Aquileian Patriarch Gregory of Montelongo and Count Albert I of Gorizia form an alliance against the Commune of Koper, with the count pledging military assistance and the patriarch promising equal division of seized goods and prisoners should the city be taken, while maintaining jurisdiction over the city itself and agreeing not to make peace without the count’s consent.
Reverendus pater dominus G(regorius) patriarcha Aquilegensis et nobilis vir dominus Al(bertus) comes Goricie de spontanea et unanimi voluntate concordens fuerunt ad invicem iuxta infrascriptum tenorem, videlicet:
Quod idem dominus comes personaliter cum omnibus quibus poterit bona fide tenetur et debet ire armata manu in servicium ipsius domini patriarche et ecclesie Aquilegensis ad offensionem Communis et hominum civitatis Iustinopolitane et esse cum ipso domino patriarcha et iuvare ipsum bona fide contra eos, et habebit ipsos pro publicis inimicis, quamdiu ipsi erunt extra gratiam dicti domini patriarche occasione guerre presentis, et facere ipsis vivam guerram.
Et idem dominus patriarcha, si contigerit eum obtinere per violentiam dictam civitatem, tenetur et debet dare ipsi domino comiti bona fide medietatem bonorum mobilium que haberentur in civitate ipsa, et etiam hominum qui caperentur ibidem. Civitas tamen predicta debet remanere ipsi domino patriarche cum iurisdictione et dominio ac cum molendinis, vineis et aliis terris cultis et incultis pertinentibus ad dictam civitatem vel ad aliquos cives ipsius, preter illa molendina que habentur ab aliis in feudum, que debent excidere illis a quibus habentur. Ville etiam et mansi qui sunt in districtu civitatis predicte debent excidere cum pertinenciis et iuribus eorum illis dominis aut personis a quibus habentur in feudum. Alie vero ville et mansi ac possessiones pertinentes ad proprietatem dicte civitatis debent communiter dividi per medietatem inter dominos patriarcham et comitem antedictos. Postquam autem Commune et homines dicte civitatis Iustinopolitane erunt diffidati pro parte dictorum dominorum, omnes homines qui capientur sub baneriis ipsorum dominorum debent communiter dividi per medietatem inter dominos ipsos, et hoc idem debet fieri de animalibus, spoliis et aliis quibuscumque bonis que accipientur sub banderiis antedictis, eo salvo: quod quicumque ceperit aliquem de inimicis possit habere arma et equos captivi, dummodo consignet personam capti dominis supradictis; quicumque vero non sub banderiis dominorum ceperit aliquem de inimicis seu aliqua bona libere debeat habere captivum et bona ipsa.
Ad hec dictus dominus patriarcha promisit, quod postquam ipse diffidari faciet Commune ac homines predictos, nequaquam recipiet ipsos ad gratiam suam vel ad concordiam aliquam sine conscientia et voluntate comitis memorati. Et si ante diffidationem eiusdem domini patriarchea dicti Commune ac homines Iustinopolitani venient ad mandata eius et ipse nomine satisfactionis aliqua receperit ab ipsis, idem dominus patriarcha de omni eo quod ipse percipiet pro satisfactione huiusmodi dabit medietatem dicto domino comiti, et hoc idem faciet de omni eo quod recipiet ab ipsis etiam post diffidationem. Si vero Commune et homines predicti reformabunt se gratie dicti domini patriarche et prestiterint sibi securitatem sub aliqua pena de non veniendo aliquo tempore contra ipsum dominum patriarcham et ecclesiam Aquilegensem et etiam contra ipsum dominum comitem, et ipsi ullo tempore incurrerent penam appositam, pena ipsa communiter dividi debeat inter dominos supradictos.
Pro quibus omnibus et singulis attendendis uterque ipsorum dominorum alterutrum obligavit se ad penam mille marcharum Aquilegensis monete, et supradictus dominus patriarcha fecit iurare super anima sua dominos Henricum de Mels, Iohannem de Cucania, Asquinum de Varmo et Cononem de Mimiliano; et dictus dominus comes fecit super anima sua iurare dominos Volricum et Volcherum de Reyfemberch et Lupoldum et Iacobum de Ragonia omnia et singula predicta attendere et servare.
Actum Civitate in camera patriarchali, presentibus venerabilibus viris dominis Alberto episcopo Concordiensi, Wecelone abbate Beliniensi, Berengero preposito Sancti Wodolrici, magistro Nicolao de Lupico supradicti domini patriarche cancellario et Bernardo de Çucula, Beaquino de Mimiliano, Senesio rictario in Istria et Swarçutto de Top testibus et aliis, sub anno Domini millesimo ducentesimo sexagesimo septimo, indictione decima, die tertio intrante iulio.
Ad maiorem autem huius rei evidentiam dicti domini patriarcha et comes duo instrumenta exinde unius et eiusdem tenoris fieri et sigilla sua eis apponi iusserunt.
Ego Walterus Civitatensis imperiali auctoritate notarius predictis omnibus interfui et rogatus de mandato supradictorum dominorum patriarche et comitis scripsi et in publicam formam redegi.
Ego Fridericus de Eberstayn imperiali auctoritate notarius supradictis omnibus interfui et de mandato dictorum dominorum patriarche et comitis me subscripsi signum proprium apponendo.
a) add. sup. l. B.
Additional clauses related to the Alliance of Cividale – doc. 1267_PC2.
“XV ducis anno [1267], Iustinopolitani, suis terminis non contenti, iurisdiciones Parencii violenter invadunt, et illi resistere nequientes duci Venecie, cui ab antiquo tempore fideles et tributarii fuerant, libere se submittunt; et illico Iustinopolitani amoniti ab invassione secedunt, et Iohanes Campulo eis potestas datus est, et merito tante fidey hoc regimen inter XIIm regimina anumerari decernitur.” – Andrea Dandolo, Chronica per extensum descripta, ed. Ester Pastorello, RIS, ser. 2, 12/1 (Bologna 1958), p. 315.
The final in the series of military pacts between Patriarch Gregory of Montelongo and the counts of Gorizia, the 1267 Alliance of Cividale was directed wholly towards Koper, the Istrian commune in open uprising against the Patriarchate’s authority.
It is not known what prompted the Commune of Koper to openly rebel against the patriarch. If the 14th-century Venetian Doge-Chronicler Andrea Dandolo is to be trusted, the Capodistrians attacked Poreč (see Medieval Recollections above), but a casus belli remains shrouded in mystery.
The Alliance of Cividale set out the terms according to which the booty would be divided between the patriarch and the count, to be split equally between them, but with the potestas over Koper remaining firmly in the hands of the patriarch-margrave. The second deed, edited here as doc. 1267_PC2, essentially reiterated the obligations for mutual defense and military aid in this campaign against Koper.
There was much confusion in historiography regarding these two deeds that essentially refer to the same treaty, the 1267 Alliance of Cividale aimed against Koper. The reason for the confusion was Kandler’s faulty edition of doc. 1267_PC2 which he, for utterly unknown reasons, dated to 1266. According to Kandler’s editions, taken over directly from Chmel without consulting any manuscripts, the war against Koper lasted over a year. That this is utterly wrong was highlighted by Thaller and me (both cited above, although I was shamefully not aware of Thaller’s excellent paper when I published mine), seeing that both charters were issued on the same day, in the same place, and in front of the same witnesses. Thus, interpretations put forth in Semi and Pizzinini, led astray by Kandler’s faulty edition, ought to be ignored.
This is the first document that Count Albert I signed exclusively in his own name, without any mention of his brother Maynard IV, and the reason for this is the division of the House of Gorizia’s patrimony, agreed in 1267, whereby Albert I was to be the sole ruler of the jurisdictions in the County of Gorizia, the Karst, and Istria (doc. 1267_DG). This division into the Tirolean and Friulian-Istrian branch of the House of Gorizia was officially formalized only in 1271 (doc. 1271_DG).
The fact remains that Count Albert I of Gorizia betrayed the patriarch and shamelessly broke both the Peace of Buzet (doc. 1264_PG), which was still in force, and the Alliance of Cividale (this document). The question as to why the Gorizian did this and under what influence remains open. It was Walter Lenel (cited above) who first argued that it was the Commune of Koper that diplomatically persuaded the count to switch sides and ally with them against the patriarch. This opinion was subsequently taken over by Grego, Pizzinini, Semi and Žitko (all cited above). According to this interpretation, the Commune of Koper would be the proactive side and the count a mere opportunist. Conversely, Paschini (cited above) argued that the count was preparing the betrayal beforehand and that the Alliance of Cividale was nothing more than a ruse to catch the patriarch off guard. This interpretation, according to which the proactive agent in this betrayal was Count Albert I of Gorizia, was subsequently taken over by Brunettin (cited above). As I argued in 2023 (cited above), both interpretations are feasible and the surviving primary sources do not decisively favor neither of the two.