Ethnic groups in Zagreb's Gradec in the late middle ages

of 35

Please download to get full document.

View again

All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.
35 pages
0 downs
Ethnic groups in Zagreb's Gradec in the late middle ages
  25 UDK: 323.15(497.5-37Gradec)’’13/14’’Izvorni znanstveni članak Received: August 11, 2013Accepted: September 9, 2013 ETHNIC GROUPS IN ZAGREB’S GRADEC IN THE LATE MIDDLE AGES Bruno ŠKREBLIN * Tis work contains an analysis o the ethnic structure o late medieval Gradec (Zagreb) and the joint organization o urban governance in comparison to other cities o the Hungarian Kingdom. Attention is also accorded to other associations which may have had an ethnic character, such as raternities and town parishes, and there is an additional analysis o coexistence between eth-nic groups and the language spoken in the town’s everyday lie. Key words:  medieval Zagreb, ethnic structure Introduction With the issuance o the Golden Bull o 1242, King Béla IV established a ree royal borough, or town, on the hill adjacent to the seat o the Zagreb Diocese, exempting it rom the jurisdiction o the Zagreb bishop. 1  Zagreb was thereby divided into two independent jurisdictions: Gradec or Grič (  Mons Grecensis ) became a genuine orti󿬁ed medieval town, with its own judiciary and autono- ∗  Bruno Škreblin, Croatian Institute o History, Zagreb, Croatia 1  Te most recent archaeological research conducted in 2002 has ascertained the existence o a settlement on Gradec prior to 1242, which con󿬁rms the theory o settlement on Grič Hill even beore the establishment o the ree royal town. See: Z. Nikolić Jakus “Počeci srednjovjekovnog grada”, in: S. Goldstein-I. Goldstein (ed.), Povijest Grada Zagreba , vol. 1 (Zagreb, 2012), pp. 35. For the published document o the Golden Bull, see: Povjestni spomenici slob. kralj. grad. Za- greba. Monumenta historica liberae regiae civitatis Zagrabiae  (hereinafer:  MCZ  ), vol. 1 (Zagreb, 1889), pp. 15-18. For contemporary scholarly analysis o the legal character o the Golden Bull, see: M. Apostolova-Maršavelski, Iz pravne prošlosti Zagreba (13-16. stoljeće)  (Zagreb, 1998), L. Margetić, Zagreb i Slavonija: izbor studija  (Zagreb-Rijeka, 2000). For a manuscript analysis o the Golden Bull, see J. Barbarić Diplomatičko značenje Zlatne Bule , in: Z. Stublić (ed.), Zlatna Bula   1242 – 1992  (Zagreb, 1992), pp. 11-19.  26 B. ŠKREBLIN, Ethnic Groups in Zagreb’s Gradec in the Late Middle Ages mous administration, and well-developed trades and commerce, while the dioc-esan section (Kaptol) based its revenues on its numerous landed holdings, only beginning to signi󿬁cantly develop its own economy toward the end o the Mid-dle Ages. 2  Nonetheless, a location next to the seat o a diocese with a medieval cathedral chapter and several monastic communities certainly played a role in the development o Gradec, despite the act that quite ofen con󿬂icts broke out between the citizens and the canons o Kaptol, which on several occasions esca-lated into genuine civil wars (1391, 1397, 1422). 3  Te government in Gradec was headed by a judge ( iudex  ), whose term was limited to a single year. Additionally, the government was represented by eight jurors (  jurati ), and 20 councillors, and the composition o the magistrature was elected every year on the Feast o St. Blaise (3 February). Gradec had an estimated population o 3,000 in the mid-ourteenth century, while in the 󿬁feenth century this number stagnated and declined slightly as that century drew to a close. 4   2  Documents rom the royal and cathedral chancellery and other diplomatic materials pertain-ing to Gradec and the town’s court documents and land registers were published by Ivan Krstitelj kalčić in the series  MCZ  , vol. 1-11 (Zagreb 1889-1905). Te earliest preserved court docu-ments are rom 1355, while in 1384 the land registers appeared, so that the societal structure o Gradec can best be ollowed rom the latter hal o the ourteenth century. kalčić’s work on publishing srcinal materials rom the sixteenth century was continued by Emilij Laszowski (  MCZ  , vol. 12-16, 1929.-1939.), while the documents rom the cathedral chapter and other ar-chives tied to Zagreb’s Kaptol and church history were published by Andrija Lukinović in  Monu-menta historica episcopatus zagrabiensis. Povijesni spomenici Zagrebačke biskupije , vol. 5-7 (Za-greb 1992-2004, hereafer  MHEZ  ). Te publication o sources opened the way or the publica-tion o 󿬁rst editions on Zagreb, o which I shall distinguish those which are better known: Gjuro Szabo Stari Zagreb  (Zagreb, 1940); Rudol Horvat Prošlost grada Zagreba , (Zagreb, 1942). In the latter hal o the twentieth century, the most important researchers were Ivan Kampuš, Nada Klaić and Lelja Dobronić, whose many years o research were rounded off by the ollowing monographs: I. Kampuš-Lj. Karaman, isućuljetni Zagreb: od davnih naselja do suvremenog ve-legrada (Zagreb, 1994); Klaić, Zagrebu u srednjem vijeku  (Zagreb, 1982); Dobronić,  Biskupski i Kaptolski Zagreb  (Zagreb, 1991); Slobodni i kraljevski grad Zagreb  (Zagreb, 1992). Some scholars speci󿬁cally examined individual aspects rom the history o Zagreb: Stjepan Krivošić analyzed demographic trends in: Zagreb i njegovo stanovništvo od najstarijih vremena do sredine 19. st.  (Zagreb, 1981), Vladimir Bedenko examined medieval urban planning and estate relations in: Zagrebački Gradec: Kuća i grad u srednjem vijeku  (Zagreb, 1989), while Neven Budak considered social structure and urban development in: Budak-Kanižaj-Vorel, “Kolonije stranaca na Gradecu u 14. st.”, Izdanja HAD  17 (1996): p. 79-83; “Budući da smo htjeli u Zagrebu na brdu Gradecu sagraditi slobodni grad...,” in: Z. Stublić (ed.), Zlatna Bula   1242 – 1992 . It is also necessary to point out the 󿬁rst modern scholarly book published afer the seminar dedicated to the 750 th  an-niversary o the Golden Bull: I. Kampuš-L. Margetić-F. Šanjek (eds.) Zagrebački Gradec 1242-1850  (Zagreb, 1994). Te legal historians were pointed out in the preceding note. 3  Tere were both Franciscan and Dominican monasteries in the Kaptol area. Te Cistercians had an affi liate in Kaptol, while their monastery was in opusko. Te Paulines were accommo-dated north o Zagreb, on the southern slopes o Mt. Medvednica, which is why this area was called Remete. On the con󿬂icts between Gradec and Kaptol, see Klaić, Zagreb, pp.   103-137. 4  All o Zagreb, i.e., Gradec and Kaptol, without the surrounding villages, had between our and 󿬁ve thousand inhabitants. See Krivošić, p. 63, 65, 69.  27 R󰁥󰁶󰁩󰁥󰁷 󰁯󰁦 C󰁲󰁯󰁡󰁴󰁩󰁡󰁮 H󰁩󰁳󰁴󰁯󰁲󰁹 󰀹/󰀲󰀰󰀱󰀳, 󰁮󰁯. 󰀱, 󰀲󰀵-󰀵󰀹 Te emergence and establishment o Gradec resulted rom the king’s poli-cy o creating orti󿬁ed urban settlements, which acquired a new and intensi-󿬁ed dimension afer the Mongol incursion, as it became apparent that only soundly-orti󿬁ed towns or ortresses could resist larger assaults. Tus, afer 1242, Béla’s privileges to towns ollowed one afer another, and the king issued dozens o privileges to urban settlements. 5  In general, several common and principal eatures o towns in the Hungarian Kingdom may be distinguished. 6  Te 󿬁rst eature has already been mentioned: the strong role o the ruler in their establishment and reinorcement. Béla IV and his successors established many towns, and conerred privileges to many settlements, and the greatest degree o autonomy or a settlement was secured by the status o ree royal town. Te second eature was the movement o “oreigners” into towns as some cities were populated by residents rom outside o the Kingdom’s borders o the time, who came during the colonization period, attracted by the privileges that could be enjoyed in certain territories ( hospites ). 7  Since the thirteenth century, this term included not only oreign linguistic groups, but rather all new settlers in cities regardless o their ethnic or status srcin, who thus as a rule enjoyed equal rights, while in the course o subsequent urban development a differen-tiation emerged among town residents between citizens in the ull sense o the word ( cives ), who had to have their own real property, and ordinary inhabit-ants ( inhabitatores ). 8  Tus, the late medieval towns o Hungary had, besides the “domicile” population – Slavs and Magyars – a high number o residents rom the German-speaking lands; most ofen these were Saxons and Germans rom Bavaria and southern Germany, so the towns o the Hungarian Kingdom also developed under the strong in󿬂uence o German law. 9  Speaking o real privileges, it is important to point out that Gradec, as a ree royal town, en- joyed the right to pronounce the death penalty and criminal prosecution ( ius  gladii ) and it had the right to enact statutes. Gradec came under the jurisdic- 5  I. Petrovics, “Te Role o own in the Deence System o Medieval Hungary”, in: Philippe Contamine, Olivier Guyotjeannin (ed.) La Guerre, la violence et les gens au Moyen Âge, Vol. 1  Guerre et violence  (1996), p. 265. See therein also the cited sources on urbanization o the Hun-garian Kingdom in the thirteenth century. 6  Excluded rom this consideration are the towns on the Adriatic coast, which had entirely di-erent eatures and historical development. 7  Te main privileges o settlers were ree movement and ree use o their own property (Budak, “Budući da smo htjeli u Zagrebu na brdu Gradecu sagraditi slobodni grad...,” p. 24). 8  I. Petrovics, “Foreign Ethnic Groups in the owns o Southern Hungary in the Middle Ages” in: D. Keene, B. Nagy, K. Szende (ed.), Segregation – Integration – Assimilation: Religious and Ethnic Gropus in the Medieval owns of Central and Eastern Europe  (Ashgate Publishing Limit-ed, 2009), p. 68; Ludwig Steindorff “Srednjovjekovni Zagreb – obrazac povijesti srednjoeurop-skog grada”, in: Zagrebački Gradec , p. 25. 9  On the in󿬂uence o German settlers on the development o the legal systems in Hungarian cities, see P. Engel, Te Realm of St. Stephen: a history of medieval Hungary, 895-1526   (London/New York: I.B. auris Publishers, 2001), p. 252. Te Saxons who arrived rom the lower Rhine-land mostly settled in ransylvania (Engel, p. 113).  28 B. ŠKREBLIN, Ethnic Groups in Zagreb’s Gradec in the Late Middle Ages tion o a tavernical court, which put it among the so-called tavernical cities o the Hungarian Kingdom, while the authority o the avernicus not only per-tained to judicial activity but also the city’s administration. 10 A rather important eature o the Hungarian towns is that all major and more signi󿬁cant urban hubs lay on vital commercial and communications routes or they were ormed near mining areas. 11  Gradec stood at the intersec-tion o the roads that linked the Kingdom’s north to its south, and also indi-rectly the Italian lands, while the other route connected the German lands with Slavonia, Bosnia and Dalmatia, but besides these many other communication routes o local importance also converged on Zagreb. 12  In the ourteenth cen-tury trade intensi󿬁ed, thanks mostly to the exports o gold, silver and copper rom the mines in today’s Slovakia and Romania, while alloys naturally played a considerable role in the exchange o goods, certainly spurring the develop-ment o crafs and trade and the overall monetary economy. 13  Gradec experi-enced its most potent urban development precisely in the mid-ourteenth cen-tury, when a genuine urban elite consisting o crafsmen and merchants gradu- 10  . Shek Brnardić “avernik, tavernikalni sud i tavernikalno pravo”  , Arhivski vjesnik  40 (1997): 185. Te statute o Gradec has not been preserved, so it is impossible to ascertain the in󿬂uence o Buda’s statute (1405), which was the principal legal source which all ree royal towns had to use as a model. It is thereore possible to speak o the great in󿬂uence o the Buda statute on the Ilok statute, as in 1453 King Ladislaus granted the town o Ilok (today on Croatia’s eastern bor-der along the Danube River) the same rights and decrees enjoyed by Buda (see: D. Vitek “Pov-ijesne okolnosti nastanka iločkog statuta”, in: J. Martinčić, D. Hackenberger (ed.) Iločki statut i iločko srednjovjekovlje  (Zagreb-Osijek, 2002), pp. 25-37. 11  Petrovics, “Foreign Ethnic...”, p. 72; For more on the in󿬂uence o communication routes on the layout and development o medieval cities o Hungary, see: K. Szende “owns along the way. Changing patterns o long-distance trade and the urban network o medieval Hungary”,  owns and communication: Communication between towns and between towns and their hinterland. Introductory re󿬂ections,  vol. 2 (Galatina, 2011), pp.   161-225. 12  Budak, “Budući da smo htjeli...,” p. 23. 13  Engel, Te Realm , p. 155. One other eature o Hungarian towns is also noteworthy. Te towns o medieval Hungary were considerably smaller than those in Western Europe. In gen-eral, towns with 5,000 residents were considered large in Central Europe, while in Western Eu-rope these were deemed small or medium-sized towns. All major European cities had tens o thousands o residents, while not one town (or just one) in the medieval Hungarian kingdom had a population that exceeded ten thousand. See: D. Keen, “owns and the growth o trade”, in: D. Luscombe and J. Riley-Smith (ed.),  Te New Cambridge Medieval History  , vol. 4/1: c. 1024-c. 1198 (Cambridge, 2004), pp. 50-53; László Kontler, Povijest Mađarske: isuću godina u srednjoj Europi  (Zagreb, 2007), p. 114. Also, here we are largely speaking o towns in the true sense o the word ( civitas ), which were orti󿬁ed and normally enjoyed a certain autonomy and privileges, while market towns ( oppidum ), which generally means unorti󿬁ed settlements or larger villages, were ofen under the authority o a noble or the Church, and they could enjoy certain privileges (mostly tied to commerce and airs). For more on this see: V. Backsai, “Small owns in Eastern Central Europe”, in: P. Clark (ed.),  Small owns in Early Modern Europe  (Cambridge,   1995), pp. 77-89; N. Budak, Gradovi Varaždinske županije u srednjem vijeku: urbanizacija Varaždinske županije do kraja 16. st.  (Zagreb-Koprivnica, 1994).  29 R󰁥󰁶󰁩󰁥󰁷 󰁯󰁦 C󰁲󰁯󰁡󰁴󰁩󰁡󰁮 H󰁩󰁳󰁴󰁯󰁲󰁹 󰀹/󰀲󰀰󰀱󰀳, 󰁮󰁯. 󰀱, 󰀲󰀵-󰀵󰀹 ally ormed, while the city became vital to international mercantile trade due to its links with Senj and Italy. 14  Gradec was entitled to hold – besides a weekly air – two major (ortnightly) airs: around the Feast o St. Mark (1256), while in 1372 it was granted the right to hold another major air in July (correspond-ing with the Feast o St. Margaret). Te Kaptol air on the Feast o St. Stephen (in August), which was also probably the largest, should also be counted here. 15  Also, it is important to note that practically rom its very establishment, Gradec opened a mint in which the silver denar   (denarius) was coined, so that it was also one o the Kingdom’s 󿬁nancial centres up to the end o the ourteenth century. 16  Gradec was additionally the main station in medieval Slavonia or collecting the one-thirtieth tax, and many o the Gradec’s citizens were collec-tors o the one-thirtieth tax.In any case, Gradec was the most highly developed and most important town in medieval Slavonia, which would experience its “golden age” precisely in the latter hal o the ourteenth century thanks above all to auspicious economic circumstances in the Kingdom, as well as the “Mediterranean orientation” o the Angevin dynasty, whereby Gradec was a vital point on the route to Dalmatia and the Adriatic Sea. In 1335 Charles Robert commissioned the construction o a royal palace in the town, in which Stephen, the brother o Louis and the Croatian duke ( dux  ) at the time, lived rom 1350 until his death (1354), while at the end o the 󿬁feenth century John Corvinus, bearing the same title, also resided there ofen. 17  Sigismund o Luxembourg also initially avoured Gradec, awarding it in 1387 with two estates in its vicinity or its support in the struggle against the Neapolitan party, but the king ultimately conerred these same estates to local nobles. 18  Despite the act that at the onset o the 󿬁feenth century Sigismund initiated an intense “urban” policy with the objective o according a greater role 14  Z. Herkov, Povijest zagrebačke trgovine  (Zagreb, 1987), pp. 10-11. 15    MCZ   1, lxxx. 16  It is possible that the mint lost its importance afer 1326 and the introduction o gold coins (󿬂orins), but it still unctioned despite the reorms instituted by Louis in the 1350s, which were aimed at closing local mints and uniying the currency (Engel, 265). Tus, in 1353 Petrus Ligerius was mentioned as comes camerarum domini Stephani ducis  (CD, 12, p. 194-195), while in 1357 the comes camere  was a certain Gregorius (  MCZ   4, p. 102), and somewhere at the same time there was also Marketus as comes camere  (  MCZ   4, pp. 190, 362). In 1384 Queen Mary sent Simon de alentis  and Azcon Gallicus  to the town in order to take over the mint (  MCZ   1, p. 301). Nonetheless, it would appear that by the end o the ourteenth century the mint ceased operat-ing, because there were no urther reports o it until its restoration in 1525. 17    MCZ   1, p. 206. 18  Since the town had diffi culty unctioning without the accompanying landed estates, it held plough-󿬁elds and vineyards and several villages in the immediate vicinity. Some o the wealthiest citizens owned entire villages or they held several landed plots with villeins (  jobagiones ). Nonethe-less, not only did Gradec not manage to expand its holdings in the 󿬁feenth century, it had diffi -culty retaining its previous holdings or which citizens engaged in long-lasting lawsuits with the local nobles and the Zagreb bishops to restore them, in which they did not always succeed. For a map o the Zagreb environs with the town’s estate holdings, see: Klaić, Zagreb,  p. 296.
Related Search
We Need Your Support
Thank you for visiting our website and your interest in our free products and services. We are nonprofit website to share and download documents. To the running of this website, we need your help to support us.

Thanks to everyone for your continued support.

No, Thanks