The Counts of Krk (Frankapan) probably originated from the island of Krk, from where their territorial expansion started. They acquired their earliest possessions, Vinodol and Modruš, in the first ...half of the 13th century. By the 15th century, they had accumulated considerable possessions in Croatia and Slavonia. Thus, they had to appoint officials through whom they could govern and effectively obtain revenues. This paper deals with their clientele in Vinodol. At the top of the hierarchy among the Counts’ clientele was the retinue (familia / familiares), followed by officials (officiales) and servants (servitores). Being a member of one of these groups did not exclude belonging to another, i.e. it was possible for a viscount (vicecomes) to be part of the Counts’ retinue. However, there was no reason for every official (even a viscount) to be part of the retinue. At the time of the Vinodol Law (1288), the highest official in all of Vinodol was the dvornik (magister curiae). Later on, he was replaced by a number of viscounts, who became the highest-ranking officials in the Counts’ apparatus. The number of viscounts varied in the sources through the centuries and it seems that it corresponded to the number of Counts who had the Vinodol County in their possession. The family division of all possessions (among them Vinodol) in 1449 resulted in a new organizational structure and the number of viscounts probably corresponded to the number of Counts who had divided the county among themselves. In the 15th century, as the sources show, there were also a captain (capitaneus) and a vice-captain, the former apparently having the same status as a viscount. The Counts had their own courts, organized on the similar model as the courts of the Hungarian kings. The first in the hierarchy among their courtiers was the dvornik (magister curiae), followed by the castellan (castellanus), the cupbearers (dapifer), and the cellarers (Cr. konobar, Lat. cellerarius). This was probably done in effort to make an impression on others and to compete with the magnates of the kingdom. All Counts of Krk had a similar structure of officials on their estates in the Kvarner littoral.
U radu se razmatra vrsta i ovlasti klijentele
knezova Krčkih. Pobliže, predmet istraživanja je
obitel kućna
u Vinodolskom zakonu, koju se poistovjećuje s
institucijom
familia
(
familiaritas
). Na ...vrhu hijerarhijske
strukture klijentele knezova bila je
obitel
kućna
, a niže su spadali službenici i sluge. Pripadnost jednoj od tih grupa
nije isključivala mogućnost pripadnosti drugoj (službenik, npr. potknežin,
mogao je biti pripadnik družine). Iznose se zapažanja vezana uz službenike, a
posebno o potknežinu, kapetanu i potkapetanu te strukturi kneževskoga dvora.
Struktura potonjega podsjeća na kraljevski dvor. Na kneževskom dvoru
hijerarhijskim redom postojali su dvornik, kaštelan, peharnik i konobar.
Razmatranja se povezuju s organizacijom vlasti knezova Krčkih na njihovim
posjedima te se ukazuje na neke osobitosti u Vinodolu.
The Counts of Krk (Frankapan)
probably originated from the island of Krk, from where their territorial
expansion started. They acquired their earliest possessions, Vinodol and Modruš,
in the first half of the 13th century. By the 15th
century, they had accumulated considerable possessions in Croatia and Slavonia.
Thus, they had to appoint officials through whom they could govern and
effectively obtain revenues. This paper deals with their clientele in Vinodol. At
the top of the hierarchy among the Counts’ clientele was the retinue (
familia
/
familiares
), followed by officials (
officiales
) and servants (
servitores
).
Being a member of one of these groups did not exclude belonging to another,
i.e. it was possible for a viscount (
vicecomes
)
to be part of the Counts’ retinue. However, there was no reason for every
official (even a viscount) to be part of the retinue. At the time of the
Vinodol Law (1288), the highest official in all of Vinodol was the
dvornik
(
magister curiae
). Later on, he was replaced by a number of
viscounts, who became the highest-ranking officials in the Counts’ apparatus. The
number of viscounts varied in the sources through the centuries and it seems
that it corresponded to the number of Counts who had the Vinodol County in their
possession. The family division of all possessions (among them Vinodol) in 1449
resulted in a new organizational structure and the number of viscounts probably
corresponded to the number of Counts who had divided the county among
themselves. In the 15th century, as the sources show, there were
also a captain (
capitaneus
) and a vice-captain,
the former apparently having the same status as a viscount. The Counts had
their own courts, organized on the similar model as the courts of the Hungarian
kings. The first in the hierarchy among their courtiers was the
dvornik
(
magister curiae
), followed by the castellan (
castellanus
), the cupbearers (
dapifer
),
and the cellarers (Cr.
konobar
, Lat.
cellerarius
). This was probably done in
effort to make an impression on others and to compete with the magnates of the
kingdom. All Counts of Krk had a similar structure of officials on their estates
in the Kvarner littoral.
The paper focuses on the position and role of the retinue (familia) and viscounts (vicecomes) of the counts of Krk (from the times of Count Nicholas IV called the Frankapani) in their governance over ...the county of Krk (comitatus Vegle). Special attention has been paid to the circumstances regarding the legal prosecution of potential transgressors who were part of the count’s retinue. There were two lines of government in the county of Krk – that of the counts and that of the local semiautonomous communities. There were five such communities: the city of Krk (civitas Veglae) and four village communities (the universitas castrorum insule encompassed Baška, Vrbnik, Dobrinj, and Omišalj), with two judges in each of them. One of the judges was appointed by the count regent of Krk (there were two branches of the family: Schinella and Vitus) and the other by the community. The former was elected among the members of respective community councils (they also appointed or elected various other officials). Using their viscounts, the counts were constantly trying to impose their candidates for the position of the second judge. Venice was the arbiter concerning this issue, since the county of Krk was among its possessions (temporarily lost in 1358 and fully regained in 1480). Counts were often absent (the Vitus branch of counts had large possessions in Croatia, for example the city of Senj or the counties of Vinodol and Modruš), sometimes for over a decade, during which period they were represented by their viscounts. In the 14th century, there were two count regents (one per family branch) and each of them may have had a viscount in each of the communities (which sums up to ten in the whole county). The viscount exercised the judicial and executive power, which was in a way transferred from the counts’ prerogatives. For example, there are viscounts mentioned by name in the proemium of the Statute of the Krk from 1388 as the initiators of its writing (codification) by the authority given to them by the counts. The Statute was constantly amended with new regulations and the same pattern regarding the viscounts’ initiative was repeated in the 15th century. Furthermore, viscounts could be asked to participate as arbiters in judicial decisions when the two judges could not agree over the verdict. They were also a higher instance to which dissatisfied parties of the judicial procedure could appeal. Some of the viscounts may have been members of the count’s retinue.In this paper, special attention has been paid to the chronology of the viscounts’ service in the county of Krk, for which purpose the author lists the names of all known officials during the second period of the count’s governance (1260 – 1480). Wherever possible, brief biographical data have been added for some of the viscounts. The author speculates that members of two local families of lesser nobility were also employed in the count’s service as viscounts or judges. According to Nada Klaić, the nobility of Krk was determined by the fact that some of its members were exempt from paying certain taxes (although certainly not as a hereditary honour). Counts gave that privilege only to some members of precisely named families. It seems that one of these, the Žudinić family, whose members served the counts for several generations, did not pose a genuine threat in terms of misusing that privilege. With respect to that, Krk was slightly different from the city of Senj. There the counts of Krk – functioning as a counterweight to two strong noble families, those of Raduč and Mojsijević (Viscount David and his family in the 14th century), whose members were frequently officials in the city (judges and viscounts) – created a parallel office, that of a vicar, which was in every respect of its prerogatives equal to the viscount (the former being only higher in hierarchy). In that office, they employed strangers, thus trying to diminish the power of the aforementioned families. There is no trace of such parallelism among the count’s officials in the county of Krk. Nevertheless, some sources do indicate the possible engagement of foreigners as officials, which was a cause for great dissatisfaction and complaints of the Krk communities in Venice at the beginning of the 14th century, continuing up to 1358.
For the city of Rijeka in 15th century there is only one existing notary book written by Antonio de Renno from Modena and it encompasses period from 1437 to 1465. This article deals with topics such ...as: age of boys at the start of apprenticeship, its duration, wages of craftsman apprentices and helpers etc. For comparison it is taken into account extant research regarding this topic for communes in Dalmatia. When compared it seems that situation in Rijeka regarding all of aforementioned topics did not differ from Dalmatian communes. In general, apprentices could learn between 4 and 10 years, all of them had wages in money and some of them got tools for their craft. Wages of apprentices were around 2 ducat per year and of lower amount than those of helpers. The differences in wage were up to 6 or 10 ducats greater in the case of the helpers in some crafts. It seems that this difference was especially significant among the helpers of manufacturers of oars (remerius). This is not so surprising when one takes into account that researchers emphasized that Senj and Rijeka were major ship manufacturing centres in the North Adriatic in the Late Middle Ages. Man-servants (famuli) which served masters outside city, mainly in Apennine peninsula, had greater wages than those who served in Rijeka or in other cities on the East Adriatic. Maid-servants (ancillae) were poorly paid, when compared with male servants. Unfortunately investigation of their status is difficult to conduct because there are only nine existing contracts.
Crteži na marginama knjige riječkog notara i kancelara Antuna de Renna iz
Modene mogu se razvrstati u dvije skupine. U prvoj skupini nalaze se prikazi ruke koja
pokazuje, a drugu čine crteži kojima ...se nastojalo na prvi pogled približiti sadržaj teksta
pokraj kojeg se nalaze. Crteži su vrlo jednostavni i niske umjetničke kvalitete, ali služe
kao pomoćno sredstvo pri snalaženju u tekstu.
Kritička izdanja srednjovjekovnih dalmatinskih statuta počela su se objavljivati prije više od stotinu godina. U prvoj polovini 20. st. napisano je relativno mnogo studija o dalmatinskom statutarnom ...pravu. No, sustavno istraživanje započinje u drugoj polovini 20. st. U prvome redu valja istaknuti kako je prema kraju stoljeća zamjetan sve veći intenzitet istraživanja i objavljivanja kako studija tako i kritičkih izdanja statuta. Rasvjetljavanju pojedinih aspekata dalmatinskog statutarnog prava u posljednjih pola stoljeća ponajviše su pridonijeli brojnim studijama Antun Cvitanić i Lujo Margetić. Iako je i prije ovih autora učinjeno mnogo na tome polju, njihov je rad postao temeljem svakom budućem istraživanju problema iz srednjovjekovne dalmatinske pravne povijesti. Kako je broj kritičkih izdanja statuta pozamašan, kao i broj studija posvećen toj problematici, pokazala se potreba za bibliografskim popisivanjem.
Objavljivanje pravnih izvora poput statuta, zakona, urbara i notarskih knjiga ima u hrvatskoj historiografiji tradiciju dužu od jednog stoljeća. Tijekom druge polovine 19. st. hrvatska ...historiografija je više pažnje posvećivala statutima, zakonima i urbarima s područja Kvarnera. Objavljivanju i istraživanju statuta s područja Istre u istome periodu posvetili su se tamošnji Talijani. S podjednakim intenzitetom takva su se kretanja nastavila i kroz prvu polovinu 20. stoljeća. No, tijekom druge polovine 20. st. dolazi do pojačanog izdavanja ovih vrijednih vrela te sustavnog analiziranja pojedinih pravnih grana srednjovjekovnog prava. Za buduće istraživače predstoji daljnji rad na objavljivanju ovih vrela, a osobito notarskih knjiga čija su objavljena čitanja malobrojna. Ovom se bibliografijom nastoji prikazati dosadašnje stanje istraživanja i s obzirom na relativno velik broj objavljenih izvora i studija.
PDF
