g

coLLECTION DE. L',ÉCOLE FRANçArSE DE ROME

275

I
i
I

I
LA NOBLESSE
DANS LES TERRITOIRES ANGEVINS
À Tn FIN DU MOYEN ÂCg

Actes du colloque international organisé par l'Université d'Angers

Angers-Saumur, 3-ó juin 1998

réunis par Noël Courpt et Jean-Michel Metz

EXTRAIT

Écorp FRANçAIsE DE RoME

2000
.-_

DAMIR KARBIÓ

"FAMILIARES OF THE SUBIÓI,

NEAPOLITAN INFLUENCE ON THE OzuGIN
OF THE INSTITUTION OF FAMILIARITAS
IN THE MEDIEVAL HUNGARY

The aim of this paper is to show the possibility that intensive

contacts between the Angevin Neapolitan court with the leading
aristocratic kindred of medieval Croatia - the Subió kindred -
influenced changes in terminology used for the aristocratic clientele
in Croatia and whole Hungaro-Croatian kingdom at the turn of the
XIII'h to the XIVth century. In order to show that, I choose one of the
terms used for aristocratic retainers or noblemen serving other
noblemen or aristocrats - familiar¿s - since it seems to me that the
history of its use may very well reflect this influence. I divided this
paper in following parts : l) short explanation what was the
situation in the kingdom of Hungary at the turn of the XIII'r'and the
XIVtr' century and what was the role of the Subiói in it; 2)
description of what were main characteristics of the system of
clientele as described in the scholarly Iiterature and some comments
on it with brief overview of the changes in terminology, and 3) some
data concerning the familiares of the Subiói.
As it is commonly known, afrcr 1290 the kingdom of Hungary
was subject to dynastic wars between several pretenders to the
crown due to the extinction of the founding ,4rpád dynasty. In the
first period (1290-1301), the main roles in the contest were played by
the last surviving member of the cadet line of the ,4rpáds - Andrew
III - and members of the Angevin dinasty of Naples who claimed the
crown due to the inheritance of the female line. The second period
(1301-l3ll) was a period of struggle between Angevin pretender
Charles I Robert and several other pretenders (Wenceslas III called
Ladislas, and Otto of Wittelsbach). Although this struggle ended
with the ultimate victory of the Angevins and the crowning of
Charles I Robert as Hungarian king, its consequences were felt for a
considerable time. During the succession wars, the power of
aristocratic families increased and the kingdom was de facto divided
in smaller parts governed by members of the high aristocracy
assuming titles of major officers of the realm, but actually playing
132 DAMrR KARBTC FAMILIARES OF THE SUSIÓI 133

their own policy without regard to royal authority. Charles Robert

needed almost ten years (1311-1321) to establish fully his own \,
authority over the aristocracy in most of the kingdom (including
Hungary, Transylvania, and Slavonia)'. ø
During that period, the political situation in medieval Croatia %
was slightly different. The wole area of it was controlled by bans a sq
3- 't
(viceroys) Paul I (untill 13ll) and his son Mladen II (1311-1322) from
the Subié kindred who succeded in keeping other aristocrats as s8
È=.8 I a< %
.EE¿ *q
Kt-l
subjects to their rule. They were strong supporters of the Angevin
claims and had quite an important role in establishing of their rule ÈÈ,l
in Hungary. Because of that, they had intensive contacts with the
Angevin court of Naples, mainly maintained through the activity of
l+t %
+q
2
Ban Paul's brother Count George I. They legalised their own %
o
Ê
(l
dominion on the basis of royal grants given to them by the royal tt",
court in Naples. The situation radically changed after re-
c)
L

a þq ð0
establishing of the royal power in Hungary in 1321. Soon thereafter, ¡{ Ê

Ban Mladen II felt into disgrace and in 1322 was deposed by royal '"r,
o
É
c)
forces and unsatisfied lesser Croatian aristocrats. However, this did !
not lead to the establishing of the royal rule in Croatia but rather to a 'q) €'.
the development similar to that in Hungary in the previous period. þ a¡,

E
The country was divided in smaller parts ruled by magnates fighting o
among themselves or against royal representatives, and Venice. Only
Þ lU

o
after Charles Robert's death, in 1342, did his son and successor % É
o
Louis I the Great succeed in re-establishing royal administration % a
over the whole area2. ,o
The position of the Subiói was quite different from that of other % Eat,

9 r
13
aristocrats. First, they were constantly supporting Angevins and %
keeping intensive and regular contacts with the Angevin court in o
ô.
Naples, at least till the death of Charles II of Naples. Second, their <___¡ \, É
(¡)
position was much more legally founded, on the one hand by the t'{
,%,
specific position of Croatia which was separate kingdom subject to I

the king of Hungary and on the other by the royal grants given to t j
"r", À
I q'q
o
Gt
L

È
'For the history of the kingdom of Hungary as a whole with references to qq
Croatia see : P. Engel, The realm of St. Stephèn. A hìstory of medianl Hungary,
London, forthcoming, 2000, Ch. 9-11. I am very indebted to the author who
allowed me to consult his manuscript.
%
2
For the general situation in Croatia of this Ppqrod. see -: N' \laié, Poviiest %
Hvata u razvilenom sredniem viieku [The history of the Croatiarll i44ne the late
Middte AgesJ, Zagreb, 1973; T. Raukar, Hwatsko srednjovjekovlje.[The Croatian %
Míddte Ãces|, lagreb, lgg7. Both of these volumes contain a detailed þ",
bibliograply. The ãetailed description of historical events a-ppeaÌs in N. Klaié,
Porviiist'nívan [History of thè CroatiansJ-,-3rd ed',.vol'2 Zagre-b, 1982. bq
Unfortunately, noie of tÍresé works is available in English or any other West (oçNO a0 ç ôt o ,"",
European language,
 t34 DAMIR KARBIÓ FAMILIARES OF THE SUSIÓT I35

them by.the Ange-vins of Naples. The third point is that they
controlled the whole coastal arca and thus Angãvin installation in
I{rrguy was impossible without their supporr. Finally, they were
also related to the royal dinasty by some foimer to uõ unknown
- -
marriage which need them to be seen by the royal court in Naples as
their relatives.
Let me now briefly discuss the importance of the system of
clientele in the kingdom of Hungary. It iiby now generallyäccepted
that the-feudal system stricto sensu, characierised-by formal vasialic
chain did nor exist in the kingdom during the útiddle Ages. Its
administrative and military funõtions were þerformed by uþtt.-
of clientele.
-Hungarian historians, who weie rooking foi "uid"r""
for the feudal
-sysrem
in rhe kingdom, applied thñ label ro the
institution or familiariras, although they-underlined its specific
character. This debate was started by Gyula szekfú in 19133 and
further elaborated by other historians, in the first place Elemér
\!álVrLszaa gltlrey Bóniss, Gyula Krisróó, András Kubinyi?, Erik
-Croatian
Fügedi8, Pál Engele, and most recently Martin Radyro. In
-_ 3 G. Szeft, Szerviensek és familìarisok. Vózlat a kazépkori ma|yar
alkotmóny, - éy
!1óziga?satdstörténei körébõl [sewientei and fo'rril¡år"s. À" outline
lrom medieval. Hungarian constitutional and economicat hisioryJ, Budapest, 1912.
The same author made a large summary of that study in ce,r ái:. aà''sen ienten
und Familiaren ìm ungarlschen-Miitelalter, in úngarisch" ni"dich"i,u
und so ziale wi s se n sc haften, 2, ril, lriunich -ïeipzig, r si 3,
h i s t or i sc he
fä
{ E. Mályusz, A- magyar î.' s z¿-s sz.
.. tdrsadalom a Hunyadiak kordian. e haberiseg es
rendiség probl¿y¿ia tryrncarigy,ngielt in the tíme of the uunyo.it. Þìlti"", of th"
u3ss.alqee and estatesJ, in Mdtyds itaty emtekkanyv szaletésénei-örszózéves
-ntemory ó¡ t e five hu"ndreith ain¡virsãty' of u¡irtn
fordulójára (collected studies in
of Kins Mathías), ed. L Lukinich, vol. i, Éudaiest, 1940, t. ¡ii-iã¡.'--
s G. Bónis,
A húbériség és.rendßé-g a kazéþkori magai ¡ogban [vassalage and
estates in the nrcdieval Hungarian law|, in Kotozsvdr, Nîgye"yäai a"it íir-uy"o^do,
1942, p.217-312, French summary : p. 571-58ó.
. ó G. Kristó, csák Mdté tartományúri hatólnu [The oligarchic rule of Matthew
CsdkJ, Budapest, 1973.
Ar.fu.linli, ¡ kgtosliv(ri uradalom és a Somoglt megyei famitiórisok
7 are seen as one group and the two terms represent merely different
szerepe uilaki Miklós birtokpolitikdjdban [The role of ttie farlr'¡t¡aies from the
l9(2h-ip of Kapostiivdr and.county somoþ in rhe estate pài¡iy ir-ñ¡rhoks if
úilakl, in Somoglt ntegte múltid.ø¿t" q, 1-9Z3i
_ E. Fügedi, The Elefdnthy. The ungarian Nobleman and His Kindred,
E
historiography, familiaritas was only occassionally mentioned. The
main feàtuiesof the system of familiarifas were seen as follows : less
powerful and poorer nobles entered in the service of magnates and
þerformed for them as their lords (domirzd) different administrative
ãnd military tasks as their retainers (sen)ientes/famíliares). For that
they received a salary usually paid in cash. Grant of land was giv-en
to the retainers only exceptionally, and that was usually a reward for
former service and not a precondition. Retainers were subject to
their lords only in matterC of service but retained all their noble
privileges and their legal uimmediacyo to the crown' Compared to
western feudalism these arrangements were less personal, more
directly connected with a particular service, and almost never
hereditary.
Although the main points of this characterisation are correct,
especially the emphasis on the administrative and military function
of retainers, connecting it in any way with feudalism seems
doubtful. anything, it is much more similar to the concept
If
developed by English scholars called ubastard feudalismn which
was an attempt to reconciliate general sociological schemes of
feudalism with late medieval reality of the British Islesrr. This notion
was later applied to feudalism in countries on the edge of the
western ciJiiation like Mediterranean countries or Scottland.
According to recent studies, this system resembles very much the
system õf ¡o*nioAfasr2. However, the problem remains, whether
tirese features need to be particularly connected with ofeudalismu.
As far as I can see, this type of relationship could be found in many
social systems. Employers, employees, and clients could replace-
each other, but sorne kind of retinue could last beyond borders of
great social systems. Considering the criticism applied to the whole
ðoncept of nfeudalismo in the recent study of Susan Reynolds, it is
questionable whether looking on this problems in terms of
fèudalism has any value even as a working hypothesis'3.
In traditional Hungarian scholarship seruienfes and familiares
names for them. Already Gyula Szekfú suggested that those who
were called seruientes became later familiares and this idea was
never really chalenged in neither Hungarian nor Croatian

Budapest, 1998, esp. p. historiography-This hypothesis seems to hold up, but the problem is
llZ-118, l3Z-141.
,
oP. E1Sel, Hono_r,-_vd.r, ispónsóg. Tanulmdnyok
az Aniou-kirólysdg whethei thosê who were called familiares already in the earlier
kormóny za t i,rend s ze rérõl I H on or, c_as t rum, co m i t a t u s. st udies in t he gove rnmân
tãl
sys.ten, of the Angevin kingdomJ, in Szdzadok, 116, 19g2, p. g8õ_g20. I-arge
editorial summary in English see in : euestiones Medii l,evi nãroi,l, iS9o, p. Sj_ rr M. A. Hicks, Bast¿rd Feudalism, London, 1995.
r00. f2 T. Dean, Ia.nd and Power in Late Medieval Fenara' The Rule of the Este,
|,M:Ydy Nobility. I¿nd and Sewice in Medieval Hungary (forthcoming), 1350-1450, Cambridge, 1988; J. Warmald, Lords and Men in Scotland : Bonds of
esp. ch. 7. I am very indebted to the author who ailowe¿ mê io conrult ñié Manrent, 1442-1603, Edinburgh, 1985.
manuscript. f! S. Reynolds, Fieþ ans Vassals, Oxford, 1994.
13ó DAMrR KARBTC
period - parallel to se¡vientes - could be treated as the same or as
another group. It seems that sources clearly distinguish these terms.
A good example for that is offered by two documents from the
archives of Naples from 1278 and 1279 respectively. In them, it is
stated that Stephen, son of Ban Stephen, was held hostage in Trani;
the boy was accompanied by two seruientes - an expression which
was not part of the usual legal terminology of Angevin documents.
In the first document, it is also said that the boy was brought from
Hungary by James of Bursono miles, familiarius and, fidelis of King
Charles I and commander of king's troops in Hungary. In the second
document, the composition of Stephen's retinue in Trani was as
follows : his brother, two se¡vientes and two sentitores. From these
documents seems clear that Southern Italian scribe made clear
difference between terms of familiares, sewientes, and seruitores. He
used the first for the high officer of the Neapolitan king, the second
for retainers accompaning the boy in captivity, and the third most
probably for real sei.rants,o.
Wether this distinction between sewientes and familiar¿s was
not only accidental, should be tested by a quick look at other
Angevin documents from ltaly. In order to do this, I tabulated the
occurrences of. familiaris in XIII,h century Angevin documents
concerning Hungaryrs. The first column contains date, the second
indicates the name of the person, as quoted in the edited text, the six
following columns indicates whether the person was styled in the
document clericus, consiliarius, familiaris, fidelis, miles, or devotus
(usually each of them had several titles). The next column indicates
the lord of the retainer in questions : Charles I, Charles II, and
Charles Martell, Queen Elisabeth of Hungary (sister of Charles II,
and widow of Ladislas IV), and Queen Mary, and other lords having
familiares) and the last gives reference to particular case .[see
Table ll.
The table suggests that all persons mentioned as familiares
belonged to the close retinue of their lords and that they were people
in higher positions. Définitions similar to this can be also found in
quotations in the Glossary of Du Cange, mainly connected with the
Mediterranean (or French/Norman areas) and limited to the highest
layers of society. His definition of the term is that <specially those
were called familiares, whom kings and princes admitted in their
retinue/household ffamilia)".It is also worth mentioning that the
fa
G. Wenzel, Magnr diplomdczai emlékek az Anjou-korból [Monuments of
Hungarian diplomacy of Angevin periodJ, l, Budapest, 1874 (Monumenta
Hungariae historica. Acta externa [further : Wenze[), doc. ó9, p. 59; doc. 77,
p.64.
rs Table is made on the basis of Wenzel, l, doc. l-201, p. 3-ló1.
FAMILIARES OF THE SUSTÓI I37
same glossary does not use ter'm seruier¡s in the above mentioned
meaningró.
Contribution to this question is also the PhD Thesis of French
historian Sylvie Pollastri who made research on comital families of
Southern Italy at the same time. She maintains that those people
styled familiares of the king were those great men who had non
kinship connection to him, but were members of his close retinue.
Thus, the inexistence of kinship ties was replaced by a fictitious
nkinshipo. As an annexe to her study, the author also gives detailed
lists of all South Italian counts at the time of King Charles I with
references how they were styled in documents (familiares,
con sanguinei, etc.)t1 .
In order to see whether at the beginning of the XIV'h century the
term familians existed in Hungary and whether it was used by
oligarchs, other magnates, or the royal chancellery, I undertook a
sample research. I used only documents covering period from 1301
to 1330, published in main source collections. Documents
concerning the Subiói were not taken into account at this point. To a
lesser extent, I also continued that research till the end of the XIV'h
century, but the data I used had to be augmented. In spite of that,
some conclusions can be doners lsee Graph l].
tóC. Dufresne du Cange, Glossarium Mediae et Infimae latinitatis,3, Paris,
1844, p.200-201.
'tS. Pollastri, Ia noblesse napolítaine sous la dynastíe angevine : l'aristocratie
des comtes, Lille, 1994. I am very indebted to the author who enabled me to
consult this manuscript.
rs Sample containl about 400 documents and it is compiled on.the basis of
the following charter collections : Aniour-kori okmónytdr/Codex diplomaticus
Hungarícus Andegavensis, ed. I. Nagy, G. Nagy et al', Budapest, 1878-1920
(furær: AO); V. Sedlák, Regesta diplomatica necnon epistolaria Slovaciae,
Bratislava, 1980-1987; Ilrkuntlenbuch des Burgenlandes und der angrenzenden
(ichiete der Komitate Wieselburg, Ödenburg und Eisenburg, ed. H' Wagner and
I. Lindeck-Pozza, Yienna, 1955-1987 (further : UB); Sopron vórmegrc története.
Oklvéhór [History of County Sopron: charters), ed. I. Nagy, Sopron, 1889'1891;
hla vórmegye története. Oklevéltór [History of County hla : chartersJ, ed. I. Nary,-
D. Véghely-and G. Nagy, Budapest, 188ó-1890; A nagltmihályi és sztárai gróf
Sztaray csâldd oktevéltóià [The charters of the comital famþ Sztáray of Nagmihóly
and Sztáral, ed. G. Nary, Budapest, 1887-1889; Hazai oklevéltór [Charters of the
homelandl, ed. I. Nagy, G. Nagy, and F. Deák, Budapest, 1879; A Tomai
nemzetségbelí losonczi Bónffy csdlad Története. Oklevéltó¿ ed. E. Varjù -and
B. Iványi, Budapest, 1908-1928; Bálint lla-lvan Borsa, Az Abffi család levéhóra
1274-115. A Dancs család levékóra 1232-1525. A Hamvay csaldd levéhdra 1216-
/525, Budapest, 1993 (further : Abaffy). Some data are added from following
collections, but they are not complete : G. Fejér, Code* diplomaticus Hungaríae
ecclesiasticus ac ciiilis, Buda, 1829-1844 (further Feiér); Haui okmánytár/Codex
diplomaticus patrius, ed. L Nagy, et al., Gyór and Budapest, 18ó5-1891. For the
end of the XIV'h century, collection of regesta made by E. Mályusz Zsìgmondkori
oklevéhár, vol. l, Budapest, 1951, is also consulted.
I38 DAMIR KARBIC
In these documents, the term sentiens is till 1330 mentioned
more than ló5 times, while familians only ten times. Together with
the name of a person, it is mentioned only six times, and that only in
cases of members of the royal retinuere. It is interesting that even a
member of the queen's retinue was called sewiens and not familiaris .
Two remaining cases mention only familiares as a group and they
need some comment. The first, and the most important for my
question, is the case from 1311. In this charter, the widow of the
Palatine Amadeus promised to the citisens of Kassa/Kosice that she
would not molest them either per se, per amicos, perfamiliares vel per
cognatos. According to the position of these familiares in the list,
they probably were not retainers but rather members of the
kindred2o. Another document is King Charles Robert's charter given
to the master of his standard-bearers in 1330. This is the first
document where the king styles somebody's retainers as familiares2t.
The first case I know that some person was mentioned as familiaris
of some aristocrat is a royal charter from 1338 where a retainer of
Thomas of Szecheny, voyvod of Transilvania and the king's relative,
was styled that way22. Beside these certain cases, there are two more
fe King Charles Robert, 1308 : Petrus
filius Pauli, et Paulus filius þonisii
familiares iuuenes aulae nostre... (AO 1, doc. 143, p. 155); King Charles, l3l2 : ...
quod consideratis fidelitatibus et seruitiis magistri Alexandri, lìlii Alexandri de
Lypolth, generis Aba ... specialiter dum rex Boëmorum in regnum nostrum
Hungariae ex conspiratìone .,, noslrorunt infidelium .., accesserat, et per copíam
sui thesauri multos nobiles regni nostri sibi inclinauerat; idem autem mag¡sler
Alexander non pecunia flexus, non periculum sui perlimiscens, non deuastacionem
suarum possessionum formidans, dicto regi aquiescit ymo noslri serenitali senper
fidelem et familiarem se presentauit ... (Fejér 8/1, acces., p. 625-626). King Charles
Robert, l3l3 : magistrunt Cosmam fidelem el familiarem iuuenem aulc noste ...
(AO l, doc. 283); Chapter of Buda, 1323: Iwan filius Nicolai de Barlabas de
comitatu Zoboch pro se, Ladislao, Chepano ac Nicolao fratribus suis ... ítem
magisler Benedictus arcuparius et Michael se¡víentes magistri Pauli dicti Magar
familiaris luvenis domus domini regis ... (AO 2, doc. 65, p. 73); King Charles,
1324 : Nicolaus fìlius Gregorii fidelis et familiarís aule nostre iuvenis ... (AO 2, doc.
ll4, p. 129); King Charles,1325: ... pro fidelibus ... serviciis magistri Prehtoldi
fidelis et familiaris tirodici medici nostri ... (AO 2, doc. 178, p. 198).
20 Fejér
8/1, doc. 192, p. 405-412.
fratesque cognatos et propinquos necnon ministros
?t King Charles, 1330 : ...
eorumdem familiares ac universam substanciam eorumdem (i,e. magisti
laurencii filii lohannis filíi Gyge magistri vexillíþrorum regalium et magistri
Johanni et Ilgrini fratrum eiusdem uterinorum, D.K) ... destruccioni infidelium
nostrorum relinquendo, ex quibus nonnulli preter ¡nfrnita damna rerum tempore
filiorum Herrici per eosdem cerlis carceribus inclusí tormentis afllicti membris
atrociter mutilati verbera et ludibria experti... (AO 2, doc. 406, p. 463-464).
22
State Archive of Hungary, Budapest, Collection of pre-152ó records,
signature: 57087 (Abaffy, reg. D 3l).
FAMILIARES OF THE SUSTÓI I39
mentions of. familiares as retainers of secular noblemen, but these
cases are rather dubious23.
Although this question has to be further explored, it appears
reasonable to argue that the term famil¡¿r¡s was common in
Southern ltaly, reserved for the retinue of the highest layers of
society, while at the same time, it was still quite unusual in
Hungary. There the term seruiens was widely employed. It seems
that Hungarian magnates still did not use familians for denoting
their retainers. Since Charles Robert was educated mainly in
Hungary and his chancellery was staffed by local people, he avoided
using the term extensively. It is also worth mentioning that later
documents I searched also do not use familiaris for a retainer of
another nobleman or aristocrat. Somewhere in the 1340s, the term
se¡yiens was gradually replaced by another terrn famulus, which
dominated the second half of the century'. In spite of that, from the
middle of the century a gradual increase may be observed of people
styled familiares. Approximately at the turn of the century, the most
dominant term was already familiaris which soon remained the only
term used for denoting retainers.
The last point of my paper will try to give some data about the
usage of term familiaris in the case of the Subiói. In the light of
above mentioned research, it seems plausible that the Subiói
borrowed the term from Southern Italy or maybe, from the papal
curia with which they also had intensive contacts. They denoted
with this term the higher quality of some of their retainers - and
probably a kind of closeness as well.
The first person mentioned as familiaris of Count George I was
John, son of James, who was the count's envoy to Naples in
November 129124. Familiares, this time without mentioning their
names, were mentioned again in January 1293, when Vuðeta,
brother-in-law of Ban Paul and a Templar by the name of Gerald
(most probably Gerald de Gudde, preceptor Militie Domus Templi in
Ungaria residing in Urana) were also visiting Naples. They were
accompanied by eight familiares, but it is not stated how many each
of them had2s. Since both of these documents were issued by King
'r UB 3, reg. 144, p. 73; Fejér, CD 8/ó, n. 55, p. 50.
2a ... Ponecta nobis (i.e.
to King Charles ll) Johannís de .lacobo nuncií et
familiaris comitis Georgii fidelis nostri de partibus Sclavonie petìtio ...
(T. Smiðiklas, Codex diplomaticus regni Croatiae, Dalmatiae et Slavoniae, Zagreb,
1904-1990 (further :, CD), 7, doc. 48, p. 57).
23
... religiosum virum fratrem Girardum ordinis militie templi et Volcectum
cognatum Pauli baní comitis in Vngariam transfretantes cum octo familiaribus
eorumque amesio ... (CD 7, doc. 107, p. 127).
t0
 r
t40 DAMIR KARBIC
Charles II of Naples it does not necessarily mean that term was
employed by the Subiói, but they were, at least, informed about its
meaning, and members of their retinue were recognised as such by
the Angevins. At the same time, Ban Paul and Count George I were
alsofamiliares of. King Charles II2ó, as was Domald de Zadulinis, one
of their closest followers2?.
Another influence, that of the papal curia, can be seen in the
fact that Count George II was accepted as familiaris of Cardinal
Gentilis, papal legate in Hungary in 1308. Since the connections of
the Subiói and the curia were quite strong and intensive, this kind of
influence cannot be excluded. A charter of admission issued by
Cardinal Gentilis gives some hints on the content of the title. Couni
George was admitted in domicellum et familiarem nostrum
domesticum et commensalem, which was quite usual formula for
this kind of charter. Important is, that in the formula the belonging
to the cardinal's household is mentioned2s. It is quite possible that
familiaritas with a king or a magnate had the same content2e.
The first extant document originating from the territories under
the rule of the Subiói which explicitly mentions fa miliares is a record
of a lawsuit from Trogir from December 1310. In this record,
Cyprian, son of Jadre familiaris of the potestas is mentioned30. The
Statute of Split, codified by potestas Percival, son of John from
Fermo, in 1312, mentions familiares potestatis3t and those of the ban,
Count George II, and Count Peter, son of Bogdan, at that time count
of Omis and one of the most firm followers of the Subiói32. These
familiares of the ban and of both counts were excepted from the
prohibition of carrying arms in the town. The first familiaris
mentioned by name was Ivanka Kuzmanic, familiaris of Count
2óGeorge was mentioned from 1285 to 1300 as counselor,
familiaris, and
knight of King Charles II (Wenzel, l, doc. 84, p. ó8; docs. 172-173, p. l4l-142; doc.
197, p. 157); Paul was counselor and familians in 1301 (Wenzel, l, doc.202,
p. lól).
2? Domald was mentionel as
familiaris of King Charles II in 1300 (CD 7, doc.
3a7, p. 393).
2t CD 8, doc. 202, p.243.
2e Forntulae
used by King Charles II in 1300 also point on that conclusion
(Wenzel, t, doc. 189, p. 152).
t0 ... intendo probare per Cebrianum ladre,
familiarem domini polestatis.
Trogirski spomenici. tupíscí kuríje grada Trogira od 13/0, do I33l [Records from
Trogir. Acts of the curia of the commune of Trogirl , ed. M. Barada and M. Berket,
Split, 1988 (further : TS), doc. l, p.2.
3¡ J. J. Hanel, Statuta et leges cívitatis Spalati, MHJSM 2, Zagreb, t878, l, 15,
p. 14;2,12, p.26.
" b¡d., 4, 43, p.154.
FAMILIARES OF THE SUBICI I4I
George II, recorded as witness in Trogir in March 131ó33. He was
probably the same person as count's lupan (in this case most
probably denoting his deputy) mentioned in l3ll3a. In 1318, Ban
Mladen II was represented in Treviso by his dilectus familiaris
Jerome from Ancona who had to propose to the city council an
alliance against the counts of GorizzialGörz3s. From these
documents, it seems that at that time familiares were members of
the retinue of higher state officials on the national (ban) and on the
local level (the count andpotestas of Split, the count of Omis). If the
identification of Ivanka Kuzmanió with/upan Ivanka is correct, this
would support the thesis thatfamiliares represented the upper strata
of retainers.
The last document mentioning familiares of the Subiói in the
first half of the XIVth century is at the same time the most crucial in
enforcing this argument. This is a charter issued by Ban Mladen in
April 1318 containing his judgement in a lawsuit. As pristaldi - kind
of bailiffs - of the sentence three noblemen were appointed. One of
them was Cosmas junior, son of Michael of the Tugomirió kindred
explicitly mentioned as familiaris of the ban. the second pristaldus
was Toljen, son of John of the Virevió kindred who is also
mentioned as familiaris of the ban. The third was James of the Gusió
kindred, count of Hotuöa, who was mentioned with the less well-
defined titlefrdelis. Since James was also an important person in the
hierarchy established by the Subiói - as he was Ban Mladen's count
in one of the counties - it seems thatfamiliaris was some kind of a
courtier. Unfortunately, data concerning this question are too scarce
for reaching any more positive conclusion3ó.
Data about seruientes of the Subiói are even more scarce. Their
sentientes were mentioned for the first time as witnesses to the
treaty concluded between Count George I and city of Trogir in
George's castle Klis in Apnl 1294. All three of them were Croatian
noblemen. One of them even had a title of count3?. A serviens is also
mentioned in another document, most probably dated in 128338. In
tt ... Yuanca Cusmanich familiario don ini comitis Georgii . .., CD 8, doc. 34ó,
p.422.
3'TS, doc. 6,p.22.
33
G. Praga, Baiamonte Tiepolo dopo la congiura, in Atti e memorie della
Socielà dalmata di storia patria, l,1926, p. 52-53.
36... recepìo a nobis secundum consuetudinem Croacie prístaldo, uidelicet
familiare nosiro Cosma iuniore filìo condam Michaelis de progenìe Tugomerigh."
adiungentes.. lacobum comilem de Hatugha de generacione Gussigh fidelem
nostrum in pristaldum et qcccutorem.., CD 8, doc. 402, p. 497-499.
t7 ... Radoslauo olim Domogne de Policia, comite Slauano, Stanislauo de
Breberio seruientibus eiusdemcomitis ...,CD7, doc. 152, p. 174.
t"... ego Osrinus, seruiens magnifici domíni comitis Georgii et nunc iuratus
t42 DAMIR KARBIÓ
March 1303, a citizen of Dubrovnik, Prijazni de Ragnina, titled
himsef in one letter sent to Ban Paul as bis fidelissimus se¡viens et
devotus.In this letter, Prijazni expressed several times his loyalty to
the ban whom he called his lord. He also said that he accomplished
the task Ban Paul had been given him and transmitted his message
to the count of Dubrovnik and the city council. Although the
insistence of Prijazni on his loyalty could be only an expression of
politeness, the fact that he was used as Ban Paul's envoy to
Dubrovnik and later as envoy of Dubrovnik to the ban may suggest
that he was really closely connected to him3e.
Servientes were also mentioned in the last will of Count Paul II,
made in Ostrovica in 134ó. There, Count Paul also mentioned
se¡vitores and it is hard to decide whether he considers these two
terms as synonyms or as two separate categories. He ordered that
horses and arms which he gave to his sentientes should be left to
them in reward for their services. He also ordered that those
seruitores who would like to continue to serve Count Paul's son and
brother, have to be left in possession ofestates given to them by the
count. He also asked his brother to <love> them, since they were
loyally serving him. Although the fact that sentitores were obviously
highly esteemed by the count may suggest that they were much
more than ordinary servants, it seems that he made clear difference
between them and the sentientes. In the case of the sentiente.s only
the military aspect of their service is stressed, while services of the
sewitores where expressed in more general terms. On the other
hand, it seems that servitores were rewarded with estates
(possessiones), which may point to the conclusion that they were
permanently settled in Ostrovica, while se¡vientes were equipped by
the count, which suggests that they were treated as hired soldiersao.
In any case, this question cannot be solved on the basis of only this
document, and I shall leave it for future research.
Negotiations in July 1347, between Count Gregory and King
Louis, were led by Count Gregory's seruiens Peter and a Pauline
hermit called Gordus. This fact is known from the royal grant
confirming and rewarding Count Gregory's allegiance and may
notarius Clisie ... (Josip Barbarió-Jasna Markovió, Codex diplomaticus regni
Croatiae, Dalmatiae et Slavoniae. Supplementa, Zagreb, 1998, l, doc. 27, p. 67.
3' CD 8, doc. ó3, p. 67-68; MR 5, 49-50.
ø... Item volo, quod equos et aftna, quam ego dedi seruientibus meis, sint
isporum propter senicia ipsorum. Item volo, quod illi sewitores mei, qui voluerint
seruire fratri et filio meo, non auferantur eis aliqua possessþ quam ego ipsis dedi;
rogo fratrent meum, quod ipsos diligat, quia fideliter sentierunt michi ..., Ljubió,
Listine, 2, doc. 672, p. 420.
FAMILIARES oF THE SusTÓI 143
reflect the terminology of the royal chancellery. This document is
completely conform with the Hungarian practice in which the
terminological switch from sen¡ientes to familiares did not yet take
placear. Other contemporary documents concerning the Subiói do
not mention sentientes or sen¡itor¿s. One decree of the Venetian
Senate from l35l ordered that tam serui quam ancile who fled from
Countess Helen, the widow of count Mladen III, have to be found
and handed back to the countess. The terms used for these people
leave no doubt that they were unfree servants42. Another decree of
the same date is more interesting. Even if the person mentioned -
the Franciscan friar Francis from Trogir, at that time Franciscan
custos in Zadar- was not titled as sewiens, the Venetian Senate
urged Friar Michael, minister of the Franciscan province of
Slavonia, to allow Francis ire pro honestis senticüs ipsius comitisse.
The services performed by Francis were, certainly, of the kind that
placed him in the upper layer of Countess Helen's <s€rvârts>a3.
Similar to these documents is a last will of Count Paul III made in
Trogir in January 135ó. In this, he mentioned three of his famuli
(Obrad, Jurko, and Radalj) and recommended them to his wife.
Since they were called with the termfamuld, denoting in Dalmatian
notarial practice contractual unfree servants, and since they were
mentioned only by their first names, they were probably simple
servants of the count's household and not the type I'm discussing
hereaa.
From these data, one may conclude that both familiares and
seruientes represented the higher strata of personal retainers of the
Subiói during the climax of their power. It seems that familiares
represented the upper layer of the members of their households,
actually courtiers, and that this term was borrowed from the
Angevin court of Naples and/or the papal curia. On the other hand,
sentientes was the term which was quite common in legal practice of
Hungary at that time, denoting retainers of magnates. The term
sentitores mentioned in the last will of Count Paul II may also have
had a meaning close to that of the se¡yientes, but this is not clear, an
this question needs further explorations in the future.
Damir KensrC
t'King Louis : ad ,., peticionem ... per ... Petrum sentientem eorum nobis
porrectam..., CD ll, doc. 288, p. 380.
'2 Ljubié, Listine, 3, doc. 307, p. 208.
1t lbid.
1'Documents copied by John Luðió-Lucius, Archive of the Chapter of Split,
vol. 542, scr. B, p. 461-462. Recent manuscript copy in : Archive of Croatian
Academy of Sciences and Arts, vol. 5a, p. 4ó-48.
 5
Table I è
occURRENcESoF*FAMILIARES'INANGEVINDoCUMENTScoNcERNINGHUNGARY

Fid. Mil. Dev. doc./p.

Name Cler Con. Fam.

0 0 0 Charles I 19t22-23
1269 Amelius Curbaro, nobilis baro
0 0 0 0 Charles I t9t22-23
Bernardus abbas Cassinensis
lr
1269
0 0 0 Charles I t9t22-23
t269 Bernardus de Bnrlio'
Bernard, Abbot 2y25
t269 familiares
0 0 Charles I 3U33
t27l Nicholaus
Mochouiensis 0 0 0 0 Charles I 33t35, 34t35, 37 t 37 -38, 40t40
t
1272-76 Iohannes
0 0 Charles I 37t37-38 3
t275 Marinus dictus Alamannus
0 Charles I 40t40 7
1276 Radulfu s cantor Nicosiensis 0 0 0 xÞ
0 0 0 Charles I 40t40, 54-35150-52 F
r276-77 Guido de Valle Griusa õ
0 0 Charles I 49t46 (>
1277 Guillelmus Brunello marescalcus
0 0 0 Charles I 46t4244
1277 Guillelmus Bucelli,
0 0 0 0 Charles I 54-55/50-52
t277 P.
0 Charles I 44t4142
t277 Pontius
0 0 0 0 Charles I 54-55/50-52, 75-ó3
t277-79 I. Tragonensis
0 0 0 Charles I 47t44, 49t46, 50147, 66157,
t277-79 Iacobus de Bursono 69t59,74t62

0 0 0 Charles I 70/59-60
1278 Guillelmus de Priuieriis
0 0 Charles II 85/ó8
1285 Iohannes filius Henrici bani, magister
0 0 0 0 Charles II 84t68. l72ll4l, 1731142,
1285-1300 George I t97n57
(p.t.o.)

--,(

Name Cler C,on. Fam. Fid. Mil. Dev doc./p.

1290 Cosma lombardi de Unearia 0 Elisabeth 88n3

t29t Husolinus de Luca, magister 0 0 Charles II 98/80-81
t292 Anselloctus de Lumeriaco, thesaurarius 0 Mary tru92
1292 Dominicus Unearus scutifer Ch. M 0 Mary tt2t92
1292 Georsius masister, secretarius ) 0 Charles Martell ttzt92
t292 Guarinus de Boys vallectum 0 0 0 Charles II t03t87, 105/88-89
t292 Hugo de Monte Rotundo, frater 0 0 0 0 Charles II r02185-8ó, 103/87, 105/88-89
1292 Hugulcius de Neapoli ? 0 0 0 Charles II 103/87, r05/88-89 ¡
t292 Iohannes episcopus Ranellensis 0 0 0 0 Charles II to3t87, 105/88-89 r.
t292 Nicolaus Ungarus, prepositus Orodensis, 0 0 Mary t20t97-98
magister lÌt
(^
t293 8 familiares 0 Vuceta t26n0t o
\t
t293 Cosma de Unearia, valictus 0 Charles II t29tro2 Ê
t293 Lodoycus de Rochero, Thesaurarius reg. 0 0 0 0 Charles II t28no2 ¡rl
(rj
Sic. c
t293 Matheus de Adria, magister rationalis mag. 0 0 0 0 Charles II t28no2 È0
(ì.
cur
1293 Nicolaus Unsarus, magister 0 0 Charles II 135/l 13
t294 Leustasius de Trano, index 0 Charles II t39nt7
t294 Petrus de Florentia 0 Charles II t39nt7
1294 Raullus de Nouilla, valectus 0 Charles Martell 137-l ló
t295 14 familiares 0 fr. Robert de 152n27
Gudde
r295 more than 9 f;amiliares 0 Bartholomew t47n22
of H.
(p.t.o.)
5
(¡
 doc./p.
5
Name Cler. Con. Fam. Fid. Mil. Dev o\

1295 Vinciguerra de Guardia, notarius 0 0 Charles II r45n2t

1296 Albericus de Uerberia canonicus Treccen- 0 0 Mary t56tr29
sis, mag.
Franciscus, guardianus OFM de Neapoli 0 0 Mary ts6n29
1296
1296 Henricus Secretus, magister portulanus etc' 0 0 Charles II r54n27

t296 Jacobus Jaunesii de Salerno, notarius 0 Charles Martell 157n29

r296 Matheux de Aversa, prior OP 0 0 Mary t56tr29

r296 Petrus Broherius, miles 0 Charles II t56n29
0 0 Mary 155^29
t296 Petrus Lombardus, capitaneus Surrenti U
t297 Cosma de Ungaria 0 Charles Martell t57n3t
t297 Cosma de Ungaria 0 Elisabeth (again) l57n3t v
t7Ut4l
x
1299 Petrus de Suria 0 0 Charles II
F
t299 Petrus de Suria 0 Charles II & 167n38 tÞ
Charles I c>

t299 Petrus Pilectus 0 0 Charles II 17ut4t

1299 Petn¡s Pilectus 0 Charles II & t67n38
Charles I
t299 Prothontinus Monopoli 0 Charles II 170n40

1300 Antonius, frater, capellanus 0 0 Charles II l8l/148

1300 Dalmadus de Sclauonia, comes 0 0 Charles II 195/15ó

1300 Damianus, capellanus 0 0 Charles II 195/15ó

1300 Gregorius de Osvaar de Hungaria 0 0 0 0 Charles II 189n52

1300 Iohannes de Hanapiis, thesaurarius 0 0 Charles Robert 18ó/150

(p.t.o.)

Name Cler. Con. Fam. Fid. Mil. Dev doc./p.

1300 Jacobus, magister, capellanus 0 0 Elisabeth t74n43

Elisabeth l9l/153
x
1300 [¿urencius 0 0
II t83n48, l84ll49 c.
1300 Maraldicius, prothontinus Melfiete 0 0 Charles
1300 Nicolaus Caraczulo, magister hospitii 0 0 Charles II 188/151 Fr
(^
1300 Nicolaus de Luparia, magister hospitii 0 0 Charles II 188/l5l o
ã
1300 Petrus Parui Passus 0 0 Charles Robert 187/l5l -t
1300 Petrus Parui Passus, magister hospitii 0 0 Charles II 188/l5l lr'
(r,
1300 Stephanus, frater OP, capellanus 0 0 Charles II t92n54 clÞ
1300-1303 Iohannes Ungarus, stipendiarus 0 0 Charles II 198/158, 2t8n7t C>

l30l Ban Paul I 0 0 0 Charles II 202n61

1303 Raynerius Damiscellus 0 Charlas II 2t8n7t

è
\¡