IUSTOS AB INIUSTIS FIDELESQUE AB INFIDELIBUS SEQUESTRARE ET MANIFESTE PROPALLARE : REGISTAR NEVJERNIH I POLITIČKA KRIZA U SREDNJOVJEKOVNOJ SLAVONIJI POČETKOM 15. STOLJEĆA IUSTOS AB INIUSTIS FIDELESQUE AB INFIDELIBUS SEQUESTRARE ET MANIFESTE PROPALLARE : THE REGISTER OF REBELS AND POLITICAL CRISIS IN MEDIEVAL SLAVONIA IN THE EARLY 15 TH CENTURY AND THE STRUGGLE FOR THE

Razumijevanje lokalnih prilika u srednjovjekovnoj Slavoniji u prvom desetljeću 15. stoljeća zapravo je nemoguće bez uvida u reperkusije krize koja je izbila 1402. i kulminirala iduće godine, odnosno bez uvida u načine na koje je pobjednička strana ponovno uspostavila svoj narušeni autoritet. U radu se stoga sagledavaju mehanizmi saniranja političke krize kroz prizmu uloge administrativnih praksi utemeljenih na pisanoj riječi u tom procesu, odnosno kroz prizmu registra nevjernih nastalog na općem shodu održanom u Križevcima krajem 1403. i početkom 1404. godine. Štoviše, potraga za slavonskim registrom nevjernih otvorila je uvid i u vrlo sličan mehanizam rješavanja posljedica krize 1403. i na razini čitave Ugarske, gdje je također, početkom drugog desetljeća 15. stoljeća, napravljen registar nevjernih. Oba dokumenta, makar nisu sačuvana, dragocjeni su stoga tragovi za razumijevanje funkcioniranja kraljevskog aparata početkom 15. stoljeća te za sagledavanje modaliteta interakcije lokalnih društava i političkog središta.

It is practically impossible to understand the local state of affairs in the medieval Slavonia in the first decade of the 15 th century without examining the repercussions of the crisis that began in 1402 and culminated the following year and the actions that the winning side took to restore its damaged authority. This is why the mechanisms used for resolving the political crisis are observed in this paper through the prism of the administrative practices reliant on the written word, specifically, through the prism of the "Register of Rebels" made at the General Assembly that took place in Križevci in the late 1403 and the early 1404. Indeed, the quest for the Slavonian register of rebels also yielded clues about the very similar crisis-resolving mechanism used in the Kingdom of Hungary, where a register of rebels was also made in the early second decade of the 15 th century. Although not preserved, both documents are valuable for understanding the functioning of the royal apparatus in the early 15 th century and for analyzing the modalities of interactions between local societies and the political center.

INTRODUCTION
Back in 1983, Petar Rokai asserted in his doctoral thesis that the congregatio generalis that took place in Križevci in 1403 had been completely ignored by both Croatian and Hungarian historiographies and the same could be said for the Register of Rebels made at that assembly. 1 Almost forty years later, nothing much has changed in this regard. The assembly and register are mentioned now and then merely as footnotes in some publications. 2 It is hard to say what are the reasons for this lack of interest, but the assembly and register are very important for understanding the political state of affairs in the Archiregnum Hungaricum in the first decade of the 15 th century. It is practically impossible to understand the local state of affairs in the medieval Slavonia in the first decade of the 15 th century without examining the repercussions of the crisis that began in 1402 and culminated the following year and the actions that the winning side took to restore its damaged authority. Also, the making of the Register of Rebels and the examples of its subsequent use can help us understand the resolution of the political crisis through the prism of the administrative practices reliant on the written word. Indeed, the quest for the Slavonian register of rebels also yielded clues about the very similar crisis-resolving mechanism used in the Kingdom of Hungary, where a register of rebels was also made in the early second decade of the 15 th century. Although not preserved, both documents are valuable for understanding the functioning of the royal apparatus in the early 15 th century and for analyzing the modalities of interactions between local societies and the political center.

SLAVONIA AND THE STRUGGLE FOR THE THRONE IN 1403
Although the few months spent in captivity in 1401 damaged his authority, Sigismund nevertheless felt safe enough when he left the Kingdom in early 1402. By the end of that year he undertook the steps intended to tighten his grip on power: reshuffling the highest positions at the Court and appointing Albert IV of Austria his heir apparent and the caretaker of the Kingdom in his absence. However, these moves were met with counter-reaction of the nobility, who formed a wide coalition and decided to support Ladislaus of Naples as their king (by the end of 1402, his supporters had already controlled almost entire Dalmatia and Croatia). 3 Among those who turned their back to Sigismund was Emeric Bebek, the Prior of Vrana who, together with Eberhard, Bishop of Zagreb, ruled as Ban of Slavonia, Dalmatia and Croatia from February to early October of 1402, when both of them were replaced by Paul of Bissen and Ladislaus Gordovai. 4 All four of them attended the signing of the 21 September agreement with Albert IV of Austria in Bratislava and were among those who verified it with their seals. 5 Clearly it was then that the decision about the replacement of the two Bans was made. Their reactions to it were different: while Eberhard remained firmly loyal to Sigismund, Emeric switched sides and became a supporter of Ladislaus of Naples. V. Klaić is right in associating Paulus de Paulo's news about the 11 October surrender of Vrana to Ladislaus' troops (that had sieged it since early September) with Emeric's change of loyalty. 6 Emeric Bebek's switching sides had far-reaching repercussions on the political loyalty of Slavonian nobility, which is reflected in several Sigismund's charters alleging that Emeric "fere totius ipsius rebellionis et discensionis origo fuerat nekoliko Sigismundovih isprava, prema kojem je Emerik "fere totius ipsius rebellionis et discensionis origo fuerat et causa efficiens". 7 O tome rječito svjedoči i velik broj onih plemića kojima su nakon studenog 1403. zbog nevjere oduzeti posjedi pri čemu je navedeno da su se nalazili u Emerikovoj službi (v. naprijed). Zbog različitih, iako ne nužno suprotstavljenih, iskaza u izvorima teško je razaznati je li sam Emerik osobno imao kakvu ulogu u zarobljavanju bana Pavla Bissena, koje se može kronološki smjestiti u veljaču 1403., što je također bio ozbiljan udarac Sigismundovim snagama na terenu. 8 Što se događalo s banskom čašću u susljednom periodu? Vrlo je teško suditi o tome jer je izvorna građa oskudna, što je samo po sebi indikativno te govori o (ne)mogućnosti djelovanja bilo koje strane kroz standardne institucionalne poluge kojima se manifestirao i ostvarivao autoritet i vlast političkog središta na lokalnoj razini. Naime, za period između studenoga 1402. i kolovoza 1403. nije sačuvana ni jedna isprava koju je izdao slavonski ban, a znakovita je i praznina u onima koje su izdali vicebanovi -sačuvanih isprava izdanih u njihovo ime nema između rujna 1402. i svibnja 1403. 9 Jednako tako, gotovo da i nema sačuvanih isprava Zagrebačkog ili Čazmanskog kaptola koje bi svojim sadržajem ukazale na komunikaciju s dvorom, što je u razdoblju mira bio jedan od standardnih mehanizama uređenja lokalnih prilika. 10  et causa efficiens". 7 Evidence of it can be seen in the fact that there were many noblemen whose estates were taken away from them after November 1403 on account of their disloyalty, manifested by their support for Emeric (see further). As the accounts in the sources vary, although they are not necessarily opposing, it is hard to tell whether Emeric was personally involved in the capturing of Ban Paul of Bissen (dated to February 1403), which was a serious blow to Sigismund's forces in the field. 8 So how was the authority of ban exerted in the subsequent period? It is very hard to say because sources are scarce -which, in fact, indicates that none of the parties involved was able to act by using the standard institutional levers through which the political center exercised authority and power on the local level. No charter issued by Ban of Slavonia between November 1402 and August 1403 has been preserved. There is a similar gap when we are talking about charters issued by vicebans -none of them from the period between September 1402 and May 1403 has been preserved. 9 Charters of Zagreb or Čazma Chapters that would indicate communication with the Court -one of standard mechanisms for regulating local state of affairs in times of peace -are also practically non-existent. 10  in Slavonia and that well-established administrative structures and practices were disrupted. Unfortunately, the political state of affairs in Slavonia in this period is hard to see clearly. The first solid facts date from early April 1403, when prelati, barones, proceres et nobiles regni, Ladislaus' supporters, gathered in Slatina. A charter issued in their name near Požega on 24 May in descensu nostro exercituali tells us about their activities. 11 Naturally, the route to Zadar, where they were supposed to meet Ladislaus of Naples, led through Slavonia, where the situation at the time was such that military actions could not be ruled out. As the contemporaneous sources that cast light on this period are very scarce (as has been said above), we have to rely on Sigismund's donations from a later period to be able to understand these conflicts and political developments. However, this means relying on one-sided accounts that not only record events after a lapse of time but do it in a way that makes it hard to establish the chronology of these events. With these reservations in mind, one can conclude that Sigismund's interests in Slavonia were primarily represented by John of Maroth, according to some narrative parts of the royal donations issued to him. It is best to begin with the donation issued in November 1405. It states that Emeric Bebek turned to hostile regions for help and managed to enlist in his cause numerous Slavonian noblemen. After John of Maroth had successfully stood up against Bebek's forces, he rushed to Bratislava where the king was staying in te sakupio vojsku kojoj se uspješno suprotstavio Ivan Marot, nakon čega je pak pohitao kralju prema Bratislavi, gdje se kralj nalazio krajem srpnja i početkom kolovoza. 12 Sukobi se, dakle, mogu datirati negdje u lipanj i srpanj, a ako je vjerovati sadržaju kraljevske darovnice, Marot je u njima bio uspješan. 13  late June and early July. 12 This is why the conflicts can be dated to June and/or July of that year. If the donation is to be believed, John of Maroth was successful in these conflicts. 13 Corroborating this, a donation to Marot from November 1403 states that he managed to repulse the enemy "de regno Sclavonie ad regnum Bozne". Indeed, John annihilated some of Emeric's supporters and won over others, switching their loyalty back to the "true" king. Both of these courses of action weakened support to Ladislaus of Naples and his advocates. 14 We cannot say with absolute certainty that this took place in June and/or July. However, the similarity of the accounts in these two donations that place these events in the period after Paul of Bissen was taken prisoner and handed over to Ladislaus of Naples (who had arrived in Dalmatia in mid-July) suggests it is most likely that the events took place in this particular period. Aside from John of Maroth, it seems that Nicholas Garai also participated in the conflict. He is claimed to have attempted to free Paul of Bissen from captivity, but Emeric, who was fleeing from Nicholas, took Paul to Zadar. 15 If John of Maroth and Nicholas Garai were indeed successful in their military campaigns, the question arises who was in control of Slavonia in summer 1403. A depiction contrary to the political situation and achievements described in Sigismund's charters can be found in Florentine citizen Galeotto's letter to the Florence authorities on 24 July. In this letter he reports on the state of the affairs in the Archiregnum, explaining that the entire region south of the Drava River recognizes Ladislaus as its king and that those few who defy him 12  Ladislavu podvrgavaju svi južno od rijeke Drave, a mali broj onih koji mu se suprotstavljaju, nisu velike snage. 16 Koje je pak od tih viđenja političkih odnosa bliže stvarnosti, nemoguće je reći, no ne treba isključiti mogućnost fluktuiranja u kontroli i podršci koju je pojedina strana imala u Slavoniji. Pritom se, iz Sigismundova opisa djelovanja Ivana Marota, može razaznati da su vojne pobjede i iskazi vojne sile silno utjecali na raspoloženje lokalnog plemstva i na njihovu političku lojalnost. Lojalnost se nastojalo očuvati i pozitivnom agitacijom, u kakvu spada i darovnica Emerika Bubeka Adamu i Ladislavu od Čanjevca od 20. kolovoza, izdana u Križevcima, koja još jednom otkriva Emerika Bubeka kao glavnog logističara Ladislavove stranke na prostoru Slavonije. 17 Ako je do rujna 1403. postojalo snažno djelovanje Sigismundovih protivnika uslijed kojeg je došlo do Ladislavove krunidbe u Zadru, M. Ančić zgodno primjećuje da je krunidba bila "antiklimaks svih njihovih (ugarskih velikaša i prelata, op. a.) planova i značila je stvarni poraz pa je, uz još poneki trzaj u održavanju pobunjeničke strukture i hijerarhije tijekom ljetnih mjeseci, za njih pobuna okončana u jesen kada je Sigismund svima ponudio amnestiju". 18 No prije same amnestije kraljevske su snage izvojevale niz važnih pobjeda koje su dodatno omekšale otpor "pobunjenika" i otvorile put prema ponudi amnestije koja će, kako će se pokazati, razriješiti krizu. 19  pose no real threat. 16 It is impossible to say which of these perceptions of the political situation was closer to the truth, but the possibility of fluctuations in the control by and support to either of the conflicting parties in Slavonia cannot be ruled out. It is also clear that the military victories and demonstrations of power had a strong effect on the sentiment and political loyalty of the local nobility, as can be seen in Sigismund's description of John of Maroth's actions. Another way of ensuring their loyalty was positive agitation, such as Emeric Bebek's donation to Adam and Ladislaus of Čanjevac, issued in Križevci on 20 August, which once again presents Emeric Bebek as the chief logistician of Ladislaus' party in Slavonia. 17 Even if until September 1403 Sigismund's opponents worked hard to overthrow and defeat him, even crowning Ladislaus in Zadar, M. Ančić perceptively observes that the coronation was the "anticlimax of their [Hungarian aristocrats' and prelates'] plans, effectively signaling their defeat; notwithstanding some further efforts to uphold the structure and hierarhy of the rebel camp during the summer months, their revolt was terminated in autumn, when Sigismund offered amnesty to them. " 18 But before the amnesty, the king's forces won several important battles that helped overcome the rebels' resistance and pave the way for the amnesty that, as it would turn out, would resolve the crisis. 19 Did any of these battles take place in Slavonia? We should once again resort to the scarce information from Sigismund's donations. According to one of them, John of Maroth was wounded under Emeric Bebek's fortress known as Tornow, that stood somewhere between Nova Gradiška and Okučani, where he received a severe wound on the head. 20  je do sukoba moglo doći nakon što se Ivan vratio sa sjevera Ugarske gdje je bio pošao ka kralju u Bratislavu, dakle negdje tijekom kasnog kolovoza ili rujna. Zadobivena ozljeda također objašnjava zašto ga neko vrijeme ne vidimo u vojnim djelovanjima, a inače je bio jedan od ključnih Sigismundovih vojskovođa u cijelom razdoblju krize njegove vlasti. Na samom kraju mjeseca, 30. rujna, u jednom pismu Dubrovčanima Sigismund najavljuje pohod prema Slavoniji gdje se planirao sukobiti sa svojim neprijateljima, no do toga ipak nije došlo -u susretu s pobunjenicima početkom listopada postignut je sporazum koji je rezultirao izdavanjem kraljevske povelje od 8. listopada. 21

FROM THE OFFER OF ROYAL PARDON TO THE REGISTER OF REBELS
Just like in Pápa on 29 October 1401, the charter offered royal pardon to the king's opponents. 22 But unlike in October 1401, when his position was still shaky after his release from prison, the offer of pardon two years later reveals a much resolute ruler who intends to make peace with his opponents, but under strictly defined conditions. In order to be restored to royal grace (indicatively, such vocabulary cannot be found in the Pápa charter), the rebels had to cease hostilities and submit themselves to their king; the pardon for their previous misdeeds and regaining their estates would thus be guaranteed. They also had to appear before the king within a year in order to manifest their loyalty to him, upon which a charter of royal pardon would be issued. Royal pardon was not to be granted to those who fail to cease hostilities after expiry of the deadline (15 days for those from the areas south of the Drava River) and there would be no way for them to avoid sentence for their "misdeeds". 23 The ones like Bebek and members of the Kanizsai family, who failed to accept royal pardon on time, did that by the end of October. However, it does not mean all of Sigismund's enemies managed to be restored to royal grace. Late October and early November saw a flood of royal donations rewarding the king's supporters with the estates of those who had persisted in their revolt. Many of 21 32 Valja istaknuti da su to tek neki sačuvani primjeri koji otkrivaju pobunjenike u Slavoniji na temelju prvog vala kraljevskih darivanja oduzetih posjeda; broj je, što će se vidjeti u daljnjem izlaganju, bio daleko veći, no zajedničke su im dvije stvari. Kao prvo, najveći dio njih pratio je priora Emerika Bubeka, što potvrđuje optužbe na njegov račun u Sigismundovim darovnicama, to jest otkriva ga kao glavnog vođu i organizatora Ladislavove stranke u Slavoniji. Kao prior od 1392., zahvaljujući i materijalnim resursima reda kojem je stajao na čelu i banskoj časti tijekom 1402., Emerik je mogao stvoriti gustu mrežu klijenata u Slavoniji koju je onda mogao aktivirati u trenutcima sukoba, a služio je i kao stup za sve one koji su se iz drugih razloga protivili Sigismundovoj vlasti. Kao drugo, gotovo svi koji su izgubili posjede dolaze iz Križevačke županije, iznimno je malo onih iz Zagrebačke. 33 To može biti povezano s nekoliko činjenica, a prva je smještaj glavnih posjeda priorata, kojih nema na prostoru Zagrebačke županije. 34 Nadalje, jedan od najvećih slavonskih zemljoposjednika, zagrebački biskup, pozicija koju je tada držao Eberhard, cijelo je vrijeme pristajao uz Sigismunda, a aktivnu su mu podršku izgleda davali i ranije spomenuti plemići od Zomzedvara i Lipovečki. Kad su u pitanju druge važne obitelji s posjedima u Zagrebačkoj županiji, poput Blagajskih i Zrinskih, njihovu je političku odanost teško razaznati, prvenstveno jer granica između kraljevskih pristaša i pobunjenika nije bila neprobojna, ali u ovom je 30 31 On 7 November, the king awarded to Mikec of Zenthpeter the former landed properties of rebel Paul of Beche in Križevci County. 32 These are but a few preserved examples of the first wave of royal donations of confiscated estates, identifying rebels in Slavonia. There were much more of them, as we will see further in the text. They all had two things in common. First, most of them were Emeric Bebek's followers, which confirms the accusations against him found in Sigismund's donations and identifies him as the chief leader and organizer of Ladislaus' party in Slavonia. Thanks to the material resources he had had at his disposal as prior since 1392 and ban in 1402, Emeric managed to create a dense client network in Slavonia, to be activated in the times of conflicts. He also served as a linchpin for all those opposed to Sigismund's rule for other reasons. Second, almost all those who lost their estates were from Križevci County; very few of them were from Zagreb County. 33 One of the reasons for this may be the fact that none of the Priory's principal estates were located in Zagreb County. 34 Also, Bishop of Zagreb (then Eberhard), as one of the biggest landowners in Slavonia, had been supporting Sigismund all the time. The abovementioned nobles from Susedgrad and Lipovec also seemed to have actively supported Sigismund. As for other important families with estates in Zagreb County -such as Zrinski and Blagaj families -their political loyalties are hard to tell, primarily because the line between the king's supporters and the rebels was not such a strict one. However, in 30  kontekstu najvažnije da nisu odveć otvoreno radili protiv Sigismunda. 35 Bez obzira na te razlike između Zagrebačke i Križevačke županije prethodne su kraljevske darovnice sa samog kraja listopada ili početka studenoga na diskurzivnoj razini govorile o Slavoniji kao o cjelini te su je suprotstavljale Hrvatskoj i Dalmaciji, za koje se naglašava da su u potpunosti izvan dometa Sigismundova autoriteta. No ni sama Slavonija izgleda nije bila do kraja podvrgnuta kontroli, odnosno nekoliko je elemenata koji su pridonosili nesigurnosti. Kao prvo, određeni, a izgleda ne tako mali broj plemića još je ustrajao na sukobima. Osim toga, figure poput Emerika Bubeka, makar su vratile Sigismundovu milost i dalje su bile neugodni susjedi. Tako su u lipnju 1404. slavonski banovi uputili nalog Čazmanskom kaptolu da u posjed Ervenicu uvede Pavla literata i Stjepana Lovrina de Sancto Andrea, koji im je na ime vjernosti dao kralj, no u čiji posjed zbog straha od priora Emerika nisu mogli ući, a sada kada je on pokojni, to čine. 36 Nesigurnost u drugom pogledu otkriva slučaj Katarine, udovice Jurja Batthyányija, i njezinih maloljetnih sinova Alberta, Ladislava i Jurja. Oni su se pred kraljem tužili da su im biskup Eberhard i Ivan Marot (kojeg se tu naziva slavonskim banom, dokaz prije svega da je bio Sigismundov čovjek zadužen za vojne operacije južno od Drave) nepravedno oduzeli slavonski posjed Zenthjacab na račun kraljevske darovnice koja ih prikazuje kao nevjerne. Kralj je pak uvažio njihove pritužbe te ih uzeo u svoju zaštitu. 37 Dakle, dok su pobunjenici unosili nered i nesigurnost, jednako su to radili i kraljevi pouzdanici, koristeći priliku da bi se beskrupulozno domogli posjeda.
Iz takve dvostruke nesigurnosti proizlazila je potreba daljnjeg djelovanja u Slavoniji, koja je tijekom prosinca poprimila specifičan oblik u vidu aktivnosti petorice velikaša -zagrebačkog biskupa Eberharda, mačvanskog bana Ivana Marota, 35  this context, what matters the most is that they did not openly side against Sigismund. 35 Notwithstanding the differences between Zagreb and Križevci Counties, earlier royal donations (those from late October and early November) perceived Slavonia as a whole at the level of discourse, juxtaposing it against Croatia and Dalmatia (and stating that Sigismund had never established his rule over the latter two). But it seems that Slavonia itself was not completely under his rule and that there were elements which contributed to insecurity in that region. For one thing, a number (rather large, it seems) of noblemen still insisted on continuation of the conflict. Also, figures like Emeric Bebek, although restored to Sigismund's favor, continued to be objectionable neighbors. Thus, in June 1404, the bans of Slavonia instructed the Chapter of Čazma to introduce Paul litteratus and Stephen de Sancto Andrea (son of Lawrence) into the possession of Ervenica estate awarded to them by the king for their loyalty, which had not been done by then for fear of Prior Emeric, but now he was dead. 36 There were other manifestations of the abovementioned insecurity, like in the case of Catherine, widow of George Batthyány, and her under-aged sons Albert, Ladislaus and George. They complained to the king that Bishop Eberhard and John of Maroth (the latter being referred to as a Slavonian ban, which can be seen primarily as evidence that he was in charge of Sigismund's military campaigns south of the Drava) wrongfully deprived them of the possession of their Slavonian estate Zenthjacab because they had been declared rebels in a royal donation. The king upheld their complaint and took them under his protection. 37 Clearly, both the rebels and the loyal noblemen created disturbances and insecurity, unscrupulously using the opportunity to get hold of other people's estates.
This double insecurity called for action in Slavonia. In December, it was five barons who took the 35 39 Kakvo objašnjenje za takav potez daju same isprave izdane tijekom tog shoda? U srži stoji potreba jasnijeg razdvajanja vjernih od nevjernih ili, kako se veli, plemstvo okupljeno na shodu trebalo je pomoći iustos ab iniustis fidelesque ab infidelibus sequestrare et manifeste propallare, jer je u procesu dijeljenja kraljevskih darovnica dobar dio njih išao nauštrb onih koji su ostali vjerni Sigismundu, na što ukazuje i ranije spomenuti primjer Batthanyija, ili nauštrb onih koji su se pak pridržavali uvjeta za dobivanje milosti. 40 Sve stoga upućuje na probleme koje je dvor imao nakon ponude kraljevske milosti pobunjenicima iz listopada 1403. u razlučivanju "vjernih i nevjernih", što je komplicirao niz faktora: velikaši su i slavonsko plemstvo denuncirali svoje protivnike te bili nagrađivani njihovim posjedima, a takve optužbe nije se moglo uzimati zdravo za gotovo; neki su plemići dobivali pomilovanje, ali se pokazalo da su i dalje ustrajali u stvaranju nereda u kraljevstvu, dočim su neki po pomilovanju uistinu odustajali od daljnjeg otpora, ali su im posjedi svejedno bili oduzeti. Sve to stvaralo je ogromnu zbrku i otežavalo raspetljavanje političke krize na mikrorazini, odnosno dvoru je bilo vrlo teško imati pouzdane informacije, a susljedno tome i držati nadzor nad 38 38 By the king's order, they convened the assembly (congregatio generalis) in Križevci for 28 December. 39 The reason for this move can be found in the charters issued during the assembly. In essence, there was a need for establishing a clear line between the rebels and loyal noblemen or, as it was stated in the charters, the assembled noblemen were supposed to help "iustos ab iniustis fidelesque ab infidelibus sequestrare et manifeste propallare", because a number of royal donations were made at the expense of those who had remained loyal to Sigismund (as the case of the abovementioned Batthyány family indicates) or those who had fulfilled the requirements for receiving royal grace. 40 All this indicates the problems that the king's court was facing in telling loyal nobleman from rebels after the royal pardon offered to the rebels in October 1403. These problems were caused by a number of factors: barons and Slavonian nobility were denouncing their opponents and were in return awarded their estates. Such accusations could not be taken for granted. On the one hand, some noblemen were pardoned but it turned out they persisted in creating disorder in the realm; others, on the other hand, really gave up further resistance, but were deprived of their estates nevertheless. All this caused major confusion and made the resolution of the political crisis at the micro level more difficult because the Court had large problems obtaining reliable information and thus maintaining control over local state of affairs. For example, in almost every donation issued in late October and early November it is specified that all the recipients of the confiscated estates should inform the court about the number of tenant plots they had received. This also indicates that various types of information were much needed by the court because they were hard to obtain. One should also keep in mind that, while it is clear to modern historians that Sigismund was successful in dealing with the threats to his power, the prospects for it may not have seemed so certain in late 1403, especially because Slavonia bordered on the regions that did not recognize Sigismund's rule. Given the past 20 years, the contemporaries must have had hard time believing that the following 30 years of his reign would be free of such major challenges to his royal authority. In this context, the deputation of five barons was a demonstration of power. However, their mission was also to bring order at the local level in order to avoid renewed sparks of resistance resulting from the insecurity and disorder created, among other things, by wielding royal charters. What is known about the assembly itself?
According to relevant sources, a large number of noblemen attended it. Sworn assessors were obliged to swear not only on the crucifix but also on the holy relics. Indicatively, the latter had usually been absent from such rituals at earlier general assemblies in Slavonia. 41 Their task was also to establish who had actually remained disloyal to Sigismund and who did not deserve to have the stain of unfaithfulness attached to their name ("infidelitatis notam, crimen contagium ac maculam", as specified in one source). 42 This also included solving legal possessory issues -for example, the cases of confiscation of pledged estates. 43 On the eighth -finalday of the assembly (4 January), the five noblemen were issuing two kinds of charters. One guaranteed a person's loyalty and thus eliminated the possibility 41  lokalnim prilikama u takvim okolnostima. Tako se u gotovo svim darovnicama izdanim tijekom kraja listopada i početka studenoga navodi da recipijenti oduzetih posjeda dvoru trebaju javiti broj selišta koja su dobili, što također ukazuje na prijeku potrebu dvora za raznim vrstama informacija koje je bilo zahtjevno prikupiti. Pritom ne treba smetnuti s uma i iduće: iz pozicije naknadne pameti modernim je povjesničarima jasno da je Sigismund uspješno riješio prijetnju svojoj vlasti, no krajem 1403. to se nije moralo činiti tako izglednim. Slavonija je predstavljala granicu s područjima koja nisu uopće priznavala Sigismundovu vlast, to jest s obzirom na prethodnih 20-ak godina teško da je itko mogao zamisliti da će idućih 30-ak godina Sigismundove vladavine proći bez tako velikih izazova njegovu kraljevskom autoritetu. U tom kontekstu poslanstvo petorice velikaša funkcioniralo je kao demonstracija moći, ali je njihov zadatak bio i uvođenje reda na lokalnoj razini da bi se izbjegla mogućnost tinjanja ponovnog otpora koji bi mogla generirati nesigurnost i nered nastao, između ostalog, mahanjem ispravama izdanim u kraljevo ime. Što se može razaznati o radu shoda? U relevantnim se dokumentima navodi da je shod privukao velik broj plemića te da su prisežnici bili dužni zaprisegnuti na raspelo, ali i na relikvije, koje se inače ne pojavljuju kao element u takvim ritualnim radnjama na slavonskim općim shodovima u prethodnom razdoblju. 41 Potom je njihov zadatak bio utvrditi tko je zapravo ostao nevjeran Sigismundu, to jest utvrditi tko nije zaslužio da se uz njegovo ime veže infidelitatis notam, crimen contagium ac maculam, kako se veli u jednoj ispravi. 42  In order to fully "iustos ab iniustis fidelesque ab infidelibus sequestrare et manifeste propallare", assembly was chosen as the most public form of communication in the society of that time, thus using noblemen's physical presence to make difference between the "loyal noblemen" and the "rebels". A more permanent difference was made in writing: a register (registrum) containing the names of the "rebels" was made by the sworn assessors appointed at the assembly. 48 The register has not been preserved; we only know about it because it is mentioned in sources several times. Such assemblies and registers 44 47 Kako bi pak u potpunosti iustos ab iniustis fidelesque ab infidelibus sequestrare et manifeste propallare, osim što je izabran shod kao najjavniji oblik političke komunikacije tog društva, čime se na pojavnoj razini, u smislu fizičke prisutnosti, radila razlika "vjernih" i "nevjernih", razdjelnica je uspostavljena i u trajnijem obliku, u formi pisane riječi. Naime, na shodu je sastavljen i registar (registrum), koji nije ostao sačuvan, već se u izvorima pojavljuje tek nekoliko puta, u koji su unesena imena "nevjernih", koje su imenovali prisežnici određeni na tome shodu. 48  of names were part of a regular repertoire used in the 14 th century to maintain order and fight notorious criminals (malefactores) who were disturbing peace in local societies. 49 Relying on such crisis-solving mechanism is indicative for the court's view of the situation in Slavonia in late 1403. One should nevertheless keep in mind that the situation was far from routine; rather, it was a reaction to the aftermath of a serious political crisis. Convening an assembly presided by five barons sent by the court and the presence of holy relics suggest that the regular mechanisms -normally used for separating and punishing those responsible for serious public disturbance -were now used under extraordinary circumstances.
The actions of the royal deputation in late 1403, including the making of the register, had two goals. On the one hand, they were supposed to instill fear and the perception of a responsible and efficient government, thus suppressing any resistance to Sigismund's authority in a region bordering with the parts of the kingdom that had remained outside his power. They were mostly successful in it -there would be no indications of actions against Sigismund's authority in the subsequent period. On the other hand, the rewarding/punishing processes had to be put in order and thus provide the court with reliable information about the political loyalty of the Slavonian nobility. This could eliminate the abuses and wrong decisions that had clearly created discontent among those who considered themselves wronged and that could furnish fertile ground for rekindling the resistance. In this respect, the Register of Rebels seems very important for understanding the administrative practice and functioning of both the kingdom and the court, as well as for the delicate issue of separating the loyal noblemen from the rebels even after the assembly in late 1403 which is crucial for understanding the local conditions in Slavonia in the first decade of the 15 th century. društvima. 49 Oslonac na takav mehanizam rješavanja krize stoga je indikativan kada se želi pojmiti kako je dvor gledao na situaciju u Slavoniji na kraju 1403. No istovremeno ipak ne treba smetnuti s uma da je stvar bila daleko od rutinske; bila je odgovor na posljedice ozbiljne političke krizeodržavanje shoda pod predsjedanjem petorice velikaša poslanih s dvora te prisutnost relikvija znak su da su ustaljeni mehanizmi, korišteni u izdvajanju i kažnjavanju onih koji su ozbiljno narušavali društveni red i mir, upotrijebljeni u izvanrednim okolnostima.
Svi spomeni registra, ukupno u tri prilike, datiraju iz svibnja i lipnja 1406. godine. Prvi se put spominje u ispravi Hermana Celjskog od 6. All mentions of the register -three of them altogether -date from May and June 1406. It is first mentioned in the charter of Herman of Celje of 6 May, stating that Casper and Peter of Precezha, sons of Andrew, presented royal charters to him. The charters specified that the king, prelates and barons had decided that estates should be returned to all those whose names were not in the Register of Rebels and that, since their names were not found in the register, these noblemen should be introduced into the possession of their estate. This king's decision and his order to the bans to carry it out are hard to date accurately, but the context in which the decision was made indicates that the problem did not concern only Slavonia -it concerned the entire kingdom. As a reaction to the complaints of a large number of noblemen whose estates had been confiscated and awarded to Sigismund's supporters, a royal decree was issued in December 1404. Some of them claimed they had received royal grace, others claimed they had not worked against the king in accordance with the royal grace offered in 1403, while yet others claimed they had done nothing against the king but their estates had been confiscated nevertheless and awarded to third parties. 50 These complaints reflect the difficulties in solving the problems that arose immediately after November 1403 and that, at least partly, were the reason for convening the assembly and making the register in Slavonia. After all, the entire wide range of cases mentioned in Sigismund's decree were clearly present in Slavonia even after January 1404. Herman of Greben, who had sided with John of Kanizsa, the Bishop of Esztergom, received special royal grace in April 1404. Still, in April 1405 the king was forced to order the Slavonian bans to protect Herman, because his relatives Nicholas and John of Greben (sons of Peter) had taken and kept his estates on the basis of the royal donation. 51  svibnja u kojoj se navodi da su mu Gašpar i Petar Andrijini de Precezha pokazali kraljevske isprave. U njima je stajalo da je kralj s prelatima i barunima odlučio da se svima onima čije se ime ne može pronaći u registru nevjernih trebaju vratiti njihovi posjedi, pa je tako kralj dvojici banova dao u nalog da uvedu navedene plemiće u njihov posjed koji im kralj vraća jer njihovo ime nije pronašao u navedenom registru. Teško je pobliže vremenski odrediti nastanak takve kraljevske odluke, odnosno kada je nastao i odaslan navedeni nalog banovima, no širi kontekst u kojem ona nastaje pokazuje da problem nije bio samo lokalni, slavonski, već na razini cijelog kraljevstva. Naime, u prosincu 1404. izdan je kraljevski dekret koji je bio odgovor na pritužbe nemalog broja plemića čiji su posjedi bili oduzeti i podijeljeni Sigismundovim privrženicima. Dio njih tvrdio je da je dobio posebnu milost kralja, dio je tvrdio da nije radio protiv kralja sukladno ponudi kraljevske milosti iz listopada 1403., dok se neki nisu ni na kakav način ogriješili o kralja, a svejedno su im posjedi oduzeti i darovani trećima. 50  (including Gregory's) donated to him by the king after the noblemen had been identified as rebels at the assembly of 1403. 52 Nicholas son of Latko received royal grace on the same day as Gregory Gyepew, based on the fact that he had committed no crimes after the deadline. Still, his estates were awarded to Nicholas of Newna. 53 The final category of the cases in Sigismund's decree is the one comprising cases like the one of the abovementioned Casper and Peter of Precezha, who had committed no crimes whatsoever. All this indicates insecurity in proprietary rights, caused largely by the king's contradictory donations and royal pardons. King's November 1405 announcement of a general assembly in Slavonia with him presiding (which obviously never took place) indicates that the situation in Slavonia was pretty much as described in the king's December decree. 54 After all, the fact that the king and his barons ordered estates to be returned to those whose names were not in the Register of Rebels indicates that such cases were many and that such problems substantially affected the local state of affairs and court's administration of Slavonia. The activities of Herman of Celje in Slavonia also reveal this.
In Križevci, on 7 June, while he was passing verdicts together with Slavonian nobility, a number of noblemen appeared before them complaining that they had been deprived of their estates and their proprietary rights during recent unrest. According to a charter, Herman decided, with God and His justice on his mind and concerned for the king's soul, that those whose names had not been entered into the Register of Rebels should be given back their estates and that their rights should be protected. It was explicitly the same agenda as the one espoused in the royal mandate in connection with the Prezechne case. The register was read in public, as can be seen from the case of Nicholas and late Peter of Buthkafelde (sons of John određeni kao nevjerni na shodu 1403., između ostalih i Grgurovih, a koje mu je kralj darovao. 52 Nadalje, na isti dan kad i Grgur Gyepew i Nikola Latkov dobio je kraljevsku milost jer nakon roka nije radio nikakvih zlodjela, ali su svejedno njegovi posjedi darovani Nikoli de Newna. 53 Posljednju kategoriju iz Sigismundova dekreta predstavljaju slučajevi nalik onome ranije spomenutih Gašpara i Petra de Precezha, koji nisu ništa zgriješili. Sve to ukazuje na nesigurnost u posjedovnim pravima koja je u dobroj mjeri bila izazvana kontradiktornim i suprotstavljenim kraljevskim darivanjima posjeda i dijeljenjima milosti. Da je stanje u Slavoniji odgovaralo tonu iz kraljevskog prosinačkog dekreta, ukazuje nadalje kraljeva najava iz studenoga 1405. o planiranom održavanju općeg shoda pod kraljevim predsjedanjem u Slavoniji, no do kojeg očigledno nije došlo. 54 U konačnici, upravo oblik u kojem su kralj i njegovi baruni kao opće pravilo odredili da se posjedi vrate svima onima čije ime nije na registru nevjernika, otkriva da takvih slučajeva nije bilo malo, odnosno nazire se da su upravo takvi problemi značajno opterećivali lokalne prilike te su utjecali na odluke dvora o načinu upravljanja Slavonijom. To otkrivaju i aktivnosti Hermana Celjskog u Slavoniji. Naime, 7. lipnja u Križevcima, dok je sjedio na sudu sa slavonskim plemstvom, pred njih je došao nemali broj plemića koji su upućivali pritužbe da su im posjedi i posjedovna prava u nedavnim nemirima zauzeta i oduzeta. Na to je Herman, imajući pred očima Boga i njegovu pravdu te brinući se za kraljevu dušu, kako se veli u ispravi, odlučio da oni čija se imena nisu našla u registru nevjernih, trebaju dobiti natrag svoje posjede i treba ih se zaštititi u njihovim pravima, što je zapravo potpuno eksplicitno preuzimanje agende izrečene u kraljevskom mandatu vezanom za slučaj Prezechne. Na to je pak sam registar bio donesen te javno pročitan, što se vidi iz slučaja Nikole i pokojnog Petra, sinova Ivana that their estates were unjustly confiscated from them on account of their disloyalty and awarded to Nicholas (son of Martin), retainer of previous ban Paul of Bissen. They were subsequently introduced into the possession of these estates. 55 The following case was also presented to the Ban and Slavonian nobility in Križevci. The orphans (orphani) Ladislaus pauper studens and Nicholas of Iwelouch (sons of Peter) submitted King Sigismund's charter of 2 June which stated that late Dominic of Beryn (son of Peter) and his brothers claimed that the orphans were rebels and thus acquired the estate of the latter. The orphans claimed otherwise. The register was then consulted and, upon establishing that their names were not in it, the king ordered that their unjustly confiscated estate be returned to them. The ban stated that, upon receiving such an order, he had had the register read in public and, as the names of the said orphans and their father were not in it, he had ordered that they be reintroduced into the possession of their estate, and it was done so. 56 Consequently, all three cases in which the register is mentioned reveal the same thing -that there were noblemen whose name was not in the register (in other words, who were not rebels) but whose estates were nevertheless confiscated by means of royal donation. The ban's charter emphasizes that quite a number of noblemen appeared before him seeking justice, which implies that there were more cases similar to the three just discussed. 57 Two 55 Lukinović 1992: 286-288. 56 MNL OL, DL 32763. 57 According to Herman's charter of 15 May 1406, some noblewomen of Prasnich came before Herman and the nobility assembled in Križevci. There they submitted Sigmund's charters stating that, on 10 June (probably 1405), Catherine of Prasnicha accused John of Kozouch and John of Zobochyn before the royal council that they had ousted them from their estates in August 1404, claiming they had been awarded those estates on account of the women's disloyalty to the king. King and his council resolved their case favorably upon realizing that the said noblewomen "nil infidelitatis nilque noxii et criminis contra suam maiestatem incurisse, fecisse, commisisse et perpetrasse sane agnovisset et clare intelexisset". It is hard to say positively if the above expression indicates the use of the register, but the exceptional similarity with the other three cases so indicates. Be it as it may, having decided in their favor, King ordered the two bans to introduce the said noblewomen into their estate. The bans did that and so did Herman's men (Šišić 1938: 271-272).
de Buthkafelde, čija imena nisu bila zapisana u registar, što je značilo da je njihove posjede nepravedno zauzeo zbog nevjere Nikola Martinov, familijar prethodnog bana, Pavla Bissena, te su uvedeni u njih. 55 I idući slučaj odigrao se istog dana pred banom i slavonskim plemstvom u Križevcima, kada su siročad (orphani) Ladislav pauper studens i Nikola, sinovi Petra de Iwelouch, pokazali Sigismundovu ispravu od 2. lipnja. U njoj je stajalo da su pokojni Dominik Petrov de Beryn i njegova braća dobili njihov posjed tvrdeći da su bili nevjerni, što su oni zanijekali. Nakon toga pregledan je registar i utvrđeno je da se njihova imena ne nalaze u njemu, pa je kralj dao nalog da im se vrati nepravedno oduzet posjed. Ban ističe da je uzeo navedeni registar te je dao da ga se javno pročita pa je, s obzirom na to da u njemu nisu pronađena imena ni navedene siročadi ni njihova oca, dao nalog da ih se, što je i učinjeno, uvede u posjed. 56 Sva tri slučaja u kojima se spominje registar nevjernih, dakle, otkrivaju isto -plemiće čije se ime nije našlo na registru, to jest nisu bili nevjerni, ali čiji su posjedi ipak bili prisvojeni, očigledno svaki put na temelju kraljeve darovnice. Da je takvih slučajeva bilo više, svjedoči izraz o nemalom broju plemića koji su se našli pred banom. 57  things should be added here. First, when two Pauls were removed from the position of ban, the court was in a dilemma of what to do with the position, because Herman's charters issued in May refer to him as tocius regni Sclavonie conservator and gubernator (the title of Ban of Slavonia, Dalmatia and Croatia is first mentioned on 5 June). 58 Second, as can be seen from the orphans' case, the register was kept at the court and was brought to Slavonia for public reading not later than on 7 June. 59 In the light of this, the fact that the decision on a permanent solution for the person holding the office of ban and the sending of the register to Slavonia where it was supposed to solve a major local disturbance took place virtually at the same time does not seem like a coincidence.
Could it be that the holder(s) of the office of ban were replaced because of these problems? One can absolutely agree with T. Pálosfalvi's argument that the replaced bans were not considered politically unsuitable. But he also argues that the reshuffling took place because of the king's wedding and that this is why Herman of Celje was appointed ban. 60 It is, however, debatable whether the replacement of the bans, which also marked an end of the concept of dual bans that had been in place since 1402, was a consequence of the wedding or did the wedding merely influence the selection of a specific person while the causes of the replacement lay elsewhere. It could be that the previous bans, Paul of Peć and Paul of Bissen, had become too involved in the local affairs and that their interests had collided with the court's efforts to deal with the problems that had caused discontent among the local nobility. The above example shows that Paul of Bissen's retainer unjustly got hold of the estate belonging to the noblemen who had not rebelled against Sigismund. In 1409, populi et hospites 58 MNL OL, DL 103410; 101962, for first mention of Herman as ban MNL OL, DF 34053. Although Herman is referred to as Ban of Dalmatia, Croatia and Slavonia in the series dignitatum (list of dignitaries) in an 11 April charter (Varjú 1908: 504), I only consider relevant the charters issued by Herman himself, because they are more precise in reflecting his own perception of his position. 59 The relevant royal charter (MNL OL, DL 32763) is dated 2 June, but it is debatable whether it was written on the very day when the case was submitted to the king or subsequently. 60 Pálosfalvi 2004: 46. zabilježena je prvi put 5. lipnja. 58 Kao drugo, kako se može vidjeti iz slučaja siročadi, registar se nalazio na dvoru, da bi potom bio donijet u Slavoniju, najkasnije 7. lipnja kada je javno čitan. 59 S obzirom na to dvoje ne čini se kao slučajnost da se praktično u isti trenutak može smjestiti odluka o stalnom rješenju na banskoj časti te slanje registra u Slavoniju uz pomoć kojeg se trebalo riješiti problem koji je očito snažno remetio lokalne prilike.
Nisu li ti problemi bili možda i uzrokom promjene na banskoj časti? T. Palosfalvi ističe da smijenjeni banovi nisu bili nepodobni, s čime se apsolutno moguće složiti, no drži da je reorganizacija uslijedila zbog kraljeve ženidbe, pa je banom imenovan Herman Celjski. 60  from Miholc complained to Andrew, Bishop of Zagreb, about the damage inflicted upon them by the two bans. 61 Although Paul of Peć had returned their estates, the noblemen from Komarnica complained of the ban himself precisely at the banal court. 62 The earlier mentioned example of Gregory of Gyepew suggests how the bans' activities perpetuated insecurity. In Trnava, on the same day when he was pardoned (25 August), Nicholas (son of Vlatko) and Paul de Desniche (son of Dominic), related to Ban Paul of Peć, also received royal pardon. This suggests that Gregory, too, was pardoned at the intervention of Ban Paul. 63 This connection would explain why Eberhard and Mikčec of Cirkvena (son of John) complained to the king about the problems he had had with the bans and with control over the estates awarded to them, including the one of Gregory of Gyepew. 64 Such cases indicate that, while far from incurring disfavor, Herman's predecessors had nevertheless created a network of local relationships that made it hard to bring order to Slavonia. It seems to me that this could have influenced the king's decision to replace them as bans, particularly if the pressure of those who had been dispossessed despite of their loyalty was rather strong. But even if such interpretation of the bans' replacement were incorrect, the fact remains that making difference between rebels and loyal noblemen, with all the consequences for individuals, was a problem both in Slavonia and in Hungary. In this context, it is important to point out that the register, while actually meeting the expectations of both modern historians (used to bureaucracy) and the protagonists of that period, was a very efficient administrative instrument, as can be seen from the way how specific disputes were resolved. But the availability of an efficient administrative instrument and the appointment of a new ban whose agenda included dealing with such problems were no guarantee that these problems would actually be solved. For this, the focus should be shifted to another event -the Križevci assembly of 1408. 61 63 Takva veza onda objašnjava zašto se Eberhard, kao i Mikčec Ivanov od Cirkvene, tužio pred kraljem na probleme koje je imao s banovima i kontrolom nad posjedima koji su im bili darovani, pa tako i nad onim Grgura od Gyepewa. 64 Takvi slučajevi ukazuju, makar daleko od toga da su pali u nemilost, kako su Hermanovi prethodnici ipak izgradili mrežu lokalnih odnosa koja je otežavala uvođenje reda u Slavoniji, što je onda, čini mi se, moglo utjecati na odluku kralja da ih se smjeni s te časti, pri čemu je pritisak onih koji su ostali bez posjeda makar nisu bili nevjerni izgleda bio naročito velik. No, čak ukoliko takvo tumačenje smjene na banskoj časti nije točno, ipak ostaje činjenica da su problemi razdvajanja vjernih i nevjernih, sa svim posljedicama koje je to za pojedince imalo, bili problem, kako u Slavoniji tako i u Ugarskoj. U tom kontekstu je važno podcrtati da je registar, zapravo ispunjavajući ono što u prvom redu očekuje birokraciji navikli moderni povjesničar, ali što su očekivali i ondašnji akteri, predstavljao izrazito učinkovito administrativno sredstvo, kako se vidi na primjeru rješavanja konkretnih sporova. No, postojanje učinkovitog administrativnog sredstva, kao i novi ban čija je agenda djelomično bila usmjerena k rješavanju takvih problema, nisu bili garant kako će isti biti u potpunosti riješeni. Za to je potrebno fokus prebaciti na još jedan događajodržavanje shoda u Križevcima 1408.

KRIŽEVCI ASSEMBLY OF 1408
Presided by the king, the assembly for Križevci and Virovitica Counties began on 13 February. Although they were not the only disputes being settled at the assembly, the cases dating back to 1403 dominate in the sources preserved. 65 Some of them were not about loyalty or disloyalty -it was taken for granted -but rather about finding a modus vivendi between the parties who had been dispossessed and those who had been donated their estates. 66 There are several cases at the core of which was the problem of telling rebels from loyal noblemen; these cases are of particular interest for this paper. 67 An identical pattern can be found in the dispute between Nicholas (son of Vlatko) and Nicholas of Newna and in the one between Paul of Desnica (son of Dominic) and his cousins Blaise, Andrew, Gal and Paul of Desnica. At the assembly, Nicholas and Paul claimed they had abided by the requirements of the royal pardon offered in October, substantiating their claim with charters of pardon. The other party to the case submitted royal donations and Chapter's certificates of introduction into possession. The opposing claims, whose substance revolved about the question of someone's behavior after the offer of pardon in October, was resolved in such a way that the parties to the case agreed to accept the ruling of the sworn assessors. As the assessors in both cases testified that the damaged parties had been unjustly convicted, they were given their estates back. 68 Besides the cases in which the parties tried to substantiate their claims with written evidence, there were also those in which the parties did not offer any written evidence for their claims of unjust dispossession. For example, 65 For other cases tried at the assembly, see MNL OL, DL 100365; 103483; ZsO, II/2 5968; 5976; Laszowski 1904: 261, MNL OL, Dl 42959; 34294. 66 ZsO, II/2, 6072. 67 As not all such cases will be discussed in detail here, see MNL OL, DL 100367, or a case that was initiated at the assembly but was continued before the palatine, MNL OL, DL 100366. 68 Šišić 1938: 295-300. There was another case where repossession of an estate was required. In that case, the dispossessed party had been given a special pardon, but only after expiry of the deadline specified in the decree, so the estate had remained in the hands of the party who had been awarded it, MNL OL, DL 288468. na shodu. 65 Dio njih ne dotiče se pitanja je li netko bio ili nije nevjeran, već se to uzima kao gotovo, ali se pokušava pronaći modus vivendi među stranama koje su izgubile posjede i onima kojima su ti isti posjedi darovani. 66 Nekoliko je pak slučajeva koji su od posebnog interesa za ovu raspravu, gdje srž predstavlja pitanje razdvajanja vjernih od nevjernih. 67  John (son of Philip) and Jacob of Butkhafelde (son of John) accused Nicholas of Syrimio (son of Martin and retainer of Paul of Bissen), that he had requested from the king to award him their estates on account of their alleged disloyalty -which the king did, according to the royal charters presented to the assembly by Stephen of Bissen. But the Butkhafelde noblemen explained that John had disassociated himself from his father (whose participation in the revolt had not been denied) and that he had served under Martin Ders, while Jacob claimed he had never been disloyal in the first place -neither during nor after the revolt. The parties then submitted themselves to the sworn assessors' ruling. The assessors established that neither John nor Jacob had been disloyal and their estates were returned to them. The only exception was the property owned by John's father; in return, Nicholas (son of Martin) was sentenced in omagis ipsius pro indebita autem inpeticione. 69 Similar was the case of Ladislaus and John Pekri, as can be seen in Sigismund's charter from 1414. Ladislaus appeared before Sigismund in February that year, explaining that at the general assembly in Križevci, presided by the king, sworn assessors testified that he, his brother and his mother had not been rebels. As Ladislaus and John were minors at the time and their mother was incapacitated by old age, the charters on their innocence issued at the assembly were left for safekeeping by the protonotary at the royal court. However, when Ladislaus came to the court to obtain these documents, the protonotary could not find them. In order to shed light on the whole thing, the king gave the palatine Nicholas Garai a list of the sworn assessors from 1408, instructing him to investigate Ladislaus' claims. As a result of this, for the first time, we now have a list -if incomplete -of assessors from a general assembly in Slavonia. At the 69 MNL OL, DL 230875. The disputes in which the Butkhafelde noblemen were involved reveal a pattern of abuse of privilege and royal donations by Sigismund's supporters. There is no edvidence that Balthasar, Peter, Jacob, Philip and Demetrius (sons of Korhardus), whose states were awarded to Nicholas (son of Martin) in early November 1403, managed to receive royal pardon. This means that Nicholas acquired their estates (as evidenced in other disputes), using them as a stepping-stone for spreading to those of their kinsmen, to whom their estates were returned in 1406 (based on the register), which was confirmed at the assembly of 1408. prisežnika, koji su utvrdili kako Ivan i Jakov nisu bili nevjerni te su im posjedi vraćeni. Izuzetak je bio posjedovni dio Ivanova oca, no zauzvrat je Nikola Martinov osuđen in omagis ipsius pro indebita autem inpeticione. 69 Sličan je bio i slučaj Ladislava i Ivana Pekrija, kako se otkriva u Sigismundovoj ispravi iz 1414. U veljači te godine pred Žigmunda je došao Ladislav te rekao kako su na općem saboru održanom pod predsjedanjem kralja u Križevcima prisežnici svjedočili kako on, njegov brat i majka nisu bili nevjerni. Kako su Ladislav i Ivan tada bili maloljetni, a majka pritisnuta starošću, isprave izdane na shodu o njihovoj nevinosti ostavljene su na čuvanje kraljevskom dvoru, to jest kraljevskom protonotaru. Međutim, kada je Ladislav tražio na dvoru da mu se isprave vrate, njegovoj se zamolbi nije moglo udovoljiti jer ih protonotar nije mogao pronaći. Da bi se stvar raščistila, kralj je uputio nalog palatinu Nikoli Gorjanskom, s imenima prisežnika iz 1408. kod kojih se trebala provjeriti istinitost Ladislavovih tvrdnji, zahvaljujući čemu imamo prvi put barem djelomičan popis prisežnika s nekog općeg shoda u Slavoniji. Na kraljevu molbu Nikola je u svoju utvrdu Šikloš sazvao one koji su tada još bili živi, Pavla Bisena, Ladislava Mihovilova de Zenthberthalam, Jurja Petrova de Dombo, Ladislava Dominikova de Apostagh te Opoja od Rasinje, koji su ponovno prisegnuli u nevinost navedenih Pekrija. 70 Posljednji slučaj koji ću istaknuti tiče se već poznatih aktera, Ladislava i Nikole de Iweloucha. Naime, Dominik, sada kraljev sartor, nije odustajao od svojih presizanja na njihov posjed pa ih je optužio da su ga izbacili iz posjeda. Na to su Ladislav i Nikola priložili prethodno razmatranu Hermanovu ispravu od 20. lipnja, u kojoj je bila prepisana kraljevska isprava od 2. lipnja, pri king's request, Nicholas summoned to his Fort Siklous all the surviving assessors: Paul of Bissen, Ladislaus of Zenthberthalam (son of Michael), George of Dombo (son of Peter), Ladislaus of Apostagh (son of Dominic) and Opoj of Rasinja. They solemnly swore again that the Pekris were innocent. 70 The last case I am discussing here is the one involving the already known protagonists -Ladislaus and Nicholas of Iwelouch. Dominic, now king's sartor, wasn't giving up his claims on their estate, so he accused them of dispossessing him. Ladislaus and Nicholas responded by submitting the earlier discussed Herman's charter of 2 June, which included a rewritten copy of the royal charter of 2 June. We should reiterate here that both of them mention the register. In other words, in 1406 the decision on their behavior during the crisis was made on the basis of the register. And yet, a royal charter from 1408 -which retells the contents of these two charters -does not mention the register at all. This royal charter states that Ladislaus and Nicholas were too young to rebel and that this was the reason why the king ordered the ban to reintroduce them into the possession of their estate! 71 Just like the cases discussed earlier, this case goes to the very heart of the problem that the register was supposed to solve. This begs the question what happened to the register after it was brought to Slavonia in early June 1406? In other words, why is there no evidence that the register was used at the assembly of 1408? Unfortunately, there is no information that would allow solid assumptions instead of guessing, so these questions remain open. Still, some facts about the assembly of 1408 deserve to be underlined.
Šire politički kontekst u kojem se odvijao shod bio je obilježen politikom dvora prema Bosni, to jest prema Hrvoju Vukčiću Hrvatiniću kao najvažnijem političkom akteru na prostoru Bosne i Hrvatske, štoviše to je bio period u kojem se pripremao veliki pohod sredinom iste godine. planned for the middle of that year. It is worth noting again here that Slavonia was a borderland and, as such, strategically sensitive. The fact that Herman was replaced as the ban earlier that year and that no new ban was appointed suggests that the king was not satisfied with the up-to-then solutions in Slavonia. A major change in the administration of Slavonia took place when most of the ban's honor in the region was transferred to Queen Barbara. However, as she took it over in 1409, it is likely that such a decision was made only after the victory at the Battle of Dobor, which completely redefined Sigismund's authority and power in the southern parts of the Archiregnum. 72 Also, the mere fact that the assembly, announced way back in late 1405, took place indicates that the local situation demanded special attention. Besides the considerable number of the abovementioned related cases known today, another indicator that one of the fundamental problems was the aftermath of the 1403 crisis is the decision that the assembly should take place for Križevci and Virovitica Counties only, and not for the entire Slavonia. For understanding such decision, one should remember that there were only a few known rebels in Zagreb County. According to the sources preserved, the resolve to deal with the aftermath of 1403 and its troubles, manifested by convening the assembly -and with a visible bottom-up impulse for such action -came to fruition. With the exception of a few individual cases, there are no indications that the consequences of 1403 kept affecting the local state of affairs so strongly after 1408. In other words, the large mess created at the local level as a result of the crisis was finally dealt with in 1408. As the assembly was but a single step in that process, the role of the register should be stressed once again, which is why we should focus on the register as an administrative instrument once again, but this time through the prism of another register, also associated with the aftermath of 1403. autoritet i moć na jugu Archiregnum-a. 72 Nadalje, samo održavanje shoda, najavljenog još krajem 1405. također ukazuje da su lokalne prilike zahtijevale posebnu pozornost. Da se jedan od temeljnih problema ticao upravo posljedica krize iz 1403., osim po značajnom broju prethodno navedenih, sačuvanih slučajeva vezanih za to, indikator je i odluka da se shod održi samo za Križevačku i Virovitičku županiju, a ne za cijelu Slavoniju -dovoljno se prisjetiti da takvih slučajeva praktično nije bilo u zagrebačkoj županiji da se razumije takva odluka. Odlučnost da se peripetije oko posljedica 1403. okončaju, vidljiva kroz sazivanje shoda -pri čemu se jasno razaznaje impuls odozdo za takvo postupanje -prema sačuvanim materijalima urodila je plodom. Odnosno, nakon 1408. nema naznaka, iako ima nekoliko pojedinačnih slučajeva, da su posljedice 1403. tako snažno utjecale na lokalne prilike, to jest zaključno s 1408. popriličan nered stvoren na lokalnoj razini kao posljedica krize bio je razriješen. Shod je naravno bio tek jedan korak u tom procesu, odnosno teško je predvidjeti ulogu registra u tome procesu, što zahtjeva još jedno fokusiranje na registar kao administrativno sredstvo, ali sada kroz prizmu jednog drugog registra, također vezanog za posljedice 1403.

REGISTAR NEVJERNIH U UGARSKOJ
U rujnu 1415. pred kraljevskim sudom našao se spor dvojice plemića iz županije Zale oko posjeda Kysthomay u istoj županiji, korijeni kojeg su se vukli još od 1403., kao posljedica oduzimanja posjeda na račun lèse-majesté. Jedna od strana u sporu tvrdila je da je njezin otac dobio kraljevu posebnu milost, no kako su mu te isprave oduzete, ali da se njegova tvrdnja može provjeriti u registro nostro regali in domo nostra thavernicali habito et super nominibus hominum infidelium nostrorum confecto. Spor je potom nekoliko puta odgađan, uz naznaku da je tužitelj trebao konzultirati registar, što na kraju ipak nije učinjeno već je presuda donijeta na drugim osnovama. 73  dispute had its roots in 1403, when the estate was confiscated on account of lèse-majesté. One of the parties to the dispute claimed that his father had received a special royal pardon. He also said that the charter confirming it had been taken away from him but that the claim could be verified in "registro nostro regali in domo nostra thavernicali habito et super nominibus hominum infidelium nostrorum confecto". The court proceedings were postponed several times with a remark that the complaining party should have consulted the register. Eventually, it did not happen and the sentence was passed on a different basis. 73 Just like the "Slavonian" register, this register has not drawn particular attention. 74 But unlike for the Slavonian one, it is much harder for this register to establish when and how was it made, what it looked like and what information did it contain. Naturally, the attempts to understand this register, just like in the case of the Slavonian, primarily consisted of a search for all the mentions of the Register of Rebels. At first it may sound strange that, chronologically, this search went back no further than to 1409, as many as six years after the beginning of the crisis that in Slavonia, as we have seen, had been dealt with by making of the register, among other things. However, as we can see from the Sigismund's charters sent in April 1409 to Szatmár, Máramaros, Ugocsa, Zenmplen and Ung Counties, the problem of telling the rebels from the loyal noblemen still existed at the time. These charters announced general assemblies at which the validity of royal charters issued by the king's predecessors would be verified, local notorious criminals would be dealt with and, most importantly for this paper, the rebels who received pardon charters from the king would be identified. 75 The agenda set at the time would result in an incredible number of assemblies convened in counties throughout the Kingdom of Hungary between April 1409 and May 1410. For all of them without exception, it is specified that they are taking place ex speciali regio edicto/mandato. Simon Rozgonyi, the new iudex curie, was entrusted with most of this task, but many other people will also be 73 ZsO, V, doc. 1031. 74 Dvořáková 2010: 94, who laconically claims that this register was available for a long time after the revolt of 1403, probably believing that it was created in that year. 75 Tóth 2019; ZsO II/2, 6716, 6717. "slavonski" registar, ni ovome nije posvećeno odveć puno pažnje. 74 No, za razliku od slavonskog, daleko je teže razaznati kada i kako je nastao ovaj registar, te kako je uopće izgledao, kakve informacije je sadržavao. Put k razumijevanju tog registra, jednako kao i slavonskog, u prvom se redu prirodno sastojao u pokušaja pronalaska drugih mogućih spomena registra nevjernih. Taj put pak vremenski nije išao dublje u prošlost od 1409., što može izgledati na prvu ruku čudno s obzirom na to da se radi o punih šest godina nakon izbijanja krize koja se, kao što smo vidjeli, u Slavoniji rješavala između ostalog i izradom registra. No problem razdvajanja vjernih i nevjernih i dalje je bio aktualan kako se vidi iz Sigismundovih isprava upućenih u travnju 1409. prema županijama Szatmár, Máramaros, Ugocsa, Zenmplen i Ung u kojima se najavljuje da će se održati opći shodovi na kojima će se provjeravati valjanost kraljevskih isprava koje su izdali njegovi prethodnici, obračunati s lokalnim notornim zločincima te, što je za ovaj rad najvažnije, provjeravati tko je među nevjernima od kralja dobio isprave o milosti. 75 Agenda postavljena tada rezultirat će zapravo nevjerojatnom brojkom shodova održanih u županijama na prostoru cijele Ugarske, i to u periodu od travnja 1409. do svibnja 1410., za koje se sve bez iznimke navodi kako ih se održava ex speciali regio edicto/mandato. involved: Péter Perényí, Nicholas Csak, Pipo Ozora, John Nassi, Simon Szécsényi (son of Kónya), László Rozgonyi, Matthew Pálóci, Mihaly Nadasi, Ladislaus of Asszonyfalvai and the king himself (the assemblies for Fejer and Požega Counties). Naturally, historians did not fail to notice such density of general assemblies and activities. However, it seems that they did not manage to grasp fully the repercussions of it. 76 The information from the works by G. Istványi and N. Tóth and a deeper insight into the original sources provide a truly impressive glimpse into the activities defined by the agenda set by the court. The following information does not aim at being comprehensive; instead -with some exceptions -it will merely contain the place (county) and month of a particular assembly. 77 The series of assemblies begins in April 1409, with the assemblies for Pest and Pilis Counties, 78 followed by Fejer (April), 79 Heves (May), 80 Veszprem (May), 81 Saros (May); 82 Borsod (May), 83 Somogy (June), 84 Požega (July), 85 Szabolcs (July), 86 Gomormegye (July), 87 Bihar (August), 88 Abauj (August), 89 Chanad (August), 90 Zemplen (September), 91 Tolnu (September), 92 Ung (September), 93 Hont and Nograd (September), 94 Szathmar and Ugosca (October), 95 Kraszna (October), 96 Sekelje (December), 97 Bereg (February 1410) 98 and Sopron (May) 99 . The most intensive activity can be seen in northwestern part of the Hungary, but assemblies took place in almost all parts of the kingdom. As the original sources may not have been completely preserved, there is a possibility that assemblies also took place in some other counties. In other words, there are indications that a part of the court's agenda was to convene assemblies in almost every corner -every county -of the Kingdom. 100 As dealing with malefactores was one of the functions of the assemblies, it is no surprise that the registers containing their names that were made at some of these assemblies have been preserved. 101 In the introductions to these registers it is expressly explained that these are the lists of notorious criminals, that is nota infidelitatis is not mentioned among the crimes associated with these persons. 102 The other goal -verification of rebels and control of royal pardon charters, also included the making of a register. It is clearly observed in a case presented to the king in 1413, when one of the parties submitted the register of Simon Rozgonyi containing the names of rebels as cited by the assessors at the assembly for Bereg County. The party used the register to substantiate their claim that the accused was retainer of a certain nobleman during the crisis of 1403 and that both of them had been accused of disloyalty. 103 A case from 98 ZsO, II/2, 7340, 7360, 7367. 99 ZsO, II/2, 7628. 100 A case in which a register of rebels kept in the home of the magister tavarnicorum indicates that such assemblies were also convened for Zala, and for Nytra County, see MNL OL, DL 49169. It is hard to establish if some later assemblies can be included in this series of assemblies (such as the one for Bodrog County mentioned in November 1410, where the king orders the bans of Mačva to pass a final verdict in a case that included notae infidelitatis), Apponyi 1906: 263. 101 See Tringli 1997: 399, n. 66. 102 MNL OL, DL 283047. 103 MNL OL, DL 10022: "… exhibitionem cuisdam regestri capite sigilli prefati comitis Symonis de Rozgon consignati nomina infidelium nostre maiestatis per iuratos assessores congregationis generalis prefati comitis Symonis de Rozgon feria quarta proxima ante festum purificationis virginis gloriose anno domini millesimo quadringentesimo decimo prope opidum Zaz universitati nobilium comitatus de Beregh per ipsum ex speciali nostre maiestatis commissione celebrate extradatorum seriatim in se continentes, familiarem dicti Johannis filii Georgii Jakch extitisse ac cum eodem in prescriptis regni nostri disturbiorum temporibus contra nostram maiestatem infideliter processisse declarando. " svakom kutku, to jest županiji kraljevstva. 100 Budući da je jedna od njihovih funkcija bilo obračunavanje s malefactores, ne čudi da su sačuvani i neki registri u koji su unošena njihova imena. 101 Tu valja naglasiti da se u njihovu uvodu naročito navodi da je riječ o popisu notornih zločinaca, to jest uz zločine tamo navedenih osoba ne spominje se nota infidelitatis. 102 No, drugi cilj, provjera nevjernih i kraljevskih isprava o milosti, također je uključivao izradu registra. Najjasnije se to vidi iz primjera spora vođenog pred kraljem 1413. kada je jedna od strana u sporu pokazala registar Simona Rozgonyija u koji su bila unesena imena nevjernih koja su iznijeli prisežnici na shodu za županiju Bereg, čime je strana u sporu dokazivala svoju tvrdnju da je optuženik za krize 1403. bio familijar određenog plemića te da su oba bila optužena za nevjeru. 103 Naznake da su takvi registri rađeni i u drugim županijama dolaze i iz slučaja županije Heves. 104 Nažalost, ta je isprava, izdana Heves County also indicates that such registers were made in other counties. 104 Unfortunaley, the relevant charter issued in 1409 is damaged. Hovewer, one can still read in it that the assessors submitted a register, and while it is not expressly said that it is a register of rebels, it is mentioned that the names of two noblemen sentenced as rebels were entered in it based on the assessors' testimonies. The two responded by submitting to Rozgonyi and Simon Konya, who presided the assembly, the royal pardon charters issued to them. 105 These two cases illustrate how the register was made at the local level; it was actually the same procedure as the one used for the making of the registers of notorious criminals. It was the sworn assessors who would submit the list -in this case, of rebels -to the person presiding the assembly. However, the above discussed register, said to have been kept in domo tavernicali, contained not only a list of rebels, but also a list of those who had received royal pardon. Together with the Bereg case, this suggests that, after the assessors had made the list, changes would be introduced in it if some of the listed noblemen managed to prove their innocence with a valid royal pardon charter. 106 In other words, the idea was to gather information at the local level by convening assemblies. Such information would then be integrated in a single central register, made at the very beginning of the 1410s. Its form is hard to reconstruct precisely, but it clearly contained information about the noblemen from all parts of the Kingdom who had received royal pardon and the ones who had not been that lucky. And finally, although we are talking about a single mention of this register here, the fact that it was 104 Such indications are also found in another case presented at the assembly for Nytra, presided by Stribor, which is mentioned in a royal charter of July 1411; Stibor's itinerary suggests that the assembly took place between May and September 1410, when his presence in the area was noted. Dvořáková 2010: 550. The case in question concerned the repercussions of note infidelitatis and royal pardon; one of the parties involved wanted to make their case by referring to "regestra in generali congregatione predicti comitatus confecta", MNL OL, DL 49169. 105 MNL OL, DL 28140. 106 Or, as one case shows, even if no pardon charter was submitted, one could clear their name, remove the stigma of disloyalty and avoid confiscation of their estates if one joined the military and participated in the forthcoming campaign together with Pipo of Ozora, ZsO, II/2, 6924. 1409., oštećena. No ipak je vidljivo da su prisežnici na shodu predali registar za koji se ne veli direktno da je registar nevjernih, ali se spominje registar u koji su na temelju svjedočanstva prisežnika unesena imena dvojice plemića koji su bili osuđeni za nevjeru. Na to su pak njih dvojica pred Rozgonyija i Simona Konyu, koji su presjedali shodom, donijeli kraljevske isprave o podijeljenoj milosti. 105 Ta dva slučaja pružaju uvid u mehanizam nastajanja registra na lokalnoj razini, pri čemu se zapravo replicira postupak nastajanja registra s popisom notornih zločinaca, gdje su prisežnici davali predsjedatelju popis osoba, u ovom slučaju nevjernih. No ranije razmatrani registar, za koji se kaže da se čuvao in domo tavernicali, nije sadržavao samo popis nevjernih već i onih koji su dobili milost. Zajedno sa slučajem iz Berega, to navodi na pomisao da su nakon nastanka popisa koji su sastavljali prisežnici informacije u njemu revidirane, ovisno je li tko s njega mogao dokazati svoju nevinost putem valjane kraljevske isprave o milosti. 106 Drugim riječima, osnova cijele zamisli bila je prikupljanje informacija na lokalnoj razini putem održavanja shodova koje su potom integrirane u jedan središnji registar, nastao dakle negdje na samom početku 1410-ih, za koji je teško precizno naslutiti kako je bio uređen, ali koji je očito sadržavao informacije o onima koji su dobili kraljevsku milost te onima koji nisu bili te sreće, i to na razini cijelog kraljevstva. U konačnici, makar je riječ praktično o samo jednom spomenu tog registra, činjenica da se na njega pozivalo, govori da je njegovo postojanje bilo dobro poznato među plemstvom, što i ne čudi ako se uzme u obzir da je njegov nastanak ovisio o mogućnosti intervencije središnje vlasti u lokalno znanje i prilike. referred to indicates that the nobility was well aware of its existence. This is no surprise if we take into account the fact that its making depended on the central government's ability to intervene in local affairs and local knowledge.

CONCLUSION
During the Angevine rule, the royal administrative apparatus made progress in using written word as the basis of administrative activities -registers in particular. This primarily refers to the control of the production of royal chancery by introducing libri regii during the reign of Charles I. 107 Registers were also used for regulation of the regalia, such as the register intended for the regnum of Croatia in the second half of the 14 th century, or contained information about proprietary rights at the county level, as the register for Liptó County indicates. 108 In this, Sigismund's court inherited the Angevine administrative practice based on the written word, but it also extended the use of registers as a specific form of administrative activities, as can be seen from the examples of the two registers of rebels discussed here. The Slavonian register of rebels shows that the existing repertoire -the practice of entering the names of notorious criminals as named by assessors at general assemblies at the county level -was used in extraordinary situations, transforming its purpose and nature at the same time. The register of rebels for Kingdom of Hungary is hard to imagine without its Slavonian equivalent. Like the latter, the former also exhibited visible extension of the administration technique repertoire, from ad hoc solutions to administrative practices that, even though not permanent and institutionalized, could be used as needed. 109 There is one important similarity between the "Slavonian"
Administrative activities based on written word constituted a specific form of royal -in this case Sigismund's -authority. 110 The "Slavonian" register shows that this authority was threatened from two sides -in a very different way, of course. It was threatened by those who revolted against Sigismund and by those who could jeopardize the king's authority with their actions at the time when his authority was being established. This was yet another situation where the register proved itself as an exceptional instrument of administration -in other words, an instrument for controlling the subjects and keeping them loyal. It was also an instrument for holding to account all those who were supposed to rule these subjects in the king's name but who unscrupulously used the fact that they had joined the winning side. Much of the court's interest in keeping order in Slavonia after the royal authority had been established there in late 1403 and early 1404 was largely based on the fact that Slavonia was a borderland and that the regions south of the Sava river were under control of Sigismund's most dangerous local adversary in these parts -Hrvoje Vukčić Hrvatinić.