The Retinue and Viscounts of the Counts of Krk on the Island of Krk (1260 – 1480)

U radu se razmatra uloga družine i potknežina knezova Krčkih (Frankapana) pri njihovu upravljanju krčkim kneštvom. Prema raspoloživim izvorima ispituju se okolnosti djelovanja družine knezova, rekonstruiraju se dužnosti potknežina, njihov broj u kneštvu i slično. Priložen je kronološki pregled obavljanja dužnosti pojedinaca na toj funkciji za grad Krk i pojedine otočne općine. Pri izlaganju arhontoloških podataka prezentiraju se, gdje je to bilo moguće, biografski podaci o pojedincima i njihovim obiteljima. Tvrdi se kako su u službu knezova kao potknežini ili suci, između ostalih, dolazili i pripadnici iz dviju krčkih plemićkih obitelji. Priložene su dvije pretpostavljene genealogije.The paper focuses on the position and role of the retinue (familia) and viscounts (vicecomes) of the counts of Krk (from the times of Count Nicholas IV called the Frankapani) in their governance over the county of Krk (comitatus Vegle). Special attention has been paid to the circumstances regarding the legal prosecution of potential transgressors who were part of the count’s retinue. There were two lines of government in the county of Krk – that of the counts and that of the local semiautonomous communities. There were five such communities: the city of Krk (civitas Veglae) and four village communities (the universitas castrorum insule encompassed Baška, Vrbnik, Dobrinj, and Omišalj), with two judges in each of them. One of the judges was appointed by the count regent of Krk (there were two branches of the family: Schinella and Vitus) and the other by the community. The former was elected among the members of respective community councils (they also appointed or elected various other officials). Using their viscounts, the counts were constantly trying to impose their candidates for the position of the second judge. Venice was the arbiter concerning this issue, since the county of Krk was among its possessions (temporarily lost in 1358 and fully regained in 1480). Counts were often absent (the Vitus branch of counts had large possessions in Croatia, for example the city of Senj or the counties of Vinodol and Modruš), sometimes for over a decade, during which period they were represented by their viscounts. In the 14th century, there were two count regents (one per family branch) and each of them may have had a viscount in each of the communities (which sums up to ten in the whole county). The viscount exercised the judicial and executive power, which was in a way transferred from the counts’ prerogatives. For example, there are viscounts mentioned by name in the proemium of the Statute of the Krk from 1388 as the initiators of its writing (codification) by the authority given to them by the counts. The Statute was constantly amended with new regulations and the same pattern regarding the viscounts’ initiative was repeated in the 15th century. Furthermore, viscounts could be asked to participate as arbiters in judicial decisions when the two judges could not agree over the verdict. They were also a higher instance to which dissatisfied parties of the judicial procedure could appeal. Some of the viscounts may have been members of the count’s retinue. In this paper, special attention has been paid to the chronology of the viscounts’ service in the county of Krk, for which purpose the author lists the names of all known officials during the second period of the count’s governance (1260 – 1480). Wherever possible, brief biographical data have been added for some of the viscounts. The author speculates that members of two local families of lesser nobility were also employed in the count’s service as viscounts or judges. According to Nada Klaić, the nobility of Krk was determined by the fact that some of its members were exempt from paying certain taxes (although certainly not as a hereditary honour). Counts gave that privilege only to some members of precisely named families. It seems that one of these, the Žudinić family, whose members served the counts for several generations, did not pose a genuine threat in terms of misusing that privilege. With respect to that, Krk was slightly different from the city of Senj. There the counts of Krk – functioning as a counterweight to two strong noble families, those of Raduč and Mojsijević (Viscount David and his family in the 14th century), whose members were frequently officials in the city (judges and viscounts) – created a parallel office, that of a vicar, which was in every respect of its prerogatives equal to the viscount (the former being only higher in hierarchy). In that office, they employed strangers, thus trying to diminish the power of the aforementioned families. There is no trace of such parallelism among the count’s officials in the county of Krk. Nevertheless, some sources do indicate the possible engagement of foreigners as officials, which was a cause for great dissatisfaction and complaints of the Krk communities in Venice at the beginning of the 14th century, continuing up to 1358