Violence and the Clergy in Medieval Croatia: The Violent Death of the Spalatin Archbishop Arnir (Rainerius) in 1180

5
Violence and the Clergy in Medieval Croatia:
The Violent Death of the Spalatin Archbishop Arnir
(Rainerius) in 1180
Zoran Ladić and Goran Budeč
I. Sources
There are several types of extant sources dealing generally with various aspects
of the life of the late twelfth-century Spalatin Archbishop Arnir (lat. Rainerius)
and particularly with his violent death which happened in 1180. The most important
evidence, either contemporary or from later periods, are narrative
sources, mainly of Croatian provenance. Particularly relevant is a hagiographic
work entitled The Life of St. Arnir (Vita sancti Rainerii). Although Arnir’s Vita
was originally written in Latin, there is only a Croatian version from the seventeenth
century preserved.1 The analysis of the hagiographic motifs, literary
structure, and content of this Croatian version implies that the text is actually a
Croatian translation of a, most probably, late medieval Latin redaction of the
Vita.2 One of the most important sources for the Croatian Middle Ages, the
chronicle written by the Spalatin Thomas Archdeacon in the middle of the thirteenth
century entitled Historia Salonitana, contains an entire chapter which is
dedicated to the person of Arnir after he was installed as the Spalatin
archbishop. Thomas’ chronicle is an equally important source as Arnir’s Vita,
particularly because it served as a model for the creation of the above mentioned
lost original Latin version of the Vita.3 Some data concerning Arnir’s private
and ecclesiastical biography are also presented in the so-called Historia Salonitana
maior, a chronicle written perhaps in the sixteenth century by some unknown
author.4 Finally, a number of biographical data are to be found in the
1 Vedran Gligo and Hrvoje Morović (ed.), Legende i kronike [Legends and Chronicles] (Split:
Čakavski sabor, 1977), 123-47 (henceforth: Legende).
2 Legende, 125-6.
3 Historia Salonitana Thomae Archidiaconi. Historia Salonitanorum atque Spalatinorum
pontificum, ed. Olga Perić, Sokol Matijević, and Radoslav Mirjana-Katičić (Split: Književni
krug, 2003), 108-15 (henceforth: HS).
4 See: Nada Klaić, “Historia Salonitana maior,” in Posebna izdanja SANU, Odelenje društvenih
nauka, n. CCCXCIX, book 55 (Beograd: SANU, 1967) henceforth: “HSM.”. On the
6
work Illirycum Sacrum written by the eighteenth-century historian Daniele Farlati.
5 His work is important because it offers various information concerning the
life of Arnir which can neither be found in the Vita nor in the Historia Salonitana.
This is because Farlati relied not only on the Latin version of Arnir’s Vita
and Thomas’ Historia but also presented some new information which he had
taken from diplomatic sources, such as papal and imperial letters. In order to
strenghten Arnir’s sanctity, whose cult was firmly established on the local level
of the Spalatin archbishopric in the eighteenth century, Farlati also presented
several lauds, poems, and hymns written by medieval and Renaissance Croatian
writers, such as Marko Marulić, Ivan Lučić-Lucius, and Ivan Tomko Mrnavčić.6
Finally, the last group of sources valuable for the reconstruction of Arnir’s life
and especially the analysis of the circumstances which led to his violent death
are diplomatic sources. They are published in the main Croatian source collection
of medieval diplomatic charters: the Codex diplomaticus regni Croatiae,
Dalmatiae et Slavoniae.7 All of the sources mentioned enable the reconstruction
of the ecclesiastical and political circumstances which ended in Arnir’s martyrdom
as well as in the immediate creation and flourishing of his cult as one of the
Spalatin patron saints.
II. Ecclesiastical and political circumstances in Split
and its hinterland in the last decades of the twelfth century
As reported by Thomas Archdeacon, after the death of the Spalatin Archbishop
Gerard (Gerardus) in 1175, the ecclesiastical representatives of Split requested
the Roman curia appoint a new archbishop. For that purpose they sent their legates
ad pedes domini Alexandri pape.8 It seems that even before the Spalatin
delegation arrived at Rome, Pope Alexander III already had decided to appoint
Arnir, then the bishop of Cagli in the province of Marche9 whom he appreciated
as eium uirum ualde habilem regimini pastorali.10 Moreover, in his Vita which,
as has been said, follows to a great extent Thomas’ Historia, Arnir was regarded
Historia Salonitana maior see generally: Nada Klaić, Povijest Hrvata u ranom srednjem
vijeku [History of the Croats in the Early Middle Ages], 2nd ed. (Zagreb: Školska Knjiga,
1975), 26-8 (henceforth: Povijest Hrvata).
5 Daniele Farlati, Illyricum sacrum, vol. III (Venice: S. Coleti, 1765), esp. 194-211 (henceforth:
IS).
6 Ibidem, 208-10.
7 Tadija Smičiklas, Diplomatički zbornik Kraljevine Hrvatske, Dalmacije i Slavonije. Codex
diplomaticus regni Croatiae, Dalmatiae et Slavoniae, vol. 2 (Zagreb: JAZU, 1904),
henceforth: CD2.
8 Tunc miserunt (i. e., the Spalatin clergy) legatos suos ad curiam, sacerdotem quendam Ionium
sacristam et quondam alium (HS, 108).
9 Arnir was bishop of Cagli from 1156 to 1175. Lexikon der Christlischen Ikonographie, vol.
8: Ikonographie der Heiligen Meletius bis Zweiundvierzig Märtyrer, ed. Wolfgang Braunfels
(Rome et al.: Herder, 1976), col. 254.
10 “As a man who was highly devoted to the pastoral service.” HS, 108.
7
as a disciple of the Camaldolian monk St. Ubaldo and as a man graced “by great
wisdom and sanctity”, particularly in regard to his leadership over the bishopric
of Cagli.11 However, the data recorded in his Vita as well as in the Historia Salonitana
maior report that Arnir came into conflict with the local clergy in Cagli,
especially regarding the property rights over certain ecclesiastical estates. The
unknown author of the Historia Salonitana maior reported that:
Erat autem tunc temporis magna controversia inter clericos Callenses
Tuscie civitatis ex una parte et Rainerium eorum episcopum ex parte altera
super (quibusdam) iuribus ecclesie ipsorum.12
Similar data may be found in his Vita where the author states, writing in the
spirit of hagiographic genre, that Arnir ruled the Church of Cagli for more than
twenty years with great wisdom and sanctity; when his infernal enemy [here the
author obviously meant the devil], unable to stand his virtues, caused the conflict
between Arnir and the clergy subordinated to him concerning some land
estates in his diocese.13 Unable to solve the conflict between Arnir and the local
clergy already Pope Adrian IV decided to remove him from that position and to
install him as the archbishop of Split. It is worthwhile to stress here that Arnir in
his early years became a loyal supporter of the policy of the Roman curia, especially
concerning the protection and defence of papal rights over various ecclesiastical
land estates. Arnir also maintained the same policy later while obtaining
the function of archbishop of Split.
All the narrative sources, chronicles as well as hagiographic works, point
out that Arnir’s arrival to Split was warmly welcomed by all secular and spiritual
members of the community. Thus, Thomas Archdeacon described his arrival
with these words: Cum autem peruenisset ad ciuitatem, cum magna tripudio
cleri populique susceptus est.14 The unknown author of the Historia Salonitana
maior reported of his arrival to Split with almost the same words: Cum autem
pervenisset ad civitatem anno Domini MCLXXV cum magno tripudio cleri
populique susceptus est.15 Regrettably, D. Farlati, in his work Illyricum sacrum,
gave no information concerning that event. Finally, Arnir’s arrival was also
shortly described in his Vita with the following words: “He came to Split where
he was welcomed with great joy and respect by the clergy, patricians and the entire
Spalatin plebes (mediocres, populares).” It may be concluded, as far as his
arrival to Split is concerned, that all three main sources – Thomas Archdeacon,
the Historia Salonitana maior, and the Vita – presented almost the same descriptions
of that event. Such great similarity in reporting on one and the same
event confirms our hypothesis that Historia Salonitana and Historia Salonitana
maior certainly served as the model for the creation of Arnir’s Vita.
11 Legende, 136.
12 “HSM,” 120.
13 Legende, 136.
14 “When he arrived at the city, he was welcomed with great joy by both clergy and laics.”
HS, 108.
15 “HSM,” 121.
8
This leads to the question why Arnir was so warmly welcomed by the
members of all strata of Spalatin society. Attempting to answer it, one has to
bear in mind that before his arrival to Split, the metropolis was in conflict with
some of the neighbouring Croatian magnates in the hinterland. The cause of the
dispute was the question of the dominion over certain land estates which both
sides, the Spalatin Church and Croatian magnates, considered as their own property.
The Spalatin clergy and patricians were certainly aware of Arnir’s previous
struggle for ecclesiastical rights over land estates in Cagli. All narrative sources
examined in this article clearly stated that Arnir’s main task as the head of the
Spalatin church was the reoccupation of the land estates which always belonged,
at least in opinion of the ecclesiastical leaders of the Spalatin church, to the diocese
of Split. Thus, Thomas Archdeacon in his Historia Salonitana and the unknown
author of the Historia Salonitana maior, pointed out that immediately
after his arrival, Arnir
cepit autem ecclesiam multa prudentia gubernare, emendare clericos,
populum instruere salubribus documentis, facultates ecclesie uigilanti
studio ampliare.16
The unknown author of Arnir’s Vita, rather more poetic in style, underlined, that
after his arrival at Split, Arnir worked on “condemning the sins, encouraging
virtues” of the believers and, what is most important, he was firm and resolute
“in persevering in and defending ecclesiastical rights.”17 Besides that primary
task, all narrative sources underline his attempts to restore the religious discipline
of clergy and laypeople.
In the implementation of his ecclesiastical plans in the diocese of Split
Arnir was supported by two most important political and ecclesiastical powers
in the region of Dalmatia: the Roman curia and the Byzantine Empire. As reported
in the narrative sources he was in intimate relation with the popes Adrian
IV (1154-9) and Alexander III (1159-81).18 Both of them insisted on the legal
16 “He led wisely the Church, he corrected the behaviour of the clergy, he instructed the plebs
with examples that lead to salvation, he took care about the improvement of the goods of the
Church”. HS, 108; “HSM,” 121.
17 Legende, 137.
18 Arnir’s intimate relationship with Pope Alexander III is described in one episode: On one
occasion, in the year 1177, the pope went from Apulia to Venice in order to sign a peace
agreement with Emperor Friedrich I Barbarossa. As reported by Thomas Archdeacon, during
his trip over the Adriatic, the pope was invited by Arnir to visit Split but, because of
some obstacles, they met on the Dalmatian island of Vis and went together to Zadar. HS,
110-11. Almost the same report is presented in “HSM” where the author wrote: Per idem
fere tempus dominus Alexander papa tempore scismaticorum navigavit Apuliam et venit ad
insulam que dicitur Vis. Scismatic.” This sentence is referring to the schism with the emperor
who appointed Anti-pope Calixt III and, for that reason, was excommunicated by
Alexander III. The same author further reports: Statim autem, ut presensit Raynerius archiepiscopus,
preparatis navibus multis cum magno comitatu cleri et nobilium civitatis venit ad
eum defferens ei cibaria et exenia multa. This sentence testifies about the fact that, only two
years after his arrival to Split, Arnir succeeded in achieving one of his main ecclesiastical
goals, that is, to win over local patricians and the community of the clergy for his future
9
regulation concerning the property rights over ecclesiastical estates.19 Besides
the narrative sources, there are two papal letters shedding some light on the relations
between Pope Alexander III and Arnir.20 Both of these letters were written
in 1177, that is, two years after Arnir was elected the archbishop of Split. In
the first letter, written on July 23 in Rivoalto near Venice, Alexander requested
from the Spalatin archbishop and from the Tragurin bishop to take certain actions
against Dalmatian pirates from the city of Šibenik who had robbed the papal
legate Raymond de Capella and had taken from him all the gold, money and
luxury goods.21 The latter was appointed by the pope as a main executor of the
papal ecclesiastical policy in Dalmatia.22 Raymond’s importance is confirmed in
the following papal letter, also written in Rivoalto near Venice and dated August
22, 1177, in which Alexander ordered Raymond to take actions regarding the
conflict between the archbishop of Split and the Zaratin archbishop Lampredius
(1154-79) regarding the question of sovereignty over the bishopric of Hvar.23
Finally, there is one letter written by Raymond de Capello from 1177 in which
Raymond, following the papal orders, wrote to Lampredius, the archbishop of
Zadar, to inform all of his subordinate bishops as well as all the clergy under his
plans, particularly those concerning the rights of the Spalatin church on ecclesiastical land
estates in the hinterland. Finally, the same story is recorded in Arnir’s Vita but there, regarding
the difference in genre, certain hagiographic motifs were added. Legende, 138.
Besides that, it should be mentioned that Arnir held the title of legatus sedis Apostolicae
which also speaks about his close relationship with Alexander as well as about the fact that
he was strongly supported by the Roman curia. Farlati, Illyricum sacrum, vol. 3, 201. See
also CD2, 144, doc. 142, and 147, doc. 144; Slavko Kovačić, “Toma Arhiđakon, promicatelj
crkvene obnove i splitski nadbiskupi, osobito njegovi suvremenici,” [Thomas Archdeacon,
the Propagator of the Ecclesiastical Renewal and the Spalatin Archbishops, in particular his
Contemporaries], in Toma Arhiđakon i njegovo doba, ed. Mirjana Matijević-Sokol and Olga
Perić (Split: Književni Krug, 2004), 47.
19 Adrian IV particularly insisted on the better preservation and governing of the papal
treasury. He even compiled the Liber Censuum in order “to make sure that the financial
rights of papacy throughout Western Christendom would be adequately recorded and
preserved forever.” The New Cambridge Medieval History, vol. IV: c. 1024-c.1198, II, ed.
David Luscombe and Jonathan Riley-Smith (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
2004), 23 (henceforth: NCMH IV). As for Alexander III, he also belonged to the group of
popes performing the “twelfth-century reform programme” of the Church emphasizing “that
the person and the property of the clergy were sacrosanct”. Ibid., 330.
20 The two letters are certainly those which Daniel Farlati mentioned in the third volume of
his work Illyricum sacrum, stating that Alexander sent some letters to Arnir using his legate
Raymond de Capella as the carrier: Alexander Raymundum de Capella legatum in Dalmatiam
cum litteris ad Raynerium mittit. IS vol. 3, 198.
21 … rediret ad nos, pirate, qui erant in sagettia castri de Seuenico, in qua duo comites erant,
Nestos videlizet et Poclat … The pirates took ultra sexagintam marchas argenti et litteras
etiam nostras. CD2, 144-5, doc.142.
22 Namely in this papal letter Raymond was called dilectus filius Raymundus de Capella
subdiaconus noster. CD2, 144, doc. 142.
23 Actually this letter was addressed to venerabili fratri Spalatensi archiepiscopo apostolice
sedis legato that is, to Arnir. CD2, 147, doc. 144.
10
authority to gather at a regional council in Split.24 What is important in the content
of Raymond’s letter is that he emphasised that the main question to be discussed
at the council was the discipline of the Dalmatian clergy.25 As testified in
the narrative sources, that was exactly one of the most important issues of
Arnir’s ecclesiastical policy in Dalmatia. There is no doubt that, in Arnir’s eyes,
the improvement of clerical discipline in Dalmatia represented the starting point
for his later plans regarding the reoccupation of the land estates in the hinterland
of Split. Namely, in order to achieve that task, he needed unquestionable support
of the local Spalatin clergy.
Besides Raymond, another person playing an important role in Arnir’s ecclesiastical
policy, particularly in supporting Arnir’s attempts to regain certain
land estates in the Croatian hinterland, was the Byzantine emperor Manuel I
Komnenos (1143-80).26 Thomas Archdeacon and the unknown author of the
Historia Salonitana maior presented some information about Manuel I. Generally,
they both considered him to be good, honourable and generous. Thus, the
author of Historia Salonitana maior stated: Ipse autem erat benignissimus circa
omnes sibi subiectos: non tributorum exactor, sed divitiarum suarum liberalissimus
distributor, omnes ad se venientes honorabat. 27 The question is why Thomas
Archdeacon, a high communal ecclesiastical official from thirteenth-century
Split, as well as archbishop Arnir, were so benevolent towards the person of
emperor Manuel I, particularly having in mind their faithfulness towards the
pope and Roman curia; namely, as the schism between Eastern and Western
Christianity had already lasted for more than hundred years, and there were no
signs of a possible reunion of the two Churches. The answer proposed in the
narrative sources seems to be rather simple and depended to a great extent on the
geostrategic position of Dalmatia. In 1167, the city of Split was chosen by Byzantine
authorities to be the centre of the Dalmatia and Croatia which were subjugated
to Byzantium until 1180.28 Thomas Archdeacon stated in his chronicle
that tota autem Dalmatia pene Chroatia uniuersa subiecta erat principatui
eius.29 This position made the commune of Split to the political, ecclesiastical
and economic centre of the entire province of Dalmatia, and such a situation and
position was certainly welcomed by its communal secular and ecclesiastical
elite. Moreover, the close connections between the Byzantine emperor and Split
24 CD2, 148-9, doc. 145.
25 Cum dominus papa … propter hoc destinauerit, ut pro vigili sollicitudine apostolica
doctrinam et ecclesiasticam disciplinam, in quantum dominus ministraret, ibidem
dilataremus … CD2, 148, doc. 145.
26 For certain data concerning the relations between Manuel I Komnenos and Croatia and Dalmatia,
see: NCMH IV, 274-6.
27 “HSM,” 121.
28 Tomislav Raukar, Studije o Dalmaciji u srednjem vijeku: odabrane studije [Studies on Dalmatia
in the Middle Ages: Selected Studies] (Split: Književni krug, 2007), 226 (henceforth:
Studije o Dalmaciji).
29 HS, 110-1. The same information is given in the chronicle written by the unknown author
of Historia Salonitana maior. HSM, 121.
11
were especially important because of the Spalatin ecclesiastical policy in the
Croatian hinterland where the nominal or, even better, military support of the
Byzantine emperor in the attempt to regain land estates was of great value for
the Spalatin church. Although Arnir was theoretically supported in exercising
his plans in the Croatian hinterland by Pope Alexander III, the real military support
could have been expected only from Manuel I. Daniele Farlati was the first
to understand the real background and the purpose of Arnir’s visit to Constantinople,
explaining the departure of the Spalatin delegation by the need for the
Spalatin Church to obtain the emperor’s support for Arnir’s planned action
against the kindred of Kačići.30 In his Illyricum sacrum, Farlati emphasised that
Arnir went to Constantinople in order to gain gratiam et auctoritatem Imperatoris
ad resarcienda jura Ecclesiastica, quae violaverant et recuperandas Ecclesiae
suae possessionis, quas praepotentes quidam homines occuperaverant…31
In such circumstances, Arnir’s decision to visit Constantinople and
Manuel I in 1177 seems to have been rather understandable. According to the
data presented by Thomas Archdeacon and the author of the Historia Salonitana
maior, Arnir was accompanied on his trip by aliquot de nobilibus civitatis¸ that
is, by several Spalatin patricians.32 According to Thomas Archdeacon, the Historia
Salonitana maior and Arnir’s Vita (although more vaguely), he was honourably
accepted at the emperor’s court in Constantinople.33 Moreover, he was
welcomed with many precious gifts and returned to Split joyful and rich. 34
III. Arnir’s conflict with the Croatian kindred of Kačići
After his return to Split, now having nominal support by the pope and military
support by the emperor, Arnir felt strong enough to start his ecclesiastical policy
regarding Croatian noblemen. Namely, in Arnir’s opinion, they unjustly occupied
certain land estates in the hinterland of Split which he considered as a property
of the Spalatin Church. Therefore, it is no wonder that Thomas Archdeacon
and the authors of the Historia Salonitana maior and the Vita wrote about Arnir,
but only after his successful return from Constantinople, as a manualde constans
30 On the kindred of Kačići see: Mato Artuković, “Kačići,” in Hrvatski biografski leksikon,
vol. 6, I-Kal, ed. Trpimir Macan (Zagreb: Leksikografski zavod Miroslav Krleža, 2005),
699-707 (henceforth: “Kačići“).
31 IS, 204.
32 “HSM,” 223. Except for the data presented in Historia Salonitana and Historia Salonitana
maior there are no other extant documents confirming Arnir’s visit to Constantinpople (HS,
113). However, some historians like, for instance, Eduard Peričić connect Arnir’s trip to
Constantinople with his attempt to solve the relationship between the dioceses of Dubrovnik
and Bar. His hypothesis is based on a contemporary charter by the archbishop of Bar from
between 1178-79. Eduard Peričić, Sclavorum regnum Grgura Barskog. Ljetopis popa
Dukljanina [Sclavorum regnum by Gregory of Bar. The Cronicle of Priest Dukljanin], (Zagreb:
Kršćanska sadašnjost, 1991), 227-8.
33 honorifice ab imperatore susceptus est. HS, 112.
34 Sicque ad ecclesiam suam gaudens et locuples est reuersus. HS, 112.
12
et intrepidus nec patiebatur aliquid de iuribus et facultatibus ecclesie deperire
(that is, as a man constant and fearless who did not allow the disruption of ecclesiastical
rights and occupation of the goods belonging to the Church).35
What followed after Arnir’s return from Constantinople is best explained
in Farlati’s Illyricum sacrum. According to the latter, from that moment onwards,
the main goal of Arnir’s policy was to gain rather questionable property
rights of the Spalatin Church over some land estates situated on the mountain of
Mosor near Split, thus actually challenging the hereditary rights of the influential
Croatian kindred of Kačići.36 That being said, on the basis of which charters
did Arnir claim the property rights of the Spalatin Church over the mentioned
land estates on Mosor? According to Farlati, Arnir possessed some old charters
by the Croatian kings and the kings of Hungary-Croatia from the eleventh and
twelfth century which confirmed the rights of the Spalatin Chruch over these
lands ex donatione Regum Chrobatiae et Hungariae.37 The kings who issued
these donation charters were the Croatian king Zvonimir (1076-89, the donator)
and Kálmán, king of Hungary-Croatia (1095-1116, the corroborator). It is of
great importance to underline here that these charters are considered falsifications.
As it was already pointed out by Ferdo Šišić, and later by some other
Croatian historians, these documents were forgeries from 1165-1166 and related
to a much earlier period, that is, to the beginning of the twelfth century.38
The first royal charter was supposedly issued by the Croatian and Dalmatian
king Zvonimir in 1078.39 In it he confirmed to the Spalatin archbishop Lawrence
all the rights over several villages and land estates in Serenine, Gothe, Tugare,
Osiçi, Debriç, Dlanoçe, Vallari et Cremene, que posite sunt infra montes Massari.
The other royal charter which is considered a forgery was issued by king
Kálmán in 1103.40 After confirming all the traditional rights of the Spalatin
church quos ad presens obtinet ipsa ecclesia per Dalmatiam et Chroatium
Kálmán specifically mentioned villam Syrenine, Gete, Tugari, Asseti, similiter
35 HS, 112.
36 Radoslav Katičić, “Toma Arhiđakon i hrvatska povijest” [Thomas Archdeacon and the
Croatian history], in HS, 417.
37 IS, 204.
38 Ferdo Šišić, Poviest Hrvata za kraljeva iz doba Arpadovića [History of Croatians during
the reign of the Árpád dinasty], vol. I (Zagreb: Hrvatska Akademija Znanosti i Umjetnosti,
1944), 100 ((henceforth: Poviest Hrvata).
39 King Zvonimir corroborated his decision by the reason quod homines et villani vicini villarum
ecclesie memorate molestabant et perturbabant ciues predictos et homines ac villanos
ipsius archiepiscopi. Although this charter is proven to be a forgery, it clearly testifies
that the conflict between the Spalatin archbishop and the noblemen from Mosor already
lasted for some time. Marko Kostrenčić, Diplomatički zbornik Kraljevine Hrvatske, Dalmacije
i Slavonije. Codex diplomaticus regni Croatiae, Dalmatiae et Slavoniae, vol. 1 (Zagreb:
JAZU 1967), p. 160 (henceforth: CD1).
40 CD2, 10-1, doc. 7.
13
cum seruis et ancilis et eorum posteris…Massari cum toto monte magno
Politii.41
What is particularly important for the further development of the story regarding
the violent death of Arnir is the fact that in these charters territorium
Sreninae ad radices montis Massari situm is explicitly mentioned, that is, the
land estate where Arnir would be killed on 4 August, 1180.42
Having the papal and the emperor’s support and armed with the mentioned
charters, Arnir started his mission to regain the land estates on Mosor in
March 1180, thus confronting Gens Chacittorum (that is, the kindred of Kačići)
who were inprimis inter familias Chrobaticas copiosa ac praepotens.43 After
Arnir’s complaints to the Emperor concerning the Kačići, Manuel I gave a
charter in March 1180 to his Dalmatian governor Roger informing him about the
conflict between Arnir and the Kačići. In this charter Manuel I wrote that he was
informed
quod quidam incolarum eiusmodi regionis sed et Caciclorum aliqui non
pauca eorum, que in suo priuilegio et ad suam ecclesiam pertinent (that
is, to the Spalatin church) possident in Serengene (Srinjine) et predicta
ecclesia illius suis bonis priuetur.44
Therefore, Manuel I asked Roger, governor of the provinces of Dalmatia and
Croatia, to intervene in the negotiations between the archbishop and the
Kačići.45 The emperor further ordered the governor to support Arnir in the
reoccupation of the land estates in Srinjine.46 Moreover, Manuel I confirmed the
archbishopric’s rights over land estates in Srinjina referring to the previously
mentioned charters of Zvonimir and Kálmán.47 Finally, Manuel I ordered Roger
to expel the Kačići from Srinjina and to regain the land estates situated around
the church of St. Bartholomew which also belonged to the Spalatin church as
confirmed by boni testes.48 Even more, Manuel I ordered that, if the Kačići
continued to invade the land estates of the Spalatin church in villa de Serengene,
he gave Arnir all the rights that repellas et interdices eis.49
Becoming over-confident because of Manuel’s support and the orders
given to Roger, the archbishop started an action against the Kačići. Namely,
Manuel’s letter purportedly gave Arnir the impression that Roger would provide
41 Ibid.
42 IS, 204.
43 Ibid.
44 CD2, 165, doc. 163. It is interesting that Thomas in his Historia Salonitana did not inform
about the charters of Manuel I and Roger.
45 The Emperor ordered Roger to discuss that matter in front of the archbishop, the representatives
of the Kačići, and the citizens of Split. If Arnir would have any written evidence or reliable
witnesses, Roger was obliged to confirm the archbishopric’s rights over all land estates
and the church of St. Bartholomew. “Kačići,” 702.
46 omnia predictae ecclesiae restituat. IS, 204.
47 sicut in chartula predicte ecclesie apparuerit. CD2, 165, doc. 163.
48 Ibid.
49 IS, 204.
14
him a strong military unit. Yet, according to a charter of 10 June, 1180, Arnir
was accompanied only by two assessors (Croat. pristavi) who probably led a
small military unit of professional soldiers. In the charter it is stated that Roger
… dedit michi Rainerio Spalatensi archiepiscopo duos pristaldos Michaelem
Dragumanum et Petrum de Sagarella.50 It may be also presumed that Arnir was
accompanied by some ecclesiastical officials learned in the problem of land borders
of the Spalatin diocese. This is also confirmed in his Vita where it is recorded
that Arnir was accompanied by “some people being well informed in the
problem of the borders of land estates”.51 Perhaps, that group was also supported
by a small number of soldiers and servants but certainly not strong enough to
match the forces of the Kačići and to regain the land possessions which sint ecclesie
beati Domnii in perpetuum.52 It is important to mention here that neither
Thomas Archdeacon in his Historia Salonitana nor the unknown author of the
Historia Salonitana maior had any information concerning the correspondence
between Manuel I, Roger, and Arnir.
Although the mentioned narrative sources dealing with Arnir as
archbishop of Split give no information concerning these final steps of Arnir in
regaining the land estates on Mosor, they all agree in characterizing members of
the kindred of Kačići negatively. For example, Thomas Archdeacon, when reporting
about Arnir’s unfortunate meeting with Nicholas, the head of the Kačići
kindred, described Nicholas’ subjects as an angry mob and pagans.53 Such
description of the Kačići and their followers is understandable, not only because
of the situation in which Arnir was murdered, but also because of the fact that
Thomas Archdeacon as a Latin priest in the entire chronicle expressed rather
negative attitudes and feelings towards the Slavs (i.e., Croats).
Since Thomas’ evaluation of the Croats has been an issue of serious
scholarly disputes and polemics among medievalists for more than a century, let
us make here one digression concerning this matter. During the entire twentieth
century and before, Croatian historiography evaluated Thomas’ approach towards
Croats negatively. Thus, for instance, Franjo Rački in one of his articles
from the second half of the nineteenth century considered Thomas as “Roman,
Italophile, and hater of Hungarians and Croats”.54 More than a century later, another
famous Croatian medievalist, Nada Klaić, stated that Thomas, as Roman
and Latin priest, was full of antagonism and contempt towards the Croats.55
50 CD2, 166-7, doc. 165.
51 Legende, 138.
52 CD2, 167, doc. 165.
53 Thus, after Arnir had said to them that the disputed lands belonged to the Spalatin church,
the answer of the mob was the following: Ad hanc uocem omnis multitude Sclauorum arreptis
lapidibus in eum unanimiter proicerunt tam diu dextris furrentibus debachantes. HS,
112.
54 Franjo Rački, “Ocjena starijih izvora za hrvatsku i srbsku poviest srednjega vieka“ [The
evaluation of older sources for the Croatian and Serbian history of the Middle Ages] II,
Književnik, year I, vol. 3 (Zagreb 1864), 388.
55 Nada Klaić, Povijest Hrvata, 23.
15
However, in the last fifteen years Croatian medievalists changed to a certain
extent their evaluation of Thomas Archdeacon as well as the evaluation of the
data presented in his chronicle. Thus, in contrast to Nada Klaić, the Croatian
historian Tomislav Raukar recently evaluated Thomas‘ approach towards Croats
as less confronting in comparison to the evaluation presented by older Croatian
historiography. He stated that the Spalatin chronicle certainly emphasises some
ethno-cultural differences between the commune of Split and the Spalatin hinterland
but this difference was not the main point of Thomas‘ ideological system.
According to Raukar’s opinion, Thomas was a strong opponent of every kind of
political and social power that might have endangered the communal society of
Split. Thus, in Thomas‘ eyes, the Croatian noblemen from the hinterland and
other Dalmatian cities were equally dangerous enemies as far as Split was concerned.
56 Finally, a few years ago, Mirjana Matijević-Sokol proposed a new
view on the relationship between Croatian magnates and the Dalmatian communes.
57 Opposing the political aspirations of magnates from the families such
as Bribirski, Nelipčići, and Kačići, the Dalmatian communes searched a governmental
system which would preserve their autonomy.58 Split was the first
among the Dalmatian communes to introduce, thanks to the political efforts of
Thomas Archdeacon, this new system which is known under the name regimen
latinorum.59 Regimen latinorum was a system of communal governing which
demanded the election of a foreigner as a communal podestato, that is, a professional
official skilled in administration, diplomacy and government. But what is
most important is the fact that a podestato should be a foreigner without family,
political or business ties in the commune into which he was elected in this position.
The first podestato of Split from 1239 until 1242 was Garganus de Arscindisa
from the Italian city of Ancona. Therefore, Mirjana Matijević-Sokol concludes
that there was not an anti-Croat feeling which led Thomas to his writings,
but rather his good knowledge of contemporary Italian political theory.60
The author of Arnir’s Vita is even more malicious towards the kindred of
Kačići. First he called them “malevolent people”.61 Even more, he called them
“obscure people” which may be explained as people who neither recognise the
authority of the Church nor the natural medieval order and system of values.62
56 Tomislav Raukar, Hrvatsko srednjovjekovlje. Prostor, ljudi, ideje [The Croatian Middle
Ages: space, people, ideas] (Zagreb: Školska knjiga – Zavod za hrvatsku povijest filozofskog
fakulteta u Zagrebu, 1997), 373 (henceforth: Hrvatsko srednjovjekovlje).
57 Mirjana Matijević-Sokol, “Item iurabunt ipse potestas et sui officiales … facere et obseruare
equaliter iusticiam et specialiter ecclesiis pauperibus, orphanis, uiduis et miserabilibus
personis…”, in 1. Istarski povijesni biennale. Statuimus et ordinamus, quod…: Sustavi moći i
mali ljudi na jadranskom prostoru (Poreč: Državni arhiv u Pazinu et al.:, 2005), 268-278.
58 Ibid., 268.
59 Ibid., 269.
60 Ibid.
61 Legende, 139.
62 Ibid. It seems that the author of the Vita intended to place the kindred of Kačići and their
followers on the margin of civil and ecclesiastical society. Even more, the author was not far
16
Since Arnir’s Vita belongs to the hagiographic genre it seems that, by using the
mentioned phrase, the author wanted to emphasise the great distinction between
the good ones (Arnir) and the evil ones (Slavs, that is, Croats). A similar
evaluation of the Kačići gives Farlati in his Illyricum sacrum. But, he seems to
be even more negative towards them, probably being inspired by Arnir’s martyrdom
described in his Vita. Therefore, he sees them as iniqui et sacrilegi homines
per vim aut fraudem eripuerant; they were agrestii Slaui, while Arnir was a
sanctissimus praesul.63 Yet, neither of these narrative sources mentioned the
hidden political moment which influenced to such a great extent the animosity
between the Spalatin Church, that is, Arnir, and the Kačići. Namely, already
from the middle of the twelfth century, some of the Croatian magnates from the
hinterland attempted to gain the position of a count of Split. The Spalatins being
pleased by the dominion of the Byzantine Emperor would have never given up
their communal autonomy by recognising some Croatian nobleman as the city’s
count, even if he was a powerful magnate. Thus, Thomas Archdeacon described
one dramatic situation from the middle of the twelfth century when quidam
Chrouatorum dux nomine Reles, vir potens tried to gain the position of the city’s
ruler because Spalatensi ciuitati preesse ardentissime cupiebat (he strongly desired
to rule over the city of Split).64 Yet, according to Thomas, he did not have
the military strength to achieve his goal. There is no doubt that the magnates
from the kindred of Kačići also showed similar intentions several decades later,
that is, in the time of archbishop Arnir, when the political conflict between
Croatian noblemen and Split even increased in comparison to the previous period
because of the land estates in Mutograso on the mountain of Mosor. These
were the historical circumstances in which Arnir approached his violent death.
IV. Arnir’s martyrdom
All narrative and diplomatic sources underline that there was no possibility for
creating any kind of peaceful compromise between the Spalatin archbishop and
the Croatian noblemen. Both parties considered the disputable land estates their
own property, one appealing on the falsified royal and papal charters recorded in
the sixties of the twelfth century65 and the other appealing on old Croatian traditional
right. As it has already been mentioned, a similar attempt of Arnir to regain
certain land estates for the Church had occurred during his office as a
bishop of Cagli. It seems that, in the case of Cagli, he also used falsified charters
to prove ecclesiastical rights. But, since the conflict between bishop Arnir and
the citizens of Cagli occurred in a more ‘civilised’ environment than the case
with the land estates on Mosor, the consequences for him were much less mafrom
accusing them of heresy which, as it is well known, was widespread in Bosnia at that
time.
63 IS, 204-5.
64 Raukar, Studije o Dalmaciji, 226; see also: HS, pp. 104-5.
65 HS, 113, note 13.
17
levolent. In this first case Arnir, unable to solve the problem, was installed by
the pope as the archbishop of Split.
Arnir underestimated the military strength of Nicholas, the count of Poljica
who, according to Farlati, had multa mancipia, villicos multos, multosque
agrorum lucrum colonos.66 Therefore, the violent conflict was inevitable. When
Arnir and his military and ecclesiastical escort arrived on Mosor they were intercepted
by Nicholas, his soldiers, and many armed villagers and servants. It
seems, according to Thomas, that Nicholas, at first, even wanted a peaceful solution
to the problem. The situation culminated when Arnir refused to withdraw
regardless of the great danger he faced. As the situation worsened, Nicholas
started to insult Arnir by calling him pessimus presul et iniquus, that is, the
worst and unjust bishop.67 Once again Arnir claimed that the land possessions
situated in Srinjina belonged to the Church. Finally, Nicholas requested Arnir to
retreat otherwise hic dies uite tue ultimus erit.68 However, Arnir simply replied
that non uestrum est territorium, ut asseritis, sed possessio ecclesie beati Domnii.
69 According to all narrative sources describing the violent death of St. Arnir
these were his last words. After that, the mob of the Slavs stoned him to death
donec exanime corpus sub magno aceruo lapidum dimitterent et abirent.70 It is
interesting to emphasise that Farlati, describing the last moments of Arnir’s life
before his stoning, underlined that Arnir’s and Roger’s men, being outnumbered,
already escaped from the place of his martyrdom. Namely, Farlati stated
that immediately after Arnir had received the death threat a sociis desertum,
quos metus in fugam averterat.71 Once again, it seems that Farlati’s description
was influenced by the fact that he had read the Latin version of Vita sancti
Raynerii and that he was well aware of the several centuries long tradition of the
cult of St. Arnir among the Spalatins. It should also be stressed that, in contrast
to the Vita sancti Raynerii, Thomas’ description, being written in accordance to
literary rules typical for the genre of chronicles, did not see any need to emphasise
his martyrdom.
The moment of Arnir’s stoning is the key motif in the later construction of
his saintly cult in Split and in choosing him as a saint protector of the commune
of Split, together with St. Doimus and St. Anastasius. From that moment onwards,
Thomas’ chronicle and the chronicle written by an unknown author differ
to a great extent from the Vita sancti Raynerii in the description of following
events. Although Thomas mentioned some miracles post mortem which occurred
after the death of Arnir, the most important source regarding the understanding
of the formation and flourishing of his cult in Split and, interestingly
enough, in Dubrava, the place where he was killed, is the Latin version of his
66 IS, 205.
67 HS, 112-3.
68 Ibid.
69 Ibid.
70 Ibid.
71 IS, 205.
18
life written probably in the late thirteenth or the beginning of the fourteenth
century. The confirmation for this hypothesis is to be seen in the fact that already
in the beginning of the Vita the unknown author compares Arnir with two
Biblical persons sharing a similar destiny by being stoned by an angry mob, that
is, with the prophet Zachariah and St. Stephen the martyr.72
V. The creation of the cult of St. Arnir
With the stoning of Arnir his earthly life ended but, at the same time, also began
the creation of his cult. Therefore, it seems worthwhile to present some hagiographic
motifs which influenced the flourishing of his cult. The most valuable
source for that purpose is his Vita. However, information concerning the creation
of Arnir’s cult can also be found in some of the other sources examined
here. Therefore, we shall try to compare the data recorded in his Vita with the
ones in the Historia Salonitana by Thomas Archdeacon, in the Historia Salonitana
maior, and with information presented by D. Farlati.
The Vita is written in accordance to the main medieval principles of the
hagiographic genre.73 The author divided it into three main parts.74 In the first
part, after recording quotations from the Bible being to a certain extent related to
the martyrdom of St. Arnir, the author presents Arnir’s origin, his family background,
and social status. In the second part, the author offers the basic biographical
data, particularly concerning his work as a bishop. Already in these
two parts of the Vita the author emphasised some of the well-known hagiographic
motifs – in the first place the motif of his vita evangelica et apostolica
but also the one of imitatio Christi. These two motifs had become a central motif
of Christian morality during the eleventh and the twelfth century.75 In the third
part, the unknown author describes the miracles which occurred after Arnir’s
death.
A great part of the Vita is dedicated to the description of Arnir’s great ecclesiastical
capabilities as bishop of Cagli and archbishop of Split. Similar to the
other sources, the Vita emphasised Arnir’s attempt to put both clergy and laymen
in order, particularly focusing on their discipline and piety. The intention of
the author of the Vita is to present Arnir as an ideal role model within the Christian
community, one who served as a practical example to his fellow clergymen
and the lay inhabitants of Split.
72 Legende, 135, 139.
73 On the authorship of Vita sancti Raynerii see: Legende, 125-42.
74 On the hagiographic motifs in Vita sancti Raynerii see: Zoran Ladić, “O nekim
hagiografskim motivima u ‘Životopisu splitskog biskupa sv. Arnira’” [On some
hagiographic motifs in the ‘Biography of the Spalatin Bishop St. Raynerius’], Croatica
Christiana Periodica, nr. 40/XXI (Zagreb 1997), 13-7.
75 Gábor Klaniczay, The Uses of Supernatural Power. The Transformation of Popular Religion
in Medieval and Early Modern Europe (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1990),
967.
19
In contrast to some other Lives of Saints, in which it is rather difficult to
distinguish the real historical circumstances from certain ‘mythological’ elements,
the author of Arnir’s Vita was well aware of Arnir’s biography. The reason
for this can be seen in the fact that he wrote his hagiographic work mainly
on the basis of the chronicle by Thomas Archdeacon. Thus, he was well informed
about the reasons that influenced the beginning of the conflict. He was
also aware of the involved parties, the kindred of Kačići and their count Nicholas
on one side and Arnir, the local clergy and the Byzantine officials on the
other side. He also knew where the conflict took place: (Srinjine on Mosor).
As mentioned above, the author of the Vita emphasised the loyalty of
Arnir towards the Roman Curia. On the one hand, this loyalty was expressed in
the attempt of the reoccupation of ecclesiastical land estates. On the other hand,
Arnir’s loyalty towards the pope and the Roman Curia can be understood, to
some extent, as being the writer’s opinion of the religious environment in the
hinterland of Dalmatia, particularly in Bosnia, where during the twelfth century
the heretical movement of the Bosanski krstjani appeared. It is well known that
in this period the Bosnian Christians were also successful in spreading their religious
ideas among the inhabitants of Dalmatian cities. This is confirmed by
Thomas Archdeacon who mentioned two Bosanski krstjani, the brothers Matthew
and Aristodius, who lived in Zadar at the end of the twelfth and in the beginning
of the thirteenth century. Even more, Thomas underlined that Zaratins
were infected by that heresy and that even some of the patricians accepted and
protected Bosnian heretics in their palaces.76 There is no doubt that the author of
the Vita, repeatedly stressing Arnir’s readiness to die for the rights of the Catholic
Church in Dalmatia, bore in mind also his readiness to defend the Church
from the dangerous heretical movement which spread in the hinterland of the
Dalmatian cities. Obviously influenced by the data from the Vita and some narratives
written in Arnir’s honour, also Farlati pointed out that he was beloved by
Spalatins and other Dalmatians not only because of sanctitatis vitae but multo
magis causa mortis pro Ecclesia.77
Another important motif emphasised in Arnir’s Vita is the one of saintly
forgiveness. The author of the Vita reports that, after being stoned by the
Kačići, Arnir “fell down on his knees and, being burned out with love to God,
just as St. Stephen (the martyr) did, he started to pray for the forgiveness of the
Kačići’s sins.”78 This motif of forgiveness to the murderers appeared relatively
often in medieval hagiographic works. Thus, for instance, the Hungarian king
St. Stephen in the last moment of his life prayed to God to forgive his murderers
for the sins which they had committed.
Finally, the author finished his work by describing several supernatural
miracles post mortem in order to improve the sanctity of Arnir. Saint’s miracles
post mortem may be divided in two main groups according to their contents. To
76 HS, 122-3.
77 IS, 208.
78 Legende, 139.
20
the first group belong the miracles done against Arnir’s murderers and other persons
who did not believe in his sanctity. Regarding Arnir’s murderers from the
kindred of Kačići, it should be underlined that their unfortunate destiny is described
not only in this hagiographic work but also in Thomas’ chronicle. In
contrast to the Vita, where their destiny is succinctly described, Thomas Archdeacon
gives a more detailed report. According to him, all of them were hung,
were drowned or starved, “so that all of them died”.79 It is important to stress
that these violent deaths were not caused by the intercession of St. Arnir but
their deaths were rather, as it is explained in Thomas’ chronicle, the consequence
of the revenge of the Spalatins and, occasionally, the expression of
God’s wrath. According to Thomas Archdeacon, the Spalatins conducted an inquiry
concerning the death of the archbishop. Some of the offenders were immediately
found and hanged.80 Then God’s wrath followed which Thomas described
with these words: “God did not leave the rest of the murderers in peace
and after a while some of them died of fame, others by sword, and the last of
them together with their successors died from the plague.”81
To the second group of Arnir’s miracles post mortem in his Vita belong
those exercised on the place where he was killed. Miraculous and healing water
had its source there, which cured physical and mental illnesses.82 It is not difficult
to recognise the place as one of the loca sanctorum, being common in
hagiographic works, where the opposite poles of Heaven and Earth meet.83 Often,
the local ecclesiastical propaganda influenced the creation of pilgrim shrines
around such holy places; the same happened in the case of St. Arnir as well.
Soon, the church of St. Arnir in the village of Dubrava became a local pilgrim
centre where the believers from Split, Dalmatinska Zagora, and Poljica gathered,
hoping for the miraculous intercession of St. Arnir.84
79 Legende, 140-1.
80 aliquos inuenerunt, quos statim patibulis suspenderunt. HS, 114-5.
81 post modicum tempus alii fame, alii gladio, alii peste cum sua posteritate consumpti sunt.
HS, 114-5.
82 Legende, 141.
83 Peter Brown, The Cult of the Saints. Its Rise and Function in Latin Christianity (Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 1981), 10.
84 It is a bit surprising that his grave was placed in the church of St. Benedict in Split, and
later replaced in the parish church in Kaštel Lukšić. They never became pilgrim shrines.
21
Illustrations:
Fig. 1: Juraj Dalmatinac (Georgius da Sebenico, George from Dalmatia): Renaissance altar
consecrated to St. Arnir.
Parish Church of Kaštel Lukšić near Split (1444-1448)
Fig. 2: Ex-voto painting devoted to St. Arnir. Cathedral Church in Split (1688)
22
Fig. 3: The Mountain of Mosor near Split
Fig. 4: The Church of St. Arnir (Rainerius)
in the Parish of Dubrava on Mosor built prior to 1625
M E D I U M A E V U M
Q U O T I D I A N U M
58
KREMS 2009
HERAUSGEGEBEN
VON GERHARD JARITZ
GEDRUCKT MIT UNTERSTÜTZUNG DER KULTURABTEILUNG
DES AMTES DER NIEDERÖSTERREICHISCHEN LANDESREGIERUNG
Titelgraphik: Stephan J. Tramèr
Copy editor: Parker Snyder
ISSN 1029-0737
Herausgeber: Medium Aevum Quotidianum. Gesellschaft zur Erforschung der
materiellen Kultur des Mittelalters, Körnermarkt 13, 3500 Krems, Österreich.
Für den Inhalt verantwortlich zeichnen die Autoren, ohne deren ausdrückliche
Zustimmung jeglicher Nachdruck, auch in Auszügen, nicht gestattet ist. –
Druck: Grafisches Zentrum an der Technischen Universität Wien, Wiedner
Hauptstraße 8-10, 1040 Wien.
Inhaltsverzeichnis
Vorwort ……………………………………………………..…………….…… 4
Zoran Ladić and Goran Budeč, Violence and the Clergy
in Medieval Croatia: The Violent Death
of the Spalatin Archbishop Arnir (Rainerius) in 1180 ..………………… 5
Madelon Köhler-Busch, Women and the Perfect Hero:
A Critical Re-reading of Heinrich von dem Türlîn’s Diu Crône …… 23
Aušra Baniulytė, The Pazzi Family in Lithuania: Myth and Politics
in the European Court Society of the Early Modern Age .…………….. 41
Buchbesprechungen ..………………………………..……………………….. 58
Anschriften der Autoren ….….…………………………………………….… 70
4
Vorwort
Das vorliegende Heft von Medium Aevum Quotidianum vermittelt neuerlich die
verschiedenen Ansätze und das unterschiedliche Quellenmaterial, welche sich
in den Disziplinen der historischen Wissenschaften für eine Auseinandersetzung
mit dem Alltag des Mittelalters sowie seiner Konstruktion und Repräsentation in
der Überlieferung als relevant erweisen können. Zoran Ladić und Goran Budeč
zeigen, wie im Kroatien der zweiten Hälfte des 12. Jahrhunderts kirchliche und
adelige Gebietsansprüche recht allgemeine Auseinandersetzungen, Gewalttätigkeit
und Mord hervorriefen und sich ein ermorderter und heilig gesprochener
Bischof zum lokalen und regionalen Kultobjekt entwickeln konnte. Madelon
Köhler-Busch analysiert Muster der Rolle der Frau in der Crône des Heinrich
von dem Türlin (c. 1220). Aušra Baniulytė weist nach, wie im 17. Jahrhundert
der auf Namensähnlichkeit beruhende Konnex zwischen einer litauischen und
einer florentinischen Familie auch auf legendäre mittelalterliche Verbindungen
zurückgeführt wurde und dadurch mithalf, die Mitglieder der litauischen Familie
zu Repräsentanten einer modernen, europäischen Elite des Barock zu machen.
Gerhard Jaritz