J. BANI Ć: The Mystery of Merania: A New Solution to Old Problems ... 42  
Josip Bani ć
The Mystery of Merania: A New Solution 
to Old Problems (Holy Roman Empire and 
the Kingdom of Croatia-Dalmatia during the 
Investiture Controversy) (Part 2)*
*
 Part 1 was published in Zgodovinski časopis 74 (2020), 3–4, pp. 296–327.
Bani ć, Josip, PhD student, Central Europe-
an University, Medieval Studies Department, 
HU-1051 Budapest, Nádor u. 9, Hungary, jb@
histria-historica.eu 
The Mystery of Merania: A New Solution 
to Old Problems (Holy Roman Empire and 
the Kingdom of Croatia-Dalmatia during 
the Investiture Controversy)
This paper deals with issues concerning the hi-
storical background that engendered the imperial 
(titular) Duchy of Merania and the modality 
by which this mysterious territory became 
part of the Holy Roman Empire. The second 
part outlines interpretations regarding how this 
patch of land became part of the Holy Roman 
Empire. Since there is still no satisfying answer 
as to how, when precisely, and why this change 
of jurisdictions took place and who were the 
main protagonists of this takeover, the author 
proposes a new solution to this age-old mystery. 
The takeover of Merania is posited in the second 
half of the 1070s, that is in the period of Croatian 
king Zvonimir who fostered enmity with the 
Holy Roman emperor Henry IV by offi cially 
taking the side of the reform papacy and pope 
Gregory VII during the polarizing Investiture 
Controversy. It is in this context that the attacks 
from the direction of Istrian march and the 
Duchy of Carinthia ensued against Zvonimir’s 
kingdom, led by a noble knight Wezelin whose 
identity is discussed in detail; this marks the 
beginning of the imperial takeover of Merania.
Keywords: Merania; Margraviate of Istria; 
Kingdom of Croatia; Patriarchate of Aquileia; 
Investiture Controversy; Pope Gregory VII; 
King Demetrious Zvonimir; Emperor Henry 
IV , 11th century.
Bani ć, Josip, doktorand, Srednjeevropska 
univerza, Oddelek za medievistiko, HU-1051 
Budimpešta, Nádor u. 9, Madžarska, jb@histria-
historica.eu 
Skrivnost Meranije: nove rešitve starih pro-
blemov (Sveto rimsko cesarstvo ter Kraljevi-
na Hrvaška-Dalmacija v času investiturnega 
boja)
Članek obravnava problematiko zgodovinske-
ga ozadja, ki je ogrožalo (naslovno) cesarsko 
Vojvodino Meranijo in na čin, na katerega je 
to skrivnostno ozemlje postalo del Svetega 
rimskega cesarstva. V drugem delu sledi oris 
razlag, kako je ta kos ozemlja postal del Svetega 
rimskega cesarstva. Še vedno nimamo zado-
voljivega odgovora na vprašanje, kako, kdaj 
to čno in zakaj je prišlo do spremembe juris-
dikcije ter kdo so bili glavni akterji prevzema, 
zato avtor predlaga novo rešitev te starodavne 
skrivnosti. Prevzem Meranije je umeš čen v 
drugo polovico sedemdesetih let 11. stoletja, 
v obdobje hrvaškega kralja Zvonimirja, ki je 
podprl reforme in se uradno postavil na stran 
papeža Gregorja VII. v polizirajo čem inves-
titurnem boju ter gojil sovraštvo do cesarja 
Henrika IV . V tem kontekstu so sledili napadi 
na Zvonimirjevo kraljestvo iz smeri Istrske 
marke in Vojvodine Koroške pod vodstvom 
viteza V ecelina, s čigar identiteto se podrobno 
ukvarja avtor članka. Napadi ozna čujejo za četek 
cesarskega prevzema Meranije.
Klju čne besede: Meranija, mejna grofi ja Istra, 
Kraljevina Hrvaška, oglejski patriarhat, inves-
titurni boj, papež Gregor VII., kralj Dimitrij 
Zvonimir, cesar Henrik IV , 11. stoletje.

Zgodovinski časopis | 75 | 2021 | 1-2 | (163) | 42–92 43
Solution 4: The “Wezelin Thesis”
Interestingly enough, one piece of evidence that has the potential to solve the 
Meranian mystery is a rather well-known primary source, edited multiple times 
throughout the 19
th
 century, but for some reason ignored by Benussi, Hauptmann 
and Margeti ć. Namely, in 1079 pope Gregory VII wrote a condemning letter to a 
noble knight Wezelin.
1
 In this letter of reproach, the heir to St. Peter warned his 
subject not to attack “him who the Apostolic See appointed king in Dalmatia”.
2
 
If the audacious knight fails to heed the pope’s warning, “the sword of St. Peter” 
would be unsheathed and mercilessly released upon him and his followers.
3
 Since 
the letter is dated to 1079 and since Demetrious Zvonomir had been crowned king 
by the very pope’s legate in 1076, the letter indubitably refers to this distinguished 
Croatian monarch; this is also the consensus in historiography. Does this letter then 
have anything to do with the loss of Merania?
Traditionally, this letter has been interpreted in the context of Ulrich I’s pu-
tative wars against Zvonimir as read from the IC and as narrated by Ferdo Šiši ć. 
Thus, historians wanted to see a Carniolan-Istrian lord in this Wezelin, somehow 
related to Ulrich I of Weimar-Orlamünde, or a “Carinthian” as mentioned in the 
IC. The editor of the 1079 letter even wrote “presumably a Carinthian count” as he 
annotated the source.
4
 After Hauptmann published his landmark article, this Wezelin 
became a completely unimportant character, a post-mortem refl ex of a bygone era. 
Everything that was supposed to have happened had already happened: Ulrich I 
conquered large parts of the Dalmatian march, the Hungarian king and his duke 
helped Zvonimir reclaim everything but Merania, and the whole story was over by 
the end of the 1060s; there was simply no place for this Wezelin and his attacks. 
Even Margeti ć did not fi nd a place for this letter and for the noble knight Wezelin 
1
 The best edition is Reg. Greg. VII, no. VII, 4, ed. Caspar, pp. 463–464. The facsimile of 
the original is reproduced in Raukar, Hrvatsko srednjovjekovlje, p. 51 and in  Stipišić, Pomoćne 
povijesne znanosti, p. 93.
2
 Contra eum, quem in Dalmatia regem auctoritas apostolica constituit. Reg. Greg. VII, 
no. VII, 4, ed. Caspar, p. 463.
3
 Quodsi te temeritatis tu ę non poenituerit, sed contra mandatum nostrum contumaciter 
ire temptaveris, scias indubitanter, quia gladium beati Petri in audaciam tuam evaginabimus et 
eodem pertinaciam tuam et omnium, qui tibi in ea re faverint, nisi resipiscas, multabimus. Ibid.
4
 “Vermutlich ein karantanischer Graf.” Ibid., ed. Caspar, p. 463, n. 1.

J. BANI Ć: The Mystery of Merania: A New Solution to Old Problems ... 44  
in his study on Merania, so he simply decided to completely ignore this source.
5
 
The success enjoyed by Hauptmann’s interpretation explains why historians have 
not bothered with this letter any more than to simply state how a knight, most prob-
ably linked to the Carniolan-Istrian region and margrave Ulrich I, dared to attack 
Zvonimir, but he was warned by the pope and thus the attacks ended. This is the 
dominant interpretation of this letter to this day.
6
 The only variations on this theme 
regard the exact relation of Wezelin to Ulrich I: for some historians he was his 
youngest son, for others he was his brother, for some he was even his great-uncle, 
while the vast majority simply see him as Ulrich’s heir, the margrave of Istria in 
the 1070s.
7
 He is most often linked to another Wezelin, the Istrian count from 1027 
(who in turn is at times, erroneously, interpreted as Ulrich I’s father).
8
 However, 
all such interpretations are ungrounded in the primary sources.
Wezelin, the count of Istria from the fi rst half of the 11
th
 century, is rarely 
mentioned in primary sources, yet historians have turned to him often in explaining 
a wide array of various historiographical problems. In authentic primary sources 
this comes Wecellinus appears no more than four or fi ve times: in 1014 he signed a 
donation of Sigimbald, the bishop of Pore č, as Wecil vicecomes; perhaps this is the 
same individual that in 1017 signed yet another document linked to the bishopric 
of Poreč as dominus Wecel de civitate Parentina; in 1027 he played a prominent 
role as the advocate of Carinthian duke Adalbero of Eppenstein in his dispute with 
Aquileian patriarch Poppo and his advocate Waltram; in the following year he is 
mentioned as the brother of bishop of Ceneda, Helmiger (Helmigerius episcopus 
et eius frater Wecellinus); fi nally, in 1030 there is a record of his son Constantine 
5
 Margeti ć dealt with this letter and Wezelin in several other papers, but never in the 
context of Meranian takeover. See n. 48.
6
 Klai ć, Povijest Hrvata u ranom, pp. 51, 388; Raukar, Hrvatsko srednjovjekovlje, p. 51; 
Cowdrey, Pope Gregory VII, pp. 441–442;  Kosi, ...quae terram nostram, p. 48; Birin, Pregled 
politi čke povijesti, p. 64; Levak, Istra i Kvarner, p. 409; Majnari ć, Karolinško, Otonsko, pp. 
528–529;  idem, Papinstvo, p. 544; Budak, Hrvatska povijest, pp. 23, 216–217, 220, 259.
7
 E.g. N. Klai ć has him as “an Istrian knight”, “probably margrave’s vassal”; Raukar simply 
denotes him as “by all accounts an Istrian feudatory”; Birin describes him as “one of Istrian or 
Carniolan liegemen of Aquileian patriarchs”; for Levak he is “an Istrian nobleman”; Majnari ć 
designates him as “Istrian margrave”. See previous footnote. Budak is more careful as he writes 
that “[w]e do not know for certain who was this Vecelin and was he in the service of Aquileian 
patriarch who wavered between fealty to the pope and Henry IV, or was he Istrian-Carniolan 
margrave, the brother of Ulrich II.” Budak, Hrvatska povijest, p. 259. The thesis that Wezelin 
was related to Ulrich I is championed by Ivan Jurkovi ć who penned an infl uential encyclopedia 
entry where he stated that “his brother [Ulrich I’s] Wezelin II took over the administration of 
the margraviate”, equating this Wezelin II as the noble knight Wezelin from the pope’s letter. 
 Jurkovi ć, Weimar-Orlamünde, http://istra.lzmk.hr/clanak.aspx?id=3039 [last access: 04. 08. 2019]. 
This opinion was taken over by Marija Mogorovi ć Crljenko, Jurkovi ć’s student who used his 
unpublished notes as her secondary literature, in yet another infl uential paper where Wezelin of 
the papal letter was also equated with the brother of Ulrich I of Weimar-Orlamünde.  Mogorovi ć 
Crljenko, Istarski markgrofovi, pp. 87–88.
8
 I have dealt with the genealogy of Ulrich I of Weimar-Orlamünde in great details in 
my forthcoming paper “Marchionatus Istrie origo.” Therefore, I will briefl y summarize some 
seminal aspects of this discussion, only insomuch as they pertain to Wezelin.

Zgodovinski časopis | 75 | 2021 | 1-2 | (163) 45
who also signed a charter issued by the bishop of Pore č, Engilmar (signum manus 
Constantini fi lii Ecilii comitis).
9
The only other primary sources that mention this individual – and this is the 
main source of confusion in the historiography that engendered multiple erroneous 
interpretations – are the two forged donation charters composed by Boniface, the 
bishop of Pore č (1282–1305) in 1305.
10
 These two documents, one purportedly 
issued by a countess Azica, the other by a countess Williburga – both dated to 1040 
according to the year of incarnation, 1042 according to indiction and 1044 accord-
ing to the year of Henry’s reign – feature a comes Wecelinus. In Azica’s donation 
he is the late husband of Williburga, the donor’s mother, and thus a grandfather 
to an Ulrich, Azica’s son; in Williburga’s charter he is her still living husband and 
Ulrich’s father.
11
 Since Williburga II of Sempt-Ebersberg was indeed a grandmother 
to Ulrich I of Weimar-Orlamünde, historians dearly wanted the family relationships 
described in Azica’s donation (but not in Williburga’s) to be authentic. They are not. 
The mother of Ulrich I was Hademoud II of Sempt-Ebersberg, the daughter 
of Williburga II of Sempt-Ebersberg and Werihen III, the count of Friuli and Istria 
who appears in primary sources from 991 to 1028.
12
 This Werihen III, as has been 
9
 The sources, in chronological order, are edited in the following publications: CDI 1, nos. 
88, and 89, ed. Kandler, pp. 188–189, and pp. 190–191;  D. C. II, nos. 92, and 132, ed. Bresslau, 
pp. 125–127, and pp. 177–179; CDI 1, no. 91, ed. Kandler, pp. 193–194.
10
 I have discussed these forgeries in detail in my forthcoming paper “Anatomy of a Forgery: 
New Insights into the False Donation Charters of Istrian Countesses Williburga and Azica” where 
I built upon the conclusions reached by Danilo Klen who convincingly demonstrated that the 
two donation charters are historical fakes (acta spuria) composed by the chancellery of bishop 
Bonifacius in late 13
th
 or early 14
th
 century. See Klen, Fratrija, pp. 19–34. These two charters are 
nowadays presumed lost, but they were edited in the 18
th
 century by Iohannes Benedictus Mit-
tarelli and Anselmus Castadoni.  Annales Camaldulenses 2, ed. Mittarelli–Castadoni, appendix: 
pp. 80–82 (Azica’s donation), pp. 82–84 (Williburga’s donation).
11
 Azica’s donation: [i]gitur qualiter inlustrissima Azcica totius nobilitatis compos, patre 
Wecelino et Wilpurga nobilissima matre Hystriensium quondam comite et comitissa procreate, 
[d]at igitur predicta domina Azcica consensu domine Wilpurge matris sue adhuc viventis, et 
consensu domini Wolderici fi lii sui, qui coram stabat. Williburga’s donation: [d]at igitur pre-
dicta domina Wilipurga consensu domini Wecellini, et consensu domini Woldorici, [h]ac itaque 
oblatione facta eadem domina una cum supradicto Iacobo advocato suo consensu Woldorici 
fi lii sui. See previous note.
12
 The marriage between Williburga II and Werihen III is attested in the codex traditionum 
of Geisenfeld monastery where a notitia traditionis states that countess Williburga donated prop-
erties to the family monastery ex petitione fi lie sue Liutkarde, for the memory of her soul and her 
deceased husband Werihen (in memoriam sue anime, defunctique mariti Werigandi). Monumenta 
Geisenfeldensia, p. 182, no. 4. The connection between Williburga and Werihen is also attested 
in the liber traditionum of St. Peter’s monastery in Salzburg, an ecclesiastical institution under 
Werihen’s advocacy.  SUB 1, no. 34, ed. Hauthaler, pp. 269–270. This Werihen appears, besides 
the notitiae of St. Peter’s monastery, as Istrian count (Hueribent Histriensium comes and Weribent 
comes) in 991. CDI 1, no. 85, ed. Kandler, pp. 184–185. He is also the Werihen comes to whom 
emperor Otto III donated half of Salcano and village Gorizia in 1001. D. O. III, no. 412, ed. Sickel, 
pp. 846–847. He is also the count of Friuli mentioned in 1028 (in pago Foroiulii in comitatu Wari-
enti comitis). D. C. II, no. 132, ed. Bresslau, pp. 170–172. See also  Štih, Guariento, http://www.
dizionariobiografi codeifriulani.it/guariento/ [last access: 04. 08. 2019]. That Hademoud II was 
the mother of Ulrich is attested in the codex traditionum of Ebersberg monastery where a notitia 

J. BANI Ć: The Mystery of Merania: A New Solution to Old Problems ... 46  
masterfully demonstrated by Peter Štih, cannot be the same individual as count 
Wezelin as this very duo is featured together in two separate documents (in 1027 
and 1028 respectively).
13
 Moreover, a popular interpretation in which Werihen III 
had been the fi rst husband to Williburga II and Wezelin the second, the latter being 
the father of Hademoud II (presumably also known as Azica) is likewise untenable 
due to chronology.
14
 Namely, Hademoud II is the oldest of Williburga’s daughters, 
mentioned at one point as the only grandchild of Ulrich I of Sempt-Ebersberg, yet 
both Gerberga and Liutgard are mentioned –the former explicitly, the later implicitly 
– as daughters of Williburga II and count Werihen.
15
 Since Gerberga and Liutgard 
can only be younger than Hademoud, there is no way that the mother of Ulrich I 
was born from Williburga’s hypothetical second marriage to Wezelin. 
Finally, there is a creative solution proposed by Gerald Gänser – who was 
in turn infl uenced by Franz Tyroller – according to which the Werihen mentioned 
in Istria, in Salzburg, and in Geisenfeld’s liber traditionum is the same person as 
Istrian count Wezelin from the 1020s and the advocate of Carinthian duke Adalbe-
ro.
16
 This does not stand up to scrutiny. Namely, the Istrian count Wezelin appears 
fi rst as a viscount (vicecomes) in 1014, and only in 1027 as a count.
17
 As such, he 
cannot be the same individual as count Hueribent and Weribent mentioned in Pore č 
traditionis states: Hec eadem Ovdalrico, qui fi lius erat Hadamovde, fi li ę Willipirg ę, sororis Adalp-
eronis, dedit predium Peringin et maius Wizzinvelt cum attinentibus omnibus.  Das Cartular des 
Klosters Ebersberg, no. 44, ed. Hundt, pp. 143–144. This Williburga II is sometimes interpreted as 
Williburga III, as Williburga II would be the presumed wife of count Poppo I of Kühbach, as was 
famously argued by Tyroller. Tyroller, Genealogie, p. 66. That this construction remains utterly 
ungrounded in primary sources is demonstrated by Gottfried Mayr who showed that the counts of 
Kühbach have no documented family ties with the comital house of Sempt-Ebersberg.  Mayr, Die 
Grafen von Kühbach, pp. 123–124. As such, the wife of Werihen III and the daughter of count 
Ulrich I of Sempt-Ebersberg should be denominated as Williburga II, not III.
13
  Štih, “Villa quae Sclavorum”, pp. 108–110. They are featured together in D. C. II, nos. 
92, and 132, ed. Bresslau, pp. 125–127, and pp. 177–179.
14
 This interpretation was famously proposed already in 1792 by Hermann Scholliner who 
wrote of Williburga’s two marriages, fi rst with Werihen, the count of Friuli and Istria, and the 
second with Wezelin, the count of Istria. Scholliner, De Gerbirge, pp. 594–599 (Werihen), pp. 
600–605 (Wezelin). This opinion was then popularized by the likes of Czörnig in his monumental 
monograph on the counts of Gorizia and Benussi in the ambit of Istrian historiography.  Czörnig, 
Das Land Görz, p. 479, n. 1; Benussi, Nel Medio evo, p. 334. Finally, it found its way into an 
immensely infl uential paper authored by Heinz Dopsch and Therese Meyer.  Dopsch–Meyer, Vo n 
Bayern, pp. 342, 346.
15
 The 11th-century chronicle of Ebersberg family records how Ulrich I, the father of Willi-
burga II, at one point in his life lamented how he only had one surviving grandchild, a Hademoud, 
the daughter of Williburga II. Oudalricus ergo nullam ex fi liis prolem videns preter unam virginem 
Hadamuodem vocabulo, neptem suam de fi lia Willibirga. Chronicon Eberspergense, ed. Arndt, p. 13. 
Thus, the Liutcard who petitions her mother Williburga II to donate properties to family monastery 
in Geisenfeld to the lasting memory of her husband – and therefore certainly Liutcard’s father – 
Werihen, can only be younger than Hademoud II. Monumenta Geisenfeldensia, p. 182, no. 4.
16
 Gänser, Die Mark (2. Teil), pp. 112–113. This opinion was at fi rst followed by Peter 
Štih, but he later rebuked it and went back to “two marriages” thesis as advocated by Scholliner 
(n. 14 in this paper).  Štih, “Villa quae Sclavorum”, pp. 110–111;  idem, Der friulanische Graf, 
pp. 70–79; idem, Guariento. Cf. Tyroller, Genealogie, pp. 68–69.
17
 CDI 1, no. 88, ed. Kandler, pp. 188–189; D. C. II, no. 132, ed. Bresslau, pp. 177–179.

Zgodovinski časopis | 75 | 2021 | 1-2 | (163) 47
in 991.
18
 While both Tyroller and Gänser are correct in claiming that Williburga 
II married only once, that marriage must have been to Werihen III, the count of 
Friuli and Istria and the advocate of St. Peter’s monastery in Salzburg, not Wezelin 
the advocate of Carinthian duke Adalbero and count of Istria. The two forgeries 
from 1305 are nothing but a patchwork of various charters available to episcopal 
chancery in the late 13
th
, early 14
th
 century that were clumsily abridged, reworked, 
and anachronistically rewritten as instrumenta publica; they do contain traces of 
authentic sources and historical facts, but Ulrich I’s genealogy is not among them.
19
Therefore, it must be concluded that there is no primary source that would 
attest to an eponymous son of count Wezelin from the 1020s, let alone a source 
that would allow us to interpret this hypothetical individual as a brother or son 
or any other relative of Ulrich I. Yet, a Wezel junior, the presumed son of comes 
Wecellinus and Williburga II of Sempt-Ebersberg, is often found in the second-
ary literature. E.g. Gänser writes about him in his highly infl uential study on the 
social relations of house Eppenstein, but he was led astray by the 1305 forgeries.
20
 
What is more, he mistook Werner of Reichersberg, the brother of Starchand I and 
son of count Asquin, to be the putative Wezel junior.
21
 The confusion lies in the 
fact that Wezelin is a common nickname, a hypocoristicon, for Wern(h)er. There 
is another famous example of this name-nickname pairing: Werner the archbishop 
of Magdeburg was often called Wezel(in), even by the pope.
22
 Although they do 
not cite any primary or secondary source, Heinz Dopsch and Therese Meyer also 
have a Wezelin junior in their genealogical table, presumably taken over from 
18
 CDI 1, no. 85, ed. Kandler, pp. 184–185.
19
 On the elements of notitiae traditionum in these two forgeries – namely the designation 
brevis scriptiuncula in the charters’ narratio – see Härtel, Notariat und Romanisierung, p. 912, 
n. 119, and p. 918, n. 143;  Štih, Anfänge und Entwicklung, pp. 303–304.
20
 Gänser was primarily led astray by the two forgeries which he used as trustworthy sources 
for 11
th
 century history. Moreover, Gänser equates the names Werihen and Wezelin, believing 
them to be mutually interchangeable; thus, he believes that only Wezelin had been Williburga’s 
husband, and this Wezelin would then be the same individual denoted as Werigand in Geisen-
feld’s liber traditionis and the advocate of St. Peter’s monastery in Salzburg. Consequently, he 
equates Azica from the forgery with Hademoud II. Since the whole argument is based solely on 
the two forgeries from a much later period, it should be entirely abandoned. Gänser, Die Mark 
(2. Teil), pp. 112–113.
21
 Gänser, Die Mark (2. Teil), p. 113, citing SUB 1, no. 21 (recte 22), ed. Hauthaler, p. 
241. This notitia traditionis indeed mentions a nobilis vir nomine Wezil, but since this Wezil 
disposes of properties of a count Asquin (comes Ascuuinus), namely Radlach, he must be the 
same person as Werner, the brother of Aribo who inherited Radlach.  Annales Reicherspergenses, 
ed. Wattenbach, pp. 448, 455. Thus, the Wezil of Codex Baldwini is none other than Werner of 
Reichersberg, the heir to count Asquin, the consanguineus of St. Hema. All of this is convinc-
ingly argued by  Hauptmann, Grofovi Višnjegorski, pp. 215–239, esp. pp. 218–219 and p. 237.
22
 His Saxon compatriot Bruno regularly refers to him as Werner (Werinherus).  Bruno of 
Merseburg, Saxonicum bellum, c. 18, c 26, c. 38, and passim, ed. Lohmann, p. 24, l. 9–10, p. 30, l. 
7, p. 39, l. 20, and passim. But both Henry IV and pope Gregory VII refer to him as Wezelin. D. H. 
IV , no. 238, ed. Gladiss–Gawlik, pp. 301–302; Reg. Greg. VII., nos. I, 39, and II, 68, ed. Caspar, pp. 
61–62, and pp. 225–226. This name-nickname connection was known to both Ljudmil Hauptmann 
and Ferdo Šiši ć. Hauptmann, Grofovi Višnjegorski, p. 219; Šiši ć, Povijest Hrvata, p. 576.

J. BANI Ć: The Mystery of Merania: A New Solution to Old Problems ... 48  
Gänser.
23
 However, no primary source attests to count Wezelin from 1020s having 
any children other than the aforementioned Constantine.
Finally, there was never any Wezelin who assumed the title of marchio Histrie. 
The chronology of Istrian margraves is well-known and precisely documented in 
contemporary primary sources: Ulrich I was margrave from 1061 the latest to 1070, 
the year of his death.
24
 At this point the March of Istria had not been entrusted to 
any other margrave – it is possible that it fell under the potestas of Markward IV of 
Eppenstein, the advocate of Aquileian Church and a close associate and kinsman of 
Henry IV’s.
25
  In 1077 the County of Istria and the March of Carniola were bequeathed 
to the Aquileian Church and its patriarch Sighard by emperor Henry IV .
26
 Following 
the brief episode of Aquileian rulership, Istria was taken away from the patriarchs’ 
jurisdictions and bestowed upon Henry of Eppenstein who remained the margrave 
until he succeeded his late brother Liutold as new duke of Carinthia.
27
 From that point 
23
 Dopsch–Meyer, Von Bayern, pp. 342, 346.
24
 Ulrich I is fi rst attested as Istrian margrave in 1061; the best edition of the document is 
Margeti ć, Pet puljskih isprava, pp. 145–147, no. 4 (facsimile of the original, albeit a very poor 
one, on p. 146). On Ulrich’s death:  Lampert of Hersfeld, Annales, a. 1070, ed. Holder-Egger, p. 
112, l. 23; Annalista Saxo, Chronicon, a. 1070, ed. Nass, p. 416, l. 17.
25
 There are no sources that mention Markward IV as margrave, but Lampert of Hersfeld 
wrote how “it was on his own initiative that Markward had seized the territory of another man” 
(Marcwardum privata presumptione fi des alienos invasisse). Lampert of Hersfeld, Annales, a. 
1073, ed.  Holder-Egger, p. 153, l. 19–20 (trans. in Robinson, The Annals, p. 181). This line has 
traditionally been interpreted, starting from Meyer von Knonau back in 1894, as Markward’s de 
facto reign over the territories of the recently deceased Ulrich I of Weimar-Orlamünde whose 
sons and heirs were still minor at the time of his death in 1070.  Meyer von Knonau, Jahrbücher 
2, pp. 34–35. As the very Lampert of Hersfeld also wrote how the same Markward IV took over 
the Duchy of Carinthia following the purported deposition of Berthold of Zähringen in 1073 
“without the proceedings required by law”, it is very possible that it was the Eppenstein clan, 
Markward IV and his sons, that were the real ruling powers in the entire Carinthian duchy dur-
ing the 1070s, including the territories of the former Marca Wodalrici marchionis. Lampert of 
Hersfeld, Annales, a. 1073, ed. Holder-Egger, p. 140, l. 4–6 (trans. in Robinson, The Annals, p. 
163). Since Markward IV died in 1076 (at least this is the communis opinio since no necrology 
records the year of his death and since his son Liutold was made duke of Carinthia in 1077, 
(see  MDC 3, no. 437, ed. Jaksch, p. 171), Henry IV could still donate Carniola and Istria to the 
Patriarchate of Aquileia de nostra regali proprietate et potestate. D. H. IV, nos. 295 and 296, 
ed. Gladiss–Gawlik, pp. 387–389 and pp. 389–390. See also  Klaar, Die Herrschaft, pp. 97–107; 
Gänser, Die Mark (2. Teil), pp. 96–97; Brunner, Herzogtümer und Marken, p. 157. Finally, since 
the IC mentions a Marchrat dux Theutonicorum in the fi rst half of 1070s, it is most probably a 
reference to Markward IV of Eppenstein.  IC, c. 114, ed. Bak–Veszprémy, p. 212.
26
 D. H. IV , nos. 295 and 296, ed. Gladiss–Gawlik, pp. 387–389 and pp. 389–390.
27
 Suus [Udalrici] frater, Liutoldus aliqua sui iuris, ut sibi visum est, scilicet Ducatum 
Carinthie, concessione regia obtinuit, et aliter eius frater [Henricus] Marchiam Istriam sub 
eadem concessione possedit. Casuum s. Galli continuatio II, c. 7, ed. Arxt, p. 159, l. 30–32. 
Liutold died on the 12
th
 of May, 1090. The year is given by Bernold of Constance: [sub anno 
1090] Ex parte excommunicatorum Liutoldus dux Carinthiorum inopinata morte praeripitur. 
 Bernold of Constance, Chronicon, a. 1090, ed. Robinson, p. 481, l. 3–4. The date is given by the 
necrology of St. Lambert.  Necrologium s. Lamberti, ed. Herzberg-Fränkel, p. 325. Henry was 
fi rst mentioned as duke of Carinthia in 1093, the same day the March of Carniola was donated 
to the Patriarchate of Aquileia. D. H. IV, no. 431, ed. Gladiss–Gawlik, pp. 576–577. See also 
Klaar, Die Herrschaft, pp. 107–118.

Zgodovinski časopis | 75 | 2021 | 1-2 | (163) 49
Istrian march was under the jurisdiction of Burckhardt II of Moosburg, the former 
advocate of Aquileian Church, the brother of Berthold, imperial anti-archbishop of 
Salzburg, and a very close associate of emperor Henry IV (disputed by Poppo III, 
the son of Ulrich I of Weimar-Orlamünde).
28
 Although there is a short gap between 
1070 and 1077 that could be fi lled by the presumed margrave (or simply a count) 
Wezelin as heir to Ulrich I, there is simply no primary source whatsoever that would 
attest to this scenario.
Since the noble knight Wezelin to whom pope Gregory VII wrote in 1079 is 
neither the heir to count Wezelin from the 1020s nor a relative of Ulrich I’s and 
defi nitely not a margrave as is generally assumed, one should look elsewhere to 
establish both his identity and his role in the wider region. Where does the pope’s 
reproachful letter fi t, who was this Wezelin, why did he attack Zvonimir’s Dalmatia 
and what did he (hope to) achieve?
To begin answering these questions, several crucial observations regarding 
the historical context must be made. Zvonimir pledged himself and his kingdom 
28
 There is much confusion in scholarship regarding Burckhardt II as margrave of Istria. The 
root of the problem stems from both Burckhardt II and Poppo III of Weimar-Orlamünde appear-
ing in contemporary primary sources as margraves of Istria at the same time, in 1093. However, 
Burckhardt II appears with the title of marchio for the fi rst time already in 1091. D. H. IV, no. 
426, ed. Gladiss–Gawlik, pp. 571–572. This was known, for example, to Daniel Rentschler, the 
author of a voluminous PhD dissertation on marches and margraves in the Holy Roman Empire 
during the Salian era, who concluded that “[d]ie Lage derselben lässt sich anhand der überlieferten 
Quellen aber nicht ermitteln.”  Rentschler, Marken und Markgrafen, p. 582. There are, however, 
two solutions to this conundrum, and both portray Poppo III as anti-margrave, the fi rst of its 
kind. Namely, if Henry of Eppenstein became the duke of Carinthia only in 1093, that would 
mean that he had held the March of Istria up to that point; consequently, Burckhardt II could 
not have been the margrave of Istria in 1091. In this scenario, Burckhardt II would fi rst be the 
margrave of Carniola, and only then, following Henry’s ascension to ducal rank and the donation 
of Carniolan march to the Patriarchate of Aquileia in 1093, the margrave of Istria. Alternative 
scenario, and this seems more likely, is that Henry of Eppenstein became the duke of Carinthia 
soon after his brother’s death in May of 1090. That would, in turn, mean that Burckhardt II was 
margrave of Istria already in 1091. In any case, Poppo III of Weimar-Orlamünde was never titled 
as margrave in offi cial imperial diplomata, only in primary sources of Spanheim family clan’s 
provenance: the liber traditionum of St. Paul’s monastery in Lavanttal, the family monastery of 
the Spanheims – as Poppo Histriensis marchio – and the necrology of the same monastery – as 
benefactor Poppo Marchio Histriensis.  Urkundenbuch des Benedictiner-Stiftes St. Paul, no. 5, 
ed. Schroll, pp. 9–10;  Schroll, Necrologium, p. 42. The only other source that names this Poppo 
as margrave is the Historia Welforum Weingartensis, also of anti-imperial provenance. Historia 
Welforum Weingartensis, c. 15, ed. Weiland–Pertz, p. 23. Since the Spanheim clan was in open 
rebellion against Henry IV and offi cially supported pope Urban II, and since their greatest rivals 
in the region were indeed the Eppensteins, it is not surprising that Poppo, married to Ricarda, 
the daughter of Engelbert I of Spanheim (and thus designated as gener comitis in the liber tra-
ditionum, Urkundenbuch des Benedictiner-Stiftes St. Paul, no. 4, ed. Schroll, pp. 8–9), would 
have been their candidate for the Istrian margrave. MDC 3, nos. 477 and 478, ed. Jaksch, pp. 
184–186;  Cammarosano, L’alto medioevo, pp. 93–96;  Štih, Rodbina koroških Spanheimov, p. 
59; Bani ć, Donationes pro remedio, p. 55. This example of an anti-margrave is a unique occur-
rence in the Holy Roman Empire of the era. Therefore, Rentschler’s conclusion that there are 
no documented cases of anti-margraves (“Markgrafen, die entgegen dem Willen des Königs ins 
Amt kamen”), should be reassessed. Rentschler, Marken und Markgrafen, p. 881.

J. BANI Ć: The Mystery of Merania: A New Solution to Old Problems ... 50  
to reform papacy in 1076.
29
 This was a bold political gambit. On the one hand it 
secured him papal support and a quick, sanctifi ed road to the Croatian throne, but 
on the other it also engendered powerful enemies. As the newly crowned Croatian 
monarch daringly picked his side in the Investiture Controversy, he offi cially pro-
claimed himself the enemy of the imperial cause. Therefore, Zvonimir’s pledge to 
Gregory VII was clearly understood by his contemporaries as audaciously taking 
a side in the momentous battle between the Empire and Papacy.
30
 Hence, “noble 
knight Wezelin” should be sought among the forces loyal to Henry IV and the 
Holy Roman Empire, but that does not help much in narrowing down the list of 
possible places to investigate. There is, however, one line in pope’s letter that helps 
in pinpointing the provenance of the mysterious invader.
Gregory VII begins his letter to Wezelin by professing to being fl abbergasted 
by the knight’s action. The way the pope addressed the bellicose noble makes it 
clear from whence the shock had come: “You, who a while ago have promised 
fealty to us and to St. Peter”.
31
 This line has often been overlooked, but it offers a 
clue in uncovering the place to look for knight Wezelin. Specifi cally, there is only 
one jurisdictional region close enough to Zvonimir’s Dalmatia that had tradition-
ally been a bulwark of pro-imperial cause, but that just recently pledged itself to 
Gregory VII and reform papacy: the Patriarchate of Aquileia under the newly ap-
pointed patriarch Henry (1077–1084).
32
29
 Ego, inquam, Demetrius, qui et Suinimir, Dei gratia et apostolice sedis dono rex ab 
hac hora in antea, sancto Petro et domino meo pape Gregorio suisque successoribus canonice 
intrantibus ero fi delis. … Regnum autem, quod mihi per manum tuam, donne (sic!) Gebizo, 
traditur, fi deliler retinebo et illud suumque ius apostolice sedi aliquo ingenio aliquanclo non 
subtraham. CD 1, no. 109, ed. Kostren či ć et al., p. 140.
30
 Zvonimir’s coronation is often compared to that of Boleslaw II Szczodry (the Generous) 
of Poland as it is traditionally argued that this monarch also received his crown from pope Gregory 
VII, on Christmas 1076. Karbi ć, Razvoj politi čkih institucija, p. 96;  Wyrozumski, Poland, pp. 
280–281. However, there is no primary source similar to Zvonimir’s pledge of fealty that would 
attest to such an interpretation. There is only one papal letter addressed to “duke” Boleslaw II 
in April 1075. Reg. Greg. VII., no. II, 73, ed. Caspar, pp. 233–235. Hence, Cowdrey is correct 
to note that “[n]othing is known of a sequel to this letter, and there is no reason to suppose that 
Gregory had a direct or even indirect part in Boleslav’s assumption at Gnesen in 1076 of a royal 
title and crown.” Cowdrey, Pope Gregory VII, p. 452. Be that as it may, Boleslaw II’s position is 
still partially comparable to that of Zvonimir as this monarch also took an anti-imperial position 
during the momentous Investiture Controversy precisely with his crowning. Cf. the words of 
Lampert of Hersfeld: Dux Polenorum… in superbiam elatum… regiam dignitatem regiumque 
nomen sibi usurpavit. Lampert of Hersfeld, Annales, a. 1076, ed. Holder-Egger, p. 284, l. 14–23.
31
 Scias nos de prudentia tua multum mirari, ut, qui te esse dudum beato Petro et nobis 
fi delem promiseris. Reg. Greg. VII., no. VII, 4, ed. Caspar, p. 463.
32
 This argument was fi rst formulated by Šiši ć, but it has subsequently been ignored for un-
known reasons. Šiši ć, Povijest Hrvata, pp. 576–577. Margeti ć was the only one who openly argued 
against it, fi rst in 1997 and then again in 2005 when he simply wrote that Šiši ć’s opinion “is not very 
probable”. Margeti ć, Odnosi Hrvata, p. 25, n. 84. As I will demonstrate later in this paper, Margeti ć’s 
reasoning for abandoning Šiši ć’s thesis is severely fl awed. Moreover, Margeti ć did not offer a better 
solution – he insisted that Wezelin must be “a papal vassal” and as such he could not have been the 
patriarch’s vassal as well, but he then proposed Wezelin the advocate of abbot Iuvencius about whom 
no primary source exists that would attest him “a papal vassal”.  Margeti ć, Bilješke, pp. 19–20.

Zgodovinski časopis | 75 | 2021 | 1-2 | (163) 51
Following the death of Aquileian patriarch Sighard in August of 1077, there 
were great tensions in how the new head of St. Hermagoras’s chair would be elected.
33
 
Since Henry IV had just pledged fealty to Gregory VII, it was expected that the new 
elections would proceed canonically. Thus, pope Gregory VII sent two letters right 
after Sighard’s death, one to the “clergy and people of Aquileian Church”, the other 
to “all bishops suffragans of Aquileian Church”, instructing and encouraging them to 
independently elect their new patriarch.
34
 Indeed, Aquileian chapter met and elected a 
new patriarch, but Henry IV , staying true to his ideals and worldviews, disregarded the 
election and appointed his own imperial chaplain of Bavarian descent, Henry, as new 
Aquileian prelate – Berthold of Reichenau described the entire proceeding with the 
following words: “Likewise in Aquileia, after having rejected the man who had been 
elected by the clergy and people according to canon law, he [Henry IV], in whatsoever 
way appointed Henry, a canon of Augsburg and his chaplain, as patriarch”.
35
  In order 
to appease the pope and calm the rising tensions, the newly appointed patriarch under-
took a daring move: on 11
th
 of February 1079 the pro-imperial patriarch of Aquileia 
solemnly and offi cially pledged his fealty, the fealty of his Church and his milites, to 
pope Gregory VII.
36
 Henry IV was outraged and he thus stripped the Aquileian Church 
of both the County of Istria and the March of Carniola, both that had been donated to 
Sighard in 1077.
37
 However, patriarch Henry was simply buying time for his monarch 
and he swiftly returned to the pro-imperial camp, remaining a staunch supporter of 
Henry IV and a bitter opponent of Gregory VII for the rest of his life.
38
 Nevertheless, 
the pledge of fealty to the pope remained and it explicitly stated that the Aquileian 
milites are to serve the Apostolic See: “Whenever I shall have been called upon I will 
faithfully aid the Roman Church with secular military forces” stood in Henry’s oath 
to the pope.
39
 Hence the reason for Gregory VII’s tone in his letter to miles Wezelin.
33
 The date 12
th
 of August as Sighard’s death is mentioned by both the necrology of Ro-
sazzo abbey and the necrology of Aquileia.  Urkunden und Memorialquellen, ed. Härtel–Scalon, 
p. 281;  Necrologium Aquileiense, ed. Scalon, p. 276.
34
 Reg. Greg. VII., no. V , 5 (letter to clero et populo Aquilegensis Ecclesie), and V , 6 (let-
ter to omnibus episcopis Aquilegensis Ecclesie suffraganeis), ed. Caspar, pp. 352–354 and pp. 
354–355. See also Cowdrey, Pope Gregory VII, p. 176.
35
 Aquileie quoque Heinricum, Augustensem canonicum et capellanum suum patriarcham, 
reprobato eo qui canonice a clero et populo electus est, qualitercumque apposuit.  Berthold of 
Reichenau, Chronicon, a. 1077, ed. Robinson, p. 298, l. 10–12.
36
 Greg. Reg. VII., no. VI, 17a/4, ed. Caspar, pp. 428–429: Sacramentum archiepiscopi 
Aquiliensis. See also  Berthold of Reichenau, Chronicon, a. 1079, ed. Robinson, p. 353, l. 5–17.
37
 The monarch would later blame the bad consultations of his advisors for this move: postea 
vero consilio quorundam non bene nobis consulentium eandem Marchiam [Carniole] predicte 
Ecclesie subtrahendo abstullimus alii eam concedentes. D. H. IV , no. 432, ed. Gladiss–Gawlik, 
p. 578.
38
 According to Berthold of Reichenau, the patriarch Henry was unus ex intimis regis 
Heinrici and he did not heed the papal legation optima fi de et studio, but instead sent to Henry 
IV in Regensburg his own nuntium secretalem, qui voluntatem illius [Heinrici IV .] et obedientiam 
exploraret. Berthold of Reichenau, Chronicon, a. 1079, ed. Robinson, pp. 356–357, l. 20–5.
39
 Romanam Ecclesiam per secularem militiam fi deliter adiuvabo, cum invitatus fuero. 
Reg. Greg. VII., no. VI, 17a, ed. Caspar, p. 429.

J. BANI Ć: The Mystery of Merania: A New Solution to Old Problems ... 52  
By narrowing down the potential regions of Latin Christendom to the Patriarch-
ate of Aquileia, it becomes somewhat easier to search for the Wezelin in question. 
Namely, there are several individuals who fi t the profi le, both chronologically and 
socially. The fi rst is a Wecelinus de Iuno, a landowner from Jauntal in Carinthia with 
his own proprietary church who donated some of his properties to the Aquileian patri-
archate and its patriarch Ulrich of Eppenstein.
40
 This Wezelin was equated by Zahn, 
the editor of the document, to a miles of the Patriarchate of Aquileia with possessions 
in the very Jauntal valley, count Kazelin of the Aribonids.
41
 This Kazelin – his name 
is spelt in various ways – would be a perfect candidate for the Wezelin of the papal 
letter: he was a miles in service of Sighard, the patriarch of Aquileia, a Carinthian 
nobleman from a powerful family clan – the Aribonids whose offspring served as 
counts palatines to the Holy Roman Emperors – and he was active precisely during 
the 1070s and 1080s.
42
 However, there is too much of a difference between the names 
Kazelin – this form itself being the hypocoristicon of Kadaloh, one of the family’s 
Leitnamen – and Wezelin.
43
 If, however, one is to link the Wecil palatinus comes 
from the 12
th
-century Salzburg necrology to this Kazelin, also titled as count palatine 
(albeit in a forged charter), then one could suppose that the two names were used 
interchangeably, or at least that the contamination Wezelin for Kazelin was common.
44
40
 MDC 3, no. 482, ed. Jaksch, p. 187. The document is originally undated, the dating 
provided by the editors is according to Ulrich’s years as patriarch of Aquileia, 1086–1121. 
41
  Urkundenbuch des Herzogtums Steiermark 1, no. 92, ed. Zahn, pp. 107–108. This 
opinion was also acknowledged by Hans Pirchegger, Franc Kos and Antonio Battistella, but it 
has subsequently been ignored.  Pirchegger, Beiträge zur Genealogie, pp. 55–56;  Gradivo 3, no. 
383, ed. Kos, pp. 222–223;  Battistella, L’Abbazia, pp. 10ss.
42
 This Kazelin is mentioned in 1072 as Chazele comes in one notitia and listed under the 
milites of patriarch Sighard as Chazili de Muosiza in another. SUB 1, no. 1, ed. Hauthaler, pp. 
771–774. Unfortunately, all other documents mentioning this mysterious knight are either forger-
ies or interpolated copies of lost originals. Thus, Kazelin is believed to be the founder of Moggio 
monastery in Friuli, but both the donation charter from presumably 1070 according to which 
Kazelin bequeaths to Aquileian Church his castrum Mosniz (Moggio in Friuli) so that a monastery 
would be erected there, as well as the 1072 confi rmation of this donation by patriarch Ulrich of 
Eppenstein are forgeries. These documents are best edited in  Urkunden des Klosters Moggio, nos. 
U 1, and U 2, ed. Härtel, pp. 77–78, and pp. 78–80. Similar is the situation with Kazelin’s supposed 
endowment for the establishment of Eberndorf collegiate church – the 1106 document attesting to 
it is also a forgery. MDC 3, no. 535, ed. Jaksch, pp. 215–217. More on these documents and the 
historical persona of this Kazelin, see Härtel’s study in Urkunden des Klosters Moggio, pp. 47–58. 
That Kazelin stemmed from the Aribonids was famously demonstrated by Heinz Dopsch. See e.g. 
 Dopsch, Die Aribonen, pp. 85–86, with family trees on pp. 62–63 and pp. 71–72. Unfortunately, 
I was not able to procure the PhD thesis Die Aribonen: Ein führendes Adelsgeschlecht in Bayern 
und Kärnten während des Hochmittelalters authored by Dopsch in 1968.
43
 On Leitnamen – the “leading names” – esp. in the context of constructing medieval 
genealogical relationships, see  Werner, Important Noble Families, pp. 149–153; Bouchard, The 
Origins, pp. 505–509; Wilson, The Means, pp. 81–85.
44
 Necrologia s. Rudberti Salisburgensis, ed. Herzberg-Fränkel, p. 108 (date of death: 22
nd
 of 
February). This Wecil palatinus remains a mysterious fi gure. Already in the 18th century, historians 
equated him with count Wezelin, the advocate of duke Adalbero, count of Istria and Carinthian wal-
pot.  Excerpta necrologiorum Salisburgensis, p. 372. However, this Wezelin was not a count palatine. 
Therefore, Heinrich Witte-Hagenau proposed that this Wecil palatinus actually refers to Kazelin 
as there is a Kadaloh who is also mentioned as a palatine count in Weissenburg necrology (date of 

Zgodovinski časopis | 75 | 2021 | 1-2 | (163) 53
Be that as it may, there are other candidates that must be taken into account. 
Unlike the majority of his peers, Margeti ć did not see the Wezelin of the pope’s 
letter as either a margrave or relative of Ulrich I, but as a vassal of pope Gregory 
VII. Moreover, this historian insisted, albeit erroneously, that “Wezelin could not 
have been simultaneously a vassal of the pope and a vassal of the patriarch”.
45
 The 
letter does not mention the term vassus or vassallus at all, but miles. That the Latin 
term miles should not be automatically equated with a “vassal” – a “conceptual 
black hole” – has been demonstrated by generations of medievalists.
46
 Moreover, 
milites could very well be in service of multiple lords simultaneously: an Ulrich was 
at the same time in service to both margrave Ernest and king Henry IV (communis 
miles Odalricus).
47
 Notwithstanding this error in interpretation, Margeti ć’s thesis 
death: 24
th
 of December).  Witte-Hagenau, Genealogische Untersuchungen, p. 389, n. 3;  Kalendarium 
necrologicum Weissenburgense, p. 314. This line of thought, however, is problematic. Kazelin of the 
Aribonids died on 16
th
 of May and this is corroborated by both the Eberndorf necrology and the old 
Scheyern necrology.  Schroll, Necrologium des ehemaligen, p. 231;  Fragmenta necrologica Schirensia, 
ed. Baumann, p. 135. Also, no Kadaloh of the Aribonids died on the 24
th
 of December. Dopsch, Die 
Aribonen, pp. 70–71. The mystery of both Wecil and Chadalhoh comites palatini remains unsolved to 
this day. The most recent study on the topic of Bavarian count palatines, penned by Christof Paulus in 
2007, does not commit to Witte’s thesis. Instead, Paulus argues that Witte erroneously “mixed more 
persons together [into one]”: the count Wezelin from the 1020s and Kazelin of the Aribonids (who 
he names as “a relative of the patriarch of Aquileia”, most certainly referring to the 1070 forgery in 
which Kazelin is called an affi nis of patriarch Frederick of Moravia).  Paulus, Das Pfalzgrafenamt, 
pp. 231–232, n. 146. However, this same argument could be extended to the original compiler of the 
aforecited Salzburg’s necrology. Whether Kazelin of the Aribonids functioned as a count palatine or 
not cannot be ascertained as he is only mentioned with this title in a forged charter. Urkunden des 
Klosters Moggio, no. U 1, ed. Härtel, pp. 77–78. According to Dopsch, Kazelin never offi cially as-
sumed this title.  Dopsch, Salzburg und Aquileia, p. 529. However, since he stemmed from a family 
of count palatines, he could have been referred to as comes palatinus simply for that reason; similar 
is the case with count Engelbert II of Gorizia who was not a count palatine himself, but he was called 
comes palatinus in a notitia traditionis of Michaelbeuern monastery simply because he stemmed from 
the family whose members adorned this title (namely his uncle).  Dopsch, I conti palatini, p. 72. In 
any case, that Wecil could be a contaminated form of Chacil is a plausible thesis; it has recently been 
proven by Giordano Brunettin in 2002 where he continuously referred to Kazelin of the Aribonids 
by the name “Wezelin”.  Brunettin, Gli istituti benedettini, pp. 80–81, n. 42, p. 90.
45
 Margeti ć, Bilješke, p. 19.
46
 I use the Latin term miles as denoting an armed servant of a specifi c lord. This servant 
could enjoy a benefi cium from his lord, thus a retainer (or vassal if the term is used in its narrow 
sense of “a man who held a benefi ce from a superior in return for service”), but not necessarily 
– many nobiles milites were in fact paid for their services; he could be unfree, thus a ministe-
rial, but not necessarily – there are many examples from 11th century where milites are in fact 
distinguished noblemen, even counts.  Brunner, Ius, pp. 175–80, esp. p. 178;  Bachrach, Milites 
and Warfare, pp. 298–343, quotation on p. 341. I consciously avoid using the term “vassal” if 
primary sources do not specifi cally use this very noun; in its broad sense the term acquired too 
vast a meaning in historiography, becoming “a conceptual black hole” to use Susan Reynold’s 
wording.  Reynolds, Fiefs and Vassals, quotation on p. 34. Finally, the term miles in 11
th
 century 
should also not be automatically translated as “knight”, but I have taken the liberty to translate 
nobilis miles Wezelinus as “noble knight Wezelin” simply for the sake of the elegance of narra-
tive. For this I humbly beg forgiveness from my more stilted critical readers.
47
 D. H. IV, no. 271, ed. Gladiss–Gawlik, pp. 347–348. I do not argue that Wezelin was 
both patriarch Henry’s and the pope’s personal miles.

J. BANI Ć: The Mystery of Merania: A New Solution to Old Problems ... 54  
is not without merit. He interpreted the “noble knight” as the pope’s vassal in Istria 
who he then equated with the eponymous advocate of St. Michael’s monastery 
in Pula.
48
 Indeed, the advocate of abbot Iuvencius of St. Michael’s monastery in 
Pula is also called Wezelin and he appears in two charters from the 11
th
 century. 
These documents were published by Kandler and were dated to 1065 and 1069 
respectively, but this dating is dubious.
49
 As chronological elements of both charters 
are solely the years of Henry’s reign and indiction, there is some debate regarding 
the exact dating. The fi rst charter is dated to the year seventeen of Henry’s reign 
and third indiction and this coincides with the year 1020 and thus with the age of 
Henry II.
50
 The second, however, written by the same scribe, issued by the same 
abbot, witnessed by the same individual and featuring the same advocate Wezelin, 
is dated to year twelve of Henry’s reign and sixth indiction; by all accounts this can 
only correspond to 1068 and the Henry in question would be Henry IV .
51
 While it 
is remotely possible that same people witnessed two different charters forty-eight 
years apart from each other, it is much more likely that the scribe made an error 
in writing the elements of dating and that they were issued chronologically closer 
to each other. 
Margeti ć, who edited these charters based on the originals from the Vene-
tian Marciana library, proposed a solution according to which both documents 
could be dated to 1020s: the indiction in the second charter should be read as 
the twelfth, not the sixth, and the charter would thus stem from 1014.
52
 Such a 
solution, however, is untenable. Namely, the abbot Iuvencius is mentioned in one 
more charter, also issued in Pula. That document is likewise dated only with the 
year of Henry’s reign (the fi fth) and indiction (the fourteenth), but it also features 
the subscription of Istrian margrave Ulrich who “made a sign of the cross with 
his own hand as he cannot write”.
53
 The elements of dating and the appearance 
of margrave Ulrich leave little doubt regarding the charter’s date: it stems from 
1061.
54
 Since abbot Iuvencius appears in 1061, it seems much more probable 
48
  Margeti ć, Bilješke, pp. 19–20.
49
 CDI 1, nos. 104, and 106, ed. Kandler, p. 219, and p. 221.
50
 The charter is preserved in original and the very Margeti ć published the best edition 
of this document. Margeti ć, Pet puljskih isprava, pp. 142–144, no. 3 (facsimile of the original, 
albeit a very bad one, on p. 144).
51
 This charter is also preserved in original and the best edition is also the one published 
by Margeti ć. Ibid., pp. 149–150, no. 5 (facsimile of the original, also a very bad one, on p. 150). 
Both charters were written by a Thegenzo tabellius and both feature a Petrus fi lius Vitalis as a 
witness. 
52
 Ibid., p. 132.
53
 Odalricus marchius Istriensis (SC) Signum manus prefatum marchius qui scribere 
nesciens signum crucis fecit. Ibid., p. 147, no. 4.
54
 In Istria, margrave Ulrich I of Weimar-Orlamünde appears in two private documents: 
in the aforementioned Megingaud’s donation, and in the donation of Hartwig of Piran who be-
stowed Kaštel (Ital. Castelvenere) upon the margrave. This second donation is preserved only 
as a regestum in Thesauri claritas. TEA, no. 541, ed. Bianchi, pp. 227–228. Both donations are 
dated only by indiction (14
th
) and the year of Henry’s reign (5
th
). Accordingly, both the year 1044 
(rex Henricus thus being Henry III) and 1061 (rex Henricus thus being Henry IV) are possible. 
However, in public documents the same individual appears for the very fi rst time only in 1058, 

Zgodovinski časopis | 75 | 2021 | 1-2 | (163) 55
and more logical to date the two previously mentioned charters to 1060s as well. 
In this case, the fi rst charter, dated to 1020 by Margeti ć, remains problematic. 
Kandler solved this problem by presupposing a scribal error in the writing of the 
year of Henry’s reign: it should have been VIIII instead of XVII. In that way, the 
ninth year of Henry IV’s reign would coincide with the third indiction and the 
charter would be dated to 1065.
55
 Another possibility is that the year of Henry’s 
reign was indeed written correctly, but that a scribal error occurred in the writing 
of the indiction: it should have been XI instead of III. In that way the elements 
of dating concur with each other and the document would thus be dated to 1073. 
Both solutions are equally viable and more probable than the two alternatives – 
either dating the two charters to 1020 and 1017 respectively, or dating the fi rst 
to 1020 and the second to 1068.
In any case, a Wezelin was indeed the advocate of St. Michael’s monastery 
in Pula, he had a son by the name of John (Iohannes), and he was not a scribe 
as Kandler would have him, but simply a lay advocate.
56
 Moreover, there are no 
primary sources whatsoever that would link this Wezelin to either Ulrich I of 
Weimar-Orlamünde, or to comes Wecellinus from 1020s Pore č. Nevertheless, this 
advocate could be the nobilis miles Wezelin the pope wrote to in 1079, but only 
if both charters are dated to the 1060s/1070s – if he indeed had a son back in the 
1020s, he would have been an old man in 1068, let alone in 1079.
There is, however, one primary source, unknown to Margeti ć, that could 
speak in favor of advocate Wezelin from the 1060s being the miles of the pope’s 
1079 letter. Namely, a Wecelinus comes Aquilegensis Ecclesie is mentioned along 
with his son Henry in just one document, the confi rmation of possessions enjoyed 
by the Aquileian chapter issued by pope Alexander II in 1174.
57
 Since this source 
remained unedited until quite recently, it has not been analyzed in context of 
Gregory VII’s Wezelin. The document was known to Pio Paschini who interpreted 
the Wecelinus comes as none other than the Istrian count Wezelin from the 1020s.
58
 
This is, however, diffi cult to substantiate. Namely, the Wezelin from the 1020s was 
not the count of Aquileia, but the count and advocate of the Carinthian duke. As 
such he acted against the very Aquileian Church in the dispute between Adalbero 
as margrave of Carniola. D. H. IV , no. 43, ed. Gladiss–Gawlik, pp. 54–55. As margrave of Istria 
he will be mentioned in public charters for the fi rst time in 1062. Ibid., no. 93, ed. Gladiss–Gaw-
lik, pp. 121–122. Thus, there are more arguments in support of dating both Megingaud’s and 
Hartwig’s donations to 1061 and not to 1044.
55
 Although Kandler never explicated his arguments for dating the charter to 1065, this 
seems the only logical conclusion on how he ended up with this very date. CDI 1, no. 104, ed. 
Kandler, p. 219.
56
 Kandler made an error in transcription and edited the line as Iuvencio abas una cum 
Wecelino notario · Atvocato. Margeti ć correctly transcribed the same line as Iuuencius abas cum 
Wecelino nostro quidem atvocato.
57
 Henricus fi lius Wecelini comitis Aquilegensis Ecclesie.  Propstei S. Stefano, no. 8, ed. 
Thaller, pp. 132–139 (quotation on p. 136).
58
  Paschini, Vicende del Friuli, p. 188. This opinion was also taken over by Thaller. Propstei 
S. Stefano, p. 72.

J. BANI Ć: The Mystery of Merania: A New Solution to Old Problems ... 56  
of Eppenstein and patriarch Poppo.
59
 Thus, it would be bizarre to see in this count 
Wezelin a comes Aquilegensis Ecclesie. Moreover, there is no source mentioning 
a Henry as the son of the 1020s Wezelin. But where does this “Aquileian Wezelin” 
fi t in chronologically?
The chronology of Friulian counts is in this case helpful: Werihen was fol-
lowed by his eponymous son, mentioned only once in 1052, and from 1056 the 
count in Friuli was a Ludwig who was deceased by 1077 when the entire county 
is bestowed upon patriarch Sighard by Henry IV.
60
 The last comes Foroiuliensis 
was a certain Albert mentioned only once during the years of patriarch Ulrich of 
Eppenstein (charter dated between 1090 and 1105), but since Friuli was at the time 
already a secular possession of the Aquileian Church, Albert’s title should be read 
as miles or retainer.
61
 Accordingly, it is possible that this “Aquileian Wezelin” was 
likewise a nobilis miles of the Patriarchate. Therefore, he could be the same person 
as the eponymous “noble knight” from Gregory VII’s letter, but such an identifi ca-
tion would not further the knowledge of the socio-genealogical background of this 
mysterious historical fi gure much; it would only illuminate that he was indeed in 
service of the Patriarchate of Aquileia and that he had a son named Henry.
However, a Henry is mentioned as the count of Istria in the fi rst half of the 
12
th
 century.
62
 He appears only once in primary sources, in 1145, and in 1158 he 
was already succeeded by Meinhard of Črnigrad (Ital. Castelnero, Germ. Schwar-
zenburg), a consanguineus of patriarch Ulrich II of Treffen.
63
 Thus, it is possible 
that Alexander II’s confi rmation refers to this very Henry whose father Wezelin 
had been the count of Istria during the brief period in which the County had been 
under the authority of the Aquileian patriarchs. Consequently, this Wezelin could 
be the advocate Wezelin mentioned in 1068 in Pula, but only if the second charter 
is dated to 1065 or 1073. In any case, identifying the Wecelinus comes Aquilegensis 
Ecclesie and his son Henry with Wezelin the advocate of St. Michael’s monastery 
in Pula from the 1060s and Henry the Istrian count from the fi rst half of the 12
th
 
century is a better solution than the two alternatives: either that the individual in 
question refers to the advocate of the Carinthian duke Adalbero mentioned in the 
1020s, or that the Wecelinus comes Aquilegensis Ecclesie be equated with Werient, 
the count of Plain (fi rst mentioned in primary sources in 1091, died between 1130 
59
 D. C. II, no. 92, ed. Bresslau, pp. 125–127.
60
 The only documented mention of Werihen IV is edited in SS. Ilario e Benedetto, no. 9, 
ed. Lanfranchi–Strina, pp. 41–42. Ludwig’s fi rst mention as comes Foroiuliensis dates to 1056 
and the source is edited in  D. H. III, no. 374, ed. Bresslau–Kehr, pp. 514–515. That Ludwig was 
already dead in 1077 is read from the donation charter issued by Henry IV to patriarch Sighard, 
edited in D. H. IV, no. 293, ed. Gladiss–Gawlik, p. 385. For other mentions of count Ludwig 
see Štih, “Villa quae Sclavorum”, p. 108, n. 399.
61
 Diplomi patriarcali, no. 2, ed. Scalon, pp. 23–24. For interpretation see Paschini, Vicende 
del Friuli, pp. 341–342; Czörnig, Das Land Görz, p. 481, n. 1. According to Walter Landi, this 
Albertus comes should be equated with count Albert of Ortenburg, the father of the eponymous 
advocate of the bishops of Trent.  Landi, Die Grafen von Tirol, p. 123, n. 150.
62
 CDI 1, no. 136, ed. Kandler, pp. 268–269.
63
 Meinhardus comes de Istria. MDC 3, no. 973, ed. Jaksch, p. 371. On this Meinhard see 
 De Franceschi, Mainardo conte d’Istria, pp. 41–52;  Štih, Goriški grofje, pp. 86–87.

Zgodovinski časopis | 75 | 2021 | 1-2 | (163) 57
and 1141).
64
 Even though there are arguments in support of this second alternative 
thesis, the names Wezelin and Werient/Werihen are not mutually interchangeable.
65
Finally, one last option should be mentioned. A Werner was a knight of Henry 
IV’s personal household and as such he is described by both Ekkehard of Aura and 
papal chancellery.
66
 This Werner was promoted to margrave of Ancona by Henry IV 
and he would also receive the title of duke of Spoleto.
67
 Thus, it is safe to assume that 
the individual in question was an “important royal servant”,
68
 but could he also be 
the Wezelin of pope’s 1079 letter? Possibly. As was previously demonstrated on the 
examples of Werner the bishop of Magdeburg and Werner of Reichersberg, Wezelin was 
a common nickname used for this very fi rst name. Moreover, this ministerial Werner 
fi ts chronologically; he was elevated to margrave in 1093 and died sometime between 
1120 and 1125.
69
 These data point to c. 1060 as the possible year of birth which would 
in turn explain the hypocoristicon “Wezelin” employed by the pope to admonish a c. 
20-year-old bellicose knight. The only problem with this candidate is that he was not 
a ministerialis of the Patriarchate of Aquileia, but of Henry IV . In his case, the vow of 
fealty mentioned by the pope would refer to the events that transpired in Canossa in 
1077, which would in turn imply that Werner himself was among the few members 
of the royal household – the familiares mentioned by Berthold of Reichenau – that 
64
 Hauptmann, Grofovi Višnjegorski, p. 238 (with a list of all the documents in which this 
individual appears in).
65
 This Werient was the brother of Starchand II, the Aquileian deputy margrave in Car-
niola, more precisely in Savinja, the region that was at this point already a secular possession 
of the Patriarchate of Aquileia. Since Starchand II was in the service of Aquileian Church as 
the patriarch’s deputy in Carniola, it could be that his brother Werient, who was also active in 
Carniola, was later referred to as “count of the Aquileian Church”. Finally, this Werient indeed 
had a son whose name was Henry: Henry Pris of Pux. Hauptmann, Grofovi Višnjegorski, p. 238. 
For Starchand II, mentioned as Starchand marchio de So(u)ne in two documents from 1103, 
see MDC 3, nos. 516 and 517, ed. Jaksch, pp. 207–208; Hauptmann, Grofovi Višnjegorski, pp. 
220–223; idem, Nastanek, p. 64;  Štih, The Middle Ages, p. 265. That Starchand II was the brother 
of Werigand is read from Vita Chuonradi archiepiscopi Salisburgensis, a narrative account 
written in the second half of the 12th century: captus est marchione videlicet et Starchando et 
fratre eius Werigando.  Archdeacon Henry, Vita Chuonradi archiepiscopi Salisburgensis, c. 7, ed. 
Wattenbach, p. 67, l. 18. For Henry Pris of Pux see Hauptmann, Grofovi Višnjegorski, p. 238 (a 
list of all the charters mentioning this individual);  Ebner, Das Königsgut ‘Uueliza’, pp. 190–191; 
Dopsch, Die Stifterfamilie, pp. 114, 121 (family tree); Hauptmann, Nastanek, pp. 93–94.
66
 Inter haec Werinherus, quidam ex ordine ministerialium regis.  Ekkehard of Aura, 
Chronicon, a. 1106, ed. Waitz, p. 234, l. 4. Wernerius Regni Teutonici famulus.  PL 163, no. 168, 
ed. Migne, p. 179.
67
 First mentioned as margrave on 12
th
 of May 1093. D. H. IV , no. 461, ed. Gladiss–Gawlik, 
pp. 576–577. On this Werner see  Ficker, Forschungen 2, pp. 246–248;  Bosl, Die Reichsminis-
terialität 1, pp. 91–92;  Leonhard, Ancona, p. 295; Zotz, Die Formierung, p. 48; Rentschler, 
Marken und Markgrafen, pp. 794–795.
68
 Robinson, Henry IV, p. 357.
69
 Even though Ficker mentions a primary source of antipapal provenance mentioning 
margrave Werner in 1120, I was not able to fi nd it following the provided references. To my 
knowledge, the latest documentary primary source mentioning this Werner dates to 1119. Mu-
ratori, Antiquitates Italicae 1, pp. 551–553. Frederick’s fi rst appearance as his father’s successor 
– styled as ego Fridericus, Dei gratia dux et marchio – dates to 1125.  Annales Camaldulenses 
9, ed. Mittarelli–Castadoni, pp. 21–22.

J. BANI Ć: The Mystery of Merania: A New Solution to Old Problems ... 58  
accompanied the young king to his faithful meeting with the pontiff.
70
 Moreover, 
this margrave Werner was among the infl uential petitioners on whose intervention 
Henry IV re-donated the March of Carniola to the Church of Aquileia.
71
 As Werner 
appears right next to Istrian margrave and former advocate of Aquileian patriarchate 
Burckhardt II of Moosburg, it could be assumed that he had some connections to the 
northern-Adriatic region, especially to the Patriarchate of Aquileia.
To sum up this analysis: the noble knight Wezelin from Gregory VII’s let-
ter cannot be precisely identifi ed, but there are three strong candidates that fi t 
the profi le. All of them, however, have at least one problematic aspect: Kazelin 
of the Aribonids is the perfect option, but his name is much too different from 
Wezelin written by the pope’s chancellery (even though there are arguments that 
the same individual was indeed called Wezil or Wezelin by his contemporaries); 
Wezelin the advocate of St. Michael’s monastery in Pula is another good option, 
but that would mean dating both charters to 1060s (as advocated by Kandler) 
instead of the 1020s, and he could then be identifi ed with the “Wezelin count of 
Aquileian Church” mentioned along his son Henry (who would thus be equated 
with the eponymous count of Istria from the fi rst half of the 12th century); Henry 
IV’s own ministerial Werner, the future margrave of Ancona and duke of Spoleto, 
presents yet another potential candidate. Besides these “big three” there are the 
lesser known milites mentioned in various contemporaneous notitiae traditionum 
from the nearby pro-imperial bastions: Wezelin of Jauntal is one such option (if 
he is not the same person as Kazelin), but virtually nothing more is known about 
him. He could be the same nobilis vir Wezelin mentioned frequently in the nearby 
bishopric of Bressanone (Germ. Brixen), another pro-Henrician stronghold under 
the imperial bishop Altwin, and there is an eponymous ministerial, “a servant of 
St. Rupert”, mentioned in the bishopric of Salzburg in the 1070s.
72
70
 Duo autem episcopi, Neapolitanus et V ercellensis, preter alios familiares eius [Heinrici 
IV] qui deinceps iurarent, ad sacramentum pro eo faciendum electi sunt. Berthold of Reichenau, 
Chronicon, a. 1077, ed. Robinson, p. 260, l. 7–9. Henry IV’s pledge of fealty to pope Gregory 
VII in Reg. Greg. VII., no. IV , 12a, ed. Caspar, pp. 314–315.
71
 Ob interventum fi delium nostrorum videlicet… Burchardi marchionis, Werinheri mar-
chionis… D. H. IV , no. 432, ed. Gladiss–Gawlik, p. 578.
72
 During the years of bishop of Bressanone Altwin, another staunch supporter of Henry 
IV and an associate of Ulrich I’s, there is a Wezil(in) who is regularly mentioned between c. 
1070 and c. 1090 among the Bavarian witnesses to numerous deeds of land transactions. How-
ever, Altwin never pledged fealty to Gregory VII, so this Wezil, if indeed the one mentioned 
by Gregory VII, would also have to be linked to Aquileia in some way; perhaps he is the same 
person as Wezelin the advocate of St. Michael’s monastery in Pula? Die Traditionsbücher des 
Hochstiftes Brixen, nos. 289 (= MDC 3, no. 411, ed. Jaksch, p. 163), 292, 328, 350 (de nobili 
stirpe procreatus Wezil), 386, 389 (listed among the noble witnesses), 403 (listed among the 
noble witnesses), ed. Redlich, pp. 103–104, 104, 115, 121, 132, 133, 139. There is also a Wezil 
miles, perhaps the same individual as the aforementioned nobleman. Ibid., no. 242, ed. Redlich, 
p. 87. On Altwin and his pro-Henrician position see  Albertoni, Le terre del vescovo, pp. 219–225. 
The archbishop of Salzburg Gebhard, on the other hand, switched sides from pro-imperial to 
pro-papal camp in 1076, so his milites would fi t the profi le of Gregory VII’s Wezelin. There is 
one in particular, a Wezil servitor sancti Rudberti who is active during the 1070s. SUB 1, no. 66, 
ed. Hauthaler, pp. 285–285. On this Wezelin see  Freed, Noble Bondsmen, pp. 36–38.

Zgodovinski časopis | 75 | 2021 | 1-2 | (163) 59
Even though the exact identity of Gregory VII’s Wezelin cannot be precisely 
determined, this mysterious knight nonetheless presents a better candidate for “the 
original invader of Merania” than either Ulrich I of Weimar-Orlamünde or the lords 
of Duino. There are two principal reasons why Wezelin should be the preferred 
choice: foundation in primary sources and overall political context.
Starting with the fi rst argument, there is simply no contemporary primary 
source that would attest to either Ulrich I or the lords of Duino being in any way 
involved in the takeover of Merania, or in any military skirmishes with the Croatian 
kings for that matter. The only primary source that has traditionally been used is 
the IC, specifi cally c. 99. However, as was convincingly argued by Margeti ć, this 
passage mentions neither Ulrich I nor the permanent loss of any territory. If c. 99 
does not refer to Ulrich I and Merania, what does it describe and how did it end 
up in the IC to begin with?
Numerous studies on the IC, especially those conducted by Hungarian his-
torians, have demonstrated that the 11th-century data contained in the narrative 
source is generally trustworthy; the anonymous compiler relied on the 11th- or 
12th-century chronicle that has since been lost and was subsequently named by 
scholars Ur-Gesta.
73
 So how should c. 99 be interpreted? The editors of the most 
recent and by far the best edition of the IC found an ingenious solution to the 
problem posited by c. 99: the word Carantanos is simply a contamination for the 
original Contarini, as in Domenico Contarini the Venetian doge, or Karantenos, 
as in Nikephoras Karantenos the famed Byzantine general.
74
 Of the two proposed 
solutions, the Venetian one seems more persuasive. Namely, Domenico Contarini 
indeed attacked Dalmatia, Zadar to be more precise, in 1062.
75
 Moreover, V enetian 
chronicles do not fail to mention the involvement of Hungarian king Solomon in 
this very skirmish.
76
 As the Hungarian king was at the time still a child, he was most 
defi nitely joined by his duke Géza I. Such a reading of c. 99 of the IC indeed solves 
a number of questions, but it still leaves several aspects unsolved: Zvonimir was 
73
 Bak–Grzesik, The Text, p. 7.
74
 IC, c. 99, ed. Bak–Veszprémy, p. 190, n. 500.
75
 The editors of the IC cite Pryor–Jeffreys, The Age of the Dromon, p. 99. The authors 
of this monograph are indeed correct in claiming that “Doge Domenico Contarini was led to 
recapture Zara and reimpose Venetian authority along the Dalmatian coast in 1062”, but they 
cite a wrong source for this claim. Namely, John the Deacon does not write about this at all – his 
chronicle ends with the very beginning of the 11
th
 century. The correct source to cite is Annales 
V enetici breves composed in the second half of the 12
th
 century where it is written [a]nno Domini 
millesimo sexagesimo secundo Dominicus Contarenus, qui in illis temporibus erat dux V enecie, 
ivit Iaderam cum exercitum et cepit eam.  Annales Venetici breves, a. 1062, ed. Berto, p. 86. 
This Contarini’s expedition is very frequently wrongly dated to 1050 because Andrea Dandolo 
“corrected” the date in his own chronicle to “the seventh year of his [Contarini’s] dogeship” 
and, due to his immense infl uence on all the subsequent V enetian chroniclers and historians, this 
“corrected” date stuck. Andrea Dandolo, Chronica per extensum descripta, c. 37, ed. Pastorello, 
p. 211, l. 18–22. That 1062 is the correct dating has been masterfully demonstrated by Lujo 
Margeti ć. See Margeti ć, Odnosi Hrvata, pp. 6–15.
76
 Hoc tempore Salomon rex Ungarie terestria loca Dalmacie inquietans, laderatinos, 
qui promisam duci fi delitatem hucusque servaverant, ad rebelionem induxit. Andrea Dandolo, 
Chronica per extensum descripta, c. 37, ed. Pastorello, p. 211, l. 18–19.

J. BANI Ć: The Mystery of Merania: A New Solution to Old Problems ... 60  
not king in the 1060s and there is still the problem of the mysterious “Dalmatian 
march” to deal with.
Marchia Dalmacie was translated as “the border regions of Dalmatia” by the 
editors of the IC and no further note was given in explanation. However, there was 
a very lively debate in Croatian scholarship regarding this evanescent jurisdictional 
unit.
77
 Namely, there is another primary source, dated to c. 1100 (or precisely 1105 
by Margeti ć), but referring to the reign of king Zvonimir, that explicitly mentions 
this “border region”: the Baška tablet.
78
 This epigraphic monument, written in 
medieval Croatian and Glagolitic script, features the following line: “I, abbot 
Dobrovit, built this church with nine of my brothers in the days of count Cosmas 
who ruled over the entire march”.
79
 This “march” in the original language of the 
monument is written as krajina: in its literal meaning it means “a border area”.
80
 
The same term was documented in 10th-century Carniola when the imperial scribe 
77
 The Dalmatian march was famously defi ned by Miho Barada as a centuries-long defensive 
military region on the very western borders of Croatian kingdom existing in continuity at least 
from the time of Frankish Annals all the way to the beginning of the 12
th
 century and encompass-
ing the borderland territories to the east of the U čka mountain range – including Vinodol and 
Senj – as well as the islands Krk, Cres and Lošinj. Barada, Hrvatski vlasteoski feudalizam, pp. 
13–19. This thesis was successfully challenged by Bogo Grafanauer who demonstrated utter lack 
of support in primary sources in many of Barada’s arguments. Grafenauer, Vprašanje hrvatske 
krajine, pp. 254–260. Synthesizing both Barada’s and Grafenauer’s arguments, Nada Klai ć 
proposed a new thesis on Dalmatian march: it was a temporary jurisdictional unit established 
by none other than Ulrich I of Weimar-Orlamünde when he temporarily conquered “large parts 
of Dalmatia”. Obviously, N. Klai ć based her thesis primarily on the IC’s c. 99 and Hauptmann’s 
“Ulrich thesis”. This Dalmatian march, according to N. Klai ć, encompassed the same territories 
as those proposed by Barada. Klai ć, Da li je, pp. 125–138. See also  Kosanovi ć, Srednjovjekovna 
povijest Kvarnera, pp. 402–405. N. Klai ć’s thesis was criticized by Lujo Margeti ć who completely 
negated the existence of any such March and equated the “Dalmatian march” of the IC with 
Dalmatia in general. Margeti ć, Rijeka i podru čje, pp. 56–57. In present-day historiographical 
discourse, the Dalmatian march is largely ignored. For example, it is not mentioned anywhere 
in the new voluminous synthesis of Croatian Early Middle Ages, Nova zraka (various chapters 
cited throughout this paper). Neven Budak, on the other hand, took over the opinion of Nada 
Klai ć. Budak, Hrvatska povijest, pp. 52–53.
78
 The text of the Baška tablet has been edited multiple times. I will cite the following 
edition, Margeti ć, Bašćanska plo ča, pp. 48–49.
79
 Transliterated from Glagolitic to Latin script, the original line is: Az opat Dobrovit zdah 
crek’v siju i svoeju bratiju s devetiju v dni kneza Kosm’ ta obladaju ćago v’ su krainu. Ibid., p. 49.
80
  Ètimologi českij slovar ʹ, s.v. Krajina, ed. Truba čóv, pp. 87–88. Margeti ć fi ercely opposed 
such an interpretation and instead read this kraina as “untilled land”. This interpretation was, for 
obvious reasons, not met with broad approval. Margeti ć, Bašćanska plo ča, pp. 34–35. In more 
recent times, the kraina of Baška tablet has once again been equated with the Dalmatian march 
of the IC.  Levak, Podrijetlo i uloga, p. 59, n. 114; Ravan či ć, Urban Settlements, pp. 192–193. 
These two authors have persuasively argued in support of the existence of Krajina not only on 
the basis of the IC and the Baška tablet, but on historical geography as well. Much like Barada, 
they see this Krajina or March as a defensive border region on the very west of Croatian king-
dom, but they do not read into it the various characteristics ungrounded in primary sources as 
Barada did (e.g. the supposed direct subordination of Krajina to the Croatian regal throne). Their 
interpretation can be dubbed “the modifi ed Barada thesis” and I subscribe to this view fully. The 
thesis is best explicated in Levak, Podrijetlo i uloga, pp. 52–64.

Zgodovinski časopis | 75 | 2021 | 1-2 | (163) 61
noted that Carniola… vulgo Creina marcha appellatur.
81
 The Creina marcha is, as 
was correctly noted by Peter Štih, a pleonasm as Creina (the same word as krajina 
in Baška tablet) means the same thing as marcha: a border region.
82
 Hence, if there 
really was a march in the kingdom of king Zvonimir, and if this march encompassed 
the island of Krk, as is attested in the Baška tablet, could it not be that the IC refers 
to that very “border region” and not Zadar, the largest and most prosperous urban 
center of entire Dalmatia?
There are two other narrative accounts, albeit from much later periods, in sup-
port of “Carinthians”, not Contarini, as the attackers of Dalmatia, thus implying the 
Dalmatian march, not Zadar, as the assailed territory. The fi rst is the Idiographia sive 
rerum memorabilium monasterii Sitticensis descriptio penned by the 18
th
 century 
monk-scholar of Sti čna monastery, Pavel Puzel, who wrote under the year 1062 
the following line: “Carniolans united with Carinthians attacked Dalmatia with 
arms, and laden with rich bounty they returned to their homes”.
83
 The second is the 
notoriously untrustworthy narrative known as The Annals of the Priest of Duklja 
(Cro. Ljetopis popa Dukljanina) and recently edited as Gesta regum Sclavorum 
whose original date of composition cannot be ascertained – it was defi nitely written 
before the second half of the 15
th
 century.
84
 Moreover, the narrative is preserved in 
several different manuscript traditions in various languages (Latin, Italian, Croatian) 
and various accounts differ from one to another according to the redaction. Unreli-
able as the source is, it does testify to a military skirmish between “the Germans” 
(Alamani in Latin redaction, Nimci in Croatian) and a Croatian king Crepimir, most 
probably a contaminated form of Krešimir, as in Peter Krešimir IV , thus implying 
the 1060s or early 1070s as the date.
85
 However, both of these narratives are highly 
problematic primary sources for 11
th
-century Croatia.
First, it is important to note that Puzel relied heavily on Hungarian scholars of 
the Early Modern Era, among which he himself listed as his sources the chronicles 
of Antonio Bonfi ni, the author of Rerum Ungaricarum decades who worked on 
the court of king Mathias Corvinus, and Martin Szentiványi, the author of Sum-
81
 D. O. II, no. 47, ed. Sickel, pp. 56–57.
82
 Štih, The Middle Ages, pp. 125, 140. On this charter see also  idem, Diplomati čne in 
paleografske, pp. 301–311.
83
 Carniolani juncti Carinthis Dalmatiam armis infestis aggrediuntur, et spoliis opimis 
onusti ad propria revertuntur. The manuscript is kept in the Archive of the Republic of Slovenia 
(Arhiv republike Slovenije), in the collection “Zbirka rukopisov” [manuscript collection]. The 
passage is quoted from Kosi, ...quae terram nostram, p. 48, n. 36.
84
 The best edition is  GRS 1, ed. Živkovi ć. V olume 2 of the same edition features exten-
sive editor’s commentaries. On the dating of the narrative, besides Živkovi ć’s study in ibid 2, 
pp. 340ss (who dates the composition of the fi nal text to 1299–1301), see also  An či ć, Ljetopis 
kraljeva Hrvatske, pp. 521–546 (who dates the composition of the text to a much later period, 
the fi rst half of the 15
th
 century).
85
 Eo tempore venerunt Alamani et ceperunt Istriam coeperuntque intrare Croatiam. Tunc 
rex Crepimirus congregans fortitudinem validam gentis suae praeparavit eis bellum. Croatian 
redaction: I u to vurime chragliuuichij Cepimir jzidosse gliudij jmenom Nimçij izpod zvisde i pri-
misse Istriju i pocesse ulizovatj u Harvacchu zemgliu. I toij cufsij Cepimir chragl schupij mnostvo 
velicho i izabra izmeu gnih hrabrih gliudij i ucinj voische. GRS 1, c. 20, ed. Živkovi ć, pp. 77–78.

J. BANI Ć: The Mystery of Merania: A New Solution to Old Problems ... 62  
marium chronologiae Regni Hungariae.
86
 Both of these historians relied heavily 
on the IC (the latter possibly even on the chronicle of Iohannes de Thurocz, who in 
turn relied on the IC), so it is very probable that Puzel’s notice on “Carniolan” and 
“Carinthian” attack on Dalmatia stems precisely from c. 99 of the IC.
87
 Even if one 
dearly wants to interpret Puzel’s lines as stemming from an unknown, nowadays 
lost, but credible chronicle that reported authentic 11th-century facts, the most 
one could read from Idiographia is a simple one-time plundering campaign, not a 
large-scale military occupation.
The Gesta regum Sclavorum is even more problematic; not only is the date 
of its composition unknown, but the vast majority of the chronicle’s account – es-
pecially the early medieval part – is demonstrably made up and false.
88
 The same 
goes for the part relevant to this paper: king “Crepimir” beat the “Germans” with 
his own forces and the German duke, amazed by the king’s valor, decided to marry 
his daughter to the son of the Croatian monarch.
89
 None of this can be supplemented 
by any other historical document, and it openly contradicts the IC, a much more 
reliable primary source. There may be some historical facts behind this story, but 
it is impossible to ascertain them and, subsequently, impossible to base any argu-
ments solely on this late medieval narrative.
The most that can be taken from all of the presented primary sources – and 
they are all narrative accounts written centuries after the events they portray – is that 
there may have been a skirmish between the “Carinthians” – that is the population 
of the neighboring Duchy of Carinthia belonging to Regnum Teutonicum of the Holy 
Roman Empire – and the subjects of Croatian king in the fi rst half of the 1060s. 
This coincides perfectly with Wilhelm IV of Weimar-Orlamünde’s failed journey 
86
 For the full list of authors mentioned by Puzel as his sources see  Milkowicz, Die Chronik 
Puzels, p. 56. On Antonio Bonfi ni see  Rill, Bonfi ni, Antonio, http://www.treccani.it/enciclopedia/
antonio-bonfi ni_(Dizionario-Biografi co)/ [last access: 04. 08. 2019]. On Martin Szentiványi see 
e.g.  Vantuch, Martin Szentiványi, pp. 533–552.
87
 Cf. Bonfi ni’s account: Dum Salomon ac Geysa mutua se concordia fovent, ecce nova 
expeditio his offertur . Zolomirus Dalmatie rex, qui Geyse et Ladislai sororem connubio sibi copu-
larat, per legatos ab utroque auxilia sibi dari postulat, cum a Carinthiis, qui magnam Dalmatie 
partem dudum occuparant, gravissimo se bello infestari diceret. Subveniendum socio censuere 
fratres; inito consilio expeditionem suscipiunt; comparatis copiis veniunt in Dalmatiam, quam 
eiectis perbrevi Carinthiis ac Noricis Zolomiro pacatam reddidere.  Antonio Bonfi ni, Rerum 
Ungaricarum decades, decas 2, lib. 3, ed. Fógel–Iványi–Juhász, 2, p. 56, l. 96–98. Cf. Szen-
tiványi’s account: “[sub anno] 1065: Zolomerus rex Dalmatiae, qui sororem Geysae ac Ladisali 
ducum in uxorem habebat, ad Salamonem regem, et praedictos duces, legatos mittit, ab utrisque 
auxilia militaria petens contra Carinthos, qui tunc Marchiam Dalmatiae occupaverant. Rex 
igitur, et dux Geysa collecto exercitu, ipsi in persona in Dalmatiam expeditionem suscipiunt, et 
ablatam Marchiam inegre eidem restituunt.  Martin Szentiványi, Summarium chronologiae Regni 
Hungarie, a. 1065, ed. Grassalkovich, pp. 89–90. Cf. also Thurocz’s account, a near verbatim 
copy of the IC.  Iohannes de Thurocz, Chronica Hungarorum, c. 74, ed. Galántai–Kristó, p. 97, 
l. 8–12. That Puzel relied heavily on Hungarian authors for his “universal chronicle” part was 
also noted by Milkowitz. Milkowicz, Die Chronik Puzels, pp. 58–59. 
88
 GRS 2, pp. 186–192 for the part relative to this study. See also Budak, Hrvatska povijest, 
pp. 20–21.
89
 GRS 1, c. 20, ed. Živkovi ć, pp. 77–78.

Zgodovinski časopis | 75 | 2021 | 1-2 | (163) 63
to Hungary that took place precisely in 1062. The famed chronicler Lambert of 
Hersfeld, an author contemporary to these events, described the excursion with the 
following words: “Margrave William returned to Thuringia [from Hungary, after 
a failed military expedition and the lost Battle at Tisza (1060)] and, while he was 
preparing to return to Hungary and to bring back his bride [Sophie, the daughter 
of Bela I] with the great pomp of her riches, he was struck down by disease on 
the second stage of his journey and died”.
90
 Thus, it is possible that his entourage, 
left leaderless right next to the bordering Kingdom of Croatia-Dalmatia, decided 
to embark on a pillaging expedition to Dalmatia. This would perfectly explain the 
words of Pavel Puzel (who dated the plundering precisely to 1062), the putative 
historical background to the Priest of Duklja’s made up story, and the enemy “Carin-
thians” of the IC. As the Venetian forces under doge Contarini attacked Dalmatia 
also in 1062, the Croatian monarch would have experienced two hard blows from 
two different enemy forces at the same time. Thus, the Croatian expedition of the 
Hungarian royal duo that took place sometime between 1064 and 1067 – most 
probably to impose the authority of their relative, Demetrious Zvonimir – was later 
narratively reconstructed by the authors working on the Hungarian royal court as 
eager aid to the legitimate Croatian king, the relative of regal house, in his fi ght 
against adversarios suos and the revindication of occupied territories.
Another potential solution to the problem is that c. 99 of the IC is a patchwork 
of two different, albeit similar notices. The fi rst piece of information would refer 
to either “Carinthians” or Contarini attacking Dalmatia, thus referring to the year 
1062, and king Solomon with duke Géza I helping their kinsman Zvonimir with 
“his enemies”. This would also explain why Solomon appears as “the inducer of 
rebellions” in Venetian chronicles. The second notice would refer to the age of 
king Zvonimir, the late 1070s and early 1080s: Carinthians invaded the March of 
Dalmatia and occupied parts of it, thus king Zvonimir, the brother-in-law of Géza 
I and Ladislas, sought help from his Hungarian relatives. Both notices would have 
several similarities on the surface: both would feature an enemy force attacking 
Dalmatia and occupying parts of it, as well as the involvement of Hungarian royal 
family in some way. These two distinct notices could have been erroneously misread 
and equated, or simply voluntarily assimilated in order to create a more “fi tting”, 
abridged narrative. Namely, before Zvonimir was crowned king in 1076, Solomon 
and Géza I had a massive falling out: the royal duo even engaged in open military 
confrontations against each other, Solomon being helped by his brother-in-law, 
Henry IV, and, most probably, by Markward IV of Eppenstein, the de facto (but 
90
 [Sub anno 1062:] Willihelmus marchio reversus in Thuringiam, dum redire in Ungariam 
et sponsam suam cum magna opum suarum ostentatione adducere pararet, inter eundum secunda 
mansione morbo correptus obit. Lampert of Hersfeld, Annales, a. 1062, ed. Holder-Egger, p. 79, 
l. 8–11 (trans. in Robinson, The Annals, p. 80). The same event is reported by Annalista Saxo, 
Chronicon, a. 1062, ed. Nass, p. 405, l. 5–7. On the failed 1060 expedition led by margrave Wil-
helm IV see Lampert of Hersfeld, Annales, a. 1060, ed. Holder-Egger, p. 78, l. 5–27; Annalista 
Saxo, Chronicon, a. 1060, ed. Nass, pp. 403–404; IC, c. 93, ed. Bak–Veszprémy, pp. 178–181; 
 Annales Altahenses maiores, a. 1060, ed. Giesebrecht–Oefele, pp. 56–57;  Meyer von Knonau, 
Jahrbücher 1, pp. 193–198.

J. BANI Ć: The Mystery of Merania: A New Solution to Old Problems ... 64  
not de iure) Carinthian duke.
91
 The military skirmishes continued even after Géza 
I’s death in 1077 with king Ladislas fi ghting against the joint forces of Solomon 
and Henry IV, the Roman king who even invaded Hungary in 1079.
92
 It is thus 
safe to assume that even if Zvonimir had asked Géza I for military aid against 
“Carinthians” in 1076/77, or even Ladislas in 1078/79, Hungarian kings would 
most likely not intervene as they had to deal with Solomon and Henry IV’s troops. 
The compiler of the IC would have probably wanted to avoid stating explicitly, 
or even implicitly, how the great Hungarian kings – especially the sainted king 
Ladislas, the hero of the IC
93
 – were too busy fi ghting each other in order to help 
their relative in need, the crowned king of Dalmatia nonetheless, the region being 
a shiny pearl of Hungarian kingdom. For these reasons the two distinct notices 
were abridged and condensed into a single chapter, a politically appropriate narra-
tive that depicts the Hungarian royal family in a more pleasing light, as saviors of 
Dalmatia and supporters of the legitimate Croatian king – this reworked account 
became the c. 99 of the IC.
This creative reading of the problematic c. 99 solves all the problems tradi-
tionally posited by this passage: the chronological element – the 1060s – refers to 
Contarini, his invasion and takeover of Zadar; king Solomon’s and Géza I’s involve-
ment also stems from this period as their journey to Croatia came as a response 
to Contarini’s expedition and had the aim of establishing Zvonimir’s authority in 
the kingdom; king Zvonimir and the Dalmatian march, on the other hand, refer 
to the second half of the 1070s and the wars waged on the very western borders 
of Croatian-Dalmatian kingdom – the Dalmatian march or Krajina – against the 
pro-imperial forces led by the noble knight Wezelin.
Even if one is to utterly reject the proposed readings of the IC’s c. 99, there 
is still no place for Hauptmann’s interpretation of the passage in question: there 
was simply no reason for Ulrich I to invade the Croatian kingdom and occupy its 
borders. Even if the purported attack of the “Carinthians” in 1062 is interpreted 
not as a one-time raiding party as described by Puzel, but as an episode in a series 
of continuous skirmishes along the borders of the Holy Roman Empire and the 
Kingdom of Croatia-Dalmatia, the territory between the U čka mountain range and 
91
 This in-fi ghting is meticulously described in the IC, beginning with c. 110 and extend-
ing all the way through to c. 136. The initial confl icts started in the early 1070s and culminated 
with open confl ict in 1074 with the Battle of Kemej and the Battle Mogyoród when Solomon 
fl ed to Moson awaiting Henry IV’s help. The Marchrat dux Theutonicorum mentioned as aiding 
Solomon in c. 114 must refer to Markward IV of Eppenstein (IC, c. 114,   ed. Bak–V eszprémy, p. 
212). Solomon held Pressburg and he fi nally made peace with Ladislas in 1081. However, after 
allegedly being caught in scheming against king Ladislas, Solomon was imprisoned and held 
captive in Visegrád until 1083 when he was released.  By the majority of accounts, Solomon died 
in Pula, in Istria. IC, c. 110–136, ed. Bak–V eszprémy, pp. 206–253. See also  Pál, The Realm, pp. 
31–33; Zupka, Ritual and Symbolic, pp. 80–86. For Solomon’s death see n. 257 in this paper.
92
 “[Sub anno 1079:] Rex Ungariae fi nes invasit. Annales Augustani, a. 1079, ed.  Pertz, 
p. 129, l. 48. Henry IV invaded Hungary in 1079, but he soon abandoned his brother-in-law 
Solomon who was thereafter forced to surrender and make peace with his brother Ladislas. 
 Meyer von Knonau, Jahrbücher 3, p. 207.
93
 Bak–Grzesik, The Text, pp. 10–11.

Zgodovinski časopis | 75 | 2021 | 1-2 | (163) 65
the river Rje čina – Merania – could not have been annexed to the Empire at this 
point in time – Henry IV’s donation charter to margrave Ulrich I from 31
st
 of July, 
1064, strongly testifi es to the U čka mountain range as the borderline between the 
two polities.
94
 Had Merania been conquered already at this point – and according 
to Hauptmann’s narrative this conquest could only have taken place before the is-
suing of this donation charter – why would Henry IV bestow upon his margrave a 
chain of forts defending the old, pre-conquest borders to the west of U čka? Since 
complementing the position of their margraves by conferring upon them additional 
rights and territories in their respective marches had the aim of creating power 
bases strong enough to deal with any external threats, it would be highly counter-
intuitive to foster such a center (Machtbasis) of Istrian margraves precisely on the 
U čka mountain range had the border indeed moved to Rje čina.
95
Moreover, if one wants to believe that Zvonimir had already been a ban in 
the 1060s, why would the Carniolan-Istrian margrave attack his relative, the hus-
band of his wife’s sister? Likewise, why would king Solomon – a monarch who 
was not only family related to the Holy Roman emperor, but who owed his very 
crown to Henry IV – attack imperial territory, margrave Ulrich I nonetheless, a 
distinguished nobleman who prominently enjoyed the favor of the imperial court 
and crown? Neither Šiši ć nor Hauptmann cared to explicate the potential casus beli 
for Ulrich’s attack; it was only recently that Ivan Majnari ć turned to Archdeacon 
Thomas for explanation.
96
 Namely, the 13
th
-century chronicler of Split mentions a 
certain “foreign cleric” called Wolf who gave his support to the recently banned 
Slavic liturgy and helped ordain the anti-bishop of Krk, a Cededa.
97
 For Majnari ć, 
this Wolf, the backer of antipope Honorius II, was also the means through which the 
patriarchs of Aquileia sought to extend their infl uence in the Croatian kingdom.
98
 
Thus, when Ulrich I invaded and occupied Dalmatia, he was actually working in 
tandem with both Henry IV , antipope Honorius II and the Aquileian patriarch Gote-
bold († 27
th
 of December, 1063).
99
 This interpretation is untenable. First, there is no 
94
 D. H. IV , no. 135, ed. Gladiss–Gawlik, pp. 176–177. See map 1 in the appendix of this 
paper.
95
 Rentschler, Marken und Markgrafen, p. 907. A good comparative example are the 
Ekkehardines of Meissen who also enjoyed ample jurisdictional autonomy and proprietary rights 
in the marches entrusted to their administration.  Fokt, Governance, pp. 176–178; Rupp, Die 
Ekkehardiner, esp. pp. 141–156. See also  Reuter, Germany, p. 198 who describes such impe-
rial donations as “favours, signs of esteem and approval, the oil which lubricated the political 
machine.” On donations iure proprietario, such as was the one issued to Ulrich I in 1064, see 
also  Leyser, Communication and Power 2, pp. 35–49.
96
 Majnari ć, Karolinško, Otonsko, p. 527. The author seems to have accepted the interpreta-
tion of c. 16 of Thomas’s chronicle as argued by Nada Klai ć.  Klai ć, Pobjeda reformnog Rima, 
pp. 169–174.
97
 Archdeacon Thomas of Split, Historia Salonitanorum, c. 16, ed. Peri ć et al., pp. 72–91. 
On this episode see also Matijevi ć-Sokol, Toma Arhi đakon, pp. 145–148.
98
 Majnari ć, Karolinško, Otonsko, p. 527.
99
 [Sub anno 1063:] Gotebaldus patriarcha obiit, Rabengerus successit. Annales Augustani, 
a. 1063, ed. Pertz, p. 127, l. 45. The date of his death, 27
th
 of December, is attested in a calendar 
from a manuscript kept in Bodleian library, Can. Lit. 319 (19408).  Foligno, Di alcuni codici, 
p. 296, n. 1.

J. BANI Ć: The Mystery of Merania: A New Solution to Old Problems ... 66  
primary source that would connect Wolf or Cededa to the Aquileian See, or even 
one that would depict the patriarch Gotebold as a supporter of antipope Honorius 
II. Moreover, Anno, the archbishop of Cologne and (following the so-called “Coup 
of Kaiserswerth” in the spring of 1062) regent to Henry IV, supported Alexander 
II and not antipope Honorius II.
100
 Since this very Anno openly promoted both the 
nomination of Gotebold on the chair of St. Hermagoras, as well as the growth of 
Ulrich I’s power in his march, it seems highly improbable that the same patriarch 
Gotebold and Carniolan-Istrian margrave would be such dedicated supporters of 
antipope Honorius II.
101
 Majnari ć is absolutely right to point out that the sphere of 
infl uence of Ulrich I bordered that of Croatian-Dalmatian king Peter Krešimir IV , 
but that in itself does not presuppose open military confl ict.
These observations lead to the second reason why “the Wezelin thesis” makes 
for a better solution on the annexation of Merania: historical context. Peter Krešimir 
IV was not on unfriendly terms with the Holy Roman Empire. Even if one wants 
to view this Croatian monarch as the staunchest supporter of the reform papacy, 
neither Henry IV nor the patriarchs of Aquileia were at this time in open confl ict 
with the Holy See.
102
 The momentous battle between the pope and the emperor 
100
 On the “Coup of Kaiserswerth”: Lampert of Hersfeld, Annales, a. 1062, ed.  Holder-
Egger, pp. 79–81; Annales Altahenses maiores, a. 1062, ed. Giesebrecht–Oefele, p. 59; Robinson, 
Henry IV, pp. 43–44. On Anno’s support to Alexander II and reform movement:  Die Briefe des 
Petrus Damiani 3, no. 99, ed. Reindel, pp. 97–100, where Peter Damian addresses Anno with the 
words: “Y our excellence, moreover, has reached out his hand to the priesthood in that you labored 
to sever the scaly neck of the “beast of Parma” [antipope Honorius II, Cadalus of Parma] with 
the sword of evangelical rigor and to reinstate the bishop of the Apostolic See on the throne of 
his dignity” (translation taken from  The Letters of Peter Damian, trans. Blum, p. 104). See also 
Robinson, Henry IV, pp. 48–49. These facts were also known to Margeti ć, but N. Klai ć chose 
to ignore his paper completely.  Margeti ć, Uzmak Bizanta, pp. 79–96. Cf. Margeti ć’s thoughts 
on this N. Klai ć’s thesis,  Margeti ć, Neka pitanja, pp. 29–30.
101
 Anno’s promotion of Gotebold to the Aquileian See: Adam of Bremen, Gesta Hamma-
burgensis ecclesiae pontifi cum, lib. 3 c. 35, ed. Schmeidler, p. 177, l. 12–22. According to Pier 
Silverio Leicht, this notice refers to Gotebold.  Leicht, Le elezioni, p. 9. However, this in Italia 
[archiepiscopus] Aquilegiensis could indeed refer to patriarch Raveger, Gotebold’s successor, 
and this is the opinion of Pio Paschini.  Paschini, Storia del Friuli, p. 232. Anno’s promotion of 
Ulrich I’s power: D. H. IV, no. 135, ed. Gladiss–Gawlik, pp. 176–177, with the following for-
mula interventionis: ob interventum fi delium nostrorum, dilecti scilicet magistri nostri Annonis 
Coloniensis archiepiscopi.
102
 Contemporary Croatian scholarship tends to view Peter Krešimir IV as a resolute supporter 
of reform papacy. Birin, Pregled politi čke povijesti, p. 61;  Vedriš, Crkva, pp. 220–221; Majnari ć, 
Papinstvo, pp. 542–543; Budak, Hrvatska povijest, pp. 231–232. Giuseppe Praga, on the other 
hand, views the same monarch as the staunchest anti-reformer.  Praga, History of Dalmatia, pp. 
76–77 (featuring very broad freedom of interpretation, one could even say downright inventing of 
historical events). The judgment hinges on the interpretation of Amico’s invasion in 1075: if Amico 
II had indeed been sent by the pope, then Peter Krešimir IV could not have been such a champion 
of reform movement. See n. 131 in this paper. The same conclusion must be reached if the letter of 
pope Gregory VII to Danish king indeed refers to Dalmatia. Reg. Greg. VII., no. II, 51, ed. Caspar, 
pp. 192–194. In any case, there are primary sources attesting to Peter Krešimir’s cooperation with 
Alexander II, so the most that can be said, if one decides to lean towards Praga’s interpretation, is 
that his support to the reform movement was limited. For Krešimir IV’s cooperation with Alexander 
II, CD 1, no. 67, ed. Kostren či ć et al., pp. 94–96;  Foreti ć, Kor čulanski kodeks, pp. 30–31.

Zgodovinski časopis | 75 | 2021 | 1-2 | (163) 67
fully ensued only with the election of Gregory VII, open military confl icts begin-
ning following the election of anti-king Rudolph of Rheinfelden in March 1077.
103
 
At this point, that is between 1077 and 1079, there was a perfect cassus beli for 
imperial forces to attack Zvonimir’s Croatia, the pillar of pro-Gregorian faction 
in the Eastern Adriatic, a region bordering the Holy Roman Empire. Moreover, 
Zvonimir’s brother-in-law, Ladislas audaciously proclaimed his support to the 
anti-Henrician camp by providing refuge to Henry IV’s sworn opponent, count 
Eckbert I of Formbach, by marrying Adelaide, the daughter of the very anti-king 
Rudolph, and by promising troops to Rudolph’s army when the anti-king was 
stationed in Goslar, right before the Battle of Mellrichstadt.
104
 Thus, it is very pos-
sible that Wezelin’s invasion of Zvonimir’s kingdom was a reaction to Henry IV’s 
invasion of Hungary that took place precisely in 1079.
105
 In any case, it is safe to 
conclude that both Zvonimir and Ladislas belonged to the anti-Henrician camp and 
that both presented a serious threat on the very southeastern borders of the Holy 
Roman Empire. This is the historical context that engendered “the noble knight 
Wezelin” to invade the Dalmatian march. A similar context for Ulrich I’s putative 
attacks is utterly lacking.
At this point it must be mentioned that the majority of primary sources, 
especially the narrative accounts penned by Hungarian chroniclers, attest to king 
Solomon ending his life in Pula “in complete poverty”.
106
 Furthermore, a lid of a 
103
 On the election of anti-king Rudolph in Forchheim in March 1077, see Berthold of 
Reichenau, Chronicon, a. 1077, ed. Robinson, pp. 267–268; Bruno of Merseburg, Saxonicum 
bellum, c. 91, ed. Lohmann, pp. 85–86; Robinson, Henry IV, pp. 167–168. Even though pope 
Gregory VII did not openly support Rudolph immediately following the anti-king’s election and 
coronation, papal legates in Germany, namely cardinal deacon Bernard, were ardent backers of 
Rudolph from the 1077 onwards. Berthold of Reichenau, Chronicon, a. 1077, ed. Robinson, 
pp. 302–303; Robinson, Henry IV, p. 172. First military skirmishes between pro-Henrician 
and pro-Rudolphian forces commenced in late spring, summer 1077, culminating in the Battle 
of Mellrichstadt on 7
th
 of August, 1078. Berthold of Reichenau, Chronicon, a. 1077–1078, ed. 
Robinson, pp. 277–278, 288–303, 313–315, 324–338; Bruno of Merseburg, Saxonicum bellum, 
c. 94–102, ed.  Lohmann, pp. 87–92; Robinson, Henry IV, pp. 172–182.
104
 Berthold of Reichenau, Chronicon, a. 1077 and 1078, ed. Robinson, pp. 301–302, 331, 
l. 18–22. On Ladislas’s marriage to Adelheid, Bernold of St. Blasien, Chronicon, a. 1090, ed. 
Robinson, p. 481, l. 1–3, n. 409; Meyer von Knonau, Jahrbücher 3, pp. 133–134, n. 53;  Hla-
witschka, Zur Herkunft, p. 180, n. 20.
105
 See n. 92.
106
 [S]ucessit [rex Solomon] inde versus mare Adriaticum, ubi in civitate vocata Pola usque 
mortem in summa paupertate in penuria fi niens vitam suam, in qua et iacet tumulatus.  Simon of 
Kéza, Gesta Hungarorum, c. 61, ed. Veszprémy–Schaer, pp. 136 (Latin original), 137 (English 
translation). Cf. the wording of the IC: Migravit autem [Solomon] ex hoc seculo ad Dominum 
et sepultus est Pole, in civitate Istri<e>. IC, c. 136, ed. Bak–Veszprémy, pp. 252–253, n. 656. 
On the other hand, Bernold of St. Blasien wrote that Solomon died fi ghting with the Pechenegs 
against the Byzantine emperor Alexius I Comnenus. Bernold of St. Blasien, Chronicon, a. 1087, 
ed. Robinson, p. 465, l. 23–24, p. 466, l. 1–2. That Solomon indeed went to fi ght against the Byz-
antine emperor in the 1080s is also attested by Anna Comnena who wrote that “At the approach 
of spring Tzelgu (the supreme commander of the Scythian army) crossed the passes above the 
Danube with a mixed army of about eighty thousand, composed of Sauromatians, Scythians, and 
a number from the Dacian army (over whom the man called Solomon was leader), and plundered 

J. BANI Ć: The Mystery of Merania: A New Solution to Old Problems ... 68  
tombstone was found in Pula, precisely in St. Michael’s monastery, inscribed with 
the epitaph: Hic requiescit illustrisimus Salamon rex Panoniae (see image 1).
107
 
The fact that Solomon, the enemy of papal supporters Ladislas and Zvonimir and 
the ally of Henry IV, is explicitly mentioned in the same place and in the some 
ecclesiastical institution where a Wezelin governed in temporalibus strongly sup-
ports the thesis, originally proposed by Margeti ć, that the “noble knight Wezelin” 
of the pope’s 1079 letter indeed refers to the eponymous advocate of St. Michael’s 
monastery in Pula. That Wezelin, however, cannot be “a papal vassal” as Margeti ć 
unsuccessfully argued, but he could be the “count of Aquileian Church” and the 
father of Henry, the future count in Istria.
108
Finally, the “Wezelin thesis” offers a much-needed explanation for Coloman’s 
assault on Istria of the beginning of the 12
th
 century. This (counter)attack is noted by 
Ekkehard of Aura under the year 1108 with the following words: “Coloman invaded 
our borderlands, that is the maritime territories”.
109
 These fi nes Regni nostri can 
only refer to Istria and, possibly, the occupied territory of Merania that Coloman 
aimed to reclaim. This passage was known to Margeti ć, but he did not interpret 
it in the context of Merania; on the contrary, he saw the putative attack led by the 
lords of Duino in 1116 as a military response to this Coloman’s assault.
110
 Even 
though this counterattack must primarily be interpreted as a consequence of Henry 
V’s military campaigns in Hungary, the choice to invade precisely Istria was by no 
means accidental.
111
 According to the “Wezelin thesis”, Coloman did not launch an 
attack precisely on Istria on a whim or randomly; instead, the triumphant Hungar-
ian monarch aimed to restore to his Dalmatian-Croatian kingdom those territories 
that were lost in previous decades, namely Merania.
Concluding Remarks
Solving the “Meranian mystery” is a task that will always require a certain 
amount of interpretative freedom from the historian bold enough to attempt to 
tackle it; there are simply not enough contemporary historical accounts that would 
the towns round about Chariopolis.”  Anna Comnena, The Alexiad, lib. 7, c. 1, ed. Leib, 2, p. 87 
(English translation taken from Dawes, The Alexiad, p. 168). However, Anna Comnena never 
writes that Solomon was among the ones who died either in battle or afterwards, when trying 
to escape from the Byzantine forces. Thus, it is very possible that Solomon survived the battle 
and escaped to Pula. See also  Rokay, Salamon és Póla, pp. 55–99.
107
 The lid of the tomb was discovered in 1851 on St. Michael’s hill, the very place where St. 
Michael’s monastery once stood.  Kandler, Sepolcro, p. 101. The lid is kept in Pula, in Arheološki 
muzej Istre [Archeological Museum of Istria] under inventory number AMI-S-55. According to 
Rokay, who analyzed the monument in most detail, the lid is indeed authentic. Rokay, Salamon 
és Póla, pp. 119–157.
108
 See n. 57 and n. 62 in this paper.
109
 [Sub anno 1108:] Colomanus fi nes regni nostri, scilicet in locis maritimis, invaserit. 
Ekkehard of Aura, Chronicon, a. 1108, ed. Waitz, p. 242, l. 39.
110
 Margeti ć, Rijeka i podru čje, p. 61.
111
 Otto of Freising, Chronica sive Historia de duabus civitatibus, lib. 7, c. 13, ed. Hof-
meister, p. 325, l. 4–11; Zupka, Ritual and Symbolic, pp. 96–97;  Dendorfer, Heinrich V ., p. 132.

Zgodovinski časopis | 75 | 2021 | 1-2 | (163) 69
allow for a straightforward solution fully grounded in primary sources. The thesis 
outlined in this paper is no exception – it proposes a very creative reading of a 
chapter from a 14th-century chronicle and the main protagonist of the pivotal 
process is a mysterious noble knight. Yet, despite all its interpretative jumps, the 
newly proposed “Wezelin thesis” represents a marked improvement over the three 
existing solutions. Benussi had absolutely no primary sources to back his claims 
and his reading of De administrando imperio – the basis of his argument – was 
highly partial, strongly impacted by nationalistic bias and it has since been con-
sensually rejected by scholarship. Hauptmann based his thesis on dubious laws of 
inheritance, highly uncertain genealogies and a very creative reading of c. 99 of the 
IC as well: he read it so that nothing of it remained unaltered. Finally, Margeti ć, 
while successful in demonstrating the untenability of the previous theses, ultima-
tely proposed a solution completely ungrounded in primary sources. The “Wezelin 
thesis” is based on fi rmer ground and supported by stronger evidence: there are 
contemporary primary sources attesting to the attack on Croatian-Dalmatian king-
dom (the pope’s letter to Wezelin), there is a perfect cassus beli for the invasion 
(missing in Haupmann’s thesis), the invasion fi ts the historical context, and the 
takeover is echoed in subsequent events (Coloman’s counterattack).
These observations and conclusions, in turn, lead to a somewhat different 
interpretation of both the modality of Meranian annexation and the interpretation 
of “Dalmatian march” than traditionally argued. Both Hauptmann and Margeti ć 
saw the loss of Merania as a result of a relatively short, compact process: the mi-
litary campaigns of Ulrich I being a refl ex of Henry IV’s Hungarian expedition of 
1063; the attacks of lords of Duino happening only in 1116/17. According to the 
“Wezelin thesis”, the takeover of Merania was a longer process and it took place 
over several years, if not decades. Zvonimir could, and by all accounts did fi ght 
back against the invaders in the latter half of 1070s – the formation of Dalmatian 
march or Krajina testifying to the organization of his defensive system. Therefore, 
the Dalmatian march cannot be the creation of Ulrich I as was originally claimed 
by Nada Klai ć, but of king Zvonimir.
112
 However, following the death of Zvoni-
mir’s successor, Stephen III in 1090/91, Croatian kingdom was plunged into crisis 
with in-fi ghting over royal succession; thus, it was certainly not in a position to 
organize effective defense, let alone to launch counterattacks on the Istrian march 
and the Patriarchate of Aquileia.
113
 The fi rst Croatian monarch powerful enough to 
112
 If Puzel’s and Priest of Duklja’s accounts are taken as authentic and trustworthy, case 
could be made that Krajina was originally Peter Krešimir IV’s organization. However, this March 
or Krajina is mentioned only in two primary sources and both link it to king Zvonimir, thus it is 
far more likely that it was this particular monarch who organized the defensive border region.
113
 Archdeacon Thomas describes this period of crisis with the following words: “And so 
there came to be great confl ict among all the nobles of the kingdom. And as fi rst this one, then 
that one, with ambitions to be king separately claimed lordship of the land, there arose count-
less acts of pillage, robbery and murder, and the breeding grounds of every crime. Day after 
day people attacked, hunted down and murdered each other without respite” (Cepit itaque inter 
omnes regni proceres magna discordia suboriri. Et cum divisim modo hic modo ille regnandi 
ambitione sibi terre dominium vendicaret, innumerabiles rapine, predationes, cedes et omnium 

J. BANI Ć: The Mystery of Merania: A New Solution to Old Problems ... 70  
attempt the reconquista was Coloman I and he indeed launched the counterattack, 
delayed as it was.
Interestingly, both Jurkovi ć and Majnari ć were on this track when they intu-
itively argued that “eastern Istria came under the jurisdiction of Istrian margraves 
only in the period following the death of the last Croatian king from the Trpimirovi ć 
dynasty, Stephen II [recte III]”,
114
 and that Wezelin was “at fi rst unsuccessful, but 
by the end of the century, due to the crisis of jurisdiction in the Croatian kingdom, 
ultimately successful” in his attack on Zvonimir’s dominion.
115
 Neither of the two 
historians explicated their reasoning in any greater detail – the former being an 
encyclopedia entry, the latter a chapter in a synthesis of Croatian early medieval 
history – but their intuition-based conclusions fi t the “Wezelin thesis” perfectly.
Furthermore, it must be noted that the territory between Lovran, “the last 
maritime town of Aquileian land”, and Bakar, “the fi rst of the lands of Croatia that 
take the name of Dalmatia”, is not mentioned by Al-Idrisi. Therefore, it is possible 
that this patch of land that included the territories of Veprinac, Kastav and Rijeka 
remained disputed well into the 12
th
 century. The fi rst primary source explicitly 
attesting to Rijeka’s position stems from 1300 and mentions the lords of Duino as 
the town’s rulers.
116
 Moreover, following Al-Idrisi’s account, the oldest document 
attesting the river Rje čina as the boundary between the two polities is the donation 
charter purportedly from 1260, issued by the Hungarian king Bela IV to the counts 
of Krk, bestowing upon the brothers Bartholomew and Frederick the town Vinodol 
“whose northern boundary is the river and town Rijeka”; the charter, however, is 
a forgery (re)written in a much later period.
117
facinorum seminaria emerserunt. Alter enim alterum insequi, invadere, trucidare cotidie non 
cessabat). Archdeacon Thomas of Split, Historia Salonitanorum, c. 17, ed. Peri ć et al., pp. 92–93; 
 Mar geti ć, Regnum Croatiae, pp. 16–19; Birin, Pregled politi čke povijesti, pp. 65–66; Budak, 
Hrvatska povijest, pp. 284–287;  idem, Prva stolje ća Hrvatske, pp. 115–122.
114
 “Ist. Istra je pod upravu istar. markgrofa došla tek u razdoblju nakon smrti posljednjega hrv. 
kralja iz dinastije Trpimirovi ća Stjepana II. (1091) i dolaska Kolomana Arpadovi ća na hrv. prijestolje 
(1102), najvjerojatnije u vrijeme markgrofovstva Ulrikova sina Popona (1090–1101).” Jurkovi ć, 
Istarska markgrofovija, http://istra.lzmk.hr/clanak.aspx?id=1203 [last access: 04. 08. 2019].
115
 “Štoviše, čini se da je Luitold aktivnije nastupio i prema susjedima Carstva te podržao 
V ecelina u njegovu – čini se tada neuspješnom, no u kona čnici do kraja tog stolje ća za krize vlasti 
u Hrvatskoj Kraljevini uspješnom – napadu.” Majnari ć, Karolinško, Otonsko, pp. 528–529. There 
are no sources attesting to Liutold’s activity in Wezelin’s campaigns, but his involvement is highly 
probable. Moreover, the Priest of Duklja mentions that the German duke that “Crepimir” fought 
against was a consobrinus imperatoris. Since the Eppensteins were indeed related to Henry IV – 
Hermann II of Swabia being the great-grandfather of Henry IV and the grandfather of Markward 
IV – and the Holy Roman emperor referred to them as nostri consanguinei, it is possible that the 
historical nucleus of this highly contaminated narrative was indeed the wars waged between Liutold 
of Eppenstein and king Zvonimir. D. H. IV, no. 432, ed. Gladiss–Gawlik, pp. 577–578 (Ulrich 
of Eppenstein called noster fi delis et dilectissimus consanguineus);  Gänser, Die Mark (1. Teil), p. 
107. In any case, Mogorovi ć Crljenko’s argument that this German duke who was the relative of 
the emperor refers to Ulrich I of Weimar-Orlamünde is untenable: Ulrich I was neither duke nor 
any relative of Henry IV’s. Mogorovi ć Crljenko, Istarski markgrofovi, p. 86, n. 23.
116
  Kos, Jedan urbar, p. 3, n. 3.
117
 CD 5, no. 685, ed. Smi čiklas, pp. 179–180.

Zgodovinski časopis | 75 | 2021 | 1-2 | (163) 71
Since Merania, at least up to Lovran, was defi nitely annexed by the 1150s 
but still fought over in 1108, it is possible that the new border between the Holy 
Roman Empire and the Dalmatian-Croatian kingdom had been stabilized (perhaps 
even on the river Rje čina) in 1116/17 as a result of Ordelaffo Falier’s military ex-
pedition. Whether the imperial troops actually helped the Venetians or not cannot 
be ascertained, but it seems very plausible that following the loss of Dalmatian 
cities the Hungarian kings gave up on recuperating Merania and simply focused 
their resources elsewhere. Thus, the “Wezelin thesis” is not in complete disharmony 
with Margeti ć’s argumentation. There is, however, no justifi able reason to assume 
that the lords of Duino played any role in this enterprise.
In conclusion to this debate it remains to be demonstrated how the newly 
proposed “Wezelin thesis” impacts some of the main historiographical dilemmas 
regarding the Duchy of Merania. According to the proposed solution, Merania 
could not have passed on to Conrad II of Dachau via inheritance. Consequently, 
the bestowing of the Duchy of Merania upon Berthold IV and the comital house 
of Andechs would also not be grounded in inheritance. Instead, just as was so 
convincingly argued by Andrej Komac, the title of Meranian dukes was given to 
Berthold IV for political reasons, as part of the process of reorganization of the 
Empire’s southeastern frontiers and the elevation of Otto II of Wittselsbach as duke 
of Bavaria.
118
 If there were no hereditary rights involved in Berthold IV’s elevation 
to Meranian duke, then no such rights were required for Conrad II thirty years be-
fore. Therefore, according to the “Wezelin thesis” Conrad II of Dachau was, same 
as Berthold IV after him, given the Duchy of Merania for political reasons: as part 
of a process of reorganization of Bavarian social hierarchy taking place between 
1152 and 1156 on the one hand, and on the other, as an audacious proclamation 
of hostility towards the Hungarian crown whose sovereignty over Dalmatia and 
Croatia was challenged by the creation of the new ducal title.
119
 
This explains why the original imperial title of “the dukes of Dalmatia and 
Croatia” started giving way to the “less offensive” one – the dukes of Merania – in 
the 1180s and 1190s, the period when the Holy Roman Empire did not foster enmity 
with the Hungarian throne; the original title was dropped for the dux Meranie in 
the second half of the 1190s, when Andrew II, the brother of Hungarian king Eme-
ric, married Gertrude, the daughter of Berthold IV of Andechs. From this period 
onwards, especially following Andrew II’s offi cial assumption of the Hungarian title 
“duke of Croatia and Dalmatia” in 1197, the original “offensive” imperial title had 
to completely give way to the new, “less offensive” one – the dukes of Merania.
120
118
 Komac, Utrditev grofov Andeških, pp. 283–294; idem, Od mejne grofi je, pp. 55–63.
119
 D. F. I, no. 14, ed. Appelt, pp. 26–27 and esp. Dendorfer, V on den Liutpoldingern, p. 352.
120
 This argument was put forward already by Hormayr and it remains the most convincing 
solution to the question of why the original ducal title changed from dux Dalmatie et Croatie 
to dux Meranie. Hormayr, Sämtliche Werke 3, p. 209. On Andrew II, his alliance with Leopold 
VI of Babenberg and their wars with king Emeric, especially the battle of 1197 after which, 
following the victory of Andrew II and duke Leopold VI, king Emeric had to bequeath to his 
younger brother the title of the duke of Dalmatia and Croatia, the primary sources are: Chronica 
regia Coloniensis, a. 1199, ed. Waitz, p. 168;  Continuatio Admuntensis, a. 1197, ed. Wattenbach, 

J. BANI Ć: The Mystery of Merania: A New Solution to Old Problems ... 72  
This, in turn, leads to the conclusion that Merania was, exactly as was claimed 
by Hormayr and Oefele over a century ago, exclusively a titular duchy. This also 
means that the Ducatus Meranie mentioned in two documents from 1221 refers to, 
just as Oefele claimed, the totality of jurisdictional dominium of house Andechs; 
this opinion was accepted by both Margeti ć, Komac and Kosi.
Finally, these conclusions shed new light on the relation between the ducal 
title and the Kvarner region. Namely, the traditional interpretation among the 
supporters of both Hauptmann’s and Margeti ć’s theses is that the area between 
the U čka mountain range and the river Rje čina was originally called Meran(ia); 
the name of this microregion was then taken over by the titular dukes of Dalmatia 
and Croatia who started styling themselves the “dukes of Meran(ia)”. However, 
the title dux Meranus appears already in the second half of the 12
th
 century, but 
the oldest known usage of the word Meran to designate the territory between the 
U čka mountain range and the river Rje čina stems from 1366.
121
 Therefore, the 
exact opposite can be argued too: that the term Meran(ia) was originally used to 
refer to the imperial titular Duchy of Dalmatia and Croatia, and only later – one 
would assume following the marriage between Gertrude of Andechs and Andrew 
II –  did it begin connoting a distinct microregion, a patch of land between the 
U čka mountain range and the river Rje čina, the only part of the historical Regnum 
Croatie that was at this point both de iure and de facto under the jurisdiction of 
the Empire, its ecclesiastical nobility more precisely – the patriarchs of Aquileia. 
The fact that Gertrude’s brother was Berthold V, the future patriarch of Aquileia 
(1218–1251) and thus the secular lord of the Kvarner microregion, further streng-
thens this argument.
In the end absolutely nothing remains of Hauptmann’s original thesis. The 
author of this paper sincerely hopes that any future scholarly debate on these topics 
will no longer relegate the critics of Hauptmann’s thesis to mere single mentions 
in footnotes, “hiding” their arguments and designating their theses as potential 
alternative, but unlikely scenarios; instead, any revindication of the old “Ulrich 
thesis” should decisively tackle the argumentation explicated in this study.
p. 588, l. 27–28;  Codex diplomaticus Hungariae 2, ed. Fejér, pp. 313–314 (fi rst letter of pope 
Innocent III to duke Andrew II) and pp. 315–316 (the second letter of pope Innocent III to duke 
Andrew II). See also  Klai ć, O hercegu Andriji, pp. 200–222, esp. pp. 204–209;  Šiši ć, Poviest 
Hrvata 1, pp. 157–189;  Klai ć, Povijest Hrvata u razvijenom, p. 368. The literature on Gertrude 
of Andechs is substantial as her murder occupied the attention of numerous historians, but this 
topic falls outside the scope of this paper. On Gertrude’s marriage with Andrew II see e.g. Lyon, 
Princely Brothers, pp. 157–158.
121
 The regestum (see n. 32 in this paper) also mentions a document from 1256 issued by 
the Aquileian patriarch Gregory of Montelongo and written by notary public Conrad of Cividale, 
purportedly demonstrating that the lords of Duino hold the lands in question – among which those 
in Meran sive in Croatia – from the Aquileian Church. This document has thus far neither been 
edited, nor – at least to my knowledge – found. Since a large part of notarial acts written by this 
Conrad of Cividale is still unpublished, it is possible that the 1256 document will be found once 
the entire corpus of Conrad’s documents has been investigated and edited. On this public notary 
Conrad see  Blancato, Corrado da Martignacco, http://www.dizionariobiografi codeifriulani.it/
corrado-da-martignacco-1302/ [last access: 04. 08. 2019].

Zgodovinski časopis | 75 | 2021 | 1-2 | (163) 73
While future research is very much welcome in the context of the “Wezelin 
thesis”, especially in order to pinpoint more accurately the mysterious noble knight 
of the pope’s letter, the solution outlined in this paper and written in lingua franca 
of modern-day scholarly discourse aims to garner the attention of as broad a circle 
of historians as possible. Since medieval Istria belongs to both Italian, German, 
Austrian, Slovenian and Croatian national history, the “Wezelin thesis” should be 
analyzed, deconstructed, criticized and, ultimately, improved upon by a number 
of historians dealing with medieval Europe during the momentous Investiture 
Controversy. As critical reviews and erudite academic discussions are desperately 
lacking in contemporary Istrian medieval studies, the author heartily hopes to 
engender some debate with this comprehensive contribution.
Appendix
Image
The lid of Solomon’s tomb found in St. Michael’s monastery in Pula in 1851. The inscription 
reads: HIC REQVIESCIT ILLVUSTRISSIMVS SALOMON / REX PANNONIAE. The lid, 
made from limestone, is currently kept in Pula, in Arheološki muzej Istre [Archaeological Mu-
seum of Istria] under inventory number AMI-S-55. The dimensions are: height = 48 cm; length 
= 173 cm; width = 23 cm.

J. BANI Ć: The Mystery of Merania: A New Solution to Old Problems ... 74  
Map
Map 1. March of Istria and Merania
The old border between the March of Istria and the Kingdom of Croatia, the U čka mountain 
range, is highlighted by the places in which the twenty royal mansi were donated to margrave 
Ulrich I of Weimar-Orlamünde by king Henry IV in 1064. The toponyms mentioned in the dona-
tion are (from north to south): Puviendi (most probably a contamination of Pinvendi) = Buzet 
(Ital. Pinguente), Ruz = Roč (Ital. Rozzo), Lompaga = Lupoglav (Ital. Lupogliano), Winstrum 
= Brest pod Učkom (Ital. Olmeto di Bogliuno), Rana = Vranja (Ital. Vragna), Bangul = Boljun 
(Ital. Bogliuno), Villa que vocatur ad Sanctum Martinum = Sveti Martin (Ital. San Martino), 
Curtalla = Belaj (Ital. Bellai) and Lahenewit = Letaj (Ital. Lettai).

Zgodovinski časopis | 75 | 2021 | 1-2 | (163) 75
References
Primary Sources
Adam of Bremen, Gesta Hammaburgensis ecclesiae pontifi cum, ed. Bernhard Schmeidler, 
MGH, Scriptores rerum Germanicarum in usum scholarum 2 (Hannover–Leipzig 1917).
Al-Idrī sī, Opus geographicum, sive “Liber ad eorum delectationem qui terras peragrare stude-
ant”, ed. Enrico Cerulli et al., 9 vols (Napoli 1970–1984).
Andrea Dandolo, Chronica per extensum descripta, in: Andreae Danduli ducis Venetiarum 
Chronica per extensum descripta: aa. 46-1280 d.C., ed. Ester Pastorello, Rerum Italicarum 
scriptores
2
 12/1 (Bologna 1958), pp. 5–327.
Anna Comnena, Alexiade: Règne de l’empereur Alexis I Comnène (1081–1118), 4 vols, ed. 
Bernard Leib (Paris 1937–76). 
Annales Altahenses maiores, ed. Wilhelm Giesebrecht–Edmund von Oefele, MGH, Scriptores 
rerum Germanicarum in usum scholarum 4 (Hannover 1891).
Annales Augustani, ed. Georg Heinrich Pertz, in: Annales, chronica et historiae aevi Saxonici, 
MGH, Scriptores 3 (Hannover 1839), pp. 123–136.
Annales Camaldulenses ordinis Sancti Benedicti 2, ed. Iohannes Benedictus Mittarelli–Anselmus 
Castadoni (Venice 1756).
Annales Camaldulenses ordinis Sancti Benedicti 9, ed. Iohannes Benedictus Mittarelli–Anselmus 
Castadoni (Venice 1773).
Annales Reicherspergenses, ed. Wilhelm Wattenbach, in: Annales aevi Suevici, ed. Georg Heinrich 
Pertz, MGH, Scriptores 17 (Hannover 1861), pp. 443–476.
Annales Scheftlarienses maiores, ed. Philipp Jaffé, in: Annales aevi Suevici, ed. Georg Heinrich 
Pertz, MGH, Scriptores 17 (Hannover 1861), pp. 335–343.
Annales Venetici breves, in: Testi storici veneziani (XI-XIII secolo), ed. Luigi Andrea Berto 
(Padua 1999), pp. 86–99.
Annalista Saxo, Chronicon, in: Die Reichschronik des Annalista Saxo, ed. Klauss Nass, MGH, 
Scriptores 37 (Hannover 2006).
Antonio Bonfi ni, Rerum Ungaricarum decades, 4 vols, ed. Imre Fógel–Béla Iványi–László 
Juhász, Biblioteca Scriptorum Medii Recentisque Aevorum Saeculum XV (Leipzig–Bu-
dapest 1936–41).
Archdeacon Henry, Vita Chuonradi archiepiscopi Salisburgensis, ed. Wilhelm Wattenbach, in: Histo-
riae aevi Salici, ed. Georg Heinrich Pertz, MGH, Scriptores 11 (Hannover 1854), pp. 63–77.
Archdeacon Thomas of Split, Historia Salonitanorum atque Spalatinorum pontifi cum / History 
of the Bishops of Salona and Split, Latin text ed. Olga Peri ć, ed., trans. and annotated 
Damir Karbi ć–Mirjana Matijevi ć Sokol–James Ross Sweeney, Central European Medieval 
Texts 4 (Budapest 2006).
Bernold of Constance, Chronicon, in: Die Chroniken Bertholds von Reichenau und Bernolds von 
Konstanz, 1054–1100, ed. Ian Stuart Robinson, MGH, Scriptores rerum Germanicarum, 
Nova series 14 (Hannover 2003), pp. 385–540.
Berthold of Reichenau, Chronicon, in: Die Chroniken Bertholds von Reichenau und Bernolds von 
Konstanz, 1054–1100, ed. Ian Stuart Robinson, MGH, Scriptores rerum Germanicarum, 
Nova series 14 (Hannover 2003), pp. 161–381.
Bruno of Merseburg, Saxonicum bellum, in: Brunos Buch vom Sachsenkrieg, ed. Hans-Eberhard 
Lohmann, MGH, Deutsches Mittelalter, Kritische Studientexte 2 (Leipzig 1937), pp. 12–123.
Casuum s. Galli continuatio II, ed. Ildefons von Arxt, in: Scriptores rerum Sangallensium: 
Annales, chronica et historiae aevi Carolini, ed. Georg Heinrich Pertz, MGH, Scriptores 
2 (Hannover 1829), pp. 148–163.

J. BANI Ć: The Mystery of Merania: A New Solution to Old Problems ... 76  
CD 1 – Codex diplomaticus Regni Croatiae, Dalmatiae et Slavoniae 1: Diplomata annorum 
743–1100 continens, ed. Marko Kostren či ć–Jakov Stipiši ć–Miljen Šamšalovi ć (Zagreb 1967).
CD 2 – Codex diplomaticus Regni Croatiae, Dalmatiae et Slavoniae 2: Diplomata saeculi XII. 
continens (1101–1200), ed. Tadija Smi čiklas (Zagreb 1904).
CD 5 – Codex diplomaticus Regni Croatiae, Dalmatiae et Slavoniae 5: Diplomata annorum 
1256–1272 continens, ed. Tadija Smi čiklas (Zagreb 1907).
CDI – Codice diplomatico istriano, 5 vols, ed. Pietro Kandler (Trieste 
2
1986).
Chronica regia Coloniensis, ed. Georg Waitz, MGH, Scriptores rerum Germanicarum in usum 
scholarum 18 (Hannover 1880).
Chronicon Eberspergense, ed. Wilhelm Arndt, in: Supplementa tomorum I, V , VI, XII, Chronica 
aevi Suevici, ed. Georg Heinrich Pertz, MGH, Scriptores 20 (Hannover 1869), pp. 9–15.
Codex diplomaticus Hungariae ecclesiasticus ac civilis 2, ed. Georgius Fejér (Budapest 1829).
Constantine the Porphyrogenitus, De administrando imperio, ed. Gyula Moravcsik, trans. Romilly 
James Heald Jenkins, Dumbarton Oaks Texts 1 (Washington, DC 1967).
Continuatio Admuntensis a. 1140–1250, ed. Wilhelm Wattenbach, in: Chronica et annales aevi 
Salici, ed. Georg Heinrich Pertz, MGH, Scriptores 9 (Hannover 1851), pp. 579–593.
Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum 3: Inscriptiones Asiae, provinciarum Europae Graecarum, 
Illyrici Latinae, ed. Theodor Mommsen (Berlin 1873).
Cosmas of Prague, Chronica Boemorum, ed. Bertold Bretholz–Wilhelm Weinberger, MGH, 
Scriptores rerum Germanicarum, Nova series 2 (Berlin 1923).
D. C. II – Conradi II. diplomata / Die Urkunden Konrads II., ed. Harry Bresslau, MGH, Diplo-
mata regum et imperatorum Germaniae 4 (Hannover–Leipzig 1909) .
D. C. III – Conradi III. et fi lii eius Heinrici diplomata / Die Urkunden Konrads III. und seines 
Sohnes Heinrich, ed. Friedrich Hausmann, MGH, Diplomata regum et imperatorum Ger-
maniae 9 (Vienna–Cologne–Graz 1969).
D. F. I – Friderici I. diplomata / Die Urkunden Friedrichs I., ed. Heinrich Appelt, MGH, Dip-
lomata regum et imperatorum Germaniae 10 (Hannover 1975–90).
D. H. II – Heinrici II. et Arduini diplomata / Die Urkunden Heinrichs II. und Arduins, ed. Theodor 
von Sickel, MGH, Diplomata regum et imperatorum Germaniae 3 (Hannover 1900–1903).
D. H. III – Heinrici III. diplomata / Die Urkunden Heinrichs III., ed. Harry Bresslau–Paul Fridolin 
Kehr, MGH, Diplomata regum et imperatorum Germaniae 5 (Berlin 1931).
D. H. IV – Heinrici IV . diplomata / Die Urkunden Heinrichs IV ., ed. Dietrich von Gladiss–Alfred 
Gawlik, MGH, Diplomata regum et imperatorum Germaniae 6 (Berlin–Weimar–Hannover 
1941–1978).
D. O. II – Ottonis II. diplomata / Die Urkunden Otto des II., ed. Theodor von Sickel, MGH, 
Diplomata regum et imperatorum Germaniae 2/1 (Hannover 1888).
D. O. III – Ottonis III. diplomata / Die Urkunden Otto des III., ed. Theodor von Sickel, MGH, 
Diplomata regum et imperatorum Germaniae 2/2 (Hannover 1893).
Das Cartular des Klosters Ebersberg, ed. Friedrich Hektor von Hundt (München 1879).
Die Briefe des Petrus Damiani, ed. Kurt Reindel, 4 vols, MGH, Die Briefe der deutschen Kai-
serzeit 4 (München 1983–93).
Die Traditionsbücher des Hochstiftes Brixen vom zehnten bis in das vierzehnte Jahrhundert, ed. 
Oswald Redlich, Acta Tirolensia: Urkundliche Quellen zur Geschichte Tirols 1 (Innsbruck 
1886).
Die Urkunden des Klosters Indersdorf 1, ed. Friedrich Hektor von Hundt, (München 1863).
Diplomi patriarcali: I documenti dei patriarchi Aquileiesi anteriori alla metà del XIII secolo 
nell’Archivio capitolare di Udine, ed. Cesare Scalon, Quaderni e dispense dell’Istituto di 
storia dell’Università degli Studi di Udine 8 (Udine 1983).

Zgodovinski časopis | 75 | 2021 | 1-2 | (163) 77
Documenta historiae Chroaticae periodum antiquam illustrantia, ed. Franjo Ra čki, Monumenta 
spectantia historiam Slavorum meridionalium 7 (Zagreb 1877).
Documenta historiae forojuliensis saeculi XIII: Ab anno 1200 ad 1299 summatim regesta, ed. 
Giuseppe Bianchi (Vienna 1861).
Ekkehard of Aura, Chronicon universale: Pars altera, anni 1106–1125, in: Chronica et annales 
aevi Salici, ed. Georg Waitz, MGH, Scriptores 6 (Hannover 1844), pp. 231–265.
Excerpta necrologiorum Salisburgensis et S. Emmerami Ratisponae saec. XI. et XII. et seqq, in: 
Monumenta Boica 14 (München 1784), pp. 365–405.
Fragmenta necrologica Schirensia, in: Dioeceses Brixinensis, Frisingensis, Ratisbonensis, ed. 
Franz Ludwig Baumann, MGH, Necrologia Germaniae 3 (Berlin 1905), pp. 133–136.
Friderici I imperatoris cognomento Barbarossae expeditio asiatica ad sepulchrum Domini ab 
aequaeuo auctore conscripta, ed. Jacob Basnage, in: Thesaurus monumentorum ecclesia-
sticorum et historicorum 3/2 (Antwerp 1725), pp. 497–526.
Gnirs, Anton, Zwei Rechnungsbücher der Bischöfe von Pola aus dem XIV . und XV Jahrhundert, 
Quellen zur Sozial- und Wirtschaftsgeschichte der Polesana im späten Mittelalter und bei 
Beginn der Neuzeit 1 (Pula 1908).
Gnirs, Anton, Die Noten des Bischofs Dominicus de Luschis über die Lehenspfl icht der Herren 
von Walsee-Ens für das Poleser Lehen am Quarnero, Quellen zur Sozial- und Wirtschafts-
geschichte der Polesana im späten Mittelalter und bei Beginn der Neuzeit 3,  Jahresbericht 
der k. k. Staatsrealschule in Pola 3 (1910), pp. 23–28.
Gradivo za zgodovino Slovencev v srednjem vijeku 3: 1001–1100, ed. Franc Kos (Ljubljana 1911).
GRS – Gesta regum Sclavorum, ed. Tibor Živkovi ć, 2 vols, Sources for Serbian History 7 
(Beograd 2009).
Historia de expeditione Friderici imperatoris, in: Quellen zur Geschichte des Kreuzzuges Kaiser 
Friedrichs I., ed. Anton Chroust, MGH, Scriptores rerum Germanicarum, Nova series 5 
(Berlin 1928), pp. 1–115.
Historia peregrinorum, in: Quellen zur Geschichte des Kreuzzuges Kaiser Friedrichs I., ed. Anton 
Chroust, MGH, Scriptores rerum Germanicarum, Nova series 5 (Berlin 1928), pp. 116–172.
Historia Welforum Weingartensis, ed. Ludwig Weiland–Georg Heinrich Pertz, in: Monumenta 
Welforum antiqua, MGH, Scriptores rerum Germanicarum in usum scholarum 43 (Han-
nover 1869), pp. 12–41.
IC – Cronica de gestis Hungarorum e codice picto saec. XIV . / Chronicle of the Deeds of Hungar-
ians from the Fourteenth-Century Illuminated Codex, ed. János M. Bak–László V eszprémy, 
Central European Medieval Texts 9 (Budapest 2018).
I trattati con Bisanzio: 992–1198, ed. Marco Pozza–Giorgio Ravegnani, Pacta veneta 4 (V enice 
1993).
Illyricum sacrum 3: Ecclesia Spalatensis olim Salonitana, ed. Daniele Farlati Daniele (V enice 1765).
Illyricum Sacrum 5: Ecclesia Jadertina cum suffraganeis, et ecclesia Zagabriensis, ed. Daniele 
Farlati (Venice 1775).
Iohannes de Thurocz, Chronica Hungarorum, ed. Erzsébet Galántai–Gyula Kristó (Budapest 1985).
Johannes Aventinus, Annales Boioariourm libri septem (Leipzig 1710).
Johannes Turmair, Annales Ducum Boiariae, in: Johannes Turmair’s gennant Aventinus Säm-
mtliche Werke 2–3, ed. Sigismund Riezler (München 1881–84).
John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, ed. Luigi Andrea Berto, Fonti per la Storia dell’Italia 
medievale: Storici italiani dal Cinquecento al Millecinquecento ad uso delle scuole 2 
(Bologna 1999).
Kalendarium necrologicum Weissenburgense, in: Fontes rerum Germanicarum: Geschichtsquellen 
Deutschlands 4, ed. Johann Friedrich Böhmer–Alfons Huber (Stuttgart 1868), pp. 310–314.

J. BANI Ć: The Mystery of Merania: A New Solution to Old Problems ... 78  
Konrad of Scheyern, Chronicon Schirense, ed. Philipp Jaffé, in: Annales aevi Suevici, ed. Georg 
Heinrich Pertz, MGH, Scriptores 17 (Hannover 1861), pp. 615–623.
Kos, Milko, Jedan urbar iz vremena oko 1400. o imanjima Devinskih i Walsseovaca na Kvarneru 
[A Tax Roll from around 1400 regarding the Possessions of Lords of Duino and Walsee 
in the Kvarner Region], Vjesnik historijskih arhiva u Rijeci i Pazinu 3 (1956), pp. 3–20.
L’Italia descritta nel “Libro del Re Ruggero” compilato da Edrisi, ed. Michele Amari–Celestino 
Schiaparelli, Atti della Reale Accademia dei Lincei, ser. 2, 8 (Rome 1883).
Lampert of Hersfeld, Annales, in: Lamperti monachi Hersfeldensis opera, ed. Oswald Holder-Egger, 
MGH, Scriptores rerum Germanicarum in usum scholarum 38 (Hannover–Leipzig 1894).
Listine o odnošajih izmedju južnog Slavenstva i Mleta čke Republike 3: Od godine 1347 do 1358 
[Charter on Relations between the Southern Slavs and Venetian Republic 3: From Year 
1347 to 1358], ed. Šime Ljubi ć, Monumenta spectantia historiam Slavorum meridionalium 
(Zagreb 1872).
Margeti ć, Lujo, Pet puljskih isprava iz X. i XI. stolje ća [Five Charters from Pula from 10
th
 and 
11
th
 Centuries], Rijeka, Vinodol, Istra: Studije [Rijeka, Vinodol, Istria: Studies] (Rijeka 
1990), pp. 131–151.
Martin Szentiványi, Summarium chronologiae Regni Hungarie, ed. Antal Grassalkovich (Vienna 
1750).
MDC 3 – Monumenta historica Ducatus Carinthiae 3: Die Kärntner Geschichtsquellen 811-1202, 
ed. August von Jaksch (Klagenfurt 1904).
MDC 4/2 – Monumenta historica Ducatus Carinthiae 4/2: Die Kärntner Geschichtsquellen 
1263–1269, ed. August von Jaksch (Klagenfurt 1906).
Monumenta Formbacensia: Diplomatarium miscellum, in: Monumenta Boica 4 (München 
1765), pp. 127–212.
Monumenta Geisenfeldensia, in: Monumenta Boica 14 (München 1784), pp. 179–268.
Monumenta Parthenii Chiemeseensis: Diplomatarium miscellum, in: Monumenta Boica 2 
(München 1764), pp. 445–526.
Monumenta Understorfensia, in: Monumenta Boica 14 (München 1784), pp. 115–170.
Muratori, Lodovico Antonio, Antiquitates Italicae medii aevi 1 (Arezzo 1773).
Necrologia s. Rudberti Salisburgensis, in: Dioecesis Salisburgensis, ed. Sigmund Herzberg-
Fränkel, MGH, Necrologia Germaniae 2 (Berlin 1904), pp. 91–198.
Necrologium Aquileiense, ed. Cesare Scalon, Fonti per la storia della Chiesa in Friuli 1 (Udine 1982).
Necrologium Diessense, ed. Franz Ludwig Baumann, in: Dioeceses Augustensis, Constantiensis, 
Curiensis, MGH, Necrologia Germaniae 1 (Berlin 1888), pp. 7–32.
Necrologium s. Lamberti, in: Dioecesis Salisburgensis, ed. Sigmund Herzberg-Fränkel, MGH, 
Necrologia Germaniae 2 (Berlin 1904), pp. 309–340.
Necrologium Undensdorfense, in: Dioeceses Brixinensis, Frisingensis, Ratisbonensis, ed. Franz 
Ludwig Baumann, MGH, Necrologia Germaniae 3 (Berlin 1905), pp. 172–198.
Otto of Freising, Chronica sive Historia de duabus civitatibus, ed. Adolf Hofmeister, MGH, 
Scriptores rerum Germanicarum in usum scholarum 45 (Hannover–Leipzig 1912).
Otto of Freising–Rahewin, Gesta Friderici I. imperatoris, ed. Georg Waitz–Bernhard von Simson, 
MGH, Scriptores rerum Germanicarum in usum scholarum 46 (Hannover–Leipzig 1912).
PL 163 – Paschalis II, Gelasii II, Calixti II Romanorum pontifi cum epistolae et privilegia, ed. 
Jacques-Paul Migne, Patrologia Latina 163 (Paris 1893).
Propstei S. Stefano zu Aquileia – Anja Thaller, Die älteren Urkunden der Propstei S. Stefano zu Aqui-
leia, Archiv für Diplomatik: Schriftgeschichte, Siegel- und Wappenkunde 52 (2006), pp. 1–147.
Reg. Greg. VII. – Gregorii VII. registrum / Das Register Gregors VII., 2 vols, ed. Erich Caspar, 
MGH, Eppistolae selectae in usum scholarum 2 (Berlin 1920–1923).

Zgodovinski časopis | 75 | 2021 | 1-2 | (163) 79
Regesta Imperii 4: Lothar III und Ältere Staufer (1125–1197), p. 2: Die regesten des Kaiserreiches 
unter Friedrich I. 1152 (1122)–1190, n. 3: 1168–1180, ed. Ferdinand Opll (Vienna 2001).
Schroll, Beda, Necrologium des Benediktinerstiftes St. Paul im Lavantthale, Archiv für vater-
ländische Geschichte und Topographie (Kärnten) 10 (1866), pp. 33–240.
Schroll, Beda, Necrologium des ehemaligen Augustiner-Chorherrenstiftes St. Maria in Juna 
oder Eberndorf in Kärnten, Archiv für österreichische Geschichte 68 (1886), pp. 209–325.
Simon of Kéza, Gesta Hungarorum / The Deeds of the Hungarians, ed. László V eszprémy–Frank 
Schaer, Central European Medieval Texts 1 (Budapest 1999).
SS. Ilario e Benedetto e S. Giorgio (819–1199), ed. Luigi Lanfranchi–Bianca Strina, Fonti per la 
storia di Venezia 2: Archivi ecclesiastici, diocesi Castellana (Venice 1965).
SUB 1– Salzburger Urkundenbuch 1: Traditioncodices, ed. Willibald Hauthaler (Salzburg 1910).
TEA – Thesaurus ecclesiae Aquileiensis, ed. Giuseppe Bianchi (Udine 1847).
The Alexiad and the Princess Anna Comnena, trans. Elizabeth A. S. Dawes (London 1928).
The Annals of Lampert of Hersfeld, trans. Ian Stuart Robinson (Manchester 2015).
The Letters of Peter Damian, trans. Owen J. Blum, 4 vols, The Fathers of the Church: Mediaeval 
Continuation (Washington, DC 1989–2005).
Urkunden des Klosters Moggio – Die älteren Urkunden des Klosters Moggio (bis 1250), ed. 
Reinhard Härtel, Publikationen des Historischen Instituts beim Österreichischen Kultur-
forum in Rom 2, 6/1 (Vienna 1985).
Urkunden des Klosters S. Maria – Die älteren Urkunden des Klosters S. Maria zu Aquileia 
(1036–1250), ed. Reinhard Härtel, Publikationen des Historischen Instituts beim Öster-
reichischen Kulturforum in Rom 2, 6/2 (Vienna 2005).
Urkunden für die Geschichte der Stadt Bern und ihres frühesten Gebietes bis zum Schluß des 
dreizehnten Jahrhunderts, ed. Karl Zeerleder (Bern 1853).
Urkunden und Memorialquellen zur älteren Geschichte des Klosters Rosazzo, ed. Reinhard 
Härtel–Cesare Scalon, Publikationen des Historischen Instituts beim Österreichischen 
Kulturforum in Rom 2, 6/3 (Vienna 2018).
Urkundenbuch des Benedictiner-Stiftes St. Paul in Kärnten, ed. Beda Schroll (Vienna 1876).
Urkundenbuch des Herzogtums Steiermark 1: 798–1192, ed. Josef von Zahn (Graz 1875).
Urkundenbuch des Herzogtums Steiermark 3: 1248-1260, ed. Josef von Zahn (Graz 1903).
Vasko Simoniti, Statut Moš ćenica iz leta 1616 [The Statute of Moš ćenice from the Year 1616]. 
Acta Histriae 3 (1994), pp. 97–112.
Veit Arnpeck, Chronica Baioariorum, in: Veit Arnpeck: Sämtliche Chroniken, ed. Georg Lei-
dinger, Quellen und Erörterungen zur bayerischen Geschichte, Neue Folge 3 (München 
1915), pp. 1–443.
Veprina čki zakon (1507.) [The Law of V eprinac], in: Srednjovjekovni zakoni i op ći akti na Kvar-
neru [Medieval Laws and General Acts in Kvarner Region], ed. Lujo Margeti ć (Zagreb 
2012), pp. 139–159.
William of Apulia, Gesta Roberti Wiscardi, ed. Roger Wilmans, in: Chronica et annales aevi 
Salici, ed. Georg Heinrich Pertz, MGH, Scriptores 9 (Hannover 1851), pp. 239–298.
Secondary Sources
Aigner, Toni, V ojvodina Meranija: Zgodovina, pomen, umestitev / Das Herzogtums Meranien: 
Geschichte, Bedeutung, Lokalisierung, in: Grofje Andeško-Meranski: Prispevki k zgodo-
vini Evrope v visokem srednjem veku / Die Andechs-Meranier: Beiträge zur Geschichte 
Europas im Hochmittelalter, ed. Andreja Eržen–Toni Aigner (Kamnik 2001), pp. 39–54.
Albertoni, Giuseppe, Le terre del vescovo: Potere e società nel Tirolo medievale (secoli IX-XI) 
(Turin 1996).

J. BANI Ć: The Mystery of Merania: A New Solution to Old Problems ... 80  
An či ć, Mladen, Ljetopis kraljeva Hrvatske i Dalmacije: Vrijeme nastanka i autorstvo Hrvatske 
redakcije Ljetopisa popa Dukljanina [The Chronicle of the Kings of Croatia and Dalmatia: 
On the Origins and the Authorship of Croatian Redaction of The Chronicle of Presbiter 
of Dioclea]. Zgodovinski časopis 44/4 (1990), pp. 521–546.
An či ć, Mladen, Zamišljanje tradicije: Vrijeme i okolnosti postanka 30. glave djela De admin-
istrando imperio [Imagining the Tradition: When and why the 30th Chapter of the De 
administrando imperio was Written], Radovi Zavoda za hrvatsku povijest Filozofskog 
fakulteta Sveu čilišta u Zagrebu 42 (2010), pp. 133–151.
An či ć, Mladen, Miho Barada i mit o Neretvanima [Miha Barada and the Myth of the Narentines]. 
Povijesni prilozi 41 (2011), pp. 17–43.
Arnold, Benjamin, German Knighthood 1050–1300 (Oxford 1985).
Arnold, Benjamin, Princes and Territories in Medieval Germany (Cambridge 1991).
Arnold, Benjamin, Instruments of Power: The Profi le and Profession of Ministeriales within 
German Aristocratic Society, 1050–1225, in: Cultures of Power: Lordship, Status, and 
Process in Twelfth-Century Europe, ed. Thomas N. Bisson (Philadelphia 1995), pp. 36–55.
Bacci, Mauro, I ministeriali del Patriarcato di Aquileia (Padua 2003).
Bachrach, David Stewart, Milites and Warfare in Pre-Crusade Germany, War in History 22/3 
(2014), pp.  298–343.
Badurina, An đelko, Osorski evan đelistar [Evangeliary of Osor], in: Arheološka istraživanja na 
otocima Cresu i Lošinju [Archeological Research on the Islands of Cres and Lošinj], ed. 
Željko Rapani ć (Zagreb 1982), pp. 201–205.
Bak, János M.–Ryszard Grzesik, The Text of the Chronicle of the Deeds of the Hungarians, 
in: Studies on the Illuminated Chronicle, ed. János M. Bak–László Veszprémy, Central 
European Medieval Texts Subsidia 1 (Budapest 2018), pp. 5–24.
Baldazzi, Cristiana, Il Mediterraneo tra geografi a e immaginario: rileggendo Idrisi e i diari di 
Mu’in Bsisu, in: Civiltà del mare e navigazioni interculturali: sponde d’Europa e l’”isola” 
Trieste, ed. Cinzia Ferrini et al. (Trieste 2012), pp. 159–173.
Bani ć, Josip, Donationes pro remedio animae as Total Social Facts: A Case Study from the 
Twelfth Century Margraviate of Istria, in 7. istarski povijesni biennale: Religio, fi des, 
superstitiones...: O vjerovanju i pobožnosti na jadranskom prostoru [7
th
 Istrian History 
Biennale: Religio, fi des, superstitiones… : Faith and Piety in the Adriatic Area], ed. Elena 
Uljan či ć-Veki ć–Marija Mogorovi ć Crljenko (Pore č 2017), pp. 45–67.
Bani ć, Josip, Teme iz istarskog srednjovjekovlja u djelima Nade Klai ć [Istrian Middle Ages 
in Nada Klai ć’s Work], in: Nada Klai ć i njezin znanstveni i nastavni doprinos razvoju 
historiografi je. Zbornik radova sa znanstvenoga skupa s me đunarodnim sudjelovanjem 
održanog u Zagrebu 29.–30. studenog 2013. godine [Nada Klai ć and Her Scholarly and 
Teaching Contribution to the Development of Historiography: Proceedings from the 
Scientifi c Conference with International Participation Held in Zagreb from 29
th
 to 30
th
 
November 2013], ed. Tomislav Galovi ć–Damir Agi či ć (Zagreb 2014), pp. 449–464.
Barada, Miho, Hrvatski vlasteoski feudalizam po vinodolskom zakonu [Croatian Aristocratic 
Feudalism] (Zagreb 1952).
Bárány, Attila, The Expansion of the Kingdom of Hungary in the Middle Ages (1000–1490), in: 
The Expansion of Central Europe in the Middle Ages, ed. Nora Berend, The Expansion of 
Latin Europe, 1000–1500 5 (Farnham–Burlington 2012), pp. 333–380.
Basi ć, Ivan, Sjeverna i srednja Dalmacija u ranom srednjem vijeku [Northern and Central Dalmatia 
in the Early Middle Ages], in:  Nova zraka u europskom svijetlu: Hrvatske zemlje u ranome 
srednjem vijeku (oko 550 - oko 1150) [A New Ray in European Light: Croatian Lands in the 
Early Middle Ages (c. 550 - c. 1150)], ed. Zrinka Nikoli ć Jakus (Zagreb 2015), pp. 427–462.

Zgodovinski časopis | 75 | 2021 | 1-2 | (163) 81
Battistella, Antonio, L’Abbazia di Moggio (Udine 1903).
Bauzer, Martin, Zgodovina Norika i Furlanije [History of Noricum and Friuli], trans. Zdravko 
(Valentin) Jelin či ć (Ljubljana 1991).
Benussi, Bernardo, Storia documentata di Rovigno (Trieste 1888).
Benussi, Bernardo, Tharsatica, Atti e memorie della Società istriana di archeologia e storia 
patria 33 (1921), pp. 145–188.
Benussi, Bernardo, Il feudo al Quarnaro della Chiesa episcopale polense, Atti del Reale Istituto V e-
neto di scienze, lettere ed arti, Ser. 9: Scienze morali e lettere, 82/2 (1922–1923), pp. 97–134.
Benussi, Bernardo, L’Istria nei suoi due millenni di storia (Trieste 1924).
Benussi, Bernardo, Nel Medio evo: Pagine di storia istriana, Collana degli Atti 23 (Rovinj–
Trieste 
2
2004).
Bertoša, Miroslav, Istra od 6. do 10. stolje ća [Istria from 6
th
 to 10
th
 centuries], in: Povijest Hrvata 
1: Srednji vijek [History of Croatians 1: The Middle Ages], ed. Franjo Šanjek (Zagreb 
2003), pp. 115–134.
Birin, Ante, Pregled politi čke povijesti Hrvata u ranom srednjem vijeku [An Overview of the 
Political History of Croatians in the Early Middle Ages], in: Nova zraka u europskom 
svijetlu: Hrvatske zemlje u ranome srednjem vijeku (oko 550 - oko 1150) [A New Ray in 
European Light: Croatian Lands in the Early Middle Ages (c. 550 - c. 1150)], ed. Zrinka 
Nikoli ć Jakus (Zagreb 2015), pp. 37–72.
Blancato, Sebastiano, Corrado da Martignacco, Nuovo Liruti: Dizionario Biografi co dei Friulani 
1: Il Medioevo, ed. Cesare Scalon (Udine 2006), thttp://www.dizionariobiografi codeifriu-
lani.it/corrado-da-martignacco-1302/ [last access: 04. 08. 2019].
Bosl, Karl, Die Reichsministerialität der Salier und Staufer: Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte des 
hochmittelalterlichen deutschen Volkes, Staates und Reiches, 2 vols, Schriften der MGH 
10 (Stuttgart 1950–51).
Bosl, Karl, “Noble Unfreedom”. The Rise of the Ministeriales in Germany, in: The Medieval 
Nobility: Studies on the Ruling Classes of France and Germany from the Sixth to the 
Twelfth Century, ed. Timothy Reuter, Europe in the Middle Ages: Selected Studies 14 
(Amsterdam–New York–Oxford 1979), pp. 291–311.
Bouchard, Constance B., The Origins of French Nobility, The American Historical Review 86/3 
(1981), pp. 501–532.
Boyd, Catherine E., Tithes and Parishes in Medieval Italy: The Historical Roots of a Modern 
Problem (Ithaca, N.Y . 1952).
Brunettin, Giordano, Gli istituti benedettini nella strategia di controllo territoriale dei patriarchi 
di Aquileia durante il XII secolo, in: Il monachesimo benedettino in Friuli in età patriar-
cale. Atti del convegno internazionale di studi, Udine-Rosazzo, 18–20 novembre 1999, 
ed. Cesare Scalon (Udine 2002), pp. 55–106.
Brunner, Karl, Ius, quod veri ministeriales habent, Mitteilungen des Instituts für Österreichische 
Geschichtsforschung 100 (1992), pp. 175–180.
Brunner, Karl, Herzogtümer und Marken: Vom Ungarnsturm bis ins 12. Jahrhundert Österrei-
chische Geschichte: 907–1156 (Vienna 1994).
Budak, Neven, Prva stolje ća Hrvatske (Zagreb 1994).
Budak, Neven, Early Medieval Boundaries in Dalmatia/Croatia (8th–11th Centuries), in: “Cas-
tellum, Civitas, Urbs”: Zentren Und Eliten Im Frühmittelalterlichen Ostmitteleuropa, 
ed. Orsolya Heinrich-Tamáska et al., Castellum Pannonicum Pelsonense 6 (Budapest 
2015), pp. 35–44.
Budak, Neven, Hrvatska povijest od 550. do 1100 [Croatian History from 550 to 1100] (Zagreb 
2018).

J. BANI Ć: The Mystery of Merania: A New Solution to Old Problems ... 82  
Bury, John B., The Treatise De administrando imperio, Byzantinische Zeitschrift 15/2 (1906), 
pp. 517–577.
Cammarosano, Paolo, L’alto medioevo: Verso la formazione regionale, in: Storia della società 
friulana: Il medioevo, ed. Paolo Cammarosano (Tavagnacco 1988), pp. 9–155.
Castagnetti, Andrea, La decima da reddito signorile a privilegio economico dei ceti cittadini: 
Linee di ricerca, in: Pievi e parrocchie in Italia nel basso medioevo sec. XIII-XV . Atti del 
VI Convegno di Storia della Chiesa in Italia (Firenze, 21 - 25 sett. 1981) 1, Italia sacra: 
Studi e documenti di storia ecclesiastica 35 (Rome 1984), pp. 215–233.
Castagnetti, Andrea, Le decime e i laici, in: La Chiesa e il potere politico dal medioevo all’età 
contemporanea, ed. Giorgio Chittolini–Giovanni Miccoli, Storia d’Italia. Annali 9 (Turin 
1986), pp. 507–530.
Chevalier, François Félix, Mémoires historiques sur la ville et seigneurie de Poligny 1 (Lons-
le-Saunier 1767).
Chmel, Joseph, Der Österreichische Geschichtsforscher 1 (Vienna 1838).
Constable, Giles, Monastic Tithes: From Their Origins to the Twelfth Century (Cambridge 1964).
Corgnali, Giovanni Battista, Intorno al ‘Thesauri claritas’: Appunti, Memorie storiche forogiuliesi 
35–36 (1939–1940), pp. 11–35.
Cowdrey, Herbert Edward John, Pope Gregory VII, 1073–1085 (Oxford 1998).
Czörnig, Karl, Das Land Görz und Gradisca, mit Einschluss von Aquileja (Vienna 1873).
Darovec, Darko, A Brief History of Istria (Yanchep 1998).
Dauscher, Andreas, Ueber die Familie des Markgrafen Ulrich von Kärnthen und des Herzog 
Magnus von Sachsen, Forschungen zur deutschen Geschichte 16 (1876), pp. 164–167.
De Franceschi, Camillo, I castelli della Val d’Arsa, Atti e memorie della Società istriana di 
archeologia e storia patria 14/3–4 (1898), pp. 337–393.
De Franceschi, Camillo, Mainardo conte d’Istria e le origini della Contea di Pisino, Atti e memorie 
della Società istriana di archeologia e storia patria 38/1 (1926), pp. 33–54.
De Franceschi, Carlo, L’Istria: Note storiche (Poreč 1879).
De Vergottini, Giovanni, Lineamenti storici della costituzione politica dell’Istria durante il 
Medio Evo (Trieste 
2
1974).
Dendorfer, Jürgen, Heinrich V.: Könige und Große am Ende der Salierzeit, in: Die Salier, das 
Reich und der Niederrhein, ed. Tilman Struve (Cologne 2008), pp. 115–170.
Dendorfer, Jürgen, Von den Liutpoldingern zu den Welfen: Die innere Entwicklung, in: Hand-
buch der bayerischen Geschichte 1/1: Das Alte Bayern: Von der Vorgeschichte bis zum 
Hochmittelalter, ed. Alois Schmid (München 2017), pp. 321–416.
Deutinger, Roman, Von den Liutpoldingern zu den Welfen: Die politische Entwicklung, in: 
Handbuch der bayerischen Geschichte 1/1: Das Alte Bayern: Von der Vorgeschichte bis 
zum Hochmittelalter, ed. Alois Schmid (München 2017), pp. 262–320.
Dimitz, August, Geschichte Krains von der ältesten Zeit bis auf das Jahr 1813 1: V on der Urzeit 
bis zum Tode Kaiser Friedrichs III. (1493) (Ljubljana 1874) = History of Carniola: From 
Ancient Times to the Year 1813 with Special Consideration of Cultural Development 1: 
From Primeval Times to the Death of Emperor Frederick III (1493), trans. Andrew J. 
Witter (Bloomington, IN 2013).
Doblinger, Max, Die Herren von Walsee: Ein Beitrag zur österreichischen Adelsgeschichte, 
Archiv für österreichische Geschichte 95 (1906), pp. 235–578.
Dopsch, Heinz, Die Stifterfamilie des Klosters Gurk und ihre Verwandtschaft, Carinthia 161 
(1971), pp. 95–123.
Dopsch, Heinz, Salzburg und Aquileia, in: Il Friuli dagli Ottoni agli Hohenstaufen. Atti del 
convegno internazionale di studio, Udine, 4–8 dicembre 1983, ed. Giuseppe Fornasir 
(Udine 1984), pp. 509–545.

Zgodovinski časopis | 75 | 2021 | 1-2 | (163) 83
Dopsch, Heinz, Die Aribonen: Stifter des Klosters Seeon, in: Kloster Seeon: Beiträge zu Ge-
schichte, Kunst und Kultur der ehemaligen Benediktinerabtei, ed. Hans von Malottki 
(Weissenhorn 1993), pp. 55–92.
Dopsch, Heinz, I conti palatini di Carinzia e il trono ducale, in: La Contea dei Goriziani nel 
Medioevo, ed. Sergio Tavano (Gorizia 2002), pp. 61–85.
Dopsch, Heinz–Therese Meyer, Von Bayern nach Friaul: Zur Herkunft der Grafen von Görz 
und ihren Anfängen in Kärnten und Friaul, Krain und Istrien, Zeitschrift für bayerische 
Landesgeschichte 65/2 (2002), pp. 293–372.
Ebner, Herwig, Das Königsgut ‘Uueliza’ des Jahres 1007, Sonderbände der Zeitschrift des 
Historischen Vereines für Steiermark 16 (1968), pp. 188–199.
Eldevik, John, Episcopal Power and Ecclesiastical Reform in the German Empire: Tithes, Lord-
ship, and Community, 950–1150 (Cambridge 2012).
Ètimologi českij slovar ʹ slavjanskih jazykov [Etymological dictionary of Slavic languages], ed. 
Oleg Truba čóv (Moscow 1985).
Fabjanovi ć, Đuro, Kastavština, Istarska enciklopedija, ed. Miroslav Bertoša–Robert Matijaši ć 
(Zagreb 2005), http://istra.lzmk.hr/clanak.aspx?id=1325 [last access: 04. 08. 2019].
Ficker, Julius, Forschungen zur Reichs- und Rechtsgeschichte Italiens 2 (Innsbruck 1869).
Fine, John V . A., The Early Medieval Balkans: A Critical Survey from the Sixth to the Late Twelfth 
Century (Ann Arbor, MI 1991).
Fokt, Krzysztof, Governance of a Distant Province in the Middle Ages: Case Study on Upper 
Lusatia (Berlin 2017).
Foligno, Cesare, Di alcuni codici liturgici di provenienza friulana nella biblioteca Bodleiana di 
Oxford, Memorie storiche forogiuliesi 9 (1913), pp. 292–300.
Foreti ć, Vinko, Kor čulanski kodeks 12. stolje ća i vijesti iz doba hrvatske narodne dinastije [The 
Codex from Kor čula from the 12
th
 Century and the Notes from the Age of Croatian National 
Dynasty], Starine 46 (1956), pp. 23–44.
Frankopan, Peter, Byzantine Trade Privileges to V enice in the Eleventh Century: The Chrysobull 
of 1092, Journal of Medieval History 30 (2004), pp. 135–160.
Freed, John B., Noble Bondsmen: Ministerial Marriages in the Archdiocese of Salzburg, 
1100–1343 (Ithaca, N.Y . 1995).
Freed, John B., Frederick Barbarossa: The Prince and the Myth (New Haven 2016).
Gänser, Gerald, Die Mark als Weg zur Macht am Beispiel der ‘Eppensteiner’ (1. Teil), Zeitschrift 
des Historischen Vereines für Steiermark 83 (1992), pp. 83–125.
Gänser, Gerald, Die Mark als Weg zur Macht am Beispiel der ‘Eppensteiner’ (2. Teil). Zeitschrift 
des Historischen Vereines für Steiermark 85 (1994), pp. 73–122.
Garzatati, Marcello, Ohrid, Split i pitanje slavenskoga jezika u bogoslužju u X. i XI. stolje ću 
[Ohrid, Split and the Question of Slavic Language in Liturgy in 10
th
 and 11
th
 centuries]. 
Slovo: Časopis Staroslavenskog instituta 60 (2010), pp. 307–334.
Gračanin, Hrvoje, Bizant na hrvatskom prostoru u ranom srednjem vijeku [Byzantium on Croa-
tian Territory in the Early Middle Ages], in: Nova zraka u europskom svijetlu: Hrvatske 
zemlje u ranome srednjem vijeku (oko 550 - oko 1150) [A New Ray in European Light: 
Croatian Lands in the Early Middle Ages (c. 550 - c. 1150)], ed. Zrinka Nikoli ć Jakus 
(Zagreb 2015), pp. 495–516.
Grafenauer, Bogo, Vprašanje hrvatske krajine v Kvarnerju [The Question of Croatian March in 
the Kvarner Region], Zgodovinski časopis 12–13 (1958–1959), pp. 254–260.
Grafenauer, Bogo, Struktura in tehnika zgodovinske vede: uvod v študij zgodovine [Structure 
and Method of Historical Science: Introduction to the Study of History] (Ljubljana 1980).

J. BANI Ć: The Mystery of Merania: A New Solution to Old Problems ... 84  
Grossi, Arianna, Bauzer, Martino (1595 - 1668), Nuovo Liruti: Dizionario Biografi co dei Friulani 
2: L’età veneta, ed. Cesare Scalon–Claudio Griggio–Ugo Rozzo (Udine 2009), http://www.
dizionariobiografi codeifriulani.it/bauzer-martino/ [last access: 04. 08. 2019].
Gruber, Dane, Bertold Meranski ban hrvatski i nadbiskup kalo čki [Berthold of Meran, Ban of 
Croatia and Archbishop og Kalocsa], Vjestnik 5 (1903), pp. 18–41.
Gruber, Dane, Povijest Istre [The History of Istria] (Zagreb 1924).
Gunjača, Stjepan, Ispravci i dopune starijoj hrvatskoj historiografi ji 3 [Corrections and Additions 
to the Earlier Croatian History 3] (Zagreb 1975).
Härtel, Reinhard, Notariat und Romanisierung: Das Urkundenwesen in Venetien und Istrien 
im Rahmen der politischen und Kulturgeschichte (11.–13. Jh.), in: Notariado público y 
documento privado: de los orígenes al siglo XIV (Actas del VII Congreso Internacional 
de Diplomática – Valencia 1986) 2 (Valencia 1989), pp. 879–926.
Hauptmann, Ljudmil, Grofovi Višnjegorski [Counts of Višnja Gora], Rad Jugoslavenske aka-
demije znanosti i umjetnosti 112 (1935), pp. 215–239.
Hauptmann, Ljudmil, Krain. A: Entstehung und Entwicklung Krains; B: Die Landgerichte, in: 
Erläuterungen zum historischen Atlas der österreichischen Alpenländer 1: Die Landge-
richtskarte, p. 4/2: Kärnten, Krain, Görz und Istrien. Kärnten, Görz und Gradizca (Vienna 
1929), pp. 315–484 = Nastanek in razvoj Kranjske [The Formation and Development of 
Carniola], trans. Doris Debenjak, Razprave in eseji 45 (Ljubljana 1999).
Herkenrath, Rainer Maria, Wibald von Stablo, Albrecht der Bär und die Mark Brandenburg, Mit-
teilungen des Instituts für Österreichische Geschichtsforschung 98/1–2 (1990), pp. 103–118.
Herlitz, Georg, Geschichte der Herzöge von Meran aus dem Hause Andechs (Halle 1909).
Herrmann, Erwin, Die Grafen von Andechs und der ducatus Meraniae, Archiv für Geschichte 
von Oberfranken 55 (1975), pp. 1–35.
Hlawitschka, Eduard, Zur Herkunft und zu den Seitenverwandten des Gegenkönigs Rudolf 
von Rheinfelden Genealogische und politisch-historische Untersuchungen, in: Die Salier 
und das Reich 1: Salier, Adel und Reichsverfassung, ed. Stefan Weinfurter (Sigmaringen 
1991), pp. 175–220.
Holzfurtner, Ludwig, Haziga und Otto: Wie alles begann, in: Wittelsbacher-Studien: Festgabe für 
Herzog Franz von Bayern zum 80. Geburtstag, ed. Alois Schmid–Hermann Rumschöttel 
(München 2013), pp. 23–35.
Hormayr, Joseph Freiherr von, V ersuch einer pragmatischen Geschichte der Grafen von Andechs 
nachherigen Herzoge von Meran: aus Urkunden und glaubwürdigen Geschichtschreibern 
zusammengetragen (Innsbruck 1797).
Hormayr, Joseph Freiherr von, Über die in der Bayerischen Häusern Dachau und Andechs ge-
wöhnlichen Titel: Herzog von Croatien, Dalmatien und Meran, Tyroler Almanach (1803), 
pp. 126–187.
Hormayr, Joseph Freiherr von, Sämmtliche Werke 3 (Stuttgart 1822).
Hundt, Friedrich Hektor von, Kloster Scheyern, seine ältesten Aufzeichnungen, seine Besitzungen: 
Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte des Hauses Scheyern-Wittelsbach (München 1862).
Huschberg, Johann Ferdinand, Aelteste Geschichte des durchlauchtigsten Hauses Scheiern-Wit-
telsbach bis zum Aussterben der gräfl ichen Linie Scheiern-Valai (München 1834).
Istria nel tempo: manuale di storia regionale dell’Istria con riferimenti alla città di Fiume, ed. 
Egidio Ivetic (Rijeka–Rovinj–Trieste 2006).
Ivetic, Egidio–Giovanni Radossi, Prefazione, in: Bernardo Benussi, Nel Medio evo: Pagine di 
storia istriana, Collana degli Atti 23 (Rovinj–Trieste 
2
2004), pp. 5–14.
Jurkovi ć, Ivan, Istarska markgrofovija, Istarska enciklopedija, ed. Miroslav Bertoša–Robert 
Matijaši ć (Zagreb 2005), http://istra.lzmk.hr/clanak.aspx?id=1203 [last access: 04. 08. 2019].

Zgodovinski časopis | 75 | 2021 | 1-2 | (163) 85
Jurkovi ć, Ivan, Weimar-Orlamünde, Istarska Enciklopedija, ed. Miroslav Bertoša–Robert Matijaši ć 
(Zagreb 2005), http://istra.lzmk.hr/clanak.aspx?id=3039 [last access: 04. 08. 2019].
Kandler, Pietro, Indicazioni per riconoscere le cose storiche del Litorale (Trieste 1855).
Kandler, Pietro, Sepolcro del B. Salomone re di Ungheria trovato in Pola, L’Istria 6/24 (1851), 
p. 101.
Karbi ć, Damir, Razvoj politi čkih ustanova [The Development of Political Institutions], in: Nova 
zraka u europskom svijetlu: Hrvatske zemlje u ranome srednjem vijeku (oko 550 - oko 
1150) [A New Ray in European Light: Croatian Lands in the Early Middle Ages (c. 550 
- c. 1150)], ed. Zrinka Nikoli ć Jakus (Zagreb 2015), pp. 89–122.
Karsay, Orsolya, The Codex of the Illuminated Chronicle, in: Studies on the Illuminated Chron-
icle, ed. János M. Bak–László Veszprémy, Central European Medieval Texts Subsidia 1 
(Budapest 2018), pp. 1–4.
Klaar, Karl-Engelhardt, Die Herrschaft der Eppensteiner in Kärnten, Archiv für vaterlandische 
Geschichte und Topographie 61 (Klagenfurt 1966).
Klai ć, Nada, Historijska podloga hrvatskoga glagoljaštva u X. i XI. stolje ću [Historical Back-
drop of Croatian Glagolitism in 10
th
 and 11
th
 centruries], Slovo: Časopis Staroslavenskog 
instituta 15–16 (1965), pp. 225–279.
Klai ć, Nada, Da li je postojala Dalmatinska marka Be čke ilustrirane kronike? [Was there a Dal-
matian March of Vienna’s Illustrated Chronicle?], Zgodovinski časopis 19–20 (1965–1966), 
pp. 125–138.
Klai ć, Nada, Povijest Hrvata u ranom srednjem vijeku [History of Croatians in the Early Middle 
Ages] (Zagreb 
2
1975).
Klai ć, Nada, Povijest Hrvata u razvijenom srednjem vijeku [The History of Croatians in the High 
Middle Ages] (Zagreb 1976).
Klai ć, Nada, Pobjeda reformnog Rima na Jadranu za pape Grgura VII (1073–1085) [The Vic-
tory of Reform Rome in the Adriatic during the Pope Gregory VII (1073–1085)], Vjesnik 
historijskih arhiva u Rijeci i Pazinu 28 (1986), pp. 147–202.
Klai ć, Vjekoslav, O hercegu Andriji [On Duke Andrew], Rad Jugoslavenske akademije znanosti 
i umjetnosti 136 (1898) 200–222.
Klebel, Ernst, Über die Städte Istriens, V orträge und Forschungen: Studien zu den Anfängen des 
europäischen Städtewesens 4 (1958), pp. 41–62.
Klen, Danilo, Fratrija: Feud opatije sv. Mihovila nad Limom u Istri i njegova sela (XI - XVIII 
st.) [Fratrija: The Fief of St. Michael’s Monastery above the Lim Bay in Istria and its Vil-
lages (XI - XVIII cent.)] (Rijeka 1969).
Klen, Danilo, Feudalna desetina u Rijeci (XIV-XIX. st) [Feudal Tithes in Rijeka (14
th
–19
th
 c.)], 
Zbornik za narodni život i obi čaje Južnih Slavena 49 (1983), pp. 287–299.
Kobler, Giovanni, Memorie per la storia della liburnica città di Fiume 1 (Fiume 1896).
Köhler, Johann David, De ducibus Meraniae ex comitibus de Andechs ortis (Altdorf 1729).
Komac, Andrej, Utrditev grofov Andeških na jugovuhodu cesarstva v 12. stoletju: Cesar Friderik 
Barbarossa, velika shizma (1161–1177) in pridobitev naslovov mejnih grofov Istre in vojvod 
Meranije s strani Andeških [Consolidation of the Counts of Andechs in the South-East of 
the 12
th
 Century Empire: Emperor Frederick Barbarossa, the Great Schism (1161–1177) 
and Acquisition of the Titles of Margraves of Istria and Dukes of Merania by the Counts 
of Andechs], Annales: Series Historia et Sociologia 13/2 (2003), pp. 283–294.
Komac, Andrej, Od mejne grofi je do dežele: Ulrik III. Spanheim in Kranjska v 13. stoletju [From 
March to Land: Ulrich III of Spanheim and Carniola in the 13
th
 Century] (Ljubljana 2006).
Kos, Franc, Iz zgodovine devinskih gospodov [From the History of Lords of Duino], Razprave 
Znanstvenega drustva za humanisticne vede v Ljudljani 1 (1923), pp. 91–134.

J. BANI Ć: The Mystery of Merania: A New Solution to Old Problems ... 86  
Kosanović, Ozren, Srednjovjekovna povijest Kvarnera u radovima Nade Klai ć [Medieval his-
tory of Kvarner in the Papers of Nada Klai ć], in: Nada Klai ć i njezin znanstveni i nastavni 
doprinos razvoju historiografi je. Zbornik radova sa znanstvenoga skupa s me đunarodnim 
sudjelovanjem održanog u Zagrebu 29.–30. studenog 2013. godine [Nada Klai ć and her 
scholarly and teaching contribution to the development of historiography. Proceedings 
of the scientifi c conference with international participation held in Zagreb from 29 to 
30 November 2013], ed. Tomislav Galovi ć–Damir Agi či ć (Zagreb 2014), pp. 401–415.
Kosi, Miha, “...quae terram nostram er Regnum Hungariae dividit...” (Razvoj meje cesarstva na 
Dolenjskem v srednjem veku) [“...quae terram nostram er Regnum Hungariae dividit...” 
(The Development of the Empire’s Boundary in Lower Carniola in the Middle Ages], 
Zgodovinski časopis 56/1–2 (2002), pp. 43–93.
Kosi, Miha, Andeško-Meranski, Novi Slovenski biografski leksikon 1, ed. Barbara Šterbenc 
Svetina et al. (Ljubljana 2013), https://www.slovenska-biografi ja.si/rodbina/sbi1000510/ 
[last access: 04. 08. 2019].
Kosi, Miha, Spopad za prehode proti Jadranu in nastanek “dežele Kras” [The Clash for the Passes 
towards the Adriatic and the Formation of the Territory of the Karst”] (Ljubljana 2018).
Kretschmayr, Heinrich, Geschichte von V enedig 1: Bis zum Tode Enrico Dandolos (Gotha 1905).
Landi, Walter, Die Grafen von Tirol: Ein historisch-familiengeschichtlicher Überblick (10.–14. 
Jahrhundert), in: Schloss Tirol 1: Baugeschichte, ed. Walter Hauser–Martin Mittermair 
(Bolzano 2017) pp. 110–135.
Lazzarini, Vittorio, I titoli dei dogi di V enezia, Nuovo archivio veneto, n. s. 5 (1903), pp. 271–313.
Leicht, Pier Silverio, Il diploma ottoniano del 996 e i primordi di Udine, Memorie storiche 
forogiuliesi 7 (1911), pp. 1–8.
Leicht, Pier Silverio, Le elezioni dei patriarchi aquileiesi, Memorie storiche forogiuliesi 11 
(1915), pp. 1–19.
Leonhard, Joachim Felix, Ancona nel basso Medioevo: La politica estera e commerciale dalla 
prima crociata al secolo XV (Ancona 1992).
Levak, Maurizio, Podrijetlo i uloga kmeta u vinodolskom društvu XIII. stolje ća [The Origin and 
the Role of the Kmeti in the Thirteenth-Century Society of Vinodol], Zbornik Odsjeka za 
povijesne znanosti Zavoda za povijesne i društvene znanosti Hrvatske akademije znanosti 
i umjetnosti 19 (2001), pp. 35–81.
Levak, Maurizio, Istra i Kvarner u ranome srednjem vijeku [Istria and the Kvarner Region in 
the Early Middle Ages], in: Nova zraka u europskom svijetlu: Hrvatske zemlje u ranome 
srednjem vijeku (oko 550 - oko 1150) [A New Ray in European Light: Croatian Lands in the 
Early Middle Ages (c. 550 - c. 1150)], ed. Zrinka Nikoli ć Jakus (Zagreb 2015), pp. 385–414.
Leyser, Karl, Communication and Power in Medieval Europe 2: The Gregorian Revolution and 
Beyond (London 1994).
Lyon, Jonathan R., Cooperation, Compromise and Confl ict Avoidance: Family Relationships in 
the House of Andechs, ca. 1100–1204, PhD dissertation (Notre Dame, IN 2004).
Lyon, Jonathan R., Princely Brothers and Sisters: The Sibling Bond in German Politics, 1100–1250 
(Ithaca, N.Y . 2013).
Madden, Thomas F., The Chrysobull of Alexius I Comnenus to the Venetians: The Date and the 
Debate, Journal of Medieval History 28 (2002), pp. 23–41.
Majnari ć, Ivan, Karolinško, Otonsko i Sveto Rimsko Carstvo [Carolingian, Ottonian and Holy 
Roman Empire], in: Nova zraka u europskom svijetlu: Hrvatske zemlje u ranome srednjem 
vijeku (oko 550 - oko 1150) [A New Ray in European Light: Croatian Lands in the Early 
Middle Ages (c. 550 - c. 1150)], ed. Zrinka Nikoli ć Jakus (Zagreb 2015), pp. 517–532.
Majnari ć, Ivan, Papinstvo [Papacy], in: Nova zraka u europskom svijetlu: Hrvatske zemlje u 
ranome srednjem vijeku (oko 550 - oko 1150) [A New Ray in European Light: Croatian 

Zgodovinski časopis | 75 | 2021 | 1-2 | (163) 87
Lands in the Early Middle Ages (c. 550 - c. 1150)], ed. Zrinka Nikoli ć Jakus (Zagreb 
2015), pp. 533–548.
Makk, Ferenc, The Árpáds and the Comneni: Political Relations between Hungary and Byzantium 
in the 12th Century (Budapest 1989).
Marchland, Franz Xaver Krones von, Umrisse des Geschichtslebens der deutsch-österreichi-
schen Ländergruppe in seinen staatlichen Grundlagen vom X. bis XVI. Jahrhunderte 
(Innsbruck 1863).
Margeti ć, Lujo, Vjerodostojnost vijesti Andrije Dandola o Dalmaciji u XI. st. [The Credibility of 
Andrea Dandolo’s Reports on Dalmatia in the 11
th
 Century], Zbornik radova Vizantološkog 
instituta 19 (1980) pp. 117–146.
Margeti ć, Lujo, Vijesti Andrije Dandola o Dalmaciji u XII st. i njegovi izvori [Reports of An-
drea Dandolo on Dalmatia in the 12
th
 Century and His Sources]. Historijski zbornik 35/1 
(1982), pp. 209–258.
Margeti ć, Lujo, Uzmak Bizanta na Krku sredinom XI. stolje ća [Byzantium’s Retreat from Krk 
in the Middle of the 11
th
 Century], Zbornik Pravnog fakulteta u Rijeci 4 (1983), pp. 79–96.
Margeti ć, Lujo, Pozadina prvoga ugarskog napada na Rab (1071) [The Backdrop of the First 
Hungarian Attack on Rab (1071)]. Historijski zbornik 40/1 (1987), pp. 75–119.
Margeti ć, Lujo, O nekim vrelima hrvatske povijesti XI. stolje ća (s osobitim obzirom na Osor) 
[Regarding some Sources of 11
th
 Century Croatian History (with Special Regard to Osor)]. 
Historijski zbornik 42 (1989), pp. 111–135.
Margeti ć, Lujo, Rijeka i podru čje isto čno od U čke (‘Meranija’) u XI. i XII. stolje ću [Rijeka and 
the Area East of U čka (‘Merania’) in 11
th
 and 12
th
 centuries], in: Rijeka, Vinodol, Istra: 
Studije [Rijeka, Vinodol, Istria: Studies] (Rijeka 1990), pp. 39–62.
Margeti ć, Lujo, Regnum Croatiae et Dalmatiae u doba Stjepana II [Regnum Croatiae et Dalma-
tiae in the Age of Stephen II], Radovi Zavoda za hrvatsku povijest 29 (1996), pp. 11–20.
Margeti ć, Lujo, Bilješke o me đunarodnom položaju Zvonimirove Hrvatske [Notes on the Inter-
national Position of Zvonimir’s Croatia], in: Zvonimir: Kralj hrvatski [Zvonimir: Croatian 
King], ed. Ivo Goldstein (Zagreb 1997), pp. 11–26.
Margeti ć, Lujo, Bašćanska plo ča [The Baška Tablet], Nova istraživanja Rijeke i rije čkog podru čja 
5 (Rijeka 
2
2000).
Margeti ć, Lujo, Neka pitanja iz starije povijesti Sjevernog Jadrana [Some Questions from the 
Older History of Northern Adriatic], Croatica Christiana Periodica 48 (2001), pp. 1–54.
Margeti ć, Lujo, Odnosi Hrvata i Ma đara u ranije doba (u povodu 900. obljetnice hrvatskog 
priznanja ugarskog kralja Kolomana za hrvatskog kralja) [The Relations between Croa-
tians and Hungarians in the Earlier Age (on the Occasion of 900 Years from Croatian 
Recognition of Hungarian King Coloman as Croatian King], Starine 63 (2005), pp. 1–90.
Matijevi ć-Sokol, Mirjana, T oma Arhi đakon i njegovo djelo: Rano doba hrvatske povijesti [Thomas 
the Archdeacon and His Work: The Early Age of Croatian History] (Jastrebarsko 2002).
Mayr, Gottfried, Die Grafen von Kühbach und ihr Verwandtschaftskreis, in: Hochmittelalterli-
che Adelsfamilien in Altbayern, Franken und Schwaben, ed. Ferdinand Kramer–Wilhelm 
Störmer, Studien zur Bayerischen V erfassungs- und Sozialgeschichte 20 (München 2005), 
pp. 97–139.
Mell, Anton, Die historische und territoriale Entwicklung Krains vom X. bis ins XIII Jahrhundert 
(Graz 1888).
Meyer von Knonau, Gerold, Jahrbücher des Deutschen Reiches unter Heinrich IV . und Heinrich 
V. , 7 vols (Leipzig 1890–1909).
Miheli č, Darja, Vloga Martina Bav čerja v našem zgodovinopisju [The Role of Martin Bauzer 
in our Historiography], Goriški letnik: Zbornik goriškega muzeja 25–26 (1998–1999), 
pp. 235–242.

J. BANI Ć: The Mystery of Merania: A New Solution to Old Problems ... 88  
Miheli č, Darja, Bav čer, Martin (1595–1668), Novi Slovenski biografski leksikon 2, ed. Barbara 
Šterbenc Svetina et al. (Ljubljana 2017), https://www.slovenska-biografi ja.si/oseba/
sbi136331/ [04. 08. 2019].
Milkowicz, Wladimir, Die Chronik Puzels aus dem krainischen Cistercienserstifte Sitich, 
Mittheilungen des Musealvereins für Krain 3 (1890), pp. 53–73.
Mogorovi ć Crljenko, Marija, Istarski markgrofovi iz obitelji Weimar-Orlamünde u konstela-
ciji odnosa Carstva i papinstva u doba borbe za investituru [Istrian Margraves from the 
Weimar-Orlamünde Family in the Constellation of Relations between the Empire and the 
Papacy during the Investiture Controversy], Godišnjak Njema čke narodnosne zajednice 
/ VDG Jahrbuch 10 (2003), pp. 83–89.
Nicol, Donald M., Byzantium and Venice: A Study in Diplomatic and Cultural Relations (Cam-
bridge 1992).
Nikoli ć Jakus, Zrinka, Južna Italija [Southern Italy], in: Nova zraka u europskom svijetlu: Hrvatske 
zemlje u ranome srednjem vijeku (oko 550 - oko 1150) [A New Ray in European Light: 
Croatian Lands in the Early Middle Ages (c. 550 - c. 1150)], ed. Zrinka Nikoli ć Jakus 
(Zagreb 2015), pp. 563–580.
Nikoli ć Jakus, Zrinka, Ugarska [Hungary], in: Nova zraka u europskom svijetlu: Hrvatske zemlje 
u ranome srednjem vijeku (oko 550 - oko 1150) [A New Ray in European Light: Croatian 
Lands in the Early Middle Ages (c. 550 - c. 1150)], ed. Zrinka Nikoli ć Jakus (Zagreb 
2015), pp. 609–629.
Oefele, Edmund von, Geschichte der Grafen von Andechs (Innsbruck 1877).
Oman, Giovanni, al-Idrisi, Encyclopaedia of Islam 3 (Leiden 
2
1986), pp. 1032–1035.
Ortalli, Gherardo, Pietro II Orseolo: Dux V eneticorum et Dalmaticorum, in: V enezia e la Dalmazia 
anno mille: Secoli di vicende comuni. Atti del Convegno di studio V enezia, 6 ottobre 2000, 
ed. Nedo Fiorentin (Canova 2002), pp. 13–27.
Pál, Engel, The Realm of St. Stephen: A History of Medieval Hungary 895–1526, trans. Tamás 
Pálosfalvi (London 2005).
Paschini, Pio, Vicende del Friuli durante il dominio della casa imperiale di Franconia, Memorie 
storiche forogiuliesi 9 (1913), pp. 14–39, 176–205, 277–291, 333–352.
Paschini, Pio, Storia del Friuli (Udine 
3
1975).
Paulus, Christof, Das Pfalzgrafenamt in Bayern im Frühen und Hohen Mittelalter (München 2007).
Petrak, Marko, The Byzantine Emperor in Medieval Dalmatian Exultets, in: Byzantium in 
Dialogue with the Mediterranean: History and Heritage, ed. Daniëlle Slootjes–Mariette 
Verhoeven (Leiden 2019), pp. 47–66.
Petronio, Prospero, Memorie sacre e profane dell’Istria, ed. Giusto Borri–Luigi Parentin (Trieste 
1968).
Pichler, Rodolfo, Il castello di Duino (Trento 1882).
Pirchegger, Hans, Beiträge zur Genealogie des steirischen Uradels, 2: Die Hochfreien von 
Gutenberg-Feistritz und Otto von Plankenberg. Zeitschrift des Historischen Vereins für 
Steiermark 15 (1917), pp. 40–70.
Pirchegger, Hans, Überblick über die territoriale Entwicklung Istriens, in: Erläuterungen zum 
Historischen Atlas der österreichischen Alpenländer 1: Die Landgerichtskarte, pp. 4/2: 
Kärnten, Krain, Görz und Istrien. Kärnten (Nachträge), Krain und Istrien, ed. August von 
Jaksch et al. (Vienna 1929), pp. 485–543.
Praga, Giuseppe, History of Dalmatia, trans. Edward Steinberg (Pisa 1993).
Pryor, J. H.–E. M. Jeffreys, The Age of the Dromon: The Byzantine Navy ca. 500–1204 (Leiden–
Boston 2006).
Raukar, Tomislav, Hrvatsko srednjovjekovlje: prostor, ljudi, ideje [Croatian Middle Ages: Ter-
ritory, People, Ideas] (Zagreb 1997).

Zgodovinski časopis | 75 | 2021 | 1-2 | (163) 89
Ravan či ć, Gordan, Urban Settlements [Oppida] of Vinodol under the Rule of the Counts of Krk: 
Topographical Situation and Local Organization within the Feudal Manor, in: Towns and 
Cities of the Croatian Middle Ages: Authority and Property, ed. Irena Benyovsky Latin–
Zrinka Pešorda Vardi ć (Zagreb 2014), pp. 189–207.
Rentschler, Daniel, Marken und Markgrafen im früh- und hochmittelalterlichen Reich: Eine 
vergleichende Untersuchung vorwiegend auf der Basis von Königsurkunden und anderen 
„offi ziellen Quellen”, PhD dissertation (Stuttgart 2012).
Reuter, Timothy, Germany in the Early Middle Ages, c. 800–1056 (London–New York 1991).
Reuter, Timothy, “Filii matris nostrae pugnant adversum nos”: Bonds and Tensions between 
Prelates and their “milites” in the German High Middle Ages, in: Chiesa e mondo feudale 
nei secoli X-XII. Atti della dodicesima Settimana internazionale di studio, Mendola 24–28 
agosto 1992 (Milan 1995), pp. 241–276.
Reynolds, Susan, Fiefs and Vassals: Medieval Evidence Reinterpreted (Oxford 1994).
Riedl-Valder, Christine, Aventinus: Pionier der Geschichtsforschung (Regensburg 2015).
Rill, Gerhard, Bonfi ni, Antonio, Dizionario Biografi co degli Italiani 12, http://www.treccani.it/
enciclopedia/antonio-bonfi ni_(Dizionario-Biografi co)/ [last access: 04. 08. 2019].
Robinson, Ian Stuart, Henry IV of Germany, 1056–1106 (Cambridge 2000).
Rokay, Péter, Salamon és Póla [Solomon and Pula] (Újvidék 1990).
Romanin, Samuele, Storia documentata di Venezia 1 (Venezia 
2
1912).
Rupp, Gabriele, Die Ekkehardiner, Markgrafen von Meissen, und ihre Beziehungen zum Reich 
und zu den Piasten (Frankfurt am Main 1996).
Sattler, Markus, Zur Gründung des Augustiner-Chorherrenstifts Indersdorf, Amperland 26 
(1990), pp. 470–477.
Schmid, Alois, Die historische Methode des Johannes Aventinus, Blätter für deutsche Landes-
geschichte 113 (1977), pp. 338–395.
Scholliner, Hermann, De Gerbirge Geisenfeldae sepulta, eiusque parentibus ac progenitoribus 
disquisitio cum stemmatographia Comitum de Semta et Ebersberg, Neue historische 
Abhandlungen der Baierischen Akademie der Wissenschaften 4 (1792), pp. 549–700.
Schultes, Johann Adolph, Diplomatische Beyträge zur Geschichte der Grafen von Andechs und 
nachherigen Herzoge von Meran etc. (München 1808).
Schütz, Alois, Das Geschlecht der Andechs-Meranier im europäischen Hochmittelalter, in: Herzöge 
und Heilige: Das Geschlecht der Andechs-Meranier im europäischen Hochmittelalter, ed. 
Josef Kirmeier–Evamaria Brockhoff (München 1993), pp. 21–185.
Šišić, Ferdo, Povijest Hrvata u vrijeme narodnih vladara [The History of Croatians during the 
National Rulers] (Zagreb 1925).
Šišić, Ferdo, Poviest Hrvata za kraljeva iz doma Arpadovi ća (1102–1301) 1: Od Kolomana do 
Ladislava III (1102–1205) [The History of Croatians during the Kings of House Arpad 
(1102–1301) 1: From Koloman to Ladislas III (1102–1205)] (Zagreb 1944).
Škunca, Stanko Josip, Prošlost Crkve u Istri [The Past of Church in Istria] (Pazin 2014).
Stephenson, Paul, Byzantium’s Balkan Frontier: A Political Study of the Northern Balkans, 
900–1204 (Cambridge 2000).
Štih, Peter, Goriški grofje ter njihovi ministeriali in militi v Istri in na Kranjskem [The Counts 
of Gorizia and their Ministerials and milites in Istria and Carniola], Razprave Filozofske 
fakultete (Ljubljana 1994).
Štih, Peter, Diplomati čne in paleografske opombe k listinama Otona II. o podelitvi loškega 
ozemlja škofi ji v Freisingu (DO II 47 in DO II 66) [Diplomatic and Paleographic Notes 
on Otto II’s Charters Donating the Loka Territory to the Bishopric of Freising (DO II 47 
and DO II 66)], Zgodovinski časopis 51 (1997), pp. 301–311.

J. BANI Ć: The Mystery of Merania: A New Solution to Old Problems ... 90  
Štih, Peter, “Villa quae Sclavorum lingua vocatur Goriza”: Studie über zwei Urkunden Kaiser 
Ottos 3. aus dem Jahre 1001 für den Patriarchen Johannes von Aquileia und den Grafen 
Werihen von Friaul (DD. O. 3. 402 und 412) (Nova Gorica 1999).
Štih, Peter, Der friulanische Graf Werihen, in: Tradition und Wandel: Beiträge zur Kirchen-, 
Gesellschafts- und Kulturgeschichte: Festschrift für Heinz Dopsch, ed. Gerhard Amme-
rer–Christian Rohr–Alfred Stefan Weiß (Vienna 2001) 70–79.
Štih, Peter, Rodbina koroških Spanheimov, prvih gospodov Kostanjevice [The Family of Carinthian 
Spanheims, the First Lords of Kostanjevica], in: Kostanjevica na Krki 1252–2002. V ekov tek: 
Zbornik ob 750. obletnici prve listinske omembe mesta [Kostanjevica na Krki 1252–2002. 
The Flow of Centuries: Miscellanea Accompanying the 750
th
 Anniversary of the First Men-
tion of the Place in Charters], ed. Andrej Smrekar (Kostanjevica na Krki 2003), pp. 55–75.
Štih, Peter, Guariento, conte del Friuli, Nuovo Liruti: Dizionario Biografi co dei Friulani 1: Il 
Medioevo, ed. Cesare Scalon (Udine 2006),  http://www.dizionariobiografi codeifriulani.
it/guariento/ [last access: 04. 08. 2019].
Štih, Peter, Anfänge und Entwicklung der Urkunden und urkundennahen Schriftlichkeit im Gebiet 
Sloweniens bis zum Beginn des 12. Jahrhunderts, in: Schriftkultur zwischen Donau und 
Adria bis zum 13. Jahrhundert, ed. Reinhard Härtel et al., Schriftenreihe der Akademie 
Friesach 8 (Klagenfurt 2008), pp. 293–310.
Štih, Peter, The Middle Ages between the Eastern Alps and the Northern Adriatic: Select Papers 
on Slovene Historiography and Medieval History, East Central and Eastern Europe in the 
Middle Ages, 450–1450 11, (Leiden–Boston 2010).
Štih, Peter, I conti di Gorizia e l’Istria nel Medioevo, Collana degli Atti 36 (Rovinj 2013).
Štih, Peter, Od Karniole do Kranjske: Dolga in zapletena pot nastanka dežele [From Karniola 
to Kranjska: Long and Tangled Road to the Formation of Land], in: Studia Valvasoriana: 
Zbornik spremnih študij ob prvem integralnem prevodu Die Ehre dess Herzogthums 
Crain v slovenski jezik [Studia Valvasoriana: Miscellany of Studies Accompanying the 
First Integral Translation of Die Ehre dess Herzogthums Crain into Slovenian], ed. Janez 
Weiss (Ljubljana 2014), pp. 465–500.
Štih, Peter–Vasko Simoniti–Peter V odopivec, Slovenska zgodovina: Družba - politika - kultura 
[Slovenian History: Society - Politics - Culture] (Ljubljana 2008).
Stipiši ć, Jakov, Pomo ćne povijesne znanosti u teoriji i praksi [Auxiliary Historical Sciences in 
Theory and Practice] (Zagreb 
3
1991).
Stipiši ć, Jakov, Pitanje godine krunidbe kralja Zvonimira [The Exact Date of King Zvonimir’s 
Coronation], in: Zvonimir: Kralj hrvatski [Zvonimir: Croatian King], ed. Ivo Goldstein 
(Zagreb 1997), pp. 57–66.
Strauss, Gerald, Historian in an Age of Crisis: The Life and Work of Johannes Aventinus, 
1477−1534 (Cambridge, MA 1963).
Tilatti, Andrea, Giovanni IV, patriarca di Aquileia. Nuovo Liruti: Dizionario Biografi co dei 
Friulani 1: Il Medioevo, ed. Cesare Scalon (Udine 2006), http://www.dizionariobiografi -
codeifriulani.it/giovanni-iv/ [last access: 04. 08.  2019].
Tomasini, Giacomo Filippo, De commentarij storici-geografi ci della provincia dell’Istria libri 
otto con appendice, Archeografo triestino 4 (1837), pp. 1–563.
Trotter, Kamillo, Die Grafen von Scheyern, Dachau, V alley, Wittelsbach, Pfalzgrafen und Herzöge 
von Bayern, in: Genealogisches Handbuch zur bairisch-österreichischen Geschichte, ed. 
Otto von Dungern (Graz 1931), pp. 29–36.
Tyroller, Franz, Genealogie des altbayerischen Adels, in: Genealogische Tafeln zur mitteleuro-
päischen Geschichte 4, ed. Wilhelm Wegener (Göttingen 1962), pp. 47–524.
Vantuch, Anton, Martin Szentiványi: Príspevok k jeho životu a dielu [Martin Szentiványi: A 
Contribution on His Life and Works], Historický časopis 27 (1979), pp. 533–552.

Zgodovinski časopis | 75 | 2021 | 1-2 | (163) 91
Vedriš, Trpimir, Crkva i vjerski život [Church and Religious Life], in: Nova zraka u europskom 
svijetlu: Hrvatske zemlje u ranome srednjem vijeku (oko 550 - oko 1150) [A New Ray in 
European Light: Croatian Lands in the Early Middle Ages (c. 550 - c. 1150)], ed. Zrinka 
Nikoli ć Jakus (Zagreb 2015), pp. 201–236.
Walderdorff, Hugo von, Die Verwandtschaft Kaiser Friedrich’s I. mit den Pfalzgrafen von Wit-
telsbach und den Welfen, Forschungen zur Deutschen Geschichte 13 (1873), pp. 591–595.
Werle, Hans, Titelherzogtum und Herzogsherrschaft, Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung für Rechts-
geschichte: Germanische Abteilung 73 (1956), pp. 225–299.
Werner, Karl Ferdinand, Important Noble Families in the Kingdom of Charlemagne: A Proso-
pographical Study of the Relationship between King and Nobility in the Early Middle 
Ages, in: The Medieval Nobility: Studies on the Ruling Classes of France and Germany 
from the Sixth to the Twelfth Century, ed. Timothy Reuter, Europe in the Middle Ages: 
Selected Studies 14 (Amsterdam–New York–Oxford 1979), pp. 137–202.
Wilson, Stephen, The Means of Naming: A Social and Cultural History of Personal Naming in 
Western Europe (London 1998).
Witte-Hagenau, Heinrich, Genealogische Untersuchungen zur Reichsgeschichte unter den 
salischen Kaisern, Mitteilungen des Instituts für Österreichische Geschichtsforschung 5 
(1896–1903), pp. 309–474.
Würth, Ingrid, Die Grafen von Weimar-Orlamünde als Markgrafen von Krain und Istrien, Zeit-
schrift des Vereins für Thüringische Geschichte 56 (2002), pp. 91–132.
Wyrozumski, Jerzy, Poland in the Eleventh and Twelfth Centuries, in: The New Cambridge 
Medieval History 4/2: c. 1024–c. 1198, ed. David Luscombe–Jonathan Riley-Smith 
(Cambridge 2004), pp. 277–289.
Zabbia, Marino, Ricerca medievistica e urgenza politica al confi ne nord-orientale d’Italia 
(1881–1915), Reti medievali 16/1 (2015) 221–241.
Zotz, Thomas, Die Formierung der Ministerialität, in: Die Salier und das Reich 3: Gesell-
schaftlicher und ideengeschichtlicher Wandel im Reich der Salier, ed. Stefan Weinfurter 
(Sigmaringen 1991), pp. 3–50.
Zupka, Dušan, Ritual and Symbolic Communication in Medieval Hungary under the Árpád 
Dynasty (1000–1301) (Leiden–Boston 2016).

J. BANI Ć: The Mystery of Merania: A New Solution to Old Problems ... 92  
POVZETEK
Skrivnost Meranije: Nove rešitve starih problemov (Sveto 
rimsko cesarstvo ter Kraljevina Hrvaška-Dalmacija v času 
investiturnega boja) 
Josip Bani ć
Avtor najprej analizira razli čne zgodovinopisne interpretacije, povezane s spremembo juris-
dikcije nad Meranijo, mikroregije med goro U čko in reko Rije čino na skrajnem vzhodu istrskega 
polotoka, ki je bila del Kraljevine Hrvaške. Zaplata zemlje, ki je obsegala Brse č, Moš ćenice, 
Lovran, Veprinac, Kastav in Reko, je bila priklju čena Svetemu rimskemu cesarstvu nekje med 
poznim 10. in zgodnjim 12. stoletjem. Prispevek vsebuje analizo in kritiko treh prevladujo čih 
zgodovinopisnih narativov, ki so v članku poimenovani »kraljevska teza« (Bernardo Benussi), 
»Ulrikova teza« (Ljudmil Hauptmann) ter “devinska teza” (Lujo Margeti ć), in opozarja na poman-
jkanje primarnih virov, na katerih temeljijo klju čni argumenti, in/ali na neskladne interpretativne 
preskoke. Avtor predlaga novo rešitev tega starodavenga zgodovinopisnega problema, tj. »V eceli-
novo tezo«. Po tej interpretaciji je Meranio zasedel »plemeniti vitez Vecelin« v drugi polovici 
70. let 11. stoletja, v času hrvaško-dalmatinskega kralja Dimitrija Zvonimirja (1076–1089). Ker 
se je ta hrvaški kralj zaobljubil reformisti čnemu papeštvu in postal neomajen podpornik papeža 
Gregorja VII. med investiturnim bojem, je ogrožal mogo čne sovražnike v sosednjih markah 
Istri in Kranjski, ki so ju obvladovali mo čni prohenrikovski braniki, kot npr. oglejski patriarhat 
in grofovska rodbina Eppensteinci. Ravno v tem kontekstu so se za čeli prvi spopadi med proc-
esarskimi in Zvonimirjevimi silami, izpri čani v pismu papeža Gregorja VII. V ecelinu leta 1079, 
ki so se nadaljevali tudi v letih, ki so sledila. Čeprav ta nobilis miles Wezelin ostaja skrivnostna 
fi gura, avtor predlaga tri potencialne kandidate za njegovo identiteto: grof Kacelin iz rodbine 
Aribonidov, V ecelin, odvetnik samostana Sv. Mihaela v Pulju, in V erner, ministerial Henrika IV ., 
bodočega mejnega grofa Ancone. Priklju čitev Meranije je bila najverjetneje zaklju čena po smrti 
Zvonimirjevega naslednika kralja Štefana III. (1090/91) in za četku krize kraljevske oblasti v 
hrvaško-dalmatinskem kraljestvu ter medsebojnih bojev razli čnih pretendentov na hrvaški prestol. 
Po neuspelem poskusu kralja Kolomana leta 1108, s katerim je zahteval vrnitev tega obmorskega 
ozemlja, se je meja med Svetim rimskim cesarstvom in Kraljevino Dalmacijo-Hrvaško dokon čno 
ustalila, morda na Rje čini, v drugem desetletju 12. stoletja. Na podlagi analiz gre ureditev 
Krajine oz. Dalmatinske marke, te militarizirane obrambne regije na skrajnih zahodnih mejah 
hrvaškega kraljestva, pripisati kralju Zvonimirju in datirati v obdobje intenzivnega vojskovanja. 
Poleg tega lahko Meranijo, ki je bila podeljena Konradu II. Dachauskemu leta 1152 in Bertoldu 
IV. Andeškemu leta 1080, koncipiramo izklju čno kot titularno vojvodino (Titularherzogtum), 
zapuš čeno tem pomembnim plemi čem cesarstva izklju čno iz politi čnih razlogov.