William´s last Temptation

MEDIUM AEVUM QUOTIDIANUM 35 (Krems 1996)
OTIVM 3/1-2 ( 1 995.), str. 1-24, D. Kos, William’s last temptation
UDC: 929.52 (4) „4114“
WILLIAM’S LAST TEMPTATION
Dusan Kos
Slovenska akademija znanosti in umetnosti
Institut za zgodovino „Milko Kos“ Ljubljana
Sluieei se pisanim izvorima i ostacima materijalne kulture, autor nastoji rekonstruirati
pogrebne obicaje plemstva i gradanstva u slovenskim zemljama kasnoga srednjeg
vijeka, te tako pokusava dati odgovor na pitanje: sto se dogodilo s tijelom po
ginulog viteza Vilhelma Svibenskog (Scharfänberga) , o Cijoj sudbini izvori nista ne
govore?
Jhe 1 4′“ of March 1 2 93 was the Saturday before
Judica Sun day. It was a symbolic name for the
battle which happened on that day near the viiJage
Ruden in eastern Carinthia. The battle was a decisive
act in a Iasting conflict between a nobility
party under the leadership of Count Ulrich III of
Heunburg, archbishop of Salzburg, bishop o f
Bamberg and Bavarian duke, and the allies of the
Carinthian duke Meinhard of Tyrol-Gorizia and
Styrian Albrecht of Habsburg.
A division of Carniolan adventurers took part in
the battle on the side of Count Ulrich. Their Ieader
was the perpetually-young William I of Svibno
(Schärfenberg), a friend o f many intriguers, subverters
and rebels between the Danube river and
the Adriatic.1 William was a foliower of Meinhard
until the summer of 1292, when he responded to
the recruitment of the Count of Heunburg. He
was of a furious character, inclined to imitate the
ideal chivalric life and the incredible distortions of
Iwein and Parzival. He was inspired by his own
family. His brother, Leopold I, was among the best
and most progressive minnesängers in the southwest
of the Holy Roman Empire.2 The family of
Svibno was, from the 12′“ to 1 4’h centuries, the most
respected in Carniola. Formally a ministerial family,
they were numerous: a few of the members
were in the local monasteries, some in military
service, some managing local domains, some were
comfortably anonymous.
According to the Statements of a well-informed
contemporary and chronicler, William came at the
beginning of March 1293 with the Carniolan warriors
to help Count U l rich. H e lodged in rhe
Griffen castle, above rhe identically named borough
where the rebels had their seat. The arrival
ofWilliam did not remain unnoticed by the prince,
Oto, who ordered the both court Marshall Henry
Told and ally Conrad of Aufenstein to attack
Griffen. The clash of arms took place on Wallers-
1 A. Jaksch, Geschichte Kärntens bis 1335, II. (Klagenfurt 1929), 123-136.
2 A. Janko, Der von Suonegge, der von Obernburg, der von Scharpfenberg – tri je nemski viteski liriki s slovenskih tal (Obdobjc
srednjega veka v slovenskem jeziku, knjizevnosti in ku!turi, Ljubljana 1988), 1 7 1 etc.
1
MEDIUM AEVlJM QUOTIDIANUM 35 (Krems 1 996)
OTIVM 3/1-2 ( 1 995.), str. 1-24, D. Kos, William’s last temptation
berg near the afore-mentioned castle. The mortally-
wounded William of Svibno was found on the
battle-field, presumably by Conrad of Aufenstein.
The united allies then plundered the domains of
Counts of Heunburg in all provinces and forced
Count Ulrich in June 1 293 to surrender to the
Habsburgs and Tyrolians.3
This introduction about the battle would not be
necessary for discussing death and family if William
had not been killed in the battle. He was a
thorough-bred, „full-blooded“ Carniolan knight
who could link entertainment, chivalraus ideals,
and life. A spectacular death „became“ to his prestige.
William’s popularity was such that even his
ordinary but cruel chivalric death helped to create
a legend. According to the legend the dying
William gave a miraculous ring which guaranteed
him invincibility, success, and fame, to the victorius
Aufenstein. He later certainly possesed those
vinues, as he was richly rewarded for his fidelity
to Meinhard. His family was, to the time of its
extinction in the 70-ies of the 14thcentury, successful
in everything – they took over several Heunburg
domains in east Carinthia and in county of
Savinje. But the last Aufenstein stepped on the
path of treason and the family became extinct.4
William’s pictorial death was in that time and social
environment not unusual. But the legend that
sprung up immediately after the event, did not
connect his death with the usual last wishes of a
dying person, apologising, regreting and praying
to God for indulgence and redemption, but with
the question of fidelity and instructive consequences
when breaking it. His remaints were not
l Jaksch, Kärnten (as note 1 ) , 1 36-143.
mentioned (where his corpse was buried). Ideal
chivalric heroes did not deal too much with such
matters. But in actual everyday life such matters
were constantly present in the perception of a
medieval knight. The thought of sudden death on
the battle-field, without the blessing of a priest and
the after-death happening to the soul were not
unknown even to the most brave and became in
the 1 2th and 13th centuries painful and rich with
images based on bad experiences in life.5 The
knights understood the images of the eternal
curse, and from the 14th century on „Dances of
death“, which drew attention to death, where
death had an image and was even in a mood to
speak about the urge of dying no matter what
one’s status, began to occur in art and literature.6
For a safe return from batdes it was a habit at the
time of William’s death to donate to the local
Church institutions before going to battle. A
known donor was baron Leopold of Zovnek who
– before going to the decisive battle against the
Czech king Otokar II (Marchfeld – J edenspeigen,
26thJuly 1278) – donated patronage rights to the
monastery in Gornji Grad „in fear of dying“.7 A
wish for a safe return home is even more noticable
with those going to the Crusades. They would
regularly give donations to the Church and frequently
they did not return: e.g. Bernard of Spanheim,
the Margrave of Podravje, who died in an
ambush by Turks in November, 1 14 7 at Laodiceia
in Asia Minor.8 Intensive thought was devoted
to death in the context of assuring the salvation of
the souls of the whole family, including the
knight’s relatives.
• MGH SS (Deutsche Chroniken V /2) Ottokars Österreichische Reimchronik, lines 62512-6291 5 .
5 For example in the medieval remake of the story of Barlaam and J osafat in the manuscript of Sticna from thc second half
of the 12’h century (translation to: Srednjevesko slovstvo. Izbrano delo, Ljubljana 1972, 8 1 -82). Compare P.-J. Schuler, Das
Anniversar. Zu Mentalität und Familienbewußtsein im Spätmittelalter (Die Familie als sozialer und historischer Verband,
Sigmaringen 1987), 90 etc.
6 In Slovenia, for example, the famous „Death dance“ in Hrastovlje, in Istria from the end of the 15’h century, and the German
poem from the time after 1431 (Srednjevesko slovstvo, as note 5, 185-189). Regarding the quesrion of notion and experience
of death, at least thesedassie works should be mentioned: J. Delumeau, Le peche et Ia peur. La culpabilisation en
Occident (Paris 1983); A. Tenemi, Il scnso della morte e l’amore della vita nel rinascimento (1957); P. Aries, I.:Homme devam
Ia mort (Paris 1 977); M. Vovelle, La Mon et l’Occident de 1300 a nos jours (Paris 1 983); N. Ohler, Sterben und Tod im
Mittelalter (München 1990).
7 Nadskofijski arhiv (Archbishopal Archive) Ljubljana (=N[AL), a document, 1278. Zovnek.
8 F. Kos, Gradivo za zgodovino Slovencev v srednjem veku 4 (=GZS; Ljubljana 1 915), No. 245.
2
MEDIUM AEVUM QUOTIDIANUM 35 (Krems 1996)
OTIVM 3/1-2 ( 1 995.), str. 1-24, D. Kos, William’s last temptation
Henry Told ordered the wounded William moved
by horse to V ölkermarkt, but William died on the
way.9 The chronicler did not give an explanation
of the further fate of the corpse. Simplest is to
think that his comrades or members of his family
transporred him to the mighty family castle Svibno
(Schärfenberg) in Carniola. The cast!e was
depicted 400 years late r – by order of the polyhistor
J. W Valvasor – from three sides, although it
was in ruins by then. 10 The castle had a richly-ornamented
chapel, where the corpse of t h e deceased
could be layed. It is possible that he was
buried by family, relatives, friends and subordinate
knights in the chapel or in the church of St. Cross,
which is 􀨴nder the castle and was at that time richly-
ornamented with frescoes. In it Valvasor managed
to see the tombstone ( epitaph?) of William
IV of Svibno from 1 397.11 The funeral ceremony
could have been perfomed by the priest Berthold
(mentioned in 1 2 82) or his successor Conrad
(mentioned in 1 3 0 1 together with his assistant
Peter) .12
This scheme of otherwise undocumented activities
of William’s family (after his death) is based
on logical presumptions. But are the activities at
the death of a medieval knight not easier to reconstruct
by taking into consideration general habits
ruling the noble dass? Already with the presumption
of localisation of funeral ceremonies we come
across the possibility that William could be buried
in o n e of the monas teries nearby, like his
brother Ulrich a few decades earlier in the nearest
monastery in Sticna, 30 km south-west from
Svibno (see in continuation). Entering into the
unknown should begin from tbe final act of human
fate – the funeral.
The funerals of medieval noblemen differed due
tO the social and economic capacities of tbe individual
and the family, and partly due to accidental
circumstances (e.g. death far from h o me ) .
Descriptions o f funerals i n Slovene territory are
rare before the emergence of exaustive testaments
‚ MGH V/2 (as note 4), lines 62372-62380.
in the middle of the 1 6’hcentury. We may presume
William’s funeral was undoubtedly more luxurious
than the majority of funerals of Carniolan noblemen
of that time, but far less dramatic and mysterious
than the funeral of the afore-mentioned
Margrave Bernard of Spanheim in 1 1 4 7 in Asia
Minor. It was not comparable with the solemn and
symbolic funeral after the last Count of Celje Ulrich
rr, who was in 1456 buried in the church of
the Minorite monastery in Celje. There is written
evidence on the event by a contemporary, a Minorite,
who wrote about a two-part ceremony in
which tears mixed with prayers, politics with symbolism,
glamour with emotion. The family of the
deceased, his friends and subordinates were present.
Count Ulrich was murdered near Belgrade on the
ninth of November, 1 45 6 by order of Wladislaw
Hunyadi. His corpse was put into a coffin in Belgrade
and transporred to Celje, where bis family
buried him in the family tomb. The princely funeral
was probably limited tO the family, knights,
and servants. Thirty days after bis death another
ceremony took place in the presence of the invited
(missions, officials) which had primarily a symbolic
meaning: with it the family of the Counts of
Celje formally became extinct. Another valuable
coffin was made and put into the middle of the
church (empty of course), and surrounded with a
circle of t hick candles. Around t h e coffin and
within the circle of candles stood twelve poor
people dressed in black with candles in their hands.
In front of them a provisional altar was built,
above which the Minorites sung vigils. After the
presentation of gifts to the altar the servants
brought five flags with helmets and shields representing
five counties of the Counts of Celje.
Twelve pages in black mourning covers rode in,
before them an armoured man. After the symbolic
sacrifice of flags, helmets, shields, and horses, the
armoured man threw hirnself to the ground and
someone cried at him: „Counts today and never
again!“ and broke the flag on the armoured man.
The solemn silence was then ceased by the con-
10 J.W. Valvasor, Topographia ducatus Carniolae modernae (Wagensperg 1679), 235.
11 J.W. Valvasor, Die Ehre des Herrzogtums Crain (Nürnberg 1689), XI, 498 etc.; VIII, 8 0 1 .
12 B. Otorepec, Gradivo za zgodovino Ljubljane v srednjem veku (=GZL), VII/5. Arhiv samostana Sti-na (Archive of the
monastery in Sticna, =AST), transcript of a document from 1301 I 25.
3
MEDIUM AEVUM QUariDIANUM 35 (Krems 1996)
OTIVM 3/1-2 ( 1 995.) , str. 1-24, D. Kos, William’s last temptation
cealed sadness and crying of the present. 13 From
this description the duality of the funeral ceremonies
can be seen: the actual funeral in the family,
soon after death, and the symbolic burial and endi
n g of t h e family only after distant relatives,
friends, and others have gathered. For that purpose
the ceremonials used the thiertieth day, which
concluded the t i m e o f deep, even obligatory
mourning. Typical of the chronicler, despite his
repute and closeness with the family, he did not
describe in detail the actual funeral. Obviously the
actual funeral and family mourning were limited
to a number of people, who did not mention the
event to the chronicler; he did not consider it appropriate
to write down. Neither did he mention
the funeral speech by the famous humanist Johannes
Rot, which was among the first public
humanist speeches in Central Europe, or even,
complicated as it was, resume it. In his speech Rot
mentioned the pain over Ulrich’s death being distributed
amid the rulers, serfs, and the widow, the
Church, the anti-Turk crusade army etc. All mentioned
were to mourn; his killer was cursed. The
speech was full of allegories, exaggerations and
praise of the deceased. In the second part Rot
comforted them: consolation was interlaced with
ancient examples, and finally approached the Bible
and God.14
The after-the-funeral ceremonies for Count Ulrich
of Celje were thus completely luxurious, and
partly even humanistically conceived. The Iimitation
of mourners to a small number, the „individuality
of death,“ and closing the event behind the
walls were, in the middle of the 15’h century, frequent
among the Slovene nobility. The beginnings
may originate from the middle of the 1 4’h century.
In 1 2 6 1 the custom was completely diferent:
the whole Carniolan nobilit y, with the Iandlord
and Carinthian duke Ulrich III gathered on the funeral
of Ulrich I of Svibno, William’s brother. The
duke’s notary eternized the event in a datation
formula from a document issued for the monastery
in Sticna (in coenobio Sithicensi in sepultura
Ulrici de Scherpenberch).15 The Austrian duke
Frederic I who died in 1 1 9 8 on his way from the
Holy Land, had at his death bed „many noble cotravellers“
( noblemen, Church dignitaries). 16
The individualisation or transfer of the relation to
God to a more intimate Ievel at the end of the
Middle Ages amid the Slovene nobility is demonstrated
in apparently practical matters, for example:
permissions for private, portable altars which
were practical for long journeys. Permissions were
rare, given to those who could buy them, for example
to the Counts of Celj e . 1 7 A mark of distance
from the religious life of the masses, and the
transfer of faith into a narrow circle, was permission
for personal – that is, family – con fessors who
usually lived in the castles and were preparing
them for the meeting with God. Some of thes
priests had tbe right to give absolution for all sins.
Family confessors were common among the midnobility,
bur only few of them had license from the
Church authorities. 18
The funerals of Count Ulrich II of Celje, Ulrich
of Svibno, and of other noblemen of that time had
primarily one thing in common with the first description
– a wish to be buried in a chosen church
H Kronika grofov Celjskih (The Chronicle of the Counts of Celje) (edited and translated by L.M. Golia, Maribor 1972), 47-
48.
14 P. Simoniri, Humanizem na Slovenskcm in slovenski humanisti do srede XVI. stolerja (Ljubljana 1979), 24-37 (publication
of the speech on pages 239-244).
15 F. Schumi, Urkunden- und Regestenbuch des Herzogtums Krain TI. (=URBKr II, Laibach 1 884 u. 1 887), No. 278. It is
interesting that in the transcription of the necrology of Sricna there are only few persons stated in the section „buried in
the monastery church“, from Svibno only George. Then again George is written in rogether wirh Ulrich I and William I
among those, who aretobe remembered, although they were not buricd i n the monasrery (Arhiv Repuhlikc Slovcnije =
ARS, Zbirka rokopisov (Archive of rhe Republic of Slovenia, Collection of Manuscripts), P. Puze!, Idiographia sive rerum
memorabilium monasterii Sitticensis, 1 7 1 9, 601-602, 605).
16 GZS 4, No. 50.
17 ARS, Documents of Counts of Celjc (=ARS CE) II, 1 3 84 V 3. Celje; 1 4 1 2 XI 6 Rome; 1439 IV 2. Mainz.
18 For example for the Auersperger: F. Komatar, Das Schlossarchiv in Auersperg. Mitteilungen des Musealvereins für Krain
18 (1904), No. 78 (pg. 169); rhe same in: Carniola l ( 1 9 10), No. 499 (pg.499). For the Counts of Celje: ARS CE II, 1439
IV 2. Main7.; 1451 I 19. Rome.
4
:MEDIUM AEVUM QUOTIDIANUM 35 (Krems 1996)
OTIVM 3/ 1 -2 (1995.), str. 1-24, D. Kos, William’s last temptation
or monastery. Of decisive impact were one’s wishes,
not coincidence or traditional posession of a
tomb in an object, which all was arranged by contract
before one’s death.
U p to the 1 2 ‚h century a rule was common – a
person could not be buried in ehe local church or
graveyard. When a nobleman died at home he
could not hope for a more distinguished church
building. The permission of popes to allow hurials
of Iai es in monasteries have, from the 1 2’h century,
caused massive foundings of family tombs in
monasteries. Laics hoped for permanent and efficacious
prayers for their sinful souls, and did not
forget to tend graves. As ehe parish churches were
thus losing their income, they were in principle
allowed to divert a quarter or a third of ehe funeral
incomes from ehe monasceries. I n 1 205 ehe
Aquileian patriarch Wolfger gave permission for
burials in ehe building of the provoseship in J urkloster.
Half of the incomes donated for ehe burial
would belong to the canons and half to ehe parish
church. In ehe announcement of ehe foundin􀨵0 of
a monastery in Velesovo in 1 238, issued by ehe
patriarch of Aquileia, it is mentioned that all laics
„who did their duty to their parish church“ may
be buried in the monastery. Which meant chey had
to donate t0 the church as a subseitute for its lost
funeral incomes.19
Notices on burials in church bulidings are numerous
in written sources . There are also many material
remaints, primarily tombstones, which were
subsequently brought from ehe nearby graveyard,
and epitaphs which bore no connection to the
actual grave.20 Many Slovene medieval churches
were in ehe N ew era being rebuilt or newly built.
The tombswnes shared their fate: at ehe end of ehe
lS'“century, Martin, ehe ab bot of Sticna, had some
nobile tombs transferred from ehe chapel outside
ehe walls into ehe monastery church. He erdered
ehe use o f some of ehe damaged tombstones eo
Strengehen the walls, after ehe Turks robbed and
devastaeed ehe monastery in 1 4 7J.21 Often ehe
tombstones were made when ehe subscriber was
still alive, and they would forget to engrave ehe
date of the death, or they did so many years afterwards.
In general ehe trend went to moving ehe
grave near the altar: at first the Order rules kept
the noblemen in the cross passage, then opened
the doors of churches and side chapels, and in thc
Late Middle Ages allowed the deceased ehe ultimate
rest in the main aisle near ehe altar. The fact
is that medieval sources of testamentary character
for the territery of Sievenia do not mention
ehese memorials of an individual, one’s immortal
soul, and the dialogue beeween the deceased and
the observer of ehe tombseone. Neither are rhey
mentioned in testaments from ehe end of ehe 1 5’h
century. The rombstones guarded ehe corpse until
Judgment day and reminded the successors and
contract trustees (clergymen and monks) of ehe
person they were to take care of. Thus – by their
judgment – ehe soul of ehe deceased was satisfied.
By analogy from ehe neighbouring countries ehe
prevailing tombstone form in ehe territory of Sievenia
– wich those rare noblemen and Church
dignitaries buried there – until ehe mid-U’h century
was the simple square one, not necessarily
surrounded with an inscription inclunding ehe
name and official titlesY Their simple subseieures
were ornamented death shields, not preserved in
our territory. At ehe end of ehe 13’h century knightly
tombstones wich coats-of-arms, combined wich
a sword, a helmet, decorations, and/or a cross,
emerged. Until ehe 1 4’h century they would have
Latin – and from the lS’h century German- inscriptions
(name, date of death), rich wich helmet
decorations, tendrils, whatever was fashionable at
the time. Such was perhaps the tombstone of
William IV of Svibno from 1397, in the church in
Svibno (by Valvasor only coats-of-arms represent-
19 F. Kos in GZS 5 (Ljubljana 1928), No. 9 1 . J. Mlinaric, Karruziji zice in Jurklosrer (Maribor 1991) 1 1 5-1 1 6 462. URBKr II
No. 1 03.
‚ ‚ ‚
1° Compare dassie work: K. Bauch, Das mittelalterliche Grabbild. Figürliche Grabmäler des 1 1 . bis 15. Jahrhundert in Europa
(Berlin-New York 1 976).
21 ]. Gregoric, Cistercijani v Sticni (Ljubljana 1980), 65.
22 Cases from the former Austrian part of the monarchy in: KunsthistOrisches Atlas, X Abt.: Sammlung von Abbildunoen
mirtelalrcrlicher Grabdenkmale aus der österreichische-ungarischen Monarchie I, II (K.K. Centrai-Commission zur Erforschung
und Erhaltung der Kunst- und histOrischen Denkmale, Wien 1 892), tables I (pictures 1-8) and III (pct. 4-6).
5
MEDIUM AEVUM QUOTIDIANUM 35 (Krems 1996)
OTIVM 3/1-2 (1995.), str. 1-24, D. Kos, William’s last temptation
ed on it); but certainly the tombstone o f bis distant
descendant Ulrich, who lived in Lower Austria
and was buried in 1 503 in the parish church at
Waidhafen on Ybbs.
Appurtenances of one’s family, one’s anonymity,
as well as the individualisation of a person in the
epitaph, were equally expressed on such tombstones.
Even in the New era such tombstones – in
Central Europe – were still significant, as the reputation
of a family was more important than that
of the individual. The coat-of-arms spoke about
a family. Pride contesred the portrayal or idealised
immage of the deceased and symbolically replaced
it with the coat-of-arms. Thus epitaphs on such
tombstones are about one’s hereditary (family) tides
and occupations, and not about one’s personal
merits.23 Some epitaphs and tombstones in the 1 4’h
century were made for the busband and wife together,
bu t many years, or even decades, before or
after their death. Particularly from the 1 4’h century
on, the wife finally stepped out of anonymity
with her own tombstone and in death too publically
proved „equality“ with the busband before
God and before the public („memory“) .24 In the
1 5’h century, autonomaus female heraldic,25 and
from the second half of the 1 5’hcentury on autonomaus
female epitaphs and tombstones, were frequent
– with a picture of the deceased in a fashionable
cutfit and with a small family coats-ofarms.
26
The tombstone of the Minnesänger Ulrich of Lichtenstein
(t1275), in the parish church in Frauenburg,
in Styria, was heraldic too. 27 His tombstone
was a remanufactured, yellowish, antique Roman
stone with a still-visible inscription partly covered
with the coat-of-arms of Lichtenstein and a cross
above it. The new epitaph is simple: „Here lies
Ulrich, the true inheritor o f this house.“. Nothing
about his art activity, reputation, provincial
marshall and governor general of a province, even
no year of death; what was important was the appurtenance
to „the house“, that is, family. Considering
Ulrich’s reputation, more than that was not
necessary, as everyone knew him. This phenomena
– not emphasizing merits and titles with farnaus
and important persans on their tombstones, and
enumerating the mentioned with the less-known
(unfulfilled ambition and lesser memory) – is still
· known today. The obviously deliberate use of
Roman stone reminded one of Ulrich’s extravagance,
as if Ulrich wanted to compare hirnself with
antique heroes; the (already) German language in
the epitaph, which reflected ehe secular and chivalric
self-confidence of the poet in popular language.
It seems the combstone was a compromise
between the expectations of the family and personal
wishes. Belanging to the family and blood
prevailed over Ulrich’s wishes in agreeing the place
of ultimate rest, but not regarding the traditional
family tomb. We should consider the combstone
to be a complete reflection of the wishes of the
family. In that case we may presume the family bad
emphasized bis blood appurtanance with special
pride.
Completely diferent is the epitaph of the younger
poet of Uirich, Oswald o f Wolkenstein (1 1 445),
in Brixen (Tyrol): only supplements – sword bebind
the belt, spurrs, helmet in the left, and flag
in the right band and three coats-of-arms under
the feet – remind one of the knightly status of the
bare-headed poet.28
21 E. Cevc, Kiparstvo na Slovenskem med gotiko in barokom (L jubljana 1 981), 48 etc.
24 E. Ce.vc, Srednje􀃋e5ka p􀃌astika na s. lovens􀃍em (Ljub. ljana 1963), 1 1 4, 200-201 , 298-300, 306 (some knighthood examples in
KonJICC, Braslovce, CelJe, MekmJC, LjublJana, Tri.1c, Ptuj, Ptujska gora). More cases in: Atlas (as note 22) tables III (pct.
1,2), V (pct. 3, 4), VIII (pct. 1 , 2, 3, 5, 6), IX (pct. 1 􀥗 2, 5-􀃎), XIII (pct. 4-6), XV (pct. 3, 4), XX (pct. 2, 5), XXVII (pct. 􀁁‘ 3, 5).‘ XXIX (pct. 1, 2), XXX (pct. 2, 6 – of Pcsmca m PtuJ), XXXI (pct. 3, 5), XL (pct. 8 1 ) , XLIV (pct. 1 , 4, 5, 7 – Reitzer
111 Ptu)), XLV (pct. 1 , 2, 4, 5- Eggenbergcr in Radgona, 6), L (pct. 1-8), LVII (pct. 3, 4), LVIII (pct. 5 – Svibno in \Xfaidhofen).
2s Examples in: Atlas (as note 22), table XXX (pct. 3), XXXI (pct. 1 ) , L (pct. I, 4).
26 Examples in: 􀃏das (as note 22), .rable 􀃐XVII (pct. 1, 4), XLIV (pct. 2 – Hohenwarter woman in Celje), XLV (pct. 3), XCVI
(pct. 1 – two s1sters Neuburger 111 Celje). Compare: E. Cevc, Poznogotska plastika na Slovenskem (LJ. ublj’ana 1 970) 22-24
234-236.
‚ ‚
27 Atlas (as note 22), table V (pct. 5).
28 Atlas (as note 22), table XXIX (pct. 3).
6
MEDIUM AEVUM QUOTIDIANUM 35 (Krems 1996)
OTIVM 3/ 1 -2 ( 1 995.), str. 1-24, D. Kos, William’s last temptation
The occurance of a full figure of the deceased, in
harness and with arms, even with the wife (which
could mean a special emotional relation between
them) is rare from the 1 3’h century on, and more
frequent from the beginning of the 1 4’h century.
One such example is in the church of St. Areh ( =
Heinrich) on Pohorje: a plate is built into a newer
pedestal, with no epitaph, presenting a reclining
king with a crown and swords in both hands instead
of a cross, and in long clothing. The figure
is stiff, his eyes dead; thus eternity is empasized.
The tombstone is from the 1 3’h century, and is
actually only a memorial plate, an epitaph of no
connection with the grave, probably ordered by
the knight Henry of Rogatec as a settlement with
the monastery in St. Paul in Carinthia, which enforced
the cult of St. Kunigunde, the wife of the
Emperor St. Henry II (973 – 1 024) . The immage is
supposedly the Emperor.29
From the 1 5’h century on knightly tombstones –
reflecting their character or, at least their desired
image – spread among the middle class of the nobility.
The standing (as real cover of tomb lying)
dead figures were usually accompanied by a coatof-
arms in the hand or at the feet as some visual
identification mark for the illiterate, a legend in
German language, and even mythological animals
and those symbolizing knightly virtues ( dog – fidelity,
dragon – earthly wickedness, angel – soul
and heaven etc.).30 The 1 5’h century was the time
when the figure began to lose anonymity. The head
was frequently without a helmet ( or it was open),
the faces looking at us are of the live knights, only
the eyes are usually without pupils, blind, dead, as
with the knights under the tombstones. The
change first occured on epitaphs (standing plates),
and later on horizontal tombstones. Such was the
tombsrone of Frederic, the last Iord of Ptuj, who
died in 1 43 8 and was buried in the Minorite mon-
29 Cevc, Srednjeveska (as note 24), 63-64.
astery in Ptuj at 35 years old: a knight with a sad,
realistic expression, as if he were aware that with
him the family was extinct; he is with shield and
has a fashionable cover on his head; he is standing
on a dog, on each side of his feet is one family coatof-
arms; in his hand a s pear, above the head a
skilled gothic baldachin with a male head on each
side.31 The dog – fidelity, a youthful face with a
cover, but i n harness – a knightly call, but of prerennaisance
principles; the family is hidden in
small coats-of-arms at the bottom of the tombstone.
Individuality was at the time of Frederic
already developed. Its application into the political
life of Styria probably Iead to the extinction of
the family. Similar, but less luxurious and more
lively, was the figure of Bernard o f Svibno who
died in 1 5 13, another member of a family which
migrated into Austria, and was buried in Lorch in
Upper Austria.32 Such types of images of knights,
richer in rennaisance style, more realistic, were
preserved in the territory of Slovenia far into the
New era. As with Bernard, their faces revived – the
eyes are lively, as if the dead (their souls) lived in
expectation of redeem and eternal life.33
Traditionally, famous monasteries allowed generous
tombs for noble families. They received – and
expected to – more and more gifts. A poor nobleman
could manage a donation for his funeral and
the maintenance of his grave in the monastery, but
his descendants could not continue. The descendants
of founders of monasteries and other benefactors
were not neccessarily buried in a traditional
institution. The decay of the nobile class in the
Late Middle Ages was reflected in. those forgetting
family burial tradition and in the growing individualisation
when seeking a place for final rest. In
other words, this is one among many marks for the
decay of tight kindred connections in the 1 3’h and
1 4’hcenturies and the closing into the family in the
1 5’h and 1 6’h centuries.
10 Examples in: Atlas (a􀏀 nute 22), table V (pct. 6) , XIII (pct. 1 ) , XV (pct. 1), XX (pct. 3, 4), XLIV (pct. 3, 6), LVII (pct. I,
2 – Hohenwaner in Celje). Compare: Cevc, Poznogotska (as note 26), 71 -72.
31 Examples in: Atlas (as note 22), table XV (pct. 1), XX (pct. 4), XXIV (pct. 1 – of Ptuj in Ptuj, 2). Similar is the tombstone
of Jorg Schweinpeck in Ljutomer, compare: Cevc, Srcdnjevdka (as note 24), 301 -304.
l2 Atlas (as note 22), table LXXXVII (pct. 4).
33 Examples in: E. Ccvc, Renesancna plastika na Slovenskcm. Zbornik za umetnostno zgodovino n.v. VII ( 1 965), 129 etc.;
same, Poznogotska (as note 26); same, Srednjcveska (as notc 24), 1 8 1 – 1 82, 246 etc. ctc.; S. Vriser, Renesancni vitdki nagrobniki
v Sloveniji. Zbornik za umetnostno zgodovino n.v. VII (1965), 195 etc.
7
l\1EDIUM AEVUM QUOTIDIANUM 35 (Krems 1996)
OTIVM 3 / 1 -2 ( 1 995.), str. 1 -24, D. Kos, William’s last temptation
It was not easy for the mass of the lower nobile
class to enter reputable monasteries if they were
not local inhabitants. The doors of village churches
were open to them, or more frequently a respectable
place in the cemetery. Reputable citizens
would seek final rest in churcbes of poorer Orders.
If titled, they preferred the company of tbe nobility
in monasteries of old Orders in the country.
Members o f old noble descents from tbe country
would have tbems elves buried i n bigger towns
from the 1 5′“century on: such churches were the
parisb cburch in Lekofja Loka, and since 1 46 1 , tbe
catbedral in Ljubljana. The castle chapels became
suitable for burials in the 1 6′“ and 1 7′“ centuries,
possibly among protestants who wanted to await
their salvation witb tbe orthodox and not witb
catbolics who opposed their burials in traditional
family tombs.34
It is thus understandable tbat tbe contemporaries
sought and found ideal care for the soul in tombs
in monastery churches wbich they bad to reserve
during tbeir lifetimes. The family o f tbe deceased
could, with dificulty, enforce a better tomb – usually
with extraordinary gifts. The „system for ordering“
tambs was simple: the donor would ensure
a tomb for hirnself and tbe family with a donation
which was usually a farm, a vineyard, or the value
of s􀨳veral farms. The amount of the expense depended
on the social status of the nobleman, the
reputation of tbe institution, and the position of
the grave. Such system diverted the poorer nobility
from reputable old monasteries and directed
them to the „low scale“ convents and monasteries
of poor Orders. The founders of monasteries
have assured thems elves tombs in the founding
documents; de iure the act bad to be specially regulated.
Consistent performance was, of course,
connected with the problern of funeral incomes.
With the deceased Herrand of Kamnik, a Black friar
in Ptuj, only the allowance of the Velesovo prioress
in 1 2 77 enabled bis family to bury Herrand
in the parish church in Kamnik, and not in the
family tomb in the monastery in Velesovo.35
After death of the „claimant,“ the monks were to
tran:;fer, at their own expense, the donor’s corpse
to the monastery (if the deceased did not die too
far away) , prepare him for burial, place the coffin
in the cburcb, pray at its side and, if possible, bury
him in a coffin on the third day, not on a board and
dressed in a sheet. The ceremony was accompanied
by a mass for the dead, absolution, kindling
incense, and sprinkling of the blessed water to diminish
the punisbment for sins; exposing the symbols
of the knight (shield, helmet) on the altar or
before the coffin. The procession to the cemetery
– when the tomb was not in the church – was solemn,
accompanied with prayers and psalms. The
final act of the burial – laying the coffin into the
grave (sometimes symbols of knighthood were
added) – was loca.ly conditioned, for example
throwing soil on the coffin three times, blessing
the grave and similar acts. Finally the monks performed
with the relatives the funeral repast ( one
seventh and one thirtieth), which meant a formal
conclusion of mourning and gave way to arguements
on legacy among the relatives.36 The maintenance
of the grave was in the documents – settled
before or after the burial – and frequently
precisely defined, considering the social status of
the nobleman and the amount o f the donation
( eternal light above the grave, rarely eternal mass,
usually anniversary). Turbulent changes within the
34 D. Kos, Plemiska darovanja cerkvenim ustanovam (s posebnim ozirom na 14. stoletje). Zgodovinski casopis 47 ( 1 993), 42-
43. Dividing the burial grounds to cemeteries and inside churches regarding renking of the nobility and with this connected
social diferences are known to D. Rübsamen for the parts of east Germany: Kleine Herrschaftsträger im Pleissenland.
Studien zur Geschichte des mitteldeutschen Adels im 13. Jahrhunden (Mitteldeutsche Forschungen 95, Köln-Wien 1987),
453-455, and H. Lentze for Vienna: Begräbnis und Jahrtag im mittelalterlichen Wien. Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung für
Rechtsgeschichte, Kanonistische Abteilung 67 (1950). On citizenry, castle chapels and burials see M. Zvanut, Od viteza
do gospoda (Ljubljana 1 994 ), 1 1 4 etc.
35 Kos, Darovanja (as note 34), 43. ARS, Zbirka listin (Collection of Documents =ARS ZL), 1 2 77 IV 26. Kamnik.
3‘ In 1 302 Gertruda of Dravograd donated two farms to the monastery in Marenberk under the condition, swa ich stirbe in
der naehe, da si mich valreichen milgen, da schuln si mich in ire selber arbeit und choste in ir chloster bringen und schiilln mich
da erberlich pivilden und schuln meiner sele tun als ir swester einer (Monumenta historica ducatus Carinthiae VII =MDC,
No. 140). H. Lentze quotes such definitions for Vienna and some Austrian monasteries which he documents preciscly regarding
the funeral and the pre- and after funeral activities (Begräbnis, as note 34, 329-333, 339-342).
8
MEDruM AEVUM QUOTIDIANUM 35 (Krems 1996)
OTIVM 3/1-2 (1 995.), str. 1-24, D. Kos, William’s last temptation
Church in the 1 6’hcentury obliterated recollection
on the principally eternal after-death donations.
What remained in the memory of monks were extremely
high dotations. Heirs inclined to Protestantism
were not willing to refer to any other.
The investigators of church buildings in the 1 9’h
century have come across written agreements
from the beginning of the 1 7’h century – the time
of the counter-reformation and Ecclesiastic BaroqueY
What attracted the nobility families to a ceratin
monastery from the point-of-view of burial? It
seems that beside „nearness“ (see below) , the
monastery refers to something else. The oldest
Canhusian monastery in Central Europe (since
approx. 1 1 60) might have not achieved such repute
and wealth if the founder, the Styrian margrave
Otokar III (t1 1 64 ) , his wife Kunigunde
(t1 1 84), and their son Otokar IV – first Styrian
duke (t1 192) – were not buried there. Coincidence
played an important role as Otokar III
chose the Rein monastery during his lifetime.38
The Cistercian monastery in Sticna (founded approx.
1 1 36) had its charm in age, extensive property,
the graves of the founders, Counts of Visnja
Gora (Sophie). The first wife of the Carinthian
duke Ulrich III, Agnes (t1295), then married with
the mentioned Count Ulrich III of Heunburg,
who „bought“ a tomb for her in 1 257, was buried
there roo. Viridis Visconti, widow of rhe duke
Leopold III of Habsburg, chose the monastery
chapel of St. Catherine for her place of final rest.
Under the impression of such „grandeurs“ many
of the local lower nobility ensured themselves
burials on the cemetery at the church, in coemeterio
antiquae ecclesiae, as the monastery chronicler
P. Pucelj wrote in the 1 8’h century. By 1 7 1 7
more than 1 5 00 persans were written into rhe
17 Kos, Darovanja (as note 34), 44.
18 Mlinaric, Kartuziji (as note 19), 27-31, 463.
necrology: many among them were monks and
laics who were written in only because of prayers.39
Some founders were proclaimed saints and their
tombs pilgrimage sites; an example is rhat of Hemma,
who was transfered in 1 1 74 to the crypt in the
cathedral in Gurk in Carinthia, and in 1 2 8 7 beatified.
40 Particularly the dynasts, whose ancestors
were founders of several monasteries, in the 1 3 ‚h
century „avoided“ their monasteries on the territory
of Slovenia, which were out of the official
family seats. The reason was not the eventual bad
reputation of a monastery, but in a family tradition
which presumed burials in the same, usually
the oldest institution: the older descents of Carinthians
Spanheims were buried in Rosacco in
Carnia, and since the foundation of a monastery
of St. Paul there, exceptionally elsewhere (in Kostanjevica)
.41 Counts of Andechs were constantly
being buried in the family tomb in monastery
Diessen in Bavaria.42 While the Spanheims and
Andechs are examples for regarding the tradirion
of burial, the counts of Celje are an example of
frequent change of tombs: as barons of Zovnek
they had a tomb in the Benedictine monastery in
Gornji Grad (founded in 1 1 40 ) . After their political
and social rise in the 1 3 ‚“and in the 1 4’hcemuries
they would be buried in the Canhusian monastery,
e.g. Ulrich II of Zovnek (t 1 3 1 6) , the wife
Catherine of Heunburg and Frederic III of Celje
(son of Frederic II). Some of the Celje Counts
found their final rest in the Celje parish (Herman
III – the illegitimate son of Herman II, died as
bishop of Freising in 1 4 2 1 ) or the Minorite church
(Ulrich II resred in a tomb before the main altar),
and Count Herman II (t 1 435) in his institution,
the Carthusian monastery in Pleterje. 43
Precise definitions on family strategy before and
after death, on emotional relations inside the fam-
39 For the
_
Counts of Visnja 􀥖ora see URBKr II, No. 57, 99, 100. Compare: Kos, Darovanja (as note 34), 43-44. P. Pucelj
quotes m a (not complete) hst among the reputable Markward „marchio Croniburgensis“ and wife Kunigunde, Count Henry
IV of Andechs and several reputable Carniolan noblemen (Idiographia, as note 1 5, 601 -602, 6 1 7- 668).
‚0 A Iist of miracles from the years 1227-1228 is published in MDC I, No. 512.
‚1 GZS 4, No. 196. J. Mlinaric, Kostanjeviska opatija 1 234-1786 (Kostanjevica na Krki 1987), 1 3 0- 1 3 1 .
42 GZS 4, No. 1 1 6; GZS 5 , No. 77.
43 Kos, Darovanja (as note 34), 45.
9
MEDIUM AEVUM QUOTIDIANUM 35 (Krems 1996)
OTIVM 3/1-2 (1995.), str. 1-24, D. Kos, William’s last temptation
ily, on comprehending death, are legitimately expected
in testaments. To the end of the l S’h century
documents with limited testamentary character
prevailed in the mainland of Slovenia. They did
not include all the regulated formulas, were limited
to individual inheritors, and to church recipients
considering the legacies for pastoral care
(legacies). Setding the legacy with a single document
was rare among the nobility in the Late Middle
Ages outside the countries of Romanic cultural
and legal circle, and frequent among the rich citizenry.
44 This was not only because of the extent
of the (mobile) property, but because of the conceptions
by which it was neccesary to attend tO an
organ ized and decent „withdrawal“ from the
world. In general, a real testament was a reflection
of a solid reception of the Roman law (from 1 2’h
century on) . In the mainland of Slovenia the prevailing
inf!uence in the inheritance documents was
the influence of intestamentary mainland inheritance
laws, only individual elements were in the 1 4’h
and 1 5′“ centuries already taken from the Roman
law. It was wise t0 determine in detail one’s last will
and write it down to prevent unwanted heir from
eventually possessing the legacy, especially when
there were no sons, to ensure the fair distribution
of property, prevent decay of the basic ecnonomic
family, and to safeguard the legacies to the
Church. Thus the Georgenberg privilege for the
Styrian ministerials from 1 1 8 6 envisioned (not
obligatory) the writing of a testament. Fear of
eventual disagreements among heirs after death
due t0 an unwritten will was because of solid and
obligatory common laws (for the nobility), which
sett!ed legacies in territories with no firm testamentary
rules prevailing. Presumably fear was
stronger with old, ill people, who had enought
time to think, but not with the young and healthy
as death was frequently sudden and not expected.
45 The first mention of a noble testament in the
mainland of Slovenia is – to my knowledge – from
1204, when the bishop of Gurk announced that his
ministerial Oto of Kozje, in expectation of death,
partitioned all his property in a will. Later he recovered,
and explicit!y confirmed a smaller gift to
the diocese of Gurk.46 This is probably a case of a
simple verbal will.
Relatively frequently the place, time, and, indirectly,
the motive for a donation – „on death bed“ – are
mentioned in simple deeds of donation (legacies).
At least up to the 1 4’h century one does not think
of a detailed ritual o f type “Ars moriendi“ in the
territory of Slovenia. Beside pentinence and receiving
absolution for sins and the extreme anointing,
the happening comprised the uttering of a
probably-complex last will, all seemingly verbal up
to the 1 6′“ cen tury, as the partition deeds for the
inheritors were written either subsequently or long
before death. This is explicitly valid for notices in
„tradition books“, which were based on short occasional
notes with key words47 , and for documents,
issued by the inheritors, fulfilling their last
wishes. It is seen from them, that in the 1 4’h century
the last will was not yet limited t0 the testator,
notary and few witnesses; it was (usually) a
verbal act performed wirhin the family, relatives
and friends, influential noblemen and of course
priests, who were present at one’s death.48 The
“ On obligatory testaments in Romanic environmcnt in the neighbourhood sec the Statute of Piran, lib. VII, part. VIIIIXXVII
in edition of M. Pahor and J. Leumrada: Statut piranskega komuna od 13. do 1 7. stoletja (SAZU, Viri za zgodovino
Slovencev 1 0, Ljubljana 1987). I n detail on medieval citizenry testaments with summaric quotation of their number in some
European towns and Iiterature in a work: P. Baur, Testament und Bürgerschaft. Alltagsleben und Sachkultur im spätmittelalterlichen
Konstanz (Konstanzer Geschichts- und Rechtsquellen XXXI, Sigmaringen 1 989).
•s A very small percentage of testamenrs for the 14’h cenrury is established by R. Bansch for the Austrian provinces in: Seelgerätsstiftungen
im 14. Jahrhundert. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte des Testaments in Österreich (Festschrift für Karl Amira,
Berlin 1908), 5-13. See: D. Kos, Dediseine, dedno pravo in plemstvo na Kranjskem in slovcnskem Letajerskem (posebej v
1 4. stoletju) (Celjski zbornik 1994, Celje 1994), 35-36.
“ GZS 5, No. 68.
‚7 See GZS 4, No. 164, 1 68, 199, 671, 889.
•s When in 1302 the nobleman Medko of Malence gave to the monastery in Kostanjevica a small estate, he did so because his
late relative Frederic an sinem ende enpfolhen hat unde hat mit mir geschaffet sinen zehenten … nach siner sele ze geben (ARS,
Archive of Domain Dolsko = Gr A I, Reigersfeld, fase. 1 79., transcription of a document from 1302 VI 2.). Examples in:
GZS 4, No. 436, 547; GZS 5, No. 50, 769; URBKr II, No. 276.
1 0
:MEDIUM AEVUM QUOTIDIANUM 35 (Krems 1996)
OTIVM 3/ 1 -2 ( 1 995.), str. 1-24, D. Kos, William’s last temptation
realisation of the wishes of the deceased was to the
inheritors, executors, and witnesses, law and a
matter of respect.
Indirect evidence in verbal or written testaments
are numerous as the receivers would have confirmation
documents (from the inheritors) subsequently
issued. The receiver hirnself would issue
a document in a form of a reverse in which the text
of the donor’s deed was repeated.49 Individual
testamentary elements, especially the essence transfer
of ownership to a chosen (legal) person
– were present in all various deeds of donation
and documents on transfer of property no matter
of the Status of the receiver. These documents
were actually predecessors of the developed testaments.
50 The difference was in the fact that the
donation was usually immediately carried out, and
the testament only after the death of the testator,
and that the deeds of donation were dull, extremely
objective and loose, without Statements which
would give us any insight into their sensibi lity.
Statistical processing may help clarify the problem.
The system of willing can be clarified first by
definitans from various concrete, one-sided ( exclusive,)
testamentary legacies and agreements,
and then from rare real testaments. In principle the
testaments and their one-sided surogates distinguished
between hereditary family possession and
– with the activity of the testator – the newly acquired.
Disposing with the first was regulated in
such a manner that the existance of the family
property was protected. Thus the sources (simple
deeds as weil as preserved medieval testaments),
give little information on hereditary family possessions.
N ewly-acquired and personal property were
different matters, particularly movable propeny:
most of it was kept by the consort, and clothes and
similar things were given to the children and other
relatives by the principle „father’s to the sons,
mother’s to the daughters“. Money and valuables
(jewelery) were usually given to Church institutions,
sometimes to friends. A general hereditary
rule is clear: the family must preserve the economic
potential, satisfy friends if possible, and always
satisfy the Church.51 Another even more important
rule considering the testament itself was that
it was limited to partitions of the newly acquired,
personal, primarily movable property.
The most important question were: to whom belonged
the major part, whose posessions can one
inherit, and on what legal basis. The main testamentary
definitons ( except legacies) were subsidiary
to the general definitions from the common
(provincial) law which gave priority to the nearest
blood relative, the son, or even the provincial
prince if the deceased had no legal inheritors. A
testament was neccesary when the testator deliberately
did not want the family to get possession
of everything: in 1 362 the knight Rudolf Polan of
Kacen5tajn willed most o f h is property to his
squire, as „he did not know to whom to leave the
mentioned possession“. Of course he knew that
he had relatives – inheritors – bui: at least with his
own property, this was probaly a consequence of
a hostile political split in the family decades back.
Witnesses were from the hired knights, and they
confirmed – in their rude manner – that Rudolf was
during the act at bis full conscience („capable of
riding and walking“) .52 It was common in the Late
Middle Ages to merge – under the influence of
Roman law – the property of both consorts, contrary
to previous periods, when property was divided
to special funds. Inheritance was simple if
the consorts had a son. The married daughters
usually inherited a dowry or special compensations.
53 Mostly the female inheritors received
49 Thus in 1278 the abbot and convent of the monastery in Gornji Grad who confirmed that the deceased Benhold of Hotunje
in testamento suo nobis et nostro monasterio dederit unum mansum (NLAL, 1 278. Zovnek). See Lentze, Begräbnis (as note
34), 359; Bartsch, Seelgerätsstiftungen (as note 45), 46.
so Bartsch, Seelgerätsstifrungen (as note 45), 14 etc., 5 1 .
51 S . Vilfan, Pravna zgodovina Slovencev o d naselitve d o zloma stare J ugoslavije (Ljubljana 1 96 1 ) , 2 5 7 etc. Bansch, Seelgerätsstiftungen
(as note 45), 29-33. Kos, Darovanja (as note 34); Kos, Dediscine (as note 45), 40-41.
52 ARS, documents from the repertorium III in Haus- Hof- und Staatsarchiv (= HHStA) in Vienna (=ARS lll), 1362 VI 9.;
1362 VI 12. D. Kos, Med gradom in meswm. Odnos kranjskega, slovenjestajerskega in koroskega plemstva do gradov in
mescanskih naselij do zacetka 15. stoletja (Zbirka ZRC 1, Ljubljana 1994), 73.
53 D. Kos, Zivljenje, kor ga je pisala dota. Zgodovina za vse I/2 ( 1 994), 60-61.
1 1
MEDIUM AEVUM QUmiDIANUM 35 (Krems 1 996)
OTIVM 3/1-2 ( 1 995.), str. 1 -24, D. Kos, William’s last temptation
smaller shares than the male. Indivisibility of the
(mostly unmentioned) core family property was
desirable; i f i t were to come to actual partition
among the children, the oldest son was to take
over the family allodial property and the brothers
kept the pre-emption right and received smaller
shares. Grandsans were entitled to shares after
grand-parents if their parents were deceased.
While the inheritance among the unfree nobility
was at first limited to the closest relatives, it became
possible in the Late Middle Ages that the
principal right for inheritance was given to all relatives
to the seventh lineage, which was to the
majority of the Slovene nobility no problern – due
to interlaced marriages. But in practice it was possible
– with intestant inheritance – to inherit to the
third lineage. 54
Inheritance by the closest relative could be evaded
in the 1 4’h century, at least partially. The main
inheritor could be a non-relative. The concrete
definitions are unified in the testator’s demand
that in case he should later have a son or a daughter,
he or she keeps all inheritance, not considering
the previous legacies. A special definiton was
valid with co-dependent contracts, when each
party had the right to inherit after the other, if any
of them were without descendants. These modern
and possibly-less-comprehensible definitans were
a basis for family conflicts, which could be setded
only with renouncements and compromises. Renouncing
were secondly-married warnen, daughters,
children from the first marriage, sisters, etc.
but for a symbolic compensation as half-brothers
(and semi-sisters) were equal with other testator’s
children. Kunigunde of Mari bar, who was married
to George of Svibno, tagether with her busband
and son renounced the inheritance from brother
Ulrich for the benefit of cousi11: Gotfrid in 1 357,
for which she was given a hause in Maribor and a
small sum of money. The hause she was given was
the one to which the impoverished William IV
5• Examples in: Kos, Dedi{cine (as note 45), 4 1 -44.
( married to the widdow after the mentioned Gotfrid
of Maribor) and his son William V moved
from the Maribor castle (there since 1 3 79) in 1 3 86.
In two years time they left it – with the rest of
the property – to the creditors, the Counts of
Celje.55 The father of a daughter from the first
marriage could renounce for the benefit of his
daugher, t0 whom her mother willed her property:
in 1 335 Catherine, wife of the Maribor town
scribe, willed him her hause, which she inherited
from her mother. Catherine’s father at the same
time renounced it in the name of the descendants
from the secend marriage.56 Undoubtedly the
father was aware of potential conflicts wirhin both
his families. With partial renouncements the sisters
would keep the right to equal inheritance with
the nephews, if the brothers would not have sons,
or even to complete inheritance if the main inheritor
would die without children. The sister’s children
were – for renouncing – allowed to keep the
dowry, which was principally returned to her family.
Thus the wife of William III of Svibno, Agnes,
(her first marriage was with the deceased Albrecht
of Viltus), in 1 3 3 7 renounced the inheritance
from the first busband and her parents to the benefit
of her son Albrecht and brother-in-law Henry.
She was advised by her second husband, the
always -indebted William, who must have been
aware that her son would, as a male, have essentially
greater chances to inherit than her. 57 It was
necessary to renounce the inheritance to the benefit
of a relative when the testator was indebted
too much to save the property for the children. If
one was married to a woman of a higher dass, he
bad Iinie chance for keeping the wife’s property,
gained by marrying (dowry) .58
The providing function of testamentary records is
most clearly seen in the care for widows and mothers.
Although marriage presents were determined
for the providence of the widow, the widow sametim
es renounced tO them in exchange for compensation.
The busband or son could, before his death,
55 ARS, a document from Hofkammerarchiv in Vienna (=ARS HKA), 1357 I 7; ARS CE II, 1 388 VII 10. Maribor. Kos, Grad
(as note 52), 86.
56 ]. Mlinaric, Gradivo za zgodovino Maribora (=GZM), III/122.
57 ARS HKA, 1337 II 2. Graz.
58 Examples in: Kos, Dediseine (as note 45), 44-47.
1 2
MEDIUM AEVUM QUOTIDIANUM 35 (Krems 1996)
OTIVM 3/1-2 ( 1 995.), str. 1-24, D. Kos, William’s last temptation
grant her special incomes (a lifelong annuity),
whicb were frequently an issue for conflict with
the inberitors. Standard providence comprised
lodging, food, small sums of money, and intangibility
of personal property for wbich one of tbe
(main) inheritors ( children) was obligated. Similar
rigbts were granted to the testator’s ilegitimate
cbildren. Tbe under-aged children were proteered
from agressive co-inheritors by guardians who
were usually the agnate relatives. The guardian was
determined by the testator: when, i n 1388, William
IV of Svibno left all bis property to tbe Counts
of Celje – due to bis indebtedness – he appointed
them guardians of bis son William V, who explicitly
agreed with the choice.59
The main heir could not be favourable to real partitions
of the family property. Thus one had, together
with one’s co-inheritors, a common preemtion
right, or the nominal partition did not include
the real one. Thus, the main heir kept the
unpartitioned legacy. In fact, this was a unified
managing and sharing of incomes. In an extreme
case, the death of the bead of the family lead to
the occurance ofganerb, that is, contractual common
inheriting, living together and preserving the
integrity of the family property (primarily the
castle) . Real contractual ganerbs were in the Late
Middle Ages rare on the territory of Slovenia.
Cerrain elements are seen from the tlUmerous
collective living of the inheritors in one castle and
in the common administration of the inherited
posession. 60
On what concrete occasions did this occur, and
what are they about – those few rare real written
noble testaments from the mainland of Slovenia?
The analysis gives an explanation for the last uncertainties
on the rarity and late emergence of such
records on the territory of Slovenia. Despite this
rarity it seems they occured – up to the 1 6’h century
– only if the testator did not bave sons, only
dau ghters , or was without children or he renounced
bis family, out of hatred. Therefore in
these records all property, including the inherited,
could be partitioned – but only when there
were no close relatives who could enforce the
province customs. If the testator bad a son, a verbal
will and the province law sufficed. Hatred,
arogance towards reality and bitterness are reflecting
from the testament of Rudolf Polan from 1 3 62
( see above). In the testament of the knight from
Celje and widower Peter Schmalzhafen from 1 400,
the first part is on guardianship for the daugbters
and erdering the guardian (friend) to take special
care for their marriages. A successful marriage was
a fulfillment of a dream for women and the end of
nightmares for the relatives, in view of solving the
question of their permanent providence and family
honour. After that Peter partitioned tbe real
property, being generaus to one of the daughters
wbom he called „my specially beloved daughter.“
She was given possession of the most important
part of the property: the rest and the movables
were given to both daughters. They should later
divide it to equal shares. Only after that did he take
care of his soul by donating to the Minorites in
Celje where he wisbed to be buried and where according
to the diction of the text – be lived. 61
Peter’s testament displays anotber element whicb
is in otber tedious legaly determined documents
rare – emotional reasons, family connectedness
and personal affection, which could alter customs,
but are hard to recognize.
More „usual“, less emotional, and more realistic
was the testament of the second knigbt of the
Counts of Celje or/and Ortenburg, the rieb Conrad
of Ehrenfels who first appointed his cousin as
executor of his debts and recovery from debtors.
Then he authorised the Count of Celje to partition
certain gifts to various Church institutions
with precisely-determined requiem tasks. At last
he took care of bis wife, but with a rationality and
an accuracy which were unknown to the aforementioned
Peter. The two characteristics prevail
in Conrad’s testament, for care for the peace of his
soul was to him more important than the family.
He determined his wife’s income and rights as
precisely as if it were for his own benefit. Conrad
put much time and thinking into bis testament,
more than Peter, who probably partitioned tbe
59 ARS CE II, 1 388 VIII 10. Examples in: Kos, Dediscine (as note 45), 47-50.
60 Examples in: Kos, DedisCine (as note 45), 50-51. Kos, Grad (as note 52), 153-154.
61 ARS ZL, 1 400 VII 18. Celje.
1 3
:MEDIUM AEVUM QUOTIDIANUM 35 (Krems 1 996)
OTI’JiV\ 3/1-2 ( 1 995.), str. 1-24, D. Kos, William’s last temptation
property quickly without thinking about the consequences
of his decision. Beside alimony, various
annuities, and residences, he bequested his wife
the majority of movables; she was to give some to
chosen monasteries. He „took care“ of the daughters
(he obivously did not have sons) in one sentence,
namely, the Counts of Celje and of Ortenburg
should see to their marriage and dowry –
prohaly with part of the family property.62
At the end of the 1 5′“ century noble testaments
became more precise, but usually still limited with
the existance of sons – the Roman law was in that
sense not enough received. One of the first such ;:
testaments occurred before the death of knight
Andrew Lamberger in 1 4 73.63 First he took care
of his and his family’s peace of soul with smaller
legacies to Church institutions and to his confessor.
Most important among these was his precious
mass book. Then he mentioned his debts and legacies
to various priests. Then he partitioned the
movables, primarily clothes, jewelery and money,
mainly t o his daughters (he too had no sons) .
Typical for written sources that time are the „break
in“ of colours, elementary esthetics („beautiful“,
„glorious“ and similar) and feeling: not only did
Andrew enumerate many beautiful objects (as
they would decades before), bu t he gave a precise
description, mainly with colour characteristics of
objects. Such rules were established in testaments
of the New era. Thus Andrew precisely enumerated
the jewelery, considering rhe colour and type
of precious stones. Only after that came the more
valuable property, which was given to the „beloved“
wife as a rieb and lifelong annuity. A brother
and a friend received two precious Turkish borses,
probably booty from clashes with the Turks;
after that he enumerated his debtors
·
and promissory
notes. They were to belong to the wife, brother
George was to manage the property, he was also
to see to his daughters’s marriages.
Common to all mentioned testaments is their
emergence due to the incapability of transfering
the part of family property which was not to be
partitioned and alienated to a son who would pre-
62 A document in HHStA, 1405 I I I 25. Vojnik.
61 ARS ZL, 1473 XI 6.
64 GZM XIII/8. Vilfan, Zgodovina (as note 5 1 ) , 258.
1 4
serve the family line. Only the testator’s movables
(promissory notes, j ewelery, clothes) , which
would otherwise be given to the son, were needed
to be precisely divided between the daugters
and wife. The wife’s would eventually belong to
the daughters. Another conclusion can be made
from the structure and rareness of such testaments
– the existance of a written testament was usually
a consequence of the end of a (branch) family i n
t h e male line, when i t was necessary to precisely
divide betwen the daughters the father’s personal
property, which otherwise the sons would share.
Such conclusions fit into the context of evaluating
the scarcity of written testaments among the
medieval nobility in the mainland of Slovenia and
the verbal tradition in wills considering the generally-
obligatory provincial law. A series of real
testaments in Carniola from the 1 6′“ century on is
undoubtedly a consequence of enforcement of inheritance
provisions of Roman law, new religious
notions and rules, as well as the decay of families
and real partition of possession. More independent
family branches arose, with completely detached
property. There were attempts to avoid the dangerous
process of partitioning the existing potentials
from 1 600 on – by few cautious noblemen –
with fidei commisus.
Legacies in the first real written testaments, deriving
from the citizenry of the mainland of Slovenia
– the end of 1 3′“ and in 1 4′“ centuries – were
limited to regulating the inner family matters;
thus, provisions on donations to the Church, settling
debts, etcetera, prevail. The family is mentioned
only in the context of the property which
was not intended for „the prosperity of soul,“or
special property, for example, hired estates, marriage
receipts, etc. Direct inheritance of hereditary
family property was regulated by city law (as provincial
law with nobility), but only for direct descendants.
Such a system was for the citizenry restrictive,
as rhe core inheritance devolved onto the
municipal lord if the citizen died wirbout direct
descendants, a will, and relatives. Only in the 1 5’h
century did a few municipal Iords begin to allow
MEDTIJM AEVUM QUOTIDIANUM 35 (Krems 1996)
OTIVM 3/ 1 -2 (1 995.), str. 1-24, D. Kos, William’s last temptation
citizens the right to inherit after parents, for example,
Count Frederic II of Celje for Slovenska
Bistrica in 1 446.64 The process was of long duration:
the well-known case of Matko Videc, dead
in 1 466, a wealthy citizen of Ljubljana and a magistrate,
died without sons and a real all-comprising
testament, so the municipal and provincial lord
and Emperor Frederic III took over his property.
Setding the inheritance, feuds, debts, legacies,
etcetera, was left to the provincial governor (for
estates of princes = vicedom) . Disagreements
between the second wife, daughters, distant relatives,
and the Emperor Iasted for half a century.
From those it is seen that several times wills did
not consider the main part of the property, but
only legacies ro the Church and smaller incomes
for the wife.65 Rare presentations to a Church of
core family property, for example, with a family
house in town, could be limited with the right of
the relatives to buy it back.66 Lineal trouble corresponded
to !arge property without a real testament
in settling the inheritance.
In consequence, the expectation that the intestate
law, despite a faster reception of the Roman law,
withdrew to testamentory inheriting in the mainland
towns faster than with the nobility, long
„armed“ with inheriting privileges, is premature.
In this we find all the trouble of incomplete mainland
quasi-testaments, different from real testaments
from Istria and Littoral in the same period.
They expose concern for memory of soul, family
members, and friends, in a variety of forms.67
More exact („real“) testaments occured only in the
1 5′“ century, and they defined inheritance within
the family more precisely, as weil as the role of
guardians. Without exception they are limited tO
the richer classes, who had anything to partition
and consider. Just before the rich citizen of Ptuj
Hans Aichhaymer died in 1 45 1 , he made a will and
appointed for guardians of his children his wife,
father-in-law and cousin Frederic, who were to
activate it after his death. He showed a great degreeof
distrust to his two sons (maybe tooyoung? ) ,
whom h e never told about t h e 65 1 gold coins hidden
in his room. Frederic later cold the Co-guardians
about the money. In 1 452 Frederic wished to
finally partition the property to thirds, between
the wife of the deceased and the sons, as he feit
bis end was comming. He issued a special deed on
Hans’s will and conclusions.68 In doing so he discovered
that the widow had in the meanwhile selfwillingly
disposed with the rest of the property of
the deceased, about which she partly told him.
Some facts came from her relatives: the widow received
200 gold coins from an agent from Venice,
probably as a credicor, She told him for another
1 8 7 gold coins, found after her husband’s death,
and for five she found in his clothes. Only her
mother told Frederic about the 50 gold coins
which the widow found in her husband’s wardrobe.
The widow informed Frederic about the
clothes and bedlinen of the deceased, but not completely
about t h e silver table-ware (which she
could not conceal), silver jewelery, decorations,
wine Stores, nurober of horses, cows, and pigs,
about the state of the house with equipment and
gardens, provisions, extensive landed property,
and numerous promissory notes. Frederic confessed
he did not know about the extent of the
property of the deceased in Leibniz, Maribor and
elsewhere, as the widow did not inform him. He
said with resignation that he should trust in her
honour and conscience. The widow’s concealments
were understandable, as her busband willed
her a third of the property. With the concealed
&s B. Otorepec, Matko Videc, trgovec, posestnik in mestni sodnik v Ljubljani v 15. stoletju (Gradivo in razprave ZAL 8, Ljubljana
1988), 9-12.
66 For example GZM II/49 (a citizen of Maribor \Xfulfing around 1280), GZM Il/50 (a citizen of Graz \Xfalter Dens around
1 280), GZL I/66 (a citizt:n uf Lju!Jljana Konrad Pegam from 1364).
67 For example the testaments of the Piran citizenry from the end of the lJ’h century in: D. Mihelic, Najstarejsa piranska notarska
knjiga 1 2 8 1 – 1 2 8 7/89 (SAZU, Viri za zgodovino Slovencev 7, Ljubljana 1984), No. 190, 192, 193, 194, 2 1 6, 2 1 7, 268,
269 and: D. Mihelic, Piranska notarska knjiga 1284-1288 (SAZU, Viri za zgodovino Slovencev 9, Ljubljana 1986), No. 9,
36, 66, 67, 1 7 1 , 2 1 6, 2 1 7, 2 1 8 , 230, 252, 277, 388, 545, 548, 630, 6 3 1 . On this and on such views about the value and urge
of writing testaments: Z. Janekovic-Römer, Na Razmedi ovog i onog svijeta. Prozimanje pojavnog i transcedentnog u dubrovackim
oporukama kasnog srednjeg vijeka. Otivm 2/3-4 (1994), 3 etc.
68 GZM VII/42.
1 5
MEDIUM AEVUM QUOIIDIANUM 35 (Krems 1 996)
OTIVM 3/1-2 ( 1 995.), str. l-24, D. Kos, William’s last temptation
amount her share was considerably bigger. Maybe
she was greedy, despotic, or just wishing to
assure herself a solid Standard for her old age. The
deceased husband – when making the testament
– obviously did not consider that with a such
partition they would not be able to continue his
successful businesses. Or maybe he did so due to
the bad character of his wife, because of which the
two under-aged sons could be cheated. The next
definition is about that: in the case of death of the
sons before their full age (and own testament), the
inheritors were to be the „nearest relatives and
inheritors“, but not the wife. It was a progressive
deed for a rich citizen in the 1 5’h century to refuse
to donate to the Church, unless it was in the original
testament, which is not preserved. Testamentary
and formal equality wirhin a middle-class family
is evident from this testament, the role of the
widow at the death of her husband and in managing
the property was considerably bigger than –
at that time – with the nobility. The city air at the
end of the Middle Ages did truly liberate her, from
rigid patriarchal relations wirhin middle-class families,
too.
The testament of a not-so-rich citizen of Ljubljana
Phillip Pomnik from 1 495 still dedicated a certain,
though nearly negligible, material attention
to rhe salvation of his soul with money: to the wife
he left 1 00 gold coins, three silver dishes and a ring.
To the under-aged son he left the (family) house,
a tithe, silver dishes, rhree silve’r belrs and 50 gold
coins, to the daughrer a hundred gold coins. Both
were to receive their inheritance from the executors
at rheir full age. If they died, the executors
would invest the property for the benefit of the
care of the souls of the whole family. To the third
son, who may have been from the first marriage
or illegitimate, he willed only 23 gold coins. To a
certain theologian he willed a smaller sum for the
first mass and for constant prayers for his soul. He
granred a small sum as weil to German knights, as
i t was h is wish to b e buried commenda o f the
Order of German Knighthood in Ljubljana.69 In
comparison with the previous testament things are
69 GZL VI/76.
put in the „right“ place: family is first, particularly
the oldest son. The wife gets a small share from
the common property, the daughter and younger
son only money. Motto: keep the majority of the
property tagether for the successor: do not partition
it. The welfare of soul, of which the testament
is full, Phillip reduced to realistic small legacJes.
The deviation from the prevailing religiosity in
testaments first occured in urban parts of mainland
Slovenia, in towns and the upper classes of the
citizenry, but not at the same time and not completely.
Around 1 500 it was still common in the
country and in towns to will quite an extent to old,
at that time morally loose, monasreries, but with
a good intention – the concern for the salvation of
soul of the testator and the family. Such was the
testament of Martin Koprivc from Lentvid at Vipava
in 1 497, a totaly rural environment, but
where – due to nearness of the Romanic milieu
– written testament by public notary was common:
first, and with enormous presenrs, rhe testator
took care for his peace of soul to the benefit
of the monastery in Bistra, only then of the wife.
He ordered that after her death all property belongs
to the monastery. Other relatives – obviously
he and his wife had no children – were put
off with two sentences and „small pieces“.70
Another fact, beside the inner family regulations,
rhat absolurely cannot be overlooked in the testaments
and similar documents is rewarding the
Church and the choosing of the presented Church
institution, which had certain (pragmatic) rules.
Last but not least, the testaments in the Middle
Ages developed alongside the liberalisation of the
pastoral legacies in the canon law. Testament,
death, and funeral were the last earthly step on the
way to heaven or hell after the last Judgement, and
since the 1 2’h century, by common belief and by
theological doctrine, the soul went first to Purgatory,
where it was to be cleansed before receiving
eternity.71 Unexpected parring of the soul from
the body at the time of the Turkish raids in the 1 5’h
century was always a possibility. Salvation and the
70 ARS, a document of the monastery in Bistra, 1 497 V 1 1 . Lentvid.
71 On the notion of purgatory see J. Le Goff, La Naissance du Purgatorie (Paris 1981, in numerous translations).
1 6
MEDIUM AEVUM QUOTIDIANUM 35 (Krems 1 996)
OTIVM 3/1 -2 ( 1 995.), str. 1-24, D. Kos, William’s last temptation
cleansing of the soul through Purgatory were the
most important constants in the understanding of
God, which was in concord with theological consideration.
Between the 1 3’h and 1 5’h centuries the
role of Maria was scholastically important. In art
and in in the general chivalric mentality she took
over the role of an ideal woman in religious sensations
and in paintings. No more is she only the
queen and mother, but as we ll the „sweet Iady“,
generous and lovely, courtly, etheric.72 New iconographic
motives, supported by contemporary
mystics in the 1 4’h century, stressed the intimate
connection between the believer and God, visually
particularly the senses of Iove and compassion.
But at the end of the 14’h century the image of
Maria became more „middle-class“, more realistic,
even more decisive. The help of such a Maria was
in the minds of the Counts of Celje, when they ordered,
at the end of the 1 4’h century, a relief timpanon
in the Minorite church in Celje. The centre
of the portal is Maria withJesus on the throne,
above h e r two angels, on each side, a kneeling
knight with his hands put together for prayer
( =Counts Herman I and Herman II or William I),
and below Death, twisting towards the viewer. The
growing self-confidence of the Counts of Celje
reflects in the disproportional largeness of both
knights in comparison with Maria, but kneeling
and the personified death shows them – despite
their magnificance – in fear of God, aware of
death and the role of Maria in the salvation of their
souls. The famous Maria the Patroness on Ptujska
Gora from 1 420 has such a protective function;
a mass of temporal people of both sexes and all
classes, including the Pope, are kneeling under her
coat and praying. The faces are expressing a wish
for individuality, maybe even the reality of the
persons. Such patronage was a common European
wish of the contemporaries from the apocaliptic
14’h century on, when the christian world was
constantly and fearfully waiting for the end of the
World.73
At the end of the 1 S’h century a diferent mentality
was present on the Slovene territory as weiL The
middle-class ideals, pre-humanism, and victorious
individuality reshaped the nobiles‘ pre-death feelings.
The role of the nobleman in social events
were occasionally jeopardized and taken over by
the citizenry. Thus an educated, nearly-renaissance,
but country nobleman from the end of the
lS’h century thought about salvation in a difcrcnt
manner than, for example, the anonymaus orderer
of frescoes in the new country church on Knina,
who in 1 500 financed its decoration and had a
decisive influence on the programme of frescoes.
He is pictured in one of the scenes, a man in nice
Iaie clothing, kneeling before the pan·on of the
church, St. Leonard. Judging from the cyclus of
frescoes he had knowledge about the writings of
the Christian humanists and understood their
manner of convincing believers. Above all he was
favourable to the evangelic pre-protestant tradition:
he emphasised the role of Christ and diminished
the one of Maria, stressed the incarnation of
Christ, the sacrifice and possibility of deliverance,
and at the same time reminded one of the last
Judgement. In between he put some saintly and
chivalric scenes.74
It was necessary to take care of the individual salvation
of soul in the purgatory, one’s own and that
of one’s closest relatives, with the help of Maria
or someone eise, before death. The bare Sponsoring
of artistic decorations in a church was not
enough. By a contract with a chosen Church institution
considering permanent prayers, the eternal
memory of the person was kept beside the care
of the soul in Purgatory. The way to ultimate salvation
necessarily led through material payments,
which every family planned in concordance with
its material potential. Extreme prestige, competition
between donors and belief for a better care of
soul with enormous gifts were parts of the knightly
life and their notions about life after death.
72 Cempare the amiphena Salve Regina in the se-called Manuscript ef Sticna frem areund 1428 and ether medieval felk sengs
ef Maria in Sievene language (after publishing in Srednjeveske slevstve, as nete 5, 53-68) .
n Cevc, Srednjeveska (as nete 24), 74, 84, 92, 96-100, 1 4 1 – 1 46. See Schuler, Anniversar (as nete 5), 92-94.
74 L. Menase, Cerkev sv. Lenarta na Krtini in cerkev sv. Andre ja na Delah (Cellectien ef guides Kulturni in naravni spemeniki
Slovenije 1 40, Ljubljana 1984) , 1 1 -20. Cevc, Srednjeveska (as nete 24), 1 1 6, 202-204.
1 7
:MEDnJM AEVUM QUOTIDIANUM 35 (Krems 1 996)
OTIVM 3/1-2 ( 1 995.), str. 1-24, D. Kos, William’s last temptation
The care for memory and salvation was at the time
of the zenith and decay of the family of Svibno
( 1 280- 1 400) proportionally cons tant amid the
nobility in the mainlands of Slovenia.75 The crisis
wirhin the nobility and in Church at the beginnig
of the 1 5’h century did divert the noblemen from
the previous tradition of rich donations. Their
donations were limited to precisely defined sums
for prayers and decreased in amount in the 1 3 ‚hand
14’h centuries except with the rare upper-class nobility.
In the 1 4′“ century the nobility was joined
– for two hundred years – first by the rieb and
later by the wealthy citizenry until the reformation,
which essentially altered the old values. But
both class groups in the 1 5’h century gradually
diverted from one-way donations to bilateral business
cooperation (buying-selling agreements, hypotecaries
etc.).
A relatively balanced net of monasteries and a
mass of local churches enabled „nearness“76 as the
most natural element of life in the Middle Ages as
weil in the strategy for salvation. The average
nobleman and his family spent a major part of their
Jives at home and in the neigbourhood. The local
church and monastery affered the nobleman and
his family the feeling of local belonging. The donor
usually lived in the nearby castl.e or had a !arge
estate near a Church institution. The nearness of
the rewarded institution enabled the family of the
donor effective control over the realisation of the
agreed-upon ceremonies. Wealth enabled dynastic
families to be profligate with gifts even in the
time of the latent economic and spiritual crisis of
the 1 4’h and 1 5’h centuries. Even more important
were their presence and symbolic equalizing with
the local nobility in an apparently unified group
of donors tO a certain Church institution, which
brought the dynast additional sympathies of the
local nobility, even if they were not bis clientele.
Another fact was important with the citizenry: the
notion of legal, class, political, and economic unification
joined the inhabitants of towns into firm
75 Kos, Darovanja (as note 34), 25-27.
communities, which, through fraternities, partly
controlled the Church institutions in their territory.
The patricians and citizens feit obliged to give
material help. In return they expected redemption
for the sins. Only modest, poor Orders were, in
their already pre-reformation eyes, capable of offering
quality service. The search for the soul’s
salvation was thus with the citizenry more limited
geographically than with the nobility.
The most variable and easiest structure to explain
of donors were of the monasteries which were
founded for provisioning the nobility daughters
(Studenice, Marenberk, Velesovo, Mekinje, [kofja
Loka). Their relatives mosdy donated for the
better provision of nuns (the so-called dowry)
than for their own memory, although such motives
for donating are sometimes mentioned in the
deeds of donation. Of the family of Svibno Agnes,
daughter of Henry I, was probably in the monastery
Velesovo since it’s foundation ( 1 23 8 ) , who
„paid“ for her provision. To her nieces Elisabeth
and Sophie and their cousin Agnes cells were
„bought“ in 1 260 and 1 264 in the Lower Styrian
monastery for aristocratic daughters in Studenice.
77
The aristocracy had – beside nearness – other
motives for donating: for example, a special inclination
for a distant Church institution because of
a person very dear to the donor or special prayers.
Aceidental inclination was usually limited to the
time of one generation. Such was the donation to
the parish church of St. Michael in Vienna from
Haug of Svibno after the fire (before 1 328), as he
„during the illness received from it (the priest of
that church) spiritual consolation „.78 The greatgrandmother
of Haug, Mathilde, donated to the
monastery in Viktring in Carinthia before 1235,
but only because she was probably a Carinthian.79
There were single donations by the family of Svibno
as compensations, for example, from Henry II
in 1 248 for the monastery in Velesovo, and in 1 250
for the monastery in Kostanjevica. 80 Successful
76 Compare similar conclusions from anothcr part of Europe in: Rübsamen, Herschaftsträger (as note 34), 450-453.
77 URBKr II, No. 255, 271, 3 3 1 .
78 HHStA, 1328 VIII 15. Vienna.
79 URBKr II, No. 89.
so URBKr II, No. 160, 168.
1 8
MEDIUM AEVUM QUOTIDIANUM 35 (Krems 1 996)
OTIYM 3/1-2 ( 1 995.), str. 1-24, D. Kos, William’s last temptation
dynasts as wealthy persans did not have to deal
with existential problems and could donate several
times. 8 1
A noticable portion o f rationality in family strategies
existed behind the veil of devoutpess and fear
of death. The family functioned tagether in the
search for redemption of soul, and had a firm strategy.
The lesser the repute of a Church institution
(fraternities, chapels, branch churches, town monasteries
of poor Orders), the less reputable and
lower-status the nobility who usually donated.
Particularly in towns such institutions were donated
to only by the citizenry, or sometimes patricians.
The old monasteries of more rigid contemplative
Orders had the best „clientele“ (i.e. –
Carthusians, Gornji Grad – Benedictines) , as with
their (at least in principle) moderate life they guaranteed
for the donor’s soul. Even that was not
always effective: the Carthusian monastery in Bistra
bad donors of low rank, probably because of
modest nobility nearby, relatively late foundation
( 1 255/1 260), and closer connections with the Istrian
citizenry and peasants from the LittoraL
They, in contrary to the country nobility, were not
willing in the 1 4′“and 1 5’h centuries to give propenies
to the monks without profit. The pauperisation
of the lower nobility in the 1 4’hand 1 5’hcenturies
was a fact. It was in essence the economic
generator of the monasteries.
The family of William of Svibno was, from at least
the first half of the 1 3 ‚h century, tightly attached
to the Cistercian monastery in Sticna. Before 1 200
Henry I, with his wife Mathilde, and his brother
Conrad donated a small estate to the monks, and
later, but before 1 2 50, the son William I did so.82
Those donations were undoubtedly to ensure a
permanent crypt, which the family had there, considering
the afore-mentioned funeral of Ulrich I
in 1 2 6 1 . But the relation between the partners was
not always idyllic. William and (son?) Ulrich
caused before 1 2 74 some darnage to the moastery
81 Kos, Darovanja (as note 34), 29-31.
82 URBKr II, No. 170.
83 ARS ZL, 1274 II 1 6. Sti-na; AST, 1 302 V 3. and 1384 XI 1 1 .
84 URBKr II, No. 273, 300.
and thus paid the damages. Still later the relations
were diverse, as some members of the family, from
the beginnig of the 14’h century, first sold to the
monastery and only then donated parts of the
property. 83 The first data on special pastoral care
for the Svibno family, but not the whole family, is
from 1260, when Henry II donated to the monastery
in Velesovo an estate for the pastoral prosperity
of the family. Henry was one of the rare
members of the family, who by the value of donations
and by choice of institution, exceeded the
family tradition. Before 1 262 he donated to the
Carthusian monastery as weil. 84 The reason for his
supportingVelesovo was probably his sister Agnes,
who lived in the monastery. Only in 1346 and 1 348
did first Ulrich II, and then his brother William III ‚
donate to the monastery in Sticna a !arger estate
for performing the aniversary for the deceased
wife (Ulrich) and for his peace of sould and the
„peace of soul of the deceased wife“ (William).8s
With their contemporary George the family obviously
renounced hither donating not only to
Sticna, but to all other institutions. George, together
with his wife, gave rich donations to the
monks in Sticna twice in 1 3 65, without special demands
for ceremonies. Only when his wife died
in the same year, did he guarantee her, with a new
donation, the aniversary and eternal light on her
grave on the territory of the monastery.86 The last
Carniolan members of the family of Svibno were,
in the 1 4′“ centu ry, too much indebted tO be albe
to afford donating at least to the traditional family
institution, the monastery in Sticna.
Constant donations tO this monastery for nearly
two centmies confirm the assumption, which occured
with the burial of Ulrich I in 1 2 6 1 , and became
stronger with general funeral custams, that
the family had a traditional cript in Sticna, at least
from around 1 200, or maybe even soon after the
foundation of the monastery in 1 1 36. Thus we
must seek the grave of the warrior William in Stic-
85 J.M. Grebenc, Gospodarska ustanovitev Sticne ali njena dotacija leta 1 1 35 (Sticna 1973), No. 196, 199.
86 Grebenc, Sticna (as note 85), No. 234, 236, 237.
1 9
1v1EDIUM AEVUM QUOTIDIANUM 35 (Krems 1 996)
OTIVM 3/1-2 ( 1 995.), str. 1-24, D. Kos, William’s last temptation
na and in in the local parish church. The majority
of the donations of the Svibno to the monastery
in Sticna were of general character – for all relatives,
with no obligations, with the exception of
the mentioned aniversaries for deceased wives.
Considering the numerous nature of the family it
seems that the decay of Svibno, which was coincident
with the general economic and social troublc,
had the most impact on buying special prayers
for the deceased. J ust before the decay of the family
at the beginnig of the 1 5’h century, some members
ceased with tradition in burials. That is why
(at least) William IV was buried in the local parish
church, if Valvasor is not referring merely to
the epitaph. The family strategy of Svibno in ensuring
pastoral welfare and memory was, rhus for
at least rwo centuries, explicitly traditional.
If we disregard general donations in the sense of
duties of the receiver, which prevailed in the territory
of Slovenia to the 14’h century, the most
expensivee and precise donation was that for the
aniversary and eternal light. With such donations
the donor would state he was donating for the
„welfare of soul“, but would define no prayers
obligations. The motive for donating could be
explained by neutralisation of one’s sins, or with
special affection to the receiver. The donor would
be satisfied with the thought that the gift purified
and saved the soul or that the collective memorail
prayer of the rewarders had an effect on the soul.
In the 1 4’h century it was less frequent, straining,
and with their receiver fewer wanted everyday (socalled
eternal) massesY The narration of documents
are about the general care for the welfare
of the soul but later precisely defined in what
manner the recevier should take care for it. The
purpose thus wem from imprecise, „clear“ donating
to preciscly defined ceremonies at the end of
the 1 4’hcentury. Undoubtedly we perceive in this
the move from „blind“ to deliberate Iaie religiosity.
To donate for „one’s own and the ancestors‘
welfare of souls“ or memory and to trust in the
honesty of the clerics regarding constant performance
of after-death prayers was at the time of the
moral fall – or better: development of the Late
medieval society – no Ionger enough. The donor
demanded a guarantee that as a counter-service
something will be clone particularly for his soul.
His religiosity wem from the collecitve in which
the individual was drowning in a mass of dead and
for which the monks constanlty prayed, to the
individual, which affered the donor a special Status
and identity before God as the granter of requests
of earthly sinners.
If the receiverwould not perform the agreed-upon
tasks, a special clause which was to control the
rewarder came into effect.88 In such a case the
donation was taken from the receiver and given to
another church institution, legal guardian, Iandlord,
authorised sanctional executor, or even back
to the inheritors of the donor. Although there was
the danger of extinction and expiration of the
control right with the latter, the inheritors were,
in most cases, appointed as controllers. Even i n
cases o f disregarding the obligation the receiver
would keep the donation, only the representatives
were to fast until performing the ceremonies
again.89 Among liberal sanctions was the provision
which tolerated clerical forgetfulness and negligence
as long as the ceremony was performed,
although not in the agreed term.90
When donating for eternal lighr on the altar, rarely
on the crypt of the donor, which was frequent
in the 1 3 ‚h century, the receiver of the gift was to
premanently take care of the light (candles or oil),
but he was not obliged to perform special prayers.
The purpose was eternal (silent) memory of rhe
donor. The eternal light was usually added to more
important ceremonies, mostly to the aniversary,
which was since the 1 3th, and particularly since the
1 4’h century, the most popular form of prayer for
the welfare of soul. The essence of the aniversary
was the memorial solemnity for the donor or relatives
and friends at the anniversary of the death.
87 Bansch, Seelgerätsstiftungen (as note 45), 26. Rübsamen, Herrschaftsträger (as note 34), 234 etc.; A. Redik, Ablaß und
Volksfrömmigkeit. Blätter für Heimatkunde 52 (1978), 100.
88 Lemze, Begräbnis (as note 34), 359-360; f. Schwarzkogler, Geistliche Schenkungen und Stiftungen in der Steiermark 1308-
1330. Blätter für Heimatkunde 52 (1978), 66-67; Bartsch, Seelgerätsstiftungen (as note 45), 34-35.
89 GZL II/35.
90 Examples in: Kos, Darovanja (as note 34), 37-38. See: Bartsch, Seelgerätsstiftungen (as note 45), 39-42, 47.
2 0
:MEDIUM AEVUM QUOTIDIANUM 35 (Krems 1 996)
OTIVM 3/l-2 (1995.), str. 1-24, D. Kos, William’s last temptation
The closest members of the family were stated by
names, the others only with a collective term (for
example „and all my ancestors“ and/or „descendants“)
. Thus the deceased member „had a name“
in the prayers of the monks. The anniversary
meant also the gathering of the family at least once
a year in a collective solemnity, tagether with the
dead, thus a contract and dialogue between the
dead and live members of the family. Its power depended
on the intensity of the self-confidence, cohesiveness
of the family, and their dismemberment.
Each generation formed their own lists of
the closest family members for the aniversaries or
stated their own choice. There were diferences in
orders wirhin the same generation, primarily besause
of variability of emotion towards the dead.
Deviation from the agreed-upon terms was taken
into consideration if the donor wanted the aniversary
for the ancestors but did not know the dates
of their death. Even if it were for one’s own aniversary,
the donor decided for any date as the future
(not then known ! ) date of his death could be
fulfilled with other obligations, for example obligatory
feasts, or aniversaries for other persons. The
aniversary for the donor, of course, Started to be
performed after the death of the donor and for the
deceased relatives immediately after making an
agreement. Regarding the value of the donation,
the number of aniversaries was defined, of which
only one would be in direct connection with the
donor. When the time of the performance of the
aniversary was not precise, particularly the influenrial
noblemans who were losing control over the
donated property and obligations of the receivers,
they would order the monks/priests to inform
them on aniversaries few days before the performance.
The motives were to ensure the presence
of the descendants at the ceremonies and to control
the performing of the ceremonies.91
It is time we Iook for the last time back to the
deceased William of Svibno and, with the help of
established general habits and trends in the preand
after-death activities in Slovene territory, and
with a decent share of imagination, examine the
possible-although not provable-handling of his
corpse and soul.
Considering the adventuristic character of the
battle at Griffin and its importance for William, I
presume that William, before going to Carinthia,
did not donate to a Church institution for his safe
coming harne. The thought that he would die on
a battle-field did not come hard to him, being so
sanguine. He did not make a written testament,
which was among the Slovene nobility, particularly
in the 1 3’h centu ry, not common. There was no
previous written will, as William until then never
came into a position which would assume his imminent
death. If there is little truth in the legend
about his death, his pre-death will was limited to
the willing of the (miraculous) ring and the warning
to the receiver not to make the mistake he did.
William had no family of his own, in his numerous
mentionings there is no trace of a wife and
children. Probably he did not have enough funds
and time, or fidelity to one (legitimate) wife did
not satisfy him – in comparison with the knightly
life. Considering his Iifestyle it seems he did not
deal with the family economic matters, and did not
have much personal property. He probably invested
all his funds into military equipement, travelling,
and the knightly way of life, which was not
cheap. Thus, after his death, the male members of
the family, who at that time managed the property
together, divided his property between themselves,
p robably movables and a s mall estate:
Henry III, with his son Haug the main part (the
sons Albrecht and Henry IV were priests), William
II, Oto, Rudolf and maybe someone else the
rest. The nobility inheritance customs, marked
with general privileges, were enough to prevent
disagreements between the relatives. Instead of
Williams‘ special property the rest of the relatives
and their descendants were left with a bare memory
of his famous deeds, which were reflected in
the popularity of the name until the decay of the
family (another four Williams of Svibno are known)
until 1 400.
Since the family of Svibno had at the end of the
13’h century an agreed traditional cript in the monastery
in Sticna, the corpse of William was transferred
from Völkermarkt in Carinthia, most probably
at the expence of the monks, and buried in
91 Examples in: Kos, Darovanja (as note 34), 38-39. Sec: Schuler, Anniversar (as note 5), 1 10 etc.
2 1
lv1EDIUM AEVUM QUOTIDIANUM 35 (Krems 1 996)
OTIYM 3/1-2 ( 1 995.), str. 1-24, D. Kos, William’s last temptation
the monastery chapel beside the deceased relatives,
in the presence of the wider family, monks,
temporal clergy, friends, relatives and gapers, just
as tradition and the notorious fame of the deceased
demanded. The ceremony was solemn, accompanied
with psalms and a requiem, the blessing of the
corpse in the black wooden coffin, perhaps boastfully
dressed in black satin with embroided „kingly
“ coat-of-arms o f Svib n o (golden tridental
crown in blue) -another symbol of the grandem
of the family and imaginary pretensions – imaginations
of the whole family in a wish to find its
roots in mythology. Maybe then, or maybe at the
thirtieth, his „shield, helmet and flagwere lifted“.
Such was the wish of a Carniolan nobleman92 in
1 550, as the act was a knighdy custom ( = presenting
his symbols of knighthood on the altar) . The
family probably did not take care of a special
tombstone, at the most a wooden plate with a
coat-of-arms. The monks did not receive in 1 293
or immediately after any new parts of the property
of Svibno for special prayers and ceremonies for
the peace of William’s soul. Despite this his name
was already, in 1 2 74, written into the monastery
necrology of donors (noblemen) whom the monks
kept in permanent memory up to the dissolutiön
92 Levanut, Vitez (as note 34), 1 1 8.
93 Puze!, Idiographia (as note 1 5) , 586-605.
94 Valvasor (as note 1 1 ) , VIII, 8 0 1 .
22
of the monastery at the end of the 1 8’h century.
The necrology mentions his distant ancestors, the
first mentioned of Svibno, Conrad and Henry I
(from 1 250), brother Ulrich (from 1 274) , Ulrich
II or III (from 1 346) , William III (from 1 348) and
George (from 1 365) and cousins from the casde
Planina. 93 Beside that, he had Standard pastoral
care guaranteed by the ancestors, and later by his godfearing and weal thy grand-nephews. The base
was probably the eternal light, a few days after the
funeral requiems. The question is whether he had
his own permanent anniversary, probably anniversary
masses in the first years after death, and later
only the collective (family) anniversary. At the
end of 1 4’h and 1 S’h centmies the memory among
relatives was alive and they spread William’s fame
into the other families and nostalgic Carniolan
nobility. The memory of the Svibno knights with
William I among the common people was limited
to the territory around Svibno castle – until, at
least, Valvasor (end of the 1 7’h century), medieval
glass-works in the parish church were preserved,
showing knights in their full battle equipment.94
Williams’s last temptation thus ended with a (unusually)
bitter death; his corpse and soul shared an
expected fate.
MEDIUM AEVUM QUOTIDIANUM 35 (Krems 1 996)
OTIVM 3 / 1 -2 ( 1 995.), str. 1-24, D. Kos, William’s last temptation
Vilhelmovo posljednje iskusenje
S a z e t a k
U bici kod Griffna u Koruskoj godine 1293. pao je kranjski vitez Vilhelm I. od Svibna (Schärfenberga) .
Njegova je popularnost doprinijela stvaranju legende po kojoj je slavodobitnome protivniku umiruCi Vifhelm
uruCio prsten sto mu je dotad osiguravao nepobjedivost. Kronicav suti o daljnjoj sudbini Vifhelmova trupla,
ali je dogaclaje nakon njegove smrti, kao i u slucaju drugih srednjovjekovnih vitezova, moguce rekonstruirati
uzimajuCi u obzir opceprihvacene obicaje. Zato nam posmrtna sudbina Vifhelmova trupla sluii kao model
i crvena nit istraiivanja.
0 plemickim pogrebima i grobovima: meclu njima su postojale razlike, odreclene socijalnim i ekonomskim
mogucnostima pokojnika i rodbine, a dijelom i slucajnim okolnostima. Zajednicka im je bila ielja za pokopom
u izabranoj crkvi, ili radije samostanu. Laici su se nadali stalnim molitvama za svoje gresne duse, a uz to
su htjeli imati grobove o kojima ce netko skrbiti i koj i neee pasti u zaborav. M oie se pratiti trend pribliiavanja
grobova u samostanima glavnom oltaru: isprva su pravila zadriavala plemice u hodniku klaustra, potom su
se otvorila vrata crkava i starih kapela, a napokon je u kasnom srednjem vijeku bilo dozvoljeno pokapanje
u glavnoj ladi i bliie oltaru. Nisu rijetke vijesti o pokopima u crkvama u pisanim izvorima, ali je jos vise
materijalnih ostataka, ponajprije nadgrobnih ploca i epitafa. Nadgrobne ploce cuvale su pokojnike do Sudnjega
dana i potsjeeale potomke i odreclene skrbnike na osobu o kojoj su se trebali brinuti. Propadanje
kasnosrednjovjekovnog plemstva odrazilo se i u napustanju rodovske tradicije pri pokapanju i u rastucoj
individualizaciji izbora mjesta pokopa. U 16. i 1 7. st. najvainijim su mjestom pokapanja postale gradske
kapele, ali prije svega za protestante. NaCin pokapanja bio je jednostavan: pokojnik je razmjerno malim darom
osigurao grobnicu za sebe i svoje srodnike.
Najdetaljnije odluke o obiteljskim strategijama prije i poslije smrti, o osjecajnim vezama u obiteljima, pa i
o poimanju smrti opravdano je ocekivati ponajprije u testamentima. No, do pocetka 1 6. st. na Citavom
podrucju Slovenije prevladavale su isprave s ogranicenim testamentarnim znacajkama, bez svih propisanih
formula. Osim toga, bile su ogranicene na odreclene nasljednike, prije svega na crkvene osobe u vezi sa
zavjetima za dusni mir. Sustav plemickog oporucivanja moguce je osvijetliti u prvom redu uz pomoc odredaba
iz raznovrsnih konkretnih jednostranih testamentarnih odluka i sporazuma, a uz to i iz rijetkih pravih
testamenata. Raspolaganje jezgrom obiteljske imovine bilo je urecleno na taj naCin da se stitio opstanak obitelji.
VeCinu pokretne imovine zadriao je zakoniti partner, odjecu i sl. djeca i drugi srodnici po principu »sinovima
ocevo, kcerima majCino«. Novac i vrednije predmete dobivali su i drugi, najcesce crkvene ustanove. Zbog
malog broja pravih testamenata moie se zakljuCiti da su na promatranom podrucju nastajali samo onda kada
testator nije imao sinova, odnosno ako je bio uopce bez djece ili se odrekao obitelji. Zato se njima dijelilo
sve, pa i bastinjena imovina. Ako je testator imao sina, dostajala je i usmena oporuka i zemaljsko pravo.
Cak i koncem 1 5. st., kada su plemicki testamenti postali razracleniji, jos su uvijek bili bitno odrecleni
postojanjem sinova. Serija pravih testamenata od oko sredine 16. st. oCito je posljedica uvoclenja nasljednih
odredaba rimskog prava, novih vjerskih osjeeaja i pravila, te raspadanja rodova i stvarne podjele imanja.
Odredbe u prvim pisanim oporukama iz graclanskih krugova s podrucja Slavenife bile su ogranicene na
reguliranje unutrasnjoobiteljskih poslova, zbog cega prevladavaju one o zadusnim ustanovama, poravnavanju
dugova i sl. Obitelj se spominje u kontekstu onih legata koji nisu bili namijenjeni pokoju duse, ili u vezi s
posebnim legatima, primjerice za osiguravanje miraza. Nasljeclivanje nasljedne obiteljske imovine reguliralo
je gradsko pravo. Osnovna bi imovina pripala gospodaru grada u slucaju da je pokojnik umro bez neposrednih
potomaka ili srodnika.
Osim unutrasnjih obiteljskih pitanja, drugi je vaini aspekt oporuka i odgovarajuCih isprava blo darivanje
Crkve i izbor crkvenih ustanova sto ih je trebalo nadariti. Testament, smrt i pokop bili su zadnja stepenica
na putu u raj ili pakao, a od 12. st., po vjerovanju i teoloskom naucavanju, na putu u Cistiliste, gdje se dusa
2 3
1v!EDIUM AEVUM QUaTIDIANUM 35 (Krems 1 996)
OTIVM 3/1-2 ( 1 995.), str. 1-24, D. Kos, William’s last temptation
morala oCistiti. Razrjesenje i Ciscenje duse bili su konstanta u tadasnjem razumijevanju odnosa prema Bogu,
sto se odraiavalo i pri naruCivanju umjetnickih djela. Krajem 15. st. meilu plemstvom u Sloveniji prisutan
je i drugaCiji naCin razmisljanja, na kojega su utjecali grailanski ideali, predhumanizam i pobjedonosna
individualizacija.
Skrb za memoriju i odrjesenje bila je u vrijeme zenita i propadanja roda Svibenskih (1280-1400) razmjerno
stalna meilu plemstvom na slovenskom podrucju. Kriza je u rodu i Crkvi plemice od pocetka 15. st. odvracala
od tradicije bogatih darovanja. Njihova su se darivanja ogranicavala na narucene molitve, te im se vrijednost
smanjivala, osim u rijetkog visokog plemstva. Razmjerno uravnoteiena m reia samostana i crkava
omogucavala je „blizinu“ kao najprirodniji iivotni element srednjeg vijeka takoiler i u skrbi za odrjesenje
duse. Blizina nadarene ustanove omogucavala je rodbini nadzor nad izvoilenjem dogovorenih obreda. Kod
grailanstva je bio vaian jos jedan Cimbenik: svijest o pravnoj, staleskoj, politickoj i gospodarskoj jedinstvenosti
povezivala je stanovnike gradova u evrstu zajednicu, koja je posredstvom bratovstina dijelom nadzirala
crkvene ustanove na svojem podrucju. Najsarolikiju strukturu darovatelja imali su ienski samostani, nastali
zbog brige o plemickim kcerima. Njihovi su srodnici najcesce darivali radi bolje opskrbe redovnica, manje
za vlastitu memoriju. Sto je crkvena ustanova bila manje ugledna, to je manje ugledno bilo plemstvo koje ju
je darivalo. Rod Vilhelma Svibenskog bio je od 12. st. tijesno povezan sa cistercitskom opatijom Sticna.
Njegova su darovanja bila nesumnjivo vezana uz dogotovljenje stalne grobnice, koja je postojala vee od oko 1200. Zbog toga grob viteza Vilhelma moramo traiiti u Sticni, a ne u domacoj iupnoj crkvi.
S izuzetkom legata koji nisu bili precizirani u smislu duinosti onoga kome su bili namijenjeni, a kakvi su
prevladavali u slovenskim zemljama do pocetka 14. st., najrasirenije i najbolje precizirano je bilo darivanje
za aniversarije i vjecno svjetlo. Trend je isao od nepreciziranja prema tocno odreilenim obredima krajem 14.
st. Darivati samo za )okoj svoje i duse svojih predaka „, a u casu moralnogpropadanja Crkve i drustva uzdati
se samo u postenje sveeenika, nije vise bilo dovoljno. Vjera donatora isla je od skupne, pri cemu se pojedinac
utapao u mnostvu mrtvih za koje su redovnici molili, do individualne, koja je oporuCitelju osiguravala
poseban status i identitet pred Bogom.
Prema tim odredbama smijemo rekonstruirati zadnji put palog Vilhelma Svibenskog, kao i svih onih plemica
o kojima nema nikakvih suvremenih vijesti. Pred bitku oCito nije darovao nista posebno nekoj crkvenoj ustanovi
za sretan p ovratak kuCi. Isto tako nije sastavio ni pisani testament. Po legendi o njegovoj smrti svelo se
predsmrtno oporuCivanje na darivanje cudotvornog prstena pobjedniku. Vifhelm nije imao vlastite obitelji ni
veeeg osobnog vlasnistva. Zbog toga su njegovu imovinu meilu sobom razdijelili muski Clanovi roda, koji je
u tom trenutku upravljao imutkom. Roilacima i njihovim potomcima ostala je uspomena na njegove slavne
pothvate. Kako je rod Svibenskih krajem 13. st. imao tradicionalnu grobnicu u samostanu Sticna, bilo je
Vifhelmova tijelo dopremljeno u ·sticnu i pokopano na tradicionalni nacin u samostanskoj kapeli u nazocnosti
sire rodbine, redovnika i prijatelja. Posebna nadgrobna ploca najvjerojatnije nije bila napravljena. Vifhelm
je dobio dogovorenu standardnu skrb o dusi, za sto su se pobrinuli vee njegovi preci, dok pravo na vlastitu
godisnjicu najvjerojatnije nije imao.
2 4
l\1EDIUM AEVUM QUOIIDIANUM 35
(Krems 1996)
OTIVM 3/1-2
(1995.)
V O RWO RT
Alltagsgeschichte ist ein Forschungsbereich, der nicht nur in starkem Maße interdisziplinären
Ansätzen und Methoden verbunden ist, sondern auch im besonderen von wissenschaftlicher
Kooperation bestimmt wird. Aus diesem Grunde freut es uns umso mehr,
daß wir Ihnen mit diesem Heft das Ergebnis einer solchen Zusammenarbeit präsentieren
zu können, die sich im Rahmen der Lehrtätigkeit der Herausgeber an der Central European
University in Budapest entwickelt hat. Otium, die kroatische Zeitschrift fiir Alltagsgeschichte,
und Medium Aevum Quotidianum, die in Österreich erscheinende internationale
Zeitschrift für Alltagsgeschichte und Geschichte der Sachkultur des Mittelalters,
bieten Ihnen hiermit eine gemeinsame Ausgabe, die vor allem Beiträge von Historikern aus
dem mitteleuropäischen Raum – aus Deutschland, Kroatien, Österreich, Slowenien und
Ungarn- enthält.
Das Generalthema des Heftes bezieht sich auf die Problemkreise „Familie und Alltag“ mit
besonderem Bezug auf „Familie und Tod“. Es werden dabei Fragestellungen angesprochen,
die für eine allgemeine Alltagsgeschichte ausgesprochene Relevanz besitzen.
Dies trifft besonders auf verschiedene Verbindungen zwischen ‚privatem‘ und ‚öffentlichem‘
Raum zu. Dusan Kos (Ljubljana) setzt sich mit adeligen Begräbnisritualen in Kärnten,
Zdenka Janekovüe-Römer (Zagreb) mit denen des Adels von Dubrovnik auseinander.
Erhard Chwoyka (Saarbrücken) behandelt das Motiv des „Ungleichen Paares“ vom 15.
bis zum 17 .Jahrhundert. Michael Mitterauer (Wien) konzentriert sich auf das Problem der
Schwagerehe. Elisabeth Vavra (Krems) untersucht die Reflexionen aufTodesf Quellen des Spätmittelalters und der frühen Neuzeit, während sich Dusan
Mlacovüe (Ljubljana), Katalin Szende (Sopron) und Brigitte Pohl-Resl (Wien) Familienaspekten
in der testamentarischen Überlieferung widmen.
Wir hoffenmit dieser Ausgabe Anstoß und Amegung zu weiterer und verstärkter wissenschaftlicher
Zusammenarbeit im Bereich der Alltagsgeschichtsforschung gegeben zu haben.
Neven Budak und Gerhard Jaritz
PREDGOVOR
Povijest je svakodnevice podrucje istrazivanja koje ne zahtijeva samo u velikoj mjeri interdisciplinamost,
nego je napose odredeno medusobnom suradnjom znanstvenika. Iz tog
razloga posebno nas veseli da ovim sveskom mozemo predstaviti plod takve suradnje, a
koji je nastao kao rezultat nastavnicke djelatnosti izdavaca na Central European University
u Budimpesti. Otium, hrvatski casopis za povijest svakodnevice, i Medium Aevum Quotidian
um, medunarodni casopis za povijest svakodnevice i materijalne kulture srednjeg
vijeka, koji izlazi u Austriji, odlucili su izdati zajednicki broj koji sadrZi priloge povjesnicara/
ki iz srednjoeuropskog prostora: Njemacke, Hrvatske, Austrije, Slovenije i Madarske.
Sredisnja se tema broja odnosi na „Obitelj i svakodnevicu“, s posenim osvrtom na „Obitelj
i smrt“. Pri tom se obraduju pitanja od izrazite vaznosti za opcu povijest svakodnevice.
To se odnosi pogotovo na razlicite veze izmedu „privatnih“ i „javnih“ sfera zivota.
Dusan Kos (Ljubljana) bavi se pogrebnim ritualima koruskog plemstva, a Zdenka Janekovic
(Zagreb) obraduje istu problematiku u vezi s dubrovackim patricijatom. Erhard Chvojka
(Saarbrücken) obraduje motiv „nejednakog para“ od 15. do 17. stoljeca, a Michael
Mitterauer (Bec) problern Ieviratskog braka. Elisabeth Vavra (Krems) proucava promisljanja
smrtnih slucajeva u autobiografskim izvorima kasnog srednjeg i ranoga novog vijeka,
dok se Dusan Mlacovic (Ljubljana), Katalin G. Szende (Sopron) i Brigitte Pohl-Resl
(Bec) posvecuju obiteljskoj problematici u oporukama.
Nadamo se da smo ovim izdanjem dali nov poticaj daljnjem intenziviranju znanstvene
suradnje na polju historije svakodnevice.
Neven Budak i Gerhard Jaritz
INHALT
Du5an Kos- WILLIAM’S LAST TEMPTATION ………………………………………………………. ……………………………………… 1-24
Zdenka Janekovic-Römer – „PRO ANIMA MEA ET PREDECESSORUM MEORUM“ ……. …. ….. 25-34
Erhard Chvojka- „NU IST SIE JUNK, SO IST ER ALT“ . . . . ………………………………………………………………………… 35-52
Michael Mitterauer-DIE WITWE DES BRUDERS ………………………………………………………………………………………… 53-70
Elisabeth Vavra – “ …W ANN ER NIT GOT WERE, AUCH SO HOCH DOBEN
IM HIMEL SEßE, WELLT ICH SEIN FEINDT WERDEN … “ ………………… 7 1 -8 4
Dusan Mlacovic – THE WORLD DOMINCHIELLUS MEC::IGNA …………… ………………….. . . . . ………….. 8 5 – 1 0 6
Katalin G . Szende- FAMILIES IN TESTAMENTS ……… ………………………………………………………… .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . … 1 0 7- 1 2 4
Brigitte Pohl-Resl – FAMILY, MEMORY AND CHARITY IN
LATE MEDIEVAL VIENNA ……….. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ……………………. . . . . . . . . . ………………. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 5 – 1 3 2
SADRZAJ
Dusan Kos – VILHELMOVO POSLJEDNJE ISKUSENJE … .. .. . . . …. .. …. .. .. .. .. ….. …. ….. .. .. .. ….. .. …. ……………… . …. .. .. .. 1-24
Zdenka Janekovic-Römer – „ZA DUSU SVOJU I SVOJIH PREDAKA“ . . ……………. . . . . ……………………… . . . . 25-34
Erhard Chvojka – „I TAKO, ONA JE MLADA, A ON JE STAR“ ……………………………………….. …………………. 35-52
Michael Mitteraue r – BRATOVA UDOVICA ………………………………………………………. …………………….. …………………….. 53-70
Elisabeth Vavra – “ … KADA NE BI BIO BOG I SJEDIO TAKO VISOKO NA NEBU,
POSTAO BIH NJEGOVIM NEPRIJATELJEM .. . “ ……………………………………………….. 71-84
Dusan Mlacovic -SVIJET DOMINCHIELLA MEC::IGNE ……. ………………………………………………………………… 85-106
Katalin G. Szende- OBITELJI U OPORUKAMA . ……………………………. . … ……….. …….. . .. ……… ……. … …. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107-124
Brigitte Pohl-Resl – OBITELJ, MEMORIJA I DOBROTVORNOST U
KASNOSREDNJOVJEKOVNOM BECU ……………… .. .. ……………….. ……………. …………. 125-132