. Eubel, Hierarchia Catholica I, 486.
1227
The pope appointed Antonius Chernota, the rector of the church of Saint Mary, even though Bishop John (r. 1387-
1402) was mentioned in royal sources. Eubel, Hierarchia Catholica I, 371; CDC XVII, 95, October 28, 1387; 226,
October 3, 1389. The family of Chernota (Crnota, Cernota) was an influential noble family from Rab. Several of its
members became bishops of various Dalmatian bishoprics, but Antonius is othervise unknown. Radauš, “Crnota.”
CEU eTD Collection

1228
The pope transferred Emeric to Imola, but it is unclear if the appointment ever manifested itself. Pór, “Ifjabb
Erzsébet királyné,” 915; Engel, Magyarország világi archontológiája, 68; Eubel, Hierarchia Catholica I, 78, 284,
515. His removal enabled John of Kanisza to rise in ranks. He was the bishop of Eger between 1384 before being
appointed in 1388 as the archbishop of Esztergom, the highest ranking position a prelate could occupy in the kingdom.
1229
Due to his involvement in bringing Charles of Durazzo to the throne of Hungary-Croatia in late 1385, the queen
asked the pope to have Paul removed from Zagreb and to instead appoint a candidate favourable to the royal court.
Petrović, “Political Career of Bishop Paul of Zagreb,” 22-39.
1230
Bishop Thomas of Senj was removed from Senj in order to ensure the appointment of a court favourite, John de
Pensaurio (r.1386-92), who served as the royal vicar for the Kingdoms of Croatia and Dalmatia. CDC XVII, 166,
September 20, 1388. John was followed by his nephew, Leonardo de Pensaurio (r.1392-1402), who also maintained
close contacts with the royal court. Ivančan, “Iz crkvene povijesti,” 104-8.
1231
The Roman popes appointed royal candidates: John II Smilo (r.1386-94), John III Scepus (r.1395-97) and Eberhard
Alben (r.1397-1408;1410-21). Lukinović, “Zagrebački biskupi,” 191-2; Lukinović, “Zagrebački biskup Eberhard,” 1.
1232
Petrović, “Politicized Religion,” 37-53.

249
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

reign of the Angevin kings. But the above-mentioned examples cleary show the limited extent of
the royal power. Sigismund was never able to fully influence the appointments of the archbishops
of Split and Zadar.
The period of the diminishing papal authority, interlocked with the political instability,
resulted in the increased opposition to the papal mandates and legally appointed bishops. For
instance, Paul Horvat kept using his title of the bishop of Zagreb for years, despite papal decision.
When King Stephen Tvrtko seized Knin in 1387/88, the Bosnian king installed Michael, a priest
from Ragusa and a trusted royal advisor, as the bishop of Knin.1233 For some reason, the king
hoped that the pope would remove the incumbent bishop Paul and instead appoint Michael, which
did not happen.1234 Pope Boniface IX’s candidate as the bishop of Senj in 1402 was rejected by
the local lord, Nicholas of Krk, who himself wanted to influence the local elections. 1235 Since a
year later the pope openly sided with King Ladislas’s attempt to claim the throne of Hungary-
Croatia, the rejected bishop was present in Zadar when King Ladislas arrived in July 1403.1236
Therefore, the lay nobility and bishops refused the papal mandates, if they were seen as openly
supporting a particular political option. But the same lay noblemen hoped to persuade the pope to
appoint approved individuals as bishops. The prelates who were exiled from or prevented from
obtaining their diocese kept using their titles and served at the court of their protectors in the hope
of regaining their lost bishopric. The papal or royal service was a refuge for clerics who were
prevented from occupying their own dioceses.1237 All of these examples were then exacerbated
with the events of 1403/04.
The open papal support for King Ladislas’s claim to the throne of Hungary-Croatia resulted
in the break between the Roman Apostolic See and King Sigismund and this cessation of relations
had a lasting influence on the episcopate of Croatia-Dalmatia. The pope authorized Cardinal
Angelo to crown Ladislas in Zadar,1238 but also to remove bishops opposing Ladislas and to
CEU eTD Collection

appoint those who supported the king’s attempts to seize the throne. Since several higher prelates,

1233
Michael had an important title of the court chancellor for Croatia and Dalmatia, which shows how the king wanted
to rule his newly claimed territories. Lovrenović, Na klizištu povijesti, 56-7.
1234
Paul was able to return only after the Bosnians had been defeated. CDC XVIII, 56-58, September 20, 1395.
1235
Bullae Bonifacii IX, 481-4, 1402.
1236
Bullae Bonifacii IX, 614, July 24, 1403.
1237
For instance, the above-mentioned bishop of Senj, Nicholas, served as the apostolic treasurer in the March of
Ancona in 1405. VMS I, 345, September 5, 1405; Eubel, Hierarchia Catholica I, 451; Priručnik II, 637.
1238
Lovrenović, Na klizištu povijesti, 62-3; Klaić, Povijest Hrvata II, 359-60; Klaić and Petricioli, Zadar u srednjem
vijeku, 366; Cutolo, Re Ladislao I, 263.

250
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

including the archbishop of Esztergom, supported Ladislas at the time, the cardinal concentrated
on ousting the bishop of Zagreb. Bishop Eberhard Alben was one of the foreigners disliked by the
Hungarian nobility but also one of the staunchest supporters of Sigismund. The cardinal-legate
had Eberhard removed and, in his stead, appointed John Scepus, the archbishop of Kalocsa.1239
Bishop Chrysogonus of Trogir was transferred to Kalocsa, while his nephew Simon de Dominis
became the bishop of Trogir (r. 1403-23). 1240 But these appointments were only as good if they
were followed by military victories of Ladislas’s supporters over Sigismund’s. John Scepus ended
up becoming the archbishop of Naples, while Chrysogonus remained in Trogir where he received
the monastery of Saint John the Baptist in commenda.1241
After containing Ladislas’s supporters to Bosnia, Croatia and Dalmatia, King Sigismund
decided to change the relations between the kingdom and the Roman papacy. While in Bratislava
in April 1404 the king issued the Decretum, also know as Placitum regium, which stated the
invalidity of papal bulls in Hungary, unless they were issued with the consent by the king.1242 King
Sigismund also directly accused the pope of trying to dethrone him in favour of Ladislas of Naples
and proceeded to claim the title of “the patron and defender of all the churches of the realm.”1243
Sigismund understood his role as both the ruler and the protector of the Church, considering the
bishoprics of all the rebel bishops as vacant and claiming the Church’s patronage rights in the
kingdom.1244 A decade earlier, when the cities of Dalmatia were occupied by the Bosnian rulers,
Sigismund’s royal charters still included the bishops of Croatia-Dalmatia as dignitaries of the
kingdom, since these bishoprics were viewed as being occupied. However, the only exception was
Trogir whose bishopric was listed as vacant during 1387/88, despite having a bishop, since the
CEU eTD Collection

1239
As the bishop of Zagreb, John was a close associate of King Sigismund, before the two parted ways. The Roman
pope removed John from Zagreb, but soon appointed him as the archbishop of Kalocsa. Labanc, “Die Agnen und
Vewandten des Zagreber Bischofs,” 246-258.
1240
Šišić, ”Nekoliko isprava,” 206, June 2, 1403.
1241
MVC I, n. 507, April 4, 1407.
1242
Bak, Laws of the Medieval Kingdom II, 29-30; Göller, König Sigismunds Kirchenpolitik, 6; Wakounig, Dalmatien
und Friaul, 59-61; Tóth, “A főpapi székek betöltésének,” 107-8; Mályusz, Konstanzer Konzil, 71-80; Bárd, “Break of
1404,” 59-65; Fedeles, "Die ungarischen Dom- und Kollegiatkapitel,” 79-80; Fedeles, “Az uralkodó, a Szentszék és
a magyar főpapok,” 87.
1243
ZsO II/1, doc. 4247, November 13, 1405.
1244
Canning, Ideas of Power, 170. The dioceses of Zadar, Trogir, Skradin, Knin, Nin, Šibenik, Makarska, Hvar and
Krbava were listed as vacant, even though they had bishops. Andrew Benzi was still listed as the archbishop of Split,
even though the pope removed Andrew. Šišić, “Nekoliko isprava,” 250, April 15, 1405; 262, November 28, 1405; 267,
April 22, 1406; 314, November 14, 1408. Compare with: Engel, Magyarország világi archontológiája, 84-7.

251
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

king considered the commune as rebels, indicating the early stage of later official royal stance
toward communes and bishoprics which the king viewed as rebellious.1245
Following the break with Rome, Sigismund did appoint or help elect several bishops, but
he always referred to them as only elected, since they lacked confirmation by the pope.1246 In
contrast to the French withdrawal of obedience to Avignon in 1398,1247 Sigismund’s break with
Rome always referred to temporal and never to spiritual reasons as the Roman pope – and later the
Pisan pretender – was still recognized as the spiritual head of the kingdom. In practice, the king
would keep the bishoprics of his opponents vacant and instead appoint royal administrators, while
the incomes of these dioceses would fill the royal coffers.1248 Out of the most notable examples,
Bishop Eberhard became the governor of Varad and Count Herman II of Celje (c.1360-1435) was
appointed as the governor of the bishopric of Zagreb,1249 while Archbishop Andrew of Split was
appointed as the administrator of the diocese of Eger.1250 The consequences of the papal-royal
conflict in 1403/04 resulted in the establishment of a clerical elite loyal to Sigismund which held
the important episcopal positions, influenced the episcopal elections in the kingdom and firmly
supported the king.1251 Although the king reestablished contacts with the Roman Curia and,
following his election as the King of Germany in 1411, worked tirelessly on healing the papal
schism, Sigismund used his influence at the Council of Constance to have the gathered cardinals
confirm the royal prerogative of ecclesiastical patronage.1252
While the break between Sigismund and Rome was only provisional, the consequences
were not. The political events and necessity dictated the gradual evolution of how the king viewed

1245
CDC XVII, 476-7, October 11, 1392; 479, October 11, 1392; 484, December 8, 1392; CDH X/3, 133, February
CEU eTD Collection

6, 1393. CDC XVII, 96, October 28, 1387; 130, February 11, 1388; 143, May 7, 1388.
1246
Wakounig, Dalmatien und Friaul, 61; Hunyadi, “Western Schism and Hungary,” 51-2.
1247
Harvey, Solutions to the Schism, 97-112; Kaminsky, “Politics of France's Subtraction of Obedience,” 336-97. The
French court mounted a series of diplomatic activities to the courts of England and the Holy Roman Empire to persuade
those rulers to also withdraw their obedience to Rome and to call for a general council, which resulted in the counter
activities of the Roman papal court.
1248
Tóth, “A főpapi székek betöltésének,” 102-8.
1249
Rački, “Pokret na slavenskom jugu,” III, 89; CDH, X/4, 518, 555; Engel, Magyarország világi archontológiája I,
79; Lukinović, “Zagrebački biskup Eberhard,” 7-8.
1250
Bellwald, Erzbischof Andreas, 41; Lovrenović, Na klizištu povijesti, 103.
1251
Fügedi, “Hungarian Bishops,” II, 378; Engel, “Zsigmond bárói,” 410-5.
1252
Mályusz, Konstanzer Konzil, 8-9; Stump, Reforms of the Council of Constance, 425; Frenken, “Der König und
sein Konzil,” 177-241; Wakounig, Dalmatien und Friaul, 62-3; Hoensch, Kaiser Sigismund, 146-7; Brandmüller,
Papst und Konzil im Großen Schisma, 71-84; Cutolo, Re Ladislao I, 267; Partner, Lands of Saint Peter, 386. For the
role played in these events by Archbishop Andrew Benzi of Split, see: Bellwald, Erzbischof Andreas, 56-62.

252
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

the position of the clergy in the kingdom and the royal role in protecting and controlling the
Church. This new approach was soon felt across the kingdom and even in Split.

V.4. One See, Three Archbishops

Archbishop Peregrin of Split died shortly before seeing his patron, King Ladislas, selling
parts of Neapolitan-controlled Dalmatia. Due to its specific status, Split was since 1408 under the
nominal control of King Sigismund. With the battle of Dobor (1408), the king subjugated the
Bosnian nobility and their territories, which also included Duke Hrvoje Vukčić who ruled over
Split. Peregrin died sometime before May 1409, while several months later Domnius Judicibus,
from the cathedral chapter, appeared as the archbishop-elect.1253 Since large parts of Christendom
accepted the authority of the Pisan popes, a petition to recognize Domnius was successfuly
submitted to Pope John XXIII (r.1410-15) by August 1410.1254 But a year later, the pope reverted
on his decision, revoked his confirmation od Domnius and instead transfered Peter of Pag, the
bishop of Faenza in Romagna (r.1406-11).1255 For its backing of Domnius and the resistance to
Peter, Pope John excommunicated the commune.1256
Curiously, on the same day when Domnius was first confirmed, the pope decided to
transfer Andrew Benzi, the exiled archbishop of Split who was backed by King Sigismund, to the
archbishopric of Thebes.1257 John XXIII was aware of Sigismund’s opposition, and while it was
suggested that the annulment of Domnius’s appointment was the result of royal displeasure,1258
the pope sidelined the royal candidate and instead appointed his own. I wonder if the understanding
for the change lies in the dynamic of the relations between King Sigismund and the Pisan pope,
and the pope hoped that by installing Peter in Split the papacy would extend its influence over
Dalmatia. In February 1412 King Sigismund decided to take a direct approach by issuing an order
CEU eTD Collection

to the commune to reinstate Andrew. The king invoked his right of patronage over the Church in

1253
“Serie dei reggitori,” 44-5, May 8, 1409; Bellwald, Erzbischof Andreas, 43, December 24, 1409; Kuzmanić,
Splitski plemići, 107-8.
1254
Eubel, Hierarchia Catholica I, 460, August 11, 1410.
1255
Eubel, Hierarchia Catholica I, 460, October 19, 1411.
1256
The excommunication was mentioned in a later charter from 1426, when the commune sent its representatives to
the Apostolic See to ask for absolution. According to the petition, the nobility was excommunicated several times for
their conflicts with Archbishops Hugolin and Andrew, as well as for resisting the orders of Pisan Pope John XXIII.
Farlati, Illyricum Sacrum III, 369, January 6, 1426.
1257
Eubel, Hierarchia Catholica I I, 460; Bellwald, Erzbischof Andreas, 44, August 11, 1410.
1258
As suggested by Neralić, “Udio Hrvata u papinskoj diplomaciji,” 95.

253
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

the kingdom and demanded from the community to renounce both Peter and Domnius.1259 Since
Split was still controlled by Duke Hrvoje, Sigismund’s threat of military intervention was not only
aimed against the commune but its ruler. Although Sigismund defeated the opposing Bosnian army
in 1408, the royal reign in Dalmatia was only nominal and Duke Hrvoje was an unreliable ally.1260
Although Domnius built his career through the cathedral chapter, which resulted in his
election as the archbishop, he enjoyed support of Duke Hrvoje. The archbishop served on several
missions as Hrvoje’s envoy to Venice.1261 But it cannot be stated with certainty that Domnius was
elected due to the open backing of Duke Hrvoje, since Domnius was a member of the nobility in
Split and as such had the backing of the cathedral chapter and the leading social strata of the
commune. The chapter appointed Domnius as the vicar and administrator of the archbishopric,
providing him with the authority and power necessary to lead the archbishopric, while Domnius
only had the powers of an elected archbishop.1262 Domnius did not appear in the city charters,
which had the office of the archbishop vacant from March 1409 until January 1416, after which
Domnius appeared regularly as the archbishop.1263 This could suggest that he lacked the support
from the commune, but the most likely reason was the opposition from King Sigismund and Pisan
Pope John XXIII. The papal candidate, Peter of Pag, kept using his archiepiscopal title, but was
prevented from obtaining his diocese so he remained in papal service throughout this period.1264
As mentioned, Domnius used his title when serving on diplomatic missions for Duke Hrvoje in
1410 and 1411, while in September 1413 Archbishop Domnius led the Spalatine mission to King
Sigismund.1265 When Venice took over the city in 1420, the communal leadership asked the

1259
Ančić, “Liber Bullarum,” 247-248, February 14, 1412; Guerrieri, “Andrea di Pietro di Gionta,” 501-2; Bellwald,
CEU eTD Collection

Erzbischof Andreas, 45.

1260
For the relations between Sigismund and Hrvoje at the time, see: Lovrenović, Na klizištu povijesti, 170-2; Šišić,
Vojvoda Hrvoje, 204-37; Novak, Povijest Splita, 332-42.
1261
In 1410 the archbishop and associates (archiepiscopo Spalatensi et sociis) were sent as Hrvoje's envoys to Venice
to discuss recent Hrvoje's territorial expansions and privileges. Listine VI, 78-82 April 8, 1410. In January 1411 the
archbishop was granted the salvus conductus from Venice for one year, but it was not stated what the mission involved.
Listine VI, 135, January 22, 1411.
1262
Dominus Duymus electus Spalatensis et Vicarius per Capitulum dictae ecclesiae deputatus, et Gubernator
Ecclesiae supradictae et ipsum Capitulum Spalatense. Farlati, Illyricum Sacrum III, 361. For the limits on the powers
of the archbishop-elect, see: Benson, Bishop-Elect, 167-200.
1263
“Serie dei reggitori,” 44-5, May 8, 1409; 127-8, January 28, 1416.
1264
Peter served the pope as cubicularius Summi Pontificis et registrator signatarum. Neralić, Put do crkvene
nadarbine, 269; Neralić, “Udio Hrvata u papinskoj diplomaciji,” 95. At the beginning of 1413 Peter received the
salvus conductus from Pisan Pope John XXIII to visit the Papal Curia in Tuscany. VMS I, 354, January 4, 1413.
1265
Šišić, Vojvoda Hrvoje, 229-30; Klaić, Povijest Hrvata III, 85-6; CDH X/5, 426-7.

254
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

Venetian doge to keep Domnius as the archbishop,1266 which shows that Domnius had full backing
of his commune.
Realizing his weak position in Dalmatia and that the royal threats issued to Split in early
1412 failed, the king took a different approach by the end of the year. During August Domnius
appeared as the archbishop of Split in the Hungarian royal charters,1267 which suggests that some
sort of agreement occurred which involved the king, the duke and the archbishop. Around the same
time the king successfully petitioned Pisan Pope John XXIII to appoint Andrew as the archbishop
of Kalocsa-Bács,1268 the second most important archbishopric in the kingdom.
The relations between King Sigismund and Duke Hrvoje were always of dubious nature.
In late June 1413 King Sigismund proclaimed that Duke Hrvoje was an outlaw and called the
council of Split to remove Hrvoje from the city.1269 The king was at the time in Furlania, where he
was waging war against Venice. The citizens of Split carried out the royal mandate in the first days
of July.1270 Not much is known about these actions, but Archbishop Domnius was in September
1413 in Chur where Sigismund sojourned at the time. From there the archbishop reported to his
commune that Duke Hrvoje tried to appeal to the king, but Sigismund relied on the representatives
from Split when formulating the answers to the duke.1271 The fact that in such a short time the
archbishop obtained a high degree of trust from the king suggest that Domnius and the king
established good contacts during 1412 and that the archbishop played some diplomatic role in the
quick overthrowing of Hrvoje. When Venice took Split in 1420, Sigismund protected Domnius
and continued to support the archbishop’s claim to Split. In Hungarian royal charters Domnius was
listed as the archbishop from 1412 until 1435.1272
While Domnius had the support of the members of his own social class, the elites of Split,
his position as the archbishop of Split was secure, despite the opposition by the pope and the king.
CEU eTD Collection

The cathedral chapter authorized Domnius to lead the archbishopric as the vicar, while his position
enabled him to represent the interest of his commune during diplomatic missions.

1266
Listine VIII, 24-9, July 9, 1420.
1267
Following the fall of Split to Venice in 1420, Archbishop Domnius found shelter at the royal court and King
Sigismund supported Domnius as the archbishop until his death 1435, showing that the Kingdom of Hungary-Croatia
still considered Split as one of its cities. Engel, Magyarország világi archontológiája, 84.
1268
HC I, 197, January 4, 1413; Engel, Magyarország világi archontológiája, 84.
1269
Šišić, Vojvoda Hrvoje, 226; Novak, Povijest Splita, 339-40.
1270
Klaić, Povijest Hrvata III, 81-2; Listine VII, 123-4.
1271
Šišić, Vojvoda Hrvoje, 229-30; Klaić, Povijest Hrvata III, 85-6; CDH X/5, 426-7.
1272
Engel, Magyarország világi archontológiája, 84.

255
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

V.5. The Church of Croatia-Dalmatia and La Serenissima

Starting with the acquisition of Zadar in 1409, the Republic of Venice concluded its
conquest of the entire Dalmatia by 1420. La Serenissima found itself ruling over a number of semi-
autonomous communes, with whom the new authorities had to define their administrative,
economic and political relations. Since the local ecclesiastical structures were embedded into the
medieval Dalmatian communes, equally important for Venice was to establish control over the
local Churches. But the conclusion that almost all Dalmatian bishops of the fifteenth century were
appointed on the direct instigation of the Republic of Venice was criticized by Jadranka Neralić,
who called it an “old premise of the Croatian historiography.” The author, instead, emphasized the
role of the Apostolic See, stating that these bishops owed their appointments primarily due to their
connections to the popes, and less because they were of Venetian ancestry.1273 Her conclusions for
Venetian Dalmatia were similar to the ones by Giuseppe del Torre who observed corresponding
trends in the Venetian Terraferma, the territories of the Venetian mainland, during the fifteenth
and sixteenth centuries.1274 Both authors accentuated the direct connections between the appointed
bishops and the Apostolic See, while adding that the Venetians were regularly appointed to the
richer and more important dioceses. In addition, Torre concluded that out of all the bishops
appointed in the Venetian Terraferma, 74% were of Venetian origin,1275 while Neralić stated that
the numbers in Dalmatia were 65%.1276
But these conclusions alone cannot explain how successful Venetian citizens were in
obtaining the bishoprics of Dalmatia during the fifteenth century, which stands in stark contrast to
the Venetian government’s efforts in filling the vacant episcopal positions in the previous
centuries. It is, therefore, necessary to more closely consider the Venetian prior attempts to control
the Dalmatian bishoprics, the administrative-ecclesiastical changes which were occurring within
CEU eTD Collection

Venice itself and their connection with the evolution of the papal-episcopal relations. Lastly, the
conflicts between Venice, Rome and the local bishoprics occurring at the beginning of the fifteenth
century should be considered.

1273
Neralić, “Svi papini ljudi,” 53-82.
1274
Torre, “Stato regionale e benefici ecclesiastici,” 1171-1236.
1275
Between 1405 and 1550 in 12 bishoprics of Terraferma there were 84 of 113 bishops of Venetian origin. Torre,
“Stato,” 1181.
1276
Between 1417 until 1492 in 9 bishoprics of Dalmatia there were 70 bishops out of which 46 were of Venetian
origin, 7 coming from the Papal States and 17 from Dalmatia. Neralić, “Svi papini ljudi,” 80.

256
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

During the thirteenth and the fourteenth centuries the Venetian involvement in the
ecclesiastical sphere in Dalmatia was equally – if not more – contested as the Venetian political
rule. During the thirteenth century Venice twice forced Zadar to sign pacts of dedication, defining
the terms of subjugation of Zadar to Venice.1277 In these pacts the Venetian Senate specified that
the archbishops of Zadar must be elected from among the Venetian citizens. Since archbishops
were predominantly elected by the cathedral chapter, the electors were more susceptible to
pressure from local communities and Venetian authorities.1278
These appointments, mediated by the patriarch of Grado as the metropolitan for Dalmatia,
worked as long as the local communities, namely its cathedral chapters, had the ability to elect
their own bishops. By the fourteenth century the papal interventions diminished the role of chapters
in the episcopal elections, as the popes tended to reserve bishoprics, forgo local elections or
directly appoint papal candidates.1279 This meant that direct access to the Apostolic See was more
effective way of suggesting a potential bishop than by pressuring the local clergy. But during the
Venetian rule over Dalmatia (c.1322-1358) not a single Venetian was appointed bishop, even
though the Senate campaigned at the Papal Curia and employed the help of several cardinals.
Appointed bishops came from either Dalmatia or from the circles close to the Apostolic See. While
it could seem that Venice met strong papal opposition on the matter, the popes were cautious to
provide clerics acceptable to the Venetian Senate with positions within the republic’ borders.1280
Based on the individual cases from Dalmatia, Venice lacked stronger presence at the Curia. The
Avignon popes of the mid-fourteenth century reached an unprecedented power in influencing most
episcopal appointments, which meant that the popes could eschew the Venetian influence.
The relation between the Venetian authorities and its Church was often ambiguous as
officially the authorities did not intervene in the ecclesiastical matters. In practice the Senate
CEU eTD Collection

constantly involved itself in the matters of the Church, both on the level of episcopal appointments
of local parish priests. The Venetian authorities saw the bishops as the extension of the
administration of the Venetian Republic.1281 This was reflected in the institutional changes which

1277
Orlando, “Politica del diritto, amministrazione, giustizia,” 15-9; Miller, Venice in the East Adriatic, 261; Šišić,
“Zadar i Venecija,” 254-74; Krekić, “Venezia e l'Adriatico,” 51-85.
1278
Gaudemet, “De l’election à la nomination des évêques,” 137-56; Caron, “Les élections épiscopales,” 573-85.
1279
Barraclough, “The Making of a Bishop,” 275-319; Ganzer, Papsttum und Bistumsbesetzungen, 9-91.
1280
ASV, Reg. Vat. 161, f. 135 ep. 682, October 25, 1330.
1281
Girgensohn, Kirche, Politik und adelige Regierung, I, 81; Cristellon and Menchi, „Religious life,” 379-420;
Ippolito, “Ecclesiastici veneti, tra Venezia e Roma,” 209-34; Prodi, “Strutture e organizzazione della Chiesa di
Venezia,” 1-30; Kretschmayr, Geschichte von Venedig II, 577.

257
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

occurred during the second half of the fourteenth century, as the Senate institutionalized the
episcopal elections carried out within the territories of the Venetian Republic through the
procedure of probae.1282 This meant that in the case of an episcopal vacancy, an administrative
procedure would be commenced in order to fill the position. Those interested in gaining a bishopric
could apply personally or be suggested by relatives or acquaintances. The Senate would vote, and
the winner would be promoted by the Venetian agents at the Papal Curia. The probae were first
applied for the bishops at the Venetian core and other oversee territories and this procedure was
then gradually expanded. The goal was to centralize the episcopal appointments firmly in Venetian
hands, but that does not mean that petitions were automatically successful, because the popes
tended to reject candidates suggested by the Senate.1283
At the time, Venice was seriously weakened by constant fighting with its neighbors and
the unfavorable peace treaty with Genoa and the Kingdom of Hungary (1381), but the Republic
quickly consolidated its ranks. The acquisition of Treviso (1386) marks a new prevailing ideology
in Venice, one no longer focused exclusively on the expansion of maritime trade but interested in
consolidating the Venetian territories. Whenever an opening arose for Venice to expand its
Terraferma or Stato da Mar, the Republic seized the opportunity.1284 Due to considerable problems
which affected Northern Italy and which were interconnected with the papal schism, the Venetians
entered into conflict with bordering powers who threatened the Republic. Venice intervened in the
conflict between the Carrara of Padua and the Visconti of Milan which led to the conquest of Padua
and Verona (1405).1285
The noble families (Signoria) dominated the cities of Northern Italy for decades and
expanded their reign over ecclesiastical structures by creating a client-based system of control of
local benefices.1286 These oligarchs were also successful in installing their supporters as bishops.
CEU eTD Collection

For instance, when the Visconti of Milan ousted the regime of the Scaligeri from Verona, Gian
Galeazzo Visconti installed Jacopo Rossi as the bishop (r.1388-1406). Likewise, in Padua the
bishopric was administered by Stefano Carrara (r.1402-06), the son of the ruler of the city,

1282
Cenci, “Senato veneto: Probae,” 315-432.
1283
Girgensohn, Kirche, Politik und adelige Regierung, I, 104-6.
1284
Girgensohn, “Venedig im späteren Mittelalter,” 488.
1285
Kohl, Padua under the Carrara, 315-36; Kohl, “Renaissance Padua as Kunstwerk,” 188-9.
1286
For Verona and Milan, see: Gamberini, Lo Stato Visconteo, 69-136; Varanini, “Signoria cittadina, vescovi e
diocesi,” 875-921. For Padua, see: Gaffuri and Gallo, “Signoria ed episcopato a Padova,” 923-56.

258
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

Francesco Carrara. Since these bishops were installed by previous regimes, The Venetian Senate
sought at replacing them with more amiable prelates.
The explanation for the prior appointments of these bishops and why Venetian Senate
thought they should be removed can be summarized by looking at the development of the relations
between the popes and the lay rulers. As mentioned, the papal centralization of the episcopal
appointments ran parallel with the development of the system of petitions. The popes were
susceptible to the requests of the lay rulers, as long as the two shared certain diplomatic interest.1287
But the weakening of the Apostolic See during the Western schism also led to the revival of the
elections by cathedral chapters, temporarily suppressed by the papal centralization, although the
elected bishop had to be confirmed by the Apostolic See. The lay rulers could promote their
candidates either through the cathedral chapter or directly by petitioning the pope.
The Venetian approach to newly conquered bishoprics varied, depending on the relative
power of the Republic in these newly obtained places.1288 Giuseppe del Torre noted that Venetian
citizens were installed as bishops on the newly obtained territories gradually and slowly, as their
appointments were subordinated to the procedures established by canon law. The Venetian
authorities would negotiate with the Apostolic Curia for years in order to persuade the pope to
replace unsympathetic bishops and to appoint Venetian candidates.1289 Once Padua and Verona
were seized, the Venetians undertook complex negotiations with the Apostolic See in order to
replace the bishops of these cities. The process stalled despite the diplomatic campaign of the
Senate and the fact that from November 1406 a Venetian patrician was Roman Pope Gregory XII
(r.1406-15). Although the pope confirmed the Venetian candidate in Verona, he also decided to
install somebody close to the Apostolic See in Padua. In both cases the selected bishops were
Venetian citizens, which was agreeable to the Senate.1290
CEU eTD Collection

In 1409 Zadar became part of Venice, which resulted in war between King Sigismund of
Hungary and Venice which was fought in Dalmatia, but also in Friuli, where Sigismund used

1287
Smith, “Development of Papal Provisions,” 110-21.
1288
The politics of replacing bishops varied. In some places the Venetians demanded that the bishops be removed
immediately following the conquest (Padua and Verona), while in some it took them several years of cohabitating
with the bishops before demanding the same (Vicenza and Bergamo), while in some examples the Venetians would
allow the bishop to remain until death, before being succeeded by a Venetian candidate. Torre, “Stato regionale e
benefici ecclesiastici,” 1177-9.
1289
Torre, “Stato,” 1181. This was also the case when Florence conquered Pisa in 1405. Ronzani, “Chiesa pisana dopo
il 1406,” 137-150.
1290
Cenci, “Senato veneto: Probae,” 352-3, July 31, 1405; 354, March 4, 1406; Girgensohn, Kirche, Politik und
adelige Regierung, I, 111-2; Eubel, Hierarchia Catholica I, 386, 523.

259
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

contacts with the family of Carrara, who wanted to reobtain Padua, and the patriarch of Aquileia,
who controlled Friuli. From 1411 both sides involved Pisan Pope John XXIII as a mediator, whose
mediation failed as it was defined by the papal-imperial relations, particularly since Sigismund
was determined on convening a general council and solving the Schism. Venice was much more
successful in Dalmatia, obtaining Šibenik after a prolonged siege. Both sides, exhausted by the
war decided to sign an armistice (14 April 1413) which ended conflicts between Venice and
Sigismund with his allies in Dalmatia and Northern Italy.1291
The Venetians did not introduce major changes in Dalmatia as they respected the pre-
existing social structures in the communities, nor did they make any major changes in the structure
of the municipal government. This was all done in order to ensure the loyalty of the local ruling
elites. For Venice it was more important to make sure that Venetians were always appointed to
leading positions, that commercial life was aligned with the interests of Venice, and the maritime
ports and shipping was secured.1292 The approach of limited non-interference was then extended
to the ecclesiastical structures.
Venice used the end of military operations with Sigismund to reinforce its rule in Dalmatia.
On 31 August 1413 a decision was passed forbidding the granting of ecclesiastical benefices to
foreigners, which meant that only the citizens of local communes could receive benefices in
Dalmatia. But the Republic also reserved for Venetian citizens the bishoprics Verona, Padua,
Vicenza, Treviso and Ceneda, all suffragans of Aquileia, and recently conquered by Venice. The
same was decided for the archbishopric of Zadar, but not for Šibenik.1293 The Venetian behavior
depended on their historical experience, showing more strictness and direct control over Zadar,
than the rest of Dalmatia. The decision with benefices was done in order to indulge the local elites
whose members previously occupied these benefices, while keeping the more important bishoprics
controlled by Venetian members.1294
CEU eTD Collection

1291
Wakounig, Dalmatien und Friaul, 70; Listine VI, 142-3; Šunjić, Dalmacija u XV stoljeću, 52-3; Zadar pod
mletačkom upravom, 29-36.
1292
For the organization of the Venetian authority in Dalmatia, see: Zadar pod mletačkom upravom, 36-72; Pederin,
“Die venezianische Verwaltung Dalmatiens,” 99-163; Pederin, “Die wichtigsten Ämter der venezianischen
Verwaltung in Dalmatien,” 305-55; Girgensohn, “Venedig im späteren Mittelalter,” 494-504; Raukar, “La Dalmazia
e Venezia,” 63-76; Orlando, “Politica del diritto, amministrazione, giustizia,” 19-23; Girgensohn, “Venedig im
späteren Mittelalter,” 486-7; Krekić, “Venezia e l'Adriatico,” 51-85; Raukar, Zadar u XV stoljeću, 30-51; Zadar pod
mletačkom upravom, 29-96; Schmitt, “Das venezianische Sudosteuropa als Kommunikationsraum,” 83-90.
1293
Listine VII, 129-30, August 31, 1413.
1294
Torre, “Stato regionale e benefici ecclesiastici,” 1176-7.

260
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

Archbishop Luca of Zadar (r.1400-20)1295 and Bishop Bogdan of Šibenik (r.1402-36),1296

appointed during the period before Venice, cooperated with the new Venetian authorities and kept
their positions. But with their deaths, the Senate enacted the procedure of probae and gradually
introduced this system as bishoprics became vacant. The system was first used in the episcopal
election in Rab in 1414, where the Senate rejected a candidate elected by the cathedral chapter in
favour of an individual viewed as loyal to the Republic.1297 Of course, the lenient Venetian conduct
was not extended to all clerics. Abbot Chrysogonus de Soppe from Zadar was distrusted by the
Venetian authorities.1298 The abbot was already distrusted by the previous Neapolitan government
of Zadar. The Venetians had Chrysogonus exiled in 1409, while in 1419 the abbot had to offer his
resignation. Although, the Venetians probably wanted to extend their control over the monastery,
they tended to leave the control over important monasteries in hands of local nobility, which
proved its loyalty to the Republic. After Chrysogonus resigned his position, the Venetians allowed
the appointment of a Zaratin nobleman, Peter, as the next abbot. In 1421, the Senate selected the
next abbot of Saints Cosmas and Damian, which was another important local monastery. The most
votes went for Louis, the nephew of Guido Matafari, who was an important and trusted local
nobleman.1299
The situation with Split was somewhat different as after another war with Sigismund the
Venetians now claimed the city and the rest of Dalmatia. The commune of Split petitioned Venice
by July 1420 and asked for several privileges concerning internal affairs, but some of the questions
were also related to the ecclesiastical sphere. The commune asked the doge and the Senate of

1295
Čoralić and Karbić, “Prilog životopisu,” 71-81.
1296
Unlike the archbishop of Split and the bishop of Trogir, it seems that Bogdan did not seek support from King
Sigismund during the clash between his city and Venice nor did he oppose the Venetian takeover, even though Šibenik
CEU eTD Collection

was besieged by Venice between 1409 and 1412. This is corroborated by the fact that the Hungarian royal charters
listed the diocese of Šibenik as vacant from 1405 to 1454. Engel, Magyarország világi archontológiája, 86. For
examples of cooperation between the bishop and Venice, immediately following the conquest of Šibenik, see:
Grubišić, “Šibenik i Venecija,” 128.
1297
Archdeacon Anthony de Cadavanzo was elected by his cathedral chapter, but the Senate, instead, elected
Cleric Marin Cernota, a nephew of Andrew de Dominis, and therefore cousin of Bishop Simon of Trogir. Andrew was
an important local supporter of King Ladislas, so in order to control Rab and surrounding areas Venice probably also
wanted to maintain good relations with the Dominis family. Cenci, “Senato veneto: Probae,” 364, January 30, 1414;
Radauš, “Crnota.”
1298
Peričić, “Samostan Svetog Krševana,” 104, f. 157, December 2, 1406; Granić, “Kronološki pregled povijesti
zadarske nadbiskupije,” 238.
1299
Ostojić, Benediktinci u Hrvatskoj II, 49; Peričić, “Samostan Svetog Krševana,” 104; Cenci, “Senato veneto:
Probae,” 371-2, June [no day], 1421. Due to his support for Ladislas of Naples, Guido Matafari became one of the
most important noblemen in Zadar. He supported the Venetian takeover in 1409 and was rewarded for his loyalty by
the new government. Ančić, “Od tradicije ‘sedam pobuna’ do dragovoljnih mletačkih podanika,” 43-96.

261
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

Venice to allow Archbishop Domnius, who originated from the Spalatin nobility, to keep his
position. The chapter of Split also asked the Senate to allow that the future archbishops be elected
by the clergy and the nobility of Split.1300 In the changing relations between the secular and
spiritual powers of the late medieval period, this was not something that the local communities
could ask for, nor something that Venice could grant, as it was the pope who in the end approved
episcopal candidates. But the question is interesting from the aspect of understanding of the
episcopal position in the late medieval community. The nobility wanted to reserve this position for
its own members, particularly since the cathedral chapter was filled with the sons of the local
noblemen.1301 Since Domnius cooperated in the past with King Sigismund, the archbishop was
viewed as an enemy of Venice, who cannot be allowed to stay in Split.
Due to scheming by Pisan Pope John XXIII, who wanted to exert his influence over Split,
the pope rejected Domnius and appointed Peter of Pag as the archbishop of Split. The Venetians
responded positively to the petition by the chapter, permitting that the episcopal election be left to
the local elites. It was established that the final decision regarding the archbishop would be left to
the pope, but by mid-1420 the Venetian authorities allowed Peter, described as being faithful to
the Serenissima, to take his archiepiscopal position in Split.1302 The decision to leave the
archiepiscopal elections to the local elites in Split is curious, particularly since in other places, on
the occasion of the acceptance of Venetian rule, the Senate did not negotiate the episcopal
appointments with subordinate communes.1303 Due to its geopolitical position of allowing further
expansion to the Dalmatian hinterland, Venice probably wanted to reinforce its control over Split.
Sigismund’s troops were routed, but the war was still ongoing.
The example of Domnius and Peter of Pag shows how the Venetians avoided embroiling
themselves in situation which would lead to a prolonged conflict regarding the archbishopric.
CEU eTD Collection

Instead, they were willing to accept already appointed bishops, as long as these prelates were loyal
to the Republic. But as soon as these bishops died or were transferred, Venice would insist on
installing Venetian citizens as bishops. The most important and richest dioceses attracted the most
attention from the Venetians. During the probae for Rab in 1414, only two candidates were

1300
per clerum et nobiles dicte civitatis. Listine VIII, 24-9, July 9, 1420; Novak, Povijest Splita, 350-6.
1301
See also the previously mentioned peace treaty between warring nobility of Split from 1402 in which they
demanded that only local sons be selected as archbishops of Split.
1302
Listine VIII, 24-9, July 9, 1420; 62, 64, December 30, 1420; Novak, Povijest Splita, 350-6.
1303
Torre, “Stato regionale e benefici ecclesiastici,” 1075-76. For instance, in Šibenik. Listine VI, 288-93, October
30, 1412.

262
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

considered, while for Zadar in 1420 the Senate received eight nominations. The most votes for the
archbishop of Zadar were cast for Blasius Molino (r.1420-28), who was also backed by the local
nobility, and less than a month later he was able to secure an episcopal transfer by the pope.1304
This prelate came from an influential patrician family and already had a distinguished career as
the bishop of Pula, becoming later the patriarch of Grado and even Jerusalem.1305 He was just one
in the line of several archbishops of Zadar who belonged to the rank of the Venetian patriciate,
whose members were also filling the ranks of the Venetian state apparatus. Therefore, the
archbishops, while having distinguished ecclesiastical careers and connections to the Apostolic
See, belonged to a homogeneous ruling elite that held the monopoly on the Venetian government
and carried out its politics. Their relatives sat on councils and participated in the government, so it
is quite understandable how the Senate's insistence on having Venetians appointed as bishops also
meant that these clerics had obligations and duties toward the Church and toward the Republic.
Above all, they were required to be loyal to La Serenissima.1306
Most Dalmatian archbishoprics and bishoprics – except for Zadar – were rather poor and
probably uninteresting to Venetians in comparison with their counterparts in the Terraferma. This
helps to explain why it took several years for Venice to officially demand that subordinated
Dalmatian cities have Venetian bishops. The decision was facilitated by the conflict with the
bishop of Trogir, Simon de Dominis (r.1403-23), who participated in the defense of Trogir against
Venice and cooperated with King Sigismund. Bishop Simon took part in the Council of Constance
as one of the members of the German nation.1307 After the bishop returned to Trogir, he was among
the leaders of the resistance to the Venetians. For his actions he was exiled and his properties were
confiscated.1308 Most of those opposing Venice were granted amnesty, but not the bishop, who was
forbidden from returning. Simon and his family found shelter and service at the court of King
Sigismund.1309 The Venetians proceeded to seize the incomes of the bishopric and prevent the
CEU eTD Collection

1304
requisitus per nobiles et communitatem Iadrem. Cenci, “Senato veneto: Probae,” 369-70, February 8, 1420; Eubel,
Hierarchia Catholica I, 281, March 4, 1420.
1305
His brother Francesco served in the highest offices of the Republic. Girgensohn, Kirche, Politik und adelige
Regierung, II, 893-9.
1306
Torre, “Stato regionale e benefici ecclesiastici,” 1217-8; Neralić, Put do crkvene nadarbine, 262-3. For the concept
of loyalty to Venice, see: O’Connell, “Legitimating Venetian Expansion,” 73-4.
1307
Farlati, Trogirski biskupi, 307-8.
1308
Listine VIII, 33-4, August 1, 1420; Klaić, Povijest grada Trogira, 365; Lucić, Povijesna svjedočanstva II 871-96,
907-65; Andreis, Povijest grada Trogira, 151-9; Benyovsky Latin, Srednjovjekovni Trogir, 35; Šunjić, Dalmacija u
XV stoljeću, 64.-65; Perojević, Dva borca za slobodu, [no pages].
1309
Simon's brother John became the bishop of Senj (r.1432-44). Zsoldos, Magyarország világi archontológiája, 87.

263
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

bishop from granting benefices in the bishopric.1310 By the end of 1421 the Venetian authorities
were informed that Simon intended to go to Rome to resign his position and to work on having his
cousin, Marin Cernota, the bishop of Rab, transferred to Trogir. Simon’s actions succeeded, since
the pope transferred Marin to Trogir in May 1423.1311 However, the Venetian authorities petitioned
the pope to remove Marin, stop appointing Dalmatians to the bishoprics of Dalmatia, and to instead
provide only Venetian citizens with these appointments.1312
The Senate also passed the resolution of 1423, which was linked to the one from 1413. It
was decided that “for the security of the land of Dalmatia” only Venetians could be appointed as
the bishops.1313 Through the system of probae, the Senate chose Fantinus Valaresso, the bishop of
Poreč (r.1415-26), a bishopric in Istria, situated between Dalmatia and Venice. The bishop
received backing from the cathedral chapter of Trogir, but envoys sent to persuade the pope were
somewhat successful.1314 The pope transferred Marin to Trieste, which was outside of Venetian
dominion, but instead of Fantinus, the pope appointed Thomas, a Dominican friar from Venice, as
the next bishop of Trogir.1315 With this action the pope accomplished two goals: (1) the Venetians
were satisfied with the appointment of a friendly Venetian prelate, while (2) the pope upheld his
right to freely appoint bishops based on the system of papal provisions.
The process of installing Venetians to the bishoprics of subordinated territories was
gradual, followed the rules of the canon law and greatly depended on the will of the pontiff. But
even if the popes did not approve of the Venetian intrusion into the episcopal elections, the popes
tended to provide these bishoprics with Venetians, who were interested in obtaining richer and
more important sees. The Venetian approach to controlling episcopal appointments was nothing
innovative, as other Italian polities followed similar approach, but they lacked the longevity of the
Venetian Republic and persistence. Venetian patrician families supplied the Church with an
CEU eTD Collection

1310
Listine VIII, 29-31, July 29, 1420; 33-4, August 1, 1420; 105-9, August 2, 1421; Farlati, Trogirski biskupi, 309-
11; Pederin, Mletačka uprava, 31-2.
1311
Eubel, Hierarchia Catholica I, 490, May 7, 1423.
1312
Listine VIII, 67, January 14, 1421; 107, August 2, 1421; 231-2, June 17, 1423; Pederin, Mletačka uprava, 32;
Benyovsky Latin, Srednjovjekovni Trogir, 208; Farlati, Illyricum Sanctum IV, 397-9.
1313
Venice also demanded that the abbot of the Benedictine monastery of Saint Chrysogonus in Zadar be a Venetian
citizen. Listine VIII, 231-2, June 17, 1423.
1314
Fantinus Valaresso, episcopus Parentinus, decretorum doctor et electus ad dictum episcopatum Traguriensem
per canonicos et capitulum episcopatus Traguriensis. There were seven candidates to consider. Cenci, “Senato veneto:
Probae,” 373-4, June 18, 1423; Eubel, Hierarchia Catholica I, 390; Listine VIII, 271, April 26, 1424.
1315
Thomas (Paruta or Thomasini) was often transfered from one bishopric to another and mostly within the Venetian
dominion. He was the bishop of Novigrad (r.1409-20), then Pula (r.1420-23) and then Urbino (r.1423-24), prior to
being appointed as the bishop of Trogir. Eubel, Hierarchia Catholica I, 74, 404, 490, 509.

264
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

abundance of clerics who built their successful careers through contacts with the Curia. Although
appointed by the pope, these prelates were connected to their family members in Venice, the
holders of central power, so it is unlikely that their episcopal activities would go contrary to the
interests of the Venetian Republic. By controlling the episcopal elections, the Venetian Senate
wanted to reinforce its reign, but had to take into consideration the interests of the local
communities, whose voices were less important, and the Apostolic See, which in the end decided.
CEU eTD Collection

265
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

Conclusion
The way history remembers individuals and their contribution often depends more on the
interpretations of historians than on the available sources themselves. For instance, two
archbishops, Nicholas Matafari of Zadar and Hugolin Branca of Split, both led their dioceses in a
similar way, with reforms and nepotism playing a large part in their careers throughout their time
in office. Nicholas was a well-educated priest, with numerous friends and acquaintances ready and
able to help propel his career. Hugolin, on the other hand, embodied older ideas of the devout
warrior priest, being a Benedictine monk ready to take up arms. Both left a lasting impact on their
contemporaries and also created and maintained a network of personal contacts, including friends
and clients, whose careers they helped to elevate.
Although both prelates enacted reforms in their dioceses, only Nicholas was remembered
as a great reformer, unjustly treated by a foreign power. In contrast, Hugolin was vilified by
historians and depicted as a quarrelsome prelate, constantly at odds with his parishioners.
However, these divergent interpretations stemmed from the changing paradigm, from romantic
notions of opposition to foreign invaders during the late nineteenth and early twentieth century
and to the hostility towards the clergy, characteristic of the second half of the twentieth century.
Until recently, historians mostly omitted or downplayed the role played by the Apostolic See. The
archbishops and bishops of fourteenth-century Croatia-Dalmatia tried to lead their dioceses in a
similar fashion to their predecessors. However, the growing papal power and reforms
fundamentally changed the authority of the archbishops and bishops of Croatia-Dalmatia and
uncovered multifaceted ways in which these dioceses could be governed. Throughout this work I
have concentrated on analyzing the local developments whilst keeping them within the framework
of a comparative regional study and keeping in mind developments within Latin Christianity in a
CEU eTD Collection

broader sense.
The bishop's high charismatic authority and the use of informal power enabled him to
maintain his status in the community. This authority was transformed by the growing
multidimensionality of the political space of the city and increasing papal centralization. The
bishop's origins and background, as well as his personal qualities, education and connections
helped him to govern his diocese. The ideal bishop of the fourteenth century, was a well-educated
and experienced cleric of high social status with a keen eye for balancing the pastoral needs of his
community with the administrative responsibilities of his diocese. At the same time, he had to be

266
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

an astute politician, able to craft and maintain contact with the members of the local elite, the popes
and the royal court. These characteristics could enable the bishop to uphold his episcopal authority
and rights but also to adequately interact and negotiate with his community, other ecclesiastical
institutions, as well as the royal court and the nobility. Yet a single person could hardly possess all
of these traits. The bishop’s firm control over the bishopric and the quality of his lineage did not
necessarily translate to him having the qualities to be a good bishop. As some of the built
connections diminished, so too did the bishop’s authority and his hold over the episcopal office.
Alongside the analysis of the person of the bishop, my research focused on the episcopal
office, which necessitated research on the formal hierarchy of the Church. This also meant that the
role of the bishops within the institution of the medieval Church was understood through the
interaction that the bishops had with various individuals, groups and organizations. Three
bishoprics were initially selected for research due to their slightly different position within the
hierarchy of the medieval Church. They also offered the potential for an in-depth analysis that
could reveal similarities and differences in the episcopal office through concentration on key
events, processes and individuals that enabled consideration of local changes and social influences.
These bishoprics were embedded in the distinct social and political conditions of the medieval
Dalmatian communes, which had their own defined laws, autonomy, social stratification and
strong Catholic identity. By the thirteenth century, their bishops no longer held any public
authority within the walls of the city, yet they were still counted among the most prestigious and
exemplary members of the community. The local authorities turned to their bishops as
representatives of the commune to the outside world, to award local sons with important positions
within the Church and to make legal and favourable financial deals with the nobility. Furthermore,
the episcopal authority was intertwined with the commune, as bishops and local elites shared land
CEU eTD Collection

and influence, meaning that the prelates had to carefully navigate within local customs and power
relations. Since most appointed bishops were of Italian or Dalmatian origin, they were already well
acquainted with the intricacies of communal life.
More precisely, the archbishopric of Split seems to depict an image of gradual decay of the
episcopal authority. The commune introduced minor limitations on episcopal power. The
archbishops allowed the participation of the local nobility, enabling their use of the resources of
the archbishopric. The nobility mostly participated by providing members of the cathedral chapter,
which meant that the archbishop would obtain the nobility’s support and reinforce his

267
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

archiepiscopal administration. However, this approach also had its weaknesses as the constant
political changes meant that some archbishops had to concentrate on reclaiming and upholding
their properties and jurisdictional rights from both the members of the urban and the rural nobility.
On the other hand, the bishopric of Trogir was under constant pressure from the local
authorities as the bishopric was deeply embedded into the fabric of the medieval community. The
commune wanted to extend its jurisdiction over the episcopal office and influence appointments,
as well as force the bishops to relinquish more of their authority in favour of the civic community.
The loss of Šibenik and the decades of struggles between the noble families for the control over
the communal and ecclesiastical institutions in Trogir, gradually diminished the authority of the
episcopal office, making it more subservient to the interest of the commune.
None of the above-mentioned conclusions seem to be valid for Zadar as the already
powerful status of the archbishops was further increased during the fourteenth century. The
archbishops were able to limit the involvement of the commune in the everyday functioning of the
archbishopric, as shown by the example of the cathedral fabrica, and also lessened the resistance
coming from the clergy by reforming the cathedral chapter. The strengthening of the
archiepiscopal office was the result of the internal cohesion and the informal power of the
archbishops and this enabled the occupants of the office, regardless of their different origins, to
successfully use their authority. However, the stronger position of the archbishops of Zadar was
also an unintended consequence of the expansion of papal involvement in ecclesiastical
appointments in the region. This eventually resulted in the selection of a number of competent
native archbishops whose local origins meant that they were truly familiar with the problems and
requirements of their diocese.
The observed period, from 1270 until 1420, saw numerous political changes on the local
CEU eTD Collection

level which were intertwined with dynastic changes on the Hungarian throne and, at first, the
decline of the Venetian authority in Dalmatia and its subsequent triumphant return in the fifteenth
century. While the rise and fall of dynasties certainly played an important role in local
development, I have analyzed the evolution of the Dalmatian bishoprics by closely observing the
role played by the Apostolic See and its interaction with secular powers and local communities.
During the thirteenth century, the pressure from Hungarian kings and Venice was still
strong enough to influence the local communities to elect individuals connected to these two
powers as bishops. These prelates were then expected to enforce the authority of Hungary and

268
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

Venice in Croatia-Dalmatia. At the end of the thirteenth century, a shift in the official papal policy
occurred, which thus saw the popes become more assertive in reacting to local complaints in order
to extend their traditional powers and expand their sphere of influence. Through their actions, the
popes undermined what was nominally the free capitular election of bishops. Since the local
elections were subject to considerable divisive factors and outside pressures, the popes were able
to use the ensuing local disputes and the expansion of papal powers to install a series of
archbishops of Zadar. As was shown, these prelates were selected due to their close connections
to the reigning popes or their cardinals at the Apostolic See. A similar papal involvement in Split
at first seems to have resulted in the continuation of established papal-royal relations, inherited
from the thirteenth century, by which the pope would install as the archbishop somebody
connected to the royal court. During the first half of the fourteenth century, the system of papal
provisions resulted in a succession of native archbishops in Zadar. At the same time, in Split, the
popes kept a balance between restraining local influences and benefiting from the weakened royal
authority in the region in order to appoint non-natives with ties to the Curia as archbishops.
By the mid-fourteenth century, the papal reforms diminished the authority of local
communities and directly increased papal influence and power. The reforms also paved the way
for a system in which secular rulers were once again able to impose their own candidates. The
system of direct papal involvement meant that various parties interested in obtaining the episcopal
office could directly petition the pope, instead of putting pressure on the electorate. These
individuals were usually backed by powerful patrons or institutions to which they belonged to,
such as a city-state or the royal court. This in turn led to the weakening of the interconnected
relationship between the various members of the episcopal hierarchy and also to the waning of the
importance of capitular elections. The cathedral chapters still gathered for elections but ultimately
CEU eTD Collection

their right to choose was superseded by the Apostolic See. Likewise, the papal involvement led to
a prolonged period of exclusion of the patriarchs of Grado in confirming and consecrating the
archbishops of Zadar. A similar concentration of power in papal hands occurred only gradually in
the metropolitan province of Split. The bishops of Trogir were appointed, confirmed and
consecrated directly at the Apostolic See which weakened the connections that this suffragan-
bishop had with his cathedral chapter and the metropolitan-archbishop in Split.
During this period of around 150 years (1270-1420), most of the archbishops and bishops
of Split, Trogir and Zadar were not of native origin, meaning that they did not originate from these

269
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

bishoprics. If those who were only elected are also accounted for, in Split, three individuals were
native to the city while eight were not. These differences were less pronounced in the case of
Trogir with 6 non-native and 3 native bishops1316 and in Zadar where 5 individuals originated from
the diocese while 8 did not.1317 However the numbers are somewhat more nuanced if the actual
time in office is considered.
Archbishops native to Zadar, though less in numbers, governed for 88 out of 150 years,
meaning that their combined time in office was longer than that of those who did not originate
from the diocese. In comparison, that was almost three times higher than the numbers for Split.
The confirmed archbishops (Dominic Luccari and Domnius Judicibus) governed for 31 years but
if James, who was rejected as archbishop, is also considered, then that number goes up to 34 years.
It seems that Trogir was somewhere in-between as native bishops (Gregory Machinatura,
Lampredius Vitturi and Nicholas Kažotić) only account for 55 years. Yet this number somewhat
obscures the fact that three bishops came from Rab, an island-bishopric subordinated to Zadar that
shared a similar socio-economic system with the rest of Dalmatia. These bishops governed Trogir
for 57 years which meant that bishops native to Dalmatia governed for around 112 out of 150
years. However, during this period it was almost unheard of for prelates originating from other
places in Dalmatia to be elected or appointed as the archbishops of Split or Zadar.1318
Diocese Native Years in office Non-native Years in office
Split 3 31 (34) 8 116
Trogir 3 55 (112) 6 93
Zadar 5 88 7 62
Table 1. Years in office of arch/bishops of Trogir, Split and Zadar (.c1270-c.1420). In brackets for Split if non-
confirmed are considered, while for Trogir if bishops coming from Rab are counted as native.

The above-mentioned numbers imply relative disinterest from outside forces in controlling
CEU eTD Collection

the appointments of the bishop of Trogir. The outside interference in episcopal appointments in
Split and Zadar was considerably higher though differences can still be noted here. The internal
and external pressures on the elections in Split were particularly intense as various institutions
within the city, the rural nobility, the royal family and the Apostolic See, tried to influence

1316
I have not counted John from 1297 as the bishop. See under Liberius in Short Biographies of the Bishops of Trogir.
1317
Archbishop-elect John (r.1397-1400) was counted as a non-native, but he could have also originated from Zadar.
1318
The only exception was Peter of Pag, appointed as the archbishop of Split by the Pisan pope. Peter was only able
to take possession of the diocese in 1420, therefore in the last year covered by this research.

270
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

appointments. It seems that the clergy of Zadar had stronger connections to its commune and the
Apostolic See which allowed them to resist the outside interferences, namely coming from Venice,
and also allowed them to benefit from the gradual appropriation of episcopal elections by the
popes. This is evident by the fact that four native archbishops were confirmed in Zadar in
comparison to only two in Split.
The best example is provided by the Matafari family whose good connections with the
Apostolic See and the royal court combined with the family's ability to ingratiate itself with other
families of the city, ensured that the Matafari prelates controlled the archiepiscopal position for
almost 58 years. The Matafari archbishops used personal networks to improve their own and
careers of their relatives, ensuring the decisive influence of the Matafari on the archbishopric for
decades. Native families in other cities also tried to ensure that their members continued to control
their local churches, but these families (Luccari in Split and Vitturi in Trogir) lacked sufficient
contacts with the papal curia or internal harmony between the various members of the urban
nobility within the commune to do the same.
The competition in Trogir between various noble families for the control of the commune
and the bishopric, the two most powerful institutions of the city, resulted in the Vitturi and Kažotić
families taking possession of the bishopric. The rule of Lampredius Vitturi and Nicholas Kažotić
during the fourteenth century was a continuation of a strong involvement of the cadet members of
the two families in the cathedral chapter of Trogir dating back to the mid-thirteenth century. The
control of these families over the bishopric was strengthened by the reforms of the cathedral
chapter which gave the bishop a decisive role in choosing canons. The authority was further
fortified by the papal confirmations of Lampredius and Nicholas as bishops, which excluded the
metropolitan-archbishop of Split from the election process of his suffragan-bishop. In the same
CEU eTD Collection

way that the pope strengthened the control of native families over the bishopric, the pope could
also introduce somebody from the outside. This is how the Dominis family from Rab governed the
bishopric of Trogir for around 51 years.
In Split, the reign of native Archbishop Dominic Luccari reveals similarities to his
counterparts in Trogir and Zadar but also shows how the archbishops of Split controlled their
archdiocese by controlling the cathedral chapter. While Dominic worked on installing and
promoting his family members, his non-native predecessors and successors had to craft alliances
with important noble families whose cadet members would enter the cathedral chapter. These

271
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

clerics would receive positions, honours and promotions from their spiritual superior and, in return,
their families would support the archbishop.
Although the archbishops of Split and Zadar, as well as the bishop of Trogir, were powerful
prelates, it seems that almost every facet of the episcopal authority was in some way mediated and
shared with the community of the diocese. During this period the communes started to
symbolically distance themselves from the Church, as was shown by the moving of the communal
buildings to their separate squares. In reality, the communal authorities wanted to increase their
control over the local Churches. Communal procurators were appointed to oversee local
monasteries, churches, cathedral fabrica and treasuries, showing that inspection and control was
shared between the Church and the local community. It should be noted that these individuals
almost exclusively came from the ranks of the urban nobility and this shows that the local elites
were politically capable and financially interested in cooperating with the bishops to manage the
diocese. The members of the nobility controlled and guided the political, social and economic
development of their communities and they wanted to do the same in the matters of the bishopric.
While at first it could seem that the issue of native and non-native bishops started to play a
significant role in the second half of the fourteenth century, when the local communities began to
resist the appointments of non-native bishops, this was not necessarily the case. What the
communal nobility wanted was control over finances and the most important positions in the
bishopric. This was shown with the example of the archbishopric of Zadar during the second half
of the fourteenth century, when the members of the important noble families of the city were able
to obtain the position of archbishop and abbot in the city’s various monasteries. The previous
occupants of non-native origins were forced to resign or be transferred. Nevertheless, foreign-born
archbishops appointed afterwards by the pope were equally respected.
CEU eTD Collection

One way by which the above-mentioned situation in Zadar occurred was through the
contacts that the nobility of Zadar established with the Apostolic See and the royal court.
Curiously, the bishops of Split, Trogir and Zadar were able to limit, to a degree, the intrusion of
the commune in the episcopal administration by actively seeking support and the approval of that
same community, namely the nobility. Likewise, these prelates were able to limit the autonomy of
various ecclesiastical institutions in their dioceses, from cathedral chapters to monasteries, in order
to increase and strengthen the episcopal authority and control. Due to the specific position of
Croatia-Dalmatia, the importance of medieval bishops of Croatia-Dalmatia outside of their

272
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

regional context was somewhat limited, subject to to the individual prestige of the prelate or the
relations between the prelates, popes and rulers. Even the important archbishops of Split and Zadar
sometimes lacked access to the royal court of the Kingdom of Hungary-Croatia and the
accompanying positions and benefits which would elevate their archiepiscopal rank. Instead, they
had to organize their administration in the context of the growing papal centralization and the
expanding urban commune. These prelates rarely ever served as royal emissaries and it was more
common that, when on some diplomatic mission, the bishop would represent himself or his
commune. The bishops of Croatia-Dalmatia mostly served as an extension of the papal or royal
rule in the region, intended to act as local representatives on behalf of the power which was
instrumental in any given episcopal appointment.
The situation somewhat changed regarding the Apostolic See during the Western Schism
but due to the political instability, relations with the king improved. For instance, Domnius of Split
and Simon of Trogir both established favourable contacts with King Sigismund and served as local
royal allies. Once Venice took over Split and Trogir, these prelates were forced into exile. Due to
the Schism, the popes in Rome needed qualified clergymen to fill in the diminished ranks of the
Curia, and some archbishops obtained positions in the Papal States. But these contacts were only
temporary, due to the crisis of papal and royal authority. It is, therefore, interesting to notice that
despite the desire of the king, the pope and the local communities to control the local episcopate,
it was the Venetian Republic whose bureaucratic approach in controlling the episcopal
appointments prevailed. The popes did officially confirm the bishops but in all the important
dioceses, the selected individuals were almost exclusively Venetians and usually chosen by an
application for the office at the Venetian Senate.
The case studies of the bishoprics in Croatia-Dalmatia provided an ideal context to research
CEU eTD Collection

higher prelates and the episcopal office by taking local ecclesiastical examples and providing
reflections on the general developments within medieval Christendom. Croatia-Dalmatia was a
land of developing medieval communes with emphasis on mobility of people from the Eastern
Adriatic coast to the Dalmatian hinterland with a Church and commune that was intertwined in a
stable system and complemented each other. It is, therefore, somewhat difficult to strictly delineate
separate religious and political spheres, with the bishop providing spiritual authority and
diplomatic credence to the commune, while the urban nobility’s participation in the ecclesiastical
government steadily increased over the course of the fourteenth century. If episcopal incomes are

273
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

considered, the three researched archbishoprics and bishoprics were quite poor in comparison with
their counterparts in other parts of Christendom. The political framework in which these bishops
operated, while being of regional significance, influenced their personal standings and the
importance and finances of their dioceses. The character of the individual’s episcopal career was
influenced by the importance of the incumbent’s family, his relationship with the city and also by
the method of election and forces which facilitated the appointment.
An area I was not able to offer greater focus to in my research was an in-depth analysis of
the importance of local pastoral activities and the development of the episcopal office prior to the
thirteenth century. The sources dealing with the origins of the dioceses, the gradual changes in
their territorial extent, origins of their incomes and rights, as well as their position and role in the
development of the medieval commune should come under closer scrutiny. Further research should
group together the analysis of the incomes and properties of the bishoprics, together with the
spiritual development of the lower level. Another area that is similarly understudied is the
formation and organization of the parish system and its importance in the development of the
bishopric, as well as the division of local churches between the secular patrons and those which
directly belonged to the episcopal or cathedral mensa. While some of these issues remain clouded
by the lack of sources, bringing in interdisciplinary research will contribute to a better
understanding of the role of the bishoprics in the medieval society. For instance, a closer analysis
of the spatial topography, such as location and arrangement and the development of the episcopal
palaces and cathedrals, will better position the presence of the Church in the medieval fabric of
the city.
The fragmentary nature of sources, particularly regarding the spiritual practices, leaves a
lasting impression of the fourteenth century as a period of continuing crisis and decline in the
CEU eTD Collection

authority of the bishop. Nevertheless, the century was also a time of on-going reform, continuing
reorganization and spiritual activity, affected as much by the personalities of the individual bishops
as by the changing ecclesiastical and political situation. Although small in size, a regional research
on the episcopal office and the bishops of the bishoprics of Croatia-Dalmatia can contribute to a
better understanding of Latin Christianity in the Late Middle Ages.

274
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

Appendices

List of Arch/bishops of Split, Trogir and Zadar

This part includes short biographies of the archbishops of Split and Zadar, as well as the
bishops of Trogir during the researched period. Their time in office is not consider, as this is
analysed in the main part of the dissertation. Instead, these accounts concentrate on origins,
elections and appointments regarding the discussed dioceses as well as the ends of these prelates’
period in office.

Apostolic See Split Trogir Zadar

Innocent IV Lawrence Pereander

(1243-54) (c.1245-87)

Alexander IV Columban
(1254-61) (1255-76)

Clement IV John de Buzad

(1265-68) (1266-94)

Innocent V John
(1276) (1276-82)
John XXI
(1276-77)

Martin IV Gregory Machinatura

(1281-85) (1282-97)
CEU eTD Collection

Nicholas IV Andrew Gausoni

(1287-91), rejected
(1288-92)
John
(1291-97)

Boniface VIII James Henry

(1294-1303) (1294-97), rejected (1297-99)
Peter Liberius James
(1297-1324) (1297-1319) (1299-1312)

275
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

Clement V Alexander
(1305-14) (1312-14), rejected
Nicholas
(1312-20)

John XXII (1316- Balian (1324-28) Lampredius Vitturi John Butovan

1334) (1319-1349)
Bosolo (1328), (1320-33)
rejected
Dominic Luccari Nicholas Matafari
(1328-48) (1333-67)

Clement VI Peregrin
(1342-52) (1348-1349), rejected
John
(1348)
Hugolin Bartholomew
(1349-1388) (1349-1361)

Innocent VI Nicholas Kažotić

(1361-1371)
(1352-62)

Urban V Dominic Thopia

(1368-76)
(1362-70)

Gregory XI Chrysogonus de Peter Matafari

Dominis
(1370-78) (1376-1400)
(1372-1403)

Urban VI Andrew Benzi

CEU eTD Collection

(1378-1389), Rome (1389-1403/1412)

Boniface IX Marin Cutheis John IV

(1402), rejected
(1389-1404), Rome (1397-1400)
Peregrin from Simon de Dominis Luca of Fermo
Aragon (1403-23) (1400-20)
(1403-1409)

276
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

John XXIII Domnius Judicibus

(1409-20)
(1410-1415), Pisa
Peter of Pag
(1411-26)

Martin V Blasius Molinus

(1417-31) (1420-28)

Table 2. List of arch/bishops of Split, Trogir and Zadar, their times in office and the names of rulling popes at the
time of appointment
CEU eTD Collection

277
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

Short Biographies of the Archbishops of Split

John de Buzad (1266-1294), a Hungarian nobleman and a Dominican friar

Archbishop Roger (r.1249-66) died on 14 April 1266 and by November John appeared as
the archbishop. The sources confirming the election by the cathedral chapter and the confirmation
by Pope Clement IV (r.1265-68) were not preserved.1319 Archdeacon Thomas, John's
contemporary, did not mention the election because Thomas stopped his narrative two years before
his own death with a comment about the death of Roger, John's predecessor.
King Stephen V mentioned that John belonged to the Hahót-Buzád gens, although the exact
connection is unclear, but this family was quite influential as several of its members became bans
and bishops during the thirteenth century.1320 Judging by his family connections and background,
John was closely connected to the royal court and he appeared as the archbishop during the reign
of King Béla IV and Roland, the ban of entire Slavonia (totius Sclavoniae) (r.1261-67) and the
count of Split (r.1265-67). John was most likely identical to the same named Dominican friar de
natione Hungarum and the bishop of Skradin (r.1248-65), who appeared as the archbishop-elect
of Split in 1248/49, and by 1265 disappeared from the sources.1321 By April 1249 Pope Innocent
IV (r.1243-54) rejected John and provided Roger with the appointment, while Archdeacon Thomas
described circumstances surrounding the election.1322 He stated that, following John’s
unsuccessful election and the appointment of Roger, Béla IV was furious. The king reprimanded
the people of Split, stating that they should elect only with royal assent, which suggest that the
king was strongly displeased that John was rejected.1323
It is disputed to which mendicant order did John belong to.1324 Besides what was written
above about him being the bishop of Skradin, during his time in Split, John showed inclination
CEU eTD Collection

1319
CDC V, 384, June 22, 1266; 399, November 12, 1266; Kovačić, “Toma Arhiđakon, promicatelj crkvene obnove,”
55; Zsoldos, Magyarország világi archontológiája, 46; Eubel, Hierarchia Catholica I, 459.
1320
fratre Johanne de generacione Buzad Spalatensi archiepiscopis. CDC V, 635-7, June 17-24, 1272. About the
family, see: Wertner, “A Buzád-Hahót nemzetség,” 19-33, 59-65.
1321
Toma Arhiđakon, Historia Salonitana, 299-303; CDC IV, 389, April 30, 1249; Eubel, Hierarchia Catholica I,
459; Farlati, Illyricum Sacrum IV, 14-5; Kovačić, “Toma Arhiđakon, promicatelj crkvene obnove,” 55; Zsoldos,
Magyarország világi archontológiája, 46.
1322
Ganzer, Papsttum und Bistumsbesetzungen, 213, April 30, 1248. Toma Arhiđakon, Historia Salonitana, 299-303;
CDC IV, 389, April 30, 1249; Farlati, Illyricum Sacrum IV, 14-5; Eubel, Hierarchia Catholica I, 438.
1323
Toma Arhiđakon, Historia Salonitana, 299-303, 308-9; Ančić, “Image of Royal Power,” 38-40.
1324
Farlati, Illyricum Sacrum III, 280; Eubel, Hierarchia Catholica I, 459.

278
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

toward the Dominican order, granting them a part of the archbishop’s garden, while there are no
sources regarding his contacts with the local Franciscans.1325
No records exist for the time of his death, but it was probably around mid-1294.

James (1294-1297), rejected, archdeacon and a nobleman from Split

Mario Nepo Kuzmanić suggested that Archdeacon James originated from the “Dušica”
family and that James's distant cousin was Thomas Archdeacon (c.1200-1268).1326 During his time
as the archdeacon, James was mentioned in the three-member-committee, appointed by the pope,
to settle during 1287-88 a conflict between Šibenik and its superior, the bishop of Trogir. 1327 He
appeared as the archbishop-elect sometime before September 1294. In order to allow him to
administer the archdiocese, the chapter appointed James as the procurator of the archbishopric and
the vicar of the cathedral chapter.1328 He was mentioned for the last time as the archdeacon in 1311,
when he received and inspected the letter of Cardinal-Legate Gentile. The cardinal had
excommunicated Archbishop Peter, so James and the cathedral chapter selected two of its
members to administer the archbishopric.1329

Peter (1297-1324), the chaplain in Naples, a Franciscan friar from Hungary

Peter originated from Hungary and was a teacher (professor) in the Franciscan Order, while
in Naples he first served as the chaplain of Charles Martel in 1294 and then of Queen Mary in
1297.1330 In May 1297 Pope Boniface VIII appointed Peter as the archbishop of Split.1331
It seems that the new archbishop did not go to Rome to receive his confirmation, but instead
immediately proceeded to his new see. This can be corroborated by the fact that he was consecrated
by the bishop of Naples, while the pallium was issued a year later, in May 1298. The archbishop-
CEU eTD Collection

elect sent Canon Gregory to take hold of the pallium from the Apostolic See, while the bishops of

1325
CDC V, 493-4, June 20, 1269; 638-9, July 19, 1272; Ostojić, Metropolitanski kaptol, 29.
1326
Kuzmanić, Splitski plemići, 52.
1327
The other two members were Bishop Marcel of Nin and Abbot John of the monastery of Saint Chrysogonus. CDC
VI, 616, 628, 1287-1289; 642-643, April 7, 1289; Gulin, Hrvatski srednjovjekovni kaptoli, 32-3, Ostojić,
Metropolitanski kaptol, 55.
1328
CDC VII, 184-185, September 1, 1294.
1329
CDC VIII, 291-2, September 15, 1311.
1330
Petrus de Ungaria, Ordinis Minorum Capellanus of Charles Martel. MDE I, 116, 1294; CDC VII, 277-8, May
10, 1297.
1331
CDC VII, 277-8, May 10, 1297; CDC XX, 271-2, May 10, 1297; Ganzer, Papsttum und Bistumsbesetzungen, 392.

279
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

Hvar and Trogir were tasked to officially grant Peter with the liturgical vestment.1332 Before
receiving the pallium, Peter titled himsef in the sources as elected, confirmed and consecrated by
the Apostolic See.1333
The local sources in Split still mentioned Peter as the arcbhishop in September 1324, when
the pope appointed Peter's successor. This is because Peter, at the time of his death, was not in
Split, but in Avignon, where he died and the pope reserved the archbishopric.1334

Balian (1324-1328), the archbishop of Rhodes, from Baruh in the Kingdom of Jerusalem
At the end of September 1324, Pope John XXII transfered Balian from Rhodes to Split.1335
The local sources in Split listed the archbishopric vacant during October, because Balian remained
for some time in Avignon, in order to settle his affairs. At the end of November, the archbishop
promised to pay for his appointment, while he received the pallium in January 1325.1336
Balian was in sources mentioned as the archbishop Colocensis, which created problems for
some authors who made erroneous claims regarding his original archbishopric. Grga Novak placed
Balian as the bishop of Kolosa (Colossarum) in Phyrgia (modern day central Turkey),1337 while he
editors of Codex thought that Balian was a former archbishop of Kalocsa.1338
Most information about Balian was provided by a contemporary chronicler, Miha Madijev,
who stated that the archbishop was born in Baruh, a city near Acre (Akko) in the Kingdom of
Jerusalem. Balian was the archbishop of Rhodes, held by the Hospitaller Order. Due to an
unspecified dispute between the order and the archbishop, the grand master petitioned the pope to
remove Balian.1339 The true reason can probably be found in the protracted disputes with the
Hospitaller order regarding the ecclesiastical incomes of the island.1340 Lastly, Madijev stated that
Balian died on January 28, 1328 and was buried in the cathedral church.
CEU eTD Collection

1332
CDC VII, 281, May 21, 1297; 305-306, May 18, 1298; 506, May 18, 1298; Eubel, Hierarchia Catholica I, 459;
VMS I, 115-6.; Potthast, Regesta, II, n. 24677-78. Les registres de Boniface VIII, n.2584-5, May 18, 1298.
1333
Frater Petrus per sedem apostolica electus, confirmatus et consecratus. CDC VII, 295-7, February 11, 1298.
1334
...per obitum Petri apud Sedem Apostolicam mediante reservation vacantem... Farlati, Illyricum Sacrum III, 308-
9; CDC IX, 205-6, September 26, 1324.
1335
CDC IX, 205-6, September 26, 1324.
1336
CDC IX, 212, October 30, 1324; MVC I, n. 39, November 29, 1324; Lettres Communes de Jean XXII, n.21400,
January 18, 1325.
1337
Novak, Povijest Splita, 536.
1338
CDC IX, 205-206; CDH VIII/2, 592, September 26, 1324, Ostojić, Metropolitanski kaptol, 24.
1339
Madijev, “Historija,” 181.
1340
Luttrell, Town of Rhodes, 101-3.

280
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

Dominic Luccari (1328-1348), archdeacon and a nobleman from Split

Dominic originated from a noble family of the Luccari, which was very active in the
communal government of Split. He was mentioned as early as 1311 as a junior member of the
cathedral chapter in the rank of a deacon.1341 Sometime before 1324 he became the archdeacon
and assisted in the episcopal administration of Archbishop Balian, whom the young dignitary of
the chapter hoped to succeed.1342 The Luccari family maintained important positions in the city’s
government. Archbishop Dominic had two brothers: Thomas and Andrew. Thomas’s son Nicholas
had two sons: Thomas and Dominic. Dominic Younger became an archdeacon and Archbishop
Dominic tried to install him as the bishop of Knin.1343
The date of the election of Balian’s successor remains unclear, but, as per rules, it was
probably held within three months after the archbishop’s death, so by the end of April 1328. It was
a disputed election, as part of the chapter elected Dominic, while some canons supported Bosolo
of Parma. The dispute was settled in Avignon, in front of the pope, who had both candidates
renounce their claim. After a hearing and consultations with the cardinals, the pope appointed
Dominic as the archbishop by mid-October.1344 Dominic was consecrated by Gauscelin de Jean,
the cardinal-bishop of Albano and the papal relative, while Napoleone Orsini, the cardinal-deacon
of Sant’Adriano, provided the new archbishop with the pallium.1345
But it seems that the papal decision was already known during September, since then
Dominic promised to pay for his appointment.1346 Dominic appeared as the confirmed archbishop
in local sources in Split, only several days after the official papal decision, suggesting that the
news already spread earlier.1347 By the end of November, Dominic personally received various
privileges from the pope and which improved the archbishop’s status.1348 This would suggest that
CEU eTD Collection

1341
The members of the cathedral chapter were mentioned during the consecration of the newly built monastery of
Saint Clare, done by the archbishop of Split. It was also the last time that Archdeacon James, the unsuccessful
candidate to the episcopate of Split, was mentioned. Farlati, Illyricum Sacrum III, 301-2.
1342
Ivanišević, “Promišljanje o rodovima Lukari,” 12-3, Nikolić Jakus, Formation of Dalmatian Urban Nobility, 114-
5; Ostojić, Metropolitanski kaptol, 24, 55-6; Novak, Povijest Splita, 205.
1343
Farlati, Illyricum Sacrum III, 323; Kuzmanić, Splitski plemići, 26-7.
1344
CDC IX, 420-2, October 17, 1328; Farlati, Illyricum Sacrum III, 313; Lettres Communes de Jean XXII, n. 43142.
1345
Gauscelin was the papal grand penitentiary. Eubel, Hierarchia Catholica I, 11, 15; Guillemain, La cour pontificale,
193.
1346
MVC I, n. 41, September 9, 1328.
1347
The archbishopric was listed as vacant in June. CDC IX, 399, June 21, 1328. …electi et confirmati, ut dicitur,
archiepiscopi Spalatensis… CDC IX, 423-5, October 23, 1328.
1348
CDC IX, 429-35, October 21, 1328 - November 21, 1328.

281
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

Dominic spent months in Avignon, first, participating in the hearing over the disputed election,
then waiting for the official papal appointment, and lastly in order to receive additional privileges.
A contemporary chronicler Cutheis wrote that Dominic died during the arrival of the plague
to Split, while Lucić added that the archbishop died on 22 March 1348.1349

Bosolo (1328), rejected, a canon in Tournai and a chaplain from Parma

Bosolo served at the Apostolic See throughout the entire pontificate of John XXII. Over
the years he was mentioned as the auditor sacri palatii, the archdeacon of Aquileia and canon of
cathedral and collegiate chapters in Beauvais, Verona, Bologna, Parma, also holding other minor
benefices. But it seems that throughout John’s pontificate, Bosolo held the position of a canon of
Tournai and served at the Apostolic See as a papal chaplain, suggesting close ties to Pope John.1350
Bosolo’s supporter in Split was George Hominisdei of Cyprus, a canon of the chapter and
a person of trust by Archbishop Balian. When the archbishop was transferred from Rhodes to Split,
George accompanied him. During the disputed election, George supported and represented Bosolo
at the Apostolic See in Avignon.1351

John (1348), an Augustinian friar from Pisa and the bishop of Senj (r.1333-48)
He was an Augustinian friar from Pisa, appointed as the bishop of Senj in 1333 by Pope
John XXII.1352 The clergy of Senj had their own candidate for the bishop, backed by the local lay
nobility. Although John obtained a confirmation from the archbishop of Split, he still had to
struggle for years, petitioning the pope and the surrounding local bishops for help, before being
able to take possession of his diocese.1353
At the end of May 1348 and just two months after Dominic’s death, Pope Clement VI
appointed John as the archbishop of Split.1354 The new high priest of Split was not mentioned in
CEU eTD Collection

the local sources, which shows that he never took possession of his archbishopric.1355 In August,

1349
Cutheis, “Tabula,” 193; Novak, Povijest Splita, 214; Lucić, De regno Dalmatiae et Croatiae, 386; Farlati,
Illyricum Sacrum III, 323-5.
1350
See selected charters: Fayen, Lettres de Jean XXII, n.1671, December 12, 1325; Lettres Communes de Jean XXII,
n.64252, October 6, 1316; n.64146, October 13, 1334; Krämer, Dämonen, Prälaten und gottlose Menschen, 370-1.
1351
CDC IX, 420-2, October 17, 1328.
1352
Eubel, Hierarchia Catholica I, 450, January 4, 1333.
1353
The events are narrated in detail in: Bogović, “Moji predšasnici biskupi,” 38-9.
1354
CDC XI, 461-2, May 30, 1348.
1355
He was not mentioned by Farlati or in local communal charters.

282
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

John was in Avignon where he promised to pay the communal service of 200 florins, but by
December he was back in Pisa where he died, probably because of the plague.1356

Peregrin (1348-1349), rejected, from Saxony, the Franciscan vicar-general in Bosnia

While the papally appointed John of Pisa was not mentioned in Split, the communal
charters recorded the existence of Peregrin, who was mentioned as the archielectus between April
1348 and January 1349.1357
He was Peregrin de Saxonia, the vicar-general of the Franciscans in Bosnia. His protector,
Stephen II Kotromanić, dispatched Peregrin to Avignon in 1347 to obtain some privileges for
Bosnia, while in April 1348 the ban tried to make the most out of his contacts with various
institutions in Split in order to appoint Peregrin as the archbishop.1358 Since Peregrin appeared as
the archbishop-elect, it is probable that the ban used his contacts with the cathedral chapter in Split.
One such person was the ban’s chaplain and a canon of Split, Gregory de Cyprus. He arrived to
Split from the east with Archbishop Balian and attempted to elect Bosolo from Parma as the
archbishop for which Gregory was probably marginalized by Archbishop Dominic. During
Peregrin’s mission to Avignon in 1347, the ban also petitioned the pope to provide Gregory with
two benefices in Split. This would suggest that while Dominic was the archbishop, Gregory was
prevented from obtaining any new benefices in the archbishopric of Split, so he had to rely on the
ban's support and the papal collation.1359
After the attempt to install Peregrin in Split turned ineffective, the ban successfully
petitioned Pope Clement VI to provide Peregrin with the bishopric of Bosnia, which occured
during January 1349.1360
CEU eTD Collection

Hugolin (1349-1388), a Benedictine monk, a nobleman from Gubbio

Hugolin’s bull of appointment was not preserved, but he was probably elected during April,
because by the end of that month, the new archbishop petitioned the pope to be granted pallium

1356
MCV I, d 161, p 119, August 11, 1348; Williman, Right of Spoil, 155, December 27, 1348; CDC XI, 497-8; Novak,
Povijest Splita, 214; VMS I, 222.
1357
Farlati, Illyricum Sacrum III, 325, April 14, 1348 – January 25, 1349.
1358
Listine II, 443, April 3, 1347; Ančić, Na rubu zapada, 209-14; Ančić, Putanja klatna, 160-1.
1359
Listine II, 444-45, April 3, 1347.
1360
Listine III, 107, October 18, 1348; Eubel, Hierarchia Catholica I, 142, January 28, 1349.

283
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

and be allowed to leave.1361 This was probably done so that Hugolin could send one of his
associates to Split, to ensure the collection of the papal tithe1362 as the archbishop still remained in
Avignon, as by the end of June Hugolin promised to pay for his appointment.1363
Cutheis wrote that Hugolin was a Benedictine monk of the monastery of Saint Peter in
Perugia. The author also added that Hugolin originated from the noble family of the Branca from
Gubbio, which was located in the Duchy of Spoleto.1364 He was accompanied in Split by his
relatives, his brother Berto Branca and his son Francisco Berti de Brancha de Eugubio.1365
Hugolin’s arrival to the diocese was described by a contemporary chronicler, Cutheis.1366
But the author dated the archbishop’s arrival to 14 January 1349, which was rejected by Farlati,
based on the fact that Archbishop-elect Peregrin was still mentioned in local sources in Split.
Hugolin’s early arrival before he was consecrated meant that he would not have the right to hold
the type of procession that he did. Mladen Ančić suggested that the problem arose during the
transcribing of the Cutheis's work and that the day is correct but the month is different, dating the
event to 14 May or later, as Peregrin was mentioned in the local sources for the last time on 12
May.1367 It is probable that Hugolin spent several months in his home province, preparing for his
arrival, and that Cutheis wrote the correct day and month. The year should, instead, be 1350, since
the archbishop was regularly mentioned in his diocese from February 1350.
After a conflict with the commune, Hugolin authorized Anthony from Gualdo, a papal
scribe to submit the archbishop’s resignation to Francesco Moricotti Prignani, the cardinal-bishop
of Palestrina and the vice-chancellor of the Apostolic Chancery. This information is known from
a later papal bull, but it occured at the end of 1388 or at the beginning of the 1389. 1368 Hugolin’s
fate afterwards is unknown.
CEU eTD Collection

1361
Gaillard de La Mothe, the cardinal-deacon of Santa Lucia in Silice (r.1316-1356) and Bernard de la Tour, the
cardinal-deacon of Sant’Eustachio (r.1342–1361) were tasked to provide Hugolin with the pallium. CDC XI, 526-7,
April 30, 1349; Guillemain, La cour pontificale, 193-4.
1362
Rationes decimarum, n. 3744, May 5, 1349.
1363
MVC I, n. 168, June 25, 1349; n. 223.
1364
Cutheis, “Tabula,” 194-5.
1365
CDC XI, 352-3, May 11, 1356; Rismondo, “Registar,” 39. May 27, 1364.
1366
Cutheis, “Tabula,” 194.
1367
Farlati, Illyricum Sacrum, 326; Ančić, Na rubu zapada, 212.
1368
CDC XVII, 265, March 1, 1390.

284
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

Andrew Benzi (1389-1403/12), a doctor of law from Gualdo Tadino in Umbria

The bull of appointment of Andrew Benzi from Gualdo as the archbishop is missing, but
he was most likely appointed during May 1389, since he promissed then to pay for his communal
services.1369 By November 1389 the archbishop organized his first synod, which suggest that he
proceeded to his diocese with haste.1370 More information about the archbishop is known from a
papal letter, in which the pope wrote that Andrew was previously the rector of the church of Saint
Leonard in the diocese of Nocera, while Andrew styled himself as the doctor of law (legum doctor),
while transcribing the papal letter.1371 Andrew’s brothers were Bartolomew, Petrus Paulus and
Amorus, while father was Peter de Benzi.1372
Due to the conflict between the archbishop and some members of his community, as well
as due to the effects of the Western Schism, Andrew was forced to leave Split. Pope Boniface IX
transferred Andrew to the bishopric of Samaria, which was a titular church in Palestine, and
appointed another person instead.1373 But Andrew resisted the decision and found shelter at the
court of King Sigismund who, until 1412, was trying to reinstate Andrew in Split.1374 Next year,
Pope John XXIII appointed Andrew as the archbishop of Kalocsa, officially ending Andrew’s
career in Split.1375 Andrew died as the bishop of Sion in 1437.1376

Marin Cutheis (1402-1403), rejected, a canon, a notary and nobleman from Split
Marin belonged to the noble family of Cutheis of Split. Since at least 1388, he was a notary
by imperial authority and a canon, with the rank of deacon, of the cathedral chapter of Split.1377
Farlati presumed that Marin became the archdeacon, but this is not corroborated in sources and by
1406 another person was listed in sources as the archdeacon, which would suggest that either Marin
CEU eTD Collection

1369
MVC I, n. 392, May 30, 1389; Farlati, Illyricum Sacrum III, 333.
1370
CDC XVII, 236-8, November 29, 1389.
1371
In the source Andrew was rector ecclesie sancti Leonardi Nucerensis diocesis, while Guerrieri wrote that this was
the church of Saint Leopardo, which was located in a small place near Gualdo, called Le Piaggie. Guerrieri, “Andrea
di Pietro di Gionta,” 497; CDC XVII, 265, March 1, 1390; Ančić, “Registar Splitskog kaptola,” 137, May 1, 1390.
1372
Guerrieri, “Andrea di Pietro di Gionta,” 507-10.
1373
Eubel, Hierarchia Catholica I, 459.
1374
Ančić, “Liber Bullarum,” 247-248, February 16, 1412; Guerrieri, “Andrea di Pietro di Gionta,” 501-2; Bellwald,
Erzbischof Andreas, 45.
1375
Eubel, Hierarchia Catholica I, 197, January 4, 1413.
1376
Lapaire, “Le tombeau de l'évêque André,” 56-65.
1377
Kuzmanić, Splitski plemići, 110; CDC XVII, November 18, 1388; Ančić, “Registar Splitskog kaptola,” 138, May
1, 1390.

285
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

was not the archdeacon or that he was demoted after his failed election.1378 During December 1402,
Marin appeared as the archbishop-elect of Split, while his predecessor Andrew was expelled from
the city.1379 As part of the peace treaty, intended to bring peace between the warring factions of
the Spalatin nobility, both sides decided to jointly support Marin’s election and to petition for
support King Ladislas of Naples, the new ruler of Split, and the pope in Rome.1380 But in the end,
Marin’s bid was rejected by the pope.

Peregrin (1403-1409), a Franciscan friar from Aragon

Based on the suggestion by King Ladislas of Naples, who seized entire Dalmatia at the
time, Pope Boniface IX appointed on 18 April 1403 Friar Peregrin from Aragon as the next
archbishop of Split.1381 His origins and background are unknown, except that he originated from
Spain, but was in the royal service in Naples.1382 Peregrin died before 8 May 1409 after which the
position of the archbishop of Split was listed as vacant in the city charters.1383

Domnius Judicibus (1409-1420), a canon and a nobleman from Split

Domnius's family background is unclear. His mother, Francisca, died in 1429.1384 Farlati
assumed that he was a member of the Luccari family, which this historian based on Domnius's
high status, the assumed position as the archdeacon and the election as the archbishop of Split.
Based on his anthroponymy of the Spalatin nobility, Kuzmanić was critical of Farlati's opinion and
suggested that Domnius was a member of the Cypriani family and identical to Domnius, the son
of Dominic, who appeared as the archdeacon in 1401 and 1411.1385 Problem is that Domnius
Judicibus was never mentioned as the archdeacon in Split, that his name was one of the most
common names in a city dedicated to Saint Domnius, that the list of archdeacons of Split at the
CEU eTD Collection

1378
Ostojić, Metropolitanski kaptol, 58; Farlati, Illyricum Sacrum III, 357.
1379
“Serie dei reggitori,” XII, 143-4, December 6, 1402; December 24, 1402.
1380
Farlati, Illyricum Sacrum III, 358.
1381
Eubel, Hierarchia Catholica I, 459; Wadding, Annales minorum IX, 260; Lucić, Povijesna svjedočnstva o Trogiru
II, 840.
1382
In the city charters of Split, he was named Fra Peregrinus d’Aragona, while his vicar’s name was John de Yspania.
Both names clearly show from where they originated and suggest their mutual connections. “Serie dei reggitori,” XII,
189; Ostojić, Metropolitanski kaptol, 58.
1383
“Serie dei reggitori,” XIII, 44-5, May 8, 1409.
1384
Farlati, Illyricum Sacrum III, 367, April 25, 1429.
1385
Farlati, Illyricum Sacrum III, 361; Kuzmanić, Splitski plemići, 108.

286
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

beginning of the fifteenth century is unclear and that in 1411 Domnius was already the archbishop-
elect.1386 However, he was somebody of high status and well respected in the commune of Split.
Following the death of Peregrin sometime during or before May 1409, the archbishopric
of Split was listed as vacant in the city charters until January 1416.1387 Very soon Domnius
Judicibus was elected, but he only appeared in December as the archbishop-elect, the vicar of the
cathedral chapter and the governor of the Church of Split.1388 His confirmation by the pope was
probably prolonged and made more difficult due to the international events aimed at settling the
Western Schism. Between March and July 1409 the high clergy of Christendom gathered in Pisa
where the gathered cardinals elected Peter of Candia as Pope Alexander V. However, the new pope
had to spend his short pontificate in an attempt to extend the obedience of his Pisan papacy. During
May 1410 Baldassarre Cossa became Pope John XXIII.
In August 1410 the Pisan pope confirmed Domnius's election as the archbishop of Split,
but the pope reverted on his decision by October 1411 when Domnius was rejected and the pope,
instead, provided the archbishopric of Split to Peter of Pag.1389 Due to Domnius's contacts with
King Sigismund of Hungary and the king's election as the king of Germany, Domnius was accepted
as the archbishop by the cardinals at the Council of Constance. During December 1415 Domnius
paid for his appointment, while from January 1416 he was finally listed as the archbishop in the
city charters of Split.1390 Due to his support of King Sigismund, Domnius was forced to seek shelter
at the royal court when Venice took over Split. In Hungarian royal charters Domnius was listed as
the archbishop from 1412, when King Sigismund started to support Domnius election in Split,
until 1435, the year when Domnius probably died.1391

Peter (1411-1426), doctor of theology and a Franciscan friar from Pag

CEU eTD Collection

Peter originated from Pag and between 1406 and 1411 he was the bishop of Faenza in
Romagna.1392 As the bishop, he participated at the Council of Pisa (1409), where he was probably

1386
Ostojić, Metropolitanski kaptol, 50-51.
1387
“Serie dei reggitori,” XIII, 44-5, May 8, 1409; 127-8, January 28, 1416.
1388
Dominus Duymus electus Spalatensis et Vicarius per Capitulum dictae ecclesiae deputatus, et Gubernator
Ecclesiae supradictae et ipsum Capitulum Spalatense. Farlati, Illyricum Sacrum III, 361, December 24, 1409.
1389
Eubel, Hierarchia Catholica I, 460, October 19, 1411.
1390
MVC I, n. 494, December 11, 1415; “Serie dei reggitori,” XIII, 44-5, May 8, 1409; 127-8, January 28, 1416.
1391
Engel, Magyarország világi archontológiája, 84.
1392
Eubel, Hierarchia Catholica I, 246.

287
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

introduced to Pope John XXIII.1393 The pope decided to transfer Peter to Split on 19 October 1411,
revoking the previous confirmation given to Domnius.1394 Since Peter was barred from entering
Split, he remained in papal service, at least during the pontificate of Pope John XXIII.1395 It is
unclear what Peter did after John was forced to abdicate, but by 1420 Peter reappeared in sources
connected to Split. In February he was the procurator at the Apostolic See for the abbot of the
monastery of Saint Stephen in Split, John, while by December the Venetian authority welcomed
Peter, described as a faithful of Venice, to take control of his archbishopric.1396 During 1426 the
archbishop mediated in two appeals to the Apostolic See by the commune of Split. The nobilty
asked the pope to revoke excommunications that the commune incurred for attacking former
archbishops, Hugolin and Andrew, as well as resisting mandates from Pisan Pope John XXIII.
Next, the commune asked the pope to demolish the church dedicated to Saint Lawrence and erect
a new church on some other place. The church was located on the square, named after it, which
was important political center of the city and where the commune soon expanded the ducal
palace.1397 Peter died on 30 December 1426.1398
CEU eTD Collection

1393
Farlati, Illyricum Sacrum III, 368.
1394
Eubel, Hierarchia Catholica I, 460, October 19, 1411.
1395
Pope John soon named Peter as the cubicularius Summi Pontificis et registrator signatarum, while in January
1413 Peter received salvus conductus in order to visit the pope in Tuscany. Eubel, Hierarchia Catholica I, 460, f. 13,
April 9, 1412; VMS I, 354, January 4, 1413.
1396
MVC I, 289-90, February 28, 1420; Listine VIII, 62, 64, December 30, 1420.
1397
Farlati, Illyricum Sacrum III, 370-1; Neralić, Put do crkvene nadarbine, 289, 364; Buzančić, “Bonino Jakovljev
Milanac,” 14-5.
1398
Farlati, Illyricum Sacrum III, 371.

288
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

Short Biographies of the Bishops of Trogir

Columban (1255-76), a Franciscan friar and a papal penitentiary

The cathedral chapter of Trogir petitioned Pope Alexander IV to appoint a worthy person
as the bishop of Trogir. The pope appointed Columban, a papal penitentiary and a Franciscan friar,
who was consecrated in Rome and vowed allegiance to the archbishop in Split.1399 Faced with the
mounting pressure from the local rural nobility, the archbishop Split and the unruly clergy of
Šibenik, Columban submitted his resignation to pope in May 1276.1400
Farlati wrote that Columban originated from the island of Rab,1401 but the bishop did not
return to his native island and instead remained in Italy. He died during November 1279, because
then his successor John organized the return of Columban’s body via Apulia to Trogir, where the
deceased bishop was buried in the cathedral.1402

John (1276-1282), the provost of the church of Glogovica

In the charter in which Pope Innocent V narrated how Columban resigned his post, the
pope proceeded to appoint John. Maybe due to Innocent’s short pontificate of only several months,
or because of the opposition from Trogir to the new bishop, Pope John XXI repeated the same
charter as his successor Pope Innocent, confirmed John as the bishop, stating that Cardinal-Bishop
Bertrand de Saint-Martin of Sabina had consecrated the new bishop.1403 Nothing is known about
John’s background, except that he was a member of the canons serving in the church dedicated to
Saint Mary in Glogovica, which was a part of the Military Order of the Holy Sepulchre of
Jerusalem, and not of the Templars.1404
Based on the absence of John in the local sources, Farlati presumed that John was never
CEU eTD Collection

accepted as the bishop in Trogir.1405 The bishop’s absence was connected to his activities as a
diplomat in the service of King Charles of Naples, but John was regularly mentioned as the bishop

1399
CDC IV, 601-2, July 4, 1255; Ganzer, Papsttum und Bistumsbesetzungen, 245; Potthast, Regesta I, n.15909; VMS
I, 85; Farlati, Trogirski biskupi, 172.
1400
Lucić, Povijesna svjedočanstva I, 248-49; Farlati, Trogirski biskupi, 200-1.
1401
Farlati, Trogirski biskupi, 172.
1402
Rački, “Notae,” 216, November 6, 1279; Monumenta Traguriensia, vol. I/2, 232-3, November 18, 1279.
1403
CDC VI, 168, May 4, 1276.
1404
prepositi ecclesie de Grogorissa Zagrabiensis diocesis et canonici Jerusolimitani. Dobronić, Templari i Ivanovci,
91-2.
1405
Farlati, Trogirski biskupi, 202-3.

289
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

of Trogir in the communal charters. John appeared during September 1277, after the peace treaty
between Trogir and Split was signed, while the bishop died before or during May 1382, when the
bishopric was listed as vacant.1406

Gregory Machinatura (1282-1297), a Franciscan friar from Trogir

The election of John's successor in May 1282 was preserved. Through scrutiny, the chapter
elected Gregory, the son of Ma(r)chus from Trogir and a Franciscan friar. Lucić added that the
new bishop originated from a noble family of Machinatura, which died out around that time.1407
Gregory died around August 1297, after which he was no longer mentioned in the local sources.1408

Liberius (1297-1319),1409 from Ancona, the abbot of the Benedictine Abbey of Saint John in
Trogir
Liberius was mentioned as the elected bishop during October 1297 in the city charters of
Trogir, where it was also written that he was from Ancona.1410 Many individuals coming from
Ancona occupied the positions of power in the commune during the 1290s, which could point to
the conclusion that the commune helped the cathedral chapter to find a suitable person as the next
bishop in Ancona. But Farlati noted that Pope John XXII mentioned in a letter regarding the
destruction of the Franciscan friary in Trogir that Liberius was prior to his election the abbot of
the monastery of Saint John of Trogir.1411
The bishop died between January and April 1319.1412

Lampredius Vitturi (1319-1348), the primicerius, a nobleman of Trogir

Lampredius was buried in the cathedral of Trogir and on his burial inscription it was stated
CEU eTD Collection

that he was in his sixties when he died. Since Lampredius died in the late 1348, he was most likely
born in the late 1280s or in the early 1290s. But since he was elected as the bishop of Hvar in 1304,

1406
Rački, “Notae,” 215, September 5, 1277 – May 31, 1282.
1407
fratrem Gregorium filium Ma[r]chii de Tragurio de ordine minorum. Farlati, Trogirski biskupi, 204-5; Lucić,
Povijesna svjedočanstva I, 289-304.
1408
Rački, “Notae,” 220, August 6, 1297.
1409
Lucić noted that during September 1297 a certain John appeared as the elected bishop of Trogir in the communal
charters, but he was not mentioned in any other sources and he soon disappeared. If he truly existed, he probably died
shortly after being elected. Rački, “Notae,” 220, September 28, 1297.
1410
Rački, “Notae,” 220, October 23, 1297.
1411
Farlati, Trogirski biskupi, 211, 235-7.
1412
Rački, “Notae,” 229, April 4, 1319.

290
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

while being the primicerius of the cathedral chapter of Trogir, that would mean that his high
appointments came while Lampredius was of very young age.1413
Lampredius was elected as the bishop of Trogir by April 1319, when he was mentioned in
the city charters, while he directly petitioned the Apostolic See for the papal confirmation, which
was granted by February 1320.1414 The bishop also died at the Papal Curia in Avignon, sometime
before January 1349, as this information was mentioned by the pope while appointing
Lampredius’s successor in Trogir.1415

Bartholomew (1349-60), the bishop of Kotor from Valomonte

Although Lampredius’s successor was appointed by Pope Clement VI in January 1349, the
city charters of Trogir listed the bishopric as vacant in the period from February 1349 until
November 1351, which is a clear indication that during that time the bishop did not take possession
of his diocese.1416 Bartholomew was the son of Jacob, originated from Valomonte, a small place
near Rome, and he became the magister in arts and medicine. A career prelate, he was a canon in
Constantinople, the bishop of Kotor and the archpriest of the church of Saint Justine in Monselice
in the bishopric of Padua.1417 Bartholomew was still alive by May 1361, but he died within a few
months.1418

Nicholas Kažotić (1361-71), primicerius, a nobleman from Trogir

In December 1361 Pope Innocent VI appointed Nicholas, the son of Donat Kažotić and the
primicerius of the cathedral chapter, as the bishop of Trogir.1419 By March 1362 he received the
papal permission to be consecrated by any two or three bishops, while by August Nicholas
promised to pay for his own appointment and also for his predecessor Bartholomew.1420 Yet neither
CEU eTD Collection

was Nicholas able to pay his own debts to the Curia. He probably died several days before 26
December 1371, when his last will was opened and read.1421

1413
Lucić, Povijesna svjedočanstva I, 529-30.
1414
Rački, “Notae,” 229, April 4, 1319; CDC VIII, 552-4, February 15, 1320.
1415
CDC XI, 499-500, January 30, 1349.
1416
VMS I, 222, January 30, 1349; Rački, “Notae,” 233, February 22, 1349 - November 29, 1352.
1417
Farlati, Trogirski biskupi, 262-3; Sambin, “La 'familia' di un vescovo,” 240-42; Eubel, Hierarchia Catholica I,
177, July 14, 1348; 490, January 30, 1349; CDC XI, 478-9, July 14, 1348; Priručnik I, 218.
1418
CDC XIII, 138, May 1, 1361.
1419
Eubel, Hierarchia Catholica I, December 17, 1361.
1420
VMS I 243, March 9, 1362; MVC I, n.287, August 20, 1362.
1421
Lucić, Povijesna svjedočanstva I, 653, 673.

291
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

Chrysogonus de Dominis (1372-1403), bishop of Rab

He was appointed as the bishop of Rab in 1363 while by July 1372 Pope Gregory XI
transferred Chrysogonus to Trogir.1422 It is unclear why the pope decided to inform the archbishop
of Zadar and the bishop of Šibenik with an order to receive Chrysogonus, instead of sending this
order to the archbishop of Split, the spiritual superior of Trogir.1423 During May 1372,
Chrysogonus was in Avignon, where he obliged himself to pay for his own appointment and for
the missed payments of his predecessors, Nicholas and Bartholomew.1424 The city charters noted
that the bishop was back in Trogir by July.1425 It is unlikely that this was his first visit to his diocese
as the sources were probably not preserved.
To support the quest by King Ladislas of Naples to seize the throne of Hungary-Croatia,
Pope Boniface IX transferred Chrysogonus to Kalocsa in 1403, but he was never able to take the
possession of his archdiocese. Instead, he remained in Trogir, holding the title of the archbishop
of Kalocsa, but in order to sustain himself, Chrysogonus was granted the Benedictine monastery
of Saint John the Baptist in commenda.1426 He probably died during 1412, after which another
person was appointed in Kalocsa.1427
Bishop Chrysogonus was the son of Stephen de Dominis de Arbo, while the bishop’s
brothers were John (frater carnalis) and Andrew, whose son was Simon de Dominis.1428

Simon de Dominis (1403-1423), the nephew of the previous bishop

He was the nephew of the previous bishop of Trogir, Chrysogonus, but his actual position
in the ecclesiastical hierarchy remains unclear. When his uncle was transferred to Kalocsa, Simon
was appointed as the bishop of Trogir.1429 His father Andrew de Dominis was an important local
ally of King Ladislas of Naples and later a supporter of Venice. However, due to Simon’s
opposition to Venice, the bishop was forced into exile in 1420, while he died by 1423.1430
CEU eTD Collection

1422
CDC XIII, 288-289, June 7, 1363; VMS I, 247; Eubel, Hierarchia Catholica I, 490, July 14, 1372.
1423
VMS I, 276, July 13, 1372.
1424
MVC I, n. 302, May 19, 1373.
1425
Rački, “Notae,” 242, July 21, 1373.
1426
“Registar Trottis-Prandino,” 55-7, October 6, 1405; MVC I, 286-7, April 4, 1407.
1427
This was Andrew Benzi, the former archbishop of Split. Eubel, Hierarchia Catholica I, 197, January 4, 1413.
1428
Ančić, “Liber Bullarum,” June-July, 227-30.
1429
Eubel, Hierarchia Catholica I, July-August 1403.
1430
Eubel, Hierarchia Catholica I, May 7, 1423.

292
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

Short Biographies of the Archbishops of Zadar

Lawrence Pereander (1245-1287), a magister from Zadar

Domenico Franco, the Venetian archbishop of Zadar, was mentioned as deceased in
January 1245.1431 By April 1246 Pope Innocent IV mentioned Lawrence Pereander as the
archbishop-elect in Zadar, but it is unclear how quickly was he elected following the death of
Domenico.1432 There were two additional difficulties. One was that Emperor Frederic II (1194-
1250) forced Pope Innocent IV (r.1243-54) out of Rome and into exile to France, where the pope
was busy in organizing the First Council of Lyon. Next, between 1242 and 1247 the community
of Zadar was rebelling against Venice.1433 Although Lawrence remained as the archbishop even
after the peace treaty was signed, in the local sources he was still listed as elected up until
September 1250.1434 While it is possible that there was a dispute between the archbishop and the
Venetian-controlled patriarch of Grado, it is possible that the conflict between the Apostolic See
and the Empire prolonged Lawrence’s confirmation.
Not much is known about Lawrence. He was most likely born in Zadar to a Venetian family
which settled into the city, which would make him acceptable to both the commune of Zadar and
to the Venetian authorities which demanded that only their citizens be elected as archbishops.1435
Lawrence was also well educated as he was mentioned as a magister.1436 He was mentioned as the
archbishop for the last time in June 1287.1437

Andrew Gausoni (1287-1291), rejected, a canon of Padua from Venice

Andrew originated from a Venetian family of Gausoni (or Capsoni). He was a member of
the cathedral chapter of Padua since 1263 and the rector of the church of Saints Mary and Donat
CEU eTD Collection

1431
CDC IV, 267, January 1245.
1432
The pope, who was in Lyon, issued an order to Lawrence to lift the sentence of excommunication from some
monastery in Zadar. CDC IV, 290, April 4, 1246.
1433
Klaić and Petricioli, Zadar u srednjem vijeku, 189-92.
1434
Ljubić, “Dva popisa listina,” 102, February 9, 1247; CDC IV, 336, February 1, 1248; 347, April 8, 1248; 417,
February 20, 1250; 425, September 9, 1250.
1435
Nikolić Jakus, Formation of Dalmatian Urban Nobility, 109-110; Other opinions ranged from Lawrence being
from Zadar or Split, that he was a cleric from some church on the territory of Grado or that he was directly appointed
by the pope. Farlati, Illyricum Sacrum V, 77; Brunelli, Storia della città di Zara, 406; Dokoza, “Kronološki pregled
povijesti zadarske nadbiskupije,” 198; Bianchi, Zara cristiana, 43.
1436
CDC V, 69, July 17, 1257.
1437
Farlati, Illyricum Sacrum V, 84; CDC, 593, June 29, 1287.

293
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

in Murano between 1265 and 1288. In 1269 he was elected as the archbishop of Dubrovnik, another
Venetian-dominated Adriatic port, but various problems prevented him from being confirmed.
First, the papal vacancy resulted in Andrew only becoming the administrator of the archbishopric,
while his later tardiness resulted in the pope rejecting Andrew’s bid.1438
Therefore, Andrew’s prior experience in getting elected and in administering an
archbishopric should have enabled him to be more successful the second time. He was elected as
the archbishop of Zadar by the cathedral chapter some time during the second half of 1287. But
his first appearance in the local sources dates to January 1288, after which he was regularly
mentioned until October 1290.1439 The subsequent papal charter from February 1291 depicted the
events surrounding Andrew’s election.1440 He was elected by the chapter, but an unsatisfied group
of canons complained to the patriarch of Grado, who at the time had problems of his own, so an
appeal was directed to the Apostolic See. Either due to the pressure from the pope or for his own
personal reasons, Andrew decided to withdraw his bid.

John of Anagnia (1291-1297), a Franciscan friar from Anagni

At the beginning of February 1291, Pope Nicholas IV directly appointed and immediately
consecreated John as the archbishop of Zadar. The pope also authorized cardinals Matthew of Saint
Mary in Porticu, James of Saint Mary in Vialata and Peter of Saint Eustachius to provide John
with the pallium, which shows the importance of the event and suggests that everything was done
in a quick succession.1441 Judging by his name, John originated from Anagni, a well-known
residence of the popes during the thirteenth century. Like the pope, John was a Franciscan friar
and between 1288 and 1291 he appeared as the Franciscan Minister Provincial of Slavonia,
showing that he was a person both familiar to the pope and familiar with the situation in Zadar.1442
CEU eTD Collection

1438
Eubel, Hierarchia Catholica I, 411; CDC V, 531, April 30, 1270; Farlati, Illyricum Sacrum VI, 111; Priručnik II,
563, August 28, 1272; CDC VI, 23-4, March 31, 1273; VMS I, 93-4, December 9, 1276.
1439
Ljubić, “Dva popisa listina,” 106, January 12, 1288; Spisi zadarskih bilježnika I, 49, April 1288; CDC VI, January
1, 1289; CDC VI, 629, January 6, 1289; 631, January 12, 1289; 656, July 19, 1289; 665, July 27, 1289; 687, February
15, 1290; 695, May 14, 1290; CDC VII, 5, October 11, 1290.
1440
CDC VII, 19-20, February 10, 1291.
1441
CDC VII, 19-20, February 10, 1291; VMS I, 109; Les registres de Nicholas IV, I, n.4077-4082; Bianchi, Zara
cristiana, 44.
1442
Bianchi, Zara cristiana, 44; Farlati, Trogirski biskupi, 210; Žugaj, “Hrvatska biskupija,” 97; Karbić, Šubići of
Bribir, 330-1; Žugaj, “Hrvatska provincija franjevaca konventualaca,” 42, 101.

294
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

During June 1297 Pope Boniface VIII transferred John to the archbishopric of Trani, where the
new bishop died during 1299.1443

Henry of Tuderto (1297-1299), a Franciscan friar from Todi

In June 1297, Pope Boniface VIII appointed Henry from Todi, a teacher (professor) in the
Franciscan Order. Henry’s consecration was done in Rome by Matteo da Acquasparta, the
cardinal-Bishop of Porto and Santa Rufina (r.1291-1302) and the former general of the Franciscan
order, while the pallium was granted in October by Cardinal Matthew Rubeus Ursinus of Saint
Mary in Portico (r.1262-1302).1444 The archbishop died at the Papal Curia before mid-June 1299.

James of Fulgineo (1299-1312), a Franciscan friar from Foligno

In mid-June 1299, the pope decided to appoint James, a teacher (professor) in the
Franciscan Order, who came from Foligno, a place not that far away from Todi. Cardinal Matteo
da Acquasparta again consecrated the new archbishop. Two weeks later James received the
pallium from four cardinals of the Curia: Matthew Rubeus Ursinus, Neapoleon Ursinus Romanus
of Saint Hadrian (r.1288-1342), Peter Valerianus Duraguerra of Saint Mary Nova (r.1295-1302)
and Riccardo Petroni of Sant'Eustachio (r.1298-1314).1445
Just two weeks after the pope appointed the new archbishop, James petitioned the pope to
absolve some clergy and citizens of Zadar from excommunication.1446 This would suggest that
either the archbishop familiarized himself with his archbishopric in just two weeks, in order to be
able and willing to submit the necessary petition, or, which was more likely, that he was already
familiar with the event. James probably knew Henry from before and had possibly even
accompanied him to the archbishopric of Zadar. This can be assumed by providing another
CEU eTD Collection

example. During August 1308 Archbishop James was in Todi in the local Franciscan friary. There
he was in the company of Neapoleon, the cardinal-legate for Italy and the Venetian Dalmatia, and
Anthony, the Franciscan Minister Provincial of Slavonia.1447 The ecclesiastical circles connected
to James suggest that he and his predecessor Henry were probably selected by the pope, on the

1443
Eubel, Hierarchia Catholica I, 491.
1444
Bianchi, Zara cristiana, 45; CDC VII, 283-4, June 18, 1297; 288-289, October 18, 1297.
1445
CDC VII, 343-4, June 15, 1299; 345, July 1, 1299.
1446
Potthast, Regesta II, n.24860, July 3, 1299.
1447
CDC Supp.II, 358-60, August 6, 1308.

295
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

instigation of the powerful Cardinal Matteo da Acquasparta, from the same Franciscan friary in
Todi. The two archbishops already had good contacts with the rest of the Franciscans of the
province of Slavonia or were able to quickly expand their network.
During March 1311 there was a rebellion in Zadar against Venice which resulted in the
Šubići taking hold of the city. During October Archbishop James was listed as alive in the city
charters, while by March 1312 the charters listed the archbishopric as vacant.1448

Alexander (1312-1314), rejected, a Dominican friar and a nobleman from Zadar

During the period of Zadar’s rebellion against Venice (1311-13) two archbishops appeared,
one elected in Zadar, the other appointed by the pope. During March 1312 the cathedral chapter of
Zadar elected Alexander, a Dominican friar.1449 A year before, Ban Paul Šubić petitioned the pope
to appoint Alexander as a canon of Zagreb, which clearly shows that the young monk was closely
connected to the Šubići. After James died, the plans changed and the Šubići worked on installing
Alexander as the archbishop. The petition to the pope also mentioned that Alexander was the son
of John Piscop and Gruba, the sister of Marin Zadulinus Grubcius. The Zadulinus family was
strong supporter of the Šubići in Zadar.1450 In addition, the new archbishop could have been
identical with Alexander who served as the vicar for the Dominican order in 1304.1451
In July 1312, Pope Clement V rejected Alexander’s election on unspecified grounds and,
instead, appointed another person to Zadar.1452 Although Venice took back the city by September
1313, Alexander was still listed as elected, consecrated and confirmed archbishop (electus
Jadrensis confirmatus et consecratus) by April 1314, showing that the papal decision was not
respected in Zadar due to the rebellion against Venice.1453
On 8 February 1314 Pope Clement V wrote to the clergy and the commune of Zadar and
CEU eTD Collection

ordered them to respect the papally appointed archbishop. The pope narrated the entire chronology
of contacts with Alexander. After his election in Zadar, Alexander received the confirmation from

1448
CDC VIII, 295, October 21, 1311; CDC VIII, 305, March 19, 1312.
1449
CDC VIII, 305, March 19, 1312; Farlati, Illyricum Sacrum V, 93; Ljubić, “Dva popisa listina,” 110, March 21,
1312.
1450
Regestum Clementis papae V, n.6897, June 15, 1311. Nikolić Jakus, Formation of Dalmatian Urban Nobility, 110.
Also, see: Spisi zadarskih bilježnika II, 41-2, March 11-15, 1302.
1451
CDC VIII, 85, July 13, 1304.
1452
CDC VIII, 316-7, July 31, 1312.
1453
CDC VIII, 320, October 17, 1312; 346, December 3, 1313; 349 February 8, 1314; 352, March 10, 1314; 356, April
23, 1314

296
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

Francis, the vicar of the cathedral chapter of Grado, since Patriarch Angelo was deceased. Bishops
Liberius of Trogir, Martin of Šibenik and Peter of Skradin provided the new archbishop with
consecration. But the pope rejected Alexander, for reasons that the pope did not want to state, and
instead appointed Nicholas de Setia. Since Nicholas was prevented from taking possession of his
diocese and Alexander governed in Zadar, a hearing was convened at the Papal Curia between the
two candidates. It was presided by Cardinal Bérenger Fredoli who, predictably, chose Nicholas.1454
Since Alexander was consecrated as a bishop, the pope wanted to ensure that he receives an
appointment worthy of his rank. By March 1314 Alexander was appointed as the archbishop of
Crete, while Nicholas of Setia appeared in the city charters of Zadar as the archbishop by June.1455
Alexander resigned his position in Crete in 1333.1456

Nicholas of Setia (1312-20), a magister and a papal scribe from Sezze

After rejecting the election of Alexander, Pope Clement V appointed and consecrated
Nicholas of Setia as the archbishop. The new archbishop received the pallium a month later by the
two cardinal-deacons, Landolfo Brancaccio of Sant’Angelo in Pescheria (r.1294-1312) and
Guglielmo Longhi of San Nicola in Carcere (r.1295-1319).1457 As described in detail under
Alexander, it took two years for Nicholas to be able to occupy his diocese. He probably died during
August 1320,1458 as his successor appeared already a month later.
Nicholas originated from Sezze, which is a place in the diocese of Terracina in Italy. He
was a magister and he worked as the papal scribe at the Papal Curia since at least 1308, although
he probably entered the papal service as the chaplain of Bérenger Fredoli (c.1250-1323), cardinal
of Saints Nereus and Achilleus and later of Frascati (Tusculum). Bérenger presided in a case
between Alexander and Nicholas regarding who should be granted the archbishopric of Zadar
CEU eTD Collection

deciding, as expected, in favor of Nicholas. In order to sustain himself while working at the Curia,
Nicholas accumulated over the years various positions and benefices, mostly in France, but also
one in his native diocese of Terracina.1459

1454
Regestum Clementis papae V, n.10211, February 8, 1314.
1455
Eubel, Hierarchia Catholica I, 215, March 2, 1314; 10255, Regestum Clementis papae V, n.10255, March 2, 1314;
CDC VIII, 361, June 18, 1314.
1456
Eubel, Hierarchia Catholica I, 215.
1457
VMS I, 131-2, July 31, 1312; 132, August 28, 1312.
1458
CDC VIII, 567, August 2, 1320.
1459
Regestum Clementis papae V, n.3183-4 September 30, 1308; n.4796, July 9, 1309.

297
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

John Butovan (1320-1333), a church rector and a nobleman from Zadar

In the beginning of September 1320, John Butovan, the rector of the church of Saint
Matthew, was mentioned as being elected in the city charters in Zadar.1460 By November the
charters listed John as elected and confirmed, while by February 1321 he was also consecrated as
the archbishop, which would suggest that everything was going according to the plan and that even
the patriarch of Grado consented to the election.1461 But the problem arose when John asked the
pope for the pallium.
Cardinal-deacon Neapoleon of Adriani approved John’s election, but priest Romanus de
Setia from the diocese of Terracina complained, stating that John was excommunicated, so he
could not have been elected as the archbishop. Judging by the name, Romanus was a relative of
the deceased archbishop, but his interest in the matter is unclear. The case was investigated by
Peter, he cardinal of Stephen in Celio Monte and the vice-chancellor of the Curia, who dismissed
the accusation.1462 By March 1322 John’s election was proclaimed valid and the pope authorized
the bishops of Senj and Nin to grant the new archbishop the pallium.1463
John died on 11 March 1333. He was mentioned alive in the city charters of Zadar at the
beginning of March, while at the end of the month it was written that John died.1464

Nicholas Matafari (1333-67), a canon in Várad, an episcopal vicar, a decretorum doctor and a
nobleman of Zadar
Nicholas studied in either Padua or Bologna, and in 1320 he was a decretorum doctor,
meaning that he finished his studies, and the vicar of the bishop of Padua.1465 In 1328 Nicholas
received a position of a canon with expectancy of a prebend in the bishopric of Várad (Oradea).1466
Therefore, in 1330 Nicholas used his knowledge of a decretorum doctor while working as the
episcopal vicar in Padua, while enjoying the incomes from his position in Várad.1467 During 1331
CEU eTD Collection

1460
Iohannis de Butouano plebani sancti Mathei electi in archiepiscopum Jadrensem, CDC VIII, 568, September 5,
1320.
1461
CDC VIII, 576, November 1, 1320; 577, November 12, 1320; CDC IX, 2, February 9, 1321.
1462
Brunelli, Storia della città di Zara, 444; Granić, “Kronološki pregled povijesti zadarske nadbiskupije,” 221-2.
1463
CDC IX, 55-8, March 17, 1322.
1464
CDC X, 85, March 2, 1333; 88, March 22, 1333.
1465
Ugo Inchiostri assumed that Nicholas was at the time at least 24 years old as that age was prescribed by canonical
requirements and that he probably started his studies in 1312 or 1313. Inchiostri, “Di Nicolò Matafari,” 27; Gloria,
Monumenti della Universitá di Padova, 340.
1466
Lettres Communes de Jean XXII, n.42879, September 20, 1328.
1467
Inchiostri, “Di Nicolò Matafari,” 31; Gloria, Monumenti della Universitá di Padova, 340-1.

298
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

Nicholas also served as the vicar for Angelo Dolfino, the bishop of Castello (r.1328-36).1468 On
the basis of a general reservation of the entire province of Grado, Pope John XXII appointed
Nicholas as the archbishop of Zadar in September 1333. In the bull of appointment, Nicholas was
styled as a canon in Várad and a decretorum doctor.1469 The position of the archbishop was listed
in the city charters of Zadar as vacant between March 1333 and February 1334.1470 This means
that either Nicholas took possession of his diocese by mid-February or that he sent his
representatives, especially since the archbishop was back in Avignon in May in order to personally
promise to pay for his appointment.1471
Nicholas originated from the noble family of the Matafari of Zadar, whose members
became rectors of Zadar and bishops during the fourteenth century. Nicholas’s father was Guido,
while his brothers were Vucinna, John and Demetrius. His branch of the family was quite active
in the ecclesiastical life of medieval Zadar. During his time in office, Nicholas was highly
supportive of his brother Demetrius, guiding him in obtaining various ecclesiastical positions,
including the positions of the bishop of Pićan and then of Nin. Vucinna’s son, Peter, also became
the archbishop of Zadar.1472
Nicholas died at the end of March 1367.1473

Dominic Thopia (1368-1376), a Dominican friar and a nobleman from Albania, the bishop of
Korčula-Ston
In 1329 King Robert of Naples took the noble family of Thopia from the Angevin Kingdom
of Albania into the royal service. In 1336 the king appointed Dominic Thopia, a Dominican friar,
as the royal chaplain, counselor and retainer.1474 However, Dominic’s career prior to Zadar remains
somewhat unclear. At some point he became the bishop of Ston and Korčula (c.1350-68), while in
1360 he unsuccessfully tried to become the archbishop of Dubrovnik.1475
CEU eTD Collection

1468
Inchiostri, “Di Nicolò Matafari,” 31-2, October 30, 1331.
1469
CDC X, 118, September 10, 1333; VMS I, 188-9; Lux, Constitutionum Apostolicarum, 29-31.
1470
CDC X, 88, March 22, 1333; 89, 92, 96, 100 (before Nicholas’s appointment). CDC X, 122, October 20, 1333;
125, 129, 131, 141, 142, 145; last time mentioned as vacant in: CDC X, 150, February 17, 1334, while three days later
Nicholas was mentioned: CDC X, 152, February 20, 1334.
1471
MCV I, 98, May 6, 1334.
1472
Nikolić Jakus, Formation of Dalmatian Urban Nobility, 57-8.
1473
CDC XIV, 11, March 18, 1367; Eubel, Hierarchia Catholica I, 281, March 25, 1367.
1474
Šufflay, Acta et diplomata res Albaniae, n.736., May 28, 1329; n.802., June 12, 1336.
1475
Eubel, Hierarchia Catholica I, 462-3.

299
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

Through the support of King Louis of Hungary, Dominic was appointed as the archbishop
of Zadar. The king pressured the local Church officials to release the control over the temporal
possession of the archbishopric to a person which the king chose. Dominic Thopia was mentioned
as the archbishop in the local charters of Zadar already in May 1368, while Pope Urban V issued
his confirmation of the transfer of Dominic from Korčula-Ston in September.1476 The local sources
of Zadar listed Dominic as coming from Albania.1477
In a series of episcopal transfers, all happening on the same day in 1376, Peter was
transferred from Bosnia to Győr, while Dominic was then transferred to Bosnia.1478

Peter Matafari (1376-1400), the rector of Saint Stephen in Zadar

Just several months after Dominic’s transfer to Bosnia, at the beginning of May, Peter was
appointed as the archbishop of Zadar.1479 By middle of the month he promised to pay the
communal services.1480 But by late August it was established that Peter lacked some lesser clerical
orders, for which a necessary dispensation was granted. The pope then allowed Peter to be
consecrated by any two or three bishops, but it was not preserved who these bishops were.1481
The pope mentioned that Peter was the rector of the church of Saint Stephen, which was
one of the major churches in Zadar. He was also a member of the noble family of the Matafari,
whose members were royal knights, while Archbishop Nicholas was Peter’s uncle. While it is
unclear when Peter became the rector of Saint Stephen, it can be assumed that his familial and
ecclesiastical connections, besides contacts with the king, ensured his quick rise in the
ecclesiastical hierarchy.
Peter died in March 1400 in Ascoli, where he was buried in the cathedral.1482
CEU eTD Collection

John IV (1397-1400?), rejected

Since Peter was forbidden by the king from returning to Zadar, another person was
mentioned as the archbishop during Peter’s absence. A charter from Pag from April 1398

1476
CDC XIV, 129, May 5, 1368; Eubel, Hierarchia Catholica I, 281, September 27, 1368.
1477
CDC XIV, 323, April 23, 1371.
1478
Eubel, Hierarchia Catholica I, 142, 281, January 23, 1376; Priručnik I, 368, February 13, 1376.
1479
VMS I, 311-2, May 5, 1376; CDC XV, 205-6; Priručnik I, 368.
1480
MVC I, n. 360, May 14, 1376.
1481
VMS I, 317-8, August 29, 1376.
1482
Farlati, Illyricum Sacrum V, 108; Klaić and Petricioli, Zadar u srednjem vijeku, 362; Esch, Bonifaz IX, 587, March
20, 1400.

300
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

mentioned the archpriest of Pag who acted as the procurator of Archbishop John Farcasti.1483 John
was mentioned for the last time in February 1399 when King Sigismund warned him not to
diminish the liberties of the cathedral chapter of Zadar.1484 Nothing else is known about him.

Luca Vagnocii (1400-1420), an Augustinian friar and a doctor of theology from Fermo
In June 1400 Pope Boniface IX appointed Luca as the archbishop of Zadar.1485 He was a
friar and a doctor of theology from Fermo.1486 Luca died between 13 January 1420, the day when
he wrote his last will, and 4 March, when his successor Blasius was appointed.1487
CEU eTD Collection

1483
CDC XVIII, 331, April 6, 1398.
1484
CDC XVIII, 421-422, February 2, 1399.
1485
ASV, Reg. Lat. 75, ff. 34r- 35v, July 28, 1400; Eubel, Hierarchia Catholica I, 281.
1486
Antoljak, Miscellanea I, 26, November 9, 1402.
1487
Farlati, Illyricum Sacrum V, 113; Eubel, Hierarchia Catholica I, 281, March 4, 1420.

301
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

Figures, Family Trees and Maps

CEU eTD Collection

Figure 1. Map of the dioceses of Croatia-Dalmatia 1.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Catholic_Dioceses_Bosnia_Dalmatia_15_century.png [accessed 01/08/2020]

302
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

CEU eTD Collection

Figure 2. Map of the dioceses of Croatia-Dalmatia within the Kingdom of Hungary-Croatia.

Barabás, “Heretics, Pirates, and Legates, 58.

303
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

Figure 3. Map of Split.

CEU eTD Collection

Based on Statute of Split, 1083 and Regan and Nadilo, “Stare crkve,” 635.

304
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

Figure 4. Map of Zadar.

Klaić and Petricioli, Zadar u srednjem vijeku, 285.
CEU eTD Collection

305
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

CEU eTD Collection

Figure 5. Map of Trogir (from 1830).

Benyovsky Latin, Srednjovjekovni Trogir, 44-5.

306
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

CEU eTD Collection

Figure 6. The rise of the Šubići family.

Karbić, Šubići of Bribir, 45.

307
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

CEU eTD Collection

Figure 7. The Šubići family at the height of its power.

Karbić, Šubići of Bribir, 91.

308
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

Figure 8. The Šubići family tree, Paul I's branch.

Based on Klaić, Bribirski knezovi, 178-9.
CEU eTD Collection

309
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

CEU eTD Collection

Figure 9. The Vitturi family tree, Bishop Lampredius of Trogir.

Benyovsky Latin, Srednjovjekovni Trogir, 152.

310
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

Figure 10. The Luccari family, Archbishop Dominic of Split.

Based on Ivanišević, “Promišljanje o rodovima Lukari,” 11-7.
CEU eTD Collection

311
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

CEU eTD Collection

Figure 11. The political situation between the 1330s and the 1350s.
Rácz, “The Anjou Dynasty,” 59.

312
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

CEU eTD Collection

Figure 12. The Matafari family tree, Archbishops Nicholas and Peter of Zadar.
Nikolić Jakus, Formation of Dalmatian Urban Nobility, 249.

313
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

Figure 13. A fourteenth-century miniature of Cardinal Egidius Albornoz receiving keys of subject cities.
https://nobility.org/2015/08/20/alvarez-carillo-gil-de-albornoz/ [accessed 17/15/2021]
CEU eTD Collection

Figure 14. The tombstone of Archbishop Nicholas Matafari.

Petricioli, “Još o Pavlu iz Sulmone,” 116.

314
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

Figure 15. The coat of arms of Bishop Nicholas Kažotić in Trogir.

Babić, “Trogirski biskup Nikola Casotti,” 222.
CEU eTD Collection

Figure 16. Map of the dioceses of Croatia-Dalmatia 2.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Catholic_Dioceses_in_Bosnia_and_Dalmatia_XV_century.png [accessed 01/08/2020]

315
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

List of Ecclesiastical Payments from the Clergy of Split, Trogir and Zadar to the Apostolic See (c.1270-c.1420)

The following is a list of payments done by the bishops for themselves or for their diocese. These also include payments of communal
services, papal tithe, procurations for papal legates, as well as ad limina visitations.

General calls for the introduction of the papal tithe or procurations for legates
Year Pope Legate / collector Order
1488
1295 Boniface VIII (1294- The pope issued an order to collect tithe for the return of Sicily. The tithe
1303) would be collected in Split, Zadar and the entire Dalmatia.
12961489 Boniface VIII Received tithes which was prescribed by the Second council of Lyon,
for the return of Sicily and for a crusade
12961490 Boniface VIII Bishop Bartholomew of Castellano The collection of three year tithe, intended for the conquest of Sicily,
from Aquileia, Split and Zadar
12971491 Collecting tithe throughout Italy and Dalmatia for King Charles II of
Naples
Before John XXII (1316-34) Cardinal Bertrand of Saint Marcel, The pope ordered the collection of the 24th in the province of Split for
13211492 the legate for Lombardy and the procurations for the legate
Toscana
13261493 Cardinal-Legate Bertrand Based on the request by Archbishop Balian, the legate authorized the
archbishop to absolve from excommunication those who failed to pay
procurations but have paid in the meantime
1494
1326 Archbishop Hugolin absolved from excommunication Abbot Savinus
and Canon Dominic Petrosi of Trogir1495
1496
1333 John XXII Collection of tithe Negotio Terrae Sanctae, among other places, also in
Dubrovnik, Split and Zadar
CEU eTD Collection

1488
Les registres de Boniface I, n.497, October 28, 1295.
1489
Les registres de Boniface I, n.1305, August 10, 1296.
1490
Les registres de Boniface I, n.1578-9, March 29, 1296; IV, n. 5460, July 12, 1296; n. 5464, November 22, 1296.
1491
Les registres de Boniface I, n.1495, January 5, 1297.
1492
CDC IX, 16, July 10, 1321.
1493
In Parma. CDC IX, 287-8, April 9, 1326.
1494
In Split. CDC IX, 295, May 29, 1326.
1495
Abbot Savinus of the Benedictine monastery of Saint John in Trogir and Canon Dominic Petrosii of the cathedral chapter in Trogir.
1496
Lettres Communes de Jean XXII, n.61234, 61241, 61247, July 26, 1333.

316
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

13531497 Innocent VI (1352- Cardinal-Legate Albornoz Albornoz appointed Abbot Raymond as the collector of procurations in
62) partibus Sclavonie
13561498 Cardinal-Legate Albornoz Legate in Italy and Slavonia, namely in the archbishoprics of Split,
Dubrovnik, Antibar and Zadar
13561499 Abbot John from Fermo1500 The assessment of the 25th part of the incomes of the local ecclesiastical
institutions for payment of procurations
90 Gregory XI (1370- Gregory, the rector of Saint Mary Submitted money collected in Slavonia (Dalmatia)
duc.1501 78) in Zadar, the subcollector
1376
400 Gregory, the rector of Saint Mary Submitted money collected in Slavonia (Dalmatia)
duc.1502 in Zadar, the subcollector
1374
53 Gregory, the rector of Saint Mary Submitted money collected in Slavonia (Dalmatia)
duc.1503 in Zadar, the subcollector
1374
63 Gregory, the rector of Saint Mary Submitted money collected in Slavonia (Dalmatia)
duc.1504 in Zadar, the subcollector
1375
13771505 Gregory XI Bishop Bernard of Bologna Legatine mission to Hungary. Clergy of Hungary, Poland and Dalmatia
should support his activities with 8 ducats per day1506

1497
CDC XII, 214, December 2, 1353.
CEU eTD Collection

1498
CDC XII, 337.
1499
Abbot John was in Trogir in April, while in May in Split. CDC XII, 336-9, April 4, 1356; CDC XI, 352-3, May 11, 1356.
1500
The abbot of Benedictine monastery of Saint Savini near Fermo, and the vicar of Cardinal Albornoz.
1501
Rationes decimarum, n. 3670, April 29, 1373.
1502
Rationes decimarum, n. 3671, June 27, 1374.
1503
Rationes decimarum, 3672, November 23, 1374.
1504
Rationes decimarum, n. 3676, June 26, 1375.
1505
Fontes (2014), 237-9, March 20, 1377.
1506
Bishop Bernard demanded incomes from the archbishops of Split and Zadar, as well as from the bishops of Knin and Krbava. Bernard demanded: 75 ducats
from Zadar, 85 ducats from Split, 22 ducats from Knin and 10 ducats from Krbava. Fontes (2014), 239-41.

317
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

13771507 Gregory XI Bishop Bernard of Bologna, Two year tithe in Croatia and Dalmatia, for the recovery of the lands of
subcollectors1508 the Church
13801509 Urban VI (1378-89) Vivian de Sancto Severino1510 Appointment of the papal collector
13821511 Urban VI Vivian de Sancto Severino To collect the arrears of previous tithes
(appointed subcollector1512)
13831513 Urban VI Vivian de Sancto Severino
To collect the special three-year tax introduced to combat the increased
expenditures created by the schism
13831514 Abbot Thomas of Zadar, Informed the archbishops of Zadar, Split, Dubrovnik and Bar, as well as
subcollector1515 their suffragans, about the collection of tithe
13861516 Urban VI Vivian collector decime in the provinces of Aquileia, Grado, Milan, Ravena,
Zadar, Split, Dubrovnik and Antibar
13871517 Bishop Angelo of Castello Appointed Thomas de Rosa, the monastery of Saint Chrysogonus of
(Venice) Zadar, as the subcollector for Zadar
13891518 Bishop Angelo of Castello Appointed Thomas de Rosa as the papal subcollector for Zadar and Split
13931519 Boniface IX (1389- Introduced the three-year tithe in the provinces Grado, Split, Zadar,
1404) Dubrovnik, Aquileia and Ravena

1507
CDC XV, 304, July 18, 1377.
1508
Abbot John of the Benedictine monastery of Saint Chrysogonus and Gregory, the rector of the church of Saint Mary Majoris in Zadar who appeared before. In
addition, Bishop Michael of Skradin and Bernard, the apostolic nuncio from the monastery of Saint Nicholas in Venetian litoral, were also named. CDC XV, 304-
6, July 18, 1377.
1509
CDC XVI, 109-11, July 4, 1380.
1510
the apostolic nuncio and the prior of the monastery of Saint Mary in Venice, as the official collector in large parts of the Roman obedience: Aquileia, Grado,
Milan, Ravena, Zadar, Split, Dubrovnik, Antibar and the parts of the Byzantium and the island of Crete.
1511
CDC XVI, 280-3, May 1, 1382. (1379-1382?)
CEU eTD Collection

1512
Vivian appointed Abbot Thomas of the monastery of Saint Chrysogonus. CDC XVI, 327-9, December 1, 1382. The abbot notified the clergy of Dalmatia that
he would come to collect tithe. CDC XVI, 346-9, February 24, 1383.
1513
Fontes (2014), 243-4, [no date]. Vivian ordered the archbishops and bishops of the church province of Dalmatia to register his request. Fontes (2014), 244-6,
May 6, 1383.
1514
CDC XVI, 346-8. February 24, 1383.
1515
The abbot of the Benedictine monastery of Saint Chrysogonus in Zadar and the subcollector for Vivian.
1516
Neralić, Priručnik II, n. 7867, February 10, 1386.
1517
CDC XVII, 84-5, September 13, 1387.
1518
CDC XVII, 192-3, April 5, 1389.
1519
Neralić, Priručnik II, n. 7867, May 15, 1393.

318
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

50 Abbot Frederic of the monastery Submitted the money gathered in Zadar and Split to the papal
duc.1520 of Saints Cosmas and Damian1521 subcollector
1396
13971522 Boniface IX Michael di Sancto Arcangelo1523 The subcollector for the clergy of Zadar, Dubrovnik, Split and Antibar

Split
Amount Collector and subcollectors Paid by Paid for
Year
60 fl.1524 Directly to the legate Manelus Quideti, a merchant from Florence
Procurations for six years from the archbishop and
1326 some (pro aliquibus) sufragans; total debt was 124
florins
165 To the legate's chamberlain, Canon Lucan Bertani Legate's procurations for first, second, third, fourth
fl.1525 Armandus de Fogiis and seventh years; from the archbishop and his
1327 suffragans
61 fl.1526 Directly to the legate Bertinus Duchi, the archiepiscopal nuncio From the archbishop and his suffragans; for the rest
1327 and a merchant from Bosnia of the previous six years of procurations
150 fl1527 Not written Canons Francis, Damian and Gregory Decima trienalis
1349
90 fl1528 Primicerius Francis Decima trienalis
1349
30 fl1529 Baldelus Massucii de Eugubio Decima trienalis
1349

1520
CDC XVIII, 140-1 June 27, 1396.
CEU eTD Collection

1521
The subcollector in Split and Zadar for Michael de Sancto Arcangelo, the canon of Rimini and the subcollector for John Manchi, the papal collector for the
provinces of Zadar, Dubrovnik, Split and Antibar.
1522
Carrara, Archivio capitolare, 30, July 27, 1397.
1523
A canon of Rimini.
1524
60 florins and 7 small solids of Bologna (florenos LX et solidos VII bononensium paruorum). In Bologna. CDC IX, 304, August 13, 1326.
1525
165 florins and three solidi and ten denarios bagationorum. In Parma. CDC IX, 321-2, January 7, 1327.
1526
61 florins, 2 solids and 6 denars of Bologna. CDC IX, 360-1, September 24, 1327.
1527
Rationes decimarum, n. 3742, February 4, 1349.
1528
Rationes decimarum, n. 3743, April 24, 1349.
1529
Rationes decimarum, n. 3744, May 5, 1349.

319
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

~ 735 fl. [Total amount] Total tihe collected for the province of Split1530
1349-51
50 fl1531 Abbot Raymond from Buciardus de Ypra Legate's procurations
1354 Venice1532
80 fl1533 Unnamed treasurer of Canon Duymus Two years of procurations
1356 Albornoz received it
47 Abbot Geralt from Venice1535 Canon Buciardus de Ypra Pro parte primi et secundi terminorum primi anni
duc.1534 decime trienalis introduced by Pope Innocent VI
1359 (1352-62)
100 Symeon Mauroceno1537 Archdeacon Lawrence pro restis decimarum biennialium et triennalium of
duc.1536 popes Innocent VI and Urban V (1362-70)
1372
40 Gregory1539 Primicerius Buciardus de Ypra Pro secundo anno provisionis
duc.1538
1373

1530
728 flor 16 sol. bag. for the entire province, but when the amount per dioceses is counted, the number is 737 florins, 32 sol. bag., 18 grochen. The difference is
probably due to expenses. Split: 280 florins; Skradin: 52 florins i 18 grochen; Senj: 45 fl; Nin: 42 fl; Knin and Krbava unknown; Šibenik: 124 fl, 32 sol. bag.;
Trogir: 194 fl.
1531
In Venice. CDC XII, 242-3, May 15, 1354.
1532
Apostolice sedis nuntius et collector ac procurator et nuntius specialis. The abbot of the Benedictine monastery of Saint Nicholas in Venetian litoral. Appointed
as the collector of procurations in partibus Sclavonie by Cardinal-Legate Albornoz. CDC XII, 214, December 2, 1353.
1533
In Ancona. CDC XII, 362, July 10, 1356.
CEU eTD Collection

1534
ducentas quatuor libras et quatuordecim solidos et sex denarios bagatinorum which was exchanged by Buciardus into 47 florins. The exchange rate was one
ducat for three libri, 11 solids and 10 denari.
1535
Abbot Geralt of the Benedictine monastery of Saint George Major in the diocesis of Castello. He was sedis nuntius et collector fructuum, redituum, proventuum,
censuum, decimarum et aliorum quorumcumque apostolice camere debitorum in Lombardia nec non Aquilegensi et Gradensi patriarchatibus, et Spalatensi,
nonnullisque allis provintiis, civitatibus et diocesesibus.
1536
In the Dominican monastery of Saint Dominic outside of the city walls of Split. CDC XIV, 417-8, May 31, 1372.
1537
canonicus, castellanus domini nostri pape, capelanus camere apostolice, officialis et subcollector in partibus Dalmatie et Sclavonie.
1538
In Zadar, the Benedictine monastery of Saint Chrysogonus. CDC XIV, 499-500, March 10, 1373.
1539
plebanus sancte Marie Majoris de Iadra, subcolector in partibus Dalmatie et Croatie; for Raymond, apostolice sedis gratia abbatem sancti Nicolay in litore
Venetiarum Castelane diocesis, camere apostolice collectorem in Lombardie ac Romanie partibus et Sclavonie.

320
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

140 Benedict de Venetiis1541 Primicerius Buciardus, canons Duymus Procurations for a legate, pro duobus annis et pro
duc.1540 Damiani, Jacob Andree, Nicholas Pouergeno duobus terminis anualis decime domini nostre Pope
1374 Gregory XI (1370-78)
60 Benedict de Venetiis Primicerius Buciardus, canons Duymus pro primo et secundo terminis primi anni ipsius
duc.1542 Peter, Jacob Nicholas, Duymus Nicolas, decime bienalis
1375 Nicholas
60 fl.1543 Bishop Elias of Catania1544 Canon Duymus Nicholas del primo e secondo anno della decima biennale
1377
60 Abbot John from Zadar and Canon Duymus Damian and the primicerius primi anni decime biennalis
duc.1545 Gregory from Zadar1546 of Hvar
1377
60 Primicerius Michael of Canon Nicholas Longin secunde anni
duc.1547 Trogir1548
1378
60 Canon Duymus Nicholas Matthew
duc.1549
1380
60 Abbot Thomas from Zadar1551 Canon Johannes Ciucti primi anni decime triennalis
duc.1550
1383
- Abbot Thomas from Zadar, Primicerius Buciardo, vicar in spiritual Postponement until August for tithe of 60 ducats for
1383 Benedict de Venetiis1552 affairs the arrears since Urban VI (1370-78)

1540
In Split, in the monastery of Saint Dominic. CDC XV, 76-7, November 10, 1374.
1541
ordinis beate Marie, camere apostolice in partibus Sclavonie, in Jadrensi, Spalatensi, Ragusina et Antibarensi provintiis; subcollector za Raymonda, who was
in the meantime awarded for his work with an appointment as the bishop of Padua.
1542
In Split, in the monastery of Saint Dominic. CDC XV, 133-4, June 15, 1375.
CEU eTD Collection

1543
In Rome. Carrara, Archivio capitolare, 23-4, February 21, 1377; CDC XV, 261-2.
1544
The vicetresurer of the pope.
1545
In Zadar. CDC XV, 313-4, August 25, 1377.
1546
John, the abbot of monastery of Sain Chyrsogonus, and Gregory, the rector of Saint Mary Majoris in Zadar, for Bishop Bernard of Bologna.
1547
In Trogir. CDC XV, 358-9, April 21, 1378.
1548
For Bernard, the abbot of Saint Nicholas in litoral Venice.
1549
ACS 669, membrana 130, 1380; Ostojić, Metropolitanski, 108.
1550
CDC XVI, 360-1, April 27, 1383.
1551
Vivian appointed Thomas as the subcollector for Zadar, Split, Dubrovnik and Antibar. CDC XVI, 327-9, December 1, 1382; 346-9, February 24, 1383.
1552
Probably the same Benedict as before. He was now the rector of the church of Saint Stephen in Treviso.

321
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

60 Abbot Thomas from Zadar, Canon Duymus, Primicerius Buciardo, vicar prima decima trienali
duc.1553 Benedict de Venetiis in spiritual affairs
1383
-1554 Canon Duymus Nicholas Appointed to discuss the payment of tithe with the
1383 papal subcollectors
-1555 Friar John and Friar Peter Postponement of the payment (of tithe?)
1385 Rainaldi de Cornieto1556
16 fl.1557 Friar Peter Rainaldi Canon Duymus Nicholas For two years of procurations
1385
-1558 Abbot Thomas of the Canon Duymus Received some unspecified money from Archbishop
1388 monastery of Saint Hugolin for the papal subcollector1559
Chrysogonus in Zadar
15 Archbishop Andrew of Split, Canon Nicholas Pouerseni pro solutione tercii anni decime triennalis of Pope
duc.1560 Abbot Lawrence from Krk1561 Urban VI (1378-89)
1392
30 Michael de Sancto Canon Doimus Silvestri pro duobus terminis primi anni decime trienalis et
duc.1562 Arcangelo1563
primo termino secundi anni dicte decime trienalis of
1394 Boniface IX (1389-1404); the rest of debt forgiven
due to wars

1553
CDC XVI, 386-7, September 2, 1383.
1554
CDC XVI, 393-5, September 22, 1383.
1555
Carrara, Archivio capitolare, 27, July 1, 1385.
1556
I am not sure who was Friar John, but Friar Peter was the treasurer of the Roman pope and the subcollector of Cardinal Pileus.
CEU eTD Collection

1557
Carrara, Archivio capitolare, 28, November 19, 1385; ACS 669, membrana 198. Pileus de Prata, the archbishop of Ravenna, was promoted as the cardinal in
1378. Pileus was sent to Hungary in 1385 on a legatine mission, while in 1387 he defected to Avignon. He returned under the Roman obedience in 1391. Eubel I,
23, 415.
1558
Farlati, Illyricum Sacrum III, 331, [no day or month], 1338.
1559
Most likely the money left after the death of the abbot of Saint Stephen under the Pines in Split that was disputed between Pope Urban VI and the archbishop.
CDC XVII, 82-83, August 10, 1387; VMS I, 338-9.
1560
CDC XVII, 468-70, October 29, 1392.
1561
Abbot Lawrence of the Benedictine monastery on Krk.
1562
CDC XVII, 617-9, September 8, 1394; Mályusz, Zsigmondkori oklevéltár I, n. 3617.
1563
A canon of Rimini and the vicar of the papal collector of papal tithe, John Manchi (or Marchi), a canon of Naples.

322
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

20 Abbot Frederic de Georgiis Canon Lawrence Dragosii Half pro secundo secundi and half pro primo tertii
duc.1564 from Zadar1565 anni decime trienalis
1395
10 Michael de Sancto Arcangelo Canon Doimus Silvestri, the archiepiscopal secondo termine della triennale decima del papa
duc.1566 vicar
1396
10 Michael de Sancto Archbishop Peregrin del secondo termine del terzo anno della decima
duc.1567 Arcangelo1568
papale
1403

Zadar
Amount Collector and subcollectors Paid by Paid for
Year
400 Marin, the rector of Saint Monk Michael, the vicar of the monastery, Money collected for the six-year tithe introduced by
fl.1569 Stephen of Zadar, and John, and Abbot Lawrence1571 Clement V (1305-14) during the council of Vienne
1323 the rector of Saint Matthew of and intended for the crusade; money was stored for
Zadar1570 the safekeeping on 1 October 1317
-1572 Bertrand Rotundi, the canon The collector excommunicated the monastery of
1328 of Weimar1573 Saint Nicholas of Zadar, the order of Saint Clara; after
a complaint he retracted the excommunication; it
seems he was unaware that the monastery was exempt

1564
Carrara, Archivio capitolare, 29, October 7, 1395; CDC XVIII, 60-1.
1565
The abbot of the Benedictine monastery of Saint Cosmas and Damian of Zadar. The subcollector for Zadar and Split for John Manchi, a canon of Naples and
CEU eTD Collection

the papal collector for Dalmatia.

1566
Carrara, Archivio capitolare, 29, June 10, 1396; CDC XVIII, 125-6.
1567
Carrara, Archivio capitolare, 31, July 28, 1403.
1568
The vicar of the apostolic collector John Marchi.
1569
CDC IX, 128-9, August 8, 1323.
1570
Marin was now collector for Zadar, but he mentioned that he collected tithe together with John, who was then the rector of Saint Matthew. This is John Butovan
who became the archbishop of Zadar in 1320.
1571
The Benedictine monastery of Saint Chrysogonus of Zadar.
1572
In Cividale del Friuli. CDC IX, 390-1, April 20, 1328.
1573
collector decimarum et fructuum in patriarchatibus Aquilegensi et Gradensi.

323
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

420 Canon Bertrand Rotundi Henry Theotonico de Colonia, a retainer of decime sexenalis et trienalis of Pope John XXII
lib.1574 Abbot John of the monastery of Saint (1316-34)
1329 Chrysogonus1575
-1576 Archbishop Nicholas of Zadar Not collected since the archbishop did not dare to
1349 enter his diocese
270 Abbot Raymond Maurelli Abbot John of Saint Chrysogonus Return of a loan (Raymond loaned money to John,
duc.1577 from Venice1578 probably in order to pay procurations or tithes)
1355
-1579 Bishop Demetrius of Nin, the Monk Richard, the vicar of the monastery of Asking for a posponment for the procurations for
1357 vicar of Archbishop Nicholas Saint Chrysogonus of Zadar Cardinal-Legate Albornoz
of Zadar
-1580 Archbishop Nicholas Matafari Letter to the archbishop of Zadar regarding the
1358 payment of the three-year tithe
-1581 Gregory, the rector of the Abbot John of the moanstery of Saint Cardinal-Legate excommunicated the abbot for
1358 church of Saint Mary in Chryosogonus1583 failing to pay on time the fourth year of procurations
Zadar1582 for the legate
56 fl.1584 Archbishop Nicholas Matafari Zoilo de Botono, the procurator of Abbot For two years of procuration for the papal legate;
1358 John of the monastery of Saint Chrysogonus papal tithe was not paid1585
28 fl.1586 Cardinal-Legate Albornoz Walter (Gualterius), the retainer of the abbot in contributione procurationis ... primi anni nostre
1358 of the monastery of Saint Chrysogonus secunde legationis

1574
quadrigentas et viginti libras denariorum paruorum. CDC IX, 453-4, February 10, 1329.
1575
Previously, the abbot was excommunicated for failing to pay tithe. Now, he was absolved. CDC IX, 455, February 10, 1329.
1576
Rationes decimarum, n. 3663, 1349.
1577
CDC II, 308-9, October 18, 1355.
1578
Raymundus Maurelli abbas sancti Nicholai in lictore Veneciarum ordinis Benedicti Castellanensis diocesis, apostolice sedis nuncius et collector fructuum,
reddituum, proventuum, censum, decimarum et aliorum quorumcumque debitorum in Aquilegensi, Gradensi, Jadrensi, Ragusinensi, Spalatensi, Romanie et
CEU eTD Collection

Cretensi, Mediolanensi, Ravenensi.

1579
In Zadar. CDC XII, December 28, 1357.
1580
Instrumenta Miscellanea, 2111, January 8, 1358.
1581
CDC XII, 582-4, June 27, 1359.
1582
The vicar of Archbishop Nicholas Matafari of Zadar.
1583
The abbot complained that he was forced to spend four years out of Zadar due to the Venetian tyranny, during which time the properties of the monastery
suffered.
1584
In Zadar. CDC XII, 644-5, November 1, 1359.
1585
The archbishop asked for the papal tithe, while the procurator said that the money was with John Utino, the canon of Brescia and the nuncio of the papal legate.
1586
In Ancona. CDC XII, 645-6, November 9, 1359.

324
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

200 Symeon Mauroceno Archbishop Dominic Thopia Pro restis decimarum apostolicarum debitis per
duc.1587 Archbishop Nicholas
1372
224 Archbishop Dominic Thopia for restis decimarum et pro parte solutionis primi anni
duc.1588 procurationum, imposed by Pope Gregory XI (1370-
1372 78)
4 duc.1589 1590
Abbess Missa of the monastery of Saint Super decima annuali, ac primo et secundo terminis
1375 Margarita of Pag decime biennalis of Gregory XI
47 Abbot Peter of the monastery of Saints Pro primo et secundo terminis primi anni decime
duc.1591 Cosmas and Damian (Rogovo) biennalis
1375
31 Marin, rector of the church of Saint Peter the Supra decima annali, ac primo et secundo terminis
duc.1592 Old in Zadar, for himself and the cathedral decime biennalis
1375 chapter
60 Archbishop Dominic Thopia Pro decima annuali
duc.1593
1375
15 Chapter of Pag1595 Pro decima annali
duc.1594
1375
20 The abbess of the monastery of Saint Mary Pro decima annali ac primo et secundo terminis primi
duc.1596 of Zadar anni decime biennalis
1375
5 duc.1597 Abbot Gregory of the monastery of Saint Pro primo et secundo terminis primi anni decime
1375 Michael in Zadar biennalis

1587
Rationes decimarum, n. 3668, May 6, 1372.
CEU eTD Collection

1588
Rationes decimarum, n. 3669, June 6, 1372.
1589
Rationes decimarum, n. 3673, June 25, 1375.
1590
Everything in 1375 was collected by Gregory, the rector of the church of Saint Mary of Zadar and the subcollector in partibus Sclavonie. Probably also in 1376.
1591
duc. 47, sol. 32. Rationes decimarum, n. 3674, June 25, 1375.
1592
Rationes decimarum, n. 3675, June 25, 1375.
1593
Rationes decimarum, n. 3677, June 27, 1375.
1594
Rationes decimarum, n. 3678, June 27, 1375.
1595
For the incomes of the chapter of Pag, see: Bianchi, Kršćanski Zadar II, 23-4.
1596
Rationes decimarum, n. 3679, June 28, 1375.
1597
Rationes decimarum, n. 3680, June 28, 1375.

325
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

20 The procurators of the cathedral fabrica1599 Pro dictis terminis

duc.1598
1375
50 Abbot John of the monastery of Saint Super decima annali et bienali of Pope Gregory XI
duc.1600 Chrysogonus of Zadar
1376
70 Archbishop Peter Matafari Pro decima biennali of Gregory XI, imposed during
duc.1601 the fourth year of his pontificate (end of 1374)
1376
18 The abbess of the monastery of Saint Mary Pro primo et secundo terminis secundi anni decime
duc.1602 of Zadar biennalis
1376
30 The cathedral chapter of Zadar Pro primo et secundo terminis secundi anni decime
duc.1603 biennalis
1376
5 duc.1604 Abbot Gregory of the monastery of Saint Pro duobus ultimis terminis decime biennalis
1376 Michael de Monte in Zadar
20 Cleric Thomas from Pag for the chapter of Pro primo et secundo terminis secundi anni decime
duc.1605 Pag and the monastery of Saint Margarita of biennalis
1376 Pag
20 The procurators of the cathedral fabrica Pro dictis terminis decime biennalis
duc.1606
1376
32 Benedict de Venetiis1608 Abbot Frederic of the monastery of Saints Pro primo et secundo terminis primi anni tercie
duc.1607 Cosmas and Damian decime trienalis of Urban VI

1598
Rationes decimarum, n. 3681, June 28, 1375.
CEU eTD Collection

1599
Michael, the rector of the church of Saint Michael of Zadar, and Jacob Cedolino of Zadar.
1600
Rationes decimarum, n. 3682, August 12, 1376.
1601
Rationes decimarum, n. 3683, August 14, 1376.
1602
Rationes decimarum, n. 3684, August 16, 1376.
1603
Rationes decimarum, n. 3685, August 18, 1376.
1604
Rationes decimarum, n. 3686, August 18, 1376.
1605
Rationes decimarum, n. 3687, August 18, 1376.
1606
Rationes decimarum, n. 3688, August 19, 1376.
1607
CDC XVII, 59-60, March 23, 1387.
1608
The abbot of the monastery of Saint Mary de Caneto in he diocese of Pula and the subcollector for Vivian de Sancto Severino.

326
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

1387
72 lib.1609 Benedict Abbot Thomas of saint Chrysogonus Pro primo et secundo terminis primi anni tercie
1387 decime triennalis
9 duc.1610 Michael de Sancto Arcangello Abbot Frederic of Sainst Cosmas and Pro parte solutionis omnium decimarum
1394 Damian
17 Michael de Sancto Arcangelo Iohannes de Viticchor from Zadar, Pro parte solucionis omniu decimarum et terminorum
1611
duc. procurator of Abbot Chrysogonus1612 earundum
1396

Trogir
Amount Collector and subcollectors Paid by Paid for
Year
28 sol.1613 Duymus, the son of Canon Staniccha (Staniša), representative of paid for 24th part for the procurations for the papal
1321 Theodosius, from Split1614 Bishop Lampredius legate, Bertrand in Lombardy
193 fl.1615 Abbot Raymond1616 Primicerius Nicholas and Canon Elias pro sex terminis de ipsa decima trienali, paid at once
1351
-1617 Abbot John from Fermo Canon Jacob Vitturi, the archiepiscopal vicar Estimated that the bishopric of Trogir should pay 37
1356 florins per year for the procurations for Cardinal-
Legate Albornoz; money should be paid for two
previous years and for the current year1618

1609
libras septuaginta duas parvorum monete Ungare. CDC XVII, 61-2, March 23, 1387.
1610
CDC XVII, 623, October 9, 1394.
1611
CDC XVIII, 141-2, June 28, 1396.
CEU eTD Collection

1612
The monastery of Saint Chrysogonus in Zadar.
1613
28 solidi with half of the Venetian silver groschen (viginti octo soldi cum dimidio venetorum grossorum de argento)
1614
The vicar of Archbishop Peter and the collector in the province of Split.
1615
In Venice. Rationes decimarum, n. 3754, March 21-2, 1351; CDC XII, 7-8.
1616
In the CDC it is written that he was the abbot of the monastery of Saint Nicholas of Šibenik. The part with Šibenik was damaged, so the editors added the city
in the brackets. Since tithe was paid in Venice and Abbot Raymond of the monastery of Saint Nicholas in litoral Venice was mentioned throughout the 1350s, it is
safe to assume that this the same person.
1617
Abbot John was in Trogir in April, while in May in Split. CDC XII, 336-9, April 4, 1356; CDC XI, 352-3, May 11, 1356.
1618
In total 38 fl., but 7 fl. was then mentioned as the amount paid: 12 fl. by the bishop, 4 fl. by the canons, 2 fl. by the cathedral fabrica, 4. fl by [damaged text], 6
fl. by the monastery of Saint John, 4 fl. by the monastery of Saint Nicholas and 6 fl. by the monastery of Saint Peter.

327
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

-1619 Rollettus, the son of Budetti, Abbot Dominic of the monastery of Saint Excommunication of the bishopric of Trogir for not
1357 the canon of Lausanne and John the Baptist, Primicerius Nicholas Donat paying the required 25th for procurations for Cardinal-
the envoy of Archbishop and the cathedral chapter of Trogir Legate Albornoz1621
Hugolin of Split1620
75 fl.1622 Cardinal-Legate Albornoz Canon John, the son of Matthew, for the Stated that 75 florins have been given to Bishop
1357 cathedral chapter of Trogir1623 Bartholomew of Trogir for the legate, but the bishop
kept the money
122 Archdeacon Jacob and Primicerius Nicholas The lease of the incomes of the cathedral chapter in
duc.1624 Donat Bosiljina on the mandate of the papal legate (not
1360 named) so they could pay for his procurations
135 Benedict, the
duc.1625 subcollector1626
1374-75
134 From the clergy of the city and the diocese Pro parte solutionis terminorum trium annorum
duc.1627 of Trogir, excluding the bishop subsidii procurationum et duorum terminum decime
1374 annalis
36 duc.1628 Benedictus de Veneciis, the Bishop Chrysogonus for himself, his mensa, Pro primo et secundo terminis primi anni decime
1375 subcollector1629 the cathedral chapter and the monasteries of biennalis of pope Gregory XI
Saint Nicholas and Saint Peter
36 duc.1630 Bishop Chrysogonus and his clergy Pro primo et secundo terminis decime biennalis
1376

1619
CDC XII, 385-7, January 3, 1357.
1620
The archbishop was the delegated judge of Cardinal-Legate Albornoz.
1621
Rollettus came to Trogir and wanted to immediately excommunicate the bishop, cathedral chapter and the entire bishopric, but was stopped by a complaint
from the canons who offered proof that they gave the required money to Bishop Bartholomew of Trogir. According to the archbishop's mandate, Rollettus was to
be paid 1 ducat per day for two days that he was in Trogir, which was to be paid by Thomas, the son of Matiche, the procurator of the bishop. Yet Rollettus
demanded 6 ducats from the cathedral chapter, which they refused to give, so he excommunicated them.
CEU eTD Collection

1622
In Venice. CDC XII, 393-6, March 10, 1357.
1623
Canons Thomas, the son of Mathias, and Michael, the son of Martin, were selected to collect the required 25th for the procuration.
1624
CDC XIII, 27-8, May 28, 1360.
1625
Rationes decimarum, n. 3755-56, 3758, November 11, 1374 – June 18, 1375. When collecting the sum of 50 ducats in 1375 the papal subcollector submitted
34 ducats. He wrote that 14 ducats were used for his expenses and salary, so additional 2 ducats were probably used for other expenses.
1626
Probably Benedict de Venetiis mentioned in Split.
1627
Rationes decimarum, n. 3760, November 11, 1374.
1628
Rationes decimarum, n. 3761, June 18, 1375; CDC XV, 134-5.
1629
generalis vicarius subcollector et locum tenens for Bishop Raymond of Padua.
1630
Rationes decimarum, n. 3762, July 18, 1376.

328
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

20 duc.1631 Michael de Sancto Bishop Chrysogonus and his clergy Decimis preteris
1397 Archangelo1632

Services1633 and Ad limina visits1634 to the Apostolic See (fl – florins; sol – solidus; den – denarius (T/A/R/V1635))
Year Arch/bishop Purpose Per manus Common Petty services Card.1636
services
1316- Taxes of the 200 fl. by Split
13341637 bishoprics in Slavonia 74 fl. by Trogir

Zadar
12991638 James of Fulgineo (1299- Promise 250 fl 28
1312)1639
1640
1312 Nicholas de Setia (1312- Promise 400 fl five customary 19
20) services
13171641 Nicholas Payment Magister Petrus 200 fl. 8 fl., 4 sol., and 10 T. 23
Assibellis, literarum den.
domini pape
scriptoris, and

1631
CDC XVIII, 238-9, August 1, 1397.
1632
He is usually accompanied by Abbot Lawrence of the monastery of Saint Lawrence on Krk.
1633
Common services (servitia communia) were paid by higher clergy, such as bishops and abbots, for their appointment or confirmation by the pope in the
consistory. It was divided between the pope and the cardinals. The petty services (servitia minuta) were smaller payments which were given to the officials and
retainers of the Curia and the cardinal's college, namely four were give to the papal officials and one to the staff of the cardinals. Lunt, Papal Revenues I, 81-2. For
Croatia-Dalmatia, see: Soldo, Takse servitium commune kod nas kroz XIV i polovicom XV stoljeća.
1634
Requirement by the pope from the bishops to regularly visit the Apostolic See in order to report about the situation in their diocese (visita ad limina sanctorum
apostolorum Petri et Pauli). The bishops could come by themselves or employ a procurator, but the visit depended on the distance. Italian bishops had to come
CEU eTD Collection

once every year. Those living across the sea – every two years. This was the case for the archbishops of Split, but the archbishops of Zadar had obligation to come
once every three years. Lunt, Papal Revenues I, 91-3; Agostino Paravicini Bagliani, “Ad limina,ˮ in Dizionario enciclopedico del Medioevo, vol. I, edited by André
Vauchez and Claudio Leonardi (Rome: Città Nuova, 1998), 14.
1635
Turon - denariorum Turonensium parvorum; Roman – monete Romane; Vienne – vienensibus.
1636
The number of cardinals present when the bishop would promise to pay for his appointment. This would be used to count the petty services. MCV I, p. 16.
1637
CDC VIII, 442-3, 1316-1334.
1638
MVC I, n. 1, July 16, 1299.
1639
Appointed 15 June 1299, Potthast II, n 24843
1640
MVC I, n. 5, August 19, 1312.
1641
MVC I, n. 9, July 16, 1317.

329
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

Romanus Stephen de
Secia, the procurator
of the archbishop
13331642 Nicholas Matafari (1333- Promise 400 fl. five customary 22
67) services
13341643 Nicholas Payment 100 fl. 18 fl., 2 sol. and 5 den.
for four services
13351644 Nicholas Payment Peter de Valdercario, 100 fl 18 fl, 2 solidis and 5
domicellus (servant?) denars for four
services
13371645 Nicholas Visit, once in three Demetrius de
years Mathafaris, procurator
13401646 Nicholas Visit, once in three Monk Dominic,
years procurator1647
13421648 Nicholas Visit, once in three Monk Dominic,
years procurator1649
13571650 Nicholas Visit, once in two Nicholas de Auxinio
years
13681651 Dominic Thopia (1368-76) Promise Matheus Symonis, 400 fl five customary 18
procurator1652 services
13681653 Dominic Payment Matheus Symonis, the 126 fl. 28 fl. for four services
canon of Zagreb

1642
MVC I, n. 46, October 2, 1333; n. 108 (same, except the year is 1334); n. 122 (same but different date, August 18, 1335).
1643
MVC I, n. 101, May 6, 1334; n. 116 (same).
CEU eTD Collection

1644
MVC I, n. 102, June 10, 1335; n. 117 (same); n. 132 (same).
1645
MVC I, n. 136, February 10, 1337.
1646
MVC I, n. 140, April 5, 1340.
1647
From the monastery of Saints Cosmas and Damian in the diocese of Zadar.
1648
MVC I, n. 142, March 18, 1342.
1649
From the monastery of Saints Cosmas and Damian in the diocese of Zadar.
1650
MVC I, n. 258, June 22, 1357.
1651
MVC I, n. 294, June 9, 1368; n. 320 (same, except adds Matheus Symonis, procurator of the archbishop).
1652
The canon of Zagreb.
1653
MVC I, n. 331, June 15, 1368.

330
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

13681654 Dominic Payment Bishop Michael of 74 fl. 16 fl., 5 sol., 4 den.

Skradin
13761655 Peter Matafari (1376-1400) Promise 400 fl. five customary 25
services
13771656 Peter Payment 100 fl.
14001657 Luca of Fermo (1400-20) Promise Archdeacon 400 fl. five customary
Bartholomew of services
Benevento and
Brother Augustin de
Montegranario,
procurators
Promise to pay for 110 fl five customary
predecessor Peter services
14041658 Luca Payment 36 fl., 5 sol., 6 5 fl., 27 sol., 11 den.
R.den and obolus
14041659 Luca Payment Bishop Bartholomew 36 fl., 5 sol., 6 5 fl., 27 sol., 11 den.
of Rimini R.den and obolus
14051660 Luca Payment 18 fl., 2 sol., 11 2 fl., 38 sol., 10
R.den. and R.den., and obolus
obolus
14061661 Luca Payment 18 fl., 2 sol., 11 2 fl., 38 sol., 11 R.den.
R.den and obolus

Split
13241662 Balian (1324-28) Promise 200 fl. 20
CEU eTD Collection

1654
MVC I, n. 331, June 15, 1368.
1655
MVC I, n. 360, May 14, 1376.
1656
MVC I, n. 353, March 23, 1377.
1657
MVC I, n. 451, August 6, 1400.
1658
MVC I, n. 462, June 4, 1404.
1659
MVC I, n. 546, July 4, 1404. It could be the same as n. 462, just wrong month.
1660
MVC I, n. 465, July 3, 1405; n. 549 (same).
1661
MVC I, n. 469, September 7, 1406.
1662
MVC I, n. 39, November 29, 1324; n. 86 (same).

331
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

13251663 Balian Payment Magister Angelus de 100 fl. 20 fl.

Reate, the papal scribe
13261664 Balian Payment Magister Angelus de 100 fl. 20 fl.
Reate, the papal scribe
13261665 Balian Visit, once every two Magister Stephen de
years Anagni, procurator
13281666 Dominic Lucari (1328-48) Promise 200 fl. five customary 24
services
13291667 Dominic Payment Magister Michael, 50 fl. 11 V.sol.
archdeacon of Treviso
13291668 Dominic Payment Magister Michael, 50 fl. 8 fl. and 11 V.sol.
archdeacon of Treviso
13481669 John (1348) Promise 200 fl. five customary 19
services
13491670 Hugolin de Branca (1349- Promise 200 fl. five customary
88) services
1671
1350 Hugolin Payment Neapolionus de 50 fl. 11 fl, 18 sol and 4
Ponterol de Fornillo, denarios of Avignon
procurator
13511672 Hugolin Payment Johannus Jacobi de 50 fl. 11 fl, 18 sol and 4 den
Podiobourg de Avignon
Florencia
13891673 Andrew Benzi (1389-1403) Promise 200 fl. 14
13891674 Andrew Payment 15 fl.

1663
MVC I, n. 17, December 23, 1325; n. 66 (same).
1664
MVC I, n. 76, January 27, 1326.
CEU eTD Collection

1665
MVC I, n. 83, July 27, 1326.
1666
MVC I, n. 41, September 9, 1328; n. 90 (same).
1667
MVC I, n. 69, July 17, 1329; n. 91 (same).
1668
MVC I, n. 71, December 19, 1329; n. 93 (same); n. 98 (same)
1669
MVC I, n. 161, August 11, 1348.
1670
MVC I, n. 168, June 25, 1349; n. 223 (same).
1671
MVC I, n. 209, March 27, 1350; n. 214 (same).
1672
MVC I, n. 216, August 26, 1351; n. 235 (same); also, see: n. 205, December 22, 1351.
1673
MVC I, n. 392, May 30, 1389.
1674
MVC I, n. 371, May 30, 1389.

332
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

14031675 Pelegrinus (1403-09) Promise Iohannes de Atzaiolis, 200 fl. five customary 14
procurator services
Promise to pay for 185 fl. five customary
predecessor Andrew services
14041676 Pelegrinus Payment Ieremia de Spalato 95 fl.
14151677 Domnius (1409-20) Promise Dominicus de 200 fl. five customary
Ragusio, services
procurator1678
14191679 Domnius Payment Antonius Barini, a 50 fl.
citizen of Split,
procurator

Trogir
13201680 Lampredius Vitturi (1319- Promise 70 fl. five customary 29
49) services
13221681 Lampredius Visit, once every two Galfredus de Realibus
years de Pisterio, procurator
13231682 Lampredius Payment Avezutus de Padua, 35 fl. 1 fl., 8 sol., 10 T.den.
procurator
13231683 Lampredius Payment Aduezuti de Padua, 35 fl. 6 fl., 3 sol., 8 V.den.
advocate at the Curia
13491684 Bartholomew (1349-61) Promise 74 fl. five customary 17
services
13621685 Nicholas Kažotić (1361- Promise 74 fl. five customary 19
70) services

1675
MVC I, n. 502, May 7, 1403.
CEU eTD Collection

1676
MVC I, n. 460, January 20, 1404; n. 545 (same).
1677
MVC I, n. 494, December 11, 1415.
1678
A canon of Split and a doctor of law.
1679
MVC I, n. 575, August 11, 1419; n. 1025, August 16, 1419.
1680
MVC I, n. 27, April 8, 1320; n. 35 (same; wrong date by editors).
1681
MVC I, n. 62, April 18, 1322.
1682
MVC I, n. 13, July 27, 1323.
1683
MVC I, n. 63, July 27, 1323.
1684
MVC I, n. 166, March 14, 1349; n. 197 (same).
1685
MVC I, n. 287, August 20, 1362.

333
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

Promise to pay for 24 fl., 12 sol. 2 fl., 4 sol., 3 den. for

predecessor one service
Bartholomew
13731686 Chrysogonus (1372-1403) Promise 74 fl. five customary 26
services
Promise to pay for 74 fl. five customary
predecessor Nicholas services
Promise to pay for 24 fl., 12 sol. 2 fl., 4 sol., 3 den. for
predecessor one service
Bartholomew
13871687
CEU eTD Collection

1686
MVC I, n. 302, May 19, 1373.
1687
Laurentius, episcopus Traguriensis, per dominum Antonium de Novaria, procuratorem suum, promised to pay 84 fl. and five services. MVC I, n. 382, August
23, 1387. This entry was probably a mistake.

334
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

Bibliography

Archival sources
Nadbiskupski arhiv u Split (The archive of the archbishopric of Split)
Arhiv Prvostolnog kaptola Split [The archive of the cathedral chapter of Split]
Arhiv stare splitske nadbiskupije [The archive of the old archbishopric of Split]
Rukopisna ostavština Ivana Lucića [The preserved collection of Ivan Lucić]. MS 528, 531-
542. Also preserved in the Croatian Academy of Sciences and Arts in Zagreb.

The Vatican Apostolic Archive

Instrumenta miscellanea
Reg. Vat.: Registra Vaticana
Reg. Lat.: Registra Lateranensia

Arhiv Hrvatske akademije znanosti i umjetnosti u Zagrebu [The archive of the Croatian Academy
of Sciences and Arts in Zagreb]
(70 – D I-CXL) Diplomata: Zbirka latinskih isprava, 1070-1859 [The collection of sources
in Latin]. The short regesta of these charters were published in “Isprave u Arhivu
jugoslavenske akademije,” vols. I-IV. Eds. by Jakov Stipišić and Miljen Šamšalović.
Zbornik Odsjeka za povijesne znanosti Zavoda za povijesne i društvene znanosti HAZU 2-
5 (1959-63), 289-379, 563-643, 465-554, 533-78.
Rukopisna ostavština Ivana Lucića [The preserved collection of Ivan Lucić]. MS 528, 531-
542. Also preserved in the archive of the archbishopric of Split.

Primary sources
A Cutheis, “Tabula,” in: Legende i kronike [Legends and Chronicles]. Eds. by Hrvoje Morović
and Vedran Gligo, tran. by Vladimir Rismondo, 185-202. Split: Čakavski sabor, 1977.
Acta et diplomata res Albaniae mediae aetatis illustrantia, vols. I-II. Ed. by Milan Šufflay. Vienna:
Typis Adolphi Holzhausen, 1913-1918.
Acta legationis Cardinalis Gentilis. Ed. by Arnold Ipolyi. Budapest: Magyar Egyháztörténeti
Enciklopédia Munkaközösség, 2000.
CEU eTD Collection

Alačević, Josip, ed. “Serie dei reggitori di Spalato,” Bullettino di archeologia e storia Dalmata,
XII (1889), 15-16, 31-32, 47-48, 63-64, 77-80, 92- 96, 107-112, 124-128, 143-144, 159-
160, 189-190; XIII (1890), 16, 31-32, 44-48, 63-64, 79-80, 95-96, 111-112, 126-128, 139-
144, 160, 173-176, 187-189.
Ančić, Mladen. “Liber Bullarum.” Fontes: izvori za hrvatsku povijest 20 (2014), 231-48.
Ančić, Mladen. “Registar Splitskog kaptola” [The registry of the cathedral chapter of Split].
Fontes: izvori za hrvatsku povijest 20 (2014), 27-230.
Ančić, Mladen. “Splitski i zadarski kaptol kao ‘vjerodostojna mjesta’” [The cathedral chapters of
Split and Zadar as ‘loca credibilia’]. Fontes: izvori za hrvatsku povijest 11 (2005), 11-77.
Andreis, Mladen. “Trogirski patricijat u srednjem vijeku,” [The nobility in Trogir during the
Middle Ages]. In Rasprave iz kulturne prošlosti [Debates from the cultural past], ed. by

335
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

Tomislav Raukar, 5-210. Zagreb: Odsjek za povijesne znanosti Zavoda za povijesne i

društvene znanosti HAZU, 2002.
Andreis, Pavao. Povijest grada Trogira, vols I-II. Ed. by Cvito Fisković and tran. by Vladimir
Rismondo. Split: Čakavski sabor, 1978-79.
Annales minorum, vol. IX. Ed. by Luke Wadding. Rome: Typis Rochi Bernabo, 1734.
Anjou-kori Oklevéltár, vol X, 1326. Eds. by László Blazovich and Lajos Géczi. Budapest–Szeged:
Szegedi Középkorász Műhely, 2000.
Anjou-kori oklevéltár: Documenta Res Hungaricas Tempore Regum Andegavensium Illustrantia,
vol. I-II. Eds. by Gyula Kristó and Tibor Almási. Szeged: Szegedi Középkorász Műhely,
1990.
Antoljak, Stjepan. Miscellanea, vol. I. Zadar: Državni arhiv Zadar, 1949.
Archivio capitolare di Spalato. Ed. by Francesco Carrara. Split: Dalla tipografia Oliveti e comp.,
1844.
Archdeacon Thomas of Split, History of the bishops of Salona and Split, edited by Damir Karbić
et al. (Budapest: CEU Press, 2006)
Arhiđakon, Toma [Thomas the Archdeacon]. Historia Salonitana. Tran. by Olga Perić, ed. by
Mirjana Matijević Sokol. Split: Književni krug Split, 2003.
Bak, János, ed. The Laws of the Medieval Kingdom of Hungary, vol. I (1000-1301), vol. 2 (1301-
1457). Salt Lake City: Schlacks, 1989-92.
Barone, Nicola. “Notizie raccolte dai registri di Cancelleria del re Ladislao di Durazzo.” Archivio
storico per le province napoletane 7 (1887), 493-512.
Benoit XII (1334-1342), Lettres communes: Analysées d'Après les Registres dits d'Avignon et du
Vatican, vols. I-III, edited by Jean-Marie Vidal. Paris: Fontemoing, 1903-1911.
Brković, Milko, ed. “Srednjovjekovne isprave bosansko-humskih vladara Splitu” [The Medieval
Charters of the Rulers of Bosnia and Hum to Split]. Starohrvatska prosvjeta 36 (2009):
371-402.
Bullae Bonifacii IX. p. m. 1396-1404. - Bonifác pápa bullái., masodik resz., 1396-1404 (Budapest:
Franklin Társula, 1889)
Bullarium Franciscanum, vol. IV. Ed. by Giovanni Giacinto Sbaraglia. Rome: Typis Sacrae
congregationis de Propaganda fide, 1768.
Bullarium Franciscanum, vol. VII. Ed. by Konrad Eubel. Rome: Typis Sacræ Congregationis De
Propaganda Fide 1904.
Codex diplomaticus regni Croatiae, Dalmatiae et Slavoniae: Diplomatički zbornik Kraljevine
CEU eTD Collection

Hrvatske, Dalmacije i Slavonije, vol. 1-18. and Supplementa, Vol. 1-2. Eds. by Tadija
Smičiklas, Marko Kostrenčić, and Emilij Laszowski. Zagreb: JAZU; HAZU, 1904-2002.
Codex diplomaticus Hungariae ecclesiasticus ac civilis, vols I-XI. Ed. by György Fejér. Buda:
Typis typogr. Regiae universitatis Ungaricae, 1829-1844.
Čremošnik, Gregor. “Ostaci arhiva bosanske franjevačke vikarije” [The archival remains of the
Bosnian Franciscan Vicariate]. Radovi Naučnog društva NR Bosne i Hercegovine 3 (1955),
5-56.
Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, vol. I: Nicaea I to Lateran V. Ed. and tran. by Norman
Tanner. London: Sheed & Ward, 1990.

336
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

Diplomatarium relationum reipublicae Ragusanae cum regno Hungariae. Eds. by József Gelcich
and Lajos Thallóczy. Budapest: Tud. Akadémia, 1887.
Excerpta ex registris Clementis VI. et Innocentii VI. summorum potificum historiam S.R. Imperii
sub regimine Karoli IV. Ed. by Emil Werunsky. Inssbruck: Wagner, 1885.
Farlati, Daniele. Illyricum Sacrum, vols. III-V. Venice: Apud Sebastianum Coleti, 1765-75.
Farlati, Daniele. Trogirski biskupi: s dodatcima i ispravcima Jacopa Coletija [The bishops of
Trogir with additions and corrections by Jacopo Coleti]. Tran. by Kažimir Lučin. Split:
Književni krug, 2010.
Farlati, Daniele. Hvarski biskupi: s dodatcima i ispravcima Jacopa Coletija [The bishops of Hvar
with additions and corrections by Jacopo Coleti]. Ed. by Kažimir Lučin. Split: Književni
krug, 2004.
Ganzer, Klaus. Papsttum und Bistumsbesetzungen in der Zeit von Gregor IX. bis Bonifaz VIII.
Köln/Graz: Böhlau, 1968.
Hierarchia Catholica Medii Aevi sive summorum pontificum, vol. I. Ed. by Conrad Eubel.
Munster: Sumptibus et Typis Librariae Regensbergianae, 1913.
Italia sacra sive de Episcopis Italiae, vol. I-X. Ed. by Ferdinando Ughelli. Venice: Apud
Sebastianum Coleti, 1717-22.
“Isprave u Arhivu jugoslavenske akademije,” vols. I-IV. Eds. by Jakov Stipišić and Miljen
Šamšalović. Zbornik Odsjeka za povijesne znanosti Zavoda za povijesne i društvene
znanosti HAZU 2-5 (1959-63), 289-379, 563-643, 465-554, 533-78.
“Izvadci iz kraljevskoga osrednjega arkiva u Napulju za jugoslovjensku poviest.” Ed. by Franjo
Rački. Arkiv za povjestnicu jugoslavensku 8 (1868), 28-35.
Királyok és királynék itineráriumai (1382–1438) Segédletek a középkori magyar történelem
tanulmányozásához 1.: Itineraria regum et reginarum (1382–1438) Subsidia ad historiam
medii aevi Hungariae inquirendam 1. Eds. by Pál Engel and Norbert Tóth. Budapest:
MTA, 2005.
Klaić, Nada. Izvori za hrvatsku povijest do 1526. godine [The sources for the history of Croatia
until 1526]. Zagreb: Školska knjiga, 1972.
Krekich, Antonio. “Documenti per la storia di Spalato (1341-1414),” in Atti e memorie della
società dalmata di storia patria, II (1927), 132-60; III-IV (1934), 57-86.
Kuzmanić, Mario-Nepo. Splitski plemići, prezime i etnos. Split: Književni krug, 1998.
Les registres de Nicholas IV; recueil des bulles de ce Pape; publices ou analysees d’apres les
CEU eTD Collection

manuscrits originaux des archives du Vatican, vols. I-II. Ed. by Ernst Langlois. Paris: E.
Thorin, 1886-93.
Les registres de Boniface VIII; recueil des bulles de ce pape, vol. I-III. Ed. by Georges Digard,
Maurice Faucon and Antoine Thomas (Paris: Ernest Thorin, 1884-1906)
Lettres Communes de Jean XXII (1316-1334): Introduction la Collation Des Bénéfices
Ecclésiastiques À l'Époque Des Papes d'Avignon (1305-1378). Ed. by Guillaume Mollat.
Paris: Boccard, 1921.
Lettres de Jean XXII (1316-1334): textes et analyses, vol. I-II. Ed. by Arnold Fayen. Rome: M.
Bretschneider, 1908; Paris: H. Champion, 1912.

337
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

Listine o odnošajih izmedju južnoga Slavenstva i Mletačke Republike [Charters about relationship
between South Slavs and the Venetian Republic], vols I-X. Ed. by Sime Ljubić. Zagreb:
JAZU, 1868-1891.
Lopašić Radoslav. “Spomenici Tržačkih Frankopana.” Starine 25 (1892), 201-332.
Lux, Carolus. Constitutionum Apostolicarum: de generali beneficiorum reservatione ab a. 1265
usque ad a. 1378 emissarum, tam intra quam extra corpus iuris exstantium, collectio et
interpretatio. Wroclav: Typis Rudolphi Grosser et sociorum, 1904.
Ljubić, Sime. “Dva popisa listina (908-1782) glasovitoga manastira sv. Krševana u Zadru.” Starine
XIX (1887), 81-171.
Madijev, Miha de Barbezanis. “Historija” [History], in: Legende i kronike [Legends and
Chronicles]. Eds. by Hrvoje Morović and Vedran Gligo, tran. by Vladimir Rismondo, 159-
83. Split: Čakavski sabor, 1977).
Magyar diplomacziai emlekek az Anjou-korból. Vols I-III. Ed. by Gusztáv Wenzel. Budapest:
MTA, 1874-76.
Magyarország világi archontológiája, 1000-1301 [The Secular Archontology of Hungary, 1000-
1301]. Ed. by Attila Zsoldos. Budapest: História, 2011.
Magyarország világi archontológiája, 1301-1457 [The secular archontology of Hungary, 1301-
1457]. Ed. by Pál Engel. Budapest: MTA, 1986.
Mézières, Philippe de. The Life of Saint Peter Thomas. Ed. by Joachim Smet. Rome: Institutum
Carmelitanum, 1954.
Monumenta Ragusina. Libri reformationum, vols. I-V. Eds. by Ivan Tkalčić and Josip Gelčić.
Zagreb: JAZU, 1879-1897.
Monumenta Traguriensia: Notae seu abbreviaturae cancellariae comunis Tragurii, 21.10.1263-
22.5.1273, vol. I/1. Ed. by Miho Barada. Zagreb: JAZU, 1948.
Monumenta Traguriensia: Notae seu abbreviaturae cancellariae comunis Tragurii, 31.1.1374-
1.4.1294, vol. I/2. Ed. by Miha Barada. Zagreb: JAZU, 50.
Monumenta Traguriensia: Acta curiae comunis Tragurii, 8.8.1266-6.12.1299, vol II. Ed. by Miho
Barada. Zagreb: JAZU, 1951.
Monumenta Vaticana Croatica: Camera apostolica; Obligationes et solutiones; Camerale primo
(1299-1560), vol. I-II. Eds. by Josip Barbarić, Josip Kolanović, Andrija Lukinović, Jozo
Ivanović, Jasna Marković and Stjepan Razum. Zagreb: Kršćanska sadašnjost, 1996.
“Notae Joannis Lucii.” Ed. by Franjo Rački. Starine 13 (1881), 211-68.
Obsidio Iadrensis. Eds. Veljko Gortan, Branimir Glavičić, Vladimir Vratović, Damir Karbić,
CEU eTD Collection

Miroslav Kurelac and Zoran Ladić. Zagreb: HAZU, 2007.

Paulo, Paulus de. Memoriale Pauli de Paulo patritii Iadrensis (1371-1408). Ed. by Ferdo Šišić.
Zagreb: Tisak kraljevske zemaljske tiskare, 1904.
Ponte, Valerio. “Historia ecclesiae Iadrensis.” Ed. by Vittorio Brunelli. Rivista Dalmatica IV/1
(101-33), IV/2 (1908), 191-232, V/1 (1909), 63-109.
Povjestni spomenici slobodnog kraljevskog grada Zagreba [The Historical Monuments of the Free
Royal City of Zagreb], vol. I. Ed. by Ivan Krstitelj Tkalčić. Zagreb: Albrecht, 1889.
Priručnik za istraživanje hrvatske povijesti u tajnom vatikanskom arhivu od ranog srednjeg vijeka
do sredine XVIII. stoljeća (Schedario Garampi) [Manual for researching Croatian history

338
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

in Vatican secret archives], vol. I-II. Ed. by Jadranka Neralić. Zagreb: Hrvatski institut za
povijest, 2000.
Rationes decimarum Italiae nei secoli XIII e XIV: Venetiae – Histria – Dalmatia. Eds. by Pietro
Sella and Giuseppe Vale. Vatican: Biblioteca apostolica Vaticana, 1941.
Regestum Clementis papae V, vols I-IX. Rome: Ex Typographia Vaticana, 1885-1892.
Regesta Pontificum Romanorum, vol. I-II. Ed. by Augustus Potthast. Berlin: de Decker, 1874-75.
Regesta supplicationum; a pápai kérvénykönyvek magyar vonatkozású okmányai, avignoni
korszak, vols. I-II. Ed. by Árpád Bossányi. Budapest: Stephaneum Nyomda, 1916-1918.
“Registar Trottis-Prandino.” Eds. by Damir Karbić, Maja Katušić and Ivan Majnarić. Fontes 18
(2012), 11-153.
Rismondo, Vladimir, ed. “Registar notara Nikole iz Augubija” [The register of the notary Nicholas
from Gubbio]. Izdanje Historijskog arhiva u Splitu 5 (1965), 7-64.
Rismondo, Vladimir ed. Pomorski Split druge polovine XIV st. [Naval Split during the second half
of the fourteenth century]. Split: Muzej grada, 1954.
Rubeis, Bernardo Maria de. Monumenta Ecclesiae Aquilejensis. Commentario historico-
chronologico-critico. Venezia: Pasquali, 1740.
Sacrorum Conciliorum Nova et Amplissima Collectio, vol. XXV. Ed. by Giovanni Domenico
Mansi. Venice: Apud Antonium Zatta, 1782.
Spisi zadarskih bilježnika Ivana de Qualis, Nikole pok. Ivana, Gerarda iz Padove 1296-1337 [The
Acts of the Zaratin notaries John de Qualis, Nicholas, son of the deceased John, and Gerard
from Padua, 1296-1337], vol. II. Eds. by Jakov Stipišić and Mirko Zjačić. Zadar:
Historijski arhiv, 1969.
Spisi zadarskih bilježnika (Notarilia Iadrensis), Spisi zadarskih bilježnika Henrika i Creste
Tarallo, 1279.-1308. [The registry of the notaries of Zadar: the registries of the notaries
Henrik and Creste Tarallo], vol. I. Ed. by Mirko Zjačić. Zadar: Državni arhiv u Zadru,
1959.
Splitski spomenici, dio prvi, splitski bilježnički spisi: Spisi splitskog bilježnika Ivana pok. Cove iz
Ankone od 1341. do 1344. [The memorials of Split: The registry of Notary Ivan, the son of
Cova from Ancona, from 1341 to 1344]. Eds. by Jakov Stipišić and Ante Nazor. Zagreb:
HAZU, 2002.
Statut Grada Splita: Splitsko srednjovjekovno pravo [The Statute of Split: The Spalatine medieval
law]. Ed. by Antun Cvitanić. Split: Književni krug, 1998.
Statut grada Trogira [The Statute of Trogir]. Ed. by Vladimir Rismondo. Split: književni krug,
CEU eTD Collection

1988.
Stipišić, Jakov. “Inventar dobara zadarskog patricija Grizogona de Civalellis iz 1384 godine.”
Zbornik Historijskog zavoda JAZU 8 (1977), 375–409.
Šibenski diplomatarij: Zbornik šibenskih isprava [The Diplomas of Šibenik]. Ed. by Josip Barbarić
and Josip Kolanović. Šibenik: Muzej grada Šibenika, 1986.
Šišić, Ferdo. “Nekoliko isprava s početka 15. st.” [Several charters from the beginning of the
fifteenth century]. Starine 39 (1938), 129-320.
Venezia-senato, deliberazioni miste, vol. IV. Eds. by François-Xavier Leduc, Francesca Tiepolo,
Dieter Girgensohn and Ermanno Orlando. Venice: Istituto veneto di scienze, lettere ed arti
Istituto veneto di scienze, lettere ed arti, 2007.

339
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

Vetera monumenta Slavorum meridionalium historiam illustrantia, vol. 1. Ed. by Augustinus

Theiner. Rome: Typis Vaticanis, 1863.
Vetera monumenta historica Hungariam sacram illustrantia, vols I-II. Ed. by Augustinus Theiner.
Rome: Typis Vaticanis, 1859.
Zadarski statut: sa svim reformacijama odnosno novim uredbama donesenima do godine 1563
[The Statute of Zadar with all reformations and new decisions approved by 1563]. Ed. by
Josip Kolanović and Mate Križman. Zagreb: Hrvatski državni arhiv, 1997.
“Zapisnici Velikog vijeća grada Splita 1352-1354, 1357-1359.” Eds. by Jakov Stipišić, Miljen
Šamšalović and Mirjana Matijević-Sokol. Zbornik Odsjeka za povijesne znanosti Zavoda
za povijesne i društvene znanosti Hrvatske akademije znanosti i umjetnosti 12 (1982), 63-
266.
Zsigmondkori oklevéltár, vols. I-XII. Ed. by Mályusz Elemér. Budapest: Magyar Országos
Levéltár kiadványai, 1951-2017.

Secondary sources
A Companion to Latin Greece, eds. by Nickiphoros I. Tsougarakis and Peter Lock. Leiden: Brill,
2015.
Abulafia, David. “The Aragonese Kingdom of Albania: An Angevin project of 1311–1316”
Mediterranean Historical Review 10 (1995): 1-13.
Acciarino, Damiano. “Ecclesiastical Chronotaxes of the Renaissance.” Renaissance and
Reformation 40/2 (2017): 131-154.
Ančić, Mladen. “Neuspjeh dualističke alternative: O recepciji bosanske “hereze” u komunalnim
društvima istočnog Jadrana” [The failure of the Dualist alternative: About the reception of
the Bosnian “heresy” in the commune of the Eastern Adriatic]. Prilozi instituta za istoriju
23 (1987): 7-17.
Ančić, Mladen. “Image of Royal Power in the Work of Thomas Archdeacon.” Povijesni prilozi 22
(2002): 29-40.
Ančić, Mladen. “Ser Ciprijan Zaninov: rod i karijera jednog splitskog patricija druge polovice
XIV. st.” [Ser Ciprijan Zaninov: career of a patrician from Split in the second half of the
14th century]. Rad Zavoda povijesnih znanosti HAZU u Zadru 39 (1997): 37-80.
Ančić, Mladen. “Od tradicije ‘sedam pobuna’ do dragovoljnih mletačkih podanika: Razvojna
CEU eTD Collection

putanja Zadra u prvome desetljeću 15. stoljeća” [From the tradition of the ‘seven
rebellions’ to the voluntary Venetian subjects: the development of Zadar in the first decade
of the 15th century].” Povijesni prilozi 37 (2009): 43-96.
Ančić, Mladen. Putanja klatna: Ugarsko-hrvatsko kraljevstvo i Bosna u XIV. stoljeću [Swing of
the pendulum: Ugro-Croatian Kingdom and Bosnia in the 14th century]. Zadar - Mostar:
Ziral, 1997.
Ančić, Mladen. “Srednjovjekovno vladarsko vlastelinstvo Drid: Problem vlasnišva i organizacija
u XIII st.” [The medieval manorial estate of Drid (Problems of ownership and organization
in the 13th century)]. Povijesni prilozi 19/19 (2001): 87-111.
Ančić, Mladen. “Knin u razvijenom i kasnom srednjem vijeku” [City of Knin in High and Later
Middle Ages]. Radovi Zavoda povijesnih znanosti HAZU u Zadru 38 (1996), 53-95.

340
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

Ančić, Mladen. “Od vladarske curtis do gradskoga kotara: Bijaći i crkva sv. Marte od početka 9.
stoljeća do početka 13. stoljeća” [From the royal curtis to the city district: Bijaći and the
church of St. Marta from the beginning of the 9th century to the beginning of the 13th
century]. Starohrvatska prosvjeta 3/26 (1999), 189-236.
Ančić, Mladen. “Srednjovjekovni montaneji” [Mediaeval Montanea]. Starohrvatska prosvjeta
III/24 (1997): 127-148.
Ančić, Mladen. Na rubu Zapada: tri stoljeća srednjovjekovne Bosne [On the fringe of the West:
Three centuries of the Medieval Bosnia]. Zagreb: Hrvatski institut za povijest, 2001.
Ančić, Mladen. “Kako danas čitati studije Franje Račkog” [How to read today the works of Franjo
Rački]. In Rački, Franjo. Nutarnje stanje Hrvatske prije XII. stoljeća [The internal state of
Croatia before the thirteenth century], VII-XXXVIII. Zagreb: Golden marketing-Tehnička
knjiga, 2008.
Andenna, Giancarlo. “Episcopato e strutture diocesane nel Trecento.” In Storia della Chiesa di
Ivrea: Dalle origini al XV secolo, ed. by Giorgio Cracco, 321-94. Rome: Viella, 1998.
Antoljak, Stjepan. Bune pučana i seljaka u Hrvatskoj [The Rebellions of the Commoners and
Peasants in Croatia]. Zagreb: Matica hrvatska, 1956.
Antoljak, Stjepan. “Vladarski dvor (palača) i kraljevske kuće u srednjovjekovnom Zadru (s
posebnim osvrtom na doba Arpadovića i Anžuvinaca) [The Royal Court (Palace) and
Royal Residences in Medieval Zadar (with Particular Reference to the Period of the Árpád
and Angevin Dynasties)]. Radovi: Sveučilište u Zagrebu, Institut za hrvatsku povijest 17
(1984): 55-76.
Antoljak, Stjepan. “Ban Pavao Bribirski ‘Croatorum dominus’” [Ban Paul of Bribir, ‘Croatorum
dominus’]. Radovi Instituta JAZU u Zadru 19 (1972): 5-62.
Aertsen, Jan. “Einleitung: Die Entdeckung des Individuums.” In Individuum und Individualität im
Mittelalter, ed. by Jan Aertsen. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1996.
Atiya, Aziz Suryal. The Crusades in the Later Middle Ages. London: Butler and Tanner, 1938.
Babić, Ivo. “Anžuvinski grbovi u Trogiru i Šibeniku” [Angevin coat of arms in Trogir and
Šibenik]. Prilozi povijesti umjetnosti u Dalmaciji 20/1 (1975): 39-45.
Babić, Ivo. “Trogirski biskup Nikola Casotti (+1371.) i njegovo doba” [Bishop Nicholas Kažotić
and his time]. Starohrvatska prosvjeta III/37 (2010): 219-45.
Baddeley, Clair. Charles III of Naples and Urban VI. London: William Heinemann, 1894.
Bagliani, Agostino Paravicini. “Prosopographie et élites ecclésiastiques dans l'Italie médiévale
CEU eTD Collection

(XIIe-XVe siècles): réflexions et perspectives de recherche.” In Prosopographie et genèse

de l'État moderne, ed. by Françoise Autrand, 313-34. Paris: Ecole Normale Supérieure de
Jeunes Filles, 1986).
Bagliani, Agostino Paravicini. “Ad limina.” In Dizionario enciclopedico del Medioevo, vol. I, ed.
by André Vauchez and Claudio Leonardi, 13. Rome: Città Nuova, 1998.
Banić, Silvija. “Zadarski gotički vezeni antependij u Budimpešti” [A Gothic Embroidered Altar
Frontal from Zadar, now in Budapest]. Ars Adriatica 4 (2014): 75-94.
Barabás, Gábor. “Heretics, Pirates, and Legates: The Bosnian Heresy, the Hungarian Kingdom,
and the Popes in the Early 13th Century.” Specimina Nova Pars Prima Sectio Mediaevalis
IX (2017): 35-58.

341
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

Bárány, Attila. “The Expansions of the Kingdom of Hungary in the Middle Ages (1000-1490).”
In The Expansion of Central Europe in the Middle Ages, ed. by Nora Berend, 333-80.
Farnham: Ashgate, 2012.
Bárány, Attila. “King Sigismund of Luxembourg and the preparations for the Hungarian crusading
host of Nicopolis (1389-1396).” In Partir en croisade à la fin du Moyen Âge: Financement
et logistique, eds. by Daniel Baloup, Daniel and Manuel Sánchez Martínez, 153-78.
Toulouse: Presses universitaires du Midi, Collection „Meridiennes,” 2015.
Bárd, Imre. “The Break of 1404 between the Hungarian Church and Rome.” Ungarn Jahrbuch 10
(1979): 59-65.
Bárd, Imbre. Aristocratic Revolts and the Late Medieval Hungarian State A. D. 1382-1408, PhD-
diss., University of Washington, 1978.
Barraclough, Geoffrey. “The Making of a Bishop in the Middle Ages: The Part of the Pope in Law
and Fact.” The Catholic Historical Review 19 (1933): 275-319.
Barraclough, Geoffrey. Papal Provisions: Aspects of Church History Constitutional, Legal and
Administrative in the Later Middle Ages. Westport: Greenwood Press, 1935.
Barrow, Julia. The Clergy in the Medieval World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015.
Barbarić, Josip. “Šibenik, šibenska biskupija, šibenski biskupi” [Šibenik, its bishopric and
bishops]. In Sedam stoljeća Šibenske biskupije [The Seven Centuries of the Bishopric of
Šibenik], eds. by Josip Ćuzela et al., 79-164. Šibenik: Gradska knjižnica ‘Juraj Šižgorić,’
2001.
Beattie, Blake. “Local Reality and Papal Policy: Papal Provision and the Church of Arezzo, 1248-
1327.” Mediaeval Studies 57 (1995): 131-53.
Beattie, Blake. Angelus Pacis: The legation of Cardinal Giovanni Gaetano Orsini, 1326-1334.
Leiden - Boston: Brill, 2007.
Bellwald, Hans. Erzbischof Andreas bei Benzi von Gualdo: Ein Helfer Kaiser Sigismunds im
großen Schisma. Freiburg: J. Brücker, 1957.
Begonja, Sandra. Uloga gradskoga plemstva u urbanom razvoju Zadra u vrijeme Ludovika I.
Anžuvinca (1358.-1382.) [The Role of the Urban Nobility in the Urban Development of
Zadar at the time of Louis I of Anjou (1358-1358)]. PhD-diss., Faculty of Humanities and
Social Sciences in Zagreb, 2017.
Benevolo, Giancarlo. “Bertrando del Poggetto e la sede papale a Bologna: un progetto fallitto,” in
Giotto e la arti a Bologna, ed. by Massimo Medica, 21-35. Milan: Silvana, 2005.
Benton, John. “Individualism and Conformity in Medieval Western Europe.” In Culture, Power
CEU eTD Collection

and Personality in Medieval France, ed. by Thomas Bisson, 313-26. London: Hambledon
Press, 1991.
Benyovsky Latin, Irena. Srednjovjekovni Trogir: Prostor i društvo [Medieval Trogir: Space and
Society]. Zagreb: Hrvatski institut za povijest, 2009.
Benyovsky Latin, Irena. “Medieval Square in Trogir: Space and Society.” Review of Croatian
history 14 (2018): 9-62.
Benyovsky Latin, Irena. “Razvoj srednjovjekovne Operarije: institucije za izgradnju katedrale u
Trogiru” [Development of Trogir’s Operaria: the institution developed for cathedral
building]. Croatica Christiana periodica 65 (2010), 1-18.

342
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

Benyovsky Latin, Irena. “Mendicants and Dalmatian Towns in the Middle Ages.” Povijesni prilozi
15 (1996): 241-259.
Benyovsky Latin, Irena. “Trogirsko Prigrađe na prijelazu 13. u 14. stoljeće: utjecaj dominikanaca
i franjevaca na oblikovanje prostora” [The Burg of Trogir at the end of the 13th and the
beginning of the 14th century: The influence of Franciscans and Dominicans on the
formation of the urban space]. Croatica Christiana periodica 52 (2003), 47-56.
Benyovsky Latin, Irena. “Politički sukobi u srednjovjekovnom Trogiru i njihov utjecaj na
posjedovne odnose u gradu.” In Hereditas rerum croaticarum, eds. by Alexander
Buczynsky, Milan Kruhek and Stjepan Matković, 44-51. Zagreb: Hrvatski institut za
povijest, 2003.
Benyovsky Latin, Irena. “Uloga bratovštine Sv. Duha u Trogiru u srednjem i ranom novom vijeku”
[A role of the Holy Spirit fraternity in the medieval and early modern Trogir]. Povijesni
prilozi 26 (2007): 25-60.
Benson, Robert. The Bishop-Elect: A Study in Medieval Ecclesiastical Office. Princeton: Princeton
University Press, 1968.
Benson, Robert. “Election by Community and Chapter: Reflections on Co-Responsibility in the
historical Church.” The Jurist 54 (1971): 54-80.
Berend, Nora. At the Gate of Christendom: Jews, Muslims and 'Pagans' in Medieval Hungary,
c.1000-c.1300. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001.
Beuc, Ivan. Povijest institucija državne vlasti Kraljevine Hrvatske, Slavonije i Dalmacije [The
history of the institutions of the Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia and Dalmatia]. Zagreb:
Pravni fakultet Zagreb, 1985.
Beuc, Ivan. “Statut zadarske komune iz 1305. godine” [The statute of the commune of Zadar from
1305]. Vjesnik historijskih arhiva u Rijeci i Pazinu 2 (1954): 491-781.
Budak, Neven. “Foundations and Donations as a Link between Croatia and the Dalmatian Cities
in the Early Middle Ages (9th-11th c.).” Jahrbücher für Geschichte Osteuropa 55/4 (2007):
483-90.
Bianchi, Carlo Federico. Zara cristiana, dell'arcidiacono capitolare, vol. I. Zadar: Tipografia
Woditzka, 1877.
Bianchi, Carlo Federico. Kršćanski Zadar [The Christian Zadar]. Tran. by Velimir Žigo. Zadar:
Zadarska nadbiskupija, 2011.
Bianchi, Carlo Federico. Niccolo de Matafare arcivescovo di Zara ed i suoi Scritti. Zadar:
CEU eTD Collection

Tipografia di G. Wochitzka, 1881.

Billanovich, Giuseppe. Come nacque un capolavoro: la Cronica del non Anonimo romano. Il
vescovo Ildebrandino Conti, Francesco Petrarca e Bartolomeo di Iacovo da Valmontone.
Roma, Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, 1995.
Birin, Ante. Knez Nelipac i hrvatski velikaški rod Nelipčića [Count Nelipac and the Croatian noble
family of Nelipčić]. PhD-diss., Zagreb: Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences in
Zagreb, 2006.
Buzančić, Radoslav. “Bonino Jakovljev Milanac i splitski gradski projekti s početka 15. stoljeća”
[Bonino di Jacopo da Milano and Municipal Projects in Split at the Beginning of the 15th
Century]. Klesarstvo i graditeljstvo 1-2 (2018): 12-27.

343
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

Weiler, Björn. “Terrae Sanctae in the Political Discourse of Latin Christendom, 1215-1311.” The
International History Review 25 (2003): 1-36.
Bloch, Marc. “A Contribution towards a Comparative History of European Societies.” In Land
and Work in Medieval Europe: Selected Papers, 44-81. London: University of California
Press, 1971.
Bogović, Mile. “Pomicanje sjedišta krbavske biskupije od Mateja Marute do Šimuna Kožičića
Benje (Pregled povijesti krbavske ili modruške biskupije)” [The transfer of the Krbava
Episcopal See from Matej Maruta to Šimun Kožičić Benja (An overview of the history of
the bishopric of Krbava or Modruš)]. In Krbavska biskupija u srednjem vijeku, ed. by Mile
Bogović, 41-82. Zagreb: Kršćanska sadašnjost, 1988.
Bogović, Mile. “Moji predšasnici biskupi: u Senju, Otočcu, Krbavi, Modrušu, Vinodolu i Rijeci”
[My predecessors the bishops: in Senj, Otočac, Krbava, Modruš, Vinodol and Rijeka].
Senjski zbornik 42-43 (2015-16): 5-198.
Botica, Ivan. “Franjevački samostan i crkva Sv. Marije u podgrađu Cetini pod Sinjem (primjer
povijesnoga diskontinuiteta)” [Franciscan friary and the church of St. Mary in the Sinj
suburb of Cetina: an example of historical discontinuity]. Povijesni prilozi 38 (2010): 9-
29.
Botica, Ivan. Krbavski knezovi u srednjem vijeku [The Counts of Krbava during the Middle Ages],
PhD-diss., Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences in Zagreb, 2011.
Blažević, Velimir. Crkveni partikularni sabori i dijecezanske sinode na području Hrvatske i
drugih južnoslavenskih zemalja [Particular and diocesan Church synods on the territory of
Croatia and other South Slav countries]. Zagreb: Kršćanska sadašnjost, 2012.
Blumenfeld-Kosinsi, Renate. Poets, Saints and Visionaries of the Great Schism, 1378-1417.
University Park: Pennsylvania State University, 2006.
Bogović, Ivan Mihovil. “Crkveni patronat na području Senjsko-modruške biskupije.” Senjski
zbornik 5 (1973): 235-243.
Bourdieu, Pierre. Outline of a Theory of Practice. Tran. by Richard Nice. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1977.
Bouwsma, William James. Venice and the Defense of Republican Liberty: Renaissance Values in
the Age of the Counter Reformation. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1968.
Boyd, Catherine. Tithes and Parishes in Medieval Italy: The Historical Roots of a Modern
Problem. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1952.
Brandmüller, Walter. “Zur Frage nach der Gültigkeit der Wahl Urbans VI.: Quellen und
CEU eTD Collection

Quellenkritik.” In Papst und Konzil im Grossen Schisma (1378-1431): Studien und

Quellen, 3-41. Paderborn: Ferdinand Schöningh, 1990.
Brandmüller, Walter. Papst und Konzil im Großen Schisma (1378-1431). Padeborn: München,
1990.
Brandt, Miroslav. Wyclifova hereza i socijalni pokreti u Splitu krajem XIV. st. [The heresy of
Wyclif and the social movements in Split at the end of the fourteenth century]. Zagreb:
Kultura, 1955.
Brandt, Miroslav. “Jedna epizoda u borbi oko uvodjenja papinske desetine u Dalmaciji” [An
episode from the struggles to introduce the papal tithe in Dalmatia]. Historijski zbornik 7
(1954): 143-66.

344
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

Brentano, Robert. Two Churches: England and Italy in the Thirteenth Century. Berkeley:
University of California Press, 1988.
Brentano, Robert. “Vescovi e vicari generali nel basso medioevo.” In Vescovi e diocesi in Italia
dal XIV alla metà del XVI secolo. Atti del VII convegno di storia della Chiesa in Italia, vol.
I., ed. by Giuseppina De Sandre Gasparini, Antonio Rigon, Francesco Trolese and Gian
Maria Varanini, 547-68. Rome: Herder, 1990.
Brown, Andrew. “Civic Religion in Late Medieval Europe.” Journal of Medieval History, 42
(2016): 338-356.
Budak, Neven. “Obsidio Jadrensis kao povijesno i književno djelo naše predrenesanse” [Obsidio
Jadrensis as a Historical and Literary Work in or pre-Renaissance Time], Radovi
Filozofskog fakulteta u Zadru 23 (1984), 353-8.
Brunelli, Vitaliano. Storia della città di Zara: dai tempi piu remote sino al 1409. Trieste: Lint,
1974.
Brunettin, Giordano. Bertrando di Saint-Geniès patriarca di Aquileia (1334-1350). Spoleto:
Fondazione Centro Italiano di studi sull’alto medioevo, 2004.
Bulst, Neithard. “Zum Gegenstand und zur Methode von Prosopographie.” In Medieval Lives and
the Historian: Studies in Medieval Prosopography, ed. by Neithard Bulst and Jean-
Philippe Genet, 1-16. Kalamazoo - Michingan: Western Michigan University, 1986.
Burgard, Friedhelm. Familia Archiepiscopi: Studien zu den geistlichen Funktionsträgern
Erzbischof Balduins von Luxemburg (1307-1354). Trier: Verlag Trier Historische
Forschungen, 1991.
Burkhardt, Julia. “Ein Königreich im Wandel: Ungarn um 1400.” Biuletyn Polskiej Misji
Historycznej/ Bulletin der Polnischen Historischen Mission 11 (2016): 407-37.
Burkhardt, Julia. “Regno Ungariae sede vacante: Ungarn zwischen Árpáden und Anjou (1301–
1308).” In Interregna im mittelalterlichen Europa: Konkurrierende Kräfte in politischen
Zwischenräumen, eds. by Stefan Tebruck and Norbert Kersken, 153-169. Marburg:
Tagungen zur Ostmitteleuropaforschung, 2020.
Burić, Tonči. “Ulomci predromaničke skulpture iz Žednog na otoku Čiovu i crkva sv. Vitala u
Divuljama na predjelu Tarce.” In Scripta Branimiro Gabričević dicata, eds. by Josip
Dukić, Ante Milošević and Željko Rapanić , 227-56.Trilj: Kulturno društvo Trilj, 2010.
Butić, Dolores. “O leksiku djela Obsidio Iadrensis” [The Vocabulary of the Obsidio iadrensis].
Annales, Anali za istrske in mediteranske študije, 22 (2012): 439-46.
CEU eTD Collection

Büttner, Andreas. Der Weg zur Krone: Rituale der Herrschererhebung im spätmittelalterlichen
Reich, vol. II. Ostfildern: Jan Thorbecke Verlag, 2012.
Bužančić, Radoslav. “Petar de Cega i obnova trogirske prvostolnice početkom XIV. stoljeća.”
Prilozi povijesti umjetnosti u Dalmaciji 43 (2016): 107-26.
Carraz, Damien. “Pro servitio maiestatis nostre: Templiers et hospitaliers au service de la
diplomatie de Charles 1er et Charles II.” In Le Diplomatie des Etats Angevins aux XIIIe et
XIVe Siecles – Diplomacy in the countries of the Angevin dynasty in the thirteenth-
fourteenth centuries, eds. by István Petrovics and Zoltán Kordé, 21-42. Rome: Accademia
d’Ungheria in Roma, 2010.

345
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

Campanelli, Maurizio. “The Preface of the Anonimo Romano’s Cronica: Writing History and
Proving Truthfulness in Fourteenth-Century Rome.” The Medieval Journal 3 (2013): 83-
106.
Canning, Joseph. Ideas of Power in the Late Middle Ages, 1296-1417. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 2011.
Cappelletti, Giuseppe. Le Chiese d’Italia dalla loro origine sino al nostri giorni, vol. IX. Venice:
Giuseppe Antonelli, 1855.
Carocci, Sandro and Amadeo De Vincentiis, eds. La mobilità sociale nel Medioevo italiano: il
mondo ecclesiastico (secoli XII-XV). Vol. III. Rome: Viella, 2017.
Caron, Pier Giovanni. La rinuncia all'Ufficio ecclesiastico nella storia del diritto canonico dalla
età apostolica alla Riforma cattolica. Milan: Vita e Pensiero, 1946.
Caron, Pier Giovanni. “Les élections épiscopales dans la doctrine et la pratique de l'Église.”
Cahiers de civilisation médiévale 11 (1968): 573-85.
Casteen, Elizabeth. From She-Wolf to Martyr: The Reign and Disputed Reputation of Johanna I
of Naples. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2016.
Cenci, Cesare. “Senato veneto: Probae ai benefizi ecclesiastici.” In Promozioni agli ordini sacri
a Bologna e alle dignità ecclesiastiche nel Veneto nei secoli XIV-XV, eds. by Celestino
Piana and Cesare Cenci, 315-432. Firenze: Quaracchi, 1968.
Chittolini, Giorgio. “Episcopalis curiae notarius: Cenni sui notai di curie vescovili nell'Italia
centro-settentrionale alla fine del medioevo.” In Società, istituzioni, spiritualità: Studi in
onore di Cinzio Violante, ed. by Cosimo Damiano Fonseca, 221-32. Spoleto: Centro
italiano di studi sull'Alto Medioevo, 1994).
Ciaccio, Lisetta. Il cardinale Bertrando del Poggetto in Bologna (1327-1334). Bologna: Detta
Nicola Zanichelli, 1905.
Cohn, Samuel K. The Black Death Transformed: Disease and Culture in Early Renaissance
Europe. London - New York: Arnold and Oxford University Press, 2002.
Coureas, Nicholas. “The Latin and Greek Churches in former Byzantine lands under Latin rite.”
In A Companion to Latin Greece, eds. by Nickiphoros I. Tsougarakis and Peter Lock, 145-
84. Leiden: Brill, 2015.
Corner, Flaminio. Ecclesiae venetae antiquis monumentis nunc etiam primum editis illustratae ac
in decades distributae, decas sexta, vol. IV. Venice: typis Jo. Baptistae Pasquali, 1749.
Cossar, Roisin. Clerical Households in Late Medieval Italy. Cambridge: Harvard University Press,
CEU eTD Collection

2017.
Cracco, Giorgio. “Relinquere laicis que laicorum sunt: Un intervento di Eugenio IV contro i preti-
notai di Venezia.” Bolletino dell’istituto di storia della società dello stato veneziano 3
(1961): 179-89.
Crnčević, Dejan. “The architecture of cathedral churches on the Eastern Adriatic coast at the time
of the first principalties of South Slavs (9th-11th centuries).” In The world of the Slavs,
studies on the East, West and South Slavs. civitas, oppidas, villas and archeological
evidence (7th to 11th centuries AD), ed. by Srđan Rudić. Belgrade: Institute of History,
2013.

346
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

Crumley, Carole L. “Heterarchy.” In Emerging Trends in the Social and Behavioral Sciences
(2015), https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9781118900772.etrds0158 [accessed:
01/07/2020]
Csukovits, Enikő. L’Ungheria angioina. Rome: Istituto Balassi, Accademia d’Ungheria in Roma,
2013.
Csukovits, Enikő. Az Anjouk Magyarországon I. rész: I. Károly és uralkodása (1301-1342) [The
Anjou in Hungary, part one: Charles I and his reign (1301-1342)]. Budapest: MTA, 2012.
Csukovits, Enikő. Az Anjouk birodalma 1301-1387 [The Anjou Realm, 1301-1387]. Budapest:
Kossuth Kiadó, 2009.
Curzel, Emanuele. Il Capitolo della cattedrale di Trento dal XII secolo al 1348. PhD-diss.,
Università cattolica di Milano, 1995.
Cristellon, Cecilia and Silvana Seidel Menchi. “Religious life.” In A Companion to Venetian
History, 1400-1797, ed. by Eric R. Dursteler, 379-420. Leiden: Brill, 2013.
Cutolo, Alessandro. Re Ladislao d’Angiò Durazzo, vols. I-II. Napoli: Berisio, 1969.
Čoralić, Lovorka and Damir Karbić. “Prilog životopisu zadarskog nadbiskupa Luke iz Ferma
(1400.1420.)” [A contribution to the biography of Luca from Fermo, the archbishop of
Zadar (1400-1420)]. Povijesni prilozi 34 (2008): 71-81.
Dall'Orologio, Francesco Scipione Dondi. Dissertazioni sopra l'istoria ecclesiastica di Padova.
Padua: Nella tipografia del seminario, 1815.
Delle Donne, Fulvio. “Il papa e l'anticristo: poteri universali e attese escatologiche all'epoca di
Innocenzo IV e Federico II.” Archivio normanno-svevo 4 (2013/14): 17-43
Dibello, Daniele. “La stabilità delle istituzioni veneziane nel Trecento: Aspetti politici, economici
e culturali nella gestione della congiura di Marino Falier.” Reti Medievali Rivista 19/2
(2018): 85-129.
Dobronić, Ljelja. Templari i Ivanovci u Hrvatskoj [The Knights Orders of Templars and St. John
in Croatia]. Zagreb: Dom svijet, 2002.
Dodds, Ben. “Managing Tithes in the Late Middle Ages.” The Agricultural History Review 53/2
(2005): 125-140.
Dokoza, Serđo. “Sigismundov porez na Crkvu” [Sigismund’s Church tax]. Povijesni prilozi 41
(2011): 133-42.
Dokoza, Serđo. “Papinska diplomacija i dolazak anžuvinske dinastije na hrvatsko-ugarsko
prijestolje” [Papal diplomacy and the arrival of the Angevin dynasty on Croatian-
CEU eTD Collection

Hungarian Throne]. In Hrvatska srednjovjekovna diplomacija [Croatian Medieval

Diplomacy], eds. by Mladen Andrlić and Mirko Valentić, 271-84. Zagreb: Diplomatska
akademija Ministarstva vanjskih poslova Republike Hrvatske, 1999.
Dokoza, Serđo. “Kronološki pregled povijesti zadarske nadbiskupije od njena nastanka do početka
14. stoljeća” [Chronological overviewe of the history of the archbishopric of Zadar from
inception until the beginning of the fourteenth century]. In Sedamnaest stoljeća zadarske
Crkve, ed. by Livio Marijan, 156-81. Zadar: Zadarska nadbiskupija, 2009.
Dokoza, Serđo. “Samostanski i nadbiskupski posjedi u srednjovjekovnom Zadru” [Monastic and
Episcopal lands in medieval Zadar]. In Humanitas et litterae: Zbornik u čast Franje
Šanjeka, 241-56. Zagreb: Kršćanska sadašnjost, 2009.

347
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

Dokoza, Serđo. “Papinski legat Gentil i trogirske crkvene prilike” [Papal Legate Gentile and the
state of the Church in Trogir]. Vartal 1-2 (1998): 67-83.
Dokoza, Serđo. “Papinski legat Gentil i Split” [Papal Legate Gentile and Split]. Kulturna
baština 31 (2002): 79-98.
Dokoza, Serđo. “Papinski legat Gentil i crkvene prilike u Zadru početkom XIV. st.” [Papal Legate
Gentile and the state of the Church in Zadar at the beginning of the XIVth century]. Radovi
Zavoda povijesnih znanosti HAZU u Zadru 40 (1998): 65-79.
Dokoza, Serđo. “Tragom jedne Brunellijeve priče” [Tracing a Vitaliano Brunelli story]. Povijesni
prilozi 37 (2009): 97-115.
Dokoza, Serđo. “Damjan Bivaldov Nassi (oko 1338.-1408).” Radovi Zavoda za povijesne znanost
HAZU u Zadru 57 (2015): 93-144.
Doran, John. “Innocent III and the Uses of Spiritual Marriage.” In Pope, Church and the City;
Essays in Honour of Brenda M. Bolton, eds. by Frances Andrews, Christoph Egger and
Constance M. Rousseau, 101-14. Leiden: Brill, 2004.
Dujmović, Frane. “Postanak i razvitak Šibenika od 1066. do 1409. godine” [The foundation and
the development of Šibenik from 1066 until 1409]. In Šibenik: spomen zbornik o 900.
obljetnici [Commemoration of the 900 years of Šibenik], ed. by Slavo Grubišić, 77-120.
Šibenik: Gradski muzej, 1976.
Dunbabin, Jean. Charles I of Anjou: Power, Kingship and State-Making in Thirteenth Century
Europe. London: Longman, 1998.
Dunbabin, Jean. The French in the Kingdom of Sicily 1266-1305. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 2011.
Geoffrey Dunn. “The Clerical cursus honorum in the Late Antique Roman Church.” Scrinium 9/1
(2013), 120-33.
Dusa, Joan. The Medieval Dalmatian Episcopal Cities: Development and Transformation. New
York: Peter Lang, 1991.
Elze, Reinhard. “Der Thesaurus Pontificum des Erzbischofs Nicolaus von Zara.” In Mélanges en
l'honneur de Monsigneur Michel Andrieu, eds. by Maurice Nédoncelle and Jean Rohmer,
143-60. Strasbourg: Palais Universitaire Strasbourg, 1956.
Esch, Arnold. Bonifaz IX. und der Kirchenstaat. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer, 1969.
Erdö, Péter. “The Papacy and the Hungarian Kingdom during the Reign of King Sigismund (1387-
1437).” In A Thousand Years of Christianity in Hungary, eds. by István Zombori, Pál
CEU eTD Collection

Cséfalvay and Maria Antonietta De Angelis, 63-8. Budapest: Hungarian Catholic

Episcopal Conference, 2001.
Erlande-Brandenburg, Alain. The cathedral: the social and architectural dynamics of
construction, tran. by Martin Thom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994.
Engel, Pál. Realm of St. Stephen: A History of Medieval Hungary, 895-1526. London: I.B. Tauris,
2001.
Engel, Pál. “Ungarn und die Türkengefahr zur Zeit Sigismunds (1387–1437).” In Das Zeitalter
König Sigmunds in Ungarn und im Deutschen Reich, eds. by Tilmann Schmidt and Péter
Gunst, 55-71. Debrecen: Debrecen University Press, 2000.

348
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

Engel, Pál. “Zsigmond bárói: Rövid életrajzok.” in Müvészet Zsigmond király korában 1387-1437
[The Art in the time of King Sigismund of Hungary], vol. I., eds. by László Beke, Ernö
Marosi and Tünde Wehli, 405-58. Budapest: MTA, 1987.
Engel, Pál. Szent István birodalma: A középkori Magyarország története [The Realm of St.
Stephen: The History of Medieval Hungary]. Budapest: MTA, 2001.
Engel, Pál. “Neki problemi bosansko-ugarskih odnosa” [Some Problems of Bosnian-Hungarian
Relationships in the Middle Ages]. Tran. by Damir Karbić. Zbornik Odsjeka za povijesne
znanosti Zavoda 16 (1998), 57-72.
Fabijanec, Sabine Florence. “Trgovci i njihovi odnosi sa zadarskim crkvenim ustanovama u
srednjem vijeku” [Traders and their relations with the ecclesiastical institutions during the
Middle Ages]. In Sedamnaest stoljeća zadarske crkve [Seventeen Centuries of the Church
of Zadar], eds. by Mislav Elvis Lukšić and Livio Marijan, 299-318. Zadar: Zadarska
nadbiskupija, 2004).
Fasoli, Gina. “Temporalità vescovili nel Basso Medioevo.” In Vescovi e diocesi in Italia dal XIV
alla metà del XVI secolo, vol. II, eds. by Giuseppina De Sandre Gasparini, Antonio Rigon,
Francesco Trolese and Gian Maria Varanini, 757-72. Rome: Herder, 1990.
Favier, Jean. Les finances pontificales à l'époque du Grand Schisme ď Occident (1378-1409).
Paris: éditions E. de Boccard, 1966.
Fedeles, Tamas. “Die ungarischen Dom- und Kollegiatkapitel und ihre Mitglieder im Mittelalter.
Forschungsstand, Aufgaben, Initiativen.” In Kapituly v zemich Koruny ceske a v Uhrach
ve stredoveku [Chapter in the lands of the Czech crown and in Hungary during the Middle
Ages], ed. by Jan Hrdina, 161-96. Prague: Scriptorium, 2011.
Fedeles, Tamás. “Az uralkodó, a Szentszék és a magyar főpapok Luxemburgi Zsigmond korában”
[The Monarch, the Holy See and the Hungarian Prelates in the Era of Sigismund of
Luxemburg]. In Mesterek és Tanítványok 2. Tanulmányok a bölcsészet- és
társadalomtudományok területéről [Masters and Disciples 2. Studies in the field of
humanities and social sciences], eds. by Dóra Czeferner, Gábor Bőhm and Tamás Fedeles,
81–146. Pécs: PTE BTK Kari Tudományos Diákköri Tanács, 2018.
Fentress, James and Chris Wickham. Social Memory. Oxford - Cambridge: Blackwell, 1992.
Franchi, Antonino. Nicolaus Papa IV, 1288-1292 (Girolamo d'Ascoli). Ascoli: Cassa di
Risparmio, 1990.
Figueira, Robert C. “The medieval papal legate and his province: geographical limits of
jurisdiction,” In Plenitude of power: the doctrines and exercise of authority in the Middle
CEU eTD Collection

Ages: essays in memory of Robert Louis Benson, ed. by Robert C. Figueira, 73-106.
Hampshire: Aldershot, 2006.
Filipović, Emir O. Bosansko kraljevstvo i Osmansko carstvo (1386-1463) [The Bosnian Kingdom
and the Ottoman Empire, 1386-1463]. Sarajevo: Orijentalni institut Univerziteta u
Sarajevu, 2019.
Fois, Mario. “Vescovo e chiesa locale nel pensiero ecclesiologico.” In Vescovi e diocesi in Italia
dal XIV alla metà del XVI secolo: Atti del VII convegno di storia della Chiesa in Italia,
vol. I., eds. Giuseppina De Sandre Gasparini, Antonio Rigon, Francesco Trolese, Gian
Maria Varanini. Rome: Herder, 1990.

349
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

Fonseca, Cosimo Damiano. “Vescovi, capitoli cattedrali e canoniche regolari (sec. XIV-XVI).” In
Vescovi e diocesi in Italia dal XIV alla metà del XVI secolo, vol. II., eds. by Giuseppina De
Sandre Gasparini, Antonio Rigon, Francesco Trolese and Gian Maria Varanini. (Rome:
Herder, 1990), 83-138.
Forrest, Ian. “Continuity and Change in the Institutional Church.” In The Oxford Handbook of
Medieval Christianity, ed. by John Arnold, 185-200. Oxford: Oxford University Press,
2014.
Frenken, Ansgar. “Der König und sein Konzil - Sigmund auf der Konstanzer
Kirchenversammlung. Macht und Einfluss des römischen Königs im Spiegel
institutioneller Rahmenbedingungen und personeller Konstellationen.” Quelltitel:
Annuarium Historiae Conciliorum 36 (2004): 177-241.
Fügedi, Erik. Castle and Society in Medieval Hungary (1000-1437), tran. by János Bak. Budapest:
Akadémiai kiadó, 1986.
Fügedi, Erik. “Hungarian Bishops.” In Kings, Bishops, Nobles and Burghers in Medieval Hungary,
ed. János Bak, II, 375-91. London: Variorum, 1986.
Fügedi, Erik. Könyörül, bánom, könyörülj… [Take mercy, my ban, take mercy on me...]. Budapest:
Helikon Kiadó, 1986.
Franco, Bradley R. Family, Church and State: The Bishopric of Siena, 1282-1371. PhD-diss.,
Syracuse University, 2010.
Franco, Bradley R. “Episcopal Power and the Late Medieval State, Siena’s Bishops and the
Government of the Nine.” Viator 45 (2014): 255-69.
French, Katherine. The People of the Parish: Community Life in a Late Medieval English Diocese.
Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2001.
Gallo, Lorenzo Lozzi. “The City of Zara in medieval German literature.” Plurimondi VI/12 (2013):
85-99.
Gallo, Lorenzo Lozzi. “Zara e Pola nella letteratura medievale tedesca.” Atti e Memorie della
Società Dalmata di Storia Patria 38 (2016): 7-29.
Gaffuri, Laura and Donato Gallo. “Signoria ed episcopato a Padova nel Trecento: spunti per una
ricerca.” In Vescovi e diocesi in Italia dal XIV alla metà del XVI secolo, vol. II. eds. by
Giuseppina De Sandre Gasparini, Antonio Rigon, Francesco Trolese and Gian Maria
Varanini, 923-56. Rome: Herder, 1990.
Galamb, György János. “La politique des rois angevins de la Hongrie et le vicariat franciscain
bosniaque.” In Le Diplomatie des Etats Angevins aux XIIIe et XIVe Siecles – Diplomacy in
CEU eTD Collection

the countries of the Angevin dynasty in the thirteenth-fourteenth centuries, eds. by István
Petrovics and Zoltán Kordé, 171-8. Rome: Accademia d’Ungheria in Roma, 2010).
Gamberini, Andrea. “Chiesa vescovile e società politica a Reggio nel Trecento.” In Il vescovo, la
Chiesa e la città di Reggio in età comunale, ed. Lorenzo Paolini, 183-206. Bologna: Pàtron,
2012.
Gamberini, Andrea. Lo Stato Visconteo: Linguaggi politici e dinamiche costituzionali. Milan:
Franco Angelo, 2005.
Gaudemet, Jean. Storia del diritto canonico: Ecclesia et civitas. Milan: San Paolo, 1998.
Gaudemet, Jean. Les élections dans l'Église latine des origines au XVIe siècle. Paris: Fernand
Lanore, 1979.

350
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

Gaudemet, Jean. “De l’election à la nomination des évêques: Changement de procédure et

conséquences pastorales, l’exemple Français (XIIIe-XIVe siècles).” In Il processo di
designazione dei vescovi: Storia, legislazione, prassi, ed. by Domingo J. Andrés Gutierrez,
137-56. Rome: PUL Editrice, 1996.
Gazić, Vedrana Jović. “Razvoj grada od kasne antike prema srednjem vijeku: Dubrovnik, Split,
Trogir, Zadar - stanje istraženosti” [Urban Development from Late Antiquity to the Middle
Ages: Dubrovnik, Split, Trogir, Zadar – the State of Research]. Archaeologia adriatica 5
(2011): 151-96.
Geremek, Bronisław. “The Marginal Man.” in Medieval Callings, ed. by Jacques Le Goff, tran. by
Lydia G. Cochrane. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press, 1990.
Gilchrist, John Thomas. “The office of bishop in the Middle Ages.” Tijdschrift voor
rechtsgeschiedenis 39 (1971): 85-101.
Gilchrist, John Thomas. The Church and economic activity in the Middle Ages. London:
Macmillan, 1969.
Girgensohn, Dieter. Kirche, Politik und adelige Regierung in der Republik Venedig zu Beginn des
15. Jahrhunderts. Vol. I-II. Göttingen: Vandenhoech und Ruprecht, 1996.
Girgensohn, Dieter. “Venedig im späteren Mittelalter. Regierung über Stadt, Festlandsterritorien
und Kolonien.” In Vorträge und Forschungen: Fragen der politischen Integration im
mittelalterlichen Europa 63 (2005): 473-507.
Glejtek, Miroslav. “Práva a povinnosti uhorských biskupov pri správe diecéz v 11. až 14. storočí
z pohľadu kánonického práva” [The rights and duties of bishops from the Kingdom of
Hungary in the administration of dioceses in the 11th - 14th centuries as related to the
Canon Law]. In Konštantínove listy: Constantine's Letters, 79-104. Nitra: Univerzita
Konštantína Filozofa v Nitre, 2018.
Gloria, Andrea. Monumenti della Universitá di Padova (1222-1318). Vol. I-II. Venice: Tipografia
di Giuseppe Antonelli, 1884.
Göller, Emil. König Sigismunds Kirchenpolitik vom Tode Bonifaz' IX. bis zur Berufung des
Konstanzer Konzils. Freiburg: Charitasverband, 1902.
Golinelli, Paolo. Il papa contadino: Celestino V e il suo tempo. Florence: Camunia, 1996.
Granić, Miroslav. “O kultu Sv. Krševana zadarskog zaštitnika” [About the cult of Saint
Chrysogonus, the patron of Zadar]. In Tisuću godina samostana Svetog Krševana u Zadru
[One Thousand Years of the History of the Monastery of Saint Chrysogonus in Zadar], ed.
CEU eTD Collection

by Ivo Petricioli, 35-58. Zadar: Zadarski list, 1990.

Granić, Miroslav. “Privilegij cara Sigismunda obitelji Dominis iz godine 1437” [Sigismund’s
imperial privilege to the family of Dominis from year 1437]. Radovi Filozofskog fakulteta
u Zadru 20 (1982): 57-62.
Granić, Miroslav. “Paško-zadarski odnosi tijekom 14. stoljeća” [The Relations between Pag and
Zadar during the fourteenth century]. Radovi Filozofskog fakulteta u Zadru 23 (1983-84):
287-98.
Granić, Miroslav Granić, “Jadranska politika Šubića Bribirskih” [Adriatic policy of the Šubići of
Bribir], Radovi Zavoda za povijesne znanosti HAZU u Zadru (henceforth: Radovi Zadar)
36 (1994), pp. 35-68.

351
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

Granić, Miroslav. “Kronološki pregled povijesti zadarske nadbiskupije od početka 14. stoljeća”
[Chronological overview of the history of the archbishopric of Zadar from the beginning
of the fourteenth century]. In Sedamnaest stoljeća zadarske Crkve, ed. by Livio Marijan,
213-40. Zadar: Zadarska nadbiskupija, 2009. [The work was written by Serđo Dokoza, but
a mistake was made in edition]
Grubišić, Slavo. “Šibenik i Venecija od 1409. do 1412. godine” [Šibenik and Venice from 1409 to
1412]. In Šibenik: spomen zbornik o 900. obljetnici [Commemoration of the 900 years of
Šibenik], ed. by Slavo Grubišić, 123-31. Šibenik: Gradski muzej, 1976.
Green, Louis. “The image of tyranny in early fourteenth-century Italian historical writing.”
Renaissance Studies 7/4 (1993), 335-51.
Grbavac, Branka. “Matafar, Nikola.” In Leksikon hrvatskoga srednjovjekovlja, eds. by Branka
Grbavac and Franjo Šanjek, 459-60. Zagreb: Školska knjiga, 2017.
Grbavac, Branka. “Matafar, Petar.” In Leksikon hrvatskoga srednjovjekovlja, eds. by Branka
Grbavac and Franjo Šanjek, 461. Zagreb: Školska knjiga, 2017.
Grbavac, Branka. “Zadarski plemići kao kraljevski vitezovi u doba Ludovika I. Anžuvinca”
[Zaratin noblemen as royal knights in the period of Louis I of Anjou]. Acta Histriae 16
(2008): 89-116.
Grbavac, Branka. “Notari kao posrednici između Italije i Dalmacije - studije, službe, seobe između
dvije obale Jadrana” [Notaries as Mediators between Italy and Dalmatia - Studies, Services,
Migrations between the Two Coasts of the Adriatic]. Acta Histriae 16 (2008): 503-26.
Grmek, Mirko Dražen. “Hrvati i sveučilište u Padovi.” Ljetopis JAZU 62 (1957): 334-74.
Gruber, Dane. “Obsjedanje Zadra po Mlečanih god. 1311. do 1313” [The siege of Zadar by the
Venetians 1311-1313]. Vienac 14 (1882): 530-31, 545-47, 562-64, 578-82.
Gruber, Dane. Vojevanje Ljudevita I. u Dalmaciji sa Hrvatskimi velmoži i sa mletčani od početka
njegova vladanja pa do osmogodišnjega primirja sa mletčani (1342.-1348.) [The warfare
of King Louis I in Dalmatia with the nobility of Croatia and with the Venetians: from the
beginning of Louis's reign until the eight-year peace with Venice]. Požega: L. Klein, 1888.
Gruber, Dane. “Borba Ludovika I. s Mlečanima za Dalmaciju (1348-1358)” [The war for Dalmatia
between Louis I and Venice]. RAD JAZU 152 (1903): 32-161.
Gruber, Dane. “Dalmacija za Ludovika (1358-1382)” [Dalmatia during the reign of Louis: Part
One]. Rad JAZU 166 (1906): 193-215; 168 (1907): 164-240; 170 (1907): 1-75.
Gruber, Dane. “Djelovanje kardinala Gentila u Hrvatskoj (1308-1311)” [The activities of
CEU eTD Collection

Cardinale Gentile in Croatia]. Nastavni vjesnik 34 (1926): 25-34; 35 (1926): 65-82.

Guenée, Bernard. Between Church and State. The Lives of Four French Prelates in the Late Middle
Ages. Chicago - London: University of Chicago Press, 1987.
Guerrieri, Ruggero. “Andrea di Pietro di Gionta dei Benzi da Gualdo, vescovo di Spalato e di Sion
arcivescovo di Colocza e l'opera sua alla corte di re Sigismondo ed al Concilio di
Costanza.” Bollettino per l'Umbria 18 (1912): 497-512.
Gulin, Ante. Hrvatski srednjovjekovni kaptoli: Loca credibilia Dalmacije, Hrvatskog primorja,
Kvarnerskih otoka i Istre [Croatian Medieval Cathedral Chapters of Dalmatia, Croatian
Littoral, Kvarner islands and Istria]. Zagreb: HAZU, 2008.

352
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

Guillemain, Bernard. “L’exercice du pouvoir épiscopal à la fin du moyen âge.” In Miscellanea

Historiae ecclesiasticae, VIII: Colloque de Strasbourg, septembre 1983, ed. by Bernard
Vogler (Bruxelles: Nauwelaerts, 1987), 101-32.
Guillemain, Bernard. La cour pontificale d'Avignon (1309-1376): Étude d'une société. Paris: De
Boccard, 1962.
Harvey, Margaret. Solutions to the Schism. A study of some English attitutdes: 1378 to 1409. Sankt
Ottilien: EOS Verlag, 1983.
Harvey, Katherine. Episcopal Appointments in England, c. 1214-1344: From Episcopal Election
to Papal Provision. Surrey: Ashgate, 2014.
Henderson, John. Piety and Charity in late medieval Florence. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994.
Herde, Peter. Bonifaz VIII. (1294-1303). Stuttgart: Anton Hiersemann, 2015.
Herlihy, David. The Black Death and the Transformation of the West, edited by Samuel J. Cohn.
Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1997.
Helmholz, Richard H. The Spirit of Classic Canon Law. Athens: University of Georgia Press,
2010.
Helmholz, Richard. H. “Si quis suadente (C.17 q.4 c.29): Theory and Practice.” In Proceedings of
the Seventh International Congress of Medieval Canon Law, ed. by Peter Linehan, 426-38.
Vatican: Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, 1988.
Helmrath, Johannes. “Partikularsynoden und Synodalstatuten des späteren Mittelalters im
europäischen Vergleich.” In Das europäische Mittelalter im Spannungsbogen des
Vergleichs, ed. by Michael Borgolte. Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 2001.
Hledíková, Zdeňka. “Papacy of the High and Late Middle Ages and the Czech Kingdom (1198–
1417).” In The Papacy and the Czech Lands: A History of Mutual Relations, ed. by Tomáš
Černušák, 101-13. Rome - Prague: Institute of History, 2016.
Hyland, Francis Edward. Excommunication: its nature, historical development and effects.
Washington: Catholic University of America, 1928.
Hoensch, Jörg K. Kaiser Sigismund: Herrscher an der Schwelle zur Neuzeit, 1368-1437.
München: C.H. Beck, 1996.
Homan, Balint. Gli Angioini di Napoli in Ungheria, 1290-1403. Rome: Reale Accademia D’Italia,
1938.
Homonnai, Sarolta. “III. András hatalmának stabilitása és politikai szándékai Bonzano Péter
jelentéseinek tükrében” [The Power Stability and Political Intentions of Andrew III in the
CEU eTD Collection

Light of Peter Bonzano's Reports]. Acta historica Szeged 117 (2003): 63–74.
Houghton, Robert, “When the bishop’s away…: Absentee bishops of Parma during the investiture
conflict.” In Absentee Authority across Medieval Europe, ed. by Frédérique Lachaud and
Michael Penman, 56-77. Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 2017. 56-77.
Housley, Norman. The Italian Crusades: The Papal-Angevin alliance and the crusades against
Christian lay powers, 1254-1343. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1982.
Housley, Norman. “King Louis the Great of Hungary and the Crusades, 1342-1382.” The Slavonic
and East European Review 62/2 (1984): 192-208.
Housley, Norman. The Avignon Papacy and the Crusades, 1305-1378. Oxford: Clarendon Press,
1986.

353
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

Housley, Norman. “Pope Clement V and the crusades of 1309-10.” Journal of Medieval History 8
(1982): 29-43.
Hunyadi, Zsolt. “The Western Schism and Hungary: from Louis I to Sigismund of Luxembourg.”
Chronica 13 (2017): 45-53.
Hughes, Daine Owen. “Urban Growth and Family Structure in Medieval Genoa.” Past and Present
66 (1975): 3-28.
Inchiostri, Ugo. “Di Nicolò Matafari e del suo Thesaurus pontificum, in relazione con la cultura
giuridica in Zara nel secolo XIV.” Archivio Storico per la Dalmazia IV (1929), 63-85.
Incze, János. “The Pledge Policy of King Sigismund of Luxembourg in Hungary (1387–1437).”
In Money and Finance in Central Europe during the Later Middle Ages, ed. by Zaoral
Roman, 87-110. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2016.
Isailović, Neven. “Омиш под влашћу Хрвоја Вукчића и борба за његово наслеђе” [Hrvoje
Vukčić’s rule in Omiš and the Struggle for his Succession]. Istorijski časopis LIV (2007):
131-50.
Isailović, Neven. “О фамилијарима Хрвоја Вукчића Хрватинића u Сплиту (1403-1413)” [On
familiares of Hrvoje Vukčić Hrvatinić in Split (1403-1413)]. Istorijski časopis LVIII
(2009): 125-146.
Isailović, Neven. “Između otpora i lojalnosti – niže plemstvo na područjima pod vlašću i utjecajem
Nelipčića nakon 1345. godine” [Between Resistance and Loyalty: Lesser Nobility in the
Territories under the Rule and Influence of the Nelipčić Family (after 1345)]. Povijesni
prilozi 50 (2016): 263-95.
Isailović, Neven. “Living by the Border: South Slavic Marcher Lords in the Late Medieval Balkans
(13th–15th Centuries)” Banatica 26 (2016), 105-17.
Ivančan, Ljudevit. “Iz crkvene povijesti: Ivan i Leonardo de Cardinalibus, senjski biskupi XIV.
stoljeća, prije zagrebački kanonici” [From the History of the Church: the Bishops of Senj
of the Fourteenth century, John and Leonard de Cardinalibus, previously canons of
Zagreb]. Bogoslovna smotra 16 (1928): 104-8.
Ivanišević, Milan. “Trogir u povijesnim izvorima od 438. do 1097. godine” [Trogir in historical
sources, 438-1097]. Mogućnosti 10-11 (1980): 964-92.
Ivanišević, Milan. “Promišljanje o rodovima Lukari u Splitu i Lukarević u Dubrovniku” [Some
thoughs on the nobility of Lukari in Split and Dubrovnik]. Kulturna sadašnjost 41 (2015):
5-40.
Jalimam, Salih Abdulah. “Spor dominikanaca i franjevaca u srednjovjekovnoj Bosni” [The
CEU eTD Collection

Dispute between the Dominicans and the Franciscans in the Medieval Bosnia]. Croatica
Christiana periodica 13 (1989), 9-19.
Jakić-Cestarić, Vesna. “Osobna imena i porijeklo redovnika samostana Sv. Krševana do kraja
XIV. stoljeća” [The personal names and backgrounds of the monks of the monastery of
Saint Chrysogonus by the end of the fourteenth century]. in Tisuću godina samostana
Svetog Krševana u Zadru [One Thousand Years of the History of the Monastery of Saint
Chrysogonus in Zadar], ed. by Ivo Petricioli, 131-40. Zadar: Zadarski list, 1990.
Jakić-Cestarić, Vesna. “Obiteljska pripadnost zadarskog kroničara Paulusa de Paulo” [The Family
Background of Paulus de Paulo, a Chronicler from Zadar]. Radovi Filozofskog fakulteta u
Zadru 23 (1983-84): 267-85.

354
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

Jamme, Armand. "Des usages de la democratie: Deditio et controle politique des cites lombardes
dans le 'grand projet' de Jean XXII." In Papst Johannes XXII. Konzepte und Verfahren
seines Pontifikats, eds. by Hans-Joachim Schmidt and Martin Rohde, 279-342. Berlin: De
Gruyter, 2014.
Janeković Römer, Zdenka. “Grad i građani između kraljeva, velikaša i prelata: pogled Nade Klaić
na srednjovjekovnu trogirsku komunu” [The city and its citizens between kings, noblemen
and prelates: Nada Klaić’s view of the medieval commune of Trogir]. In Nada Klaić i
njezin znanstveni i nastavni doprinos razvoju historiografije [Nada Klaić and her scientific
and teaching contribution to the development of historiography], eds. by Damir Agičić and
Tomislav Galović, 207-28. Zagreb: Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, 2015.
Janeković Römer, Zdenka. Okvir slobode: Dubrovačka vlastela između srednjovjekovlja i
humanizma [The Frame of Freedom: The nobility of Dubrovnik between the Middle Ages
and the Humanism]. Zagreb - Dubrovnik: HAZU, 1999.
Janeković Römer, Zdenka. “Sveti Dujam i sveti Vlaho: uporište metropolije i uporište Republike”
[St. Domnius and St. Blasius: The Pillar of the Metropolitan Church and the Pillar of the
Republic]. Hagiologija: kultovi u kontekstu, eds. by Ana Marinković and Trpimir Vedriš,
123-39. Zagreb: Leykam International, 2008.
Jelaska, Zdravka. “Ugled trogirskog roda Kažotića u XIII. i XIV. stoljeću.” Croatica Christiana
periodica XXVI (2002): 17-46.
Jelić, Luka. “Povjesno-topografske crtice biogradskom primorju” [The Historical and
Topographical notes about the coast of Biograd]. Vjesnik Arheološkog muzeja u Zagrebu
3 (1898): 30-126.
Jerković, Marko. “Who were the Proctors of Bishops of Zagreb in the 14th Century Apostolic
Chamber?” In Bertošin zbornik – Zbornik u čast Miroslava Bertoše [Journal in memory of
Miroslav Bertoša], ed. by Ivan Jurković, 89-110. Pula - Pazin: Sveučilište Jurja Dobrile u
Puli, Državni arhiv u Pazinu, 2013.
Joubert, Thibault. “L'élection épiscopale dans le Décret de Gratien. Un exemple de tradition
canonique.” Studia canonica 49 (2015): 357-78.
Kalous, Antonín. “Financing a Legation: Papal Legates and Money in the Later Middle Ages.” In
Money and Finance in Central Europe during the Later Middle Ages, ed. by Roman Zaoral,
205-21. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2016.
Karbić, Damir. “Marginalne grupe u hrvatskim srednjovjekovnim društvima od druge polovine
XIII. do početka XVI. stoljeća” [Marginal groups in Croatian medieval societies from
CEU eTD Collection

second half of 13th to beginning of 16th century]. Historijski zbornik 44 (1991): 43-76.
Karbić, Damir. “Defining the Position of Croatia During the Restauration of Royal Power (1345-
1361): An Outline.” In The Man of Many Devices, Who Wandered Full Many Ways:
Festschrift in Honor of János M. Bak, eds. by Marcell Sebők and Balázs Nagy, 520-6.
Budapest: CEU Press, 1999.
Karbić, Damir. “Familiares of the Šubići: Neapolitan influence on the origin of the institution of
familiaritas in medieval Hungary.” In La Noblesse dans les territoires Angevins à la fin du
Moyen Âge. Eds. by Noel Coulet and Jean Michel Matz, 131-47. Rome: Ecole francaise de
Rome, 2000.

355
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

Karbić, Damir. “Osnutak duvanjske biskupije u svjetlu politike Šubića Bribirskih” [The founding
of the Duvno diocese and the politics of the Bribirian Šubići]. In Duvanjski zbornik, ed. by
Jure Krišto, 125-33. Zagreb: Hrvatski institut za povijest, 2000.
Karbić, Damir. The Šubići of Bribir: A Case Study of a Croatian Medieval Kindred. PhD-diss.,
Central European University in Budapest, 2000.
Karbić, Damir. “Uloga bribirskih knezova u osnutku šibenske biskupije” [The Role of Bribir
Princes in the Establishment of the Šibenik Bishopric]. In Sedam stoljeća Šibenske
biskupije [Seven Centuries of the Bishopric of Šibenik], ed. Josip Ćuzela et al., 53-62.
Šibenik: Gradska knjižnica ‘Juraj Šižgorić,’ 2001.
Karbić, Damir. “Utjecaj velikaškog roda Šubića na širenje i razvoj franjevaca u Hrvatskoj i
Dalmaciji s posebnim osvrtom na skradinsko-bribirsko područje” [The Šubići role in the
expansion of the Franciscans in Croatia and Dalmatia with attention to Bribir and Skradin].
In Zbornik o Pavlu Posiloviću, eds. by Pavao Knezović, Marinko Šišak and Milivoj Zenić,
147-66. Šibenik - Zagreb: Gradska knjižnica ‘Juraj Šižgorić,’ 2001.
Karbić, Damir. “Nelipčići i Šubići: međusobni odnosi” [The Relations between the Nelipčići and
the Šubići]. In Miljevci u prošlosti (s pogledom u budućnost) [Miljevci in the past, with a
look at the future], eds. by Marko Menđušić and Drago Marguš, 129-43. Visovac -
Drinovci: Miljevački sabor, 2008.
Karbić, Damir. “Odnosi gradskoga plemstva i bribirskih knezova Šubića - Prilog poznavanju
međusobnih odnosa hrvatskih velikaša i srednjovjekovnih dalmatinskih komuna” [The
relationship between the urban nobility and the counts Šubić of Bribir: a contribution to
the study of the relationship between Croatian magnates and medieval Dalmatian
communes]. Povijesni prilozi 35 (2008): 43-60.
Karbić, Damir. “Crkvena politika Šubića Bribirskih do sloma Kliške grane u 1356.” [Ecclesiastical
Policy of the Šubići of Bribir until the Fall of the Branch of the Counts of Klis (1356)]. In
Humanitas et litterae. Zbornik u čast Franje Šanjeka, eds. Lovorka Čoralić and Slavko
Slišković, 137-58. Zagreb: Dominikanska naklada Istina; Kršćanska sadašnjost, 2009.
Karbić, Damir. “Diplomacy of the Šubići Regarding Relations between Neapolitan Angevins, the
Papacy and Venice at the End of the Thirteenth and in the First Decades of the Fourteenth
Century.” In Le Diplomatie des Etats Angevins aux XIIIe et XIVe Siecles – Diplomacy in
the countries of the Angevin dynasty in the thirteenth-fourteenth centuries, eds. by István
Petrovics and Zoltán Kordé, 125-40. Rome: Accademia d’Ungheria in Roma, 2010.
Karbić, Damir. “Tridesetnica.” In Leksikon hrvatskoga srednjovjekovlja, eds. by Branka Grbavac
CEU eTD Collection

and Franjo Šanjek, 670-1. Zagreb: Školska knjiga, 2017.

Kaminsky, Howard. “The Politics of France's Subtraction of Obedience from Pope Benedict XIII,
27 July 1398.” Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 115/5 (1971): 336-97.
Katić, Lovre. “Ban Emerik Lacković otimlje dobra Kninske biskupije (1368)” [Ban Emerik seizing
properties of the bishopric of Knin (1368)]. Croatia Sacra 2 (1932): 1-12.
Katić, Lovre. “Solinski mlinovi u prošlosti” [The mills of Solin throughout the history].
Starohrvatska prosvjeta 3 (1952): 201-19.
Katić, Lovre. “Selo Kučine i trinaest isprava o Sutikvi” [The village of Kučine and thirteen charters
about Sutikva]. Starohrvatska prosvjeta 3 (1955): 141-69.

356
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

Katić, Lovre. “Reambulacija dobara splitskoga nadbiskupa 1397. godine” [The Assessment of the
property of the archbishop of Split in 1397]. Starohrvatska prosvjeta 3 (1956): 135-77.
Katić, Lovre. “Granice između Klisa i Splita kroz vijekove” [The Borders between Klis and Split
through the History]. Starohrvatska prosvjeta 3 (1958): 187-210.
Katić, Lovre. Veza primorske Dalmacije kroz kliški prolaz od prethistorije do pada Venecije [The
connections of the Coastal Dalmatia through the passage near Klis from the ancient history
to the fall of Venice]. Zagreb: Starine, 1962.
Kaufhold, Martin. “Die Kurie und die Herausforderungen der europäischen Politik:
Standardverfahren oder abgestimmte Handlungsstrategien?” In Papst Johannes XXII.
Konzepte und Verfahren seines Pontifikats, eds. by Hans-Joachim Schmidt and Martin
Rohde, 263-78. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2014.
Kempf, Friedrich. “Innocenz III. und der deutsche Thronstreit.” Archivum Historiae Pontificiae
23 (1985): 63-92.
Kiss, Gergely. “VIII. Bonifác é Magyarország (1290–1303): A pápai hatalmi legitimációs
elképzelések és kormányzat összefüggései” [Boniface VIII and Hungary (1290-1303):
Ideas of legitimating the papal authority and government in context]. Szádok 152/6 (2018):
1353-76.
Kiesewetter, Andreas. “L’intervento di Niccolò, Celestino V e Bonifacio VIII nella lotta per il
trono ungherese (1290-1303).” In Bonifacio VIII. Ideologia e azione politica, ed. by Ilaria
Bonincontro, 139-98. Rome: Instituti storico italiano, 2006.
Kiesewetter, Andreas. “Bonifacio VIII e gli Angioini.” In Bonifacio VIII: Atti del XXXIX
Convegno storico internazionale, Todi, 13-16 ottobre 2002, ed. by Enrico Menestò, 171-
214. Spoleto: Centro italiano di studi sull’alto medioevo, 2003.
Klaić, Nada. Povijest grada Trogira: Javni život grada i njegovih ljudi (Trogir in the Middle
Ages). Trogir: Muzej grada Trogira, 1985.
Klaić, Nada. “Značenje vladavine Anžuvinaca za hrvatske zemlje, napose za Dalmaciju” [The
Meaning of the Angevin Rule for the Croatian Lands, especially for Dalmatia]. Radovi:
Razdio društvenih znanosti u Zadru 23 (1984): 225-31.
Klaić, Nada. Povijest Hrvata u razvijenom srednjem vijeku [History of the Croats during the High
Middle Ages]. Zagreb: Školska knjiga, 1976.
Klaić, Nada and Ivo Petricioli. Zadar u srednjem vijeku do 1409 [Zadar in the Middle Ages until
1409]. Zadar: Filozofski fakultet Zadar, 1976.
Klaić, Vjekoslav. “Hrvatski hercezi i bani za Karla Roberta i Ljudevita I (1301-1382)” [Croatian
CEU eTD Collection

dukes and bans during the reigns of Charles Robert and Louis I (1301-1382)]. Rad JAZU
142 (1900): 126-218.
Klaić, Vjekoslav. Bribirski knezovi od plemena Šubić do god. 1347 [The counts of Bribir from the
kindred of the Šubići until 1347]. Zagreb: K. Albrecht, 1897.
Klaić, Vjekoslav. Povijest Hrvata od najstarijih vremena do svršetka XIX stoljeća [History of
Croats since the oldest times until end of 19th century]. Vols. II-III, ed. by Trpimir Macan.
Rijeka: Nakladni zavod Matice hrvatske, Tisak “Riječka tiskara”, 1972.
Kohl, Benjamin. Padua under the Carrara, 1318-1405. Baltimore - London: The Johns Hopkins
University Press, 1998.

357
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

Kohl, Benjamin. “Renaissance Padua as Kunstwerk: Policy and Custom in the Governance of a
Renaissance City.” In Venice and the Veneto during the Renaissance: The legacy of
Benjamin Kohl. Eds. by Michael Knapton, John E. Law and Alison A. Smith, 187-96.
Firenze: Firenze University Press, 2014.
Kolanović, Josip. “Šibenska Crkva u okviru društvenih odnosa 14. i 15. stoljeća” [The Church of
Šibenik in the Framework of the changes of Social Relations in the 14th and 15th century].
In Sedam stoljeća Šibenske biskupije [The Seven Centuries of the Bishopric of Šibenik],
ed. Josip Ćuzela et al., 63-78. Šibenik: Gradska knjižnica ‘Juraj Šižgorić,’ 2001.
Kolanović, Josip. “Zbornik ninskih isprava od XIII do XVII stoljeća” [The Charters of Nin from
the thirteenth to the seventeenth century]. Radovi Instituta JAZU u Zadru 16-17 (1969):
485-528.
Kolumbić, Nikica. “Zadarski humanistički krug u okviru samostana sv. Krševana” [The
Humanistic Circle of Zadar in the Monastery of Saint Chrysogonus]. In Tisuću godina
samostana Svetog Krševana u Zadru [One Thousand Years of the History of the Monastery
of Saint Chrysogonus in Zadar], ed. by Ivo Petricioli, 141-51. Zadar: Zadarski list, 1990.
Kondor, Márta. “Absente rege: Luxemburgi Zsigmond magyarországi vikáriusai (1414–1419)”
[Absente rege: The vicars of Sigismund of Luxemburg in Hungary]. In Kor - szak – határ:
A Kárpát-medence és a szomszédos birodalmak (900-1800) [Age - specialty - border: The
Carpathian Basin and neighboring empires (900-1800)]. Eds. by Tamás Fedeles, Márta
Font and Gergely Kiss, 119-38. Pecs: Pécsi Tudományegyetem, 2013.
Korać, Dijana. “Religijske prilike u humskoj zemlji od XIII. stoljeća do pada pod osmansku vlast”
[Religious Circumstances in the Land of Hum from the Thirteenth Century to the Fall of
Ottoman Authority]. In Hum i Hercegovina kroz povijest [Hum and Herzegovina
throughout history], ed. by Ivica Lučić, 473-94. Zagreb: Hrvatski institut za povijest, 2011.
Korać, Dijana. “Franjevci i njihovi samostani u Humu” [Franciscans and their Convents in Hum].
Croatica Christiana periodica 60 (2007): 17-33.
Koszta, László. “Conclusions drawn from the prosopographic analysis of canons belonging to
cathedral chapters of medieval Hungary: 1200-1350.” In Ecclesiastical Careers in Western
Christianity (12th–14th c.), 13-28. Lisbon: Universidade Católica Portuguesa, 2007.
Kosztolnyik, Zoltán. “Did the Curia Intervene in the Struggle for the Hungarian Throne during the
1290s?” In Régi és új peregrináció: Magyarok külföldön, külföldiek Magyarországon, vol
I., ed. by Imre Békési, 140-58. Budapest - Szeged: Nemzetközi Hungarológiai
CEU eTD Collection

Kongresszuson, 1993.
Kosztolnyik, Zoltan. “Remarks on Andrew III of Hungary.” In Kelet és Nyugat között: Történeti
tanulmányok Kristó Gyula tiszteletére [Between East and West: Historical Studies in
Honor of Gyula Kristó], ed. by László Koszta, 273-90. Szeged: Szegedi Középkorász
Műhely, 1995.
Kosztolnyik, Zoltán. Hungary in the thirteenth century. New York: Columbia University Press,
1996.
Kosanović, Ozren. Državina krčkih knezova - Vinodol, Senj i Krk od početka 14. stoljeća do 1420.
godine [The lands of counts of Krk - Vinodol, Senj and Krk from the beginning of the
fourteenth century until 1420]. PhD-diss., Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences in
Zagreb, 2012.

358
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

Kovačić, Joško. “Žrnovnica od davnine do turske vlasti” [The Past of Žrnovica from Prehistory to
the Turkish Takeover]. Kulturna baština 32 (2005): 177-211.
Kovačić, Slavko. “Toma Arhiđakon, promicatelj crkvene obnove, i splitski nadbiskupi, osobito
njegovi suvremenici” [Thomas Archdeacon, a promotor of the Church reform, and the
archbishops of Split]. In Toma Arhiđakon i njegovo doba [Thomas Archdeacon and his
time], eds. by Mirjana Matijević Sokol and Olga Perić. Split: Književni krug, 2004.
Kovačić, Slavko. “Utemeljitelj Kaštela Sućurca: Nadbiskup Andrija Benzi iz Gualda (o. 1355-
1437)” [The founder of the Kaštel Sućurac: Archbishop Andrew Benzi]. In Kaštel Sućurac:
600. obljetnica [Kaštel Sućurac: the six-hundredth anniversary], 185-201. Kaštel Sućurac:
Muzej hrvatskih arheoloških spomenika, 1992.
Kovačić, Slavko. “Makarska biskupija” [The Bishopric of Makarska]. In Makarski biskup fra
Bartul Kačić Žarković (Brist, 1572-Sućuraj, 1645): Život, djelo, vrijeme [Bartul Kačić
Žarković, the bishop of Makarska: his life, work and time], 113-38. Sućuraj: Županija
Splitsko-dalmatinska, 1999).
Kovács, Péter. Zsigmond király és Velence (1387-1437): Az oroszlán ugrani készül (1387-1411)
[King Sigismund and Venice (1387-1437): The lion is about to jump (1387-1411)].
Budapest: Tarsoly Kiadó, 2017.
Kovács, Viktória. “Alter ego domini papae Nicolai III. Fülöp fermói püspök, szentszéki legátus
magyarországi tevékenysége (1279–1281)” [Alter ego domini papae Nicolai III: The
activity of Bishop Philip of Fermo, legate of the Holy See in Hungary (1279-1281)]. In
Varietas delectate: A pápai-magyar kapcsolatok sokszínűsége a 11–14. században [The
diversity of Papal-Hungarian relations during the 11th-14th centuries], ed. by Gergely Kiss,
117-66. Pécs: Pécsi Tudományegyetem BTK TTI, 2019.
Kőfalvi, Tamás. “Places of Authentication (loca credibilia).” Chronica, vol. II., ed. by Zsolt
Hunyadi. 27-38. Szeged: University of Szeged, 2002.
Krämer, Thomas. Dämonen, Prälaten und gottlose Menschen: Konflikte und ihre Beilegung im
Umfeld der geistlichen Ritterorden. Berlin: Lit Verlag, 2015.
Krekić, Bariša. “Developed Autonomy: The Patricians in Dubrovnik and Dalmatian Cities.” In
Urban Society of Eastern Europe in Premodern Times, ed. by Bariša Krekić, 185-215.
Berkeley: University of California Press, 1987.
Krekić, Bariša. Unequal Rivals: Essays on Relations between Dubrovnik and Venice in the
Thirteenth and Fourteenth Centuries. Zagreb – Dubrovnik: HAZU, 2007.
Krekić, Bariša. “Venezia e l'Adriatico.” Storia di Venezia: Dalle origini alla caduta 3 (1997), 51-
CEU eTD Collection

85.
Krnčević, Željko. “Novija istraživanja srednjovjekovnih arheoloških lokaliteta šibenskog kraja.”
In Sedam stoljeća Šibenske biskupije, Zbornik radova sa znanstvenog skupa Šibenska
biskupija od 1298. do 1998, Šibenik 22. do 26. rujna 1998 [The seven centuries of the
bishopric of Šibenik: Papers from the conference about the bishopric of Šibenik, 1298-
1998], 25-39. Šibenik: Gradska knjižnica ‘Juraj Šižgorić,’ 2001.
Kurelac, Miroslav. “Društvene diferencijacije i pokreti pučana srednje Dalmacije od XIV. do XVI.
stoljeća” [The Social Differentiations and the Rebellions of the Commoners of the Central
Dalmatia from the fourteenth until the sixteenth centuries]. Zbornik Zavoda za povijesne
znanosti JAZU 10 (1980): 237-45.

359
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

Kurelac, Miroslav. “Pučki ustanci i pobune u djelima Ivana Luciusa-Lučića” [The Revolts and
Uprisings of Commoners in the Works of Ivan Lucius-Lučić]. Radovi 10 (1977): 239-47.
Kužić, Krešimir. “Plemići s područja župe Zmina u srednjem vijeku” [The nobility of the parish
of Smina during the middle ages]. Zbornik Odsjeka za povijesne znanosti Zavoda za
povijesne i društvene znanosti HAZU 17 (1999): 5-15.
Kyer, C. I. The Papal Legate and the ‘Solemn’ Papal Nuncio 1243–1378: The Changing Pattern
of Papal Representation. PhD-diss., University of Toronto,1979.
Kyer, C. I. “Legatus and nuncius as used to denote papal envoys, 1245–1378.” Medieval Studies
40 (1978): 473–477.
Labanc, Peter, “Die Agnen und Vewandten des Zagreber Bischofs Johannes von der Zips (1394-
97).” In Slovakia and Croatia, Historical Parallels and Connections (until 1780), 246-258.
Bratislava - Zagreb: Department of Slovak History, Faculty of Philosophy of Comenius
University, Bratislava, 2013.
Ladić, Zoran. “Diplomatske aktivnosti Zadrana u vrijeme opsade Zadra 1345./46. godine (do
odlaska Ludovika I. iz zadarskog distrikta)” [The Diplomatic Activities of the citizens of
Zadar during the siege of the city, 1345/46 (until King Louis left the district’s borders]. In
Hrvatska srednjovjekovna diplomacija [Croatian Medieval Diplomacy], ed. by Mladen
Andrlić and Mirko Valentić, 257-70. Zagreb: Diplomatska akademija Ministarstva
vanjskih poslova Republike Hrvatske, 1999.
Ladić, Zoran. “O nekim aspektima uloge Crkve u zbivanjima opisanima u djelu Obsidio Iadrensis”
[On some Aspects of the Role of the Church as described in the Chronicle Obsidio
Iadrensis]. In Sedamnaest stoljeća zadarske Crkve, ed. by Livio Marijan, 277-90. Zadar:
Zadarska nadbiskupija, 2009.
Lala, Etleva. Regnum Albaniae, the Papal curia, and the Western visions of a borderline nobility.
PhD-diss., Central European University in Budapest, 2008.
Lane, Frederic C. Venice: A Maritime Republic. London: The Johns Hopkins University Press,
1973.
Lange, Hermann. “Urban VI. und Clemens VII. Der Beginn des Großen Schismas.” In Lange,
Recht und Macht: politische Streitigkeiten im Spätmittelalter, ed. by Hermann Lange, 31-
74. Frankfurt: Klostermann, 2010.
Lantschner, Patrick. The Logic of Political Conflict in Medieval Cities: Italy and the Southern Low
Countries, 1370-1440. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015.
Lapaire, Claude. “Le tombeau de l'évêque André de Gualdo et la sculpture en Suisse romande au
CEU eTD Collection

début du XVe siècle.” Unsere Kunstdenkmäler: Mitteilungsblatt für die Mitglieder der
Gesellschaft für Schweizerische Kunstgeschichte 42 (1991): 56-65.
Le Goff, Jacques, “Les marginaux dans l’Occident Medieval.” In Les Marginaux et les exclus dans
L'Histoire, ed. by Jacques Le Goff, 19-28. Paris: Cahiers Jussieu, 1979.
Le Roy Ladurie, Emmanuel and Joseph Goy. Tithe and agrarian history from the fourteenth to the
nineteenth centuries: an essay in comparative history. Tran. by Susan Burke. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1982.
Liddy, Christian. The Bishopric of Durham in the Late Middle Ages: Lordship, Community and
the Cult of St. Cuthbert. Woodbridge: The Boydell Press, 2008.

360
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

Lovrenović, Dubravko. Na klizištu povijesti (sveta kruna ugarska i sveta kruna bosanska) [On the
avalanche of history (The Holy Hungarian Crown and the Holy Bosnian Crown)]. Zagreb:
Synopsis, 2006.
Lovrenović, Dubravko. “Hrvoje Vukčić Hrvatinić i splitska komuna” [Hrvoje Vukčić Hrvatnić
and the commune of Split]. Prilozi Instituta za istoriju 22/23 (1987): 37-45.
Lucherini, Vinni. “The Journey of Charles I, King of Hungary, from Visegrad to Naples,”
Hungarian Historical Review 2 (2013): 341–362.
Lucić, Ivan. De regno Dalmatiae et Croatiae, libri sex. Amsterdam: Apud Iohannem Blaeu, 1666.
Lucić, Ivan. Povijesna svjedočanstva o Trogiru [Historical Accounts about Trogir]. Vols. I-II.
Split: Čakavski sabor, 1979.
Lučić, Josip. “Daniele Farlati (1690-1773): U povodu 200. godišnjice smrti” [Daniele Farlati: The
200th anniversary of his death]. Historijski zbornik 25-26 (1972-73): 229-41.
Lučić, Josip. “Komunalno uređenje dalmatinskih gradova u XI. stoljeću” [Communal organization
of Dalmatian cities in the eleventh century]. Zbornik zavoda za povijesne znanosti JAZU
10 (1980), 209-35.
Lukinović, Andrija. “Zagrebački biskupi Ivan Smilo i Ivan Šipuški, 1388.-1397.” [The Bishops of
Zagreb: John Smilo and John Scepus, 1388-1397]. Croatica Christiana periodica 14
(1990): 187-202.
Lukinović, Andrija. “Ivan Šipuški, 1394-1397” [John of Scepus]. In Zagrebački biskupi, 155-61.
Zagreb: Školska knjiga, 1995.
Lukinović, Andrija. “Zagrebački biskup Eberhard (1397.-1406. i 1410.-1419.)” [Eberhard, the
bishop of Zagreb]. Croatica Christiana periodica 15/28 (1991): 1-13.
Lunt, William. Papal revenues in the Middle Ages. Vols. I-II. New York: Columbia University
Press, 1934).
Lunt, William. “The Financial System of the Medieval Papacy in the Light of Recent Literature.”
The Quarterly Journal of Economics 23/2 (1909): 251-95.
Bras, Gabriel le. Storia della Chiesa: Le Istituzioni ecclesiastiche della Cristianità medievale. Vol.
II. Torino: Editrice S.A.I.E., 1974.
Licciardello, Pierluigi. Un vescovo contro il papato: conflitto fra Guido Tarlati e Giovanni XXII
(1312-1339). Arezzo: Società storica aretina, 2015.
Loenertz, Raymond Joseph. “Cardinale Morosini et Paul Paléologue Tagaris, patriarches, et
Antoine Ballester, vicaire du Papae, dans le patriarcat de Constantinople (1332-34 et 1380-
CEU eTD Collection

87).” Revue des études byzantines 24 (1966): 224-256.

Luttrell, Anthony. The Town of Rhodes, 1306-1356. Rhodes: Techne, 2003.
Maciejewski, Jacek. “Nudo pede intrat urbem: Reserch on the Adventus of a medieval bishop
through the first half of the twelfth century.” Viator 41 (2010): 89-100.
Maciejewski, Jacek. “Which way to Bishopric? Origin and carrers of Polish bishops in the 13th
century.” Carreiras ecclesiasticas no ocidente cristao (sec. XII-XIV), 209-17. Lisbon:
Centro de Estudos de História Religiosa, Universidade Católica Portuguesa, 2007.
Majnarić, Ivan. “Papa i svjetovni vladar na izmaku karolinškog doba: primjer splitskih sinoda
dvadesetih godina 10.st.” [The Pope and the Prince and the end of the Carolingian age: The
example of the ecclesiastical synods of Split of the 920s]. Zbornik Odsjeka povijesnih
znanosti HAZU 28 (2010): 5-16.

361
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

Makowski, Elizabeth M. Canon Law and Cloistered Women: Periculoso and Its Commentators,
1298-1545. Washington: CUA Press, 1997.
Maleczek, Werner. “Die päpstlichen Legaten im 14. und 15. Jahrhundert.” Vorträge und
Forschungen: Gesandtschafts- und Botenwesen im spätmittelalterlichen Europa 60
(2003): 33-86.
Maléth, Ágnes. “Les relations de Charles Ier de Hongrie avec la papauté (1301–1342).” In
Specimina Nova Pars Prima, 77-94. Pécs: Pécsi Tudományegyetem, 2017.
Malyusz, Elemér. Kaiser Sigismund in Ungarn, 1387-1437. Budapest, Akadémiai Kiadó, 1990.
Mályusz, Elemér. Das Konstanzer Konzil und das königliche Patronatsrecht in Ungarn. Budapest:
Akadémia Kiadó, 1959.
Mandić, Dominik. “Duvanjska biskupija od XIV.-XVII. stoljeća.” Croatia sacra: Arkiv za crkvenu
povijest Hrvata 5 (1935): 1-95.
Manselli, Raoul. “Un Papa in un'età di contraddizione: Giovanni XXII.” Studi romani 22 (1974):
444-456.
Manselli, Raoul. “Il papato avignonese e gli Italiani del Trecento.” In Rapporti culturali ed
economici fra Italia e Francia nei secoli dal XIV al XVI, 73-86. Rome: Giunta centrale per
gli studi storici, 1979.
Maoussacas, Manoussos. “L'isola di Creta sotto il dominio veneziano: problemi e ricerche.” In
Venezia e il Levante fino al secolo XV, vol. II., ed. by Agostino Pertusi, 473-514. Florence:
Leo S. Olschki, 1973.
Maračić, Ljudevit. Hrvatska provincija franjevaca konventualaca nekad i danas (Croatian
Franciscan Province before and today). Zagreb: Provincijalat franjevaca konventualaca,
1989.
Marek, Miloš. “Missions of Papal Legates in the Medieval Kingdom of Hungary: Niccolò
Boccassini (1301-1302).” Slovak Studies 1-2 (2016): 7-23.
Marina, Areli. “From the Myth to the Margins: The Patriarch's Piazza at San Pietro di Castello.”
In Venice Renaissance Quarterly 64/2 (2011): 353-429.
Marinković, Ana. “Celestine III and Dalmatia.” In Pope Celestine III (1191-1198): Diplomat and
Pastor, eds. by John Doran and Damian J. Smith, 179-88. London: Routledge, 2008.
Marinković, Ana. The Birth and the Agents of an Episcopal Civic Cult: St John of Trogir (12th -
15th c.). PhD-diss., Central European University in Budapest, 2013.
Marinković, Ana and Trpimir Vedriš, eds. Hagiologija: Kultovi u kontekstu [Hagiology: Cults in
CEU eTD Collection

context]. Zagreb: Leykam International, 2008.

Marković, Predrag. “Anđeo štitonoša s grbom obitelji de Judicibus: još jedan nepoznati suradnik
Bonina Jakovljeva iz Milana” [The Angel with the Coat of Arms of the Judicibus Family:
Another Unnamed Assistant of Bonino di Jacopo da Milan]. Ars Adriatica 4 (2014): 199-
212.
Marshall, John Duncan. The Tyranny of the Discrete: A Discussion of the Problems of Local
History in England. Aldershot: Scolar Press, 1997.
Martines, Lauro. Power and Imagination: City-States in Renaissance Italy. Baltimore: The Johns
Hopkins University Press, 1988.
Masson, Christophe. “Une épée pour saint Pierre? Les princes Valois d’Anjou et le Grand Schisme
d’Occident.” Dans Le Moyen Age 1 (2015): 71-81.

362
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

Matanić, Atanazije. De origine tituli “Dalmatiae ac totius Croatiae primas:” studium historico-
criticum. Rome: Tip. dei monasteri, 1952.
Mihalache, Robert-Marius. “The Holy See’s Intervention in the Struggle for the Occupation of the
Hungarian Throne (1290-1310).” Transylvanian Review XX, Supplement 2/1 (2011): 155-
164.
Matijević Sokol, Mirjana. “Nostrum et regni nostri registrum: Srednjovjekovni arhiv Ugarsko-
hrvatskog kraljevstva” [The medieval archive of the Kingdom of Hungary-Croatia].
Arhivski vjesnik 51 (2008): 237-257.
Matijević Sokol, Mirjana. “Toma Arhiđakon i njegovo djelo” [Thomas Archdeacon and his work].
In Historia Salonitana, 354-60. Split: Književnik krug, 2003.
Matijević Sokol, Mirjana. “Regimen latinorum arhiđakona Tome u teoriji i praksi” [Archdeacon
Thomas’s Regimen latinorum in theory and practice]. Historijski zbornik 52 (1999): 17-
32.
Menestò, Enrico. “Bonifacio VIII e Todi.” In Bonifacio VIII: Atti del XXXIX Convegno storico
internazionale, Todi, 13-16 ottobre 2002, Enrico Menestò, 21-58. Spoleto: Centro italiano
di studi sull’alto medioevo, 2003.
Meyer, Andreas. “Der Weg zur eigenen Pfründe im Spätmittelalter.” In Die Stiftskirche in
Südwestdeutschland: Aufgaben und Perspektiven der Forschung. Eds. by Sönke Lorenz
and Oliver Auge, 159-69. Leinfelden-Echterdingen: DRW Verlag, 2003.
Merlo, Grado Giovanni. “Dal papato avignonese ai grandi scismi: crisi delle istituzioni
ecclesiastiche?” In La storia: I grandi problemi dal Medioevo all’età contemporanea, I, Il
Medioevo, 453-76. Torino: Utet, 1988.
Miller, Maureen. The Formation of a Medieval Church: Ecclesiastical Change in Verona, 950-
1150. Ithaca - London: Cornell University Press, 1993.
Miller, Maureen. “The Florentine Bishop's Ritual Entry and the Origins of Medieval Episcopal
Adventus.” Revue d'Histoire Ecclésiastique 96 (2002): 5-28.
Miller, Suzanne. Venice in the East Adriatic: Experiences and Experiements in Colonial rule in
Dalmatia and Istria (c. 1150-1358). PhD-diss., Stanford University, 2007.
Millet, Hélène. L'Eglise du Grand Schisma 1378-1417. Paris: Picard, 2009.
Merores, Margarete. “Der große Rat von Venedig und die sogenannte Serrata vom Jahre 1297.”
Vierteljahrschrift für Sozial- und Wirtschaftsgeschichte 21 (1928): 33-113.
Mollat, Guillaume. The Popes at Avignon, 1305-1378. New York: Thomas Nelson & Sons, 1963.
CEU eTD Collection

Morris, Collin. The Papal Monarchy: The Western Church from 1050 to 1250. New York:
Clarendon Press, 1989.
Morrissey, Thomas, “Cardinal Zabarella on Papal and Episcopal Authority,” in Conciliarism and
Church Law in the Fifteenth Century: Studies on Franciscus Zabarella and the Council of
Constance, XIII, 39-52. Farnham: Ashgate Variorum, 2014.
Muir, Edward Wallace. Civic ritual in Renaissance Venice. Chichester: Princeton University Press,
1981.
Müller, Anne. “Institutional Re-stabilisation of the Religious Orders in England after the Black
Death (1347-1350).” Revue Internationale d'Histoire et de Littérature Religieuses 16
(2005): 205-219.

363
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

Müller, Harald. “The Omnipresent Pope: Legates and Judges Delegate.” In A Companion to the
Medieval Papacy: Growth of an Ideology and Institution, eds. by Keith Sisson and Atria
A. Larson, 199-219. Leiden: Brill, 2016.
Nazor, Ante. “Granica između Splita i Poljica i splitsko-poljički sukobi u XIV. i XV. stoljeću (Dio
drugi – Splitsko-poljički sukobi tijekom XIV. i XV. stoljeća)” [The Borders between Splt
and Poljice and the conflicts between Split and Poljice during the fourteenth and the
fifteenth centuries (part two, the political conflicts)]. Zbornik Odsjeka za povijesne znanosti
Zavoda za povijesne i društvene znanosti HAZU 21 (2003): 45-81.
Neagu, Răzvan Mihai. “Considerations Regarding the Beneficial Policy Led by the Popes of
Avignon in the Diocese of Cenad in the Fourteenth Century.” In Saint Gerard of Cenad:
Tradition and Innovation, eds. by Claudiu Mesaroş and Claudiu Călin, 56-71. Budapest:
Trivent, 2015.
Nekić, Antun. “The Oligarchs and the King in Medieval Slavonia, 1301-1342.” Südost-
Forschungen 74 (2015): 1-14.
Neralić, Jadranka. “Udio Hrvata u papinskoj diplomaciji.” In Hrvatska srednjovjekovna
diplomacija [Croatian Medieval Diplomacy]. Ed. by Svjetlan Berković. Zagreb:
Diplomatska akademija, 1999.
Neralić, Jadranka. “‘Ut matrimonium libere et licite contrahere possint:’ Papal 14th and 15th
century matrimonial dispensations.” Hereditas rerum Croaticarum ad honorem Mirko
Valentić, eds. by Alexander Buczynski, Milan Kruhek and Stjepan Matković, 38-43.
Zagreb: Hrvatski institut za povijest, 2003.
Neralić, Jadranka. “Judicial Cases in the Court of Maffeo Vallaresso, Archbishop of Zadar (1450-
1494).” Review of Croatian History 3 (2007): 271-91.
Neralić, Jadranka. Put do crkvene nadarbine: Rimska kurija i Dalmacija u 15. stoljeću [The road
to the ecclesiastical benefice: The Roman Curia and Dalmatia in the fifteenth century].
Split: Književni krug, 2007.
Neralić, Jadranka. “L'operaria della cattedrale di Trogir nel Duecento.” In Architetture del sacro
nel bacino adriatico: Figure, forme e liturgie, ed. by Maurizio Tagliaferri, 133-46.
Bologna: EDB, 2011.
Neralić, Jadranka. “La documentazione curiale relativa alla Croazia medievale, paese diviso tra la
Serenissima e il Regno ungherese.” In Friedensnobelpreis und historische
Grundlagenforschung, ed. by Michael Matheus, 509-24. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2012.
Neralić, Jadranka. “Demetrio Matafari, bishop of Nin (c.1315-1375) and his affairs with the
CEU eTD Collection

Apostolic Camera: the case of his movable property inventory.” In Scripta in honorem Igor
Fisković: Zbornik povodom sedamdesetog rođendana [Festschrift on the occasion of his
70th birthday], eds. by Miljenko Jurković and Predrag Marković, 127-41. Zagreb -
Motovun: Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, 2015.
Neralić, Jadranka. “Svi papini ljudi: dalmatinska biskupska sjedišta u 15. stoljeću između Rima i
Venecije” [All the papal men: Dalmatian bishopric seats in the 15th century between Rome
and Venice]. Historijski zapisi 84 (2016): 53-82.
Nicol, Donald M. The Last Centuries of Byzantium, 1261-1453. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1993.

364
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

Nikolić Jakus, Zrinka. The Formation of Dalmatian Urban Nobility – Examples of Split, Trogir
and Zadar. PhD-diss., Central European University in Budapest, 2004.
Nikolić Jakus, Zrinka. “Madijevci: primjer obitelji dalmatinske gradske elite u desetom i
jedanaestom stoljeću” [The Madii: An example of the family of the Dalmatia urban elite
in the tenth and eleventh centuries]. Zbornik Odsjeka povijesnih znanosti HAZU 23 (2005):
1-24.
Nikolić Jakus, Zrinka. “Vrijeme rata, kuge, zatočeništva: Zadarske plemićke obitelji i posljedice
mletačke opsade 1345./1346. i Crne smrti” [Times of war, plague, and captivity. The noble
families of Zadar and the consequences of the Venetian siege in 1345/1346 and Black
Death]. Povijesni prilozi 55 (2018): 9-35.
Niero, Antonio. “Patriarcato di Venezia, ‘Venetiarum Patriarcha Dalmatiaeque Primas’ Origine e
tramonto del titolo: Primate della Dalmazia.” In Venezia e la Dalmazia anno Mille: secoli
di vicende comuni, ed. by Nedo Fiorentin, 63-94. Treviso: Canova, 2002.
Novak, Grga. Povijest Splita [The History of Split]. Vol. I. Split: Čakavski sabor, 1978.
Novak, Grga. “Hrvatski primorski banovi” [Croatian maritime bans]. Jadranska straža 9/6 (1931):
148-149, 9/7 (1931): 179-181.
Novak, Grga. “Comes, potestas, prior, consul, rector, capitaneus i miles grada Splita” [Comes,
potestas, prior, consul, rector, capitaneus, and miles of the city of Split]. Vjesnik za
arheologiju i historiju dalmatinsku 50 (1932): 227-273.
Novak, Grga. “Gradski bedemi, javne zgrade i ulice u srednjovjekovnom Splitu” [City walls,
public buildings and streets in medieval Split]. Starohrvatska prosvjeta 3 (1952): 103-14.
O’Connell, Monique. “Legitimating Venetian Expansion: Patricians and Secretaries in the
Fifteenth Century.” In Venice and the Veneto during the Renaissance: the Legacy of
Benjamin Kohl. Eds. by Michael Knapton, John E. Law, Alison A. Smith, 71-86. Florence:
Firenze University Press, 2014.
Orlando, Ermanno. “Politica del diritto, amministrazione, giustizia: Venezia e la Dalmazia nel
basso medioevo.” In Venezia e Dalmazia, eds. by Uwe Israel and Oliver Jens Schmitt, 9-
62. Rome - Venice: Viella, 2013.
Osheim, Duane J. An Italian Lordship, The bishopric of Lucca in the Late Middle Ages. Los
Angeles: University of California, 1977.
Ostojić, Ivan. Benediktinci u Hrvatskoj i ostalim našim krajevima [The Benedictine Order in
Croatia and surrounding areas]. Vol. II. Split: Benediktinski priorat, 1964.
Ostojić, Ivan. Metropolitanski kaptol u Splitu. Zagreb: Kršćanska sadašnjost, 1975.
CEU eTD Collection

Pach, Zsigmond Pál. “Levantine Trade and Hungary in the Middle Ages (Theses, Controversies,
Arguments).” In Hungary and the European Economy in Early Modern Times, VI, 5-24.
Aldershot: Variorum, 1994.
Cardella Pagliarini, Lorenzo. Memorie storiche de’ cardinali della Santa romana chiesa. Rome:
Nella Stamperia Pagliarini, 1793.
Pagnoni, Fabrizio. “Selezione dei vescovi e qualità del governo episcopale in Italia centro-
settentrionale nel Trecento: alcune note di ricerca.” Studi di Storia Medioevale e di
Diplomatica I (2017): 279-89.
Palladino, Sergio. “Il contratto di commenda: Il dibattito storiografico e le evidenze
documentarie.” in ‘Quei maledetti Normanni’: Studi offerti a Errico Cuozzo per i suoi

365
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

settant’anni da Colleghi, Allievi, Amici, vol. I., eds. by Jean-Marie Martin and Rosanna
Alaggio, 753-782. Naples: Ariano Irpino, 2016.
Pálosfalvi, Tamás. From Nicopolis to Mohács: A History of Ottoman-Hungarian Warfare, 1389-
1526. Leiden, Boston: Brill, 2018.
Para, Heather. “Plague, Papacy and Power: The Effect of the Black Plague on the Avignon
Papacy.” Saber and Scroll 5 (2016): 7-22.
Paschini, Pio. Storia del Friuli: Dalla seconda metà del duecento alla fine del settecento. Vol. II.
Udine: Libreria editrice, 1954.
Partner, Peter. The Lands of Saint Peter: The Papal State in the Middle Ages and Early
Renaissance. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1972.
Partner, Peter. “Camera Papae: problems of Papal Finance in the Later Middle Ages.” The Journal
of Ecclesiastical History 4 (1953): 55-68.
Peričić, Eduard. “Zadar u doba prvih veza s Anžuvincima” [Zadar in the age of first contacts with
the Angevins]. Radovi Zadar 23 (1983-84): 251-65.
Pederin, Ivan. “Die venezianische Verwaltung Dalmatiens und ihre Organe (XV. und XVI.
Jahrhundert).” Studi veneziani 12 (1986): 99–163.
Pederin, Ivan. “Die wichtigsten Ämter der venezianischen Verwaltung in Dalmatien und der
Einfluss venezianischer Organe auf die Zustände in Dalmatien.” Studi veneziani 20 (1990):
303–55.
Pederin, Ivan. Mletačka uprava, privreda i politika u Dalmaciji (1409-1797) [The Venetian
Administration and Economy in Dalmatia]. Dubrovnik: Časopis ‘Dubrovnik,’ 1990.
Pellegrini, Michele. Chiesa e città: Uomini, comunità e istituzioni nella società senese del XII e
XIII secolo. Rome: Herder editrice e libreria, 2004.
Pennington, Kenneth. Pope and Bishops: The Papal Monarchy in the Twelfth and Thirteenth
Centuries. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1984.
Pennington, Kenneth. “Bishops and their Dioceses.” Folia canonica 5 (2002): 7-17.
Peričić, Eduard. “Samostan Svetog Krševana kroz lik i djelovanje njegovih opata” [The monastery
of Saint Chrysogonus through an analysis of its abbots]. In Tisuću godina samostana
Svetog Krševana u Zadru [One Thousand Years of the History of the Monastery of Saint
Chrysogonus in Zadar], ed. by Ivo Petricioli, 79-108. Zadar: Zadarski list, 1990.
Peričić, Eduard. “Ustanovljenje nadbiskupije i metropolije zadarske” [The establishment of Zadar
as an archbishopric and a metropolitan]. In Sedamnaest stoljeća zadarske Crkve, ed. by
CEU eTD Collection

Livio Marijan, 131-52. Zadar: Zadarska nadbiskupija, 2009.

Perić, Olga. “O autorstvu djela Obsidio iadrensis” [About the Authorship of Obsidio iadrensis]. In
Sedamnaest stoljeća zadarske Crkve, ed. by Livio Marijan, 291-8. Zadar: Zadarska
nadbiskupija, 2009.
Perojević, Marko. Dva borca za slobodu: Mihač Vitturi i biskup Simon Dominis [The Freedom
Fighters: Mihač Vitturi and Bishop Simon Dominis]. Zagreb: Napredak, 1933.
Perojević, Marko. “Ženidba Vladislava Kotromanića s Jelenom Šubićevom: Srodstvo Anžuvinaca,
Šubića Bribirskih i Kotromanića” [The wedding of Vladislav Kotromanić and Jelena
Šubić: The kinship between the Angevins, the Šubići of Bribir and the Kotromanić family].
Jugoslavenski list 19 (1936): 21.

366
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

Petricioli, Ivo. Katedrala sv. Stošije, Zadar [The cathedral of Saint Anastasia]. Zadar: zadarska
nadbiskupija, 1985.
Petricioli, Ivo. “Još o Pavlu iz Sulmone - graditelju pročelja crkve u Starom Pagu” [A bit more
about Pavao from Sulmona, the builder of the façade of the church in Stari Pag]. Ars
Adriatica 3 (2013): 111-22.
Peltzer, Jörg. Canon Law, Careers and Conquest: Episcopal Elections in Normandy and Greater
Anjou. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007.
Petrić, Perislav. “Sakralna topografija u staroj gradskoj jezgri” [Sacral heritage in the old city
core]. Kulturna baština (1989): 272-87.
Petrović, Mišo. “The Role of the Church in the Two Succession Crises in Hungary in the
Fourteenth Century.” Annual of Medieval Studies at CEU 22 (2016): 77-88.
Petrović, Mišo. “Papal Power, Local Communities and Pretenders: The Church of Croatia,
Dalmatia and Slavonia and the Struggle for the Throne of the Kingdom of Hungary-Croatia
(1290–1301).” Banatica 26 (2016): 11–31.
Petrović, Mišo. “Politicized Religion: The “Contested” Prelates of Croatia, Dalmatia and Slavonia
during the Struggle for the Throne of the Kingdom of Hungary (1382–1409).” In Papers
and Proceedings of the Third Medieval Workshop in Rijeka, eds. by Kosana Jovanović and
Suzana Miljan, 37-53. Rijeka: Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, University of
Rijeka, 2018.
Petrović, Mišo. “From Victory to Defeat: The Political Career of Bishop Paul of Zagreb (1379-
1394).” History in Flux 1 (2019): 22-39.
Petrović, Mišo. “Episcopal Appointments and Careers of the Archbishops of Split (1294-1426). In
Bishops’ Identities, Careers, and Networks in Medieval Europe, ed. by Sarah E. Thomas,
203-21. Turnhout: Brepols, 2020.
Petrovics, István. “Hungary and the Adriatic Coast in the Middle Ages: Power Aspirations and
Dynastic Contacts of the Árpádian and Angevin Kings in the Adriatic Region.” Chronica:
Annual of the Institute of History V (2005): 62-73.
Petrovics, István. “Bishops William of Coppenbach and Valentine of Alsán as diplomats.” In Le
Diplomatie des Etats Angevins aux XIIIe et XIVe Siecles, eds. by István Petrovics and
Zoltán Kordé, 303-11. Rome: Accademia d’Ungheria in Roma, 2010.
Petrovics, István. “A Horváti-lázadás és Pécs.” In A Pécsi Egyházmegye vonzásában: Ünnepi
tanulmányok Tímár György tiszteletére [Attracted by the diocese of Pécs: Festschrift for
CEU eTD Collection

György Tímár] eds. by Tamás Fedeles, István Horváth and Gergely Kiss, 285-91.
Budapest: METEM, 2007.
Picasso, Giorgio. “Erezione, traslazione, unione di diocesi in Italia (sec.XIV-XVI).” In Vescovi e
diocesi in Italia dal XIV alla metà del XVI secolo. Atti del VII convegno di storia della
Chiesa in Italia, vol. I., eds. by Giuseppina De Sandre Gasparini, Antonio Rigon,
Francesco Trolese, Gian Maria Varanini, 661-73. Rome: Herder, 1990.
Polonio, Valeria. “Frati in cattedra: I primi vescovi mendicanti in ambito ligure (1244-1330).” In
Legislatione e societá nell’Italia medievale: per il VII centenario degli statuti di Albenga
(1288), 459-501. Bordighera: Istituto nazionale di studi liguri, Museo Bicknell, 1990.

367
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

Pór, Antal. “Ifjabb Erzsébet királyné, Nagy Lajos király felesége: második közlemény” [Junior
Queen Elizabeth, the wife of King Louis the Great: next announcement]. Századok 29/10
(1895): 902-21.
Praga, Giuseppe. “Baiamonte Tiepolo dopo la congiura.” Atti e memorie della Società Dalmata di
storia patria 1 (1926): 5-67.
Praga, Giuseppe. “Testi volgari spalatini del Trecento.” Atti e memorie della società dalmata di
storia patria II (1927): 36-131.
Praga, Giuseppe. Storia di Dalmazia. Varese: Dall’Oglio, 1981.
Prlender, Ivica. Crkva i država u srednjovjekovnom Dubrovniku [The Church and the State in
Medieval Dubrovnik]. PhD-diss., Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences in Zagreb,
1998.
Prodi, Paolo. “Strutture e organizzazione della Chiesa di Venezia tra il XV e il XVII secolo: ipotesi
di ricerca.” In Atti dell’Accademia delle Scienze dell’Istituto di Bologna, classe di scienze
morali, memorie 61 (1970-71): 1-30.
Purcell, Maureen. Papal Crusading Policy, 1244-1291. The Chief Instruments of Papal Crusading
Policy and Crusade to the Holy Land from the Final Loss of Jerusalem to the Fall of Acre.
Leiden: Brill, 1975.
Purković, Miodrag. Avinjonske pape i srpske zemlje [The pope of Avignon and the Serbian lands].
Požarevac: Jadran, 1934.
Quaglioni, Diego. Storia della Chiesa: La crisi del Trecento e il papato avignonese (1274-1378).
Milano: Edizioni San Paolo, 1995.
Quaglioni, Diego. “Civitas: appunti per una riflessione sull'idea di città nel pensiero politico dei
giuristi medievali.” In Le ideologie della città europea dall'Umanesimo al Romanticismo,
ed. by Vittorio Conti, 59-76. Florence: L. S. Olschki, 1993.
Rácz, György. “The Anjou Dynasty in Hungary (1301-1387).” in A Thousand Years of Christianity
in Hungary, eds. by István Zombori, Pál Cséfalvay and Maria Antonietta De Angelis, 53-
62. Budapest: Hungarian Catholic Episcopal Conference, 2001.
Radauš, Tatjana. “Crnota.” In Hrvatski biografski leksikon [The Croatian bibliographical lexicon].
Zagreb: Leksikografski zavod Miroslav Krleža, 1989.
http://hbl.lzmk.hr/clanak.aspx?id=3768 [accessed: 29/06/2020]
Rando, Daniela. “Le elezioni vescovili nei secoli XII-XIV: Uomini, poteri, procedure.” In Storia
di Treviso, vol II, eds. by Ernesto Brunetta, Daniela Rando and Gian Maria Varanini, 375-
CEU eTD Collection

97. Venezia: Marsilio, 1991.

Ravančić, Gordan. “Grad u hrvatskom srednjovjekovlju” [City in Croatian Middle Ages].
Hrvatska revija 5/2 (2005): 103-113.
Ravančić, Gordan. Vrijeme umiranja: Crna smrt u Dubrovniku 1348.-1349. [The Time of Death:
The Black Death in Dubrovniku, 1348-1349]. Zagreb: Hrvatski institut za povijest, 2010.
Raukar, Tomislav. “Cives, habitatores, forenses u srednjovjekovnim dalmatinskim gradovima”
[Cives, habitatores and forenses in the medieval cities of Dalmatia]. Historijski zbornik 29-
30 (1976-1977): 139-49.
Raukar, Tomislav. Zadar u XV stoljeću: Ekonomski razvoj i društveni odnos [Zadar in the fifteenth
century: Economic development and social relations]. Zagreb: Sveučilište u Zagrebu,
1977.

368
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

Raukar, Tomislav. “Komunalna društva u Dalmaciji u XIV. stoljeću” [The Communal Societies
in Dalmatia in the Fourteenth Century]. Historijski zbornik 33-34 (1980-81): 139-209.
Raukar, Tomislav. “Consilium generale i sustav vladanja u Splitu u XIV stoljeću.” Historijski
zbornik 37 (1984): 245-61.
Raukar, Tomislav. Hrvatsko srednjovjekovlje [Croatian Middle Ages]. Zagreb: Školska knjiga,
1997.
Raukar, Tomislav. “Ser Baptista de Augubio, civis Spaleti.” In Studije o Dalmaciji u srednjem
vijeku [Studies on Dalmatia in the Middle Ages], 285-96. Split: Književni krug, 2007.
Raukar, Tomislav. “Splitsko društvo u Salonitanskoj povijesti Tome Arhiđakona” [The society of
Split as presented in the work Historia Salonitana by Archdeacon Thomas]. In Studije o
Dalmaciji u srednjem vijeku [Studies about Dalmatia in the Middle ages], 215-44. Split:
Književni krug, 2007.
Raukar, Tomislav. “Srednjovjekovni grad na istočnom Jadranu: Prostor i društvo” [Medieval City
on Eastern Adriatic: Area and Society]. In Studije o Dalmaciji u srednjem vijeku [Studies
about Dalmatia in the Middle ages], 11-25. Split: Književni krug, 2007.
Raukar, Tomislav. “Zadarska trgovina solju u XIV. i XV. stoljeću” [The Zaratin salt trade in the
fourteenth and the fifteenth centuries]. In Studije o Dalmaciji u srednjem vijeku [Studies
on Dalmatia in the Middle Ages], 297-56. Split: Književni krug, 2007.
Raukar, Tomislav. “La Dalmazia e Venezia nel basso medioevo.” In Venezia e Dalmazia, eds. by
Uwe Israel and Oliver Jens Schmitt, 63-88. Rome: Viella, 2013.
Regan, Krešimir and Branko Nadilo. “Stare crkve u Dioklecijanovoj palači i neposrednoj blizini”
[The old churches in the Diocletian Palace or in it vicinity]. Građevinar 59 (2007): 635-
44.
Rennie, Kriston. The Foundations of Medieval Papal Legation. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan,
2013.
Ricciardelli, Fabrizio. “Violence and repression in Late Medieval Italy.” In The culture of violence
in Renaissance Italy, eds. by Samuel Kline Cohn Jr. and Fabrizio Ricciardelli, 55-72.
Firenze: Georgetown University, 2012.
Rismondo, Tajma. “Naselja i naseljavanje na splitskom poluotoku od prapovijesti do srednjeg
vijeka” [The Urban Centers and the Settlement of the Penninsula of Split from the
Prehistory until the Middle Ages]. Histria antiqua 11 (2003): 329-40.
Robson, Michael. The Franciscans in the Middle Ages. Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 2006.
Robinson, I. S. “The institutions of the Church, 1073-1216.” In The New Cambridge Medieval
CEU eTD Collection

History, vol. IV/1, eds. by David Luscombe and Jonathan Riley-Smith, 368-460.
Cambrdige: Cambrdige University Press, 2008.
Rodrigues, Ana Maria. “Contribution to the study of the Portuguese urban elites: cathedral and
collegiate canons.” In Shaping Urban Identity in Late Medieval Europe, eds. by Marc
Boone and Peter Stabel, 237-54. Leuven - Apeldoorn: Garant, 2000.
Rollo-Koster, Joëlle. “Civil Violence and the Initiation of the Schism.” In A Companion to the
Great Western Schism (1378-1417), eds. by Joëlle Rollo-Koster and Thomas M. Izbicki,
9-65. Leiden - Boston: Brill, 2009.
Rollo-Koster, Joëlle. Avignon and its Papacy (1309-1417): Popes, Institutions, and Society.
Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, 2015.

369
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

Romano, Dennis. “Venetian exceptionalism: Lay and religious in Venetian communal

governance,” in Churchmen and Urban Government in Late Medieval Italy, c.1200-1450,
ed. by Maria Agata Pincelli, 219-33. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013.
Ronzani, Mauro. “Vescovi e città in età comunale (secoli XII-XIII).” In Le prassi del
giurisdizionalismo negli Stati italiani: premesse, ricerche, discussioni, eds. by Daniele
Edigati and Lorenzo Tanziani, 51-63. Rome: Aracne, 2015.
Ronzani, Mauro. “Un aspetto della circolazione degli ecclesiastici: i trasferimenti dei vescovi
(Italia comunale, secoli XIII-XIV).” In Circolazione di uomini e scambi culturali tra città
(secoli XII-XIV): Ventitreesimo Convegno internazionale di studi, 223-30. Pistoia: Centro
Italiano di Studi di Storia e d’Arte, 2013.
Ronzani, Mauro. “La Chiesa del comune nelle cittá dell'Italia centro-settentrionale (secoli XII-
XIV).” Società e storia 21 (1983): 499-534.
Ronzani, Mauro. “Vescovo e città nell'Italia comunale del Duecento: qualche riflessione.” In Il
Vescovo, la chiesa e la città di Reggio in età comunale, ed. by Lorenzo Paolini, 11-28.
Bologna: Pàtron, 2012.
Ronzani, Mauro. “Vescovi, capitoli e strategie famigliari nell'Italia comunale.” In Storia d'Italia,
Annali 9: La Chiesa e il potere politico dal Medioevo all'età contemporanea, eds. by
Giorgio Chittolini and Giovanni Miccoli, 101-46. Torino: Giuli Einaudi Editore, 1986.
Ronzani, Mauro. “La Chiesa pisana dopo il 1406: arcivescovi e Capitolo della cattedrale.” In
Firenze e Pisa dopo il 1406: La creazione di un nuovo spazio regionale, ed. by Sergio
Tognetti, 137-50. Florence: Leo S. Olschki, 2010.
Rossi, Maria Clara. “Vescovi nel basso medioevo (1274-1378): Problemi, studi, prospettive,”
Quaderni di storia religiosa 7 (2000), 217-54.
Runciman, Steven. The Sicilian Vespers: A History of the Mediterranean World in the Later
Thirteenth Century. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992.
Rupčić, Bonicije. “Makarska biskupija i zapadna Hercegovina do g. 1735.” [The bishopric of
Makarska and Western Herzegovina unti 1735]. Nova et vetera: revija za filozofsko-
teološke i srodne discipline XXXI (1981): 107-36.
Rupčić, Bonicije. “Značenje 'Dubia' fra Bartola iz Alverne iz god. 1372-73. za povijest Bosne”
[The Significance of the Dubia by Friar Bartol from Alverna, written in 1372/73]. Zbornik
Odsjeka za povijesne znanosti Zavoda za povijesne i društvene znanosti HAZU 15 (1988):
65-90.
Ruzičić, Gojko. “Review of Atanazije Matanić, De origine tituli “Dalmatiae ac totius Croatiae
CEU eTD Collection

primas,” The American Slavic and East European Review 13/3 (1954), 449-450.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/2491834 [accessed: 26/09/2017]
Sághy, Marianne. “Aspects of Female Rulership in Late Medieval Literature: The Queens’ Reign
in Angevin Hungary.” East Central Europe 20/23 (1993-1996): 69-86.
Sambin, Paolo. “La 'familia' di un vescovo italiano del Trecento: Ildebrandino Conti,” Rivista di
storia della Chiesa in Italia 4 (1950): 237-47.
Setton, Kenneth. The Papacy and the Levant (1204-1571), volume I: The Thirteenth and
Fourteenth Centuries. Philadelphia, The American Philosophical Society, 1976.
Sladovića, Manoila. Povesti biskupijah senjske i modruške ili krbavske. Trieste: Tiskom
austrianskoga Lloyda, 1856.

370
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

Schein, Sylvia. Fideles crucis – the Papacy, the West, and the recovery of the Holy Land. Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1998.
Schimmelpfennig, Bernhard. “Papst- und Bischofswahlen seit dem 12. Jahrhundert.” In Wahlen
und Wählen im Mittelalter, eds. by Reinhard Schneider and Harald Zimmermann, 173-95.
Sigmaringen: Jan Thorbecke, 1990.
Schimmelpfennig, Bernhard. The Papacy, tran. by James Sievert. New York: Columbia University
Press, 1992.
Schmidinger, Heinrich. “Il patriarcato di Aquileja.” In I poteri temporali dei vescovi in Italia e in
Germania, ed. by Carlo Guido Mor, 141-75. Bologna: Societa editrice il Mulino, 1979.
Schmid, Heinrich Felix. “Die Grundzüge und Grundlagen der Entwicklung des kirchlichen
Zehntrechts auf kroatischem Boden während des Mittelalters.” In Šišićev zbornik, ed. by
Grga Novak, 423-54. Zagreb: Albrecht, 1929.
Schmidt, Ondřej. John of Moravia between the Czech lands and the Patriarchate of Aquileia (ca.
1345-1394). Trans. by Graeme Dibble and Suzanne Dibble. Leiden: Brill, 2020.
Schmitt, Oliver Jens. “Das venezianische Sudosteuropa als Kommunikationsraum (ca.1400-
ca.1600).” In Balcani Occidentali e Adriatico e Venezia fra XIII e XVIII secolo, eds. by
Gherardo Ortalli and Oliver Jens Schmitt, 83-90. Vienna - Venice: Austrian Academy of
Sciences-Venetian Institute of Sciences, 2009.
Schmutz, Richard. “Medieval Papal Representatives: Legates, Nuncios and Judges delegate.”
Studia Gratiana XV (1972): 441-63.
Schmugge, Ludwig. Kirche, Kinder, Karrieren: Päpstilche Dispense von der unehelichen Geburt
im Spätmittelalter. Zurich: Artemis and Winkler, 1995.
Sedamnaest stoljeća zadarske Crkve: Zbornik radova sa znanstvenog skupa o 1700. obljetnici
mučeništva sv. Stošije (Anastazije). Ed. by Livio Marijan. Zadar: Sveučilište u Zadru, 2004.
Sibilio, Vito. “Giovanni XXII e il mezzogiorno: Testimonianze di vita ecclesiastica dai suoi
registri (1316-1324).” Rivista di storia della Chiesa in Italia 56 (2002): 377-399.
Silano, Giulio. “Episcopal Elections and the Apostolic See: The case of Aquileia, 1251-1420.” In
Diritto e Potere Nella Storia Europea, vol. I., 163-94. Florence: Leo S. Olschki, 1982.
Silanos, Pietro. Gerardo Bianchi da Parma: La biografia di un cardinale-legato duecentesco.
Rome: Herder editrice e libreria, 2010.
Silvestri, Angelo. Power, Politics and Episcopal Authority: The Bishops of Cremona and Lincoln
in the Middle Ages (1066-1340). Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing,
CEU eTD Collection

2015.
Skinner, Quentin. The Foundations of Modern Political Thought, I, The Renaissance. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1978.
Skorka, Renáta. “With a Little Help from the Cousins: Charles I and the Habsburg Dukes of
Austria during the Interregnum.” The Hungarian Historical Review: New Series of Acta
Historica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 2 (2013): 243-60.
Smiljanić, Franjo. “O položaju i funkciji župana u hrvatskim srednjovjekovnim vrelima od 9. do
16. stoljeća” [Croatian medieval sources on the status and function of župan (iupanus)
between the ninth and sixteenth centuries]. Povijesni prilozi 33 (2007): 33-100.

371
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

Smith, David Michael. Guide to Bishops' Registers of England and Wales: A Survey from the
Middle Ages to the Abolition of Episcopacy in 1646. London: Royal Historical Society,
1981.
Smith, Thomas. “Papal Executors and the Veracity of Petitions from Thirteenth-Century England.”
Revue d’histoire ecclésiastique 110 (2015): 662-83.
Smith, Thomas. “The Development of Papal Provisions in Medieval Europe.” History Compass
13 (2015): 110-21.
Soranzo, Giovanni. La Guerra fra Venezia e la Santa Sede per il dominio di Ferrara 1308–13.
Città di Castello: S. Lapi, 1905.
Sorelli, Fernanda. “Gli ordini mendicanti.” In Storia di Venezia: Dalle origini alla caduta, vol. II.,
ed. by Cracco Ruggini. Rome: Istituto della Enciclopedia Italiana, 1995.
https://www.treccani.it/enciclopedia/l-eta-del-comune-la-cultura-i-messaggi-la-religione-
gli-ordini-mendicanti_%28Storia-di-Venezia%29/ [accessed 18/02/2019]
Steindorff, Ludwig. Die dalmatinischen Städte im 12. Jahrhundert: Studien zu ihrer politischen
Stellung und gesellschaftlichen Entwicklung. Köln: Böhlau, 1984.
Steindorff, Ludwig. “Stari svijet i novo doba: O formiranju komune na istočnoj jadranskoj obali”
[The Old World and the New Age: On the forming of the commune on the Eastern
Adriatic], Starohrvatska prosvjeta 3/16 (1986): 141-52.
Strgačić, Ante. “Zadarsko-mletački rat godine 1311–1313. i admirala Bellette Giustinijania pod
Zadrom” [The war between Zadar and Venice and the death of Admiral Belletta Giustiniani
at the city of Zadar]. In Pomorski zbornik - povodom 20-godišnjice Dana mornarice, eds.
by Grga Novak and Vjekoslav Maštrović, 1597–1614. Zagreb: Institut za historijske i
ekonomske nauke, 1962.
Strika, Zvjezdan. “Zadar – novo nadbiskupsko i metropolijsko sjedište Dalmacije u kontekstu
političkih prilika 12. stoljeća” [Zadar (Zara) – A new archbishopric and metropolitan see
of Dalmatia in the context of the twelfth century]. Croatica Christiana periodica 52 (2003):
1-45.
Strika, Zvjezdan. “Sinode zadarske crkve u svjetlu povijesnih vrela” [Sinods of the Church of
Zadar]. In Sedamnaest stoljeća zadarske Crkve, ed. by Livio Marijan, 45-104. Zadar:
Sveučilište u Zadru, 2004.
Strohal, Ivan. Pravna povijest hrvatskih gradova [Legal history of Croatian cities]. Vol. I. Zagreb:
JAZU, 1913.
CEU eTD Collection

Stump, Phillip H. The Reforms of the Council of Constance (1414-1418). Leiden: Brill, 1994.
Szende, Katalin. “The Uses of Archives in Medieval Hungary.” In The Development of Literate
Mentalities in East Central Europe, eds. by Anna Adamska and Marco Mostert, 107-42.
Utrecht: Brepols, 2004.
Szentgyörgy, Šandor. Borba Anžuvinaca za prijestolje ugarsko-hrvatsko do prve krunidbe Karla
Roberta [The Angevin struggle for the throne of Hungary-Croatia until the first coronation
of Charles Robert]. Zagreb: C. Albrechta, 1893.
Swanson, Robert Norman. “Bishoprics and parishes.” In The Routledge History of Medieval
Christianity, 1050-1500. London: Routledge, 2015.

372
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

Süttő, Szilárd. “Der Dynastiewechsel Anjou-Luxemburg in Ungarn.” In Sigismund von

Luxemburg: Ein Kaiser in Europa, eds. by Michel Pauly and Francois Reinert, 82-6. Main:
Philipp van Zabern, 2006.
Šanjek, Franjo. Crkva i kršćanstvo u Hrvata: Srednji vijek [Church and Christianity in Croatia
during the Middle Ages]. Zagreb: Kršćanska sadašnjost, 1988.
Šanjek, Franjo. “Komenda” [Commenda]. In Leksikon hrvatskoga srednjovjekovlja, eds. by
Branka Grbavac and Franjo Šanjek, 122. Zagreb: Školska knjiga, 2017.
Šišić, Ferdo. “Zadar i Venecija od godine 1159. do 1247.” [Zadar and Venice from 1159 to 1247].
Rad JAZU 142 (1900): 254-74.
Šišić, Ferdo. Vojvoda Hrvoje Vukčić Hrvatinić i njegovo doba (1350.-1416.) [Duke Hrvoje Vukčić
Hrvatinić and his time]. Zagreb: K. Albrecht, 1902.
Škegro, Ante. Na rubu opstanka: Duvanjska biskupija od utemeljenja do uključenja u Bosanski
apostolski vikarijat [The Diocese of Duvno from foundation to its inclusion in the Bosnian
Apostolic Vicariate]. Zagreb: Hrvatski institut za povijest, 2002.
Škegro, Ante. “Upravitelj dobara Salonitanske crkve” [Procurator Ecclesiae Salonitanae].
Povijesni prilozi 22 (2002): 19-28.
Škegro, Ante. “Naronitanska biskupija (Ecclesia Naronitana)” [The Diocese of Narona].
Hercegovina: godišnjak za kulturno i povijesno naslijeđe 23 (2009): 7-34.
Škegro, Ante. “Domaće crkvene prilike u vrijeme Vignja Miloševića” [The local ecclesiastical
situation during the time of Viganj Milošević]. In Viganj i njegovo doba (Viganj and his
Time], 79-92. Široki Brijeg: Gral, 2004.
Štefánik, Martin. “Die Beschlüsse des venezianischen Consiglio dei Dieci zu den
Attentatsversuchen auf Sigismund aus den Jahren 1413-1420.” In Kaiser Sigismund: Zur
Herrschaftspraxis eines europáischen Monarchen (1368-1437), eds. by Karel Hruza and
Alexandra Kaar, 161-73. Vienna: Böhlau Verlag, 2012.
Štefánik, Martin. “The Morosinis in Hungary under King Andrew III and the Two Versions of the
Death of the queen of Hungary Tommasina.” Historický časopis 56 (2008): 3-15.
Švob, Držislav. “Komes Domald” [Comes Domald]. Naučna misao 3-4 (1955): 5-37.
Šufflay, Milan. Srbi i Arbanasi: Njihova simbioza u srednjem vijeku [Serbs and Arbanas: Their
symbiosis during the Middle Ages]. Beograd: Izdanje seminara za arbansku filologiju,
1925.
Šunjić, Marko. Bosna i Venecija (odnosi u XIV. i XV. st.) [Bosnia and Venice (relations during the
CEU eTD Collection

fourteenth and the fifteenth centuries)]. Sarajevo: HKD Napredak, 1996.

Šunjić, Marko. Dalmacija u XV stoljeću [Dalmatia during the fifteenth century]. Sarajevo:
Svjetlost, 1967.
Tabacco, Giovanni. Forme di potere e struttura sociale in Italia nel Medioevo. Bologna: Il Mulino,
1977.
Tellenbach, Gerd. Church, State and Christian Society at the Time of the Investiture Contest.
Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1940.
Terpstra, Nicholas. Lay confraternities and civic religion in Renaissance Bologna. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1995.
Tierney, Brian. Foundation of the Conciliar Theory: The Contribution of the Medieval Canonist
from Gratian to the Great Schism. Leiden: Brill, 1998.

373
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

Tierney, Brian. “Medieval Canon Law and Western Constitutionalism.” The Catholic Historical
Review 52 (1966): 1-17.
Tierney, Brian. Origins of Papal Infallibility, 1150-1350: A Study on the Concepts of Infallibility,
Sovereignty and Tradition in the Middle Ages. Leiden: Brill, 1972.
Tkalčić, Ivan. “Borba naroda hrvatskoga za anžovinsku kuću proti ugarskomu kralju Arpadovcu,
Andriji III” [The fight of the Croatian people for the house of Angevin against Andrew III,
the Hungarian king of the Árpád dynasty]. Rad JAZU 34 (1876): 1-34.
The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church. Eds. by Frank Leslie Cross and Elizabeth A.
Livingstone. New York: Oxford University Press, 1997.
Theseider, Eugenio Dupré. Problemi del papato avignonese. Bologna: Pàtron, 1961.
Thomson, Williell. Friars in the cathedral: the first Franciscan bishops 1226-1261. Toronto:
Pontifical Institute of Medieval Studies, 1975.
Augustine Thompson, Cities of God: The Religion of the Italian Communes, 1125–1325.
University Park: The Pennsylvania State University, 2005.
Tilatti, Andrea. “Sinodi diocesane e concili provinciali in italia nord-orientale fra Due e Trecento:
Qualche riflessione.” Mélanges de l'école française de Rome 112 (2000): 273-304.
Tocco, Francesco Paolo. “Bonifacio VIII e Carlo II D’Angiò: analisi di un rapport politico e
umano.” In Bonifacio VIII: Ideologia e Azione Politica, ed. by Ilaria Bonincontro, 221-40.
Rome: Istituto storico italiano, 2006.
Tomadakis, Nicolaos. “La politica religiosa di Venezia a Creta verso i cretesi ortodossi dal XIII al
XV secolo.” In Venezia e il Levante fino al secolo XV, vol. II., ed. by Agostino Pertusi,
783-800. Florence: Leo S. Olschki, 1973.
Toma Arhiđakon i njegovo doba [Thomas the Archdeacon and his age]. Eds. by Mirjana Matijević
Sokol and Olga Pergić. Split: Književni krug, 2004.
Trexler, Richard. Public Life in Renaissance Florence. New York: Academic Press, 1980.
Tolić, Željko. “Franjevci u našim krajevima u 13. stoljeću” [The Franciscans in our lands in the
thirteenth century]. Služba Božja 55/3-4 (2015): 233-61.
Tóth, Norbert. “A főpapi székek betöltésének gyakorlata Zsigmond király” [The practice of filling
vacant episcopal sees by King Sigismund]. Gazdaság és Társadalom 4 (2012): 102-18.
Torre, Giuseppe del. “Stato regionale e benefici ecclesiastici: vescovadi e canonicati nella
terraferma veneziana all’inizio dell’età moderna.” Atti dell’Istituto Veneto di Scienze,
Lettere ed Arti 151 (1992-93), 1171-1236.
Torres, Juana. “Las elecciones episcopales y el cursus honorum.” In El obispo en la Antigüedad
CEU eTD Collection

Tardía: Homenaje a Ramón Teja, eds. by Juana Torres, Mar Marcos and Silvia Acerbi,
273-88. Madrid: Trotta, 2016.
Tošić, Đuro. Trg Drijeva u srednjem vijeku [The Market of Drijeva during the Middle Ages].
Sarajevo: Veselin Masleša, 1987.
Toynbee, Margaret. St. Louis of Toulouse and the Process of Canonisation in the Fourteenth
Century. Manchester, University Press, 1929.
Tsougarakis, Nickiphoros. “The Latins in Greece: A Brief Introduction.” In A Companion to Latin
Greece, eds. by Nickiphoros Tsougarakis and Peter Lock, 1-22. Leiden: Brill, 2015.
Tuchman, Barbara. A Distant Mirror: The Calamitous 14th Century. London: Macmillan, 1990.
Ullmann, Walter. A Short History of the Papacy in the Middle Ages. London: Routledge, 2002.

374
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

Ullmann, Walter. The Growth of Papal Government in the Middle Ages: A study in the ideological
relation of clerical to lay power. Strand: Methuen and Co., 1955.
Varanini, Gian Maria. “Signoria cittadina, vescovi e diocesi nel Veneto: l'esempio scaligero.” In
Vescovi e diocesi in Italia dal XIV alla metà del XVI secolo, eds. by Giuseppina de Sandre
Gasparini, Antonio Rigon, Francesco Trolese and Gian Maria Varanini, II, 875-921. Rome:
Herder, 1990.
Vasina, Augosto. “Medieval Urban Historiography in Western Europe (1000-1500).” In
Historiography in the Middle Ages, ed. by Deborah Mauskopf Deliyannis, 317-27. Leiden:
Brill, 2003.
Vasina, Augusto. “Dal Comune verso la signoria (1274-1334).” In Storia di Bologna. 2. Bologna
nel Medioevo, ed. by Ovidio Capitani, 581-651. Bologna: Boninia University Press, 2007.
Veronesi, Attilia. “La legazione del cardinale Napoleone Orsini in Bologna nel 1306.” Atti e
memorie della R. deputazione di Storia Patria per la provincie di Romagna 3/28 (1910):
79-133.
Vežić, Pavuša. “Nadbiskupska palača u Zadru” [The archbishop’s palace in Zadar]. Peristil 22
(1979), 17-35.
Vidili, Massimiliano. “Le nomine vescovili in Sardegna tra elezioni capitolari e riserva pontificia
(1198-1352),” in Hagiologica: Studi per Réginald Grégoire, eds. by Bartolomei
Romagnoli, Ugo Paoli and Pierantonio Piatti (Fabriano: Monastero San Silvestro Abate,
2012), 73-88.
Vodola, Elisabeth. Excommunication in the Middle Ages. Berkley - Los Angeles - London:
University of California Press, 1986.
Vojnović, Branislava. “Sveti Duje - zaštitnik Splita” [Saint Domnius: the Patron Saint of Split].
Etnološka tribina: Godišnjak hrvatskog etnološkog društva 22 (1992): 175-183.
Vones-Liebenstein, Úrsula. “El método prosopográfico como punto de partida de la historiografía
eclesiástica.” Anuario de Historia de la Iglesia, 14 (2005): 351-64.
Wakounig, Marija. Dalmatien und Friaul. Die Auseinandersetzungen zwischen Sigismund von
Luxemburg und der Republik Venedig um die Vorherrschaft im adriatischen Raum.
Vienna: Verband der wissenschaftlichen Gesellschaften Österreichs (VWGÖ), 1990.
Waldmüller, Lothar. Die Synoden in Dalmatien, Kroatien und Ungarn: Von der Völkerwanderung
bis zum Ende der Arpaden (1311). Paderborn: Ferdinand Schöningh, 1987.
Waley, Daniel and Trevor Dean. The Italian City-Republics. New York: Routledge, 2013.
Weakland, John E. “Administrative and Fiscal Centralization under Pope John XXIII, 1316-1334.”
CEU eTD Collection

The Catholic Historical Review 54/1 (1968): 39-54; 54/2 (1968): 285-310.
Weiß, Stefan. “The Curia: Camera.” In A Companion to the Medieval Papacy: Growth of an
Ideology and Institution, eds. by Keith Sisson and Atria A. Larson, 220-38. Leiden: Brill,
2016.
Wertner, Mór. “A Buzád-Hahót nemzetség.” Turul 16 (1898): 19-33, 59-65.
Williman, Daniel. “Schism within the Curia: The Twin Papal Elections of 1378.” Journal of
Ecclesiastical History 59 (2008): 29-47.
Williman, Daniel. The Right of Spoil of the Popes of Avignon, 1313–1415. Philadelphia: The
American Philosophical Society, 1988.

375
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

Wojciechowska, Beata. “The Development of Confraternities in Central Europe in the Middle

Ages and Early Modern Period.” In A Companion to Medieval and Early Modern
Confraternities, ed. by Konrad Eisenbichler, 65-87. Leiden: Brill, 2019.
Wood, Diana. Clement VI: The Pontificate and Ideas of an Avignon Pope. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1989.
Zacchigna, Michele. “Il patriarcato di Aquileia: l'evoluzione dei poteri locali (1250-1420).” In
Studi in onore di Giovanni Miccoli, 91-113. Trieste: EUT Edizioni Università di Trieste,
2004.
Zadar pod mletačkom upravom, 1409-1797 [Zadar under the Venetian rule]. Eds. by Tomislav
Raukar, Ivo Petricioli, Franjo Švelec and Šime Peričić. Zadar: Filozofski fakultet u Zadru
1987.
Zanke, Sebastian. Johannes XXII., Avignon und Europa: Das politische Papsttum im Spiegel der
kurialen Register (1316-1334). Leiden, Boston: Bril, 2013.
Zanke, Sebastian. “Politik und Kommunikation im Konflikt Das Papsttum in Avignon und die
kommunikative(n) Herausforderung(en) des spätmittelalterlichen Europa.” Discussions 11
(2015): 1-21.
Zanke, Sebastian. “Imagined Spaces? The Papal Registers in the Pontificate of John XXII (1316-
1334).” In Images and Words in Exile: Avignon and Italy in the First Half of the 14th
Century (1310 - 1352), eds. by Elisa Brilli, Laura Fenelli, and Gerhard Wolf, 457-474.
Florence: Sismel – edizioni del Galluzzo, 2015.
Zelić, Danko. “Šibenske crkve, postanak grada i utemeljenje šibenske biskupije” [The churches of
Šibenik, establishment of the city and the establishment of the diocese of Šibenik]. In:
Sedam stoljeća šibenske biskupije [Seven centuries of the Bishopric of Šibenik], ed. by
Vilijam Lakić, 791-804. Šibenik: Gradska knjižnica ‘Juraj Šižgorić,’ 2001.
Zsoldos, Attila. “Egész Szlavónia bánja” [The Ban of Entire Slavonia]. In Tanulmányok a
középkorról [Studies on the Middle Ages], ed. by Tibor Neumann, 269–81. Budapest:
Argumentum, 2001.
Zsoldos, Attila. “III. András” [Andrew III]. In Szent István és III. András [Saint Stephen and
Andrew III], eds. by Attila Zsoldos and Zoltán Lenkey, 119-227. Budapest: Kossuth Kiadó,
2003.
Zsoldos, Attila. “Kings and Oligarchs in Hungary at the Turn of the Thirteenth and Fourteenth
Centuries.” Hungarian Historical Review 2/2 (2013), 211-42.
Zsoldos, Attila. “Hrvatska i Slavonija u kraljevstvu Arpadovića” [Croatia and Slavonia in the
CEU eTD Collection

Árpád kingdom]. Povijesni prilozi 17 (1998): 287-96.

Zsoldos, Attila. “A Henrik-fiak: A Héder nembéli Kőszegiek ‘családi története’” [The sons of
Henry: The "Family History" of the Kőszegis from the Kindred of Héder]. Vasi Szemle 64
(2010): 651-61.
Zsoldos, Attila. Családi ügy: IV. Béla és István ifjabb király viszálya az 1260-as években [Family
affair: The enmity between Béla IV and Stephen the Younger King in the 1260s]. Budapest:
MTA, 2007.
Zsoldos, Attila. “Province e oligarchi: La crisi del potere reale ungherese fra il XIII e il XIV
secolo.” In L’Ungheria angioina, 23-58. Rome: Viella, 2013.

376
 DOI number: 10.14754/CEU.2021.02

Zutshi, Patrick. “Inextricabilis curie labyrinthus: The Presentation of Petitions to the Pope in the
Chancery and the Penitentiary during the Fourteenth and First Half of the Fifteenth
Century.” In Päpste, Pilger und Pönitentiarie: Festschrift für Ludwig Schmugge zum 65.
Geburtstag, eds. by Andreas Meyer, Costanze Rendtel and Maria Wittmer-Butsch, 393–
410. Tübingen: De Gruyter, 2004.
Zutshi, Patrick. “Proctors acting for English petitioners in the chancery of the Avignon Popes
(1305-1378). The Journal of Ecclesiastical History 35 (1984): 15-29.
Zutshi, Patrick. “Continuity and discontinuity in the chanceries of Urban VI and Clement VII.” In
Gegenpäpste: Ein unerwünschtes mittelalterliches Phänomen, eds. by Harald Müller and
Brigitte Hotz, 285-314. Vienna: Böhlau Verlag, 2012.
Žugaj, Marijan. “Hrvatska biskupija 1352-1578” [Diocese of Croatia 1352-1578]. Croatica
Christiana periodica 10 (1986): 92-112.
Žugaj, Marijan. “Hrvatska provincija franjevaca konventualaca (1217-1559)” [The Croatian
Franciscan province]. In Hrvatska provincija franjevaca konventualaca nekad i danas [The
Croatian Franciscan province before and today], ed. by Ljudevit Maračić, 11-56. Zagreb:
Tiskara ‘A.G. Matoš’, 1989.
Žugaj, Marijan. “Franjevci konventualci biskupi u senjskoj i krbavskoj ili modruškoj biskupiji”
[The Conventual Franciscans as the bishops of Senj, Krbava or Modruš]. Croatica
Christiana periodica 20 (1996): 45-72.
CEU eTD Collection

377