Put do crkvene nadarbine: Rimska Kurija i Dalmacija u 15. stoljeću
Gespeichert in:
| 1. Verfasser: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Buch |
| Sprache: | Croatian |
| Veröffentlicht: |
Split
Književni Krug
2007
|
| Schriftenreihe: | Biblioteka znanstvenih djela
152 |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Inhaltsverzeichnis Abstract |
| Beschreibung: | Zsfassung in engl. Sprache u.d.T.: A way to an ecclesiastical benefice ... |
| Beschreibung: | 459 S. |
| ISBN: | 9789531632881 |
Internformat
MARC
| LEADER | 00000nam a2200000 cb4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | BV023194847 | ||
| 003 | DE-604 | ||
| 005 | 20151015 | ||
| 007 | t | ||
| 008 | 080303s2007 |||| 00||| hrv d | ||
| 020 | |a 9789531632881 |9 978-953-163-288-1 | ||
| 035 | |a (OCoLC)237228582 | ||
| 035 | |a (DE-599)BVBBV023194847 | ||
| 040 | |a DE-604 |b ger |e rakwb | ||
| 041 | 0 | |a hrv | |
| 049 | |a DE-12 |a DE-473 |a DE-19 | ||
| 084 | |a KW 1017 |0 (DE-625)86483: |2 rvk | ||
| 084 | |a 7,41 |2 ssgn | ||
| 100 | 1 | |a Neralić, Jadranka |d 1959- |e Verfasser |0 (DE-588)143225049 |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |a Put do crkvene nadarbine |b Rimska Kurija i Dalmacija u 15. stoljeću |c Jadranka Neralić |
| 264 | 1 | |a Split |b Književni Krug |c 2007 | |
| 300 | |a 459 S. | ||
| 336 | |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |b n |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |b nc |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 490 | 1 | |a Biblioteka znanstvenih djela |v 152 | |
| 500 | |a Zsfassung in engl. Sprache u.d.T.: A way to an ecclesiastical benefice ... | ||
| 610 | 2 | 7 | |a Katholische Kirche |b Curia Romana |0 (DE-588)2034643-8 |2 gnd |9 rswk-swf |
| 648 | 7 | |a Geschichte 1400-1500 |2 gnd |9 rswk-swf | |
| 651 | 7 | |a Dalmatien |0 (DE-588)4070200-5 |2 gnd |9 rswk-swf | |
| 689 | 0 | 0 | |a Dalmatien |0 (DE-588)4070200-5 |D g |
| 689 | 0 | 1 | |a Katholische Kirche |b Curia Romana |0 (DE-588)2034643-8 |D b |
| 689 | 0 | 2 | |a Geschichte 1400-1500 |A z |
| 689 | 0 | |5 DE-604 | |
| 830 | 0 | |a Biblioteka znanstvenih djela |v 152 |w (DE-604)BV000781153 |9 152 | |
| 856 | 4 | 2 | |m Digitalisierung BSBMuenchen |q application/pdf |u http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=016381176&sequence=000003&line_number=0001&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA |3 Inhaltsverzeichnis |
| 856 | 4 | 2 | |m Digitalisierung BSB Muenchen |q application/pdf |u http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=016381176&sequence=000004&line_number=0002&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA |3 Abstract |
| 940 | 1 | |n oe | |
| 999 | |a oai:aleph.bib-bvb.de:BVB01-016381176 | ||
| 942 | 1 | 1 | |c 351.09 |e 22/bsb |f 09024 |g 4972 |
| 942 | 1 | 1 | |c 200.9 |e 22/bsb |f 09024 |g 4972 |
Datensatz im Suchindex
| _version_ | 1804137468390277120 |
|---|---|
| adam_text | SADRŽAJ
I. UVOD
............................................... 5
IL RIMSKAKURIJA
..................................... 19
1.
PRAVNA FUNKCIJA KURIJE
......................... 27
2.
UREDI ZA DODJELJIVANJE OPROSTA, RAZRJEŠENJA,
DOZVOLA
........................................ 30
3.
FINANCIJSKA FUNKCIJA KURIJE
.................... 32
4.
ADMINISTRAŢI
VNO-UPRAVNA FUNKCIJA KURIJE
.... 33
Formulariji u uporabi u papinskoj Kancelariji
.............. 34
Materijalno nastajanje dokumenata u Apostolskoj kancelariji
. 37
Per viam ordinariam
............................... 38
Prodajnost ureda
..................................... 41
Osoblje Kancelarije
.................................. 43
Pisari fscriptoresj
................................. 44
Abbreviatures
.................................... 45
Tajnici
(secretarii)
................................. 46
Kuriri
(cursores,)
.................................. 48
Zastupnici
(procuratores)
........................... 49
Kardinalovo kućanstvo
............................... 51
Papini kapelani
...................................... 56
III. OPOREZIVANJE I SAKUPLJANJE POREZA
............... 57
1.
О
IZVORIMA PRIHODA APOSTOLSKE STOLICE
........ 57
a) Dona
et oblationes
................................. 57
b)
Patrimonium
Beati
Petri
............................ 60
c)
Census
.......................................... 64
d)
Tribut
........................................... 66
2.
POREZI NA PRIHODE
............................... 67
Pristojbe
........................................... 68
a) Zajedničke pristojbe
................................ 68
b) Pet malih pristojbi
................................. 68
455
c) Annatae
......................................... 70
d)
Plodovi iz razdoblja ispražnjenosti nadarbine
........... 74
e) Nezakonito primljeni plodovi
......................... 75
f) Quindennia
....................................... 75
g) lus
spoliì
......................................... 76
Zaključak
.......................................... 79
3.
APOSTOLSKI SAKUPLJAČI
{COLLECTORES APOSTOLICI)
80
Podaskupljači (subcollectores)
.......................... 82
Izvješća
............................................ 83
4.
ANNATAE
-
ZAJEDNIČKE I MALE PRISTOJBE
......... 84
4.1.
Annatae
........................................ 84
Libri annatarum et Libri
obligationum
prelatorum ......
86
Annatae u širem i općem smislu
..................... 87
Registriranje obveze za annatae
..................... 88
Datum obveze
................................... 89
Ime i titula osobe koja se obvezuje
................... 89
Vrijednost nadarbine
.............................. 89
4.2.
Zajedničke i male pristojbe
......................... 95
Važnost točnoga navoda
............................... 97
IV.
CRKVENE NADARBINE
............................... 101
1.
ZNAČENJE POJMOVA CRKVENA NADARBINAINADAR-
BENIK
{BENEFICIUM
ECCLESIASTICO
,
BENEFICIATUS)
101
Funkcionalno određenje malih crkvenih nadarbina
.......... 104
Beneficia
simplicia
-
sine curae
........................ 106
Kanonikati i
prebende
................................ 107
Podjeljivanje malih nadarbina
{beneficia
collativá)
.........
ПО
2.
PATRONATSKO PRAVO {IUS
PATRONATUS)
............
Ill
2.1.
Povijesni pregled patronatskog prava
................. 111
2.2.
Patroni
......................................... 114
2.3.
Patronovo
pravo upotrebe osnovane nadarbine
......... 115
2.4.
Pravo predstavljanja {ius
presentando)
................ 118
2.5.
Rokovi za predstavljanje kandidata
.................. 119
2.6.
Prenošenje patronatskog prava
...................... 120
3.
ŽUPNE CRKVE
.................................... 130
3.1.
Organizacija
.................................... 130
3.2.
Izbor župnika
.................................... 133
3.2.1.
Kako se provode izbor i namještanje kandidata?
... 136
456
3.3.
Predstavljanje na ispražnjenu nadarbinu
............... 142
3.3.1.
Pismo predstavljanja
(presentatio)
.............. 142
a) Razlozi ispražnjenosti
..................... 142
b) Kriteriji za izbor kandidata kojeg će predstaviti
.
biskupu
............................... 143
c) Namještenje
{investitura)
................... 144
V.
PROVIZIJE
........................................... 145
Vrste papinskih provizija
................................. 147
1.
ADMINISTRATIVNI POSTUPAK OKO DOBIVANJA
PROVIZIJE NA NADARBINU
........................ 148
a) Molba
........................................ 148
b) Registracija
.................................... 151
c) Ispit podobnosti i znanja
.......................... 151
d) Papinsko pismo
................................. 153
e) Preuzimanje posjeda
............................. 154
O formulara
molbe
................................... 155
Klauzula
anteferri
................................. 157
Provizija rationi congruit
........................... 157
Nova provisto
.................................... 160
Klauzula
perinde
valere ............................
161
Klauzula
sí
neutri
I si
nulii
.......................... 162
Motu
proprio
..................................... 165
2.
PROVIZIJE KANDIDATIMA SA SVEUČILIŠNIM
OBRAZOVANJEM
.................................. 172
2.1.
Molbe za papinu intervenciju u dodjeli nadarbina
....... 173
2.2.
Utjecajni zaštitnici
................................ 177
a) Članovi kraljevskih obitelji
........................ 177
b) Kardinali
...................................... 177
c) Biskupi
....................................... 179
3.
PAPINSKE REZERVACIJE
........................... 182
a) Osnova rezervacija vacans
apud
sedem apostolicam
...... 183
1.
Obitum
in Curia ................................
185
2.
Obitum
in
heis
a Curia ultra
duas dietas
legales
non
distantibus
.................................... 191
b)
Gubitak nadarbine
................................. 193
1.
Oduzimanje
(privado)
............................ 193
1.1.
Promocija na mjesto biskupa ili opata
........... 195
2.
Ulazak u redovničku zajednicu
..................... 197
457
3.
Odreknuće (resignatio)
........................... 198
3.1.
Resignatio infavorem
terţii
................... 198
3.2.
Resignatio
causa
permutationis
................ 199
3.3.
Obeštećenje (pensio)
......................... 204
4.
Prestanak (cessio)
............................... 205
4.1.
Cessio commendae monasterii
................. 205
4.2.
Cessio
beneficii
............................. 207
5.
Povratak na laički život (ženidba, vojnička karijera...)
.. 207
4.
GRATIAEEXPECTATIVAE
........................... 207
4.1.
Srednjovjekovni kaptoli u Dalmaciji
................. 208
4.2.Arhiđakoni
...................................... 208
4.3.
Provisto informa
communi
pauperum
................ 228
5.
DIREKTNE PROVIZIJE
.............................. 230
Razlozi zbog kojih propada provizija
.................... 231
6.
IZVRŠITELJI PROVIZIJA
(EXECUTORES)
.............. 232
7.
OPOZICIJA PAPINSKIM PROVIZIJAMA
................ 233
8.
PRAVNI ASPEKTI PAPINSTVA
....................... 234
8.1.
Suci delegati
.................................... 235
8.2.
Sporovi
o nadarbinama
............................ 239
8.3.
Subrogado
...................................... 245
VI.
PAPINSTVO I BISKUPI
................................ 249
Imenovanje biskupa
.................................... 249
Uplate zajedničkih i malih pristojbi
........................ 257
Stupanj obrazovanja dalmatinskih (nad)biskupa
.............. 260
Karijere biskupa
....................................... 277
Kontakti između pape i biskupa
........................... 284
Litterae executoriales
................................... 288
Specijalne dozvole
(dispensatio)
........................... 289
VII. PAPA
I
REDOVNIČKE ZAJEDNICE
...................... 293
Izbor i imenovanje opata
................................. 296
VIII.
PAPINSKI OPROSTI, RAZRJEŠENJA I DOZVOLE
.......... 313
DISPENSATIO
-
ABSOLUTIO
-
LICENŢIA
................ 314
1.
CELIBAT
-
KONKUBINAT
-
NEZAKONITA DJECA
..... 320
a) Oprost od nezakonitog rođenja
(dispensatìo de
defecta natalium)
322
b)
Nezakoniti sinovi laika
............................. 325
c) Očevim stopama?
-
nezakoniti sinovi svećenika
.......... 328
d) Raskid sklopljenog braka radi prelaska u redovničku zajednicu
336
458
2.
OPROSTI ZA
ZAREĐENJE ISPOD KANONSKI ODREĐENE
DOBI
{DISPENSATIO
DE DEFECTU AETATIS)
........... 336
a) Stjecanje redova
(ad
sacros ordines
promovendus)
........ 339
b)
Zaređenje za svećenika
............................. 340
c)
Zaređenje u Kuriji
................................. 341
d)
Hijerarhijski slijed zaređenja
......................... 342
3.
TJELESNE ZAPREKE (DEFECTUS CORPORIS)
............ 346
4.
DOZVOLE ZA PLURALIZAM (PLURIAINCOMPATIBILIA
BENEFICIA)
....................................... 348
5.
DOZVOLA ZA NEREZIDIRANJE
........................ 350
a) Dozvola za odlazak na studij
......................... 350
b) Obveza rezidiranja i ubiranje plodova/prihoda u odsutnosti
. 350
c) Dozvola za zamjenu nadarbina
(licenţia permutandi)
...... 352
6.
PROMJENA SAMOSTANA, PRELAZAK U DRUGI RED,
APOSTAZIJA
...................................... 353
7.
INDULGENCIJE (INDULGENTIA)
....................... 356
a)
Confessor
-
remissio plenaria
omnium peccatorum in mortis
articulo
............................................ 356
b) Indulgentia visitario
ecclesiae
-
manus
adjutrìx
.......... 357
8.
DOZVOLE
-
LICENTIAE
................................ 360
a)
Licenţa
testandi
................................... 360
b)
Dozvola jedenja mesa, jaja i mliječnih proizvoda
......... 362
9.
OSTALE DISPENZACIJE
............................... 364
a) Za hodočašća
..................................... 364
b) Oslobođenje od zavjeta
............................. 365
c) Prodaja posjeda
................................... 365
d) Od nepravilnosti
(de irregularitate)
................... 366
IX.
ZAKLJUČAK
......................................... 371
ARHIVSKI IZVORI
......................................... 377
1.
NEOBJAVLJENI IZVORI
............................... 377
2.
OBJAVLJENI IZVORI
.................................. 383
KRATICE
.................................................. 388
BIBLIOGRAFIJA
........................................... 389
A WAY TO AN ECCLESIASTICAL BENEFICE
ROMAN
CURIA
AND THE 15th CENTURY
DALMAŢIA
.................... 417
Kazalo osobnih imena
........................................ 425
Kazalo zemljopisnih pojmova
.................................. 445
459
A WAY TO AN ECCLESIASTICAL BENEFICE
ROMAN CURIA AND THE IS«1 CENTURY
DALMAŢIA
Summary
The need of the faithful for various licences, dispensations, absolutions,
consacrations and court decisions influenced the range of activities of the Papacy
and its influence. Most clearly it can be seen on the uncomfortable problem of
papal provisions on benefices, since the majority of papal letters of provision is
written only after a supplication of a petitioner hoping to get a permanent em¬
ployment with the help of the Pope himself, had arrived to the Curia (Pope).
The way to an ecclesiastical benefice was hard and uncertain. In the career
of a cleric at the end of the Middle Ages there were no automatisms and each pro¬
motion depended on different circumstances, continuous search for necessary in¬
formation, contacts, conections and acquaintances, search for patrons and pro¬
tectors, gaining confidence and benevolence of a cardinal or an influential
curial
officer. Having a relative who occupied an outstanding position in the Curia, who
could pass his supplication to other offices in order to have a papal letter of pro¬
vision faster than the other candidates
-
a letter which was only the papal presen¬
tation to the local bishop or patron, and which certainly did not bring the real pos¬
session of the benefice
-
could certainly make the way seem a little easier.
Vatican Apostolic Library holdings comprise treatises of anonymous authors
offering explanations and advice on how one should behave, on the persons to
meet, cardinals and
curial
officers whose benevolence was to attract, and every¬
thing one ought to know in order to move smoothly and successfully in the com¬
plicated organism the late medieval Papal Curia was. Still, the pursuit of a ben¬
efice
-
on a higher level one could also speak of making a successfull ecclesiasti¬
cal career, in such a system, was closely conected to an influential patron, protec¬
tor or a cardinal, and, equally important, to the capacity of using information: ei¬
ther for personal promotion, or to avoid small errors and incidents on the way.
Information, be it true or false, is a strong weapon
-
and if used correctly, could
considerably influence the making of a successfull career in the Curia, but also
eliminate a rival, or negatively influence someone else s career.
A careful observer will easily spot a vacant benefice or come to know spicy
details in the life of a rival, dispute his right of possession, and supply for it in the
Curia; if lucky, his supplication will be first in the line, the papal letter of provi¬
sion will follow and the chances to enter into the rightful possession of his ben-
417
efice
and collect the income will increase. The Curia certainly could not control
whether all the allegations in the candidate s supplication were exact and true
-
especially those concerning supposed illegal actions. Such verifications were, in
final analysis, left to be done by the executors and the local authorities.
All candidates had to face obstacles and difficulties during their careers, but,
to some of them, these obstacles were a bit easier. Clearly, being a member of a
rich and noble family, with relatives who occupied highest and outstanding posts
in the State or ecclesiastical hierarchy, with strong conections with the Roman
Curia, reduced these difficulties considerably. For the candidates residing and
active in the Curia, it was the only way to make a career. Cardinals owned rich
benefices and never had to face serious problems in obtaining a desired benefice.
Papal collectors, legates and auditors in the papal palace, various agents and cler¬
ics in the cardinals service, various officers of the Holy See quite naturally had
their patron and protector in the reigning pope.
In Dalmatian dioceses most often richer
bénédictine
abbeys caught the eye
of cardinals. Several records of these appointments are preserved in the Vatican
and
Lateran
registers: cardinal of S. Nicholas inter Imagines
Pietro Foscari
-
pa¬
pal notary and the primicerius of S. Marco in Venice held in commendum the
bénédictine
abbey of S. Cosmas and
Damian
on the island of
Pasman.
Through
his vicar Franciscus Damiani (who himself was closely related to the Curia being
the archideacon of
Zadar,
papal acolyth and chaplain, nucio and collector for the
Apostolic Chamber) invested a large sum of money in
1461
for the reconstruction
of the abbey. Cardinals
Gabriele Condulmer,
Pietro
and Marco
Barbo,
Giovanni
Michieli, and Giardiano
Orsini are
frequently mentioned as administrators
-
commendatarii of
bénédictine
abbeys of St Chrysogonus in
Zadar
(Pietro Barbo,
cardinal priest of Santa Maria
Nuova
and prothonotary of the Holy See, became
administrator after the death of
Petar Krišavić), St
Ambrose in
Nin,
S.
John the
Baptist in
Trogir,
S.
Nicholas
de portu
in
Šibenik,
and
S.
Stephen
de pinis in
Split.
Higher dignities in the Dalmatian cathedrals (archdeacons in particular), as
well as commendatory administration of entire dioceses attracted the cardinals,
too. Cardinal Johannes Viteleschi was appointed administrator of the
Trogir
dio¬
cese on
9
August
1437
after the translation of cardinal
Ludovico
Trevisan
Scarampi to Florence.
Trogir
was only a step in the extremely successful ecclesi¬
astical career of cardinal Scarampi, who was very active in the affairs of the Cu¬
ria for many years. Under Calixtus III he was a conspicuous figure in the Levant
(in
1456-1458)
as commander of the papal fleet sent on a crusade against the
Turks. During his lifetime he was appointed patriarch of Aquileia, and cardinal of
S. Laurence in
Dámaso,
but most importantly, he directed the Apostolic Cham¬
ber. Cardinal Vitelleschi, on the other hand, althought he, too, persued
a brillant
ecclesiastical carreer had prefered his military career of a general in the Eugene
IV s army against the duke of Milan.
Pietro Riario,
one of
Sixtus
IV nephews,
was given in commendum the archbishopric of Split on
28
April
1473 -
it was
418
only one in the long series that the illustrious uncle gave in commendum to the
spendthrift nephew. Obviously,
Pietro Riario
had never been in his dioceses, to
him they were only a source of revenues to pay his numerous gambling debts.
Somewhat lower positioned papal officers were also interested in Dalmatian
benefices: among them there were papal chaplains and auditors of the Sacred
Roman Rota
-
represented by the
Trogir
patrician
Fantino de Valle
and
Jakov
Dragišić
(Dragazzo); papal notaries Bartolomeo Zabarella, Maffeo Vallaresso
were appointed archbishops of Split and
Zadar,
respectivelly. Master
Petrus de
Casaciis, baccalarius in canon law, canon of the Milan cathedral chapter,
scriptor
and abbreviator of papal letters in the Apostolic Chancery, and
familiáris
in the
household of Martin V was a candidate for the
rectorate
of St Mary in
Vrpolje
church in the diocese of
Šibenik,
a benefice under the lay patronage with the an¬
nual income amounting to
24
golden florins. Johannes Venerius, before being
appointed bishop of
Dubrovnik,
was
a
scriptor litterarum
apostolicarum
in the
Curia, and was also a nephew to the cardinal Antonio
Giacomo
Venier.
Doctor of
canon law,
Matteo de Veneriis,
cleric from
Recanati,
brother of archbishop
Johannes
de Veneriis,
scriptor
in the Apostolic Penitentiary and cubicullarius to
pope
Sixtus
IV, received one of the two portions of the All Saints church in
Dubrovnik,
in lay patronage of the
Gučetić
family administered by two rectors,
after the death of
Matej
Gučetić)
on the recommendation of his protector
-
the
penitentiarius
maior
Philip Calandrini, brother of pope Nicholas V. Even a
nephew of
a
scriptor
in the Apostolic Chancery, Venetian priest Johannes
Do¬
minicas
made use of his connection with
a curial
officer
Dominicas
Petri
to sup¬
ply for the provision of several benefices, one of them being a dalmatian simplex
beneficium
clericatus nuncupatus of St Cosmas and
Damian
church in the
Hvar
diocese, with the annual income of
20
florins and the priory of the Venetian
col¬
légial
church of Saint Apostles with
24
florins of annual income
-
from
Sixtus
IV
personally, vacant after the death outside the Curia of Christophus
de Ubertis.
The process of bishop s appointment of persons who would be favourable to
Venetian government immediately after the conquest of
Dalmaţia,
went rather
slowly and gradually, following the strict canon law decrees. Probably, the Ve¬
netian senators tried not to provoke major and sudden changes, prefering to see
the natural end of the mandate, before suporting a more convenient candidate. In
any case, sooner or later, all the Eastern Adriatic dioceses under the Venetian
dominion were administered by a bishop of Venetian origin; their presence cer¬
tainly was not limited to the early period when the Venetian administration had
to be established in the newly conquered provinces; throughout the
15*
century
their presence became even more important. Indeed, during the seventy-five years
of the 15 1 century coverded by the research
(1417-1492)
in the nine Eastern
Adriatic dioceses under the Venetian dominion, out of
63
appointed bishops
46
were prelates of Venetian origin, coming either from Venice or the surrounding
towns under the Venetian dominion. All of them received excellent University
education. Bishops of local origin were only
14 -
and were mostly appointed to
419
the dioceses of
Skradin
-
(five out of ten) and
Šibenik
(only three out of five were
of local origin). Venetian monopoly over the control of bishop s sees is even
more obvious if the duration of their mandates and the economic strength of these
dioceses be considered: concentration of Venetian bishops is higher on the richer
dioceses. Possibilities of a local prelate to reach a bishop s dignity in a Dalmatian
diocese are limited only to two of them -economically less attractive to Vene¬
tian patricians. Regretfully, sources from the Apostolic Chamber indicate that all
Dalmatian dioceses, including
Dubrovnik,
compared to most of the Western Eu¬
ropean and Italian (including the Terraferma part of the Venetian Republic) coun¬
terparts, were very poor: the richest episcopal mensae of
Zadar,
Split and
Dubrovnik
could count on the
anual
revenues amounting to
900-1200
golden flor¬
ins; somewhat poorer were those of
Šibenik, Skradin
and
Trogir
-
and their an¬
nual incomes were estimated to
300-450
florins by the
Apostolich
Chamber; the
rather poor mensae of
Nin, Hvar
and
Kotor
could rarely collect more than
100
golden florins. No wonder, then, if the bishops of
Kotor
rather frequently com¬
plained about their see being poor and demanded additional revenues to cope with
the expenses that the dignity brought. Venetian ecclesiastical dignitaries at the
head of a Dalmatian diocese were successful in their effort only thanks to the con¬
nections made with the Roman Curia, of the support received by some outstand¬
ing cardinal or the pope himself (we should bear in mind that two
15
century
popes were Venetians: Eugene IV and Paul II!). Most of them began their careers
as
curial
officials: Maffeo Vallaresso and Bartholomeo Zabarella were papal no¬
taries,
Fantino de Valle
was auditor of the Sacred Roman Rota; Jacobo Turlono,
Jacobo Venerius, bishop of
Kotor
Bernard were clerics of the Apostolic Cham¬
ber; Lorenzo
Zane
was the prothonotary of the Apostolic See, Johannes Venerius
was the
scriptor
litterarum apostolicarum), a few of them were active in the ser¬
vice of a cardinal or the pope himself, before being appointed bishop. Only the
Franciscan friar Raymondo of Viterbo was appointed bishop of
Kotor
on the rec¬
ommendation of the Venetian Senate, but he could count on the very strong sup¬
port of the
Kotor
cathedral chapter, too. During the central years of the 15th cen¬
tury, a cleric without papal support or his agreement, at least, could
non
expect
to be appointed bishop. Together with the papal letter of appointment, many can¬
didates on the Dalmatian bishoprics would receive a licence to keep their old ben¬
efices
-
they possessed before the appointment
-
as well as a licence to unite the
revenues of the rich
bénédictine
abbey received in commendum, or a rich church,
in order to cope with the high expenses that the episcopal dignity brought along;
as their incomes were frequently rather poor, burdened with numerous
taxas
which the predecessors did not pay regularly. It can be seen from numerous sup¬
plications, papal bulls, reports of the clerics employed by the Apostolic Chamber
on the payments of the small and common taxes.
From the very
begining
of the
Іб 1
century the Major Council in
Dubrovnik
decreed on the recommendation of the Senate, that the citizens and subjects of the
Republic, cannot be elected or appointed archbishops, thus, throughout the cen-
420
tury
the seven bishops at the head of the see were foreigners, but very well known
in the Roman Curia.
Besides the financial aspect of the benefice affair, the contemporaries were
mostly annoyed by the
non
residence of the ecclesiastics: out of the
70
appointed
bishops on the Eastern Adriatic coast throughout the 15th century
(Dubrovnik
in¬
cluded) only a few of them actualy resided in their dioceses
-
they were mostly
busily engaged in diplomatic missions for the Holy See (bishop of
Šibenik Luka
Tolentić
was engaged in Burgundy; bishop of
Skradin
Fantino de Valle
was sent
to the Czech king George Podjebrad; whereas the bishops of
Nin, Modruš
and
Hvar
-
Natale Georgi,
Nicholas of
Modruš
and Thomas
Tomasini,
respectfully,
were engaged in various and numerous missions in Bosnia, at the time of the
Turkish conquest in the 1460ies. Others, like
Angelo Cavazza
(bishop of
Poreč
and
Trogir)
or Lorenzo
Zane
(archbishop of Split) were busy in the Curia
-
both
of them were appointed to the office of thesaurarius of the Holy See and admin¬
istered their dioceses through vicars
-
in
Trogir
it was abbot Nicholas Lovrin, of
the
bénédictine
abbey of St John the Baptist.
Things were considerably different on the level of the lower ecclesiastical
benefices. Particularly interesting were the cathedral chapters
-
associations im¬
mediately after the episcopal dignity on the hierarchical ladder. Traditionally,
they were the clearest voice of the commune, of the ruling class and major local
representatives towards the central government in Venice. The chapter was
mainly formed by the clerics
-
members of the local, patrician and outstanding
families: in
Šibenik
cathedral chapter local family names like Usinich,
Radeglich,
Lipinich, Cimaturith, Procopouich, Stanguicich, Priuincich, Vukassinic,
Dragatius prevail; in
Trogir
members of the
Cega
noble family were frequently
elected canons; in
Dubrovnik
patricians Ranjina (Ragnina) and
Gučetić
(de
Gotiis, Gozze)
dominated; while in the
Kotor
cathedral chapter members of the
local families Buchia,
Pasquali,
Bolizza, Margotiis and Paltasich were the most
influential canons. Many of them got their place in the chapter with the papal let¬
ter of provision, thanks to the family ties and good connections they had with of¬
ficers in the Curia, cardinals and excellent personal ties with the pope himself.
In the parochial churches on the territories so close to the
fronteers
with the
Turks, so delicate and vulnerable, exposed to continuous war perils the faithful
Christians badly needed the spiritual assistance. As for the parishes, they were
mostly under the patronage of bishops, the commune or some richer, outstanding
citizen. Their annual incomes were rather modest (only a few could offer some¬
thing more than the minimum of
24
golden florins
-
the sum necessary for the
obligatory payment of annatae to the Apostolic Chamber) and were rarely inter¬
esting to
curial
officers, candidates with the university degree, or to foreign hunt¬
ers for the rich benefices.
Only a small number of clerics received a benefice in
Dalmaţia
thanks to the
papal letter of provision, the majority of them had a degree from the best Euro¬
pean Universities (mostly Padua and Bologna)
-
thus, the popes cannot be ac-
421
cused of promoting unsuitable and uncapable persons to Dalmatian dioceses. The
system of provisions was based on canon law decrees, and it certainly did not de¬
pend on the personal wish or the arbitrariness of the pope himself. The popes
could know personally only a limited number out of the totality of ecclesiastics
active in Renaissance Europe who turned to the Roman Curia with the supplica¬
tion for a rich benefice and looking for a successful ecclesiastical career.
Although the recommendation of influential protectors or excellent Univer¬
sity formation had their role, it was almost impossible to control the appoint¬
ments, since the papal letter of provision was only one in the whole range of
ways. The late Medieval clergy could apply to the ordinary collator
-
bishop, or
a rich local patron of a vacant benefice; another way was to look for a provision
granted by the King or Emperor because of his right of
preces
primariae
-
some¬
what harder since this opportunity was limited to the very special occasion of the
new monarch s coronation. A cleric in search for an employment was just sup¬
posed to chose from the various possibilities. As the papal provisions became
numerous, the oportunities of the local provisions
-
especially to the sinecures
and richer dignities in the cathedral chapters
-
became rare, but the old system of
local patronage never disappeared completely. A benefice could become object of
a direct provision only because of the cause of vacancy, and not (except for the
case of specially reserved benefices) because the pope arbitrarily wanted or in¬
tended to appoint a greedy
curial
officer or cardinal.
Curial
officers are more fre¬
quently present in the sources of the researched period because the papal provi¬
sion was the only possible way of promotion on the hierarchical ladder since the
service in the Curia held them far from the local patrons. Candidates with the
University degree had to face almost identical problems: several years long pres¬
ence at the University (ranging from three to seven years) inevitably held them
far from the local patrons. The really poor clerics, who are not interesting to the
local patrons, used their presence at the moment of the newly elected pope s coro¬
nation to get the letter of provision, too.
The number of candidates who turned to the papal courts is also hard to es¬
tablish. Some of the cases could be reconstructed thanks to the partial and frag¬
mentary, sometimes even contradictory sources one finds in the various archival
series. There are
non
reasons to suppose that the Pope or the auditors of the Sa¬
cred Rota showed particular inclination to one of the candidates in their decisions,
or that they purposefully prolonged the court decisions. Medieval courts were
notoriously slow: not a single institution, and this is particularly true for the Holy
See, could afford losing any of its rights. Finally, Papacy was famous for its be¬
ing just. If not, the number of parties willing to face enormous expenses to obtain
the just decision would have been far smaller.
Dalmatian dioceses during the IS 1 century were in no way different from the
dioceses on the Terraferma part of the Venetian Republic, other Italian city-
states, German, French or Scandinavian provinces in the matters of absolutions,
dispensations or indulgences. Data on non-ordained clerics, their everday activi-
422
ties and problems, their financial possibilities confirm it. Similarly, although in
somewhat less obvious way, it is true of the mariage dispensation granted to the
lay persons. Results reached at in this research confirm that patricians from
Dubrovnik
before the others, and more frequently than citizens of the Venetian
Dalmaţia
turned to the Pope for these dispensations
-
certainly, not because it
was important to them to live in a marriage
legały
confirmed by the highest eccle¬
siastical authority
-
they were lead by more down to earth reasons: safeguard the
legal ways of inheriting the patrimony to their legitimate children. These irregu¬
larities were frequently presented to the Papacy
-
which meant that the faithful
in Dalmatian dioceses made part of the universal Church, and that their highest
spiritual representatives were engaged in all the segments of its activities.
423
|
| adam_txt |
SADRŽAJ
I. UVOD
. 5
IL RIMSKAKURIJA
. 19
1.
PRAVNA FUNKCIJA KURIJE
. 27
2.
UREDI ZA DODJELJIVANJE OPROSTA, RAZRJEŠENJA,
DOZVOLA
. 30
3.
FINANCIJSKA FUNKCIJA KURIJE
. 32
4.
ADMINISTRAŢI
VNO-UPRAVNA FUNKCIJA KURIJE
. 33
Formulariji u uporabi u papinskoj Kancelariji
. 34
Materijalno nastajanje dokumenata u Apostolskoj kancelariji
. 37
Per viam ordinariam
. 38
Prodajnost ureda
. 41
Osoblje Kancelarije
. 43
Pisari fscriptoresj
. 44
Abbreviatures
. 45
Tajnici
(secretarii)
. 46
Kuriri
(cursores,)
. 48
Zastupnici
(procuratores)
. 49
Kardinalovo kućanstvo
. 51
Papini kapelani
. 56
III. OPOREZIVANJE I SAKUPLJANJE POREZA
. 57
1.
О
IZVORIMA PRIHODA APOSTOLSKE STOLICE
. 57
a) Dona
et oblationes
. 57
b)
Patrimonium
Beati
Petri
. 60
c)
Census
. 64
d)
Tribut
. 66
2.
POREZI NA PRIHODE
. 67
Pristojbe
. 68
a) Zajedničke pristojbe
. 68
b) Pet malih pristojbi
. 68
455
c) Annatae
. 70
d)
Plodovi iz razdoblja ispražnjenosti nadarbine
. 74
e) Nezakonito primljeni plodovi
. 75
f) Quindennia
. 75
g) lus
spoliì
. 76
Zaključak
. 79
3.
APOSTOLSKI SAKUPLJAČI
{COLLECTORES APOSTOLICI)
80
Podaskupljači (subcollectores)
. 82
Izvješća
. 83
4.
ANNATAE
-
ZAJEDNIČKE I MALE PRISTOJBE
. 84
4.1.
Annatae
. 84
Libri annatarum et Libri
obligationum
prelatorum .
86
Annatae u širem i općem smislu
. 87
Registriranje obveze za annatae
. 88
Datum obveze
. 89
Ime i titula osobe koja se obvezuje
. 89
Vrijednost nadarbine
. 89
4.2.
Zajedničke i male pristojbe
. 95
Važnost točnoga navoda
. 97
IV.
CRKVENE NADARBINE
. 101
1.
ZNAČENJE POJMOVA CRKVENA NADARBINAINADAR-
BENIK
{BENEFICIUM
ECCLESIASTICO
',
BENEFICIATUS)
101
Funkcionalno određenje malih crkvenih nadarbina
. 104
Beneficia
simplicia
-
sine curae
. 106
Kanonikati i
prebende
. 107
Podjeljivanje malih nadarbina
{beneficia
collativá)
.
ПО
2.
PATRONATSKO PRAVO {IUS
PATRONATUS)
.
Ill
2.1.
Povijesni pregled patronatskog prava
. 111
2.2.
Patroni
. 114
2.3.
Patronovo
pravo upotrebe osnovane nadarbine
. 115
2.4.
Pravo predstavljanja {ius
presentando)
. 118
2.5.
Rokovi za predstavljanje kandidata
. 119
2.6.
Prenošenje patronatskog prava
. 120
3.
ŽUPNE CRKVE
. 130
3.1.
Organizacija
. 130
3.2.
Izbor župnika
. 133
3.2.1.
Kako se provode izbor i namještanje kandidata?
. 136
456
3.3.
Predstavljanje na ispražnjenu nadarbinu
. 142
3.3.1.
Pismo predstavljanja
(presentatio)
. 142
a) Razlozi ispražnjenosti
. 142
b) Kriteriji za izbor kandidata kojeg će predstaviti
.
biskupu
. 143
c) Namještenje
{investitura)
. 144
V.
PROVIZIJE
. 145
Vrste papinskih provizija
. 147
1.
ADMINISTRATIVNI POSTUPAK OKO DOBIVANJA
PROVIZIJE NA NADARBINU
. 148
a) Molba
. 148
b) Registracija
. 151
c) Ispit podobnosti i znanja
. 151
d) Papinsko pismo
. 153
e) Preuzimanje posjeda
. 154
O formulara
molbe
. 155
Klauzula
anteferri
. 157
Provizija rationi congruit
. 157
Nova provisto
. 160
Klauzula
perinde
valere .
161
Klauzula
sí'
neutri
I si
nulii
. 162
Motu
proprio
. 165
2.
PROVIZIJE KANDIDATIMA SA SVEUČILIŠNIM
OBRAZOVANJEM
. 172
2.1.
Molbe za papinu intervenciju u dodjeli nadarbina
. 173
2.2.
Utjecajni zaštitnici
. 177
a) Članovi kraljevskih obitelji
. 177
b) Kardinali
. 177
c) Biskupi
. 179
3.
PAPINSKE REZERVACIJE
. 182
a) Osnova rezervacija vacans
apud
sedem apostolicam
. 183
1.
Obitum
in Curia .
185
2.
Obitum
in
heis
a Curia ultra
duas dietas
legales
non
distantibus
. 191
b)
Gubitak nadarbine
. 193
1.
Oduzimanje
(privado)
. 193
1.1.
Promocija na mjesto biskupa ili opata
. 195
2.
Ulazak u redovničku zajednicu
. 197
457
3.
Odreknuće (resignatio)
. 198
3.1.
Resignatio infavorem
terţii
. 198
3.2.
Resignatio
causa
permutationis
. 199
3.3.
Obeštećenje (pensio)
. 204
4.
Prestanak (cessio)
. 205
4.1.
Cessio commendae monasterii
. 205
4.2.
Cessio
beneficii
. 207
5.
Povratak na laički život (ženidba, vojnička karijera.)
. 207
4.
GRATIAEEXPECTATIVAE
. 207
4.1.
Srednjovjekovni kaptoli u Dalmaciji
. 208
4.2.Arhiđakoni
. 208
4.3.
Provisto informa
communi
pauperum
. 228
5.
DIREKTNE PROVIZIJE
. 230
Razlozi zbog kojih propada provizija
. 231
6.
IZVRŠITELJI PROVIZIJA
(EXECUTORES)
. 232
7.
OPOZICIJA PAPINSKIM PROVIZIJAMA
. 233
8.
PRAVNI ASPEKTI PAPINSTVA
. 234
8.1.
Suci delegati
. 235
8.2.
Sporovi
o nadarbinama
. 239
8.3.
Subrogado
. 245
VI.
PAPINSTVO I BISKUPI
. 249
Imenovanje biskupa
. 249
Uplate zajedničkih i malih pristojbi
. 257
Stupanj obrazovanja dalmatinskih (nad)biskupa
. 260
Karijere biskupa
. 277
Kontakti između pape i biskupa
. 284
Litterae executoriales
. 288
Specijalne dozvole
(dispensatio)
. 289
VII. PAPA
I
REDOVNIČKE ZAJEDNICE
. 293
Izbor i imenovanje opata
. 296
VIII.
PAPINSKI OPROSTI, RAZRJEŠENJA I DOZVOLE
. 313
DISPENSATIO
-
ABSOLUTIO
-
LICENŢIA
. 314
1.
CELIBAT
-
KONKUBINAT
-
NEZAKONITA DJECA
. 320
a) Oprost od nezakonitog rođenja
(dispensatìo de
defecta natalium)
322
b)
Nezakoniti sinovi laika
. 325
c) Očevim stopama?
-
nezakoniti sinovi svećenika
. 328
d) Raskid sklopljenog braka radi prelaska u redovničku zajednicu
336
458
2.
OPROSTI ZA
ZAREĐENJE ISPOD KANONSKI ODREĐENE
DOBI
{DISPENSATIO
DE DEFECTU AETATIS)
. 336
a) Stjecanje redova
(ad
sacros ordines
promovendus)
. 339
b)
Zaređenje za svećenika
. 340
c)
Zaređenje u Kuriji
. 341
d)
Hijerarhijski slijed zaređenja
. 342
3.
TJELESNE ZAPREKE (DEFECTUS CORPORIS)
. 346
4.
DOZVOLE ZA PLURALIZAM (PLURIAINCOMPATIBILIA
BENEFICIA)
. 348
5.
DOZVOLA ZA NEREZIDIRANJE
. 350
a) Dozvola za odlazak na studij
. 350
b) Obveza rezidiranja i ubiranje plodova/prihoda u odsutnosti
. 350
c) Dozvola za zamjenu nadarbina
(licenţia permutandi)
. 352
6.
PROMJENA SAMOSTANA, PRELAZAK U DRUGI RED,
APOSTAZIJA
. 353
7.
INDULGENCIJE (INDULGENTIA)
. 356
a)
Confessor
-
remissio plenaria
omnium peccatorum in mortis
articulo
. 356
b) Indulgentia visitario
ecclesiae
-
manus
adjutrìx
. 357
8.
DOZVOLE
-
LICENTIAE
. 360
a)
Licenţa
testandi
. 360
b)
Dozvola jedenja mesa, jaja i mliječnih proizvoda
. 362
9.
OSTALE DISPENZACIJE
. 364
a) Za hodočašća
. 364
b) Oslobođenje od zavjeta
. 365
c) Prodaja posjeda
. 365
d) Od nepravilnosti
(de irregularitate)
. 366
IX.
ZAKLJUČAK
. 371
ARHIVSKI IZVORI
. 377
1.
NEOBJAVLJENI IZVORI
. 377
2.
OBJAVLJENI IZVORI
. 383
KRATICE
. 388
BIBLIOGRAFIJA
. 389
A WAY TO AN ECCLESIASTICAL BENEFICE
ROMAN
CURIA
AND THE 15th CENTURY
DALMAŢIA
. 417
Kazalo osobnih imena
. 425
Kazalo zemljopisnih pojmova
. 445
459
A WAY TO AN ECCLESIASTICAL BENEFICE
ROMAN CURIA AND THE IS«1 CENTURY
DALMAŢIA
Summary
The need of the faithful for various licences, dispensations, absolutions,
consacrations and court decisions influenced the range of activities of the Papacy
and its influence. Most clearly it can be seen on the uncomfortable problem of
papal provisions on benefices, since the majority of papal letters of provision is
written only after a supplication of a petitioner hoping to get a permanent em¬
ployment with the help of the Pope himself, had arrived to the Curia (Pope).
The way to an ecclesiastical benefice was hard and uncertain. In the career
of a cleric at the end of the Middle Ages there were no automatisms and each pro¬
motion depended on different circumstances, continuous search for necessary in¬
formation, contacts, conections and acquaintances, search for patrons and pro¬
tectors, gaining confidence and benevolence of a cardinal or an influential
curial
officer. Having a relative who occupied an outstanding position in the Curia, who
could pass his supplication to other offices in order to have a papal letter of pro¬
vision faster than the other candidates
-
a letter which was only the papal presen¬
tation to the local bishop or patron, and which certainly did not bring the real pos¬
session of the benefice
-
could certainly make the way seem a little easier.
Vatican Apostolic Library holdings comprise treatises of anonymous authors
offering explanations and advice on how one should behave, on the persons to
meet, cardinals and
curial
officers whose benevolence was to attract, and every¬
thing one ought to know in order to move smoothly and successfully in the com¬
plicated organism the late medieval Papal Curia was. Still, the pursuit of a ben¬
efice
-
on a higher level one could also speak of making a successfull ecclesiasti¬
cal career, in such a system, was closely conected to an influential patron, protec¬
tor or a cardinal, and, equally important, to the capacity of using information: ei¬
ther for personal promotion, or to avoid small errors and incidents on the way.
Information, be it true or false, is a strong weapon
-
and if used correctly, could
considerably influence the making of a successfull career in the Curia, but also
eliminate a rival, or negatively influence someone else's career.
A careful observer will easily spot a vacant benefice or come to know spicy
details in the life of a rival, dispute his right of possession, and supply for it in the
Curia; if lucky, his supplication will be first in the line, the papal letter of provi¬
sion will follow and the chances to enter into the rightful possession of his ben-
417
efice
and collect the income will increase. The Curia certainly could not control
whether all the allegations in the candidate's supplication were exact and true
-
especially those concerning supposed illegal actions. Such verifications were, in
final analysis, left to be done by the executors and the local authorities.
All candidates had to face obstacles and difficulties during their careers, but,
to some of them, these obstacles were a bit easier. Clearly, being a member of a
rich and noble family, with relatives who occupied highest and outstanding posts
in the State or ecclesiastical hierarchy, with strong conections with the Roman
Curia, reduced these difficulties considerably. For the candidates residing and
active in the Curia, it was the only way to make a career. Cardinals owned rich
benefices and never had to face serious problems in obtaining a desired benefice.
Papal collectors, legates and auditors in the papal palace, various agents and cler¬
ics in the cardinals' service, various officers of the Holy See quite naturally had
their patron and protector in the reigning pope.
In Dalmatian dioceses most often richer
bénédictine
abbeys caught the eye
of cardinals. Several records of these appointments are preserved in the Vatican
and
Lateran
registers: cardinal of S. Nicholas inter Imagines
Pietro Foscari
-
pa¬
pal notary and the primicerius of S. Marco in Venice held in commendum the
bénédictine
abbey of S. Cosmas and
Damian
on the island of
Pasman.
Through
his vicar Franciscus Damiani (who himself was closely related to the Curia being
the archideacon of
Zadar,
papal acolyth and chaplain, nucio and collector for the
Apostolic Chamber) invested a large sum of money in
1461
for the reconstruction
of the abbey. Cardinals
Gabriele Condulmer,
Pietro
and Marco
Barbo,
Giovanni
Michieli, and Giardiano
Orsini are
frequently mentioned as administrators
-
commendatarii of
bénédictine
abbeys of St Chrysogonus in
Zadar
(Pietro Barbo,
cardinal priest of Santa Maria
Nuova
and prothonotary of the Holy See, became
administrator after the death of
Petar Krišavić), St
Ambrose in
Nin,
S.
John the
Baptist in
Trogir,
S.
Nicholas
de portu
in
Šibenik,
and
S.
Stephen
de pinis in
Split.
Higher dignities in the Dalmatian cathedrals (archdeacons in particular), as
well as commendatory administration of entire dioceses attracted the cardinals,
too. Cardinal Johannes Viteleschi was appointed administrator of the
Trogir
dio¬
cese on
9
August
1437
after the translation of cardinal
Ludovico
Trevisan
Scarampi to Florence.
Trogir
was only a step in the extremely successful ecclesi¬
astical career of cardinal Scarampi, who was very active in the affairs of the Cu¬
ria for many years. Under Calixtus III he was a conspicuous figure in the Levant
(in
1456-1458)
as commander of the papal fleet sent on a crusade against the
Turks. During his lifetime he was appointed patriarch of Aquileia, and cardinal of
S. Laurence in
Dámaso,
but most importantly, he directed the Apostolic Cham¬
ber. Cardinal Vitelleschi, on the other hand, althought he, too, persued
a brillant
ecclesiastical carreer had prefered his military career of a general in the Eugene
IV's army against the duke of Milan.
Pietro Riario,
one of
Sixtus'
IV nephews,
was given in commendum the archbishopric of Split on
28
April
1473 -
it was
418
only one in the long series that the illustrious uncle gave in commendum to the
spendthrift nephew. Obviously,
Pietro Riario
had never been in his dioceses, to
him they were only a source of revenues to pay his numerous gambling debts.
Somewhat lower positioned papal officers were also interested in Dalmatian
benefices: among them there were papal chaplains and auditors of the Sacred
Roman Rota
-
represented by the
Trogir
patrician
Fantino de Valle
and
Jakov
Dragišić
(Dragazzo); papal notaries Bartolomeo Zabarella, Maffeo Vallaresso
were appointed archbishops of Split and
Zadar,
respectivelly. Master
Petrus de
Casaciis, baccalarius in canon law, canon of the Milan cathedral chapter,
scriptor
and abbreviator of papal letters in the Apostolic Chancery, and
familiáris
in the
household of Martin V was a candidate for the
rectorate
of St Mary in
Vrpolje
church in the diocese of
Šibenik,
a benefice under the lay patronage with the an¬
nual income amounting to
24
golden florins. Johannes Venerius, before being
appointed bishop of
Dubrovnik,
was
a
scriptor litterarum
apostolicarum
in the
Curia, and was also a nephew to the cardinal Antonio
Giacomo
Venier.
Doctor of
canon law,
Matteo de Veneriis,
cleric from
Recanati,
brother of archbishop
Johannes
de Veneriis,
scriptor
in the Apostolic Penitentiary and cubicullarius to
pope
Sixtus
IV, received one of the two portions of the All Saints church in
Dubrovnik,
in lay patronage of the
Gučetić
family administered by two rectors,
after the death of
Matej
Gučetić)
on the recommendation of his protector
-
the
penitentiarius
maior
Philip Calandrini, brother of pope Nicholas V. Even a
nephew of
a
scriptor
in the Apostolic Chancery, Venetian priest Johannes
Do¬
minicas
made use of his connection with
a curial
officer
Dominicas
Petri
to sup¬
ply for the provision of several benefices, one of them being a dalmatian simplex
beneficium
clericatus nuncupatus of St Cosmas and
Damian
church in the
Hvar
diocese, with the annual income of
20
florins and the priory of the Venetian
col¬
légial
church of Saint Apostles with
24
florins of annual income
-
from
Sixtus
IV
personally, vacant after the death outside the Curia of Christophus
de Ubertis.
The process of bishop's appointment of persons who would be favourable to
Venetian government immediately after the conquest of
Dalmaţia,
went rather
slowly and gradually, following the strict canon law decrees. Probably, the Ve¬
netian senators tried not to provoke major and sudden changes, prefering to see
the natural end of the mandate, before suporting a more convenient candidate. In
any case, sooner or later, all the Eastern Adriatic dioceses under the Venetian
dominion were administered by a bishop of Venetian origin; their presence cer¬
tainly was not limited to the early period when the Venetian administration had
to be established in the newly conquered provinces; throughout the
15*
century
their presence became even more important. Indeed, during the seventy-five years
of the 15"1 century coverded by the research
(1417-1492)
in the nine Eastern
Adriatic dioceses under the Venetian dominion, out of
63
appointed bishops
46
were prelates of Venetian origin, coming either from Venice or the surrounding
towns under the Venetian dominion. All of them received excellent University
education. Bishops of local origin were only
14 -
and were mostly appointed to
419
the dioceses of
Skradin
-
(five out of ten) and
Šibenik
(only three out of five were
of local origin). Venetian monopoly over the control of bishop's sees is even
more obvious if the duration of their mandates and the economic strength of these
dioceses be considered: concentration of Venetian bishops is higher on the richer
dioceses. Possibilities of a local prelate to reach a bishop's dignity in a Dalmatian
diocese are limited only to two of them -economically less attractive to Vene¬
tian patricians. Regretfully, sources from the Apostolic Chamber indicate that all
Dalmatian dioceses, including
Dubrovnik,
compared to most of the Western Eu¬
ropean and Italian (including the Terraferma part of the Venetian Republic) coun¬
terparts, were very poor: the richest episcopal mensae of
Zadar,
Split and
Dubrovnik
could count on the
anual
revenues amounting to
900-1200
golden flor¬
ins; somewhat poorer were those of
Šibenik, Skradin
and
Trogir
-
and their an¬
nual incomes were estimated to
300-450
florins by the
Apostolich
Chamber; the
rather poor mensae of
Nin, Hvar
and
Kotor
could rarely collect more than
100
golden florins. No wonder, then, if the bishops of
Kotor
rather frequently com¬
plained about their see being poor and demanded additional revenues to cope with
the expenses that the dignity brought. Venetian ecclesiastical dignitaries at the
head of a Dalmatian diocese were successful in their effort only thanks to the con¬
nections made with the Roman Curia, of the support received by some outstand¬
ing cardinal or the pope himself (we should bear in mind that two
15"'
century
popes were Venetians: Eugene IV and Paul II!). Most of them began their careers
as
curial
officials: Maffeo Vallaresso and Bartholomeo Zabarella were papal no¬
taries,
Fantino de Valle
was auditor of the Sacred Roman Rota; Jacobo Turlono,
Jacobo Venerius, bishop of
Kotor
Bernard were clerics of the Apostolic Cham¬
ber; Lorenzo
Zane
was the prothonotary of the Apostolic See, Johannes Venerius
was the
scriptor
litterarum apostolicarum), a few of them were active in the ser¬
vice of a cardinal or the pope himself, before being appointed bishop. Only the
Franciscan friar Raymondo of Viterbo was appointed bishop of
Kotor
on the rec¬
ommendation of the Venetian Senate, but he could count on the very strong sup¬
port of the
Kotor
cathedral chapter, too. During the central years of the 15th cen¬
tury, a cleric without papal support or his agreement, at least, could
non
expect
to be appointed bishop. Together with the papal letter of appointment, many can¬
didates on the Dalmatian bishoprics would receive a licence to keep their old ben¬
efices
-
they possessed before the appointment
-
as well as a licence to unite the
revenues of the rich
bénédictine
abbey received in commendum, or a rich church,
in order to cope with the high expenses that the episcopal dignity brought along;
as their incomes were frequently rather poor, burdened with numerous
taxas
which the predecessors did not pay regularly. It can be seen from numerous sup¬
plications, papal bulls, reports of the clerics employed by the Apostolic Chamber
on the payments of the small and common taxes.
From the very
begining
of the
Іб"1
century the Major Council in
Dubrovnik
decreed on the recommendation of the Senate, that the citizens and subjects of the
Republic, cannot be elected or appointed archbishops, thus, throughout the cen-
420
tury
the seven bishops at the head of the see were foreigners, but very well known
in the Roman Curia.
Besides the financial aspect of the benefice affair, the contemporaries were
mostly annoyed by the
non
residence of the ecclesiastics: out of the
70
appointed
bishops on the Eastern Adriatic coast throughout the 15th century
(Dubrovnik
in¬
cluded) only a few of them actualy resided in their dioceses
-
they were mostly
busily engaged in diplomatic missions for the Holy See (bishop of
Šibenik Luka
Tolentić
was engaged in Burgundy; bishop of
Skradin
Fantino de Valle
was sent
to the Czech king George Podjebrad; whereas the bishops of
Nin, Modruš
and
Hvar
-
Natale Georgi,
Nicholas of
Modruš
and Thomas
Tomasini,
respectfully,
were engaged in various and numerous missions in Bosnia, at the time of the
Turkish conquest in the 1460ies. Others, like
Angelo Cavazza
(bishop of
Poreč
and
Trogir)
or Lorenzo
Zane
(archbishop of Split) were busy in the Curia
-
both
of them were appointed to the office of thesaurarius of the Holy See and admin¬
istered their dioceses through vicars
-
in
Trogir
it was abbot Nicholas Lovrin, of
the
bénédictine
abbey of St John the Baptist.
Things were considerably different on the level of the lower ecclesiastical
benefices. Particularly interesting were the cathedral chapters
-
associations im¬
mediately after the episcopal dignity on the hierarchical ladder. Traditionally,
they were the clearest voice of the commune, of the ruling class and major local
representatives towards the central government in Venice. The chapter was
mainly formed by the clerics
-
members of the local, patrician and outstanding
families: in
Šibenik
cathedral chapter local family names like Usinich,
Radeglich,
Lipinich, Cimaturith, Procopouich, Stanguicich, Priuincich, Vukassinic,
Dragatius prevail; in
Trogir
members of the
Cega
noble family were frequently
elected canons; in
Dubrovnik
patricians Ranjina (Ragnina) and
Gučetić
(de
Gotiis, Gozze)
dominated; while in the
Kotor
cathedral chapter members of the
local families Buchia,
Pasquali,
Bolizza, Margotiis and Paltasich were the most
influential canons. Many of them got their place in the chapter with the papal let¬
ter of provision, thanks to the family ties and good connections they had with of¬
ficers in the Curia, cardinals and excellent personal ties with the pope himself.
In the parochial churches on the territories so close to the
fronteers
with the
Turks, so delicate and vulnerable, exposed to continuous war perils the faithful
Christians badly needed the spiritual assistance. As for the parishes, they were
mostly under the patronage of bishops, the commune or some richer, outstanding
citizen. Their annual incomes were rather modest (only a few could offer some¬
thing more than the minimum of
24
golden florins
-
the sum necessary for the
obligatory payment of annatae to the Apostolic Chamber) and were rarely inter¬
esting to
curial
officers, candidates with the university degree, or to foreign hunt¬
ers for the rich benefices.
Only a small number of clerics received a benefice in
Dalmaţia
thanks to the
papal letter of provision, the majority of them had a degree from the best Euro¬
pean Universities (mostly Padua and Bologna)
-
thus, the popes cannot be ac-
421
cused of promoting unsuitable and uncapable persons to Dalmatian dioceses. The
system of provisions was based on canon law decrees, and it certainly did not de¬
pend on the personal wish or the arbitrariness of the pope himself. The popes
could know personally only a limited number out of the totality of ecclesiastics
active in Renaissance Europe who turned to the Roman Curia with the supplica¬
tion for a rich benefice and looking for a successful ecclesiastical career.
Although the recommendation of influential protectors or excellent Univer¬
sity formation had their role, it was almost impossible to control the appoint¬
ments, since the papal letter of provision was only one in the whole range of
ways. The late Medieval clergy could apply to the ordinary collator
-
bishop, or
a rich local patron of a vacant benefice; another way was to look for a provision
granted by the King or Emperor because of his right of
preces
primariae
-
some¬
what harder since this opportunity was limited to the very special occasion of the
new monarch's coronation. A cleric in search for an employment was just sup¬
posed to chose from the various possibilities. As the papal provisions became
numerous, the oportunities of the local provisions
-
especially to the sinecures
and richer dignities in the cathedral chapters
-
became rare, but the old system of
local patronage never disappeared completely. A benefice could become object of
a direct provision only because of the cause of vacancy, and not (except for the
case of specially reserved benefices) because the pope arbitrarily wanted or in¬
tended to appoint a greedy
curial
officer or cardinal.
Curial
officers are more fre¬
quently present in the sources of the researched period because the papal provi¬
sion was the only possible way of promotion on the hierarchical ladder since the
service in the Curia held them far from the local patrons. Candidates with the
University degree had to face almost identical problems: several years long pres¬
ence at the University (ranging from three to seven years) inevitably held them
far from the local patrons. The really poor clerics, who are not interesting to the
local patrons, used their presence at the moment of the newly elected pope's coro¬
nation to get the letter of provision, too.
The number of candidates who turned to the papal courts is also hard to es¬
tablish. Some of the cases could be reconstructed thanks to the partial and frag¬
mentary, sometimes even contradictory sources one finds in the various archival
series. There are
non
reasons to suppose that the Pope or the auditors of the Sa¬
cred Rota showed particular inclination to one of the candidates in their decisions,
or that they purposefully prolonged the court decisions. Medieval courts were
notoriously slow: not a single institution, and this is particularly true for the Holy
See, could afford losing any of its rights. Finally, Papacy was famous for its be¬
ing just. If not, the number of parties willing to face enormous expenses to obtain
the just decision would have been far smaller.
Dalmatian dioceses during the IS"1 century were in no way different from the
dioceses on the Terraferma part of the Venetian Republic, other Italian city-
states, German, French or Scandinavian provinces in the matters of absolutions,
dispensations or indulgences. Data on non-ordained clerics, their everday activi-
422
ties and problems, their financial possibilities confirm it. Similarly, although in
somewhat less obvious way, it is true of the mariage dispensation granted to the
lay persons. Results reached at in this research confirm that patricians from
Dubrovnik
before the others, and more frequently than citizens of the Venetian
Dalmaţia
turned to the Pope for these dispensations
-
certainly, not because it
was important to them to live in a marriage
legały
confirmed by the highest eccle¬
siastical authority
-
they were lead by more down to earth reasons: safeguard the
legal ways of inheriting the patrimony to their legitimate children. These irregu¬
larities were frequently presented to the Papacy
-
which meant that the faithful
in Dalmatian dioceses made part of the universal Church, and that their highest
spiritual representatives were engaged in all the segments of its activities.
423 |
| any_adam_object | 1 |
| any_adam_object_boolean | 1 |
| author | Neralić, Jadranka 1959- |
| author_GND | (DE-588)143225049 |
| author_facet | Neralić, Jadranka 1959- |
| author_role | aut |
| author_sort | Neralić, Jadranka 1959- |
| author_variant | j n jn |
| building | Verbundindex |
| bvnumber | BV023194847 |
| classification_rvk | KW 1017 |
| ctrlnum | (OCoLC)237228582 (DE-599)BVBBV023194847 |
| discipline | Slavistik |
| discipline_str_mv | Slavistik |
| era | Geschichte 1400-1500 gnd |
| era_facet | Geschichte 1400-1500 |
| format | Book |
| fullrecord | <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>02041nam a2200457 cb4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">BV023194847</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-604</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20151015 </controlfield><controlfield tag="007">t</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">080303s2007 |||| 00||| hrv d</controlfield><datafield tag="020" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">9789531632881</subfield><subfield code="9">978-953-163-288-1</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(OCoLC)237228582</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-599)BVBBV023194847</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-604</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">hrv</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="049" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-12</subfield><subfield code="a">DE-473</subfield><subfield code="a">DE-19</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="084" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">KW 1017</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-625)86483:</subfield><subfield code="2">rvk</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="084" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">7,41</subfield><subfield code="2">ssgn</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Neralić, Jadranka</subfield><subfield code="d">1959-</subfield><subfield code="e">Verfasser</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)143225049</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Put do crkvene nadarbine</subfield><subfield code="b">Rimska Kurija i Dalmacija u 15. stoljeću</subfield><subfield code="c">Jadranka Neralić</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="a">Split</subfield><subfield code="b">Književni Krug</subfield><subfield code="c">2007</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="300" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">459 S.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="b">n</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="b">nc</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="490" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Biblioteka znanstvenih djela</subfield><subfield code="v">152</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="500" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Zsfassung in engl. Sprache u.d.T.: A way to an ecclesiastical benefice ...</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="610" ind1="2" ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Katholische Kirche</subfield><subfield code="b">Curia Romana</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)2034643-8</subfield><subfield code="2">gnd</subfield><subfield code="9">rswk-swf</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="648" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Geschichte 1400-1500</subfield><subfield code="2">gnd</subfield><subfield code="9">rswk-swf</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="651" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Dalmatien</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)4070200-5</subfield><subfield code="2">gnd</subfield><subfield code="9">rswk-swf</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="689" ind1="0" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Dalmatien</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)4070200-5</subfield><subfield code="D">g</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="689" ind1="0" ind2="1"><subfield code="a">Katholische Kirche</subfield><subfield code="b">Curia Romana</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)2034643-8</subfield><subfield code="D">b</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="689" ind1="0" ind2="2"><subfield code="a">Geschichte 1400-1500</subfield><subfield code="A">z</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="689" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="5">DE-604</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="830" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Biblioteka znanstvenih djela</subfield><subfield code="v">152</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-604)BV000781153</subfield><subfield code="9">152</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="m">Digitalisierung BSBMuenchen</subfield><subfield code="q">application/pdf</subfield><subfield code="u">http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=016381176&sequence=000003&line_number=0001&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA</subfield><subfield code="3">Inhaltsverzeichnis</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="m">Digitalisierung BSB Muenchen</subfield><subfield code="q">application/pdf</subfield><subfield code="u">http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=016381176&sequence=000004&line_number=0002&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA</subfield><subfield code="3">Abstract</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="940" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="n">oe</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="999" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">oai:aleph.bib-bvb.de:BVB01-016381176</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="942" ind1="1" ind2="1"><subfield code="c">351.09</subfield><subfield code="e">22/bsb</subfield><subfield code="f">09024</subfield><subfield code="g">4972</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="942" ind1="1" ind2="1"><subfield code="c">200.9</subfield><subfield code="e">22/bsb</subfield><subfield code="f">09024</subfield><subfield code="g">4972</subfield></datafield></record></collection> |
| geographic | Dalmatien (DE-588)4070200-5 gnd |
| geographic_facet | Dalmatien |
| id | DE-604.BV023194847 |
| illustrated | Not Illustrated |
| index_date | 2024-07-02T20:06:01Z |
| indexdate | 2024-07-09T21:12:46Z |
| institution | BVB |
| isbn | 9789531632881 |
| language | Croatian |
| oai_aleph_id | oai:aleph.bib-bvb.de:BVB01-016381176 |
| oclc_num | 237228582 |
| open_access_boolean | |
| owner | DE-12 DE-473 DE-BY-UBG DE-19 DE-BY-UBM |
| owner_facet | DE-12 DE-473 DE-BY-UBG DE-19 DE-BY-UBM |
| physical | 459 S. |
| publishDate | 2007 |
| publishDateSearch | 2007 |
| publishDateSort | 2007 |
| publisher | Književni Krug |
| record_format | marc |
| series | Biblioteka znanstvenih djela |
| series2 | Biblioteka znanstvenih djela |
| spelling | Neralić, Jadranka 1959- Verfasser (DE-588)143225049 aut Put do crkvene nadarbine Rimska Kurija i Dalmacija u 15. stoljeću Jadranka Neralić Split Književni Krug 2007 459 S. txt rdacontent n rdamedia nc rdacarrier Biblioteka znanstvenih djela 152 Zsfassung in engl. Sprache u.d.T.: A way to an ecclesiastical benefice ... Katholische Kirche Curia Romana (DE-588)2034643-8 gnd rswk-swf Geschichte 1400-1500 gnd rswk-swf Dalmatien (DE-588)4070200-5 gnd rswk-swf Dalmatien (DE-588)4070200-5 g Katholische Kirche Curia Romana (DE-588)2034643-8 b Geschichte 1400-1500 z DE-604 Biblioteka znanstvenih djela 152 (DE-604)BV000781153 152 Digitalisierung BSBMuenchen application/pdf http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=016381176&sequence=000003&line_number=0001&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA Inhaltsverzeichnis Digitalisierung BSB Muenchen application/pdf http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=016381176&sequence=000004&line_number=0002&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA Abstract |
| spellingShingle | Neralić, Jadranka 1959- Put do crkvene nadarbine Rimska Kurija i Dalmacija u 15. stoljeću Biblioteka znanstvenih djela Katholische Kirche Curia Romana (DE-588)2034643-8 gnd |
| subject_GND | (DE-588)2034643-8 (DE-588)4070200-5 |
| title | Put do crkvene nadarbine Rimska Kurija i Dalmacija u 15. stoljeću |
| title_auth | Put do crkvene nadarbine Rimska Kurija i Dalmacija u 15. stoljeću |
| title_exact_search | Put do crkvene nadarbine Rimska Kurija i Dalmacija u 15. stoljeću |
| title_exact_search_txtP | Put do crkvene nadarbine Rimska Kurija i Dalmacija u 15. stoljeću |
| title_full | Put do crkvene nadarbine Rimska Kurija i Dalmacija u 15. stoljeću Jadranka Neralić |
| title_fullStr | Put do crkvene nadarbine Rimska Kurija i Dalmacija u 15. stoljeću Jadranka Neralić |
| title_full_unstemmed | Put do crkvene nadarbine Rimska Kurija i Dalmacija u 15. stoljeću Jadranka Neralić |
| title_short | Put do crkvene nadarbine |
| title_sort | put do crkvene nadarbine rimska kurija i dalmacija u 15 stoljecu |
| title_sub | Rimska Kurija i Dalmacija u 15. stoljeću |
| topic | Katholische Kirche Curia Romana (DE-588)2034643-8 gnd |
| topic_facet | Katholische Kirche Curia Romana Dalmatien |
| url | http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=016381176&sequence=000003&line_number=0001&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=016381176&sequence=000004&line_number=0002&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA |
| volume_link | (DE-604)BV000781153 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT neralicjadranka putdocrkvenenadarbinerimskakurijaidalmacijau15stoljecu |